On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 7:26 PM, M. Williamson <[email protected]> wrote: > Nathan, perhaps there is a communication error here. GerardM and I are > arguing for the same thing, which is a transliteration engine, but > ONLY so long as it allows people to read AND contribute, rather than > just being read-only as proposed by Marcus. My other contention is > that if this is not possible due to community opposition at ro.wp, > then mo.wp should be kept; GerardM seems to disagree there and says > that such a solution should be done whether ro.wp community approves > or not. I'm still not sure how any of that is unreasonable. > > -m. >
Perhaps there is - you and Gerard appear to be arguing that a round-robin transliteration option (on ro.wp, presumably) should be a precondition for dealing with the existence of mo.wp. It seems plausible that would be an unpopular proposal on the Romanian Wikipedia, and there don't appear to be any volunteers for doing the work to set it up. Almost as importantly... Since a permanent solution for mo.wp hasn't been forthcoming in the past 4-5 years, I'm not sure it's a great idea to be adding barriers -- especially when a simple, common sense solution is available and there appear to be few if any actual Transnistrians interested in a project in their script. Does that clear things up? Nathan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
