Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Old English Wikibooks 2

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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 accepted and the proposed actions should be taken.

  • Explanation by the closing Langcom member: Langcom proposed to the Board to close the wiki with the following rationale: Wikibooks is for textbooks and manuals, but nobody is writing them in this extinct language nor is there much reason why someone would want to /read/ them.
    Wikisource is the appropriate project for texts in this language. In fact, some pages on the wiki do belong to Wikisource, and should be moved there. This is also consistent with Langcom's previous decisions that ancient languages should above all have Wikisource, but the other projects are not all suitable for them. English Wikisource also hosts Old English texts, so there is not even a need for a separate ang-wikisource.
    Content should be moved to Incubator, or, where appropriate, to Wikisoure. --MF-W 10:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC) – After there were no objections, bug T78667 was created. --MF-W 14:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

(See also the previous request, closed for procedural reasons.) There are several reasons why Old English Wikibooks should be closed:

  1. The project has no community. No meaningful activity within the last 30 days. No actual discussions have ever taken place at the community portal (b:ang:Samweorc:Gemǽnscipe Ingang).
  2. The project hosts no useful content. Much of the content consists of actual source-texts in Old English, which of course belong on Wikisource. Other content includes very stubby beginnings of textbooks (not worth keeping), attempts at translating texts into Old English (b:ang:Dracula:Capitol 1), and pages which do not appear to be educational textbooks (such as b:ang:Béowulf - In Níwre Wrítunge - I cannot read Old English, but this page does not look like it falls within Wikibooks' scope - and b:ang:Gotisc spræc, which looks like an encyclopedia article). There is some apparently useful content in the pseudo-namespace "Wicigeonga Cildrum Englisc:", but this alone is not enough to justify the continued existence of this wiki. Since it seems to be linguistic material relating to Old English, it should be moved to Old English Wiktionary as an Appendix.
  3. It is not useful to have Wikibooks projects in dead languages. To take an example, I cannot see why one would ever want to learn how to use b:ang:Mac OS by reading a manual in Old English, let alone why you would want to write such a thing.
  4. Visitors are very likely to confuse it with Wikisource, a much more useful project for an ancient language. (Keep in mind that Wikibooks is for textbooks and manuals, not for ancient source-texts.) They may unwittingly contribute their ancient texts to Wikibooks, where they will never be found, instead of Old Wikisource (angwikisource is locked). Or they may try to look for ancient texts on Wikibooks, in vain.

Plenty of reasons to close this project. This, that and the other (talk) 07:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support per all the above, also noting that there have been no posts to the main project discussion page since 2010. --Rschen7754 07:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I voted support two years ago before the nomination was closed for procedural reasons. Nothing has changed since then. All the opposes last time were pretty much confusing a books project with a source project. I see the value in a wikisource but support the nom completely on why a wikibooks is never going to be a useful or active endeavour. QU TalkQu 14:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. sumone10154(talk) 21:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose If needed I can supply content (I have done some edits on the Old English Wikipedia and I am often in ##Anglisc on freenode (unofficial Old English channel). Please do not close this project! Also please notify the Old English Wikipedia, where there is an active community. There is some useful content like ang:b:Wicigeonga Cildrum Englisc þurh Onlícnessa:Rihtwrítung. To quote Beowulf: Wyrd oft nereð unfægne eorl, þonne his ellen deah. (Fate will often save a man not fated to die, when his courage is strong) Neriaþ Wicibēċ! Save ang.Wikibooks! πr2 (tc) 02:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't that be better suited for Wikiversity? --Rschen7754 02:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure, but I'd be willing to move pages to ang.wikiquote [EDIT: this project has been closed since I last checked unfortunately], beta.wikiversity, or wikisource where needed. I have some experience with Beta.Wikiversity (like incubator for WV) from trying to start a Lithuanian version, but I would probably need more than one person to move those pages. πr2 (tc) 03:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I think this should be closed per other arguments. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support From what I can see, there isn't really purpose or a need for this project as the recent changes log seems rather inactive. MJ94 (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Would you reconsider if I were to revive the project? πr2 (tc) 02:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Even if all the opposers agreed to reconsider if you were to revive the project, I doubt it could be done in a timely matter, especially by a one man army. That being said, I agree with the nominator. MJ94 (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm learning Old English and I could probably ask several people who could help save this project to contribute if it comes to that. In fact, I was just writing Old English text when I found this proposal. πr2 (tc) 03:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe this should be closed actually. I'd rather not see it go, but it should based on the consensus here, so I'm fine with that. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm reasonably well versed in Old English, and aside from my own side projects in linguistics, I can contribute new and original writing in Old English. --JJohnson1701 (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I have a question. Are the language learning textbooks on Wikibooks supposed to be listed in the domain for the language being learnt or the language in which it is being taught? Thank you. Božidar 18:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
All content on Old English Wikibooks should be written in Old English. If you want to learn Old English by reading a textbook in Spanish (say), you will go to Spanish Wikibooks. This, that and the other (talk) 07:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
So Wikibooks is primarily for living languages, I presume. With perhaps the exception of perhaps Latin, which as it happens is the official language of the Holy See? Thank you. Božidar 07:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
To reply to JJohnson1701, it is nice that you are willing to contribute content to this wiki. However, I would be interested to hear your opinion on my third point in the nomination. This, that and the other (talk) 07:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Point number three is a good one. However, I should like to wait to cast my vote until I have heard back from the opposition to this proposal, hearing what they have to say. Thank you. Božidar 19:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for reasons 1 and 2 specified by the nominator. vvvt 22:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, and I would go further. The nom has convinced me that there is no good reason to host Wikibooks in any dead language, precisely because it is likely to be confused with Wikisource. That seems to have happened in this case. Efforts such as the Dracula translation are going nowhere. I agree that ang:b:Wicigeonga Cildrum Englisc þurh Onlícnessa:Rihtwrítung is good, but it is not a book in Old English about a current topic; it is a book in Old English about how to write Old English. It belongs at Wikiversity. Nothing, as far as I can see, belongs at ang:wikibooks. — Alarob (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with the nom. — ΛΧΣ21 18:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Especially the fact that it is a dead language and people will not take time to read old English, therefore it is better on its place in the English wikibooks. Coldbolt (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support --John123521 (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, no use for this but as a linguist's plaything. Scott5114 (talk) 10:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support closure because content and activity is not consistent with the purpose of WikiBooks. Imagine a world in which every single human being, whatever their primary language of discourse and instruction may be, can freely share in the sum of all knowledge, and receive instruction in their native language or in a convenient lingua franca. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Is that 'purpose' your invention? Afaics, it's neither the foundation's vision nor its mission. --Pi zero (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
That sentence incorporating the Wikimedia vision expresses my opinion about the utility of dead languages for that purpose, and was not intended as statement of what that purpose is. I am not quite sure how you read it as a definition of something to which the previous sentence refers, but I apologize for any lack of clarity arising from the allusion.

As I understand it, and as indicated with emphasis in the proposer's points #4, the purpose of Wikibooks is to provide original educational textbooks. The intent of my comment was to indicate what I think is a useful medium for that purpose and, by implication, what I think is not. As such, it is an endorsement of the proposer's points #2 and, particularly, #3, and is an amplification on the underlying reason why I endorse them. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - Why was this even created? TCN7JM 01:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - A potential source of confusion only. Shii (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nom --Glaisher [talk] 17:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • OpposeDue to the New languages policy, if Wikibec is closed then it can never be recreated.--Seonookim (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
    • What's your point? Shii (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose The community exists, but it is small. In regard to your statement about why one would wish to read modern texts in a "dead language", I say the following:
    1. It can be used for educative purposes (i.e. in a classroom)
    2. For blissful relaxation
    3. To keep the interest in Old English alive. Tharthan (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
      • The aim of Wikimedia projects is not to provide "blissful relaxation": otherwise I daresay most wikis would be closed due to all the drama! This, that and the other (talk) 08:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
        (Actually, I think it's mostly the Wikipedias that would be closed; in my experience most (admittedly not all) non-Wikipedian sisters are much more pleasant, probably due to their more focused mission. But I digress, of course.) --Pi zero (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Answer me this: if you suddenly saw large spikes in activity in this project, would you reconsider your proposal? I ask this because you bring up non-Wikipedia Wikimedia projects as being more focused on their mission (and I can back that up 100% due to how active I am on the English Wiktionary.) Tharthan (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
          • I'm not Pi zero, but my answer is: expanding Old English Wikibooks would not be a good use of anyone's time. See my point 3 in the nomination. Wikibooks projects are designed to provide textbooks, manuals and similar instructional resources, and a Wikibooks in a dead language is simply impractical. If you think Old English educational content needs to be written, then encyclopedia articles on Wikipedia would be a much more useful place to start. (Note that this is not a policy-based argument, and is just my personal opinion on these things. What I said in the nomination is my policy-based argument.) This, that and the other (talk) 07:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
            • Are you familiar with how the Hebrew language was revived? Granted, there was a HUGE amount of people who wanted it to happen, but my point is the same nonetheless. If modern texts (even those that lack an educational background) are able to be translated in Old English, and one is able to read them almost naturally as one would read a manual on any given day, then THAT is when there is a chance to revive the Old English language. Tharthan (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Per all above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.216.56.7 (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2013‎ (UTC)
  • Support per nom. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. A quick sampling of the (several dozen) pages shows that they are more suited to Wikisource. Also, really, what's the point of keeping this open? Does anyone actually read Old English texts on a low-profile project like Wikibooks? --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 00:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. It's of no use. I don't think dead languages should have a project.--Lt2818 (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support--GZWDer (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per King jakob and the nominator. Something like ang.wp is useful, if for no other reason than that it has a concentration on OE topics, while an OE Wikisource is useful because plenty was written in OE. However, there's no real point to having textbooks in any language that isn't spoken today. Nyttend (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I also support the closure. I would have given it a chance in case indeed some users volunteered to revive this project, but b:ang:Syndrig:RecentChanges and the lack of other content says everything, I guess. Vogone (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a dead language.--89.216.56.7 13:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry! Did not see my first vote.--89.216.56.7 13:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support we are trying to write a wikibook in a dead language. Use modern English instead. Jagwar grrr... 10:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Why shut it down? It's not like the room is needed on a hard drive somwhere. The OE community is small by any measurement and so any project like this one will draw only a few folks who truly hav the skill and knowledg. It's going to take them a long time to get anything done … it's not like they don't hav a life and can fully giv themselves to this. I don't hav the skill and knowledg … at least not yet … but I do check back here every so often to see if there is anything. It's doesn't harm anything to leav it be. AnWulf (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I opened Wikibooks-ANG a while back and I disagree with this request. Aside from original source text, for those who want to learn Old English, this can be a valid source of new, free content. Latin is a 'dead' language, but there's a Wikibooks for it. Esperanto is a fictional language, but there's a Wikibooks for it. Simple English is a subset of English, not a language, but there's a Wikibooks for it. I plan on creating new content in Old English on OE Wikibooks and I object to closing it. I plan on teaching young children, teens, and adults the language and in the language. This is a simple, easy resource to point them to. --JJohnson1701 (talk) 06:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Esperanto is not a fictional language. It is a very real language that has several hundred native speakers and maybe 100,000 second-language speakers. It is an artificial language, but not one fictional in the sense that it was created as part of a work of fiction.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • There seems to be overwhelming support for this proposal, and it has remained open for more than a year already. I believe that's plenty of time for supporters and dissenters to have their say about closing angwikibooks. Would a LangCom member please take a look at this request? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I don't see a single content addition in the last month. Hitting the Random Page button several times, it looks like all the content that is there was added by User:James, whose last edit on that Wiki was in January of 2009. I haven't seen a single edit in article space that needs knowledge of Old English besides that of this one editor, 5 years gone. Even were Old English a language with living native speakers, it would be hard to justify the admin time to keep it open.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.