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.
Oppose while this is a well spoken language in Myanmar, unlike the 'pedia or Wikisource, smaller regional languages (see voy:en:Phrasebooks for what they are) don't really fit into Wikivoyage, and I'm afraid that the coverage won't really be that great outside of Myanmar and Thailand. With Google translate nowadays, it's easy to do page translations rather than create a whole new wikivoyage for that. SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 05:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But there'd be little coverage outside Myanmar and Thailand and maybe Australia (there's a lot of people who have Burmese heritage in Australia). Most people on Wikivoyage usually write about their local areas, but who is going to read them unless you are looking to explore your own backyard? SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 00:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There will be more articles covering other areas rather than Myanmar and Thailand. The Shan Wiki community is stong and active enough to improve and maintain the projects. Ninja✮Strikers«☎» 04:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ninjastrikers While that may happen, the article coverage area is also an issue on the French Wikivoyage as well (which has about 280 million speakers), and yet the only good coverage is large parts of Africa, France and some neighbouring countries and Quebec. With the English Wikivoyage, the only good coverage is countries that are anglophone or popular tourist destinations that aren't anglophone countries (such as Thailand or Zambia), and really now the only good coverage in other anglophone countries is from a user who is google translating pages and making them into English. SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 01:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why would we make a wiki only for people who can tell their personal assistant or butler to create a report about their vacation target? Somewhere around two thirds of Americans have never left the country, and 10% have never left their state. My personal travel library is full of local regional books, and they're more popular than fantasies about faraway gay Paree. There's great value in works telling people about their "local backyard", as you put it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe that Wikipedia and Wiktionary in Shan should be improved first, while now these ones are not as active as it would be like (edited mostly by the single user)... And then if such 'special' Wikiprojects like Wikivoyage will be still needed, they could be planned/developed. --Wolverène (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral "A small language" don't read like a valid oppose comment to me, though I doubt the necessary for non-official languages to get a wiki other than Wikipedia or Wiktionary. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support A language of three million people is large enough on the face of it. There's no reason to stigmatize Wikiquote or Wikivoyage or non-official languages. Either it will get out of the Incubator or it won't. (Certainly Wikisource or Wikiquote could easily work as a first WMF Wiki for a language.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have marked this request as eligible. The argument above by SHB2000 does not strike me as very convincing, let alone covered by the Language Proposal Policy. --MF-W 18:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]