Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Chavacano Wikipedia

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

This is a proposal for closing and/or deleting a wiki hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is subject to the current closing projects policy.


The proposal is rejected and the project will be kept open.

  • Explanation by the closing Langcom member: The project is active. --Millosh (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Type: 1 (routine proposal)
  • Proposed outcome: closure.
  • Proposed action regarding the content: should be transferred to Wikimedia Incubator.
  • Notice on the project: [[1]] (Chavacano Wikipedia)
  • Informed Group(s): [[2]] (Wikimedia Philippines)

Rationale[edit]

Note: Sorry, but my english not is very good yet.

The Chavacano Wikipedia has the following problems:

  • Most of the articles are stubs.
  • Some articles or parts of articles are copypaste of articles of other Wikipedias (Spanish & English).

Link:

--Jrodriguezvillalobos (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Arguments/votes in favour[edit]

Arguments/votes against[edit]

  • Oppose It's still a little active in some days, I guess you wanna close it because it uses invalid language code "cbk-zam:"? Which should be "cbk"? If yes, please ask their community to request renaming the URL (psst what an ops action). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    cbk zam is to distinguish from the chabacano of Cavite.--Jondel (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    Can't we learn Xiang testwiki? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    Comment: When we went to University of the Philippines Visayas Tacloban College, a professor (I forgot the name) there stated that Chavacano de Cavite and Chavacano de Ermita are both extinct. Today, when you say Chavacano, it refers to Chavacano in Zamboanga. Therefore, it should be renamed to cbk because other Chavacano variants are extinct. --Jojit (talk) 07:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
    Indeed, so I posted this issue locally. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
    I am doubtful that Chavacano de Cavite is dead—as Blake Gripling mentioned in his vote, he has relatives who are native speakers of the language. Last time I heard, Chavacano de Cavite was endangered, not extinct. In addition, we must consider other Chavacano varieties as well, such as Ternateño, Chavacano de Abucay (Davao Chavacano), Cotabateño and the like. --Sky Harbor (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
    Renaming cbk-zam to just plain cbk would definitely be more fitting. Well, since we do have to account for other regional varieties of it anyway. The Chavacano in Cavite City is, yes, more or less endangered no thanks to migrants from other provinces for one thing, hence why the LGU has since encouraged its citizens to spread the language and continue using it through bilingual signages in public places, as what I mentioned in WT:TAMBAY. Blakegripling ph (talk) 07:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

┌──────────────────────────┘
Dear all users above: If you have consensus on renaming the URL, then one of you can request at Phabricator. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Now we have a Phabricator task on this topic: phab:T124657. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Additionally, the Tetum Wikipedia is also made by a number of Stubs, so I don't think a number of stubs can be reason to close it for me. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose -I couldn't devote time to it. As my new years resolution, I vow to devote time to it.--Jondel (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose As much as I would like to contribute, I'm not much of a Chavacano speaker (though my maternal relatives are native speakers) and I only have a rudimentary grasp of the language at best. That being said I wouldn't want to leave this project to rot either, hence my opposition. Blakegripling ph (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Had been editing there so don't call it dead --Exec8 (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, none of two arguments for closure are really valid. --Ghiutun 09:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]