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@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@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 mightexpect)
• 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, and0 (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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom