- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.
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 proposal has been made because of inactivity, which alone is not a valid reason for closure. It is to add that meanwhile one contributor has become active. Looking at the possibility of "additional problems" per the policy: Comments have been made doubting the possibility of using the invented language Lojban in order to write a Wiktionary. I see no reason why it should in principle be impossible to do it just because of its particular structures. --MF-W 00:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This project has only 86 content pages. It never has real activity, it hasn't got any sysop. Przemub (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support Attempting to describe Lojban words in Lojban is pretty silly, and all the pages I've looked at were in English (some even in Spanish) and not Lojban. -- Liliana • 20:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Just on that first point: technically Wiktionary is for describing words in every language, not just the language of the project. Whether this particular wiki does that at the moment is another matter, but the purpose is still credible. Osiris (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- .i do jinvi lo du'u lo mu'a nu ciksi lo se valsi be fi lo glibau bau lo glibau cu zmadu lo nu ciksi lo se valsi be fi lo jbobau bau lo jbobau kei lo ka ce'u plixau ku lo vajni kei fo ma ni'o finti so'i lo ciksi vlacku ku noi lo se judri be zoi .url. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defining_vocabulary .url. ku srana ke'a .i lo nu go'i ku nibli pe'i lo nu lo te finti ku zasti .i ko catlu lo se judri be zoi .url. http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/export/xml-export.html?lang=jbo .url. ku noi so'i lo lojbo valsi ciksi notci ku pagbu ke'a
- Support Only one non-automated edit in the past 30 days, randomly sampled 10 pages, 8 were English, and one blank. No administrators at all, and out of the 9 active users, two were people. The two people were using an automated process for global .js/.css files. Frood (talk) 03:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm the admin, and I'm sorry I've let this slip over the years. I'm going to try to get more activity on that wiki. AugPi has posted a few defs recently. Defining Lojban words in Lojban is no more silly than defining Esperanto words in Esperanto or French words in French. PierreAbbat (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is, because of the nature of the Lojban language. It's not like any natural language out there; it's basically a system of commands, and you cannot describe those in the same language because the language doesn't account for that possibility. It's like trying to define Python functions in Python, or C++ functions in C++. -- Liliana • 16:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, you should not think of Lojban as being too much like Prolog. Even though Lojban's syntax is crispy (not fuzzy) and can be checked by computer, and even though it is inspired by predicate logic (just like Prolog), it is not a programming language. Lojban gismu can be combined into "metaphors" (tanru) which should allow, IMO, enough overlap in the meaning of Lojban words to make them inter-definable. —AugPi (t) 03:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, the anon's second link already provides definitions — a boatload of them! —AugPi (t) 04:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I have started adding Lojban definitions of Lojban words; jbo.wikt now counts 96 content pages. (Yes, this was due to Liliana's comment. Before, I did not see how to describe a Lojban word's place structure in terms of Lojban itself; afterwards, I had a little insight, which was followed by a better insight by PierreAbbat (to use ko'a, ko'e, ..., ko'u for the sumti places). @PierreAbbat: you are the admin... of jbo.wikipedia, not jbo.wiktionary; jbo.wiktionary currently has no admin (and no bureaucrat either); see its Special:Statistics page. Someone would need to apply for adminship at the Steward_requests/Permissions page... —AugPi (t) 03:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Inactivity is not a valid reason for closure; Lojban has an online presence. As an Esperantist, I dislike seeing serious conlangs being discriminated against. It's not "silly" to have a dictionary in this language any more than it it's "silly" to define Slovenian words in Slovenian or Catalan words in Catalan; actually Lojban far more profound than the "pig-latin-like toy" that a lot of people make it out to be. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support. I have no doubt that Tempodivalse is earnest, but this is still a linguistic toy without real-world use. Even the threat of deletion encouraged a burst of new content creation up to, err, a tiny fraction of what a usable dictionary should have - and the new creations look like . A handful of microstubs does not make a usable dictionary and it seems unlikely that it will reach that destination (even if we made a monthly move to delete it, each month's bout of microarticle creation would show diminishing returns). bobrayner (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. As said above, inactivity is not a good reason for closure. I also see some moderate activity going on right now, and no vandalism, so I see no reason to close. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Per Liliana TheChampionMan1234 (talk) 03:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.