Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Māori Wiktionary

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed.

Closed, as new policy is in place ("all current proposals will be made invalid").

I propose to close the Maori Wiktionary because it has had no activity for a long while. As far as I am aware no Māori speakers have ever contributed to the entries. One month ago I gave notice of this motion on the main page talk and there has been no response. I also repeated the notice on the Māori Wikipedia at mi:Talk:Hau Kāinga, no comments there either. Kahuroa 06:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support closure[edit]

  1. Support Support as nominator, content in a dictionary should be trustworthy, ie done by people who speak the language
  2. Support per nom. --Node ue 08:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support -FASTILY (TALK) 05:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. There just isn't enough there to warrant keeping it open. EVula // talk // // 05:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Regretfully. It'd be better for this to be revived properly when it is viable than to steep in this painful limbo. sonia 09:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose closure[edit]

  1. Oppose Messy, but has content.--Pineapple fez 08:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose Has content, just needs activity. --Diego Grez return fire 17:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose --Sarvaturi 08:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC) It contains some articles, even if there is mess.Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose There definitively is something there: [1]. As long as there are no major spam issues there is no problem with the site being there. Remember that closing the project won't help it much too. Now there's still the possibility that it can grow. --OosWesThoesBes 19:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose per above--Andrijko Z. 18:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose, wiki has activity, please leave small wikis grow slow, dictionaries take years, many many years to be written, also per this statement which applies to this here too., --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 15:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose This wiki has some recent edits. Me agrees with Spacebirdy. I-20the highway 22:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose Kanzler31 00:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose The wiki has some activity, I see a few new pages/edits in the past weeks. I don't understand why we would want to close projects just because they don't meet some arbitrary threshold of activity. What are the benefits of closing a project over letting it stay open, and give it time to expand? Mi.wikt has some entries [2] and this seems to be increasing, even if slowly (and what's the big rush? Paper dictionaries take years to make). I think we should be adding to our multilingual knowledge base, not removing from it. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Oppose Special:Statistics show at least one hundred entries so far, and I see the potential here for a wiktionary to grow. These dictionaries take time, unlike the immediate and on-the-spot Wikinews or Wikipedia, should be given more leeway in how long they take. Not only that, RecentChanges clearly shows some activity in the last month or so, and that's not just counting the bots. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Oppose --Vibhijain 13:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Oppose --N KOziTalk 05:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General comments[edit]

*Comment Comment Neutral Will have to think about it. Kanzler31 23:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.

Late comment[edit]

  1. Oppose. --Te Karere 10:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]