Jump to content

Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Ndonga Wikipedia

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The project has been informed on its main page: ng:Hambili Tarkerazu. --MF-W 12:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC) i'll modify whatever i please okay[reply]

I am opposing the closure of this project. For the past few weeks, I have been looking into Wikimedia's project and how I can contribute. Good news is that I am a native Ndonga language speaker as well as a linguistic expert and I believe I can contribute to this page to ensure that it grows, and more articles still comes about. Jacobamakali (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is closed: Project to be closed per consensus. —§ stay (sic)! 06:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- 00:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the Ndonga Wikipedia should be kept, but I want to hear your opinion. It has four stubs (if you count the list of the books of the bible), one image-only page, and the Main Page. The Recent changes log shows no activity apart from spam cleanup. -- Prince Kassad 21:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bugzilla:22071 filed. —§ stay (sic)! 06:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support closing

  1. I feel it better be closed. I do have admin access to that wiki but I visit it only very infrequently. I have just been there and I found that every single page had been vandalised once again. This wiki has zero real activitiy and near zero content. Absolutely, this is a classical case for the incubator. --Johannes Rohr 07:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support closure. Better to be put in the Incubator. Sr13 20:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. With 3 articles and about zero community/activity, it's definitely a good case for the Incubator, where it should be given the chance to evolve. Malafaya 14:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. I'm not sure I fully understand how the Incubator works, but surely it's meant for something like this, which would be fantastic to have, but is not really "an encyclopedia" (yet). I mean, it contains less text in its own language than your average personal ad. AshleyMorton 10:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC) (By the way, I know that my vote might not count, because I actually only signed up for a Meta account today, but I have been a sporadic editor at en. and occasionally at fr. for several years.)[reply]
  5. Support No activity, 5 articles, non-existing localisation, lots of spam activity. Move contents to Incubator and close until it has an actual community and proves to be viable. Siebrand 15:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - The Incubator is the best place for this wiki. --Jorunn 19:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support The arguments against moving this wiki to the Incubator are either very weak or non-existent. Leptictidium 11:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Put it in the incubator. It's one of the most useless Wikis. Filper01 08:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Move to incubator. This is the best place for it at this point in its' development. It has no active community. Cheers, Razorflame 07:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support No real content, only target for vandals. Hugo.arg 14:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. support: dead as a horse and there are hardly any real arguments of the oppose-side (only votes). --OosWesThoesBes 16:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Spamlink existed on the main page for nearly two months! --Filemon 15:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support There's no real content. Move it to the incubator. Bloodmerchant 15:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Ndonga Wikipedia is absolutely useless. Consequently, I Support. Pmlineditor 12:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support: lacked enough activity. Alexius08 16:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support Strong support: I definitely agree. This wiki should go into the incubator because I've head that all the articles were vandalised and because the wiki has been up for 3 years and there is no progress. Heck, if it doesn't accumulate more info in the incubator, it may be rejected even further into the Incubator Plus. I agree. Rascal the Peaceful 13:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Obviously nobody maintains the wiki, so it should be moved to the incubator wiki until some native speaker of the language comes along to improve the Mediawiki translations and adds content. --თოგო (D) 10:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Twenty articles, mostly one-line-stubs. No progress. Bin it. Microchip08 sewb 11:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. --Janneman 07:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC) per Johannes Rohr.[reply]

Oppose closing

  1. Oppose --Chabi 10:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Not to close but to move it to Incubator --Russkij 15:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose --Node ue 00:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose --Johnson40213 07:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Ilaria - scrivimi 07:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC) this wiki can grow if we wait some another months[reply]
  6. Oppose Better than closure was, imho, to make more people aware of this Wikipedia, and best to make internet access cheaper and more widespread among the Ndonga speakers. Don't try to measure these parts of Africa with European, and USAmerican scales! --Purodha Blissenbach 17:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Keep it up. Ndonga needs a chance! -- 09:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC) IP vote, please log on -- Prince Kassad 18:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Oppose This wiki is not inactive. It needs a chance.--Johnson40213 10:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC) You can only vote once. --Jorunn 19:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose --Budelberger 23:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC) ().[reply]
    1. Oppose 16:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC) IP vote, please log on -- Prince Kassad 18:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Oppose -- 11:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC) IP vote, please log on -- Prince Kassad 18:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose --Holder 12:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Oppose --— The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) IP vote, please log in. --Jorunn 00:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose--agree with User:Purodha--冰热海风 04:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose I wonder why all those opposing comments were invisible in the edited text? I changed this. I think every initiative to promote African languages should be respected, even if it is far from being as quantitatively meaningful as its European and American counterparts.--Jummai 07:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose----Biŋhai 09:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose----Each language has the right to exist. Let's give them a chance!--Jfblanc 10:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose I agree with the last comment. I am in favour of keeping it open. Bonzostar 13:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose---- There are no need to close this wiki. Give them chance! Tadija 14:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose---- Please don't closed. Md. Farhan 10:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose---- Give them chance! Each language has the right to exist. Reder 00:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose---- Within a few years, I'm sure it will grow! -- 22:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)User:Pineapple Fez IP vote --Filemon 12:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indented sockpuppet !vote. — Dferg (disputatio) 22:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose---- Per all opposition. CapedFrito 20:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indented sockpuppet !vote. — Dferg (disputatio) 22:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose---- I see hope for this project. Faded-Myth-Of-Fate 17:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indented sockpuppet !vote. — Dferg (disputatio) 22:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose----I think all languages have to have a tranlase to explaind their language properly. In my opinion minoritary languages wikipedias have to stay being that they are to foment them culture and language. If you need something tell me in Vasque wikipedia.--Joxezin (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Voting ended years ago.[reply]

General comments

Another case of potential users to pay for the consequences of others' impatience? No thanks. I do not picture many possible future Sango speakers having things easy in an environment as Incubator. Not to mention this. The Incubator is only good for very few and specific cases (basically when testing is required by an existing community or by a few users glad to do so) and for savvy editors (not quite a likely situation for many minority language speakers). Imho Incubator is not being used but abused and I do not see a real point in chucking Sango Ndonga Wikipedia away into it just because of somebody else's impatience. -- 13:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the Ndonga Committee of Users

We highly disapprove of this purposal and are willing to do anything it takes to save it from deletion like right now we had someone make a full fledge article in Ndonga. AfroUnderscoreStud 01:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Publicizing role of incubator

If closure means that Ndonga Wikipedia is in the "incubator" what does that mean, and is there any effort to spread the word or work with potential contributors (such as the above appears to be)? Or does "incubator" in fact merely serve as a way station to deletion? (Sorry if the last question sounds a bit pointed, but that impression is not uncommon.)--A12n 14:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]