Jump to content

Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Limburgish Wiktionary

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

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

The result was KEEP. --MF-W 09:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing this, obvious bad faith nomination. -- Prince Kassad 18:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss again. Umbel 16:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time to close the Limburgish Wiktionary because of the following reasons:

  1. There's only 1 contributor: user:Ooswesthoesbes
  2. User:Ooswesthoesbes uses his bot to add interwikis on the English Wiktionary without approval: check
  3. User:Ooswesthoesbes uses his bot to create tons of stubs: check
  4. Limburgish is just a dialect and no real language and therefor the articles should be moved to the Dutch Wiktionary.
  5. The only non-bot activity is discussion. Many discussions are in English and Dutch.
  6. Because there's also a proposal to close the bot-o-pedia there should be a proposal for closing the bottionary too.
  7. The community of the Limburgish Wikipedia doesn't want to work on it, so if user:Ooswesthoesbes or his bot stop creating more articles the project should become death.
  8. There's much vandalism.
  9. All articles just contain 1 dialect and are useless to other people: check.
  10. user:Ooswesthoesbes made calculations and expects the Wiktionary to be larger than the Wikipedia in less than 150 days: check
  11. Because of regional differences of Limburgish it's impossible to make a Limburgish dictionary.

Support closure

[edit]

Oppose closure

[edit]
  • I'm not the only contributor, recently Fons, Benopat and Hoogvleet edited too.
  • I did not use my bot for the en interwiki's and it's irrelevant to the discussion.
  • There's no difference between creating 'stubs' by hand or by bot.
  • Limburgish is a language it has a ISO-1 code.
  • ½ the discussions are in Limburgish and what does it matter?
  • What does li.wikt have to do with vo.wp?
  • The community has expressed the currently don't want to work on it.
  • On every wiki is vandalism except the Gothic wikibooks.
  • Many articles contain more dialects: wae for example.
  • What does it matter if a Wiktionary is larger than a Wikipedia? Nothing.
  • A dictionary would be perfect if you don't know a typical word of Montfort like luiterke.
  1. --OosWesThoesBes 17:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 17:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Ridiculous proposal[reply]
  3. Waerth 18:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC) - I am getting sickened by the trend lately to destroy eachothers work (read proposing to close wiki's) just because someone has a beef with a user or because they feel a language is less important than what they speak.[reply]
  4. Malafaya 18:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC) This Wiktionary seems to have started some true activity only a few months ago. Why closing it when it just started? As for All articles just contain 1 dialect and are useless to other people, I find it perfectly normal for the locals user to work first on their own language. If I was to start a Wiktionary, you can bet I would have 99-100% of the words in the local wiki's own language for a start. P.S.: I have the same feeling as User:Waerth. Work and let work![reply]
  5. # Oppose, per OosWesThoeBes. Also note:
    1. To me the question should be: is there activity or not? Is something good produced, or not?
    2. Interwiki's are simply a measure of how popular a topic/word is in other projects. They're most often added with bots everywhere. This has nothing to do with whether or not a project is good.
    3. Bot-created stubs are not necessarily an evil sin -- they are everywhere, and they often help. Consider the arguments of the Association Of Those Who Think Bot-Created Stubs Are An Acceptable Way To Add Information To A Wikipedia.
    4. Language vs. dialect is a famous conundrum. Besides, this is not done with any of the dialectal projects, why should it be done with Limburgish?
    5. Discussion = interest. Interest by non-Limburgish speakers is also interest. On a cursory look, I've found discussions in Limburgish too (check [here]).
    6. Li.wiktionary and vo.wikipedia are different problems. There are proposals to close lots of projects; they all must be judged on their own merits. Does the proposal to close the Moldovan Wiktionary imply anything for li.wiktionary? Or the Aymara Wikibooks?
    7. I don't see any statements by li.wikipedia that they don't want to work on li.wiktionary. Where did this information come from?
    8. Vandalism is everywhere. Is it being fought on li.wiktionary? It seems it is.
    9. That doesn't mean there won't be more subdialects. All articles have places for them, and their speakers can jump in and complete them (or specialists can do that from reference works).
    10. Is this a problem? Is there a law that a Wikipedia should be bigger than its Wiktionary?
    11. This contradicts #9. Does the proposer want, or doesn't s/he want, more dialects? Besides, there are paper dialects of dialectal complexes worse than Limbugish (Breton, Rhaeto-Romance, etc.). As long as the dialectal variety of each word is indicated, I don't see how this should be difficult. Note also the existence of multi-language dictionaries.
All the reasons are rather perfunctory and superficial. Note that the proposer has been accused of chantage and blocked at li.wiktionary by the main contributor; the proposal thus looks like an act of revenge. See also Steinbach's comment in the discussion section below. One may indeed feel concerned by the possibility that anybody who feels angry at anyone else in a small project will soon be submitting closure proposals. --Smeira 04:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--81.207.113.94 15:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Ridiculous proposal![reply]

Discussion

[edit]

This Haeneberghen is clearly trolling. Most of his reasons are logical fallacies at best. As for the dialectal differences: Wiktionary is a necessary tool to deel with these incongruncies! How else are we supposed to record the differences between the Limburgish dialects? As it grows, it will be a useful tool indeed for learning particluar dialects, and for mapping the sometimes subtle differences between the various dialects. Indeed, all of the arguments for closure are essentially invalid. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 17:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Limburgish_Wiktionary&oldid=5436854"