- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
w:simple: RFC had no consensus. incubator: "requests for starting a test" declined it because "YOO NEEDZ TEH EYE-ESS-OH KOADZ!!!11". This is the only place to go. (The ISO requirement should probably be killed, as there's a sh*t-ton of languages without ISO codes.) KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- simple:Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 121#RFC: Create simple.wikivoyage.org - link to RFC. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 03:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- K. wants a new Wikivoyage in a language that not only has an ISO code, it already has a Wikivoyage using that code. This is not about languages without ISO codes, this is about opening multiple projects in one language.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Nobody objects to having content in simplified versions of languages. They are, after all, at worst no different from other constructed languages, and at best quite a bit more than that. What LangCom, and consequently the sysops at Incubator, are trying to enforce is the following:
- The preferred place for simple-language content in most projects would be as subprojects within a larger related project. Thus a Simple Hebrew Wikipedia, for example, would need to be a subproject within Hebrew Wikipedia. (How that's done—whether as a separate namespace, or some other way—would be the decision of the hosting project.) That is the preferred place because both content and language can be better managed there than in a separate test project.
- Therefore, in a related way, such projects will not be incubated in Incubator. They must be incubated in the place they are likely to live.
- In English, the option potentially existed to incubate within Simple English Wikipedia, rather than within English Wikivoyage. Notwithstanding what you have said above, there was consensus: not to host a SE Wikivoyage there. The people active there know better than just about anyone else how hard it is to really manage to keep the language simple in a project, and they didn't want or need the extra work.
- I'll be honest, KATMAKROFAN: If it looked to me like you were really serious, instead of just making trouble, I'd be more inclined to support you. So I'll tell you what: Seriously participate in trying to work on Simple English Wikipedia for six months, and start living the process of keeping things in truly simple language. Then make another proposal, after you've created a reputation within that community. Then let's see what happens. Unless you do this, you're not getting anywhere with this proposal. Please remember that projects are created (or re-opened) not only because they "should be" (whatever that means), but also because they will have (we hope) ongoing life. A project that is going to be re-opened and then just sit there is a waste of time. We don't always get that right, but we are trying.
- Separately: the question of the ISO requirement is beyond the scope of this page. Make a proposal for that at Talk:Language committee if you like. That requirement is no longer absolute, by the way, but it remains a rational starting place for all discussion. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Strong oppose --Assoc (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose (1) "Simple english" is not a language, it's just English. Language proposal policy's Requisites for eligibility §3: The language must be sufficiently unique that it could not coexist on a more general wiki. In most cases, this excludes regional dialects and different written forms of the same language. (2) Why non-English-speakers readers who are planning to do a trip would bother with English if they could read Wikivoyage in their own language (if it has a wiki)? They want to know exactly and in the words they understand what to expect from a destination and how to get around, not to learn English (obviously unless they go to a English speaking country). (3) Although English Wikivoyage is one of the largest Wikivoyages, it's still part of the smaller Wikimedia wikis because the size of its community and the quantity of contents, and creating a separated English wiki would divide the taskforce and take away the hands that smaller wikis really need. --Zerabat (discusión) 03:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- I addressed this issue in closing Requests for new languages/Wikibooks Simple English. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
As pointed out above, there was consensus among the community at Simple English Wikipedia not to host a Simple English Wikivoyage test there. If there is actually a serious interest in this, you are welcome to ask English Wikivoyage to host the test, or to start off the test outside the WMF wikifarm (in a place like Incubator Plus).
Any future request for a Wikivoyage Simple English is going to be speedy-deleted as an invalid request unless the following two points are both true:
- Substantial Simple English content has been created elsewhere.
- The English Wikivoyage community agrees that it it worthwhile to have a parallel Simple English project in existence. (Please provide a link to any such discussion.)
For LangCom: StevenJ81 (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.