Proposals for closing projects

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk | contribs) at 04:27, 31 May 2006 (→‎Oppose: reformat). It may differ significantly from the current version.
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Participate:

This box: view · talk · edit
Shortcut:
WM:PCP

The following are proposals for closing down existing Wikimedia Foundation projects, and to provide a forum for discussing the relevant merits for or against these proposals.

Please list each proposal in a separate section, and make sure that you add in details to explain why you think the project is no longer useful to the Wikimedia Foundation, links to where the project is currently working at, and links to any other discussion pages that are likely to have occured prior to its being listed on this page.

The initial concepts of how a project should be closed is outlined in the New project policy.

Closure of Simple English Wiktionary

While it is true that in the printed world there are dictionaries for various reading levels, Simple English Wiktionary has not defined itself as a children's dictionary, nor one for beginning English learners, nor as a translation dictionary. It really comes down to what Wiktionary can best serve to enhance the SE Wikipedia. I believe the main English Wiktionary serves that purpose far better. Looking at several SE Wikt entries (of which there are perhaps only 400), many seem no more "simple" than those on the better-populated and much more active main English Wiktionary. -- Netoholic @ 21:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support -- Netoholic @ 21:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as it's not terribly useful. Non-native English speakers should instead try to get a translating dictionary type thing. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The main English Wiktionary even does a good job as that - most entries have extensive translations (ex. wiktionary:wolf#Translations) and photos. SE Wikt is nowhere near that level. -- Netoholic @ 22:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. —Nightstallion (?) 09:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. --Sippel2707 10:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Netoholic, SEWikipedia has not defined itself as a children's project either, although you contribute to that project as a bureacrat. Wiktionary serves the same audience and will complement SEWikipedia's activies. I am also rather angry as SE Wikipedia editors have agreed to make use of all three Simple English projects. You have ignored all of our discussions completely, and then nominated them for closure! Archer7 12:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. --Cromwellt|talk|contris 23:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. This is dumb, what's the harm in the project? Gerard Foley 10:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. While I see the viewpoint of those saying that a simple English wiktionary is inherently not distinguishable from En Wikt, I feel that definitions in themselves can be done using simple English. We're certainly still a work in progress. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. definatly support, for all those who dont have the upmost english skills; such as english as a second language. It is a worthwhile project!
  6. Oppose Computerjoe 10:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - This project is definitely worthwhile. Full English Wiktionary is very useful, but daunting and confusing to people, especially if English is their second language. How many of these people know what an Etymology is!? Simple Wiktionary can be a lot more flexible in it's approach, such as suggesting related words (not just synonyms), and provide more examples. I vote it should stay. --h2g2bob (simple wiktionry | wikipedia)

Comments

  • Four things:
    1. This is a problem with a single user on SEWikipedia, who does not think any other simple English projects should exist. He has fought any reference to these projects for a long time, but the rest of the SEWikipedia community has agreed to link to these projects as useful complements to SEWikipedia.
    2. English Wiktionary will never be simple, and therefore cannot best serve the users of SEWikipedia, as consensus there has already decided. The SEWiktionary is created to define English words using simple English, with the same target audience as SEWikipedia. Those who do not know English well (for any reason) will find it difficult to use English Wiktionary, because they will have to search for the meanings of the words in the definitions (a potentially infinite search, because the definition they look up to understand the first definition will also use difficult words). SEWiktionary limits its definitions so that these users can understand them. It has a reason for existence, and its relationship with SEWikipedia is the same as the relationship between English Wikipedia and English Wiktionary. The fact that it has over 400 entries and is growing shows that this Wiktionary is far from a dormant project, so it should not be closed.
    3. Simple entries are simpler than English Wiktionary entries, and those that are not will be simplified. We try to include as much information, but given using simple English. See, for example, honey versus honey and taste versus taste.
    4. A translating dictionary has nothing to do with SEWiktionary. SEWiktionary is for users who do not know English well, but want simple English definitions, not translation. We are considering possibly adding translation, but it is not a part of the original project idea.
These are the reasons this project should not be closed. --Cromwellt|talk|contris 23:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of Simple English Wikibooks

Books in English, at whatever reading level, should be located centrally on a single English-language Wikibooks site. -- Netoholic @ 21:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support -- Netoholic @ 21:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support probably we should divide the English Wikibooks into things like "Beginning Chemistry" and "Advanced Chemistry", like you would for real textbooks --M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. —Nightstallion (?) 09:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose

  1. Oppose. In my opinion, this project is more worthwhile than any Simple English project, it simply lacks a large group active editors. I do not see why they should be centralised, SEWikipedia works for a different reading level, what's different about Wikibooks? Archer7 12:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. This is not a wikibooks for children: that is Wikijunior. These books are for adults who do not know English well, and therefore have a limited vocabulary. This wiki will cover complex concepts, including things like computer programming and cosmology, but using simple English. I am learning Spanish, but if the only Spanish books I could read were children's books, I would be very frustrated. I am not a child, I only have a limited vocabulary. I want to read about linguistics and calculus in Spanish, not about the alphabet and the numbers 1-10. That is what this project does using simple English. This project also has the same purpose and audience (except children) as SEWikipedia. This nomination was made by an admin on SEWikipedia who mysteriously but ferociously opposes all other simple English projects, even though the rest of the SEWikipedia community accepts them. This project has both a reason to exist and some activity, with at least a few users (including me) dedicated to it. It deserves to exist. --Cromwellt|talk|contris 10:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. This project has the potential to be one of the better simple projects. I wouldn't mind reading some simple Japanese books, but I don't want to read about talking animals. Where's simple.ja? Gerard Foley 10:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Per Cromwellt. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) / Minh Nguyen 09:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per above - certainly the Simple project with the most potential out of these three. --Celestianpower (en, wikt) 11:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per CP. Computerjoe 18:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per above. --Richman271 20:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Closure of Simple English Wikiquote

Quotes in English are quotes in English. -- Netoholic @ 21:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support -- Netoholic @ 21:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. How can you get Simple English quotes? Computerjoe 10:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per nom. Quotes are quotes - ie, not written in Simple English. --Celestianpower (en, wikt) 11:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. —Nightstallion (?) 09:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. 2 editors (including me) are now working to turn this project around, give us a chance on this one. Archer7 12:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. This project is still just starting, but it is unfair to judge a project before you give it a chance. The idea of this project is not to paraphrase quotes. The idea is to take the quotes (just as they are) and explain them, using simple English so that users who have limited vocabularies can understand them. This project is valid, and it is only the unwarranted and inexplicable malice of one admin on SEWikipedia towards all other Simple English projects that has brought this nomination, in spite of the fact that the rest of the Simple English community including SEWikipedia accepts these projects as valid and valuable, serving the same audience as SEWikipedia itself. This project, though only beginning, has a reason to exist and some activity. It deserves to exist. --Cromwellt|talk|contris 10:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. To be honest, I don't understand what this project is going to do. But if people are working on it, then give them a chance. Gerard Foley 10:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, this project probably won't take very long to get it up to a reasonable standard. If people don't like it then, lock it. Archer7 20:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support What is this for, anyway? The randompage function gave me "Current events" and some list of people whose quotes are on wikiquote. And almost all the pages just link back to the main page. What a horrible WASTE of...whatever it is wikis are really made of ;). --M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Archer7. Perhaps we can have modern English "translations" of famous old quotes. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Closure of September 11 Wiki

Moved from Proposals for new projects. -Frazzydee 04:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin on sep11 please post a link to this discussion from sep11:Main Page? Thanks. Stifle 19:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin on sep11 please post a link to this discussion from sep11:In Memoriam, the actual homepage? Thanks. 20:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, could someone clarify what support votes and oppose votes mean? E.g. Bobeito put his vote under support with comment that the wiki should stay open. Ashikaba put his vote under support with a comment stating that the wiki should be closed. WTF? But for future reference, of course, there are no votes, right? Because polls are evil. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 20:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Also see previous discussion/vote pages linked above

  1. Rspeer 19:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Why should it be deleted? september 11th was a historic and monumental event that changed millions of peoples lives, if thats not worthy of n enclyopedia article i don't know what is Bobeito
  3. Sounds reasonable. Feydey 21:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I mean whilst there is considerable emotion attached to this event for many people, it is one of many thousands of terrorist attacks to have happened in the last decade, and the place for this sort of info is not on this page. I think that the information should certainly not be deleted and Ii think the propsals to move the information, see below, are the best. --Wisden17 22:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It should not be deleted, but a move is certainly necessary. --JayCeeH 01:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Just close the database, this shouldn't need so many petitions. Ashibaka 03:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Not really needed in the first place, and per Wisden17. —Nightstallion (?) 07:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. How many votes/discussions on this do we need to have? Every one of them is strongly for getting this out of the Wikimedia project space. As before, I'm fine with delete or save it wherever someone else wants it. It seems the content has already been salvaged, so delete. I'm American, but acting as if we're the only ones to suffer a loss is simply insulting to those that suffered from the tsunami, etc. - Taxman 13:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Someone please get rid of it. The wub 14:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. We always discuss about the deletion and the project is still there!. Just merge its content to Sep 11 article in wikipedia or elsewhere. As far as this project remains open, people can easily blame that Wikimedia Foundation and its projects are just American oriented. Manjithkaini 14:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. sep11 wiki consists of articles that were deleted from main wiki as not notable. 68.166.50.142 15:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Kernigh 19:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Naconkantari 22:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. The move proposal already got overwhelming support. Just do it. GeorgeStepanek 03:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Close the project, archive the content, and redirect the domain to a page (probably on Meta or the Foundation Wiki) explaining how people can request a copy of the database dump should they wish to. Getting it would involve sending an email (to an address that someone will actually read, and where it wont get swamped by other miscellaneous requests) saying they want it, where they want the copy emailed to and that they understand the license it is under (presumably GFDL). Thryduulf (en,commons) 16:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. The Jade Knight 23:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Absolutely. Bravo for being bold enough to nominate this...it's something that I've been wanting to do myself but never got around to it. Wikipedia is not America-centric and I don't see a reason why any Wikimedia projects need to be. It's insulting to those who died in other equally or more horrific events to say that September 11th is the only one worth opening an entire wiki for. Why isn't it a memorial site in general? It's also probably worth noting that the September 11th wiki is actually a subdomain of Wikipedia...also see the logo...all the more reason for it not to be America-centric, as one of Wikipedia's strengths is the fact that it is one of the few sites that is truly international. Besides, anything really notable should already be on Wikipedia. In my opinion, Wikimedia is far better off without this. -Frazzydee 04:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. See above. Covington 07:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Historically, it's biased to give an entire project to a single event. In terms of human loss, other events far outweigh 9/11. In terms of tragedy, other events far outweigh 9/11. For wikipedia to be a genuine reflection of global knowledge, it needs to refrain from such bias. This is rather a case of ethnocentric attitude and social superiority exerted by a single, narrowminded nation. User:Superdave
  19. Absolutely. 80.236.55.6 12:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. It's time to archive it and stop misleading people into thinking its Wikipedia with the confusing sep11.wikipedia.org domain name. It's been nothing more than a vandal's playground for too long. Angela 12:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. It should be deleted, for the better... --IAMTHEEGGMAN|Goo Goo G'Joob 14:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Delete it the people above sum up many good reasons! Wellparp 16:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. 24.37.223.159 18:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Donarreiskoffer 06:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. --Oldak Quill 12:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Per Angela. It's not encyclopedic. MaxSem 15:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. 555 16:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. 81.214.208.110 18:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. --213.63.13.107 21:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC) (BBird)[reply]
  30. Per Frazzydee and Angela. - Tangotango 00:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Not appropriate for wikimedia site. Lethe@en.wp 02:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  32. --Sasa Stefanovic 02:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. NPOV... -- fr:Caerbannog
  34. Aphaia 08:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. --Snowdog 10:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. --Radouch 12:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. I've lost count of how many discussions, proposals and votes there have been that have come out with a clear consensus of getting rid of this thing. Please let this be the last. The content will survive as it's already been copied elsewhere, so let's just hit the big red delete button as soon as possible. Trilobite 19:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Yes, please do. Move it elsewhere if someone wants it, and get rid of it. Tuf-Kat 02:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Its existence is a precedent to create wikis for every terrorist attack. Luigi30 13:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Perfectly reasonable proposal. --Pmsyyz 17:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Agreed with Luigi--24.250.154.244 22:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Get it out of here. I don't care if it closed or moved. OUT! --Michael180 00:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Get it out of here. It's been almost five years. --Cyde 03:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Please, please, please remove it. Frankly, it's a bit of an embarrasment. I won't become POV here, but there are other events in the last 10 / 100 / 1000 years that are a leetle more significant. 202.67.100.197 09:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45.   <STyx 17:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. I agree. Remove it, please. Andrevan 00:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. The material should be moved from Wikipedia to an off-site memorial. Taai 06:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Should be moved out of Wikipedia, maybe to another Wikimedia site, if necessary. Lankiveil 03:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  49. Go ahead and archive it. There's barely any reason to keep it running. Are we going to make a wiki dedicated to every tragedy, ever? Do we have a Hurricane Katrina wiki, too? Phoenix-forgotten 01:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. I don't understand why it was a seperate wiki in the first place. Anyhow, close it, archive it, move the contents, I don't care. Jeroenvrp 11:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Yes, close. James F. (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Close, not encyclopedic. Wolfram 18:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Yes, it should be closed. It is not appropriate for wikipedia. 61.68.211.15 13:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. --Elian 04:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Admrboltz 20:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Michał P. 15:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC) It existed too long. Should be moved to another page, e.g. http://11september-memorial.wikimedia.org (it is only a proposition).[reply]
  57. Ske 21:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. It's clear that this wiki has nothing to do with an encyclopedia, thus should not be under wikipedia.org. The best place for the content would be a wiki (managed or not by the Wikimedia foundation) dedicated to all tragedies where humans killed humans, regardless the action was legal or not, was ordered by a country or not, and of course regardless of the origins of the victims. Something more personnal than Wikipedia or even Wikinews (reaction of people who knew vicitms etc.). That wiki may be hosted under something like *.inmemoriamwiki.org, with en. de. fr. as sub-wikis. That kind of wiki may be suited for wikimedia foundation. In its present condition, it's not. --AGiss 12:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Perhaps we could find someone to maintain a wikicities project with this, and Angela could facilitate a transfer to there. Not neccessary though, we should discontinue this anyway.&#9999; Sverdrup 18:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Aflm 22:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Messedrocker - If we were to keep this wiki, shouldn't we have Hurricane Katrina Wiki, Darfur Wiki, Poloponnesian War Wiki ;)... the list goes on. 22:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Hołek ҉ 09:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC). But first we have to delete from it any form of vandalism (like info about Homer Simpson, etc.). Then close it.
  63. Wikiacc | (talk) (en.w | en.w.t) 19:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Close/Lock the database/Archive —Locke Cole • t • c 22:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Austin 05:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Sarge Baldy 19:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Dbl2010 20:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. --Tarawneh 22:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Prodego Talk 01:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Brazucs (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support, with all respect to the emotions and feelings of the involved. That doesn't belong to an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a therapy/support group. There have been many other tragedies (with much higher death figures yet they don't have a wiki as well). Wikipedia is not just about USA. drini ☎ 21:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Patio 05:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Eventually move the content to something more general like wikinews, wikidisaster or wikihistory, you name it.[reply]
