Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Cherokee Wikipedia

< Proposals for closing projects

The result of the following proposal for closing a WMF project is to KEEP the project. Please, do not modify this page.

The following discussion is closed: The consensus is largely in favor for keeping this project. Since a sufficent amount of time has lapsed since this proposal was opened, I think the consensus is clear to keep. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 08:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Cherokee Wikipedia should be closed. Not only the growth of the wiki has been virtually zero since mid-2007 (article count stalled at around 200, and not even all of them are half-decent articles), but the recent changes and new pages show that the wiki is all but dead. In the last few months, the only activity has been the adding and removal of interwiki links by bots.

I know some people will use the typical "give this Wikipedia a chance!" or "all languages deserve a Wikipedia!" arguments, but the wiki has been abandoned for two years and nothing suggests that it's going to come back to life, so there's no point in leaving it to rot.

I have added a local announcement on the wiki's Main Page talk page, so that any eventual user can come here and defend the wiki. Thank you. -- Leptictidium 23:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE

Ever since this proposal started to fade and get less comments, the wiki has reverted to its previous state. The only activity in May have been interwiki bots and an admin deleting a couple of pages which were vandalism. I believe this is clear proof that the users who started editing Cherokee wikipedia after this proposal was presented are ready to abandon the project once again as soon as they feel it is no longer "in danger". We need a Wikipedia which will be edited with a certain frequency, not only when its closure is proposed. --Leptictidium 13:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit

  1. Leptictidium 23:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "only" 200 pages content and the recent changes are mostly bot edits. This wiki is nearly inactive. --Barras
  3. move to wikia Phuntsok2000sback 14:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

  1. oppose: two hundred page means contents and there is recent activity and per Spacebirdy. --OosWesThoesBes 08:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, but what exactly is the "recent activity" you mention, apart from interwiki bots and the two token edits you made after this proposal began? --Leptictidium 10:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's activity. Also there are many other wikipedia's with even less than 200 pages with a similar amount of edits (or even less), so they should be locked first. --OosWesThoesBes 10:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not follow from the fact that other Wikipedias are in worse state that this Wikipedia must be kept. If you think they "should be locked first", you are free to propose their closure. Regarding the "activity" you speak about, you may believe that interwiki bots and a couple of edits by one human user every two years counts as activity, but there is no point in keeping a Wikipedia with such extremely low activity. --Leptictidium 11:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There are some problems, 1. it has been active, so who says it won't ever get active anymore? 2. there is an active internet community. ([1]) --OosWesThoesBes 13:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, there is an active Internet community; but we are not talking about the presence of Cherokee on the Internet, rather we are debating about the Cherokee Wikipedia, which is not active. About the other "problem" you point out: the Wikipedia has been abandoned for two entire years and shows no signs of being relaunched, what makes you think it will become active again? You can't just keep a long-dead Wikipedia around just because someday, someone, perhaps, might want to edit it. --Leptictidium 14:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I said that there is an active internet community, but they might not know about the existence of this Wikipedia. If they knew, they might be editing. --OosWesThoesBes 15:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you told them about it and they actually started editing regularly, I'd see no problem in cancelling this proposal. --Leptictidium 10:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already contacted a former editor on en.wiki. Who's still active there. --OosWesThoesBes 12:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. oppose All that's needed for a Wikipedia to survive is content. Activity is not a criteria. -- Prince Kassad 20:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. oppose some languages need more time, closing them does not help, the project where I started had 14 articles for years, now it has 15k because someone thought contributing is interesting. If it had been closed it would have 14 still. There is some activity, it just needs more time to grow, if it takes another 5 years for the next 200 articles, fine. Also I personally have the feeling the proposer campaigns for this closure. If You don't like a project, leave it alone and just don't contribute, but don't make contributing for others impossible. Best r., --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 14:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Pretty much per Spacebirdy. A closed project definitely can't expand, whereas an open one can (albeit it slowly in this case). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, in this case, it is not expanding at all! --Leptictidium 09:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, also per Spacebirdy. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, per Spacebirdy. Guido den Broeder 22:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Same reason as Spacebirdy & EVula. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. As Spacebirdy. I have personal reason too: I spend some time with repairing interwiki and spreading it to other languages. 21:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. One thing to note is that there is a second Wikipedia-like project in Cherokee, elsewhere. Perhaps the two ought to work together more. I don't think the Cherokee Wikipedia should close. It has even passed the number of articles required to be listed on the front page now. --70.142.45.154 12:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Per above--Biŋhai 12:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. I just oppose the closing of Idioms. Also per Spacebirdy. --RubiksMaster110 07:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Per above and the fact that Cherokee is a dying language and this encourages the learning of this. Ktr101 23:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per above. Razorflame 07:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per birdy. Pmlineditor ∞ 09:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strongly Oppose. I recently (while modernizing the front page interface a bit) came across this shockingly unbelievable discussion (thankfully on the side of reason) to discontinue the ᏧᎳᎩ Wikipedia. The fact that it is a minor Wikipedia (and thus with not a super active community like the English or German Wikipedias) is fruitless argument for it being closed. Is something of less value because it is small and quieter than the large and noisy opponent? I say no. I for one have been utilizing what knowledge I have acquired to fix small things on articles, and have even created two stub articles. Yes, that's small. But it is not nothing, and I take offense at the fact that someone can deem the Cherokee Wikipedia as anything but an equally relevant member in a global effort to unify and promote free access to knowledge. I encourage those spending their time to try to close useful Wikipedias such as this one, to instead spend their time trying to communicate with off-wiki communities that could join in the Cherokee Wikipedia editing. Encouraging more access is better than trying to shut it off. In any case, I have said my thoughts. ᏩᏙ, Nesnad 19:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per all of the above. You cannot measure (for lack of a better word) "smaller" languages by the same requirements of the supposedly important ones. Seb az86556 21:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - Per Spacebirdy. Maximillion Pegasus 16:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Almafeta 17:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose as per Spacebirdy and Nesnad and others above. --Purodha Blissenbach 09:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral edit

  1. Neutral I'm neutral at this proposal, it's true that the project is "inactive" except for bot activity but his 200 articles makes me doubt at this point. Perhaps moving to the incubator the articles would be the solution but I fear to close this project ATM. —Dferg (talk) 11:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That cannot be done: The Wikimedia Incubator hosts tests of new language editions of the following Wikimedia projects. The Incubator's mission is not to host "returning" projects. Nevertheless, the information which is currently available on the Cherokee wikipedia need not be lost: the complete database may be downloaded and kept safe, in case a viable Cherokee wikiproject is created in the future. --Leptictidium 11:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Closed projects are usually imported to the Wikimedia incubator: [2]. --OosWesThoesBes 12:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

My question is what potential is there for the project to be edited if it survives? How many hard-copy volumes of content exist for the Cherokee language and how many individuals speak it? MBisanz talk 14:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're trying to say.. --OosWesThoesBes 14:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Enough to cause many protests against the current proposal to make English the official language of Oklahoma. The Cherokee Nation itself has two official languages: Cherokee and English. Guido den Broeder 22:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but if the wiki is eventually not closed after this proposal, what are the actual probabilities that it will be active? It is all very nice to talk about languages needing more time to develop and all that, but who's going to edit this wiki after this proposal is over? --Leptictidium 09:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The same people that are editing it now. I see User:Ooswesthoesbes making constructive edits. I don't think it's reasonable to expect the site to become as active as, say, the French Wikipedia, but some activity is better than none. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user never edited that wiki until this proposal was launched. Is he going to keep editing it after this proposal is closed, if the wiki goes on? I find it hard to believe, since (according to his Babel template box) he lacks any working knowledge of the Cherokee language.
In any case, the previous experience with other closure proposals (Xhosa, Dzongkha, Ndonga, etc.) shows us that, even though the argument "let's give more time to these projects" has been frequently used to save projects from closure, the truth is that, months or even years on, the projects have not grown at all and remain as dead as ever. What makes you think that this case will be different? --Leptictidium 11:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My babel templates differ at each wiki. I don't like to sum up, so I only add real "necessary" languages, like my native language and English etc.
I'm keeping an eye on this wiki and I'll edit when I have more time available, what I currently do not have. --OosWesThoesBes 15:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<-- I've undone User:81.38.38.140's edit, as the project was warned at chr:Talk:ᎤᎵᎮᎵᏍᏗ#Closure proposal. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Cherokee_Wikipedia&oldid=5436803"