Requests for comment/Zazaki Wikipedia v. Kurdish Wikipedia
The following request for comments is closed. The request was eventually archived as inactive.
On the behalf of the Zazaki Wikipedia, hereby I invite all the community to submit their comments for the dispute between the Zazaki Wikipedia and the Kurdish Wikipedia. --Maviulke12 17:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Related Pages edit
--Maviulke12 17:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Background edit
In January 2006, I proposed the creation of a Zazaki Wikipedia, which was opposed by the Kurdish Wikipedia administrators. We had a long discussion for months. At the end, my proposal was accepted, and we launched the Zazaki Wikipedia in October 2006.
However, the Kurdish Wikipedia had already have a Zazaki section before my proposal. After we launched the Zazaki Wikipedia, we expected that the Kurdish Wikipedia administrators will transfer a few Zazaki articles that they hosted. Although, almost four months has passed, they did not transfer Zazaki articles to the Zazaki Wikipedia. My conversations with them did not change anything, and they insist on keeping the Zazaki section.
As of March 1 2007, the Zazaki Wikipedia hosts 1066 Zazaki articles, with growing participation. We would like to create a vibrant and comprehensive Zazaki Wikipedia. We believe that a Zazaki section on Kurdish Wikipedia is unnecessary, and it is preventing the Zazaki Wikipedia to grow.
My proposal is that the Zazaki section on the Kurdish Wikipedia should be closed down and articles should be transferred to the Zazaki Wikipedia. --Maviulke12 17:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- You are perfectly free to transfer these articles yourself, as all of Wikipedia is released under a GFDL license. You can't expect others to do it for you, however. It's all voluntary. Jon Harald Søby 21:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes that is true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.0.190.97 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 14 Apr 2007 (UTC)
If they feel like having a Zazaki section, why not? Zazaki doesn't belong to the proper Kurdish languages, but it is closely related to them (both belong to the Northwestern Iranian languages), so it's the decision of the ku-community to in- or exclude Zazaki articles. --Thogo (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Having duplicates are unhelpful. Consider chinese wikipedia and how breakaway material was moved rather than kept. Each dialect should have its own wiki. -- Cat chi? 02:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, true. That would be the optimal state, of course. But it's mostly the decision of the communities whether or not they allow different dialects. And as long as the Zazaki community doesn't import those articles (best would be via the transwiki tool) they are not "duplicated". When they did, the ku.wp people should delete them, but not before. --Thogo (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- There is more to this than a simple namespace argument and previous discussions are proof of this - tho I do not care much about those details. It is redundant to have same material on two wikis. I'd like to point out that both of these wikis are not very active and do not have much of a "community" to make desicions. -- Cat chi? 03:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, the ku.wiki is quite active and there are several people. They have sysop and bureaucrat elections and all the stuff. I don't know about the Zazaki wiki, but I was (temporarily) sysop on ku.wiki last year, and had a good insight into that community. And, AFAICS, the community didn't decrease since then. Don't misunderstand that as an objection against your point about redundancy. But as I said before, it's on the Zazaki community to import the articles (to make them redundant). Btw., there is a simple English WP, which is not only redundant to en.wiki but it is in the very same language. So should one close it? ;o) --Thogo (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- You are right. We are not supposed to babysit zazaki wiki, I agree with you there. I was also a temporary admin on Ku.wiki. I helped clean out left over orphaned and unlicensed images. Overall the community didn't move a finger to help resolve that one - so I wasn't particularly impressed. That is an excellent example. Simple wiki is intended on being for simple English. "Real" English has its own wiki. They are similar but completely different. -- Cat chi? 03:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hm. That sounds bad indeed... I had different experiences, but I think most people have some problems with license stuff and don't want to deal with that kind of things. So it might be our task to tell them how correct licensing works and why it is so important... But anyway, I think we can't help the Zazaki people if they don't import these articles themselves. After they did, they should speak with the ku.wiki people that they maybe transform these articles into Kurmanji (yes, it's much work, which probably will never be done...). 5:30 AM --> Good night, --Thogo (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- You are right. We are not supposed to babysit zazaki wiki, I agree with you there. I was also a temporary admin on Ku.wiki. I helped clean out left over orphaned and unlicensed images. Overall the community didn't move a finger to help resolve that one - so I wasn't particularly impressed. That is an excellent example. Simple wiki is intended on being for simple English. "Real" English has its own wiki. They are similar but completely different. -- Cat chi? 03:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, the ku.wiki is quite active and there are several people. They have sysop and bureaucrat elections and all the stuff. I don't know about the Zazaki wiki, but I was (temporarily) sysop on ku.wiki last year, and had a good insight into that community. And, AFAICS, the community didn't decrease since then. Don't misunderstand that as an objection against your point about redundancy. But as I said before, it's on the Zazaki community to import the articles (to make them redundant). Btw., there is a simple English WP, which is not only redundant to en.wiki but it is in the very same language. So should one close it? ;o) --Thogo (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- There is more to this than a simple namespace argument and previous discussions are proof of this - tho I do not care much about those details. It is redundant to have same material on two wikis. I'd like to point out that both of these wikis are not very active and do not have much of a "community" to make desicions. -- Cat chi? 03:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, true. That would be the optimal state, of course. But it's mostly the decision of the communities whether or not they allow different dialects. And as long as the Zazaki community doesn't import those articles (best would be via the transwiki tool) they are not "duplicated". When they did, the ku.wp people should delete them, but not before. --Thogo (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)