2017-07-02 1:10 GMT+02:00 MF-Warburg <mfwarburg@googlemail.com>:

I propose to reject <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Deletion_of_Marshallese_Wikipedia_and_Wiktionary>, <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Deletion_of_Afar_Wikipedia,_Wikibooks_and_Wiktionary>, <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Deletion_of_Hiri_Motu_Wikipedia> and <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Deletion_of_Venda_Wikipedia_2>. The only reason given for deleting is that these projects are unlikely to be reopened. Not much value in doing that was shown, and per https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T168764#3378717 and the page linked from there it seems that such a deletion would only cause unnecessary technical problems, especially if by chance one of them should be reopened.

2017-07-02 0:32 GMT+02:00 Robin Pepermans <robinp.1273@gmail.com>:

Hi all,

I have hereby closed the more than four years old BetaWikiversity merging proposal on procedural grounds. As I wrote there <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Move_Beta_Wikiversity_to_Incubator> a new one can be opened that is a proper proposal and more well-prepared, since the proposal itself remains valid and has wide support.

Regards,

Robin

2017-07-01 8:24 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:

Hoi,

If the WMF is of the opinion that the Language committee is relevant separate from its role as the gatekeeper for new languages and projects, it would help when the name changes necessary to comply fully with standards is honoured. The language committee is unanimous in its longstanding wish for this to happen.

Another aspect of the deletion etc of projects is that the feasibility of merging has never been technically assessed as far as I am aware, There is a chance for templates existing in projects to interfere with existing stuff in the Incubator. It is also not clear what happens to the interwiki links. A long held wish is that Incubator is supported for its existing languages in Wikidata. My personal argument is that the links to all kinds of other statements represent links and information that could be in the stub for the article they are writing.

Many of the arguments about the deletion of projects like Moldovan have a long history. I do understand why the Language committee could play a role because it has always been fairly separate from what community members have for an opinion. When other members of the LC chime in, we may do something.

Thanks,

GerardM

On 1 July 2017 at 05:13, Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:

Hoi,
To be honest, it is not the task of the language committee to kill of projects. At best we may "recommend". At that we strongly urge the Wikimedia Foundation to rename a few projects that are incorrectly named. This does not happen as it does not have the needed priority.

From the perspective of the WMF and the community, at present, a LangCom recommendation is highly relevant, and where one exists it is AFAIK followed.

Moreover, there is no other forum for proposing and discussing such closures.

I too encourage the committee to strongly urge closure+migration of Beta Wikiversity, and deletion+archival-migration? of Moldovan WP/Wikt.

If LangCom does not *wish* to process closure requests, it's absolutely up to you to remove that from the LangCom charter and push back to the community at large. But unless some other group takes up the role, that limits the committee's ability to correct earlier decisions that didn't work out.

SJ

Also, there are always people who one way or another want the language committee to do whatever. That is fine but it does not mean that the language committee can do much more than its remit.

Thanks,

GerardM

On 30 June 2017 at 18:38, Steven White <Koala19890@hotmail.com> wrote:

The community is getting impatient that LangCom is leaving so many items in limbo, especially the Beta Wikiversity proposal. (See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Closing_projects_policy#This_is_not_working.) That proposal passed its fourth anniversary in the last week! In April, you discussed this question, and seemed on the verge of approving the closure—but then the discussion was stopped, and no action was taken.

There are currently four proposals that have been open for two years or longer, and another two that have been open for over a year. I strongly urge you to take action at least on those, lest the community step in and make its own decisions. As a reminder these are:

Move Beta Wikiversity to Incubator

Deletion of Moldovan WIkipedia and Wiktionary (two separate proposals) (already closed and locked)

Deletion of Marshallese projects (already closed and locked)

Closure of Limburgish and Bosnian Wikibooks (two proposals)

I'd venture to say that there is no groundswell insisting on the Marshallese, Limburgish or Bosnian proposals, and you could easily close those proposals as "not done" with little fanfare. The others I cannot really comment on.

Steven White (StevenJ81)

Sent from Outlook

_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

--

Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266

_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom