Jump to content

Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English Wikiquote: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Coppertwig (talk | contribs)
214 edits
→‎Motion to end discussion: When a poll is closed, it's not just counting the votes.
Line 21: Line 21:
::See [[w:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a democracy]]. Closing down an existing project would required a clear community ''consensus'' (as opposed to a simple majority). If you read this page, you can easily determine, that such a consensus does not exist - even though "Simple English", which is not a recognised linguistic entity would not be seen as fit for purpose under the [[language proposal policy]] if it was newly proposed today. Closing down an existing project is the most radical step possible for a Wiki. While there appears to be a consensus, that Wikis which have zero content and no community should be closed, the current informal "community managed" process cannot manage closure proposals based on reasons other than the aforementioned (no content, no community). Those users, including myself, who have come forward and tried to turn [[WM:PCP]] into a functioning process have no formalised authority at all. There is no body endowed with the necessary powers, apart from the Board of Trustees, which so far has declined to get involved into the handling of closure proposals. Therefore there are two alternatives: Leaving this proposal open indefinitely or declaring it closed and rejected. --[[User:Johannes Rohr|Johannes Rohr]] 22:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
::See [[w:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a democracy]]. Closing down an existing project would required a clear community ''consensus'' (as opposed to a simple majority). If you read this page, you can easily determine, that such a consensus does not exist - even though "Simple English", which is not a recognised linguistic entity would not be seen as fit for purpose under the [[language proposal policy]] if it was newly proposed today. Closing down an existing project is the most radical step possible for a Wiki. While there appears to be a consensus, that Wikis which have zero content and no community should be closed, the current informal "community managed" process cannot manage closure proposals based on reasons other than the aforementioned (no content, no community). Those users, including myself, who have come forward and tried to turn [[WM:PCP]] into a functioning process have no formalised authority at all. There is no body endowed with the necessary powers, apart from the Board of Trustees, which so far has declined to get involved into the handling of closure proposals. Therefore there are two alternatives: Leaving this proposal open indefinitely or declaring it closed and rejected. --[[User:Johannes Rohr|Johannes Rohr]] 22:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
::: In this case the outcome of this vote is well predefined then, the Simple Englishians will keep their playground sure thing. You don't like Simple Englishepedia - don't contribute there and don't navigate either. Amen. :) [[User:Elephas|Elephas]] 23:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
::: In this case the outcome of this vote is well predefined then, the Simple Englishians will keep their playground sure thing. You don't like Simple Englishepedia - don't contribute there and don't navigate either. Amen. :) [[User:Elephas|Elephas]] 23:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
::::I believe that usually when someone closes a poll like this, they don't just count the number of votes but they look at the reasons people give with their votes and see whether they are good reasons and whether they are the right kind of reason for this kind of poll. On this page, many people who voted to support closing seem to have voted quickly without reading the whole page:
::::*Many people supporting closing the Wikiquote say that when a quote is translated it is not the same quote. But when we ask whether we should delete all the quotes of Aristotle (translated into English) from the English Wikiquote, or whether we should delete all the quotes of Shakespeare (translated into Italian) from the Italian wikiquote, they never answer.
::::*People supporting closing the Wikiquote say that people should read the quotes in their "own" language. But when we say that some people can read Simple English but cannot read any other language, they never answer.
::::*People supporting closing the Wikiquote say that people learning English should read quotes by using an English-to-other-language dictionary. But when we say that some people who are learning a language don't like to read words in their own language when they're in the middle of a sentence in the language they're learning, they don't answer.
::::*This comment ''"How can you make a quote simple? Thunderhead 21:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)"'' seems to have been written by someone who did not read the comment just above it, which says ''"... A passage translated into Simple English is not actually any simpler than the original passage. ..."''.
::::*Elephas' vote seems to be about Simple English Wikipedia, not Simple English Wikiquote.
::::*-✉Hello World! says "footnote is enough" but no one says that English Wikiquote has been asked if they will let us put Simple English footnotes on all quotes. No one says that English Wikipedia needs to be closed because it is enough to put footnotes in English at the bottom of all French Wikipedia articles, and no one gives a reason why footnotes are good enough instead of Simple English Wikiquote but not good enough instead of English Wikipedia. Also, footnotes are usually very small letters, which may be hard for someone learning to read or someone with a learning disability.
::::*One person opposing closing the Wikiquote said ''"...Can see how it aids translators works quite excellently..."'' and no one supporting closing the Wikiquote has given any argument answering that.
::::Footnotes or dictionaries may be good enough for some people, but other people want to have a Simple English Wikiquote. --[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]] 13:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


=== Support closing SE WQ ===
=== Support closing SE WQ ===

Revision as of 13:09, 12 August 2007

Closure of Simple English Wikiquote

Quotes in English are quotes in English. -- Netoholic @ 21:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Cromwellt's explanation of the project before voting, we are not simplifying the quotes themselves. I think many are voting without a proper understanding of the project's aim. Archer7 16:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes translated from English into Spanish are quotes translated from English into Spanish (e.g. Shakespeare on Spanish Wikiquote). Quotes translated from Greek into English are quotes translated from Greek into English (e.g. Artistotle on English Wikiquote). Quotes translated from English into Simple English are quotes translated from English into Simple English (accessible to some Deaf people, some people with learning disabilities, etc. -- people who do not read either English or any other language besides Simple English.) --Coppertwig 03:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, as of 20 May 2007, it appears Netoholic has not been made in edits on Simple, Meta, or en:wikipedia since late 2006 --A. B. (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, as of yet, Simple English Wikiquote has 50 articles. It is in a steady progress in my observation. --Aphaia 09:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to end discussion

I propose to close this discussion within 14 days from now. There is no body within the Wikimedia Foundation that would have both the authority and the political will to close a project which

  1. has content
  2. is actively maintained
  3. has an, albeit modest, growth rate.

Therefore I believe that this closure proposal can safely be discarded. --Johannes Rohr 14:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motion seconded (or only langcom members are invited?) --Aphaia 14:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't there more votes in favor of closing this project? If the will of the people is doomed to be ignored after all, why play this votes and democracy game? Elephas 20:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See w:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a democracy. Closing down an existing project would required a clear community consensus (as opposed to a simple majority). If you read this page, you can easily determine, that such a consensus does not exist - even though "Simple English", which is not a recognised linguistic entity would not be seen as fit for purpose under the language proposal policy if it was newly proposed today. Closing down an existing project is the most radical step possible for a Wiki. While there appears to be a consensus, that Wikis which have zero content and no community should be closed, the current informal "community managed" process cannot manage closure proposals based on reasons other than the aforementioned (no content, no community). Those users, including myself, who have come forward and tried to turn WM:PCP into a functioning process have no formalised authority at all. There is no body endowed with the necessary powers, apart from the Board of Trustees, which so far has declined to get involved into the handling of closure proposals. Therefore there are two alternatives: Leaving this proposal open indefinitely or declaring it closed and rejected. --Johannes Rohr 22:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this case the outcome of this vote is well predefined then, the Simple Englishians will keep their playground sure thing. You don't like Simple Englishepedia - don't contribute there and don't navigate either. Amen. :) Elephas 23:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that usually when someone closes a poll like this, they don't just count the number of votes but they look at the reasons people give with their votes and see whether they are good reasons and whether they are the right kind of reason for this kind of poll. On this page, many people who voted to support closing seem to have voted quickly without reading the whole page:
  • Many people supporting closing the Wikiquote say that when a quote is translated it is not the same quote. But when we ask whether we should delete all the quotes of Aristotle (translated into English) from the English Wikiquote, or whether we should delete all the quotes of Shakespeare (translated into Italian) from the Italian wikiquote, they never answer.
  • People supporting closing the Wikiquote say that people should read the quotes in their "own" language. But when we say that some people can read Simple English but cannot read any other language, they never answer.
  • People supporting closing the Wikiquote say that people learning English should read quotes by using an English-to-other-language dictionary. But when we say that some people who are learning a language don't like to read words in their own language when they're in the middle of a sentence in the language they're learning, they don't answer.
  • This comment "How can you make a quote simple? Thunderhead 21:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)" seems to have been written by someone who did not read the comment just above it, which says "... A passage translated into Simple English is not actually any simpler than the original passage. ...".
  • Elephas' vote seems to be about Simple English Wikipedia, not Simple English Wikiquote.
  • -✉Hello World! says "footnote is enough" but no one says that English Wikiquote has been asked if they will let us put Simple English footnotes on all quotes. No one says that English Wikipedia needs to be closed because it is enough to put footnotes in English at the bottom of all French Wikipedia articles, and no one gives a reason why footnotes are good enough instead of Simple English Wikiquote but not good enough instead of English Wikipedia. Also, footnotes are usually very small letters, which may be hard for someone learning to read or someone with a learning disability.
  • One person opposing closing the Wikiquote said "...Can see how it aids translators works quite excellently..." and no one supporting closing the Wikiquote has given any argument answering that.
