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.
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. --126.96.36.199 08:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
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)
Do you even speak Latin, proposing IP? --MF-W 08:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
@Andrew Dalby and UV: Seems you both are the contributors of that test wiki years ago, still have interest on this? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)