Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Old English Wikibooks

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").

This wiki has become a nice spot for testing. Nothing useful happens there. Frozen Windwant to be chilly? 04:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Support[edit]

  1. Frozen Windwant to be chilly? 04:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Indeed. It is nothing more than an inactive sandbox for vandals. --Seahorseruler 04:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. All the recent edits (30 days) are pretty much in the user space, there's very little content and all the active users are people reverting vandalism... seems to be dead. QU TalkQu 20:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. Support -FASTILY (TALK) 18:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  5. No content is being created and what content there is totals even fewer pages than were present when Simple English Wikibooks was closed. Adrignola 19:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  6. Support: per above--Andrijko Z. 18:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  7. Support --   CR90  04:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  8. To be clear, this is a Wikibooks project, meaning that it is about creating textbooks for use in the target language. A Wikisource project makes sense, but surely we should not be creating new content in a dead language. If we are instructing modern readers on how to read Old English, then texts should be created for those languages on the appropriate projects. Many books are either sources, or exercises in archaic translation (I am not enough of an expert to be able to tell), but neither belongs on a Wikibooks project. For example, ang:Þæt Luces Godspell is en:Gospel of Luke. If this is a source, then it should be moved to Wikisource. If this is a translation exercise, who is this being translated for? Only the translator. A project for creating original content in a dead language is a vanity project, and if it is laying dormant, then let us bury it where it lies. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 12:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. Kanzler31 21:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Oppose It has enough contents I believe to keep it open. --OosWesThoesBes 05:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Many famous books were written in Old English. Keep it open there is a fair amount of content. Snood1205 21:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Per Snood1205. Besides, we should give other people a chance. Hydriz 13:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - This is one of the types of project that Old English very much needs, and is quite important. It can host many culturally important works of Old English, and therefore can exist for more reason than simply appreciation of the language. By nature, "books" dont really change very often, so a much lower edit count, in an obscure language, should still be acceptable. You cannot apply the standards of a major language Wikipedia, where information constantly changes to begin with. Wōdenhelm 20:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Additionally: Also, it currently hosts a needed vocabulary list for modern terms, for the OE Wikipedia, and for the OE community at large to make use of. Wōdenhelm 06:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
    To the above three voters: I believe you're mistaking Wikibooks with Wikisource here. "Famous books and works" belong on a Wikisource, not a Wikibooks, which is for original, instructional textbooks in a language. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
    It's still acting as a host to the needed modern terminology list needed for the Ænglisc Ƿikipædia though. Wōdenhelm 02:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Gott wisst 04:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  7. There are many books in Old English. It should not be deleted. Instead, we need to tell people to update it.--Vibhijain 13:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. Strong Oppose It's a small project, let it grow. -Djsasso 17:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Comment Comment Has the local community been informed about this? I see no notice of this closure request at the wiki affected. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes. I don't know the language though. Frozen Windwant to be chilly? 14:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
      • See this. --Seahorseruler 15:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks, I must have missed it somehow when checking the recent changes list. (I think the fact that an IP did it confused me.) Tempodivalse [talk] 00:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • How much of this could be moved to Wikisource? Because this could go either in oldwikisource or the English Wikisource... --- Cymru.lass 03:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    I was thinking the same thing. Some of the oppose votes above seem to be confusing the difference between Wikibooks and Wikisource. The former is for original instructional material, while the former is for literary works in the language (which is what the opposers seem to imply this wikibooks is). As such, I feel most of the current oppose rationales are somewhat invalid. I personally don't like closing projects just because they aren't active enough, but in this case I honestly don't see any usefulness to having instructional material in an utterly dead language. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

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