Discuss the creation of this language project on this page. Votes will be ignored when judging the proposal. Please provide arguments or reasons and be prepared to defend them (see the Language proposal policy).
Ensure the requested language is sufficiently unique that it could not exist on a more general wiki.
Ensure that there are a sufficient number of native editors of that language to merit an edition in that language.
This proposal is on hold:
I'm marking this request as "on hold" to reflect the (more than a year old) comments on this page, pending new activities regarding this idea. --MF-W 03:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
"Wikivoyage 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.
Latin is a very old language only talked in Vatican city, with nearly 2000 speakers, this language is now dead, because there are not any native Latin speakers.
There do already exist Latina Wikimedia Projects, e.g. the Latin Wikipedia with now nearly 20,000 articles and a wiktionary with nearly 5,000 articles. So there will and should be a future for this new Latin Project, especially Latin Wikivoyage which I'm proposing. --22.214.171.124 08:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A brief correction: the Latin Wikipedia is much larger than is said here, with 130,000 articles. Yes, it is quite active. Andrew Dalby (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I am asking others at Vicipaedia (Latin Wikipedia) whether they wish to support this proposal and I will give my own response tomorrow. Andrew Dalby (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If anyone now wants to work on Latin Wikivoyage, which is currently in the Incubator, I would support this proposal, but not otherwise.
We began the test wiki to fill a cultural gap. Although Latin is often classed as dead, it isn't truly dead: it continues to serve as a special language in many subject areas. Travellers who use Latin themselves may well want to find places where the language is used, and that isn't likely to feature in other Wikivoyage editions. However, since we began the test in 2013, no new contributors have appeared. Being realistic, I feel that my time is better spent on the Latin Wikipedia (which continues to attract new editors). Andrew Dalby (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will add: LangCom has a hard enough time with Wikipedias in, let's say, historical languages. It has a much harder time with other (non-Wikisource) projects in such languages. In my view, having a very small, little project living permanently in Incubator, or perhaps even as a new namespace within Vicipaedia—and specifically featuring places where Latin is especially useful to a traveler—is a perfectly worthwhile thing to do. A big, broad Vicivia is not worth your time (IMO).
If you decide you want to move it into Vicipaedia, MF-W and I can help you with that, BTW.StevenJ81 (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, @StevenJ81:, I didn't check back here for a while. That's a very interesting suggestion! I'll look through the Incubator pages and consider how such a move might work. Andrew Dalby (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As the test project is currently lacking a sufficient number of active contributors, I share Andrew's view: "If anyone now wants to work on Latin Wikivoyage, which is currently in the Incubator, I would support this proposal, but not otherwise." Once there will be a sufficient number of active contributors over a number of months, I would then support the proposal. Greetings, --UV (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I contribute to Middle English Wikipedia in incubator, and I’m interested in contributing to this wiki. The only question is is there any plan to delete this wiki any time soon? Because I think that it has enough content to not delete it. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is not currently a proposal to delete anything. --MF-W 14:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I told about this at . Wikipedia Latin has many active users and I think that if they become aware of Wikivoyage Latin, it will become active enough as well. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Currently Ancient languages are not eligible for new wikis. There has been a request to change this policy. You can sign your support here. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong oppose Unlike other projects like the 'pedia or wikisource, Wikivoyage is a travel guide, not a wiki for any historical records. No one will use Latin for travelling, and they'll want to use en because of the better coverage in travel anyway. To add onto that, even nl.voy has only 3 active contributors, which really only have an audience of about 10 million. I can only imagine that for Latin. SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 05:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, they'd want to read the Italian one anyway, with much better global coverage. For that matter Dutch is spoken much more, yet it has only 3 active contributors, with one being banned on en for bigoted content in article space and the other who's work is full of copyvios and has been blocked on en and fr before. Because the one universal Wikivoyage policy is "The traveller comes first", and la.voy won't serve any traveller. SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 07:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can accept the existance of Wiktionary or Wikipedia project in an ancient language, but I can't get at the message of a Wikivoyage in an ancient language. For whom it can be useful? Pope Francis would likely read the Wikivoyage in his native Spanish, if he'd ever need it. --Wolverène (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can someone explain the rationale for a Latin Wikivoyage? If I was a Latin enthusiast, I would focus my efforts on the Latin Wikipedia, rather than working on a Latin Wikivoyage just because I could. Nurg (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Travel guides are most useful when they are up-to-date. It is very unlikely that there will be enough editors to make this up-to-date and useful. Ground Zero (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I doubt that Latin has agreed terms for many modern travel concepts. Even using terms which have a Latin origin could cause confussion. (Try translating "your visa has to be seen by the immigration officer".) Or is this proposed as an accademic excercise in writing a travel guide to the Roman Empire in 300AD? AlasdairW (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, of course. Who’s going to use a Latin travel guide? Isn’t the language virtually extinct with no native speakers? SelfieCity (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From my understanding of the content quality of test, I a little Oppose to let this be launched (even though the related RFC could be adopted), but rather Latin Wikipedia should consider to merge these contents, like how Alemannic "Wikivoyage" is located on Wikipedia. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong oppose There is no target audience for a travel guide in Latin. Everyone who knows enough Latin to read a travel guide also knows other languages for which there are already Wikivoyage editions. Starting a Latin edition would only distract from improving Wikivoyage editions that are actually read and useful. A vanity project with only a handful of irregular editors is also prone to attract spam and vandalism. ArticCynda (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Technically spam and vandalism is dealt by the SWMT but otherwise a Latin Wikivoyage is useless. SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 00:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong support A project with both the scope, the community and the vocabulary to support it --PastelKos (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who would want to read a travel guide in Latin? Analysing your comment:
"A project with both the scope" – no, it's out of scope. There'd be no reader base
"the community" – I posted a link to this on the English Wikivoyage. Not a single user supported it
Indeed, and for "the vocabulary to support it", I would say that that user is misleaded Wikivoyage with Wiktionary, Wikivoyage is a travel guide website, not a dictionary site to which Wiktionary is for. And Latin Wiktionary exists so what's the reason to have Wikivoyage for dictionary? :P Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was pinged: I haven't changed my view. If I see new and on-going activity on Latin Wikivoyage I might support a change in its status, but not otherwise. It's open to anyone, meanwhile, to add this kind of information to relevant pages on Vicipaedia. [Preferably citing a source!] I'd say those pages are more likely to be maintained and more likely to be read. Andrew Dalby (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong oppose Man sollte die Kräfte bündeln, um die lateinische Wikipedia zu verbessern. Da ist noch sehr viel zu tun! Informationen über touristische Ziele findet man auch dort schon. - Giorno2 (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]