Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Taraskievica Wikipedia

Latest comment: 6 years ago by StevenJ81
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 rejected and the project will be kept open. should be closed due to its "language" being a orthographic variant of Belarusian. (This has precedent; ru-sib was closed due to being a racist rant disguised as a Russian dialect, and was closed due to basically being a Cyrillic transliteration of KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • Please notify the community at be:. There is no sense in taking this forward if that community is not willing to incorporate the contents of this project.
  • Please notify Wikimedia Belarus as an interested party.
StevenJ81 (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Comment. I'll concede that if this project were coming up for creation today, it would never be allowed as a separate project. But there are several other projects of which this is also true. In general, grandfathered projects remain open as long as they are healthy. Is this project not healthy? It seems to be active. What makes you think this community is remotely interested in merging into be:? StevenJ81 (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Discussion edit

Strongly oppose to this proposal. Denying users who want to contribute with their own standardized language is not an option. Not, if we aim to share knowledge in all standardized languages. Insisting on similarities with some other closed projects, with inappropriate claims laid on those closed projects is also not a good way to make opening statements, not in these proceedings.

Bear in mind that language is not only communication, but a matter of culture and of civilisation. Wikipedia in Belarusian in Taraškievica orthography is clearly such a case, where cultural influences determined two very much different cultures, and that difference brought also different lexicons (lexicology).

Claims of uniformity and/or mutual intelligibility are not well suited with the goal of sharing knowledge, especially not when large ethnical groups have different views on encyclopaedically viable matter. It's hard enough to adhere with a standardized language, and to structure ones thoughts into creating content in that language, to latter be subjected with denigration of that standard by a group of editors who do not follow that standardized language (for example ijekavian standard). The nation of the Republic of Belarus is one entity, Belarusians are another one, and are not solely in connection with the Republic. Even all Belarusians in the Republic of Belarus do not use the Belarusian language.

Because the proponent of these proceedings brought up some projects, I will say that all simple projects should be closed, as farms for recruiting future decision makers on some Nominally cooperation project(s). -- Nesmir Kudilovič (razgovor) 18:33, petak, 22. rujna 2017. (SEV)

"Even all Belarusians in the Republic of Belarus do not use the Belarusian language." That's exactly why it's a bad idea to have the online. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Wrong. Belarusians outside of the Republic of Belarus use it. Also worth noting is that it could go either way, could be merged into -- Nesmir Kudilovič (razgovor) 02:16, subota, 23. rujna 2017. (SEV)
There are many more bad projects I could list: Scots Wikipedia (obvious joke), Lojban Wikipedia (just as niche as Klingon and Toki Pona, which were both closed and deleted), Wikispecies (redundant to taxobox template), Cebuano Wikipedia (most of the more than 5 million articles are bot-created stubs), the list goes on and on... KATMAKROFAN (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
This has nothing to do with Belarusian (Taraškievica) Wikipedia. Also, projects with flourishing communities are not normally closed. -- Nesmir Kudilovič (razgovor) 20:15, subota, 23. rujna 2017. (SEV)
If you REALLY want to have a wiki in this "language", then you can "#taraskexit" onto Wikia, Shoutwiki, or some other wikifarm, like Klingon and Toki Pona did. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Nesmir, it coudn't go either way. Because people who use so called "tarashkevitsa" are very few in number, most of these people have, in fact, very poor knowledge of real Belarusian, and "Tarashkevitsa dialect" they use is far enough from living Belarusian language.
Besides, these "Tarashkevitsa people" are, in general, very intolerant and always tend to impose their "tarashkevitsa Belarusian" on other people. So, to avoid trouble for normal people, should be spared. Because, in opposite case, tarashkevitsa activists will interfere with normal work of — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:29:47, 24 September 2017 (MSK) (UTC)

Oppose. should be spared. Because, in opposite case, tarashkevitsa activists will interfere with normal work of — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:29:47, 24 September 2017 (MSK) (UTC)

Strongly oppose to this proposal. Actually Belarusian (Taraškievica), or Classic Belarusian, is not just a variant of Belarusian orthography. According to reliable sources[1][2] it is also a linguistic norm. Even a simple comparison of articles in Classic Belarusian project to Official Belarusian one shows that there are a lot differences in vocabulary (according to existing dictionaries in Classic Belarusian) and syntax. So this situation has nothing in common with artificially created and completely unused so-called Siberian language. The comparison to Moldovan language, which is just an another name of Romanian language, gives me all rights to believe, that this nomination is just a provocation by some puppet account with less than 100 edits. Moreover development of Classic Belarusian project is completely comparable to Official Belarusian especially if subtract automatically created articles in the second one. Unfortunately because of politically loaded creation of Official Belarusian linguistic norm (under Russian Soviet rule in atmosphere of Stalin terror and without participation of professional linguists) two Belarusian projects had not very good relations. Now the situation becomes a little bit better. But it doesn't mean that anyone in Classic Belarusian project wish to join Official Belarusian community. So in order to avoid returning a tension between Belarusian projects I suggest to close this proposal asap. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

So I request speedy closure of this request. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
I am not a sockpuppet. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Strongly oppose to this proposal. I agree with Kazimier Lachnovič. I have nothing to add.--Lesnas ättling (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Nesmir, Kazimier, and Lesnas are using suspiciously similar arguments... KATMAKROFAN (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Firstly, "Lesnas" is not a firstname and couldn't be separated from the another part of my username. Secondly, it is my right to be agree with my colleague.--Lesnas ättling (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunatelly, I Support this. Although I doubt the logical of this PCP and even doubt the oppose users above are really one sock controller man, it looks like the oppose comments are nearly always canvased by some so-called newbits, and even don't consider any kinds of technical possibility. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Liuxinyu970226: There is no policy reason to close this wiki. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Liuxinyu970226: Unfortunatelly I don't see any reasonable answers on my and Nesmir Kudilovič's arguments as well as StevenJ81's comments. Moreover it's very sad, that you didn't even check my, Nesmir Kudilovič's and Lesnas ättling's contribution. I hope it's pretty obvious, that we can't be connected. Still you can send an appropriate request to check our accounts as well as accounts of dozens active users of I don't understand what kind of "technical possibility" you talk. The existence of Official and Classic Belarusian Wikipedias actually has no differences from existing Norwegian Bokmål and Riksmål Wikipedias. But now I have no doubt, that short, emotional and not-relevant to any kind of policy answers of KATMAKROFAN is just a simple trolling. And it didn't happen for the first time. So I'm very disappointed, that this completely provocative request stays open so far. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
The difference between this and Bokmal is that Bokmal is recognized as a separate language by the ISO, Library of Congress, SIL, IETF, and WMF, where Taraškievica is only recognized as a separate language by the IETF and WMF. I am an rollbacker, not a troll. You clearly haven't been on, which is one of the largest WikiMedia projects. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Is it acceptable here to call any linguistic norm a "broken language" without any consequences?! Sorry, but it's my right to ignore rude provokers. So good luck here. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
I have changed that comment, as it was inappropriate. I think we need to stop name-calling here.
As to other items that have been brought up here:
  • Any discussion of "simple" projects is out of scope on this page.
  • Typically, we allow requests for project closures like this one to stay open a long time. And then they are very rarely successful, especially in more recent years. For right now, please be patient on this one and stop calling people names.
  • As I said at the top of the page, be-tarask: would probably not be approved as a new project today. But normally we do not close projects that have active communities, even if they do not meet the current Language Proposal Policy. As this project has an active community, it is unlikely that LangCom will agree to close it. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Strong support Strong support No content, no activity. --Doostdar (talk) 07:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea what you're talking about, Doostdar. There is both content and activity on this wiki. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • This is a tough question.
    • Community-wise, it should be a clear no. The two communities are clearly not ready to work together because they are unlikely to agree on the spelling to use, they even cannot agree how to spell Wikipedia or the name of their capital city Minsk. If we make these wikis merge, most likely the communities will not merge, instead, one will simply stop editing Wikipedia.
    • Strategy-wise, it should be a clear yes. Having two separate communities is not sustainable. Unfortunately in current situation quite few Belarusians are both literate enough in Belarusian and are computer-savvy enough to contribute (most Internet users are in big cities, while an overwhelming majority of people living in cities are Russian speakers). Even fewer can switch between the two spellings. As a result, efforts are split between two versions, and in the end each wiki has just about 1% of readers from Belarus.
    I think that we should still put the interests of the community ahead and keep both at the moment, as a merge does not seem possible at the moment. However, in longer term it is worth exploring how we can move forward towards a merge between two Belarusian Wikipedias without hurting either community (I don't have a solution but I think we need one) — NickK (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
The solution was proposed a long time ago locally in Belarusan wikis, but awaits for the realization. It's similar to the sr-wiki, for instance, where two versions of a page exists: in Cyrillic and Latin letters. But the idea still waits for the implementation by technical means. --Renessaince (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Renessaince: Well, the Serbian solution is not feasible here: it is based on a switch between two versions based on very clearly defined rules. The Belarusian solution can be more like an Armenian one where two language norms (Eastern and Western Armenian) have separate articles within the same wiki, like hy:Հայաստան for Armenia in Eastern Armenian and hy:Հայաստան (արեւմտահայերէն) for Armenia in Western Armenian. I am not sure this is a good solution however — NickK (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oppose So I am against Tarashkevica as a phenomenon, but these are our internal problems and we will solve them ourselves. I see no reason to raise the issue to this level. --Šelechaŭ (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Strongly oppose to this proposal. The tarask community is an essential part of our diverse local belarusian wikimedian community. It has to be as a part of our culture as well. --Mr. Zabej (talk) 12:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