Footnotes or dictionaries may be good enough for some people, but other people want to have a Simple English Wikiquote. --Coppertwig 13:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support closing SE WQ

  1. Support -- Netoholic @ 21:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. How can you get Simple English quotes? Computerjoe 10:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per nom. Quotes are quotes - ie, not written in Simple English. --Celestianpower (en, wikt) 11:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: please see my response below. We want to explain the quotes, not change them. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. —Nightstallion (?) 09:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, English quotes are English quotes. --Pmsyyz 03:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: please see my response below. We want to explain the quotes, not change them. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: That can happen in the Wikiquote of the person's native language. If a person can't understand the quote in the English Wikiquote, they will usually be able to click on a interlanguage link and find the quote in their native tongue. Should there be a simple language version of every Wikiquote? --Pmsyyz 04:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: You are missing the point. Many people wish to use English, but do not have a very large vocabulary or a very complete understanding. Perhaps they are learning English, since English is the most widely-taught foreign language on Earth. For all of those people who don't know English well, SE Wikiquote can be an invaluable resource. Additionally, many quotes are extremely idiomatic. Even people with a perfect knowledge of English may benefit from having an explanation of quotes. Yes, I think it would be perfectly fine to have simple projects of every language.
    Comment: You are missing the point. If someone doesn't understand English well enough to understand the English Wikiquote, then can use Wikiquote in their own language. If they are trying to learn English, the English Wikiquote would be best so that they can learn it properly. If they don't understand some words they can look them up in the Wikitionary of their choice. Simple versions of everything divides effort. --Pmsyyz 00:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Your second sentence is not always true. Some people who can read Simple English, but who cannot read English well, do not have any other language they can read. This includes children; people learning to read; some deaf people; and others. Some Deaf people have great difficulty learning to read because they haven't heard a language and can't benefit from the use of the alphabet as others do; they're also reading words in a different order from their native language, usually a sign language which does not have a written equivalent. Some people may want to see explanations of English quotes but do not read any other language. This also includes people who know English well but don't understand a quote because it's in archaic English. One group who can benefit greatly from a Simple English Wikiquotes is people who do read another language, but are trying to learn English without the distraction of seeing words in their own language (in an English-to-other-language dictionary) while trying to learn English. They can benefit from studying real English quotes along with explanations in Simple English to help them rather than (or in addition to) an interlanguage dictionary. Re your last sentence: I wish to be free to decide where to spend my own effort and time -- I do not wish to be corralled into projects other people believe are more important. For an example of a Wikiquote page with real English quotes and explanations in Simple English of the quotes please see wikiquote:simple:William Shakespeare. --Coppertwig 23:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Jon Harald Søby 22:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak Support The Jade Knight 23:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, How to simplify a quotation? It's impossible. --Taichi - (あ！) 02:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: please see my response below. We want to explain the quotes, not change them. We may also include a kind of "translation" into Simple English, just as all other Wikiquotes have them (per Aphaia). --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 22:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. — Timichal • 15:47, 16. Jun 2006
    Support I don't understand it either. 80.178.149.185 11:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: If you don't understand it, why not try to figure it out instead of voting to close? Allow me to try to explain (again): People who know little English often cannot understand famous quotes. SEWQ is made to be a place for the kind of explanation (or even "translation") that those people need. We have a specific audience, a specific intent, and a form of self-evaluation. We deserve to exist, or at least be given a chance. Oh, and please log in or create an account before voting. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 05:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I hate small Wikis! THEY MUST ALL DIE! --Node ue 00:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Is this a serious vote? --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 16:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Simple English wikibooks have reason for life, wikipedia so-so, but wikiquote? It's just wasting of hard disk space and proc time. 10 pages, 33 users.... SpeedyGonsales 10:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: read my explanations, please. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 16:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Is there a Wikinews edition, too? :) --Millosh 15:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Funny you should mention that: I personally feel like there should be. It would serve the same audience as all other SE projects: those who do not know English well. It would provide newsreporting in language that these people can understand, eventually, the reporting would be independent of EWikinews, but it could start by providing SE versions of their articles. Why not? --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 05:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I hate Simple English. Pietras1988 08:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support in favour of the already-existing Standard English one. I wonder how on earth the version in question got created? --Slgrandson 18:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Why is an SEWP contributor like you against another SE project? We serve the same community, we just do it in another capacity, allowing that community to enjoy the benefits of WQ, just as SEWP does in an encyclopedic context. I beg you to reconsider or at least give us a chance. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 05:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. 百家姓之四 05:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strongest Support You cannot change an original quote and dumb it down. Pronoun 17:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Can you translate a quote or state it in other words? Can you explain a quote? Are there people whose knowledge of English is limited but wish to use it anyway? Are there people on Earth that are learning English? Since the answer to all of these is clearly yes, Simple English Wikiquote unquestionably has a reason to exist, since these are what it is all about. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 16:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong Support closing - it's clearly nonsense --Antares 21:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I strongly disagree. Check my explanations, such as the one above your vote. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 16:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, LOL. What good is a "simple" quote? -- King of Hearts 00:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Let's see...a way for people with limited vocabulary to understand the quote...a help for people learning the language...a clear explanation for those who know the language but do not themselves understand the quote.... Certainly there's at least some good. Give us a chance. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 16:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support --Davidlud 01:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support per nom. I find it weird. --Tone 15:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per nom. Bogdan 13:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Per nom. MaxSem 09:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per nom. Edward Chernenko 12:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Dont see any purpose in this project.--Nxx 17:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Without bothering with any argument on whether or not you are able to modify a "quote," i will point out that quotes that are idomatic, are idiomatic for a reason; that if even people with a perfect understanding of english have a hard time interpreting the quote, there is a reason for it. The reason just so happens to be, and very inherent to it, that there is no universal interpretation, there is no such thing as a "correct" interpretation. 24.10.247.251 01:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    'Comment: Perhaps there is no one "correct" interpretation of a quote; but there are people who feel baffled by expressions like "come what come may", and after reading an explanation or translation of them, then look again at the original quote and feel that they understand it. I think that's progress. If they are able to read and understand a translation of the quote into another language, they may prefer to use that either instead of reading the English quote or as an aid to understanding the English quote. But there are people who do not read and understand any other languages but who can understand a Simple English explanation and then read the quote. And there are people learning languages who prefer to read a simple explanation in the same language to help them understand the quote, rather than switching languages back and forth right when they're trying to learn a language. Just because some people prefer to use translations into another language doesn't mean we need to deprive those who like to use simple text in the same language, or deprive some Deaf people and others who do not read any other language but who can read Simple English. (Some Deaf people read English well and some cannot easily learn to read it -- their native language may be sign language which may have no written form.) --Coppertwig 04:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Supoort; --Slade ♠ 17:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, even if explaination of the quotes would be useful, it would be on the wrong project anyway. There would be conflicts of interest with wikibooks or wikiversity. The SE Wikiquote is most-likely a duplication of effort or an effort that is done in the wrong wikispace. Lincher 19:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, as there will be no reliable sources for simple-English translations. Wikimedia editors should never claim to explain anything without sources, however well-intentioned they may be. (Why should we believe any particular user? The whole Wikimedia system is based on the requirement that we don't create material, we report and assemble.) Years of practical wiki experience tell me that we just won't get anyone to provide the few sourced "translations" that we could potentially find. The only justification I could see for an SE Wikiquote would be to translate the policy pages, which could often use simplification on any Wikimedia project. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I disagree. Wikipedia is all about providing interpretations and rewordings of available material. Very little in Wikipedia is taken word-for-word from sources; if it was, it would be plagiarism. Also, a great deal of Wikipedia is translated by Wikipedian editors. See for example wikipedia:en:Wikipedia:Translation into English/French, a busy project page which facilitates Wikipedian translators providing translated content for Wikipedia. There are many other such busy translation project pages. For example, I provided wikipedia:en:Hellenistic art as my own translation of wikipedia:fr:Art hellénistique which was itself not taken word-for-word from source material but was written by another Wikipedian editor based on bibliographic material. --Coppertwig 04:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Quotes are not the same thing as encyclopedia prose. You can (and must) reword text sourced by others for the latter. But Wikiquotes must include original text — that's their entire purpose. Interpreting these quotes can and often does devolve into original research. Even a casual examination of the atrocious state of proverb articles on en:Wikiquote will demonstrate this fact. I would suggest that the easier it is to "translate" a quote unambiguously into simple English, the less necessary it is to do so. Many of the pithiest quotes are deliberately complex, including metaphors, symbols, multiple meanings, and other elements that would require virtual essays to properly explain in simpler terms. The potential for unsourced "opinionating" — the bane of Wikimedia projects — is far too great. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    CommentThe idea of wikiquote simple english is to have a quote in english, and then take that quote and turn any non simple words into simple english.--Sir James Paul 16:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Quotes in English are in English. Poppypetty 18:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment:Does this mean you think we should delete quotes of people such as Aristotle from the English wikiquote, and delete all the interwikis for the Shakespeare quotes? --Coppertwig 03:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Attempting to "simplify" quotations destroys the very notion of a "quotation," and introduces the simplifiers original research & POV. See for example [1]. Just doesn't make sense. --ZimZalaBim 18:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support The whole point of a quote is to show the person's original words, not simplified ones. --paris456 9:24, 13 December 2006 (EST)
