Talk:Proposals for closing projects/Deletion of Moldovan Wikipedia

Comments

• Doesn't belong here; go to incubator, there's already a duscussion. Delete this page, it's pointless. Seb az86556 21:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

But please explain, what do you mean by "it's pointless"? Why does this page not belong here? We already had a page here Proposals for closing projects/Deletion of Siberian Wikipedia, and that belonged here. Now why does this page not belong here? I can't find any discussion about the deletion of the domain mo.wikipedia.org at the Incubator, only a discussion about the deletion of the Moldovan language Incubator. What is pointless? Here we discuss the termination/deletion/removal from Sitematrix of the mo.wikipedia.org domain. What does this have to do with the Incubator?--Danutz 21:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ten days is simply not enough time for comments; besides you, me, and Seb, there's almost nobody watching this proposal. Plus, the previous resolution has been to merge this project with the Romanian wiki; have we ensured that this process is done first before we move on? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, TCNSV. In the past it was agreed^{[dubious - citation needed]} that mo.wp can and should be removed once a solution is established that respects the linguistic rights of all speakers of this language, meaning that anybody who is interested in reading ro.wp in Cyrillic could do so easily (i.e., without having to make a lot of requests or search for off-site tools - so, an on-site tab or a subdomain portal) and could also be able to edit the encyclopedia (that is the point of a Wiki, after all). ro.wp administrators have consistently refused, suggesting that the only way such compromises could occur were if the Russian army occupied Bucharest. Fine, but how does anybody expect a compromise if they aren't willing to give a little? What it comes down to is this: these people do not want to compromise, they want it their way or no way at all, and they are willing to do anything to get it. --Node ue 08:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Please donnot make interpretation of the previous discussion and please donnot judge ro.wiki on the basis of 1 user (people say many things when they are mad, but that does not mean it is the official POV of the Romanian Wikipedia community). The previos decision was to close mo.wiki, without any subtexts, conditions or other hidden agenda.--Danutz 21:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see ten days is too little time. I thought it will imediately span attention, but it did not. Anyway, I changed it to a month (and we will change it even further if necessary). About merging, I wrote up here that all articles were transliterated from old versions of Romanian Wikipedia pages, so the content is actually already present in the Romanian Wikipedia (of course it was edited and reedited during this years, but that is only for the best). Also I provided a link to a tool that permits viewing articles with the Cyrillic alphabet, allthough I doubt very much anybody would want that (the tool was developed following the discussion; actually I found the tool in the previous discussion. It was developed by en:User:Bogdangiusca).

There are no people interested in reading (even less so editing) in Cyrillic, still we do provide a tool to do this. All content is already present in the Romanian Wikipedia. Cyrillic script lacks any official recognition, it is just used by a group of people that unilaterally declared independence (the situation is comparable/equal to that of the Siberian language, where a group of people, lacking official recognition unilaterally created a language). The Moldovan Wikipedia was created automatically and edited by people who don't speak the language. If someone will want (in the future) to edit in Romanian-Cyrillic he can propose the creation of a new Wikipedia (or the addition of a script in the ro.wiki), but only by submitting to the official policy. I never understood why we should create conditions for the use of Romanian-Cyrillic a priori, without being requested by actual speakers. --Danutz 22:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Cyrillic system is still in de facto official use in Transnistria. (Although I do not know what the actual situation is there.) I think it would be the best to include an option in the preferences to render pages in Cyrillic script instead of Latin, just like the Serbian Wikipedia does. Btw, you can use the sitenotice to draw bigger attention, but you are probably aware of this, as you have edited it a few times already. - Xbspiro 03:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that (adding an option in preferences) is a very good option, however nobody requested it. Normally we would wait for people to request such an option, because the script is already developed (see above the tool I linked on this page, that was developed by Romanian wikipedian Bogdangiusca following the previous discussion). That shouldn't be a problem, because these are only technical aspects. About the sitenotice, I didn't want to add a message in the Romanian sitenotice, at least for now, because I feared that by doing so, international users in this discussion would be misrepresented by the number of Romanian users (and some might argue the results because of that). However, I have a strong feeling that the entire Wikipedia community is sick and tired with this Moldovan Wikipedia, and that's why I hope many international users will vote for the deletion.--Danutz 05:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Danutz, it's really hilarious that you compare Transnistria to the "Siberian language" situation. Transnistria, while not recognized by any UN members, is certainly not controlled by the Moldovan government, and is recognized by some non-UN member states. People in Transnistria do use Cyrillic as their primary script. In the case of the invented "Siberian language", it was not taught in schools (as is the case of Moldovan), nor was it used by a de facto independent republic (as is the case of Moldovan); it existed only in the imaginations of a group of hoaxers. There are webpages in Moldovan Cyrillic, textbooks, literature books, etc. There is much controversy surrounding Transnistria, certainly, and you and I may certainly disagree on the facts of that situation, but I don't think it is a good faith representation to compare it to Siberian, a language that was invented by a hobbyist with no corresponding political movement or dispute, let alone a territory under its control ("legally" or otherwise). --Node ue 19:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Node, I really don't want to discuss the situation in Transnistria. I havn't met any people on the Internet that come from Transnistria and speak Romanian - allthough Moldovans are a relative majority there, they live mostly on the country-side, while those very few who live in cities (where there would be at least a chance to get Internet access) study mostly in Romanian language schools (with Latin script), because there are also such schools in Transnistria.

