Yes, and to emphasize Angela's (and others') points:
The relationship of Simple and English Wikipedias is not the same
relationship as
Simplified and Traditional Chinese. It's just an unfortunate clash of
terminology as the former is about grammar usage and vocabulary, and
the latter is about visual appearance of logographic characters.
-Andrew
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 06:13:28 +0100, Angela <beesley(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Ian Mackinnon wrote:
I strongly request that the Traditional Chinese
version of Wikipedia be
given it's own language space...
A real good argument I can give for this is why
does wikipedia have
simple.wikipedia.org for "Simple English" instead of it being lumped into
en.wikipedia.org?
I don't feel this is a strong argument for splitting Traditional and
Simplified Chinese. The Simple English Wikipedia has only attracted
1500 articles so far. I expect it may have been far more successful
had it been better merged with the English Wikipedia at the beginning.
Angela.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l