    Comment Note that this is my contribution, even though an IP address was logged. --paris456
    Comment: Perhaps there is some confusion around the terms "Simple English" and "simplification". A passage translated into Simple English is not actually any simpler than the original passage. It has been translated into a specialized language, that's all. Any meaning or nuance which can be represented in English can also be represented in Simple English. Simple English can compensate for a restricted vocabulary by rendering some passages longer in translation (just as I've noticed translations from English into French often tend to be a little longer than the original). Just as computers store much complex information using only the two bit-values "0" and "1", people can represent much complex information in Simple English. Are you against translation of quotes into other languages, too? I see the William Shakespeare English Wikiquote page has 23 interwikis, presumably all containing translations of Shakespeare's words. Do you think that should all be deleted? Do you think the quotes of Aristotle should be deleted from the English Wikiquote because they're not the original words? --Coppertwig 03:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How can you make a quote simple? Thunderhead 21:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A quote translated into Simple English is not necessarily simple. Information stored on a computer is stored with only two bit-values, 0 and 1, but can be quite complex. Similarly, information translated into a language with a limited vocabulary but with no restriction on the length of utterances or the arrangements of the words can also be quite complex. --Coppertwig 18:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per all above, and also because I have no idea why someone whose English is poor would be doing looking up quotes anyway. One of the most beautiful things about most quotes is the meaning contained in the choice of words. By translating it into another language means you lose much of that meaning - but by translating it into Simple English means you are losing that meaning without reason. Let people read it in the original. Dev920 14:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to be unaware of the existence of intelligent people who do not read English. --Coppertwig 18:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support closure per all above plus if you need more understanding, use the wikiquote in your own language or use wikiversity. --Grcampbell 17:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. The opinions are higher ower perfectly already have told.--Afinogenoff 04:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - I see simple.wikipedia as an invaluable resource with enormous potential that deserves a place as a twin to english; having said that, I agree with the nominator - you can't put a quote into simple english - then it's not a quote. Granted, the evaluation, etc.. could be in simple - but that can be placed as a small section in the quotation - not on a whole other project. Anthonycfc [T • C] 22:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: You, along with most of the supporters of closure, are ignoring something: without translation, no English speaker alive would have any idea what (for example) Aristotle, Dante, or Jesus said (or is supposed to have said). Translating a quote is 100% legitimate, as I'm sure we can agree on. SEWQ simply is translating for a particular audience: an audience that does not speak/understand English fluently, but would like to understand quotes in English. Give us a chance! --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 12:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC) (login problems)[reply]
    Good point, but you're missing something as well, Cromwellt. When one supplies reliable sources for translated quotes, as one is supposed to do, they are backed up by the professional reputations of the translators. This follows the Wikimedia philosophy of avoiding original research. It is possible to do this from standard to simple English, but much harder to find sources for this kind of simplification. (See the comments in vote #28 above.) If someone wanted to try it, I'd go looking in children's books, whose audience is known to have a lesser command of the language. (I'd expect the same of ESL books, whose audience has some of the same challenges with English, but I don't know how much of an audience there is for books likely to contain simplified quotes.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Translation is a normal activity of Wikipedians, not considered Original Research. See wikipedia:Wikipedia:Translation_into_English. --Coppertwig 03:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Translating articles is a normal activity of Wikipedians. The material being translated is wiki-editor written, and need not be optimally or even accurately translated, because other editors can be counted on to use the cited sources (or add some of their own in English) to correct the translated material to match the sources. Wikiquote is an entirely different creature, because it claims to cite the original material. Translations of such should be professional done and sourced, for the same reason we require professionally edited information for sources on Wikipedia. Attempts by wiki editors to interpret original material are original research. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing wrong with giving a translation when the original quoted text, in the original language, is also given. Policies may differ between projects, but here for example is a quote from an English Wikipedia guideline: "However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it." (en:Wikipedia:Citing sources). --Coppertwig 01:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Besides, books such as the Annotated Shakespeare or the Annotated Alice can be used as sources of simple explanations of quotes. --Coppertwig 00:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Using Annotated Shakespeare would be following my advice that translations be sourced, which provides at least an initial justification for Simple English WP. There remain two problems which I don't see as practically resolvable. First, as I quote myself from above, "Years of practical wiki experience tell me that we just won't get anyone to provide the few sourced 'translations' that we could potentially find." Second, wholesale quoting of translations from a copyrighted Annotated Shakespeare would be just as much a copyvio as if we did wholesale quoting of any other modern work. The very few instances of public-domain annotated works would make for a pitifully tiny SE WP. Thus my argument against the project. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeff Q, I don't understand your argument, " Wikiquote is an entirely different creature, because it claims to cite the original material." Simple English Wikiquote does cite the original material: that is, it quotes the exact, unchanged, original words of the original quotes, just as English Wikiquote does; as well as providing translations into Simple English beside them, which English Wikiquote does not. This is just as is done in English Wikipedia when a non-English-language source is cited and the Wikipedian is encouraged to provide a translation as well as quoting the original words. --Coppertwig 16:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - I don't think this will work. As one can see on simple.wikipedia, simplifying language usually leads to over-simplified content, which would be fatal for quotes. --Head 03:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support For simpler content to be understood by a not-too-good English user, footnote is enough. --✉Hello World! 14:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Since there is no such language and as such no sources in this language can exist.--Nxx (ru:Участник:Nxx) 18:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support What do we get more... Simple Gothic Wikisource? --Ooswesthoesbes 06:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support no real language, I see no difference between Simple English and English, no Simple English quotes. --Markvondeegel 10:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. With all my respect to the contributors of the SE WQ, quoting original English phrases in Simple English sounds like falsifying quotes to me. While the reason "it's easier to learn English" may be okay for an encylopedia, it's not okay here. Either I understand a quote in English (or another language) or I use a dictionary. It doesn't help me to learn English when I understand all the simple quotes but don't understand what a politician says in an interview. --32X 16:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support don't need a quote in a simplified language, nobody does. Vælke 16:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. There are probably little (if any) Simple English quotes; one could simply ask for an explanation of a quote in a simpler manner on the English Wikiquote. Footnotes are fine with me also. Sr13 07:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Strong support Any author who wants to dumb down content, it can be done within the mainstream en.wikipedia in the very same article. An encyclopedia trying to dumb down content for readers - oh irony. There was time once upon a time when encyclopedias were there to boost education and sport the cream of the crop. Now we have Simple English wikis, Special Olympics, Ebonics projects.... Elephas 20:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose closing SE WQ

  1. Oppose. 2 editors (including me) are now working to turn this project around, give us a chance on this one. Archer7 12:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. This project is still just starting, but it is unfair to judge a project before you give it a chance. The idea of this project is not to paraphrase quotes. The idea is to take the quotes (just as they are) and explain them, using simple English so that users who have limited vocabularies can understand them. This project is valid, and it is only the unwarranted and inexplicable malice of one admin on SEWikipedia towards all other Simple English projects that has brought this nomination, in spite of the fact that the rest of the Simple English community including SEWikipedia accepts these projects as valid and valuable, serving the same audience as SEWikipedia itself. This project, though only beginning, has a reason to exist and some activity. It deserves to exist. --Cromwellt|talk|contris 10:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. To be honest, I don't understand what this project is going to do. But if people are working on it, then give them a chance. Gerard Foley 10:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, this project probably won't take very long to get it up to a reasonable standard. If people don't like it then, lock it. Archer7 20:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support What is this for, anyway? The randompage function gave me "Current events" and some list of people whose quotes are on wikiquote. And almost all the pages just link back to the main page. What a horrible WASTE of...whatever it is wikis are really made of ;). --M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Archer7. Perhaps we can have modern English "translations" of famous old quotes. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, as per Archer7. -- Zanimum 19:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. In addition to the above, it has multiple editors with multiple edits within the past month; EN Wikiquote similarly languished with minimal activity with a long lagtime after EN Wikipedia started getting heavy activity--Simple English Wikiquote should be allowed the same measure of 'catch up' time since the recent dramatic increase in activity at the Simple 'pedia. Plain, modern English 'translations' of quotes seems very desirable. Freshstart 02:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Though "the modern English" isn't totally eqaul to SE, translations of both famous old English quotes and other languages still make a sense (ENWQ has a lots of translation, like Goethe, Descartes, Confucius ...). Now there are people who want to challange to revive it, and it will be fine to give them a chance for a while. --Aphaia 08:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose I've sent friends and people who are not good at the English language to the SE wiki (although not wikiquote yet), they're decent resources and should remain. Give them a chance, it could be another decent place for people who require simple English --62.173.194.7 12:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Please log in or create an account before voting, since votes from IP addresses are not generally counted. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 19:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose I would rather see all Basic English materials left on Wikipedia. Its a lot more useful. Those that don't know English well, the Deaf [like me], and those whose brains cannot handle the complexities of normal English and the already too-huge vocabulary all need Basic English resources. I'm THRILLED Wikipedia offers these things, including Basic English Wikibooks. I have a hard time understanding textbooks. I used to be good at normal English, but that all changed as I slowly became deaf. With ASL quickly becoming my new native language, I can't keep up with the complex English and require the Basic English. If I have to, I'll get on the Basic English editing staff and help out, just to keep this resource open.
    Comment: Please log in before voting. Anonymous votes are not usually considered in a wiki context. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 16:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose --Kernigh 04:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Maksim 15:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per Cromwellt & Archer7. — Randy Johnston (talk • contribs) 00:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Ek7 20:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Simple Wikiquote should not be used to shorten or simplify complex quotes. It is meant as a place to place original quotes that happen to be originally said in simple language. It should definitely not be shut down. It's not hurting anyone.
    Comment: While I'm glad you agree that we deserve to exist, I must disagree with your opinion of SE WQ's purpose. While there are a very small number of quotes that might naturally fit at SE WQ, those quotes would also fit perfectly at E WQ, thereby negating any usefulness in that way. The vast majority of quotes are much too complex for people with a limited knowledge of English to understand. These people need explanation and/or "translation" of these quotes, using a restricted vocabulary of words they already know or can easily learn (using resources like SE Wiktionary). That is what SE Wikiquote is for. Oh, and don't forget to log in before voting, since anonymous votes are not usually counted in a wiki context. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 16:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per the other bazillion good reasons provided by opposers. Alkivar 09:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose, per reasons stated above.-- Tdxiang 05:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose, I oppose closing Simple English Wikiquote. I think many of the people who want to close it do not understand the purpose of Simple English Wikiquote. The purpose of Simple English Wikiquote is to provide quotes in real English, along with explanations in Simple English of the quotes. See for example wikiquote:simple:Aristotle. I think this is useful for many people. It is useful for children and young adults and even some adults who speak English but do not understand the quotes in English. The quotes may be things they hear sometimes but do not understand because they're in older English, for example quotes from Shakespeare. Or they may think they understand but are not sure or have it wrong. A Simple English explanation can help. Another group who can benefit is some Deaf people or some other people who may not be able to read any language well, but some of them may be able to read Simple English. They may want to understand a quote, and explanations or translations in another language won't help because they don't read any other language, but they may be able to read Simple English. Another group who can benefit is people learning English. Many people learn a language better if they do not use their own language every few seconds while trying to learn another language. Looking up translations of words into their own language in a dictionary gets them thinking in their own language and distracts from learning the other language. But reading a quote in real English with help from a Simple English explanation, instead of an interlanguage dictionary, can help them learn real English without the distraction of their own language getting in the way. I have recently started contributing to Simple English Wikipedia and Simple English Wiktionary and I've just discovered Simple English Wikiquote. It looks like a good thing that I may contribute to. I may also read it -- I'm not always sure I understand all those quotes either. --Coppertwig 23:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose, I see no case for closure based on scarcity of resources. Closure seems about reducing diversity. If project is growing and not supporting terrorism then let it be. Opponents, however, should not be forced to paricipate. SmithBlue 17:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. ""Oppose""--Sir James Paul 22:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. If all the articles were like the Shakespeare quotes article, this would be a great resource for the intended audience. User:BlankVerse 11:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose - I don't see the reason to close an active active project. I think the nomination was made in with a misunderstanding of the purpose. J.smith 00:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per, inter al., J.smith and SmithBlue (in whose principal submission, if not whose particular locutions [I don't think closure is essayed here to reduce diversity], I concur). Jahiegel 05:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose It certainly has potential. --Majorly 22:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Opposee after a second look, you can see that it is a good idea and is just like SE WP. It gives the quotes and then simplifies them for other users. Cbrown1023 22:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose, if anything it's an enhanced version of the regular en.wikiquote, especially in the case of the Shakespeare example. -- Steel en:Steel 12:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. OpposeQuotes can be simplified by omitting words, using ellipses to show the omissions, and brackets can explain difficult words. For example, I would suppose that Abraham Lincoln would understand if he saw in Simple English Wikiquote the following: "Four score and seven years ago [87 years ago], our fathers...[created]...a new nation..." With such simplification goes the responsibility to direct the reader to the original source of the quote. Now, I must state that I have recently created a page for Friedrich Kellner on Simple English Wikiquote, which is in eight other Wikiquote languages. So I probably am not as objective about this as the rest of you. Nevertheless, as the holder of the copyright for the Friedrich Kellner diary, I would have no arguments with anyone simplifying my grandfather's words, because my grandfather wanted to reach as many people as possible. Scott (User:Rskellner)--74.192.18.138 20:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC) [NOTE]: I have now registered on Meta. I'm sorry I didn't do that before I voted here. Scott --Rskellner 20:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. OpposeI belive that people who use the Simple English Wikis... should have the fair deal! What about the people who can only use the Simple English Wikis? They should not be left out! Would you like it if this happened to you? Wikinerd2000 01:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose Making knowledge accessable is not going to destroy it. --Haikon 09:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose Why on earth would you close an active project?