Anyway that was just a thought to explain why I don't think we will find users interested in editing in Cyrillic at any point. But if we will have interest for such a content, we will add an option, we will make the documentation. What you should understand is that some Romanian speakers, especially in Moldova might find the Cyrillic option ofending (because of its history) so we cannot risk loosing editors in the Romanian Wikipedia if we don't get nothing in exchange (but as soon as we will have requests, we will add this functionality, as it is allready developed).

The idea here is just deleting the Moldovan Wikipedia, but I donnot see were it was agreed that Romanian Wikipedia should insert a Cyrillic option. It was not the precondition to close the Moldovan Wikipedia. I repeat, we will enhance ro.wiki with this functionality when requested (and proportional with the request): Remember, our goal is NOT to promote Cyrillic alphabet for the Romanian language by any means, and that was not the consensus of the last discussion (I don't want to sound ofending, please don't take it personaly, but you should not play with words). The decision was to close the Moldovan Wikipedia (unconditionally). Some even argued to move it on another domain, but it lacked interest from the community. Now, as of 2011, that is even impossible, because mo.wiki does not comply to the language policy.

In short just remember: we cannot transform Wikipedia in a tool that promotes the interest of a separatist group. Of course we will add Cyrillic functionality, as soon as requested and proportional with the request (after all that is a condition to start a new Wikipedia). But I (personally) will not stand for the use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool. We find native Cyrillic users, ok. But we don't do something without being requested, especialy if it could offend existing users (you must understand it is very risky, is not that I, or other old Wikipedia users, have something with the Cyrillic script.--Danutz 21:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, please donnot spam, I understand you don't have any interest in this discussion taking place, but please donnot vandalize it. Donnot vandalize the arguments above: they are part of this proposal. If you change them, than the proposal has no object. Add you comments here.--Danutz 21:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: WE ARE NOT TALKING HERE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THE MOLDOVAN LANGUAGE, OR THE USE OF THE CYRILLIC SCRIPT. HERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE DELETION OF THE MOLDOVAN WIKIPEDIA. Allthough I put a note up there about the Moldovan language for those who have no clue about the situation, this discussion is not about the Moldovan language, nor about the use of the Cyrillic script in Transnistria. Please refer to the arguments above, that is, that (1) there is no interest in writing a Wikipedia in Cyrillic and there are no prespectives for that, (2) such a Wikipedia does not meet the Wikimedia language policy and (3) no content will be lost, as there are no original articles in mo.wikipedia.org (but we can make a backup to the database if you really want). Our rationale here is not to talk endlessly on the Moldovan language and Transnistria (althoug these are very interesting subjects), but to talk on the proposal for deletion of the Moldovan Wikipedia. From now on, any comments that focus on the existence of the Moldovan language or the use of the script in Transnistria will be moved in the discussion page of this proposal. There you can discuss endlessly if you want, however the idea of this proposal is to keep it relevant. Please don't find this offending, your opinions are very important and we all want to hear them, but here on the main page we should focus on the subject, that is the proposal to delete the Molodvan Wikipedia. Thank you for your understanding. --Danutz 00:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Just because we read what you write does not mean we are compelled to agree with you. You are beginning to come off as "disagrees with me = is stupid." We've heard you. Seb az86556 04:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. You move people's comments, I'll move them back; you are not going to censor anyone to get your way. Seb az86556 04:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Arguments against (by Node_ue)