  72. Adam7davies 19:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. --Jonathaneo 08:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support because that is out of period project. so close and move to "MemorialWiki". -- Alpha for knowledge 02:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. Archer7 23:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. -- Mathias Schindler 16:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - not encyclopedic and not compatible with the other Wikimedia wikis. ~ Seb35 14:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Don't delete, just stop it. --Slade pt.wp 18:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support -- this was a large tragedy but the world was and is full of many larger tragedies. Making one special does not treat the matter right. So please close. Arnomane 18:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. There are many tragedies in many countries and this project is POV. It is also unecyclopeadic. Alan Liefting 05:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support I agree POV and unecyclopeadic. Weft 16:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. I lost a loved one in the attack and even I agree with this proposal. Maunakea 20:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Very Very Strong Support Making so much ado about this event is an insult to the victims of far greater tragedies like the Holocaust. 202.177.246.3 08:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support dissociation from Wikipedia. This kind of thing has every reason to exist, but it has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Stevage 09:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support closure. It is not right for a global project like Wikimedia to have a wiki on one incident to the exclusion of other far more serious, devastating, deadly and historically significant ones such as the bombing of Hiroshima-Nagasaki. Even if the content is kept, it should be moved off the wikipedia domain and disconnected from the Foundation. Loom91 09:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support closure This doesn't have anything to do with the goals of Wikipedia - there seems to be no regard, for example, for NPOV or NOR. --Constantine Evans 04:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support closure Project is dead. Who even knows what's true on the site? Gerard Foley 10:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support it's existance is surely in breach of NPOV. Computerjoe 10:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Member 17:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Any particular reason? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.136.92.231 (talk)
  2. --Connel MacKenzie 01:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Any particular reason? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.136.92.231 (talk)
    Is it a "memorial" or is it not? It is more than slightly lame to provide a resource as a fair weather friend. Using the tragedy of 9/11 as a publicity stunt is disgusting and immoral, in my opinion. Any type of closing of the memorial will be seen as such, no matter what spin it is given. --Connel MacKenzie 15:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How on earth will closing the memorial site be seen as a publicity stunt? It will simply be quietly and unceremoniously archived. 86.136.88.187 21:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It was used as a publicity stunt - now that fewer are watching, closing is is an underhanded maneuver. --Connel MacKenzie 05:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To my memory, it was not used as a publicity stunt. In the days after September 11, the Wikipedia was flooded with what could be considered "vanity pages" -- so these pages were moved to a better home instead of being summarily deleted, because that would've been coldhearted. I don't think there was any publicity for Wikipedia on the order of "lookit our sep11 memorial, by the way we're a great website"; in fact, I don't think there was any publicity at all.--en:User:Geoffrey 17:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kmf164 16:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC) - I oppose until "a feasable and realistic plan to move the remaining content" is found. I object to simply to deleting the content without finding a new home for it. Kmf164 16:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposal is to archive the content. It will still be available to download and make other uses out of. - Taxman 19:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I suggest that we make the wiki read-only but leave the content in place. Though I did not participate in the sept11 wiki, I had several acquaintances who died in the attacks, and I have great respect for the feelings of those who were more directly affected. Continuing to host a locked wiki poses no cost of any significance to us, and the sept11 project is a far more important part of Wikipedia early history than much of the other material we are saving for historical reasons, such as w:Wikipedia:WikiMoney and more than a few essays and articles here on meta. UninvitedCompany 19:15, 27 April 2006
    I was affected by it and I agree that it doesn't need its own project, archiving it is more than satisfactory. Maunakea 20:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. You people want to get rid of information pretaining to history? If removing all unpleasant historical events is your goal then you better get busy. Let's see...delete all history pretaining to racism, murder/assassination, war, terrorist attacks, oh don't forget bad natural disasters. Those aren't pleasant either...(UTC)
  6. Read-only/Locked per UninvitedCompany. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. No. It isn't hurting anyone staying there. I support keeping it simply for historical reasons, the Sept 11 wiki was the second project of Wikimedia that was ever attempted. -Masterhomer, English Wikipedia
    Should be moved to a POV proposed project, such as "share your ideas" or wiki-debates, which would contain original works, inmcluding WP sandbox poetry.Pcu123456789 16:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The topic is serious and encyclopedia-like, the project gets quite a bit of traffic, and interest in the subject is huge. (The Wikipedia article on September 11 ranks just a pubic hair below "sex"!) That's plenty of reason to keep it right there. I checked out the "Random Article" feature recently and my impression is that a high proportion of the articles on Wikipedia are spam, so I certainly think we have space this project. I also find some the comments in favor of closing the project to be rather offensive. Can you imagine if I as an American started complaining about how many articles there are on, say, France? Article topics should reflect reader interest. They should not be parceled out on a country-by-country quota basis.Kauffner 01:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

There really isn't any consensus on this. Some people want it deleted, other's want it locked, others want it moved to something other then *.wikipedia.org. Since this is a propose to DELETE the Sept 11 Wiki, I believe alot of these "Support" votes are invalid. -Masterhomer, English Wikipedia

You might be interested in Rodovid.org, further up this page. If the sep 11 wiki is closed its content could be moved here.--Bjwebb 20:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm not sure how good a fit the content would be for a family-tree/geneology wiki, I doubt anyone would object to moving the individual memorials there. Would anyone like to volunteer to move them there? Kaldari 00:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would be easy to do if we had a database dumb of the sep 11 wiki.--Bjwebb 12:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the project should remain active, but not as part of the *.wikipedia.org tree. It's unencyclopedic, but still important. And yes, I'd be warm to a larger project -- In Memoriam -- devoted to all sorts of human tragedy. Death is part of life. John Reid 10:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is an inappropriate place to be discussing this closure. If a special project shutdown page needs to be created, so be it, but don't mix this commentary and arguments with new project proposals. Discussions of this nature tend to get a little heated if there is any sort of defender of a project at all, and can get rather lengthy as well. Please move this whole thing from the already overcrowded new projects page to another location, and fix the links with Goings-on as well. BTW, the first thing I thought when I saw this was "what? again?" --Roberth 19:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every single place this issue has been brought up, it has been declared that it is the wrong place. Unfortunately, it seems there is no "right place" to discuss the closure of the Sept 11 Wiki. As far as I can tell, this is the closest to the "right place" that exists. The policy that governs this page mentions project closure, but gives little detail as to the correct procedure. Since none of the other pages that have been used to address this issue have resulted in any actual action, I decided to try posting it here since at least it will get a steady stream of eyeballs.Kaldari 01:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I've decided to be bold and make a place for it on Meta. I'm going to push my way around and see if I can get it linked on other places around Meta as well, but here it is: Proposals for closing projects. I hope you like the train wreck image that I added as well. This way it gets the attention it deserves and doesn't get buried beneath all of these new project proposals as well. I'm not going to move this discussion, but you are certainly welcome to. If you do move it, please leave a note here as a soft redirect to let people know the discussion has been moved. --Roberth 14:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the recent changes log of the wiki I cannot support an outright closure of this project, nor can I support a partial move then closure as it was suggested on 9/11 wiki move proposal for the reasons cited by Eloquence. And as Angela has voiced misgivings it would impolite to force it onto Wikicities. I suggest a move to a third party MediaWiki hosting site. There is a free site that I use for outside projects located at http://www.editthis.info/ that might be our solution. I do not know if the webmaster there would receptive but it would be worth a try. The wiki in question would be kept whole and those still editing it would still be able to do so. That's my two cents. Use it as you wish. Robert Harrison 05:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They host a Wiki on "Spanking Art", yes, art of people spanking people. It could be a lot of work monitoring for vandalism, but we should see if Wikicites (now just refered to as Wikia) will take it. Otherwise, merge into Robidov (sp?). -- Zanimum 15:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have contributed some, as of late, to cleaning up material on the sep11wiki. I have also read through the various proposals to delete, move, etc. the wiki somewhere other than sep11.wikipedia.org. I don't want to put too much work into cleaning up articles if they will just end up in the garbage bin. I know that memorywiki has taken the testimonials, but don't think they have taken the sep11:Tributes_to_individuals. Many of these presumably were articles originally written on Wikipedia, but moved to sep11 wiki (per WP:BIO). If the sep11 wiki is just completely deleted without moving or archiving these articles, then I think it leaves a void. Perhaps, the bio articles about the victims could be moved back to Wikipedia (with my watchlist growing accordingly), and the tributes to memorywiki. Though, I think moving these articles back to Wikipedia has been tried before and met with resistance. In my opinion, each victim is as notable and worthy of an article as the 19 hijackers are (and a few of the "notable" victims do have Wikipedia articles). Or, as a very last resort, I might be willing to take the database, buy a domain, hosting for it. Preferably, though Wikimedia Foundation has another place to host it. --Kmf164 15:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you would find great resistance to moving the articles back to Wikipedia, because the sep11 wiki was actually created in order to provide a place for articles deemed insufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I also think that you're in the minority in believing each and every one of the victims to be notable. I wonder if you consider victims of all other terrorist attacks to be notable, whether that would include victims of state terrorism (such as the tens of thousands of civilians killed by U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq), and whether you'd include all victims of tragic events including natural disasters (a tsunami wiki under the auspices of the Wikimedia Foundation, with potentially more than 200,000 entries?). This is not an attack on your opinions, I'm just genuinely interested and curious to know about why some people appear to consider those killed by the attacks of 11 September 2001 to fall into some special category of notability. Their deaths were tragic, but I've never come across a coherent justification for why we should have articles about them in Wikipedia, or tributes to them in a POV spin-off from Wikipedia, any more than we should for victims of any tragedy. I'd appreciate some insight. 86.136.92.231 01:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I object to deleting (without moving) the sep11 wiki articles. The key question is "where to move?" I'm open to John Reid's suggestion above, but I also disagree with Wikipedia's "notability" criteria when it comes to crime victims. On Wikipedia, we have many articles about *notable* criminals (murderers or terrorists) that meet Wikipedia's notability and verifiability guidelines. It is the criminal act or incident that gives them the notability that they otherwise wouldn't have. Under the same standard, the victims of these notable criminals are also notable. Including both sides of the crime equation (offender and victim) also gives a fuller picture of the notable crime. Now, considering 9/11... The hijackers are among criminals (many others included) that have been deemed notable enough to have articles on Wikipedia. It's the event, 9/11, that brought these 19 their notability. It's the same event, 9/11, that also makes each victim notability (and verifiable). Is 9/11 a special case? No. We have articles about other notable crimes and criminals. I won't object to including articles about the victims of those other notable crime incidents/criminals, provided we have verifiability. Finally, I also note that we have en:Category:Murder victims by nationality. For the most part, people in this category were non-notable until their death; but because they were victims of a notable criminal/crime incident, they became notable. Should these be deleted? Kmf164 06:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's incorrect to believe that 19 people who deliberately decide to commit a terrorist act of such a massive scale are at the same level of notability as the average Joe Citizen who became a victim of the act. Many many people around the world will want to know more about the attackers - what is their background, what was their motive? It helps people try and come to terms with such a huge event. A short biography about Tom Smith who had 3 kids and worked in marketing is of absolutely no interest to anyone except people who knew him. Don't mean to be harsh, but adding thousands of articles that no-one will look at seems a little pointless. --HappyDog 14:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of Inupiaq Wikipedia

Information

According to the history, this prospective Wikipedia edition in the Inupiaq language has been around since 06/03/2002, 10:31, i.e. for almost four years. ik:Special:Allpages lists eight articles, none which contains even a single full sentence. All that you find there, is images of Artic animals plus what I assume to be their Inupiaq names. Since they lack any written content, I guess that these "articles" have not even been created by a speaker of Inupiaq.

Since this project appears to be completely orphaned, it is occasionally misused by spammers. (I have only just removed a hidden spam DIV from the main page)

I propose that this project be closed due to its complete inactivity. --Johannes Rohr 11:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. I can see the reason behind this. Apparently, guidelines for new language domain creations were more lax in the early days...? Either we, unless we get ourselves ten active speakers of those Inuit languages fast, I see no reason not to close this. It can always be reopened once there's sufficient interest. —Nightstallion (?) 13:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, seems a bit pointless to have a Wikipedia with all of eight articles. Stifle 18:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support unless we find someone to add content. --Kernigh 20:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support closure. Close it until at least one native speaker volunteers to work on it. --Pmsyyz 05:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close it. As per nomination. If someone wants to have it opened back up, they can come to meta. However, I don't see why it should be open, if it has practically nothing on it. --LBMixPro 21:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Close it, and there's only more work to be done if anyone ever wanted to work on it. While it's received vandalism, like so many other small Wikipedias, does it do any harm to leave it as a vacant lot? -- Zanimum 16:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like it being available in the event that it does pick up contributors. I don't really see the harm in its existence. Sarge Baldy 17:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

So, which other way is there to prevent regular vandalism on those dead wikis? Locking them? If there is no content, there is nothing to be locked. Furthermore, a wiki without admin is certainly not a good thing. E.g. the "Zergeisterung" vandal (cf. w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zergeisterung) has spread his spam allover countless wikis (more than 500 google hits on *.wikipedia.org[1]). While it is relatively easy to ensure deletion of this crap on wikis which are actively maintained, I have no idea what to do in order to get it removed from ik. I even created a {{Delete}} template on that wiki, but still, there is no sysop to actually push the delete button. This is why I made the closure proposal.--Johannes Rohr 20:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested adminship on this project. Requests_for_permissions#Inupiaq_Wikipedia -- Zanimum 14:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects&oldid=362802"