Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Basa Sunda Wikibooks

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The result of the following proposal for closing a WMF project is to KEEP the project as the proposer has withdrawn the request.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

The following discussion is closed: Withdrawn


The Basa Sunda Wikibooks is dead, has no content and no activity. See b:su:Special:Recentchanges, b:su:Special:Allpages and b:su:Special:Statistics. Given that there is no community, no activity except for Pathoschild bot and no content, I hereby propose this project to closed. Local announcement maid. Thanks. —Dferg (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

As per request [1]Dferg (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Dferg. I also left this message in su.wikipedia, just in case. Regards. -- 09:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, but please note that this is not a voting rather a discussion with arguments. Simple votes will be ignored :) Regards, —Dferg (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. It would be good to clearly state that in every proposal is open in Proposals for closing projects or, at least in the main page. How about highlighting the relevant bit? -- 11:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC) -- Is this alright? Regards. -- 11:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


  1. A favor - per the above explained reasons. —Dferg (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  2. Support. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  3. Not enough content to justify staying open; it's dead, and has been for quite some time. Chuck it into the incubator? EVula // talk // // 16:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  4. Pro Hasn't this been proposed for closure before? Anyway, no content or activity. -- Prince Kassad 08:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  5. Support per inactivity. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  6. Strong support - Sheesh, that might be the least active project I've ever seen! No edits at all during April 22? And only three edits between March 26 and April 12? Just out of curiosity, what happens to projects once they're closed? --Dylan620 Talk to the left, stalk to the right. 15:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    Useful content can get exported out to the Incubator, where it can still be edited by those with knowledge of the language. Not as elegant as having a dedicated project for the language, but that's why we only use it for growing projects to standalone sites or archiving (in editable form) closed projects. EVula // talk // // 15:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  7. Support Completely inactive, content-free wiki. Tempodivalse [☎] 17:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  8. Support closure -- stats indicate this project is moribund. --A. B. (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  9. Support - inactive & unused wiki. – Innv | d | s: 10:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)



  1. Neutral I can understand why some people might want to close this project, but I don't see how moving the content to the incubator will make a difference. Someone who understands that language is much more likely to find it at than in the incubator and it doesn't do any harm to be a separate project. Even though the only administrator hasn't edited in 6 months, many wikis have no sysops at all. Does this mean that they will all be closed? While I agree that this wiki has little or no useful content, I'm not convinced that closing it is the best solution. GT5162 (我的对话页) 21:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
    I see that Dferg has rewritten the rationale for closing this project, but I believe that there may be a better solution. Since is still active, it may be a good idea to remind them of this project (if this has not already been done) and see if they decide to contribute to it before closing it. GT5162 (我的对话页) 11:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


  • I think the "close this in one week" is a bit too short of a time period; though I think it's a fairly straight-forward matter, I do think it's an unfortunate precedent to set. If we're going to fastball a closure request, I think we should allow them to run for about a month before calls to close. EVula // talk // // 14:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - removed that part. Thanks for your kind comments. —Dferg (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Everytime I promote Wikipedia (as our biggest project), I always promote all the sister projects and say "it's waiting for your edit & contribution...". I admit that our language version is not as hot as the others, because our culture on reading (and writing) is still low, plus the internet penetration in our community. So, if not closing the site doesn't make too much difference/cost, why should we? I've tried to promote more on this, but if you guys think that it's better to close it and move into incubator, it's ok. :D --Kandar 04:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    I have no special interest in closing projects. If they are inactive at all and have no community and no content, well. But if you want to start contributing in the project yourself or with a couple of people I will be really happy to withdrew this request and help you with the tasks. —Dferg (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


(English) Well, I've been monitoring this wiki since the proposal was open and I have found that it is starting growing very slow and some users started editing in there, but in fact growing. The important thing for me is the content a wiki it has, not the activity level, number of admins, et cétera. I do not expect all wikis to grow as fast as other wikis like or basically because English and Spanish are spoken by millions of persons in the world and other languages have a very peculiar localization, small number of speakers and other circumnstances. I humbly think that what this project needs is more time to develop. This is for that I'm going to close this proposal and withdraw this request. If others think that the project should be closed they should open a new PFCP. Thank you. df|  10:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
(Spanish) He estado monitorizando este proyecto desde que abrí esta discusión y desde entonces me he dado cuenta de que el proyecto está creciendo muy lentamente, pero creciendo. Lo importante para mí en los proyectos Wikimedia no es el nivel de actividad o el número de administradores activos en los mismos, sino el contenido válido que puedan albergar. No espero (ni podemos exigir) que todas las wikis crezcan al nivel de es.wikipedia o en.wikipedia básicamente porque el español y el inglés son hablados por millones de personas en diferentes partes del mundo y otras, como puede ser esta, tienen una localización específica, sus hablantes son reducidos o el proyecto necesita más tiempo para desarrollarse. Creo que a este proyecto en particular es lo que le hace falta: más tiempo para desarrollarse y es por lo tanto que, como proponente y bajo mi responsabilidad he decidido renunciar a esta discusión. Si otra persona cree que este proyecto debiera de ser cerrado, que se sirva abrir una nueva propuesta. Gracias por su atención. df|  10:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)