(posted by Node_ue, removed by Danutz)
Arguments against:

• There are several hundreds of thousands of speakers of Moldovan/Romanian language who prefer to write their language in the Cyrillic alphabet. Currently, the Romanian Wikipedia allows for contributions only in the Latin script, and has refused to change this policy or make any on-site accommodations despite past suggestions for compromise from language subcommittee members. Until a compromise can be reached that will allow the linguistic rights of all speakers of this language to be respected, mo.wp should not be deleted.

(in response to "no content will be lost")

• this is a lie, first of all there are original articles; second of all, the Moldovan Cyrillic uses a particular alphabet that currently no converter exists from Latin to Cyrillic, besides ro.wp has refused to allow a converter to be used similar to the one used at zh.wp or sr.wp, so it renders this a moot point)

(in response to "we allready developed a script")

• this has been requested by members of the language subcommittee and denied with the excuse that "this will never happen unless Russian troops occupy Bucharest"; also the converter is very poor quality and the results are incomprehensible

(in response to "Moldova's Latin-script law")

• countries do not have a monopoly on language; if Australia suddenly passed a law that English could only be spelled in a certain way, would Wikipedia be obliged to respect it regardless of the desires of the speakers of that language? no.

(In response to "mo.wiki frequently mocked")

• a petition signed by a few people is not an example of the imagined "frequent mockery" alleged by danutz

(end of re-instatement)

---

Seb az86556 04:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Response to Node_ue's arguments

1. No figures on the use of Cyrillic. According to the last census in Transnistria, only 170,000 people declared themselves Moldovan. But even so we do not have a statistic on the language they use (there are several people that declare themselves Moldovan although they donnot speak the language-this phenomenum also happens in western Moldova, see en:Demographics of Moldova#Languages). On the other side, we do have a statistic about school students enrolled in Transnistria: a quarter of the Moldovan school students in Transnistria study in Romanian with the Latin alphabet. So I think it is clear that a large proportion of this 170,000 people use the Latin alphabet.

   Re: According to the same source you used, "11,200 children out of 79,000 schoolchildren" in Transnistria go to schools which teach Moldovan in Cyrillic; I believe (but do not have proof one way or the other) that this excludes a small quantity of bilingual schools, as well as Moldovan-speaking children who are sent to Russian-language schools (and possibly, in very small quantities, to Ukrainian-language schools)

   Re: Re: Actually this number also includes biligual schools, it says there in the very same article.

   Right, so then 11,200 students are taught in Moldovan Cyrillic currently, this doesn't include people who have already graduated from such schools. It's funny then that you state later that you find it doubtful that even 5000 people use the script! Here we have a concrete number pertaining to script usage, from which it can be inferred that the actual number is higher, yet somehow you arrive at a conclusion that nobody uses it.

   You got me wrong. I don't see why the fact that they studied in Cyrillic would mean that they actually use Cyrillic. Before 1989, the people on the west bank of Nistru also studied with Cyrillic, but that didn't mean they were actually using it in everyday life. Amyway 5000 barrier is not a Wikipedia policy. --Danutz 01:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   Any proof they weren't using it? When people learn a script in school, and it is promoted by the local government, it is quite likely that is the script they will actually be using, absent extraordinary circumstances. --Node ue 05:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   That is just an assertion (that they use Cyrillic). You must know that 258,287 people in Transnistria have the Moldovan citizenship, so they might consider Moldova the local governament, not PMR. I really don't know, but that could be. Until we have a statistic on the use of Cyrillic we really cannot know (and I'm not just putting tricky figures here, but, really you cannot know that; there is not a big wall that separates Transnistria, and because its geography as a narrow strip, it is impossible for the separatist governament to stop contacts between the two banks of Nistru).--Danutz 07:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   It's ridiculous to suggest that out of a population where the majority learned a script in school and lives in a territory where it is currently used by the government in de facto control of that territory (whether you like it or not, PMR gov't does control day-to-day goings-on in that area), nobody uses it. Having Moldovan citizenship is of course a convenience for many since it is impossible to leave the territory without a passport; most people choose Moldovan passport because it's cheapest and easiest to obtain for people living in that area. I don't think it says anything about the political allegiance of people, support for PMR independence has historically been relatively high among ethnic Moldovans on the left bank. --Node ue 02:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

   You must know, Latin script is banned in schools (that's why the PMR closed the Romanian language schools in 2004 - they were registered latter as private schools, after pressure from the EU, OSCE and the United States). So it is not possible anymore for schools to switch to the Latin script (I mean, you know how the situation is in Transnistria, at begining of the 90s there were even reports of the Latin alphabet - on the school walls - being shot with Kalashnikovs). But that doesn't mean that people don't know the Latin script or that they don't want to study in the Latin script, or that they don't prefer the Latin script. Remember that Transnistria has a Slavic majority, so the Moldovans there can't actually simply decide by majority to use the Latin script officialy (and they are not a democracy as we understand it in the EU or the US; I was for example perplexed to see officials in Tiraspol complaining that Moldova and Romania donnot help in teaching the Romanian language in Transnistria, even if you cannot enter in Transnistria with any „cultural value”, including books, newspapers, audiobooks). But at least from the point of view of unnoficial surveys, parents would opt for the teaching of the Latin script. So that is a hint that people could prefer the Latin alphabet. Also in 2001, 90% of school children in Grigoripol secretly followed the curricula of the Republic of Moldova, apart from the Tranistrian one. So I'm not saying that people don't know the Cyrillic alphabet, but saying that they donnot know the Latin alphabet, or that they don't prefer it, is superfluous, because we donnot have any statistics on it. --Danutz 17:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

   Yes, these phantom surveys, I've heard of that before... but there is no source attached. Who conducted these surveys? What were their exact results? Many people have left Transnistria, others send their children to Latin-script schools, but obviously many have stayed and send their children to Cyrillic-script schools. You're right that we don't have amazing magical statistics telling us the exact script preference of every Moldovan speaker in Transnistria, but the statistics we do have paint a pretty convincing picture for most observers (including most of langcom) that while exact levels aren't easy to determine, there is definitely a population that uses and is most comfortable with Cyrillic. --Node ue 23:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

2. Romanian Wikipedia has never refused to add the Cyrillic script, but it was never asked to do so. Maybe you can give us a link? No person speaking the language ever proposed this functionality, but that doesn't mean that it won't be done as soon as somebody requests it. We allready developed the script, we are just waiting for people to ask for it. You must understand that adding such an option might offend some users, especially in Moldova, because of the past events in this country. Because it is so sensitive, I believe we should first wait for people to ask for this enhancement, and not do it a priori, just for fun. Remember, Wikipedia is not a tool of the Transnistrian (neither Moldovan) propaganda, so I don't think we should promote the politics of the unrecognised Transnistrian governament without people even wanting to read content in Cyrillic. If people (by that I mean speakers of the language) will want it, then we will do it.

   Re: So what you're saying is, if someone who doesn't use Latin alphabet happens to find your page and request, in Romanian in the Latin alphabet which they do not use customarily, that you add a converter, you would do it. Wow, how helpful of you!

   Re: Re: Yes, that is exactly what I am saying (but they can make that request at Meta in English or Russian or even in Romanian-Cyrillic). I doubt somebody using the Internet does not know the Latin alphabet to make a request. How does the Wikipedia policy function? As far as I know you must first make a request for new languages. If there were some Gagauz people that managed to make such a request, I think it would not be that hard for Transnistrians to make a short enhancement request at ro.wiki, meta, incubator, ru.wiki, en.wiki or wherever they want.

   The funny part is that they weren't actually Gagauz, they were foreigners who learned Gagauz language (mostly Turks). So, if we're granting Gagauz Wikipedia in the absence of any native speakers, on the assumption that they will one day want to read Wikipedia, why should Cyrillic Moldovan be a different case? Sounds like a double standard to me.

   Not even one of them was Gagauz? That could be, I don't want to contradict you, but how do you know? (I saw they listed gag-N in the languages spoken). Did they all say they are not Gagauz? (just asking, at first sight they seemed to be Gagauz).--Danutz 01:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   Which person listed gag-N in the languages spoken? It was suspicious that none of them spoke well any Eastern European language besides Gagauz and Turkish, with the exception of Cuman, who lists his native language as Azeri (therefore unlikely to be Gagauz), considering most Gagauz people with easy access to Internet are probably not only monolingual speakers of Gagauz. See [2], [3], [4], all of which are either nearly empty or, in the case of Russian, filled by users whose pages claim gag-0. --Node ue 06:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   I just looked here: Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Gagauz 2. I clicked on the users listed up there: At least Kaykayuz, Viktormd and Igor listed gag-N (those three I checked because their name sounds Russian). --Danutz 07:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   These seem likely to be sockpuppets. Their only contributions on meta are the creation of their userpages (which means someone else added their name to that page); they have 0 contributions on the actual Gagauz Wikipedia. İgor does appear to have a few contribs to the Gagauz Wikipedia: [5] but unfortunately there are only 9 in the main namespace and they are almost all deletion of content. So again, it's doubtful any of these supposed actual Gagauz people involved in the request are real people; even if they are, they are not the ones who created the content at the current gag.wp. --Node ue 22:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   It could be so as you say, but there are also other users like Marina Çubuk (Marina is a common Russian name). I really can't tell. But we can use the checkuser tool for such things. --Danutz 17:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

   It's possible, but my gut feeling is that gag.wp, like many other Wikipedias, has no native speakers. This is unfortunate, but it does not break any rules. So what's the use of checkuser? If you find the current situation unsatisfactory, I think the best course of action is to find native Gagauz speakers to invite to contribute, as the current gag.wp is not breaking any rules by having no native speakers. --Node ue 23:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

   My point was that if some Gagauz people (at least they look Gagauz, but you can never know unless you use a checkuser) requested a Wikipedia we can presume that Transnistrian Moldovans should also be capable of doing so alone, without other persons speaking in their name. I am not interested in closing or blocking projects in other languages, I even have no opinion (nor positive, nor negative) on such projects. --Danutz 15:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

3. I repeat, no content will be lost. I searched and searched for an original article on mo.wiki, still I found none. All of them are copies of articles from the Romanian Wikipedia as it was in 2005-2006. But if you say that there are original articles, please point us a few. Anyway, don't worry, we can make a backup of the database to be sure nothing is lost. And remember, we do have a tool to automaticaly convert Latin script to the Cyrillic script.

   Re: You obviously didn't try very hard. Also, your tool doesn't work very well, compare for example this link with the text on the converter page, you'll find some very basic errors are made.

   Re: Re: Well can you point me a few original articles? About the converter so-called "errors", see below.

   There was an original article on cabbage, for example; ro.wp currently has that article but that's only because it was copied from mo.wp to ro.wp (by me). Check the article histories for verification ([6] for the mo.wp version, I'm sure you can find the ro.wp version yourself)

   Well, the fact that is was copied to ro.wiki also implies that the content will not be lost. I didn't know you contributed to ro.wiki. Thanks for that, you should come more often there.--Danutz 01:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   I'd love to, only I'm sure I'd not be welcome; in october 2010 there was a discussion about mo.wp in ro:Wikipedia:Cafenea where it was mentioned: "un mo.wp blocat și practic inexistent e mai bun decât NodeUe pe capul nostru" and then "Și tot teamă mi-e că vom avea niscai "contribuții" de la NodeUe în proiectul lui favorit, ceea ce va duce la noi conflicte. Îmi pare rău, dar eu unul nu îi mai pot aplica WP:BC lui NodeUe" both from Strainu - I know where I'm not wanted, better to spend my time elsewhere.

   Well maybe you broke a policy or something like that. But you could contribute on less sensitive articles for a while. We do need as many international editors, even in sensitive subjects , because we want to ensure a NPOV. But that also means respecting other points of view. Because Romanian is not a world language, it is sometimes even harder to create a NPOV, but you should sustain contrary point of views. After all it is not in our interest to build a propaganda encyclopedia (there are Romanian propagandists also, I admit), but believe me, we fight that in ro.wiki as harsh as we can.--Danutz 07:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   I'll consider it, thanks for the invitation. --Node ue 02:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

4. Please note that the statements of one specific user (that was also banned in the Romanian Wikipedia, as far as I can remember) are not necessarily the official position of the Romanian Wikipedia. Take me for an example: I am a (proud) Romanian Wikipedian, still my statements and opinions are not necessarily the official policy of the Romanian Wikipedia.

   Wow, thanks for that.

5. Is funny that you say this: "if Australia suddenly passed a law that English could only be spelled in a certain way, would Wikipedia be obliged to respect it regardless of the desires of the speakers of that language?" Let me translate what you just said: "if Transnistria suddenly passed a law that Romanian could only be spelled in Cyrillic, would Wikipedia be obliged to respect it regardless of the desires of the speakers of that language?". Speakers of Romanian (or Moldovan if you want to call it that way) never requested the Cyrillic script to be used in Wikipedia, it was you who did that.

   Re: No, mo.wp was already created, I added content. It is you who request that it be deleted. Besides, anti-Cyrillic people made the argument that we should respect laws. The fact that there is a law in Transnistria is not what matters, what matters is that the reality on the ground includes people using Cyrillic. If a large community (ie, bigger than 5000 or so) of Moldovan speakers used Arabic to write their language, we would have accommodation for them, regardless of any laws passed by any governments regarding official alphabets. Look at tt.wp, which includes content in Latin, even though Cyrillic is the official script of the entire Russian Federation.

   Re: Re: No, we donnot "acomodate" if not requested. Why should we? I'm not anti-Cyrillic (do you realy think it bothers me personaly if ro.wiki adds a Cyrillic option?!). I just don't want to go in such sensitive subjects if they are unnecessarily (if people don't want it, why should we do it?). About the 5000 limit, that does not meet any Wikipedia policy, we do here things by request, not to "acomodate". But how can you know that 5000 people use Cyrillic? I doubt there are so many. Don't just think of Transnistria as a very isolated teritory. They get there Romanian and Moldovan TV, many study on the left bank, they learn the Latin alphabet in schools (as it is a condition to learn any Western language). Why do you think people there really use Cyrillic for Romanian in the everyday life? Maybe you can give a source? Doesn' the fact that nobody writes in Romanian-Cyrillic (apart from official Transnistrian souces, and this can be counted on your fingers) on the Internet ring a bell?

   That is part of compromise. You want other people to accept a difficult decision (i.e., deleting mo.wp)? Make it easier for them by serving the same content, making that subdomain redundant. Sr.wp does it, kk.wp does it, ro.wp is obviously not interested at the moment (and I certainly understand why, I just don't think that's an excuse for "wanting to have your cake and eat it too").