It's as essential as Klingon or Quenya. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

To be-tarask fanboys and standard Belarusian purists edit

  • To the fanboys: Tokipona, Klingon, Siberian, and Moldovan all had fanboys defending them, and they still got closed. Your "language", according to, is broken Old Byelorussian with a bunch of borrowed Polish words and an Ukrainianized orthography, created in the early 1990s by a group of newspaper publishers which didn't like a spelling reform which had taken effect decades ago, and "standardized" by a bunch of random Internet users in 2005. Sound familiar?
  • To the purists: What about just nuking be-tarask from the servers, instead of merging the 2 wikis together?
  • To all users: Taraskevipedia is a blatant violation of both the POV fork policy and the language policy. I want en-x-lolcat: (broken English used in cat memes popular from 2007-2009), en-gb: (British English fork), and i-enochian: (Satanic/pagan ritual language) wikis, but they will probably never be created.

KATMAKROFAN (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Which is exactly why this Wikipedia should stay open. The Taraskievica Wikipedia is a medium-sized Wikipedia that appears to be completely sincere in the goal to produce a Wikipedia. Posts like this, that suggest just nuking it from the servers, make it hard to believe that any merger is possible. Despite the fact that it would not be created today, if a successful merger can't happen, then the situation must stand with two Wikipedias.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
You are mistaken. That is exactly why the Tapawkebiya/Polskaruskaja Wikipedia should be CLOSED. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Enochian has codes "i-enochian" (grandfathered IETF) and "qen"/"art-x-enochian" (custom ISO and IETF (respectively) codes from here), and Tokipona has "tok" (proposed ISO), "tkp" (unofficial ISO), "art-tkp" (unofficial IETF), "tp" (older MediaWiki versions), "tokipona" (newer MediaWiki versions), "art-tokipona" (used internally by MediaWiki), and "qtk"/"art-x-tokipona" (custom ISO and IETF (respectively) codes from here). So, if this fails, I will request creation of an Enochian wiki and reopening of the Tokipona wiki (even though I hate Tokipona with a burning passion). KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
@KATMAKROFAN: That's completely wrong. You can find here the language codes registry. Taraskevica has a valid subcode be-tarask. Tokipona or Enochian have no valid codes (tkp is the code of w:Tikopia language, qen / qtk / tp / tok / tokipona are not valide codes). Kreativekorp is not a valide language authority; only SIL is but it lists neither tok nor tkp for Tokipona and reserves qtk for local use. Your statement that Belarusian is not a language but a mixture of Polish and Russian is simply offensive and does not help a constructive discussion — NickK (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
The IETF will allow anything to get a language code. SIL is more strict. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

References edit

  1. Плотнікаў Б. А., Антанюк Л. А. Беларуская мова. Лінгвістычны кампендыум. — Мн.: Інтэрпрэссэрвіс, Кніжны Дом, 2003.
  2. Шупа С. Слоўнік Свабоды: Тарашкевіца // Arche. — 2000. — № 7 (12).

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