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_wor....) 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 Outlookhttp://aka.ms/weboutlook
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.
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 http://aka.ms/weboutlook
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
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 http://aka.ms/weboutlook
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
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 http://aka.ms/weboutlook
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 <+1%20617-529-4266>
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
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_Wik... 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 http://aka.ms/weboutlook
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 <+1%20617-529-4266>
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
I propose to reject < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Deletion_of_M..., < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Deletion_of_A..., < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Deletion_of_H... and < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Deletion_of_V.... 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 http://aka.ms/weboutlook
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 <+1%20617-529-4266>
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
I also propose to reject < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Al... as inactivity is not a valid reason etc., as mentioned by most commenters on the page as well.
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_proje cts/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 http://aka.ms/weboutlook
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 <+1%20617-529-4266>
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
If inactivity is not a valid reason, what *would* be? I feel unable to make a decision or even just comment in the absence of a standard list of criteria for closing a project. Probably such a list exists, so if it does, please provide me with the link. Thanks.
On 02-Jul-17 01:45, MF-Warburg wrote:
I also propose to reject https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Albanian_Wikinews as inactivity is not a valid reason etc., as mentioned by most commenters on the page as well.
2017-07-02 1:10 GMT+02:00 MF-Warburg <mfwarburg@googlemail.com mailto: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_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_Afar_Wikipedia,_Wikibooks_and_Wiktionary>>, <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Deletion_of_Hiri_Motu_Wikipedia <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 <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 <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 <mailto: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 <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 <mailto: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 <mailto:meta.sj@gmail.com>> wrote: On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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 <http://aka.ms/weboutlook> _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom> _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom> -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 <tel:+1%20617-529-4266> _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom> _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom> _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom>http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient Virus-free. www.avg.com http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hoi, There is no list of criteria for deleting a project. So far it happened only once. The reason was that it was not a recognised language and the content was abusive. We can recommend the closure of projects but it typically is a hot potato.
Personally I am all for having a set of projects that are at least alive. It is however part of the whole of issues that have to do with the support for languages. Given the lack of priority given, I am not really interested as effectively it is only cherry picking where our work is acted upon. Thanks, GerardM
On 2 July 2017 at 08:44, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org wrote:
If inactivity is not a valid reason, what *would* be? I feel unable to make a decision or even just comment in the absence of a standard list of criteria for closing a project. Probably such a list exists, so if it does, please provide me with the link. Thanks.
On 02-Jul-17 01:45, MF-Warburg wrote:
I also propose to reject https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Albanian_Wikinews as inactivity is not a valid reason etc., as mentioned by most commenters on the page as well.
2017-07-02 1:10 GMT+02:00 MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com:
I propose to reject https://meta.wikimedia.org/wi ki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Deletion_of_Marshallese_ Wikipedia_and_Wiktionary, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wi ki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Deletion_of_Afar_Wikipedia ,_Wikibooks_and_Wiktionary, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wi ki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Deletion_of_Hiri_Motu_Wikipedia and < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_proje cts/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_proje cts/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 http://aka.ms/weboutlook > > _______________________________________________ > 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 <+1%20617-529-4266>
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
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient Virus-free. www.avg.com http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient <#m_8856782465842803794_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
2017-07-02 8:44 GMT+02:00 Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org:
If inactivity is not a valid reason, what *would* be? I feel unable to make a decision or even just comment in the absence of a standard list of criteria for closing a project. Probably such a list exists, so if it does, please provide me with the link. Thanks.
We don't have such a list, only the relevant parts from the Closing Projects Policy: "A good reason should be given why it should be closed/deleted." - "Inactivity in itself is *no* valid reason; additional problems are." - Absence of content since the wiki's creation is a valid reason". IIRC, inactivity itself is defined as not a valid reason because of the rather good state of vandalism- and spam-prevention nowadays, which means that even an inactive wiki stays usable without much effort. Maybe SPQRobin remembers some more things about the background of it.
On 02-Jul-17 01:45, MF-Warburg wrote:
I also propose to reject https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Albanian_Wikinews as inactivity is not a valid reason etc., as mentioned by most commenters on the page as well.
