Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English Wikiquote (2)

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

The following discussion is closed: speedy close, this is not a game, if one is blocked on a project then just proposing it for closure. closing as bad faith/vandalism. --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 22:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Quotes can't be simple. Should be closed down. ShockingHawk 14:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that ShockingHawk, under the name of his other account FastReverter, was blocked from this project indefinitely last week: [1]. This is probably his revenge. Majorly talk 15:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Project has been notified; subtle I know. Synergy 16:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Support[edit]

  1. Support per nom. Kwj2772 14:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. People working there can easily go to enwq. --Thogo (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. Support Of all the Simple English projects, I feel this one has the least useful purpose. I feel the normal English Wikiquote is not a very good project either (no offence to the editors there), so a Simple English version is pushing it. Majorly talk 14:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. Abigor talk 14:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC) give the simple projects a break. There are people working there. I see no reasson to stop it.
  2. Bad faith nom. Anyway, if SEWB managed to stay open, this one is way more active. Microchip08 16:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. The nominator is a nearly-banned editor. "Bad faith nom" is an understatement.
    As for the site itself, I think it's slow and small, but making progress. EVula // talk // // 17:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. When I first heard about the idea of a Simple English Wikiquote, I was confused about its purpose and what it was trying to achieve. I decided to take a look and see what it was all about. Despite being sceptical at first, I could see that the project has the potential to grow into something effective. The project isn't dead, and with the maintenance and article work going on, the wiki is gradually building. All this is, of course, separate to the apparent bad faith nomination. PeterSymonds 18:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. Very Strong Oppose as bad faith, and it is a good project. The quotes aren't simplified or changed, but are defined below them. American Eagle (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  6. Very Strong Oppose User who opened this is a historically immature user who was just indefed here and wants to have revenge. ShapiroS10 21:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutral[edit]

  1. Neutral, seems like they got their thing with explaning advanced quotes with simple English, which kind of is the idea with the whole simple English thing. Therefore I neither support nor oppose this closure proposal. --EivindJ 15:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. I don't like the idea, but they seem to be doing something, and they're doing it right at least. Synergy 15:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)