This proposal does have merits, however I would like to point out that texts in small languages can be maintained together on the multilingual sources wiki, which is designed for dead languages or collections which will never have a large community. It also acts as an incubator, able to incubate texts in a language for many years without worrying that the collection is not growing. John Vandenberg 11:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
One thought I had: why not also at Wikiversity? I did not think much about effort/problems, so will ponder more about this later. Though, not what the proposal speaks of, but WV also has experience with incubating, e.g. betawikiversity, wikiversity:Wikiversity:Project incubator (just projects). Regarding Wikiversity's mission I always believed when at Wikiversity something is ready/finished it could be integrated (back) in(to) other sisterprojects.--Erkan Yilmaz 18:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand the rason for this proposal: editors can participate to several projects if they wish to. How could grouping projects and defining separate namespaces change anything positively?
I can see some serious issues:
- interwiki links have a very different meaning in wikipedias and in wiktionaries: in Wikipedia, an interwiki for en:Cat might be fr:Chat, in wiktionaries, the interwikis for en:dog are fr:dog, de:dog, es:dog, etc. What's would be the solution for this issue?
- all pages begin with a capital in wikipedias, not in wiktionaries. What's would be the solution for this issue?
- it would be less clear for users
- principles would be inconsistent between languages