Proposals for closing projects/Deletion of Moldovan Wikipedia

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"). The next step was:

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY: THIS IS NOT A PROPOSAL FOR CLOSING THE MOLDOVAN WIKIPEDIA (it is already closed). THIS IS A PROPOSAL FOR THE DELETION (i.e. remove it completely from Wikimedia and the SiteMatrix) OF THE MOLDOVAN WIKIPEDIA AND ITS DOMAIN as per the Siberian Wikipedia precedent..

Arguments against:

  • Original content was created at this Wiki, which was since copied without attribution by ro.wp. Unfortunately, due to actions of several ro.wikipedians, this wikipedia was locked so that creative people can no longer write new content for the time being. In addition, ro.wp refuses to provide any sort of accomodations to users who wish to read or edit in Cyrillic, although it would be easy to implement a converter tab much like on sr.wp.

Arguments for:

The identifiers mo and mol are deprecated, leaving ro and ron (639-2/T) and rum (639-2/B) the current language identifiers to be used for the variant of the Romanian language also known as Moldavian and Moldovan in English and moldave in French. (source: The Library of Congress - ISO 639-2 Registration Authority / SIL)
  • NO CONTENT WILL BE LOST All articles on the so called Moldovan Wikipedia are old versions of Romanian Wikipedia articles (back in 2006), that were just automaticaly transliterated into the Cyrillic alphabet. There is no need for such a content, as there are various online tools that can automaticaly transilterate content into Cyrillic from any language written in the Latin alphabet. Even English if you want.
Compare Muzică (Romanian Wikipedia, October 2005) to Музикэ (Moldovan Wikipedia). That happened because the user who started this Wikipedia didn't speak the language, and couldn't create content on its own.
Now, if someone really wants to read all Romanian Wikipedia in Cyrillic he can do that here (the script was developed by Bogdan and is ready to be implemented as soon as anybody requests it).
  • According to the Constitution of Moldova, the official language of Moldova is written with the Latin alphabet, not the Cyrillic alphabet (art. 13 of the Constitution).
  • Wikipedia is often mocked in the Romanian-speaking media because of the so-called Moldovan Wikipedia,[1] as an example of voluntary work gone bad (you can also have a look at this cause on, signed by 6700 people).

I propose that the mo subdomain should be taken down and redirected to the Romanian Wikipedia.

NOTE Moldovan language is not a dialect, or another standard language of a pluricentric language (like in the case of Croatian and Serbian), there is not even the slightest difference in the written form of the language in Moldova and the language in Romania. There is no Moldovan language standard. According to the national conception of Moldova, Moldovan is BY LAW just another name of the Romanian language: see Title I (DISPOZIŢII GENERALE) of the law on the Conception of the national politics of Moldova, and the 1989 Language Law that made the language official across Moldova. Reffer to en:Moldovan language and ro:Limba moldovenească for more sources on this issue and further reading.

The result of this discussion should also apply to the Moldovan Wiktionary, that is empty (only 11 pages, that are not actual dictionary entries, just Wikipedia articles). --Danutz 17:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: "Arguments against" had been given by Node_ue; however, since they were interspersed with the text above and unsigned, a small edit-war over their presence on this page took place. They can now be found on the corresponding talk page. Seb az86556 15:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


  1. Danutz 17:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC) As the initiator of this proposal.
  2. Afil 04:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  3. Support, since no content would be lost. - Xbspiro 03:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  4. As it does not meet the language policy, and no content would be lost, no reason the keep it archived. - Elekhh 15:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  5. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  6. This is purportedly a real, living language (as opposed to Latin or Klingon), but no linguistic organization acknowledges it. No real language and no real content -- keeping it would be useless and unprofessional. --Gutza 18:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  7. I agree with Gutza.--Underlying lk 03:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  8. - εΔω 08:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC) As explained above: I read all the discussion about closure (which left me quite sad) and I think that this is the best solution to avoid any further wiki-riot.
  9. If will not be reopened, is inutile.. Memo18(contribs|talk|ro.wp(t)) 22:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  10. Per reasons stated in nomination. It is the same language as Romanian. --Pmsyyz 20:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  11. --Andrijko Z. 15:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  12. Support, because all the content is not so useful to keep it. --LexArt 08:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  13. Support Per nom. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  14. very very weak suport If all content is just translated. It's a shame we might lose.Wilbysuffolk 06:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  15. Support - Vibhijain 11:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  16. Support - For the reasons stated in the proposal. --Sekelsenmat 14:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


  1. This has been discussed before - mo.wp should not be closed until a compromise is reached allowing equal access to content in Cyrillic. This has been agreed to by members of the language subcommittee. It seems Danutz would like to have his cake and eat it too - exclude any users of Cyrillic alphabet from using ro.wp, while simultaneously ensuring they never have a Wiki of their own. This is unfair and wrong. --Node ue 19:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  2. Oppose as a matter of principle: you may hate certain books or disagree with them, you may even lock them up somewhere — but you don't burn them. Seb az86556 21:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - I don't see any good reason to delete it. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  4. No, should not be deleted. What about the effort of people who edited it with happiness and enthusiasm? That's unfair. Diego Grez return fire 18:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Lol.. articles are in romanian, an for that are ro.wp.. and is inactive from 2006 the project.. unfair =)) lol. Memo18(contribs|talk|ro.wp(t)) 22:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
      • So, Memo, if the articles are in romanian, I guess you as a RO.wp user would not be perturbed if I wrote an article for ro.wp in Cyrillic? You would just accept it and allow it to remain as is? I look forward to that day, when we can live in a world without prejudices... the project is not "inactive", it was locked due to unfair "popularity contest" vote in which people simply called as many of their friends to vote as possible and esssentially pitted Romanians against Russians. Prior to that, it was growing with several articles created daily. --Node ue 08:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Memo, please remain civil here. Seb az86556 05:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Please, let's try to keep discussions in the talk page. --Danutz 19:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
          • It's unfair that you get to decide - and keep changing - the rules for this vote. When it was 5-4, you extended the participation deadline. I see no reason why discussion can't take place on this page if people wish to do so, similarly I think the deadline is/was arbitrary; remember when you chastised me for intercalating my text with yours? Well, the original proposal that people voted on said it would end several weeks ago, does the fact that you changed the deadline arbitrarily mean those votes are now invalid? I'm confused. --Node ue 21:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
            • Discussions should be in the discussion page. If you realy wish, talk here, I just wanted to keep the content organised, so people can read it easy. Also, I wrote from the start in the proposition that the term should be prolonged if we fail to get enough feedback. But the score at the moment of the prolongation was to delete If we closed the discussion at that point, that would mean the result will be "delete" I thought there would be no problem to prolongate the term as 8 votes are not "enough feedback". I just wanted to be fair, and let as many people as possible to express opinions. I really don't understand why you would be against this. If you are not satisfied with the current situation, please adress a complaint to WM:RFH, or wherever you find appropiate. --Danutz 00:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
              • Actually, a 5-4 vote is at the discretion of the person closing the vote, in most recent cases this was considered a vote to keep it since the votes were so close; however those were discussions about locking Wikis, this one is much more serious and would likely have required an even broader consensus. --Node ue 20:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
                • Yes, I agree that 5-4 is not enough, neither would be 49-50, that's why I removed the timeline. It is clear that we should have a bigger difference. But strictly speaking if we stopped the discussion at that time, then the result will be delete. The problem was that 9 votes are simply not enough feedback. I agree to that, we must have tens of votes and a very clear difference when talking about deleting a project, because it is a big decision. But if you think I did wrong, I repeat, feel free to report me - sincerily, I only did it in good faith. --Danutz 21:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  5. Oppose --N KOziTalk 04:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, until such time as the transliteration script is implemented on rowiki. Once that's done, I can support deletion. Craig Franklin 22:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC).


See talkpage.


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