Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Luxembourgish Wiktionary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed.

Closed, as new policy is in place ("all current proposals will be made invalid").

I propose that the Luxembourgish Wiktionary be closed.

This Wiktionary is not viable. It has no real activity in the last months, and the contents of this wiki mostly consist of vandalism and spam. As the Luxembourgish community is currently not interested in any side project because of their wish to concentrate efforts on Wikipedia, this project should be closed for now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prince Kassad (talk)

Support closureEdit

  1. Agree with Prince Kassad, Support. Pmlineditor  16:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  2. I concur. —§ stay (sic)! 02:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  3. Xqt 15:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  4. I agree --Pineapple fez 06:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  5. Only a bot seems to be active. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  6. Per all of the above. A Stop at Willoughby 19:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  7. Support -FASTILY (TALK) 05:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  8. Support Inactive Gosox5555 01:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  9. Support for the reasons mentioned. --Sekelsenmat 14:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose closureEdit

  1. Oppose There was some useful activity on 27 april. --OosWesThoesBes 08:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    I also would like to point to these charts. lb.wikt is now having the first activity in its history and thén you want to close it? That just doesn't make any sense... --OosWesThoesBes 10:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  2. Oppose as the project sees occasional, but useful, minor edits, mostly from anons. I disagree with closing projects as a general rule, unless they are actively harming the WMF (which this isn't - unless we're running low on server space?). That's deleting legitimate knowledge, not creating it like we're supposed to. So what, that the project is not seeing a lot of recent activity? It does have some use, and I don't see a point in denying Luxembourgish Wikipedians/speakers the opportunity to help out expanding it. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  3. Oppose There are some little new articles, so the project is active: see "Waasser", "water", "un", "pays", etc.
  4. Oppose Let's just help this little project to start and to grow up -- Quentinv57 11:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  5. Oppose The project is going on, slowly but sure. -- Les Meloures 19:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  6. Oppose I'd let it growKanzler31 19:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Some activity is happening. I-20the highway 21:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per above--Andrijko Z. 18:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, wiki has activity, please leave small wikis grow slow, dictionaries take years, many many years to be written, also per this statement which applies to this here too., --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 15:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  10. Oppose There clearly is activity and this decision is best suspended for say another year or so, to see if the activity continues. There are other sites with less activity that do not get closed, e.g. the Xhosa wikipedia. Jcwf 16:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  11. Oppose It can grow. Should they instead send out a bot to make a few thousand stubs? GavinZac 19:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  12. Oppose there are people editing there still. As long as people are willing to contribute knowledge, I see no reason for it be closed.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 21:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, there are recent activities and the project is expanding.Salamat msg 19:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Lets give it a chance, maybe it can maintain its activeness. Vibhijain 10:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Give a chance to a language that's growing. Soued031 22:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  16. Strong Oppose - Luxembourgish (Lëtzebuergesch, to give it its proper name) is becoming more widely spoken, turning up on road signs, in schools, and bear in mind the language has its own television station broadcasting pretty much solidly in it, I'd say this is a big no. Leave it to grow and let it be. BarkingFish 22:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

General commentsEdit

  • Comment Comment, has the local community been informed about this? Tempodivalse [talk] 19:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
    • No. Seb az86556 11:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Still not informed... --OosWesThoesBes 05:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
        • I do think the "Proposals for closing projects" page itself says "Proposals with no fair warnings to the projects will be ignored." - As there is no fair warning (or any at all that I can find), then shouldn't we close the proposal? As PCP really isn't my usual haunt, perhaps another steward more familiar with the process can decide the matter? Kylu 14:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Since it doesn't seem anyone else did it, I posted a courtesy notice on lb.wikt's front page talk, in the absence of a community portal. This really should have been done earlier though ... Tempodivalse [talk] 17:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment When this proposal was started there were about 40 pages, now there are about 54, so it's growing, though slow, but it is just now starting to show some activity. To close it at this moment wouldn't be a very wise decision. --OosWesThoesBes 17:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
    Today, that's to say two months after this, there are 133 pages on this project -- Quentinv57 14:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
    Now there are about 600 pages.. --OosWesThoesBes 09:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.

Late commentsEdit

  • And now more than 4100 pages! --Soued031 (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)