Jump to content

Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English Wiktionary

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Closure of Simple English Wiktionary

[edit]

Ending per #Motion to end discussion Result: KEEP --159.134.99.194 17:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Motion to end discussion

[edit]

It seems to me the discussion has gone on long enough. There has been little recent action on the side supporting closure and the consensus seems to be to leave SE Wikipedia open. I move that the discussion be closed.--BrettR 14:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I concur. Leaving this discussion open inhibits development in the projects concerned as people become afraid that their contributions will be for nothing if the wiki gets closed. As the consensus seems to be to leave at least the Simple English Wiktionary open, let's go and improve it :) - Tangotango 15:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support closing SE Wikt

[edit]
  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]
    Translations often lack much of the important information, such as which prepositions typically go with a verb or which two words collocate strongly. A good simple dictionary can provide that kind of information in an accessible way through carefully chosen definitions and example sentences. --Brett72.142.116.7 03:05, 20 July 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]
    Comment: Please see my response to this in the comments section below. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. —Nightstallion (?) 09:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. --Sippel2707 10:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support – The main English Wiktionary has good descriptions of all words one would need. The descriptions themselves are almost always non-ambiguous. I simply don't see the need for a simple English Wiktionary. Jon Harald Søby 19:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I agree that the English Wiktionary is extensive and useful for native speakers. But for people who do not know much of the language, the definitions are simply too difficult, using too many words which are unknown to them and complex grammar which can be difficult to understand. It is not a question of ambiguity, but a question of difficulty. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. I don't see enough use in a badly outdated simple version.Voice of All 05:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: What does "enough use" mean? We are just getting started, so how can someone expect a ton of use? Also, how can it be "badly outdated" if the vast majority of the entries were made in the past six months? If there's not enough use and it is outdated, what it needs most is more users and more editors, not to be shut down. The concept is sound: see my comments in the comments section below. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support.Voice of All 23:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC) (moved here by Cromwellt|talk|contribs 17:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC) because it is a duplicate vote.)[reply]
  7. Support: Merge to English Wiktionary. --Taichi - (あ！) 02:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support: All wikis with less than 1000000000000 articles should be deleted permanently BECAUSE THEY ARE EVIL! RTAWRRAWARW --Node ue 00:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. There is a Wiktionary in "Simple English"??? --Millosh 14:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: There is also a Wikipedia in "Simple English," but no one is nominating it for closure. I'm glad of that, since I think it also deserves to exist, I just think it is wrong and inconsistent (not to mention hypocritical in this instance) for these others to be nominated. If you understood the philosophy behind the SE projects, I don't think you would be against them. See my explanation in the comments section below. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 17:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Unneccessary duplication of effort. HeikoEvermann 17:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: It is not a duplication: the definitions in Simple English, while sometimes based on the English entries, are much simpler and are created for a specific purpose. People who do not know English well will not be able to understand the definitions in the English Wiktionary, which is why we need a Simple English Wiktionary (and therefore it is not unnecessary). --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 17:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support.12.17.136.181 01:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please log in before voting. Anonymous votes are not usually considered in a wiki context. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 15:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Shameful to the diverse English language. Pronoun 17:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: How is it shameful? Is it shameful to try to help people who do not know English well? Is it shameful to make definitions that use a restricted vocabulary so that people with less knowledge of English can understand/use them? Please note that the person who nominated this project for closure is a Simple English Wikipedia bureaucrat. That is shameful. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 15:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Sorry to User:Cromwellt, the only user who writes this site. But it is not useful. --Dangherous 22:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Thanks for the condolences, Dangherous, but I must strongly disagree. Not only is the site useful to anyone with a limited knowledge of English, but I am far from the only person who works on it. Sure, there aren't a huge number yet, but we are definitely growing in both definitions and users. We have almost 1000 entries already! Most of those are by other people. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 15:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, what is the point of having a separate dictionary for a language? Merge both. All SE words will obviously be included in the big one. --Tone 15:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Dont see any purpose in this project.--213.141.159.52 17:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose closing SE Wikt

[edit]
  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. See my reasons in the comments section. --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]
    Definitely support, for all those who dont have the upmost English skills; such as English as a second language. It is a worthwhile project! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.137.81.90 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 30 May 2006.
    Obviously this user meant to oppose the closure. Please log in before voting. --Cromwellt|talk|contris 09:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Computerjoe 10:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 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 its approach, such as suggesting related words (not just synonyms), and provide more examples. I vote it should stay. --h2g2bob (simple wiktionry | wikipedia)
    Oppose Simple English can certainly be helpful for people with trouble in English, and English certainly isn't an easy language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.33.18 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 1 June 2006.
    As mentioned above, please log in before voting. Anonymous votes are of little or no value in a Wiki context. --Cromwellt|talk|contris 09:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, if u do this, wikiepedia wasted long time doin t=nothin, nd this is something. it help people.75.31.44.237 00:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)jamierules[reply]
  8. Oppose, as per Archer7. -- Zanimum 19:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. In addition to the above, it has multiple editors with multiple edits within the past month; EN Wiktionary similarly languished with minimal activity with a long lagtime after EN Wikipedia started getting heavy activity--Simple English Wiktionary should be allowed the same measure of 'catch up' time since the recent dramatic increase in activity at the Simple 'pedia. Freshstart 02:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Netoholic said "I believe the main English Wiktionary serves that purpose far better." So now listen to an English speaker as foreign language. It doesn't. As h2g2bob described on the above, Enwikt can't substitute SEwikt for EASL/EAFL speakers. --Aphaia 08:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I've sent friends and people who are not good at the English language to the SE wikipedia (although not others yet), they're decent resources and should remain. Give them a chance, it could be another decent place for people who require simple English --62.173.194.7 12:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Please log in or create an account before voting, since votes from IP addresses are not generally counted. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 19:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I would rather see all Basic English materials left on Wikipedia. Its a lot more useful. Those that don't know English well, the Deaf [like me], and those whose brains cannot handle the complexities of normal English and the already too-huge vocabulary all need Basic English resources. I'm THRILLED Wikipedia offers these things, including Basic English Wikibooks. I have a hard time understanding textbooks. I used to be good at normal English, but that all changed as I slowly becamse deaf. With ASL quickly becoming my new native language, I can't keep up with the complex English and require the Basic English. If I have to, I'll get on the Basic English editing staff and help out, just to keep this resource open. --84.175.175.114 17:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Please log in before voting. Anonymous votes are usually not considered in a wiki context. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 15:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose as per Cromwellt. The simple Wiktionary is catered to a simple English audience. If a simple user has to go to English Wiktionary, s/he'll probably be sidetracked finding out what other words mean just to get a definition of one word. --LBMixPro 05:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose as wikt:simple:Special:Random reveals good pages! --Kernigh 04:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Maksim 15:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per Cromwellt & Archer7. — Randy Johnston (talk • contribs) 00:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Vildricianus 09:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional comment: The fact that the English Wiktionary has a number of definitions simple enough to be understood by language learners or young children or whomever is the audience of Simple:wikt, is due to the fact that a lot of them are incomplete. Any decent, thorough entry may still be clear, but may as well not easily be understood by someone who has a limited vocabulary or understanding of English. In the long run, as the English Wiktionary expands and entries become less transparent (which is inevitable), the merits of a Simple: project may become clearer. wikt:responsible is an example of a more developed entry. If I were a language learner, I would value a simpler entry, without the excess of information (translations, etymologies, etc.) that is hardly relevant for anyone merely trying to understand what "responsible" means. For these reasons I think the Simple English Wiktionary has a lot of potential, showing up as a true "learner's dictionary". Vildricianus 11:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose This nascent experiment should be given at least another year. Who can tell what the future will bring for this? While I choose not to contribute there, I see no reason to stifle a project just as it is getting started. --Connel MacKenzie 20:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Ek7 20:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. Enables simple English users to be catered for, without forcing en.wikt to compromise its use of language. Kappa 23:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Major publishers such as Oxford university press, Longman, and Collins feel there is a need for learner dictionaries. These are the paper versions of a Simple English Dictionary. In fact, many of the advances in lexicography are happening in and because of these kinds of dictionaries. An online Simple English Dictionary is just as valuable, if not more so.--72.142.116.7 16:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please log in or create an account before voting. Anonymous votes are not generally accepted in a wiki context. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 06:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. The whole Simple English Project is a valuable source for English-learners, children and just people who want to read clearly. Jordanhatch 07:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. I won't parrot the ideas above mine. But if the SE wikt gets shut down, you'd better start the poll to shut down the SE wikip (unless, you think that should stay? This is one of those things where you can't have it both ways (or one way, or whatever). The same arguments used to create the EN wikt were used to create the SE wikt, and as long as there's enough activity on the SE wikip to generate a flow of exclusions necessitating an SE wikt, let it grow. Xaxafrad 01:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly oppose. While it may be less useful for ESLers than a translating dictionary, I think developing a dictionary for children is a very worthy goal. And en.wiktionary's definitions of some basic words (e.g. city) are much less accessible than those being developed at simple:. I didn't contribute to the project so that the whole thing could be thrown away.
    Please log in or create an account before voting. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 06:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. I use the SEWikipedia for special use cases of English. One of the ways a Wikitionary serves a Wikipedia is the Wikitionary serves as a place for the definitions of concepts to go for which there isn't an encyclopedic entry. As Simple English is defined as a subset within English, I need to learn the "voice" of Simple English by reading Simple English definitions, because words in Simple English are defined by only using words in the Simple English vocabulary. The act of translating an encyclopedic entry into Simple English often turns the encyclopedic entry into something that, well, reads like a dictionary definition. In fact, it may be more appropriate for the SE Wikitionary to plagiarize the SE Wikipedia than any similar plagiarizing for the other languages. basilwhite 08:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. Simple English Wiktionary is very useful for those who dislike looking up a word, having to look up a word in that word's definition, and so on. --Gray Porpoise 18:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose GerardM 13:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC). This is one of the best Wiktionaries around. It has clear definitions and it has probably the best user interface of all the Wiktionaries.[reply]
  24. Oppose. The Simple English Wiktionary is a valuable resource, and I do not see the benefit in the closure of this project. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. Useful for English learners. -- King of Hearts 00:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. Useful for learners and writers. For me it fits beautifully to the SE Wikipedia. --Cethegus 20:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose may yet prove it's worth John Cross 21:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose I intend to contribute to se.wikt and use it as a teaching tool. Infinoid 16:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. The Simple English Wiktionary is an invaluable resource for English learners. As stated above, almost all publishers of dictionaries do have simple versions for such users. SEWikt also works as the perfect complement to the Simple English Wikipedia, a role that the main English Wiktionary cannot hope to fulfill. - Tangotango 16:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Opposse: Why? mfg --- Manecke 21:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose per the other bazillion good reasons provided by opposers. Alkivar 09:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose. SE Wikipedians have been abusing appositives for too long trying to define words. PullToOpen 00:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose. Sure, the SE Wiktionary may appear somewhat orphaned and neglected right now, but hey — so are dozens of other WikiMedia projects. Should we close them all or what?
    Last time I checked, Rome had not been built in a day. (The same is true for the now-oh-so-great English Wiktionary, BTW.)
    Some people seem to forget that the entire WikiMedia universe is founded on just one idea: voluntariness. As long as someone, anyone is willing to spend his precious time on contributing to a project, you better don't get in his way. Cromwellt it not being paid for his contribution, you know. We can't just effectively steal a huge chunk of his lifetime and then kick him out of the door.
    We shoo away volunteers — we saw off the branch we're all sitting on.
    --Schwallex 15:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose. This project is just simplified and is meant for easy reading.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 05:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments regarding SE Wikt

[edit]
  • 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]
  • Maybe the project could be somehow merged into en.wiktionary or turned into a Wikijunior book. Seahen 07:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This project does not belong on EWikt, and it is definitely NOT WikiJunior. This project has a different audience and a different purpose from EWikt, as I explained above. This is not a textbook, it is a *dictionary*. Do you think that English Wiktionary should be a part of English Wikibooks? Additionally, WikiJunior is directed to only children. While most SE projects consider children to be part of their audience, none of them serve children exclusively or even mostly. If there is a single main audience, I would say that it is ESL/EAL learners. That has nothing to do with WikiJunior.
    I would also like to point out that the activity on SEWikt has increased (partly because of this nomination, I think), and that we now have over 700 articles. We definitely deserve to stay open. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 06:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Simple_English_Wiktionary&oldid=26040238"