Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English Wikibooks

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

Closure of Simple English Wikibooks[edit]

Ending per #Motion to end discussion Result: KEEP --Edward Chernenko 18:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Books in English, at whatever reading level, should be located centrally on a single English-language Wikibooks site. -- Netoholic @ 21:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think that about Wikipedia articles, so why do you think that about Wikibooks? --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 18:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to end discussion[edit]

OK, this has been going on for a while with no recent votes or comments. I think it is about time that we end this discussion. PullToOpen 21:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support closing SE WB[edit]

  1. Support -- Netoholic @ 21:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support probably we should divide the English Wikibooks into things like "Beginning Chemistry" and "Advanced Chemistry", like you would for real textbooks --M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: That type of division is great for E Wikibooks, but it will still not serve the audience that SE Wikibooks serves. This is directed towards people who do not know English well, whether they are EAL/ESL learners or people with learning difficulties. These people have a limited English vocabulary, and therefore would not be able to even understand "Beginning Chemistry" written in regular English. That is why we need an SE Wikibooks, which includes textbooks on the same subjects as E Wikibooks, but uses a limited vocabulary so that these people can understand it. Just because E Wikibooks can also accept this content doesn't mean that SE Wikibooks should not exist. The difference in audience is enough. See my comments in the comments section. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 18:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. —Nightstallion (?) 09:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support As I note below, textbooks in Simple English are already welcome on the main English Wikibooks project. Why fork content within Wikimedia? jguk 00:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: See my reply below. They serve different audiences, and they deserve a different wiki. The info should not be duplicated, but when justified, a separate project is perfectly reasonable. And remember, Wiki is not paper. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 18:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Pronoun 17:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Dont see any purpose in this project--Nxx 17:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose closing SE WB[edit]

  1. Oppose. In my opinion, this project is more worthwhile than any Simple English project, it simply lacks a large group active editors. I do not see why they should be centralised, SEWikipedia works for a different reading level, what's different about Wikibooks? Archer7 12:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. This is not a wikibooks for children: that is Wikijunior. These books are for adults who do not know English well, and therefore have a limited vocabulary. This wiki will cover complex concepts, including things like computer programming and cosmology, but using simple English. I am learning Spanish, but if the only Spanish books I could read were children's books, I would be very frustrated. I am not a child, I only have a limited vocabulary. I want to read about linguistics and calculus in Spanish, not about the alphabet and the numbers 1-10. That is what this project does using simple English. This project also has the same purpose and audience (except children) as SEWikipedia. This nomination was made by an admin on SEWikipedia who mysteriously but ferociously opposes all other simple English projects, even though the rest of the SEWikipedia community accepts them. This project has both a reason to exist and some activity, with at least a few users (including me) dedicated to it. It deserves to exist. --Cromwellt|talk|contris 10:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. This project has the potential to be one of the better simple projects. I wouldn't mind reading some simple Japanese books, but I don't want to read about talking animals. Where's simple.ja? Gerard Foley 10:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Per Cromwellt. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) / Minh Nguyen 09:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per above - certainly the Simple project with the most potential out of these three. --Celestianpower (en, wikt) 11:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per CP. Computerjoe 18:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per above. --Richman271 20:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, as per Cromwellt. -- Zanimum 19:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. In addition to the above, it has multiple editors with multiple edits within the past month; EN Wikibooks similarly languished with minimal activity with a long lagtime after EN Wikipedia started getting heavy activity--Simple English Wikibooks should be allowed the same measure of 'catch up' time since the recent dramatic increase in activity at the Simple 'pedia. Freshstart 02:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose concur with Archer7. --Aphaia 08:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose</s> I've sent friends and people who are not good at the English language to the SE wikipedia (although not others yet), they're decent resources and should remain. Give them a chance, it could be another decent place for people who require simple English -- 12:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Please log in or create an account before voting, since votes from IP addresses are not generally counted. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 19:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. This is probably the most important project in Simple English. Jon Harald Søby 22:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I would rather see all Basic English materials left on Wikipedia. Its a lot more useful. Those that don't know English well, the Deaf [like me], and those whose brains cannot handle the complexities of normal English and the already too-huge vocabulary all need Basic English resources. I'm THRILLED Wikipedia offers these things, including Basic English Wikibooks. I have a hard time understanding textbooks. I used to be good at normal English, but that all changed as I slowly becamse deaf. With ASL quickly becoming my new native language, I can't keep up with the complex English and require the Basic English. If I have to, I'll get on the Basic English editing staff and help out, just to keep this resource open.
    Comment: please log in before voting. Anonymous votes are not usually considered in a wiki context. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 15:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Maksim 15:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per Cromwellt & Archer7. — Randy Johnston (talkcontribs) 00:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - I believe that the justification for closing simple.wikibooks should be the same as closing simple.wikipedia. If one is permitted, then the other should be too. This is another project with a slightly different mission than simple.wikipedia, and there is an active group of participants involved in developing content. Certainly there is room for creating book-length content in Simple English that goes beyond Wikijunior. --Roberth 15:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. May be very useful. --Millosh 15:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose It's just need a little work. Ek7 20:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose This id how the standard english wikibooks started as well. It needs time to build up. It would also help if this project was not hidden in the shadows.
    Comment: please log in before voting. Anonymous votes are not usually considered in a wiki context. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 15:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose It's good to have a site for easier books and with the harder books on the topic being searched being filtered out. It helps beggining readers. Why close it down? Leaving it open doesn't hurt anyone.
    Comment: please log in before voting. Anonymous votes are not usually considered in a wiki context. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 15:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per the other bazillion good reasons provided by opposers. Alkivar 09:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose This is a good project (even though it lacks info) and I think we should keep it. Who knows, one day if I become a teacher I could use it to teach :) 22:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments SE WB[edit]

  • A French native speaker, I remember the time when I was learning how to speak and read the English language more fluently than what I had been taught at school. One of the first books I could read then was Things fall apart by Chinua Achebe in Simple English and I just loved this book, even if it was not yet the real one. I'd like the possibility to read books in Simple English to go on being given, it is a useful one. If these books are mixed with normal books, won't it be more difficult for people who need them to find them and even to know that they exist ? --Zephyrus 18:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is important to remember that Wikibooks in any form or language is about textbooks, not source texts. That would fall under Wikisource. I like the idea of creating a Simple English Wikisource, but that is only an idea at the moment. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 18:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could see an argument in favor of closing this project because of inactivity, however, it has a huge contributor base. I encourage every contributor to add to this still small wikibooks project. I believe that it is critical for the global populous to have some sort of guide - a "stepping stone", if you will - to fluency in English. --Richman271 17:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was recently suggested that the Wikitext I started OLPC - Algebra 1 in Simple English be moved to this area. I'm recruiting my fellow math teachers to create a complete online learning system (text, tutorials, and self-testing) for Algebra 1 for the developing world, and the communal writing wiki system is perfect for our purposes. I wouldn't be suprised if there was a huge surge in interest in this particular area in the coming months as teachers of other disciplines use wiki to develop content for the OLPC students. Since we're already experts in the content itself, collaboration that focused on how to keep the language simple would be very helpful.--HSTutorials 21:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • We would be glad to receive your content and that of all others like it at SE Wikibooks. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 18:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am one of the more active admins on English Wikibooks (ie normal English, not Simple English). English Wikibooks has within its scope books on similar subjects to those already covered, but which are intended for different audiences than those already covered. Or, to put it another way, textbooks written in Simple English are already within the scope of the main English Wikibook project. Recently we have just had one user set up the rubic for a textbook Algebra I in Simple English. Whilst our collaborators have expressed scepticism as to whether the user will get anywhere in terms of completing the book, no-one has seriously suggested that it is outside our scope (indeed, surprise was expressed when someone noted that there actually is a separate (29 page!) Simple English Wikibooks. In short, we do not need a separate Simple English Wikibooks project. Any content that would go on such a project is already welcome on the main English Wikibooks project, jguk, 00:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • As Zephyrus mentioned above, mixing these books with normal Wikibooks would make them difficult to find. Whether they are welcome on English Wikibooks is not the issue, nor is duplication (since they should not be found on both, I agree). A person who does not know English well needs a place to find things that are specifically geared toward him/her. That is what all simple English projects are for. It would not make sense to have Simple English Wikipedia articles mingled with English Wikipedia articles, and in the same vein, it does not make sense to mingle Simple English Wikibooks in with English Wikibooks. SE Wikibooks is not Wikijunior, nor is it just another English Wikibooks. SE Wikibooks has a completely distinct audience and does not deserve to be closed simply because E Wikibooks chooses to open its doors to the same content. We can work in conjunction (putting up notes like "for a simpler treatment of this, see [[:simple:book on the same subject]]" and "for more information, see [[:en:book on the same subject]]"), but I for one am very much against merging these projects. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 18:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would like to point out that in spite of objects by this other admin, I did make a strong suggestion to move the Algebra I wikibook from en.wikibooks to simple.wikibooks. The author even agreed that it would be a good idea. I did suggest that a bookshelf be established on en.wikibooks that would point to that content, but that I also feel there is a place for a separate independent Simple English Wikibooks community. I've been interacting on a limited basis with that community as well, and surprisingly I got a very quick reply when I added a note to The Simple English Wikibooks Staff Lounge. This implies to me that they have a very active community. --Roberth 17:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure I would call us "very active" (at least not yet), but I would agree that a fast response is a good sign. To me, it's very exciting! --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 05:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]