The community needs to develop an active test project; it must remain active until approval (automated statistics, recent changes). It is generally considered active if the analysis lists at least three active, not-grayed-out editors listed in the sections for the previous few months.
"Wikipedia talk" (the discussion namespace of the project namespace)
Default is "no". Preferably, files should be uploaded to Commons.
If you want, you can enable local file uploading, either by any user ("yes") or by administrators only ("admin"). Notes: (1) This setting can be changed afterwards. The setting can only be "yes" or "admin" at approval if the test creates an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) first. (2) Files on Commons can be used on all Wikis. (3) Uploading fair-use images is not allowed on Commons (more info). (4) Localisation to your language may be insufficient on Commons.
I am in favor of adding new languages in Wikipedia. In my opinion, all languages fit the bill and Triestino is no exception. A previous discussion was conducted and case was closed a few years back. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Triestin
I just want to add a comment and perhaps reopen the discussion.
From a linguistic point of view, it seems that defining one tongue a "language" and the next one a "dialect" is a difficult, often a political (or quasi political) rather than scholarly decision. Rather then "legitimate" and "illegitimate" languages I prefer to see the whole issue as a rainbow of variations and constant code drifting among which all languages occupy a unique place. Differences can be small. In the opinion of many linguists, approximately 6,000 languages are still present around the world, many of them will succumb even before becoming written languages. Of those, 287 languages have a presence in Wikipedia. This is a great number of languages, no doubt, but still a small fraction of the total. Victimizing a language to the rank of dialect, and denying access to Wikipedia on that merit, will only accelerate its demise. In Wikipedia we all have the rare opportunity of being able to read and compare languages as recorded by native speakers. Why do we want to deny ourselves the right to enjoy the potential articles of roughly 300,000 (in the case of Triestino) native speakers? Should the right to be called a language therefore be denied to all pidgin languages and Creoles as they are just a little bit of "that" and a little bit of "this"? Aren't all languages at every one point in time a little bit of "that" and a little bit of "this"? Review of Wikipedia pages may help generations of future linguists find clues to word origin and semantic drift over time across major and minor languages. I am in favor of imposing no language limitation.