Hoi,
Agree.. There was sufficient discussion at the start of this project.
Orthography is not a reason to dismiss this project.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 23 October 2017 at 16:13, Michael Everson <everson(a)evertype.com> wrote:
Please give a link…
Even without seeing the discussion, there’s no reason to close be-tarask.
It has 61K articles, and is a well-accepted orthography.
On 16 Oct 2017, at 18:54, Steven White
<Koala19890(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
This request is also generating a lot of heat, and not necessarily a lot
of
light.
For what it's worth, here's how I evaluate the arguments that have been
made here:
• Members of the be-tarask community
strongly oppose (as you might
expect)
• Among replies (at Meta and on bewiki)
from the bewiki community,
there seem to be none to really favor the proposal as
written. Either they
oppose closure, or else they favor closure because they think the
Taraskievica orthography should be suppressed.
• The proposer has a grand total of 1 (one)
edit on be-tarask, and
0 (no) edits on bewiki. He is mostly flitting around Meta
and Incubator
inserting opinions about projects he thinks should and should not continue
to exist.
As far as I can tell, the bewiki and be-tarask communities seem to
coexist
side-by-side well enough. So in the short term, I'd encourage you
to reject this proposal. If you think in the long run that these wikis
should be merged, then tackle that later. And I think the Nahuatl situation
needs attention more immediately than this does.
Steven White (User:StevenJ81)
Sent from Outlook
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom