Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English Wikibooks (3)

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

The following discussion is closed: The project to be closed per consensus. —§ stay (sic)! 18:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Simple English Wikibooks

I propose to close the Simple.Wikibooks, I am a administrator and importer there but there haven't been new books or even pages in more than two months.. I propose to close this project and move it back into the incubator untill its strong enough for his own domain.Huib talk 19:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes there have been FIVE articles in the last month. See [1]. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kayau (talk)

You're counting your own recent contributions in that statement. At the time this was proposed, there were three. Of those remaining three, one was by an anonymous user and the other two have edit summaries showing they were copied from Simple Wikipedia. Hardly an indication of original contributions by active users. -- Adrignola 18:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Simple Wikipedia and Simple Wiktionary have also been informed. --83.37.231.113 00:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As has Simple English Wikiquote. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

---

• Bugzilla:22103 has been filed. —§ stay (sic)! 18:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Huib talk 19:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC) as nom
2. Koektrommel 19:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Support closure, per above comments
3. I probably opposed last time, but this project has had time to get itself back on its feet. In the time between the two requests, nothing much has happened there at all. It's simply not attracting editors, so the project is in effective standstill with a few occasional changes making little impact to the project. At the moment, it's my opinion that the project is not likely to pick itself up again. PeterSymonds 19:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

   > the project is not likely to pick itself up again

   That does not seem to me like a fact or a reason but rather future foresight. I have seen a few projects which have become nicely active after long spells of inacivity. Many wouldn't have bet a dime for them one day before they started the ignition key. Besides, even if what you foresee were true, I still fail to see why is that important. Projects do not have to have a certain developing rate. Trying to impose such a thing sounds like a corporate commission speaking as if the project had to be slashed because it is not profitable enough. Unless I am very wrong, that does not sound much like the Wikimedia I know. I really cannot see why inactivity is the issue it seems to be for so many people. --79.109.10.102 16:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

   Well, the fact I'm basing my statement on is the extremely low levels of activity. Based on this, my common sense tells me that this project isn't going anywhere. PeterSymonds 19:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

4. I opposed last time as well, but the project has done nothing to stabilize itself. No content work is being done, and as such I support its closure. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Per Peter and Julian. iMatthew ^talk at  23:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Nothing going on here. ShapiroS¹⁰ 00:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Support closure, per above comments. Majorly talk 00:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Nothing's going on. Exert 00:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
9. I don't see progress. NonvocalScream 02:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
10. The project has had time since the last proposal to close to show that it is viable, and it simply has not. Ed (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
11. A look at the 30-day RC feed shows very little legitimate activity in the article namespace. Nakon 06:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
12. Well, No-one is active there. Et all per Peter and Julian. Barras 08:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Complete lack of activity - absolutely no reason to keep it going. Ironholds 06:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

    Is it gobbling up resources or something by staying innactive? --79.109.10.102 16:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

    No, it is not. However, we ought not keep inactive projects around to collect dust. NonvocalScream 17:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

    Dust? So it is a problem of looks rather than fairness or taking things easy? Maybe a side effect of the current publicity-riddled and appearance-obsessed times so common out of the Majority World? Well, I certainly prefer a dusty, shabby nook that can be used any time to a glossy hole where they mark your timing. In my humble scales, going through all the tedious process of closing a project outweights the supposed benefits (I still wonder what the benefits are) of closing it. --81.38.39.52 17:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

14. Little activity. — RyanCross (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
15. Not enough activity and virtually no improvement since the last time. - Rjd0060 19:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
16. --თოგო ^(D) 23:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC) there is enwikibooks. People may simply write books in simpler English there. Existing books can be moved over to enwb.
    1. ENWB and SEWB have different project aims. Different project, different requirements. Microchip08 ^sewb 23:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    Pmlinediter 09:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Too inactive for keeping. Pmlinediter 09:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

17. As mentioned above, there is little activity, and it doesn't seem to be improving. I just don't think it's a project that is needed enough to draw in a large enough loyal editing base. hmwithτ 17:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
18. Wikibooks is not Wikipedia. These articles can be merged into Wikibooks as "Simple Biology" and so forth. Closing steward, please keep this in mind! There's no need to duplicate all of the functions of a separate wiki merely to segregate the "simple" articles. I strongly support closing to allow a Simple English community to blossom on en.wikibooks. Shii 18:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
19. --Jan eissfeldt 07:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC) no activity, no project
20. I support closure on the condition that the content and wiki be merged into en.wikibooks in a distinct namespace. See my comments below in the #Comments section. -- Adrignola 20:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
21. There has only been four useful edits to the project since July 6th 2009. A quick review of the site shows that even in one of the bigger sections (Biology) that articles such as b:simple:Biology/Systems/Respiratory System provide little more information than does the corresponding Simple English Wikipedia article which has a much more active community and thus a greater chance of being expanded. Many other sections of the site contain little more than lists of redlinks. In addition, most of the admins there haven't edited in months, and the editors suffer from the same problem. Those that have been editing have been doing so in one and two edit spurts. Various proposals to increase activity, such as global sysops, have apparently done nothing to actually increase activity. Whilst it would be nice to see the communities of other simple and non-simple projects help out at the Wikibooks project, we have to realize that this has not happened, and is unlikely given that Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, News and Commons will likely always be the most popular of projects. As such, the project has staled, and should regrettably be closed. fr33kman ^{t - c} 19:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
22. The inactivity arguments are convincing and lead me to support closure. MBisanz ^talk 02:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
23. Anything to hasten the death of Simple. --MZMcBride 01:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
24. Don't muddy the water. This is not about simple vs. non-simple. It's about whether there's strong indication of activity in this project. 6 months have gone by and there is close to no activity happening. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
25. Per PeterSymonds and Shii. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 03:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
26. There is no writer composing works in this newly invented language. There are but authors who wrote in the English language (I am referring to the writers eventually concerned this project). Bogorm 16:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
27. Tiptoety ^talk 23:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
28. Per PeterSymonds. Ironholds 23:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
29. Per those above me. It's always been my opinion that only the Simple English Wikipedia has merit among the simple projects. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
30. Per PeterSymonds and above. --Kanonkas 14:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

    I'd like to comment that the project is no longer inactive. We have thousands of projects which are worse off than this. Pmlineditor ∞ 17:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

    But not really main space work (imho). Barras (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

    I can bet that there are tons of projects to close if 50 edits in 2 days is not sufficient. Pmlineditor ∞ 18:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

31. The project should be closed for numerous reasons, all of which I've stated on many occasions before. The project is and should be dead.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
32. Per MBisanz and hmwith. – Katerenka (talk • contribs) 01:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
33. Although I am not the most active editor of Wikimedia wikis, I do watch what's going on, especially with the simple wikis. I edit SWP occasionally, and think it is very useful. I also think SWT is very useful also. They are the core of what people learning English need. In my opinion, Simple Wikibooks, unfortunately is doomed. It's basically dead, and doesn't loo like it'll be revived, if it hasn't already been. MJ94 03:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
34. Most of the other simple projects have use. This one does not. -Djsasso 03:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
35. Time spent making this project better is better spent making the English Wikibooks better. Razorflame 17:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
36. -- Maximillion Pegasus 21:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
37. Wikibooks in "simple English" serve only to fragment the Wikibooks community, while serving no useful purpose. Textbooks can and should be written at any reading level at Wikibooks. Opening this wiki was a mistake; we should fix it now by focusing energy on English Wikibooks.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
38. Per Mike and MZMcBride. Mr.Z-man 04:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
39. There is no reason not to have simply-worded texts on EnWikibooks. -- Avi 04:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

    All reasonable ideas appear to have been tried. Obviously merge or move is better if possible but at some point we have to "switch the machine off" 92.43.64.83 15:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

    Indented IP !vote. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 05:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

40. — Jake Wartenberg 02:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
41. No activity. No reason not to close a project where no one edits. Pmlineditor ∞ 16:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
42. Sorry guys, it's just not active enough to justify itself staying open.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 00:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
43. As of December 2009, the project has been experiencing a decline in activity and editors for the past several months. Out of the eight current admins, only one is regularly active. The project has no bureaucrats since the retirement of User:Pmlineditor. Based on the recent changes page, the project is devoid of activity. There has been only six new articles added since last November 1st. Many of the project's editors have either retired or became inactive. Because of these circumstances, I doubt that this wiki has a useful purpose anymore. It is forgotten, abandoned, unorganized, and there is little to no interest in reviving or continuing this project. What would be beneficial from keeping a inactive stunted wiki? As such, the simple english wikibooks should be closed. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 06:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
44. Can be merged into English Wikibooks without much problem.--Prosfilaes 18:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
45. I agree with MZMcBride and, failing that, with Shii. All books should have a defined audience, any wikibooks should cater for audiences with different levels of comprehension of the English language. John Vandenberg 13:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - You are making a mistake here, all that'll happen is that it'll be closed indefinetly, and never opened again because lots of people hate the simple projects. Yotcmdr 19:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose; I am biased here, being a sysop there (although I must admit that I am inactive). This project has been nominated for closure relatively recently, and not much has changed since that last proposal, which was a "keep". Due to this, it seems that consensus hasn't changed either. Regards, Microchip08 ^@simpleWB 19:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

   I would also like to take this opportunity to publicise Simple English Wikibooks. It is a "small brother" of the bigger English Wikibooks, and differs from Wikijunior as it's target audience is adults learning English (amongst others), and not just children. Microchip08 ^@simpleWB 19:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

   You are likely thinking of a different Simple English project, as the last time the SE Wikibooks was proposed for closure was May 2006. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

   This request is incorrectly numbered. Microchip08 ^sewb 09:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

   Ah, sure enough. I've moved that request so it ends in "(2)", and moved this request to "(3)" to eliminate further confusion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose - It is a very small community and grows slowly. Abigor, you are sysop there and could help there. To be an admin isn't only deleting, protecting and blocking, it's also the work on the project. Barras 19:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Barras 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Yot.--  † CR₉₀  20:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
3. I find the whole situation rather discouraging. On the one hand, the project really is inactive. However, the observation in the Comments section about how this project would likely never come back from the Incubator is quite astute; given the unique status of the Simple English "language", I do wonder if closing the project would kill it entirely. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

   It wouldn't go to the Incubator but become a Simple sub-project on en.wikibooks. Shii 18:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

   Which would possibly help it out in the long run as more people edit there and they might start editing just for the sheer novelty of the sub-project; maybe. :) fr33kman ^{t - c} 19:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   That I would support. My opposition to the project's closure comes strictly from disliking the idea that all the content will be swept under the wiki-rug; as long as it's being preserved in a viable editing environment (which I wouldn't consider the Incubator to be, in this case), I'd consider my concerns met and would support the project's closure. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose I don't actually see the point of closing most projects since as mentioned below in a number of really good points, putting a project in the incubator doesn't really help it any, if anything it hurts it. And if this closure proposal were to go through the closure would most likely be permanent since simple language wikis are no longer allowed. -Djsasso 06:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   This argument is invalid because this project would not return to the Incubator. Shii 18:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose I think losing this project would be a shame. simple.wikibooks provides a focus for books that I believe would be lost if the books were moved to english.wikibooks, which is likely were they would end up if not completely lost. As things are people already seem to be confused by what simple means. Simple doesn't mean books are explained in simple terms, books are directed at people new to a subject, or that books are written for children. Books described as simple would quickly be lost in the crowed and confused for those meanings rather then the intended meaning of a limited subset of the English language. Simple English books need to retain there own project where the confusion can be managed and addressed by people who know what the differences are, and where the integrity of Simple English books can be maintained. I also disagree with the assertion that the project doesn't have enough activity. People are still contributing to books, even if the contributions are to existing books and pages. Also every project seems to suffer some decrease in activity during Holidays and during times when school is out, that increases again once Holidays and school is back in session. Differences in activity are just more noticeable on smaller projects, but that isn't a reason to conclude the project is dead or is dying. --darklama 02:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose. per Darklama. Hillgentleman 18:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose. Moving the this whole into en.wikibooks.org is a better idea. 62.58.136.58 13:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

   Indented IP's vote OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

6. Strong Oppose. I have just started to contribute there. The English textbook is brilliant, and has to be kept. Kayau 14:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Per Yotcmdr, Darklama, 81.38.39.52 and Kayau and the others who are editing now there. Even if it still were inactive it would make no difference for me: I do not think we have a right to interfere in future potential users' ease at editing by adding bureaucratic actions only for cosmetic factors. The fact that an admin has proposed is not relevant at all. An admin is, first of all, just another user. Besides, I cannot avoid to see many of these votations as subtle bullying. Not my cup of tea. --0 º 11:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

   Basically per Yot. Pmlineditor 09:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

8. Oppose. Per Yotcmdr --RubiksMaster110 03:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose While I agree that the project is inactive, this differs from most other closure proposals. Usually, when a project is closed it is moved to the incubator until there's enough interest to give it its own domain again. However, if Simple English Wikibooks is shut down, it can never be restarted again due to the languages rule, even if there is increased interest in it later (which is entirely possible). Tempodivalse [talk] 00:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

   Would you please explain why not being able to re-open the project is a problem?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 00:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose --RubiksMaster110 07:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC), Sorry I didnt realize I voted twice :(...

   Intended double !vote Pmlineditor  Talk 15:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

10. Oppose -- I have just found the simple.wikibooks and now it is closing, that is not giving it a chance to live and intergrate in the other projects. Carsrac 03:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

    I'm not sure how the fact that you just discovered the project is relevant. Can you explain please?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

11. Oppose per EVula and Djsasso. Griffinofwales 23:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose if for no other reason than we'll never get it started again if it's closed Purplebackpack89 23:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose per Tempodivalse. Srhat 19:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose It is small, but has potential to become active. Maximillion Pegasus 14:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

14. Oppose I definitely oppose - this is a great resource for kids, and it just has to have a few more people editing it. It has amazing potential, will be a great addition to WIKIMEDIA when a lot of kids start using it. If it is closed down, it will probably never be re-opened. It will be a great project, and if it is fairly inactive now, all it needs is publicity. DONT CLOSE THIS PROJECT! — The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiTome (talk)

    You are confusing Simple English with Wikijunior on English Wikibooks. The former has an audience of all ages and can include those for whom English is a second language while the latter is geared toward children only. How can you oppose something you don't fully understand? -- Adrignola 14:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

    Agreed. On that note may I comment that the project is no longer that inactive. Pmlineditor ∞ 17:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

15. Oppose I am a currently inactive admin at SEWB. I believe in the Simple English concept and that it applies to Wikibooks. I believe that it is valuable and contributes something that would otherwise be absent. But even if none of these things were true, I would still oppose its closure. Inactivity is simply not a good enough reason to close, especially in a case where the decision is irrevocable. And no, incorporating it into English WB or Incubator is not good enough. Any proposal to close SEWP would be forcefully and successfully opposed, even if that proposal included the idea of "incorporating the information in a special subsection of English Wikipedia." This opposition means that the Simple English concept has merit. If it has merit for SEWP, it does for SEWB also. Keep it open. You never know when a project will catch on (see Simple English Wiktionary, for example), and there are plenty of Simple English editors out there, especially in SEWP. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 16:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

    Oh, and this project has already survived at least one closure proposal already under similar circumstances. Keep this in mind. If it had merit then, it probably has merit now. I certainly think it does. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 16:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

16. Strong oppose I don't know English very well and it is difficult for me to translate the information from en.wb, but simple.wb also has much information and it helps me, so simple.wb is important for people who are not English.--Bourge^talk 18:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose It is a valid point that Simple English books would fall into the scope of ENWB, however, a wiki is more than just its articles. SEWB offers an opportunity to create a complete resource for non-native english speakers, from community pages to templates (I am a native speaker, and I still have trouble with the whole "module" vs. "page" thing at ENWB). While, admittedly, there has been a lull in activity, there is still potential at SEWB to create a useful and engaging experience for English learners. The assertion that closing SEWB would benefit ENWB is ridiculous. The SEWB community is very small and would not make a difference in the activity at ENWB. What would be gained by closing down SEWB? If ENWB is the best place to nurture and develop Simple English content, then where is that content? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ezra Katz (talk)

    Strong oppose I think that the project should not be closed-there are many foreigners learning english with it.And if we want more articles- we shall CREATE THEM.The faith of all Wikimedia projects is in our hands. We are to blame for that there aren't many articles,but this doesn't mean to close the project!It means we shold create and edit more.Every new begginning is difficult.

    Indented IP !vote. --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 06:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose This vote is not fair (like most wiki votes). The majority of those voting for the project's deletion have never used it nor contribute regularly to any of the Simple English projects. Similarly this vote hasn't been announced among the other SE projects nor English Wikibooks. Allowing rabbits to vote for the slaughter of beetles isn't right. There is no consensus in this vote so who ever has suggested that there is and said that they're going to put in a formal request to the Devs for deletion should think again.--Xania 23:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

    This !vote was cast after the discussion was finished. As such it cannot be counted as legitible. —§ stay (sic)! 01:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    The "discussion" was terminated without consensus and without seeking the opinions of as many editors as possible (across different Simple English projects and other Wikibooks projects).--Xania 23:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I see points in both sides here, on one side, there has been much inactivity, however some people bring up it may never be opened again if closed once, always a possibility. I believe that simple english wikibooks keep in line with simple english wikipedia, which are great resources, and help wikimedia and wikipedia have a farther reach. But what is the effectiveness? So, I am undecided. Rab777hp 01:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments

In general I fail to see what the benefits of closing a project like this are. To my mind closing it:

1. Requires people's work and attention.
2. Adds extra work to overbusy places like Bugzilla. It usually takes months to get a response and if a mistake has been done, solutions (or half solutions) take as well long periods.
3. Makes interwiki links disappear (unless those links are kept alive in the Incubator, are they?), cutting the project out from the wikimatrix (and providing extra work to bots, which, at the same time increases unnecesarily the number of edits... once to delete every link and once again to restore them)
4. Transfers often are not executed promptly and properly (often done in bulk without previous proper checking; missing or hidden informative links; projects sitting for months unreachable to everybody others than certain sysops or developpers...)
5. Nowadays there are better tools and resources to fight spam and vandalism easily. The Incubator is not an especially better environment for many projects, this included.
6. Editing in the Incubator usually is burdersome, especially for newbies, due to prefixes and the fact that it is not the natural environment where the project (hopefully) will end up.

What are the benefits for the closing and transfering that I am missing? Thanks. Regards. --81.38.39.52 13:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Your argument applies to any project closure... and this work must be done. If I were to accept your argument, there would be no closing of *any* project. NonvocalScream 18:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I (81.38.39.52 with a different IP) am not against closing projects. I am against closing projects with flimsy arguments disguised as truisms like "no activity" or "no community". A project that is damaging, negatively interferring with another project(s) or rogue, for example, should be proposed for closure and I can think of a bunch of other cases. In those cases, the benefits would be obvious or, at least, worth considering. So far, nobody has given a real answer to the question "What are the benefits for the closing and transfering that I am missing?". Regards. --83.39.164.5 22:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, this particular wiki is unlikely to be incubated: Simple English is not a language. If this wiki was proposed today, it would not be created. If this wiki is closed, it will never reopen. Ever. Microchip08 ^sewb 15:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

How is that a problem?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If the project was not a success as is here, then it should not be reopened... the chance of success is unlikely. NonvocalScream 18:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

@Mike.lifeguard: If that is not a problem, maybe we should as well start considering fusing many couples, trios and even quartets of "so called" different languages into units under linguistic (i.e. not political, social or even merely orthographical) arguments. A really considerable bunch of "distinctive" languages are actually varieties pushed into "independence" by non-linguistical features. Wouldn't it be very convenient. In that manner we could have many fewer projects, with the same contents and as effective as they are now... I think wikis need a real chance to see if they can develop, not a mob with torches running after them every few weeks, months, years or decads just because they are not photogenic. It seems as if the existence of a, so far, inactive site were demanding something more important than the attention of all of us taking part in this discussion. Take it easy, people, is not that bad. Please don't kill the users before they are born unless there are real reasons for it. --83.39.164.5

? The project has had years to develop, and it has, for the most part, remained inactive and largely useless. There are but a few complete "books", and no active editors. If a local sysop proposes its closure, I think it's safe to say we can live without it for now. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, doesn't en.wikibooks have a "Simple" or "Children's" sector? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're familiar with the history of en.wikibooks, you'll know that en.wikiversity used to be a part of the wiki. Wikibooks acted as an incubator for it until it was split off. There are already several projects at en.wikibooks that would support the idea of Wikibooks acting as an incubator or adoptee of the content at simple.wikibooks. There is the Cookbook, a collection of recipes in the Cookbook: namespace and Wikijunior, books for children under 12 in the Wikijunior: namespace. The content would not have to be abandoned in Meta's incubator or lost through deletion. The creation of a Simple: namespace on en.wikibooks would accommodate the content, prevent name conflicts with existing articles, and separate the simple and non-simple material. The additional activity on en.wikibooks would prevent widespread vandalism from going unnoticed. In short, en.wikibooks is not a stranger to incubation. Administrators there, such as myself, would be able to transwiki import the content (listed as 300 main namespace pages right now) into a new namespace at en.wikibooks. -- Adrignola 20:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be a chore and a sore to have to append "simple:" everytime you want to write something. And from what I see in betawikiversity, people are often more reluctant to contribute to a probationary domain, as they are not sure when or where the project will be moved. Hillgentleman 18:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't stopped the thousands of recipes we have or the successful Wikijunior. People already have to remember to name new pages with their book's root title for them to be subpages. There are conventions on books also being title case. If people can't put in the effort to name properly given all the guidelines at Wikibooks, then Wikibooks is not for them regardless of the domain or namespace. Wikijunior has had ruminations about it being split off yet it's still going strong despite being "probationary". I also fail to see how things could be worse than how they are right now with simple.wikiboooks if all the people claiming inactivity above are correct. Your arguments could also apply to Meta's incubator as well. My stance is that if it needs to be incubated or propped up, do it at en.wikibooks. -- Adrignola 19:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

@mike.lifeguard: No problem; simply that the opening statement that the wiki should be moved back to the incubator is dubious at best. I've no problem with it closing, but I was under the understanding that closed projects can be reopened if enough interest is garnered. Microchip08 ^sewb 12:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Simple English is not a language, and no new simple English wikis will be created. So: No, if the simple English Wikibooks is closed, it will not re-open. That is not a problem.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Another possibility is to move it to Books namespace in simple wikipedia. Ruslik 18:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think one way that this project could be inproved greatly is to transfer WikiJunior from English to here Purplebackpack89 01:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, take content from a successful wiki and push it into one that's floundering to prop it up artificially, ignore the differences between simple English and content written for children, discard the Flagged Revisions in place on en.wikibooks, and force editors at the site where Wikijunior started to move elsewhere. That's the ticket. -- Adrignola 12:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous idea PBP89. Wikijunior is not SEWikibooks. Pmlineditor  Talk 12:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Am I nuts, or doesn't simple english include the english spoken by little kids (FYI, this isn't totally related to my WJ proposal)? Purplebackpack89 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have read the above suggestion about creating a simple: namespace at wikibooks, but I think as a Simple English project it would be better if moved to the Simple English Wikipedia. A new book: namespace could be created and then the existing content on simple wikibooks could be transwikied over. Maximillion Pegasus 20:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I strike that comment, I believe the project does have potential to become active and believe it should stay as is. Maximillion Pegasus 14:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not taking any position here, I just wanted to tell you that a proposal has been made to "merge" some of the projects into Simple Wikipedia. This proposal can be found at Simple talk (named Important proposal;alternatively in probably archive 74 there). In the hope to have given a pointer. --Eptalon 22:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Time for closure? I'd say we have fairly strong consensus here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  Methinks we should go ahead and file a request. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  Done Bugzilla:22103 —§ stay (sic)! 18:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)