Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English Wiktionary (2)

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

The result of the following proposal for closing a WMF project is to KEEP the project. Please, do not modify this page.

This is a request to have the Simple English Wiktionary closed. One reason is that it's a very small wiki with little or no purpose. It only has about ~4,000 words, has only about 3 active editors, has had vandals with no admins around, and is all around small, and I don't believe many people look at it except for the editors. Also, it has many pages requested for deletion because they are encyclopedic. See the deletion requests. So here's my request. Thank you. ѕwirlвoy  16:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I propose to close this discussion in 3 days from now if nobody objects,Dferg (talk) 06:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Discussion closed: The result is to KEEP the project. —Dferg (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Support[edit]

  1. As nom. ѕwirlвoy  16:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    68.193.205.36 22:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    Any reason, IP? Majorly talk 22:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    No reason, not logged it, I did strike this vote, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 15:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. Highly inactive, almost to the point that it's useless. ס (Samekh) Talk 22:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    1. Comment Comment I do not consider that a reason for closure: that reflects a business corporation mentality and I do not regard Wikimedia (at least not yet) as a company. Anyway I do not see it is that inactive now as you say, maybe you should consider changing your vote.--0 º 00:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    2. Comment Comment Small means both less need and fewer resources used -- the two cancel each-other out. Small is not a reason for deletion. --BlackJar72 22:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  3. Per Samekh, little activity and I personally don't agree with the concept behind the Simple English projects. —Nightstallion (?) 07:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
    1. Comment Comment That is the only argument so far I can sort of relate to. Anyway I cannot see the point of closing it because of that. Does simple:wikt interfere in other projects or something? The only interference I can think of is interwiki links to simple: ... Is that bad enough to shut people off their work and/or their potential learning material? Please remember that Simple English projects may be useful for many first stage learners of the language. Personally I am not especially keen to those projects either but the fact that I do not (usually) play with rattles and building blocks does not mean that I have to snatch every one from the hands of every kid I find enjoying them. As long as I know, being a kid is no reason to be bullied. Being a learner is not either. I was a kid myself and I still consider myself a learner (and occassionally have fun with rattles and building blocks :)) but, anyway, I personally prefer helping people to develop their way than deciding and imposing on them the ways they have to learn. --0 º 00:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  4. support. I respect and admire the great work people are doing there. But having two English Wiktionaries is too much redundance. In an Wiktionary the definition should be short and describing per default, the rest of the entry contains synonyms, antonyms, hyperonyms, ..., derived terms, pronunciation, flexion, and, as an important part: translations. All these would not differ from English Wiktionary. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 15:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, se.wikt is avoiding redundancy by omitting etymologies and translations. Furthermore, where proficient speakers of English use lists of synonyms and antonyms usually to move from a simple concept to a more precise word that is avoiding their grasp, learners of English use such lists more to help understand and solidify the understanding of the word. As such, it makes sense to have a different (more simple) list in SE wikt. The choice of examples and quotations is also necessarily different with en.wikt aiming to capture earliest uses and show up fine distinctions and se.wikt trying to exemplify the most common collocates in the way the language is used today. Finally, se.wikt includes images for simple everyday items that a en.wikt can take for granted. Ask yourself: if all the major dictionary publishers feel the need to publish learner dictionaries (MW just put out a new one), then doesn't that indicate there's a market and a need?--Brett 11:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    Hello Brett, please, forgive me but I personally don't really like this commenting of users opinions, I prefer talk-sections for talk because this imho is a bit disturbing and I do not do that with other peoples opinions either (and I would have much to say, as I am very active in Wiktionaries, as You might have noticed). Also I am sorry, because Your answer even makes me think this is worse than I thought, because Wiktionary is defined as multilingual dictionary, if simple.wikt does not include translations or things like that it makes itself redundant. compare wikt:simple:Wiktionary, wikt:en:Wiktionary. Really, don't get me wrong, I appreciate the work people are doing, I just think they are doing that in the wrong place and for those who learn English (which includes me!) it is much wiser to learn it from a book and use a dictionary which also has translations in ones own language and which has definitions that improve ones language skills instead of keeping them at a certain level. (P.S. se is iso-1 for Northern Sami, I was a little confused XD ). Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 22:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  5. Per nom, it looks like the only person doing well on that wikitionary is the guy making tumbleweeds. Also agree with nightstallion's point about Simple in general. Narson 15:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  6. A Wiktionary entry must contain an easily understandable definition of the word, and it should include translations, etymology and stuff like that. If simple.wiktionary does not have that (and it doesn't), it is absolutely useless and needs to be closed as soon as possible. People who want to learn English should rather go to en.wikt and read there, where they can learn much more. --Thogo (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  7. Simple English is not a language; the same arguments I made for the closure of Simple English Wikipedia apply here. More convincing arguments from birdy and Thogo.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  8. I agree with Thogo. Not active enough, i'd support it and the english wikitonnary is quite simple enough. --Mixwell 22:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  9. Very Weak Support. The wiki has good intentions, but maybe an merge with the regular Wiktionary is in order. Hitting the Random Page button a few times, it seems as if the entries were random words and phrases, and provide little if any help to someone requiring English on a simple level, but overall, I do not think it should be fully deleted, unless it is merged or archived (and imported) beforehand. Thedjatclubrock 01:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    I don't understand what you mean by "random words and phrases". Could you explain what you mean? The pages have definitions in simple English, and example sentences that try to show how the word is used and its meaning. Every word in the Basic English 850 word list and every word in the Academic Word List has a page with a definition. The definitions are in simple English: they are made to be easy to understand by people who only know about 1000 English words. I clicked "show any page" (random page) and the first definition at the top of the first three pages were: "board", "a long piece of wood"; "every", "all the people, things, times, etc."; and "goes", "The third-person singular form of go" (with wikilinks). They look like good pages to me. Coppertwig(talk) 00:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  10. Poppy 12:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC). Useless concept.
    Per my reasons given at the proposal for closing Simple English Wikipedia page. 89.243.94.252 17:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC) — please log in to comment, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 01:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    Comment Comment Should not the vote above be struck invalid or turned into a comment? How can we know that they are not duplicates of people who have already voted here? Regards --0 º 00:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    Pretty Useless. 78.148.91.80 16:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC) — please log in to comment, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 01:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    Comment Comment Should not the vote above be struck invalid or turned into a comment? How can we know that they are not duplicates of people who have already voted here? Regards --0 º 00:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  11. This dictionary should be merged with the Standard English dictionary. Lwyx 04:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  12. Per Thogo. I can somewhat understand the use for a simple English Wikipedia, but a dictionary seems excessive and mostly useless. Most of the new content pages from the past few days seem to just be stripped down versions of the normal English Wiktionary, meaning they're either A) Not simplified or B) The English Wiktionary version was already simple enough and the simple English Wiktionary versions are just redundant. Mr.Z-man 21:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  13. Support closure. Duplication of effort and English Wiktionary should already be simple enough. --Pmsyyz 06:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    1. Duplication of whose effort, yours maybe? 82.198.250.69 11:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  14. Supporting. I suppose I can see some reason for having a "Simple" English Wikipedia, but English and Simple English are the same language, and I don't think any of the Simple English projects are getting enough people that need to read in Simple English to justify an entire dictionary effort for it. Cmelbye 22:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    1. Comment Comment Simple English Wiktionary is in simple English, not limited to being of simple English. It includes simple definitions of non-simple words (useful for someone who knows only simple English but needs to learn more advanced English or find out what a more advanced word means).
  15. Supporting. Even though it may be a good resource for people who don't speak good English, they'd be better off going to Simple English Wikipedia because it has much more info and (kind of) displays the same info as the Wiktionary. --Darrenm540 19:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC) (If want to leave a comment back - leave it on my English Wikipedia talk page because I check there more often)
    1. Comment Comment Simple English Wiktionary does contain words and phrases that don't make sense to include in an encyclopedia (but could be useful in a dictionary) --BlackJar72 17:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC).
  16. Support closure, in the context of a larger pairing back of non-language Wikipedias. The whole Project to create a Simple English should be scrapped. Here is my justification for this viewpoint:
    • Wikipedia should not be seen as merely utilitarian. It contains much knowledge for knowledge's sake.
    • Simple English is not a language: it is a deterministic construct written primarily by native speakers who are not pedagogues or linguists on behalf of an ill-defined constituency that has not been scientifically defined. (Unlike, say, speakers of Basque.)
    • There is, I suspect, the potential for vanity on behalf of many Simple English Wikipedians, who are able to add another language to their tally on the basis of no additional effort or learned ability.
    • Simple English Wikipedia institutionally entrenches an erroneous view of the process of language acquisition. The lexical marginality of any particular term is not what hinders comprehension, rather the lack of sufficient intervening explicative steps. Lexically, 'mule' is pretty marginal. But if you explain that a mule is part-horse, part-donkey, then the language learner should have little difficulty in understanding the concept.
    • Simple English Wikipedia places English on a pedestal: it is a form of cultural imperialism. Why should only English have a 'Subpedia' (excuse the neologism!)? It takes for granted that the existence of an international lingua franca is positive. Is it perhaps not hastening the demise of precious endangered languages by making English ever more accessible?
    • If supererogative turgescency of this ilk is to be tolerated, then Simple English Wikipedia epitomises Wikipedia's inutile, unmanageable future. Why shouldn't all languages have separate Wikipedias for their various grades? Why not a Wikipedia for ultra-technical English? Why not a Wikipedia for syntactic or stylistic preferences? Why not Wikipedias for dialects, or ecolects, or individual idiolects? Why not a Wikipedia in Legalese? Or Journalese?
    • Wikipedia is not primarily a tool for learning languages! (However...
    • ...via hyperlinks on a standard English article and the sidebar links to their vernacular, or Wiktionary, the speaker of another language can easily track unknown terms.)
    • It is a waste of Wikipedia Foundation's finite financial resources.
    Therefore, I propose that Simple English Wiktionary, as with other Simple English Wikiprojects be farmed off as a Wiki-style project on a separate site, paid for by its aficionados. Otherwise, an unfortunate precedent may be considered, established. Orthorhombic 14:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  17. Support There's no reason an English-learner can't use the normal Wiktionary. This is a waste. NipplesMeCool 01:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. There was already a proposal for closure when the project was much smaller. The project survived. Why should it be closed now that it is much larger? The number of active editors comes and goes, but is admittedly low. Vandalism is not a problem. Of course, there are times when no admins are available to catch it, but rarely does any vandalism survive a day. The claim of many pages requested for deletion is obviously false as you can see by following the link provided above. I don't know who looks at the project and I don't believe the nominator does either. In short, there is no merit whatsoever in this proposal.--Brett 17:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    Brett said it himself, users are low, vandalism has lasted a day, and I think birdy summed it up well. ѕwirlвoy  15:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    I didn't say users are low, I said the number of active editors is low, but that I didn't know how many people used the site. Now I know. In January, there were 224,000 page views [1].--Brett 12:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  2. Agree with Brett. Frankly I can see more scope for a Simple English Wiktionary than a Wikipedia. But that's just me. Majorly talk 17:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    Fake? I beg to differ. ѕwirlвoy  17:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    ? Majorly talk 17:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - Instead of being so quick to delete it, let's try rescuing it first. Get some trusted users from English wiktionary or wikipedia +sysop rights there and we can seriously probably get better. I would be quick to volunteer in working on the project, and I will go try to work on it today. DavidWS 17:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose A simple English dictionary is just about the most valuable Simple project one can get. I say that as a contributor to most of the simple wikis. PeterSymonds 22:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  5. Strong Oppose - highly inactive ? ..it has nearly 5000 articles, more than 400 other wikis....--Cometstyles 07:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose What is it with people wanting to delete projects? I may not terribly like it, but it can be made better, and having worked with the developmentally disabled and the English learning communities, I can see where this is actually a useful project to have. Sure, it needs work, but so do the most active projects. --Neskaya 07:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose A simple english dictionary is a very good idea. Many dictionaries are very hard to understand for new english speakers. Soxred93 15:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  8. SwirlBoy asked me via email to have a look at this. I respectfully disagree with his proposal. I think this project is, as it stands, doing at least some good, although there is some room for improvement and it is indeed quite small in size. AGK 16:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose If there are people wanting it still around, then it should be kept around for them to work on. Projects grow. Dev920 19:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - Heavily linked to from the Simple English Wikipedia, providing a vital reference to give readers extra help while reading articles without messing up the actual encyclopedia. Has plenty of chance to grow, and is already proving to be highly useful. Archer7 21:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  11. Oppose I see reason for 3 simple projects: Wikibooks (for anybody who wants to ready easy texts), Wiktionary (dictionary) and Wikipedia (playing ground). So Wiktionary should stay. But when I see that Wikiquote is kept, I can not but say that Wikimedia is wasting resources on project which has no real reason to live, but to be playground of idle hands. Almost every quote is in the same time both in simple and standard english, so what is the reason for duplication? Small number of users/edits shouldn't be the first criteria for keeping/closing some project, but common sense should be. I can a reason for Wiktionary (and books & wiki), but I plead all sensible users, please close other simple projects which have no purpose at all but to waste resources of Wikimedia, thanks in advance! SpeedyGonsales 07:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  12. Oppose - per majorly. It is definitely active [2] and potentially very useful. It is too simple-minded to jump to the "close" option when there is the slightest hint of a potential problem. Even Oxford English Dictionary has different editions for different readers. Wikimedia are services to the readers and we are not in a position to lecture people "who want to learn English" that they "should rather go to en.wikt and read there" (- Thogo). And are we going to get b:simple next? Why don't we bring them all on and have it settled once and for all? Hillgentleman 02:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  13. I'd be happy with closing any other Simple Wikipedia, but this one is worth keeping for sure. NuclearWarfare 20:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  14. Oppose – Kids and people who are learning English don't understand all complex definitions from other dictionaries. Simple English Wiktionary fixes that problem. It's a pretty useful project. It has nearly 5000 dictionary definitions, which I wouldn't want to waste and lose by closing the project now at this point when the project has that many definitions. I'm sure over time more active users may come and more definitions will be created than there is now, but there really is no reason to close the project down now when the project has made so much progress already. Let it stay. – RyanCross (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  15. Strong Oppose Very useful project! I worked hard to help finish all the definitions in simple English of Basic English words. Now, when I write things on other Simple English projects and need to use a small number of hard words, I put links to Simple English Wiktionary, and I write the page there if it doesn't exist yet.
    Some people who can read Simple English can't read any other language, so an English-to-other-language dictionary is no use for them; they need definitions in Simple English.
    Some people who are learning English don't want to read their own language when they're in the middle of reading an English sentence; they want to learn to think in English, so a simple English definition or a picture is what they want, not an English-to-other-language dictionary.
    It already has definitions in simple English of all words in Basic English and all words in the Academic Word List, so it's already very useful for people who are just starting to learn English. I try to make the definitions easy for many people to understand, using pictures too when possible.
    The work we did in the past is still there, and is growing. Brett works hard and has written a large number of definitions, and many other users have written definitions. All that hard work will be more useful when there is a larger number of words, which will take time.
    All projects have vandalism. It gets reverted. On small projects, the time before reverting may sometimes be longer, but the number of people seeing the vandalism may not be any bigger than on busy projects with many readers. The project may be getting some new administrators soon.
    See also my comment at the proposal to close Simple English Wikipedia; some of those reasons are good for Simple English Wiktionary, too. Coppertwig(talk) 15:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
    SwirlBoy39 said "has only about 3 active users", but I count 9 active users in the last 2 weeks, each doing a number of useful edits, not just to their userpage, and 5 of those users making new pages. SwirlBoy39 said "only" 4000 words: that's a large number of pages! That took a lot of work! Every wiki has to be small before it can become big. Just being small is not a reason for closing. Coppertwig(talk) 03:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  16. Oppose - Hundreds of links from SEWP articles link to SEWT. It has just hit the 5,000 article mark, which Cometstyles says; is more than 400 other Wikis. --Gwib 11:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  17. Oppose - The project has good intentions, and although it's not highly active at the current time, I suspect it will gain more activity as time goes on. RyanCross said it best. Juliancolton 17:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per RyanCross. Ironholds 05:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  19. Keep Keep no reasson to close. It need some time to develop. Abigor 10:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  20. Oppose I am unpersuaded by the arguments of the nominator. 4000 words is normal for the simple English. Ruslik 09:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  21. Oppose as per Ruslik. Simple English Wiktionary is too much of a good thing to have it go to waste to quickly. Try to get some more active editors there, like ones from en.wiktionary and en.wikipedia and watch it flourish. Razorflame 23:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  22. Oppose SQLQuery me! 08:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  23. Oppose Growing project. Synergy 20:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  24. Oppose Just because it is small is not a reason to close. It is growing. -Djsasso 20:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  25. Oppose I agree that it should be given a chance to grow and improve. I think it serves a useful (if limited) purpose. Sometimes the definitions in the main Wiktionary are so complex, and intermingled with alternative etymologies, quotations and translations, that it is difficult to sort out the basic meanings ( - a "fault" it shares with the big Oxford dictionary, and one of the reasons that most people use one of the simpler versions). Dbfirs 13:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  26. Oppose for lots of the reasons given above. This project is worth keeping and making better. --Bduke 05:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  27. Severely underwhelming nominating statement. Calling it small is odd; it's currently #53 out of the 172 Wiktionaries that we have; hardly our smallest edition of the project. EVula // talk // // 06:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  28. Oppose This project is very valuable, we (en.wikt) refer people learning English and children to it all the time. The case in the proposed closure is bad to the point of being offensive; if we closed projects because there were only a few active users, we wouldn't have any projects at all: they have all had only a handful at one point. Even the English WP; it didn't start with a community of thousands. And there is little reason to close a project at all, unless it is entirely empty and idle. (I am personally very annoyed that xh (Xhosa) wikt has apparently been closed; we need it for African languages, and it will be an absolutely immense pain to get it started again; equally, it clearly must be started again at some point!) I also wish to note this: simple.wikt is not in anyone's way. There is a basic principle: people who think a thing cannot be done should stay out of the way of the people doing it. Unless simple is somehow harmful, leave it alone. And end this proposal ASAP, and prohibit future closure requests. Robert Ullmann 10:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  29. Strong Oppose – a good project, and should not be closed down whatever. American Eagle (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  30. Oppose I started contributing at "simple" because, as a contributor at Wiktionary, I saw a number of requests for simpler definitions on the feedback page. Try comparing a few simple word pages between the two projects, and you soon realise that simpler definitions are essential for many learners. en.wikt can be very complex at times for the simplest of words! Apart from that, why close anyway? I don't see any overriding reasons above. It's not like we're wasting trees, is it? -- Algrif 16:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose. The nomination is weak. (Small? Not really. It does seem to have few editors and admins, but will doubtless grow.) But my main reason for opposing is that English Wiktionary frequently gets requests for more simply worded definitions, so we are happy to have somewhere to direct the requesters.—msh210@enwikt 20:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Abstain.—msh210@enwikt 23:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  31. Oppose A small but active community. Hardly one of the smallest Wiktionary's at #53. Maximillion Pegasus 21:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  32. Oppose Reasons:
    > Swirlboy's: One reason is that it's a very small wiki with little or no purpose. It only has about ~4,000 words, has only about 3 active editors
    ~4,000 words, about 3 active editors... You call that small? Little of no purpose? That sounds quite insulting for the people working there. I do not doubt that you are sure that whatever you do in Wikimedia is more purposeful but could you please give me your definition of "purpose" or "purposeful"?
    > Swirlboy's: has had vandals with no admins around, and is all around small, and I don't believe many people look at it except for the editors.
    Is vandalism really that bad as you picture it? If it is I am sure stewards and volunteers can help. I'll have a look to see if I can help with that (unless it is not a problem anymore). You may believe many things but do you know for sure? Anyway, one of the many reference libraries I used to go used to be great because there used to be a lot of books. I bet you I was the first human I opened quite a few of them to browse through their printed contents. I found there many things you couldn't, cannot or will not been able to find in the internet for quite a while but suddenly they did some works and when they ended they had got rid of about 4/5s of the previous contents: the precious "never or hardly" touched volumes disappeared, they just got some extra space (which is not used much better, by the way) in the huge room. I call that either shortsightedness, dumbing-down or business, not "library". The important thing is not how many people look at simple.wikt but if they find the project useful for their purposes. The fact that there are editors means that they "read" there: that is more than enough.
    > Swirlboy's: Also, it has many pages requested for deletion because they are encyclopedic.
    So what? They should be either modified, deleted or transferred to en.wiki. I would not be surprised if in en.wiki are even more pages requested for deletion because they are not encyclopedic :)... I know, I know, it is just a joke.
    @ Spacebirdy, Thogo & Mike.lifeguard: Yes, by its own nature it is a bit experimental. As well one of its problems is that "simple English" is not a language (though I must say, this argument is rather flaky when we face some of the so-called "distinctive languages" in the list that make up Wikimedia projects so far if we look at it from a linguistic [not political, social or, as in this case, didactic] perspective) and in that sense maybe it would be better if it became a distinctive part inside (but never merged, i.e. dissolved into) en.wikt rather than keeping its current status of "a distinctive language". Another possibility is transferring all Simple English projects to their own domain (inside Wikimedia) and bonding it with the en. project maybe with special links. If that is not technically possible (or ¿not worth the trouble?... unfortunately I would not be surprised to see those words as an argument here), then I personally prefer simple.wikt to be kept the way it is now. To my view, a plain closure would be an unacceptable aggression to the users' legitimate work. For a start "closure" is a word that should never have been used in this case. --0 º 00:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    Oppose It has a valid purpose and the rationale for it makes perfect sense. And if it is small, that just makes it less costly to keep around, not a reason to cancel it.--71.228.162.183 13:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC) - Please, log in to vote. --0 º 00:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  33. Oppose - Many links on SEWP go to wiktionnary. Yotcmdr 19:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  34. Strong Oppose This is a very useful project. For one thing, those who know only simple English may need to look up more advanced words with simple definitions. Also, a small project is one that might should be helped to grow, not a reason to eliminate it. The does serve a useful purpose, and is used -- there is no good reason to delete it. --BlackJar72 22:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  35. It has been proven as useful, and I see no harm in allowing it to continue growing. If there is no improvement in the status of the project for a long time, I would suggest closure--but not now. Malinaccier (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  36. Oppose While it is true that it has no where near the amount of definitions at enWIKT, it does provide a good set of terms that are defined that are Interwiki linked from Simple English Wikipedia and other projects. It has also shown a steady increase in growth since its inception. fr33kman t - c 06:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  37. Strong Oppose - Highly inactive is a huge overstatement - much too early to close this. It is still maintained, and is a good idea. neuro(talk) 19:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  38. Strong Oppose There are many links from SE Wikipedia to this wiki, and vandalism is not usually a problem as administrators revert it quite quickly. SE Wiktionary is clearly not one of the smallest wiktionaries and is actually useful to people who are not very strong with English. Wenli 06:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  39. Oppose Enough with the mega-deletionism of closing projects, and preventing people from contributing where they feel it is appropriate. This is a useful project with a worthy goal. If it has internal problems (like "what is Simple English") then let the people there solve those problems themselves. No need to use a sledgehammer. Dovi 19:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  40. Oppose As much as I respect spacebirdy and her reasoning, I can see the benefit of having a project where the definitions themselves do not require multiple "click-throughs" for a non-native speaker of English to get a decent understanding of the word or phrase. English wiktionary should focus on proper connotation and denotation, etymology, pronunciation, and assorted synonyms and antonyms. Simple English Wiktionary can deliver an (overly to a native) simplified translation with an interwiki to standard English wiktionary for the adventurous. Arguments regarding activity would require the removal of multiple hundreds of wikis prior to this one. -- Avi 00:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  41. Oppose A valuable resource on the web, and used often by students I work with as a teacher. The main problem is it does not yet have enough words, so I am going back to add some more now. --Peterdownunder 11:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  42. Oppose - Just like the reasons for Simple English Wikipedia; it is a growing society and can grow to be a useful project. MathCool10 02:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  43. Oppose - Not 'inactive' or 'useless' at all. 'Concerns' in the nom are not unique or serious. - Æåm Fætsøn 12:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  44. Oppose - as others have said: a simple English-English dictionary is useful. V85 17:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  45. Oppose, obviously! I was one of the people who basically got this project started (my claim to fame!  :) and I am currently an admin, though a fairly inactive one. There are many things I could say here, but I'll limit myself to a few: it is not a duplication of en.wikt, nor do all wiktionaries have to have exactly the types of content that en.wikt does. Their content should depend on their aim, and ours is different but well-defined. Also, when this project had like 200 entries, a closure proposal might have seemed somewhat reasonable. It now has almost 7000 entries (more than the vast majority of wiktionaries) and continues to grow, with a large number of page views. Closing it now would be silly. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 21:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  46. Oppose A Simple-English wiktionary is helpful, and it has lots of room for expansion. There are many wikis less active than this one. Has over six thousand entries, a decent-sized community. Tempodivalse [☎] 21:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  47. Oppose This wiktionary is much more useful than the standard English wiktionary for English learners. Since there are increasingly more English learners (as English is perceived as a global language and perhaps the language with the largest number of second-language speakers, the value of this wiktionary will increase over time. --Jeffmcneill 22:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  48. Oppose per what Brett, Neskaya, Cromwellt, and the wiki-late Cometstyles said. I'm just getting started with simple.wiktionary, I'll do whatever I can to help it. FWIW, I'm actually very excited to get started there! --Dylan620 14:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  49. Oppose per Majorly, Coppertwig: it's a useful (and ancient) concept, and people care about it. per Cometstyles, this shifting standard for 'activity' is inequitable and a bit bizarre. Certainly it is an active project by standard standards. Discussions of whether the concept of simple english is good or not are valid but do not belong here. -- sj | help translate |+ 07:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral[edit]

#Neutral The wiki has good intentions, but maybe an merge with the regular Wiktionary is in order. Hitting the Random Page button a few times, it seems as if the entries were random words and phrases, and provide little if any help, but overall, I do not think it should be deleted, unless it is merged or archived beforehand. Thedjatclubrock 03:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)If necessary, feel free to count this vote towards support, but note, it is a weak support.

  1. Neutral This is a good idea, but it also just seems as if one could just go to the normal Wiktionary to look up words. Maybe with quite a bit more work, it could become something, which is why I am neutral. If this absolutely had to count as support or oppose, I would count this as an extremely weak support. Hi878 03:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close[edit]

Given that the number of votes is similar to or larger than many previous votes, I don't think we'll be getting many more. I move to close the proposal with a conclusion that Simple English Wiktionary be kept.--Brett 13:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd give it a little more time personally. 4 votes to support closure is more than last time round. Majorly talk 16:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Can we close this now?--Brett 02:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Why? Majorly talk 02:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Will it just sit here indefinitely? I think the last time it was almost half a year before it closed. The project has already survived one vote. Why must we wait with an axe hanging over our heads. The potential for closure is a disincentive to editors. I'd like to know how many times opponents will be allowed to make such a proposal. Is this not double jeopardy? Once a decision has been reached, should it not be allowed to stand? --Brett 02:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Decisions do not always stand, as consensus can change. Aiuw 21:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
But it can only change in one way. Every time somebody gets it in their head that they don't like a project, they can nominate it for closure. It will probably survive, but if there's one time that it doesn't get enough support, it's gone, and once it's gone, it's gone. This is not a fair process. It's biased for closure.--Brett 01:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems that there should be a minimum time of a few year between such suggestions and/or a record of the previous results with a block requiring an administrator to reactivate it. Otherwise it seems things like this could become an endless nuisance with no real value. --BlackJar72 22:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Swirlboy has ,on the SEWiktionary talk, said that he's changed his mind on this. Empire3131 00:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's the diff where the nominator SwirlBoy39, from a global account, states "I want to apologize for my recent attempt to shutdown the Simple English Dictionary. ..." Coppertwig(talk) 00:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
SwirlBoy39 may have changed their mind, but others haven't. That shouldn't be the basis for closing this.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
65% support in keeping the wiki running is not good enough, most proposals like these can last for longer than a year, so its better if we leave if for another few months before closing it ...--Cometstyles 01:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Brett's comment makes sense: This is the second time this closure has been proposed, and the trend is against closure. It is not worth waste the time of the wikimedians. However, some new ideas have appeared; So we should give them some time, but not necessarily as much as a first-time proposal. Hillgentleman 16:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
It's 74% now. Maybe the proposals that lasted longer than a year were closer to 50%. Coppertwig(talk) 03:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Even 74% is not enough to prevent closure. It will need much more than that. I would recommend waiting until it has at least 80% or more agains the closing of it. Razorflame 03:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Questions:
  1. Isn't the burden on those wanting to delete a project to gather a majority? I don't understand why a project needs to meet an 80% hurdle to be kept?
  2. Can any admin close this discussion or does it require someone from the langcom?
--A. B. (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the burden to get a majority is on those requesting the project be closed, not those against the closing of the project. As for who can close a request, I'm not sure. Maximillion Pegasus 17:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
But considering considering that the confirmation process apparently does not work (tested it) and that the number of votes listed obviously has no relation to the number in the actual discussion, I for one can have no confidence that any of it is not just made up -- or that someone hostile to the project could not devise a way to jimmy the system to make even a popular project go away. --BlackJar72 12:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps keeping the discussion open isn't such a bad thing -- as long as its open the project isn't being closed, and as long as its open this can be discussed here rather than just having another project closure request opened? :/ --BlackJar72 19:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's close this discussion (motion seconded). It has been over four months since the motion to close was given and over five months since the proposal was introduced. From the beginning and throughout the intervening months the number of oppose far outweigh number of support. --Jeffmcneill 22:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, the proposal has run its course and been shot down. I'd close it myself, but as I've participated, I have to recuse myself. Drats. EVula // talk // // 15:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Seconded. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)