    1. At a glance, it looks like there are now about 100 or so pages in Mainspace excluding redirects, etc.
    2. Quotes are not simplified -- they're shown without alteration, then explained in Simple English.
    Seems like a no-brainer to keep this -- why are we even discussing deletion? --A. B. (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose --V111P 19:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose On behalf of all those people out there who either speak English as their mother tongue and still have difficulty understanding everything they read and also on behalf of all those learners out there who are desperately trying to improve their knowledge of English and are unable to understand quotes that are sometimes just incomprehensible for reasons of poetic license, complicated old fashioned grammar or spelling or their (as yet) insufficient English , I vehemently oppose shutting this site down. After all, hasn´t the bible been continuously simplified in all languages over the centuries, in order to enable every inhabitant of our planet to be able to read and understand it? Maureencc, 6 p.m., Friday, 8th June 2007
  32. Oppose We can still expand. --24.34.77.145 20:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose The project seems in a healthy state. Can see how it aids translators works quite excellently, espescially the bits where difficult words meanings are explained, that is always the problem with translators who are only sufficiently proficient rather than brilliant, can save them lots of work dashing over to the wiktionary, paper dictionary or what not. Lastly, as there are people who do read at a lower level of proficiency, seems a shame to rob them of the potential use of a resource that this might burgeon into. Here we should have patience; and those who find us in time, will thank us. I wouldn't oppose creating a wikiquote entirely in cartoon, pictogram form either, for those who cannot read any language at all. That might be a great resource for people in developing parts of the world where literacy is still a battle in progress. -- Cimon Avaro 19:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose Themcman1 15:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose per Cromwellt - SEWq is trying to explain quotes in Simple English, not give simple english quotes. 68.224.239.145 21:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC) (Ionas68224 at simple.wikipedia)[reply]
  36. Oppose Simple English is not the same language as English. Anyone who says so has not studied theoretical Computer Science (which deals a lot with language structure) and Linguistics. English has an effectively infinite vocabulary, whereas Simple English has a finite vocabulary. Any restrictions in grammar would also make it a different language. The reason it doesn't appear to be one is that its words (one level of symbols) and grammar are a subset of English, so anyone reading it will understand what it means. Writing in it is a different matter. The combination of rules and symbols of English will lead to sentences that are not part of Simple English. Technically speaking you can translate something written in English into Simple English. And, by the way, a translation is a kind of explanation. It just tries to limit itself to a similar length. Trying to say that translations of foreign language quotes at the English Wikiquote aren't explanations of a sort is absurd. And, at least from the pages at the Simple English Wikiquote I went to, they do not do more than translate the quote into Simple English. So, they do get the explanatory value the SEWQ editors are (rightly) describing as positive, while not violating the general mission of Wikiquotes (as one editor claimed in the comments below). And, as someone who has studied numerous foreign languages, it is easy to see how having a quote in a simplified version of the language would be helpful in addition to having it in their native language. Many people here have pointed out other uses of SE quotes, even for native speakers. I don't see how this project can do any harm and there is an active community working on it. Baring serious resource issues, what reason could there ever be to delete the project? —Tox 15:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments SE WQ

  • I don't support the premise "quotes cannot be simplified". If they can be translated into other languages (eg, "Franchement très chère, je m'en fous."), then they can be translated into Simple English ("Honestly, my dear, I don't care." to give a bad example). There are plenty of quotations from the 19th century intellectuals (or even earlier) that would be much more understandable simplified! But in case that is supposedly not the aim of this project anyway...Stevage 11:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said in my support of the closure comment, this project is in conflict of interest with what WQ normally stands for (a repository of quotes and translations of quotes; not an explanatory reference desk for quotes). Secondly, it is also in conflict of interest with WBooks and Wversity for it serves the purpose of teaching (see Wikiversity for that) and the purpose of explaining/building material (see Wikibooks for that). This shouldn't be a matter of voting, it should instead be seen as using the right project for what they are, and as such, the SEWikiquote shouldn't take form as there are no actual simplified quotes in the english language. Lincher 20:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are translations of quotes into Simple English. What's wrong with having a Wikiquote for those? There are also no doubt some notable English quotes which happen to also be Simple English. I think you're getting the definition of "conflict of interest" mixed up with something else. Wikibooks and Wikiversity may not be set up to easily have interwikis from other Wikiquote projects. They are not the same thing. --Coppertwig 04:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that a page such as en:wikiquote:William Shakespeare has interwikis to many languages, with translations of the quotes into Italian, Spanish etc. Why shouldn't there also be translations into Simple English so that people such as some Deaf people who can read Simple English but not English or any other language can have the opportunity to read and enjoy these quotes? --Coppertwig 04:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking the other day about the reasons that SEWQ is needed, and there were two particular examples that I came up with. We need SEWQ for the same reason that I have a dual-language version of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, and for the same reason that my "Annotated Shakespeare" is the Shakespeare reference that I usually turn to for information on Shakespeare. BlankVerse 15:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some spot checking of a few quote pages and I didn't see any examples of the original and the simple english version, the way the main page described. Could someone give a link to one? That would help me make up my mind but I am leaning toward opposing closure. However I do note, looking at the recent changes that there does not seem to be a lot of activity. ++Lar: t/c 22:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just collected on the Main Page, in the first category under "Selected Pages", links to a number of pages which have English and Simple English, as the plan is for almost all pages to eventually have. Some of these pages are in progress. --Coppertwig 23:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note that after I changed the Main Page like that, there have been twice as many (6) votes opposed to closing the project as votes (3) supporting closing the project. --Coppertwig 13:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotes can be simplified, but to respect the authors, it is essential to provide any sources like linking to English Wikiquote. I refrain from registering a username there while it may be closed.--Jusjih 14:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Simple_English_Wikiquote&oldid=645575"