Content deleted Content added
Linea 24:
This is really depressing from the point of view of an ancient languages collaboration. Thanks to your table at Meta of ancient language projects, it's rather easy to check (1) how many of them I had contributed to (the first thing I did) and then (2) how many recent changes each of them has. Answer to (2): excluding system messages and interventions by global housekeepers, none -- in all cases except Latin. It really worries me that by linking Latin with this geriatric group we are risking Vicipaedia's position. We need to promote ourselves as an Esperanto equivalent, not as an Anglo-Saxon equivalent. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 09:03, 18 Septembris 2021 (UTC)
:I agree we are basically going to have to regard this as being two tiers. Sanskrit and Literary Chinese have the potential to be poster children and superstars. They may or may not be right now.
:* [https://sa.wikipedia.org/wiki/विशेषः:नूतनपरिवर्तनानि?hidebots=1&hidecategorization=1&hideWikibase=1&limit=500&days=30&urlversion=2 Sanskrit looks active to me]]
:*m [https://zh-classical.wikipedia.org/wiki/特殊:監修?hidebots=1&hidecategorization=1&hideWikibase=1&limit=500&days=30&urlversion=2 Literary Chinese looks active to me]
:Yes, the others are probably bad to irretrievably bad. There is a bit of activity at AS and a couple of others I think, but some including Pali are entirely inactive.
:If LangCom were a bit more open minded they'd see an opportunity to review out some of those, and to force improvement otherwise – for me the minimum is that the writing is linguistically defensible; I am not sure if that applies to several. --[[Usor:JimKillock|JimKillock]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:JimKillock|disputatio]]) 09:26, 18 Septembris 2021 (UTC)