2017-07-02 1:10 GMT+02:00 MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com:
I propose to reject https://meta.wikimedia.org/wi ki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Deletion_of_Marshallese_ Wikipedia_and_Wiktionary, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wi ki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Deletion_of_Afar_Wikipedia ,_Wikibooks_and_Wiktionary, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wi ki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Deletion_of_Hiri_Motu_Wikipedia and < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_proje cts/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_proje cts/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 http://aka.ms/weboutlook > > _______________________________________________ > 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 <+1%20617-529-4266>
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
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient Virus-free. www.avg.com http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient <#m_-9190990687174390935_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
With no further comments here about them, I have closed as unsuccessful: Marshallese Wikipedia and Wiktionary (Deletion) Afar Wikipedia, Wikibooks and Wiktionary (Deletion) Hiri Motu Wikipedia (Deletion) Albanian Wikinews (Closure)
2017-07-03 1:49 GMT+02:00 MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com:
2017-07-02 8:44 GMT+02:00 Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org:
If inactivity is not a valid reason, what *would* be? I feel unable to make a decision or even just comment in the absence of a standard list of criteria for closing a project. Probably such a list exists, so if it does, please provide me with the link. Thanks.
We don't have such a list, only the relevant parts from the Closing Projects Policy: "A good reason should be given why it should be closed/deleted." - "Inactivity in itself is *no* valid reason; additional problems are." - Absence of content since the wiki's creation is a valid reason". IIRC, inactivity itself is defined as not a valid reason because of the rather good state of vandalism- and spam-prevention nowadays, which means that even an inactive wiki stays usable without much effort. Maybe SPQRobin remembers some more things about the background of it.
On 02-Jul-17 01:45, MF-Warburg wrote:
I also propose to reject https://meta.wikimedia.org/wi ki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Albanian_Wikinews as inactivity is not a valid reason etc., as mentioned by most commenters on the page as well.
2017-07-02 1:10 GMT+02:00 MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com:
I propose to reject https://meta.wikimedia.org/wi ki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Deletion_of_Marshallese_Wi kipedia_and_Wiktionary, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wi ki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Deletion_of_Afar_Wikipedia ,_Wikibooks_and_Wiktionary, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wi ki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Deletion_of_Hiri_Motu_Wikipedia and < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_proje cts/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_proje cts/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 http://aka.ms/weboutlook >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 <+1%20617-529-4266>
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
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient Virus-free. www.avg.com http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient <#m_2035272623613237053_m_-9190990687174390935_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
As well as Venda Wikipedia 2 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Deletion_of_Venda_Wikipedia_2 (Deletion), which I overlooked at first.
2017-07-21 0:23 GMT+02:00 MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com:
With no further comments here about them, I have closed as unsuccessful: Marshallese Wikipedia and Wiktionary (Deletion) Afar Wikipedia, Wikibooks and Wiktionary (Deletion) Hiri Motu Wikipedia (Deletion) Albanian Wikinews (Closure)
2017-07-03 1:49 GMT+02:00 MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com:
2017-07-02 8:44 GMT+02:00 Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org:
If inactivity is not a valid reason, what *would* be? I feel unable to make a decision or even just comment in the absence of a standard list of criteria for closing a project. Probably such a list exists, so if it does, please provide me with the link. Thanks.
We don't have such a list, only the relevant parts from the Closing Projects Policy: "A good reason should be given why it should be closed/deleted." - "Inactivity in itself is *no* valid reason; additional problems are." - Absence of content since the wiki's creation is a valid reason". IIRC, inactivity itself is defined as not a valid reason because of the rather good state of vandalism- and spam-prevention nowadays, which means that even an inactive wiki stays usable without much effort. Maybe SPQRobin remembers some more things about the background of it.
On 02-Jul-17 01:45, MF-Warburg wrote:
I also propose to reject https://meta.wikimedia.org/wi ki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Albanian_Wikinews as inactivity is not a valid reason etc., as mentioned by most commenters on the page as well.
2017-07-02 1:10 GMT+02:00 MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com:
I propose to reject https://meta.wikimedia.org/wi ki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Deletion_of_Marshallese_Wi kipedia_and_Wiktionary, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wi ki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Deletion_of_Afar_Wikipedia ,_Wikibooks_and_Wiktionary, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wi ki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Deletion_of_Hiri_Motu_Wikipedia and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_proje cts/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_proje cts/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 http://aka.ms/weboutlook >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 <+1%20617-529-4266> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient Virus-free. www.avg.com http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient <#m_-1330341602020209700_m_2035272623613237053_m_-9190990687174390935_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
2017-07-01 6:13 GMT+03:00 Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com:
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.
I too encourage the committee to strongly urge closure+migration of Beta Wikiversity, and deletion+archival-migration? of Moldovan WP/Wikt.
I always supported both of these.
Beta Wikiversity - migrate fully to Incubator and redirect there.
Moldovan projects - save a dump somewhere and delete.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore