Open main menu

Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Interlingue Wikibooks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is a proposal for closing and/or deleting a wiki hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is subject to the current closing projects policy.


The proposal is accepted and the proposed actions should be taken.

  • Explanation by the closing Langcom member: Langcom proposed to the Board to close the wiki with the following rationale: The wiki is a case of "absence of content since its creation". Of the few page, some should even be moved to Wiktionary (as some people noted in the discussion).
    Content should be moved content Incubator, or, where appropriate, to Wiktionary. --MF-W 10:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC) – After there were no objections, bug T78667 was created. --MF-W 14:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I can see a few reasons why the Interlingue Wikibooks should be closed, many the same as those for the Old English Wikibooks' request for closure:

  1. Nothing's going on there, and there's absolutely no community. The community discussion page didn't even exist before I created it to notice the project about its proposed closure. The community discussion page hasn't had any discussions concerning the community. It seems to be all global messages. Also, before I made the few edits I did, there were only five non-bot edits to any pages in the past thirty days, and none to the mainspace.
  2. There's no point in having a Wikibooks in an unused language. Similar to Old English, there's no reason to have things like textbooks in a language that hasn't been widely used in many years.
  3. There isn't that much content anyway. This is the list of all the pages. Some of them, like this vocabulary page look like they'd be better suited on something like Wikiversity.

So, yeah. There are a few good reasons to close this project. TCN7JM 03:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  • Support For the record, the community discussion page is at ie:b:Wikibooks:Community Portal but that shows how underdeveloped the project is since the sidebar link is wrong. Content should probably be moved to Incubator, or other better suited WMF sites. --Rschen7754 03:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    You sure? That link sent me to the en.wikibooks Community Portal. TCN7JM 03:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    It's supposed to be ie:b:Wikibooks:Community Portal ... PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • On point 2: Please read all related policies before proposing closure. Specifically, Language_proposal_policy#Specific_issues. Artificial languages are allowed. We have Esperanto Wikibooks, for example. Although I might have missed something, and that point could be valid. Not that I think this is very useful, but I think it's technically allowed. Am I wrong? PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    I did read the related policy. We shouldn't keep stuff like this just because it's allowed if it's useless to the general public. TCN7JM 03:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    I don't think that point 2 is a valid reason for closure per se; combined with the other points, this proposal will probably pass (not that I want/don't want it to) PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Could you please notify the Interlingue Wikipedia as well? PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg Done at Li Trincatoria. I'd post the interwiki link, but it keeps redirecting me to enwiki. TCN7JM 04:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    Thank you! And, FYI, ie:Wikipedia:Li Trincatoria works (or w:ie:Wikipedia:Li Trincatoria, if you like that). PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    That second one was redirecting me to English Wikipedia and still is, but I was not aware that w did not need to be used. Still learning this linking stuff. TCN7JM 04:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    Use w:ie:... instead of ie:w:... PiRSquared17 (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, with transwiki of most content to ie.wiktionary. The content seems to consist mainly of lists of words and phrases: such content belongs on the Interlingue Wiktionary project. The wiki is devoid of textbooks and manuals, and there is no community to speak of. In short, there is no Wikibooks-type content on this wiki, and nothing is happening to make the situation better. The existing material should be moved to Incubator so it can grow properly. This, that and the other (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I don't think we need this, looks like most of this are Wiktionary stuff anyway.Brad Shen (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support It was a mistake to create this in the first place, which the incubation process has remedied. Shii (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. I wait it on Incubator. --Midnight Gambler (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Interlingue Wikibooks never has been used/nequande ha esset usat. --Makuba (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Why don't you contribute in there if you speak Interlingue? --Midnight Gambler (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I'll concede that this project is, well, useless. Interlingue is almost as dead as Volapuk. Nonetheless, I don't think ie.wikibooks is inherently incapable of "contributing to the sum of human knowledge;" the language has some historical significance. This request is going to succeed easily, but I didn't want it to be unanimous. :-) Tempodivalse [talk] 02:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, it doesn't seem as if anybody cares about the project and getting it onto a successful track, look at the main page ... |FDMS (WP: en, de) 23:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Inactivity is no valid reason for closure and I think also the content can be improved if some interested ie speaker comes across the wiki. It's not like there's absolutely no content which would be a valid reason. Vogone talk 10:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I agree with the arguments of the user Tempodivalse. --Finland (talk) 11:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Vogone has a good point. Natuur12 (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, waiting for contributors for some African language might make sense, however keeping an empty resource in a dead language just makes no sense. Max Semenik (talk) 04:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per above argument. Jagwar grrr... 10:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per all above. It is a dead language. --89.216.56.7 10:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and move to incubator. Alan (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Late commentsEdit

  • Oppose although the proposal is already accepted I want to make comments. I overlooked this proposal as I was busy with other projects. Interlingue is certainly not a dead language. There is still an active organisation called Interlingue-Union which publishes twice a year the journal Cosmoglotta and many activities in the internet especially in the social media like an active Facebook Group, online-journals, videos etc. The Interlingue Wikipedia is active and growing. As ie.wikibooks are closed, the main focus will be to edit in English or other languages manuals etc. for learning Interlingue Valodnieks (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)