   Sr.wiki, or zh.wiki do that because there was interest in having such content. Remember what I said, we should not promote the script without having interest on it, because it really is a sensitive thing. Honestly, I support such an option, but why creating an artificial discussion if we donnot have interested peoples? Remember that in ro.wiki, we do accept both pre- and after-1993 ortography (the question of â/î) even though the old ortography is not official in any teritory. But we had a small number of users requesting it, so we did it. But even that spanned larged discussions and editing wars, that's why I think it is not worth engaging in such discussions if no one is interested in that.--Danutz 01:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   Kk.wp provides conversion to Arabic although it was not requested by native users of that variety. --Node ue 05:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   I'm glad to hear that. It is always easier to implement such decisions in smaller wikis. However, ro.wiki has a large community, and the subject being so sensitive, we should wait at least to be requested. I allready explained that it took some large discussion in accepting both pre- and post-1993 ortographies, but we finally did it because we don't want to loose contributors. That should also apply to the Cyrillic script issue (unless we get people interested in Cyrillic, we only risk loosing other users that are more sensitive on this issue). You must know, people are big headed, they get upset for anything. Believe me, when they will be explained that this will also help increasing the community, they will understand. But we must at least see that people want to read the Romanian Wikipedia in Cyrillic (because otherwise, we take a chance for nothing). --Danutz 07:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   I still find it unlikely that people would vote in favor of treating Cyrillic equally, even if hundreds of native users signed a petition, due to the political symbolism involved. What has been suggested by several members of the language subcommittee is that it will be difficult to find a solution in this case with the full support of the ro.wiki community that is also fair to Cyrillic users, and I agree. It is of course not right to force a solution on an unwilling community, and such an action would do more harm to the project than help it, so it seems better to me that any solution should operate externally until and unless community buy-in is achieved for an on-project solution. To say that "Oh, we'll implement it if someone requests it" is nice, but will that actually happen? What will the community actually say? I find it doubtful that people will easily agree to the implementation of such a solution. Therefore, I am still of the opinion that a "conversion portal" should be set up at, for example, ro-cyrl.wikipedia.org, allowing read-write conversion of ro.wp content (thus, people could contribute in Cyrillic and it would automatically be converted and saved to the database in Latin script). Due to the licensing model of Wikipedia, this would not violate any rules as far as I am aware, and it would not have to be linked from ro.wp's main page, thus allowing it to be relatively low-profile. --Node ue 02:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

   Yes, it could happen that people will disagree to the Cyrillic script if they are not explained the advantages (one of them being of course not to fork the project). But we can reach a compromise. For example we can add multiple options apart from the Cyrillic alphabet, like "Wikipedia in reverse" (all words being reversed their letters, that is a simple script to do) or something like that (there is also a code-version of the Romanian language called, „limba păsărească”, with intercalated syllabs, but that is a little harder to do). So if we will have more variants, people will not see a Cyrillic option as a bad thing, but more as a funny thing, while people who only know the Cyrillic script could read Wikipedia in Cyrillic. And then we reach our goal, without upseting other users. --Danutz 17:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

   All great ideas, but the problem with the community is that there is no crystal ball to tell us how a community will react to a given proposal. It's more difficult for a democratic country to ratify a treaty because it must be voted on by the people or their elected representatives. Of course, we are a community-based organization, so nobody can make any promises when it comes to decisions that require community input. It's possible the community will accept this or that, but we can't know now, so why make advance decisions based on such type of predictions? --Node ue 23:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

   You know, we will have even less support for such a feature if we keep mo.wiki as a sort of bête noire for the Romanian community. It is very hard to find understanding in the Romanian Wikipedia, just by pressuring with the mo.wiki. After all an argument for my proposal was that mo.wiki cannot be restarted (at least in the forseeable future), so my guess is that the Romanian community is not that bothered by its existence. My idea for this proposal was to give a chance to the Romanian language community to discuss this problem internally and have it solved in its way (because it is an internal problem of ro.wiki). But not by threatening with a "baubau", because that only stirs negative reaction. I repeat, we allready allow two ortographies in ro.wiki, allthough one of them (the one with "î din i"/"sunt") is not official anymore and it is used by even less persons than those knowing the Cyrillic alphabet. So lets give it a chance.--Danutz 15:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

6. Please also note that unlike English, Romanian (like French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese) is officialy regulated by the "Academia Română". The rules of the Romanian Academy officialy apply in all territories, including Moldova.

   Re: How is that relevant to this discussion? I suppose this straightens any confusion about spelling preferences, but it would be preposterous to suggest that the nation of Moldova get an entirely seperate Wikipedia essentially just for Â/Î sunt/sînt. This is about one issue: Cyrillic.

   Re: Re: Well that is very relevant because the Romanian Academy also established the Latin script for the Romanian language.

   Wow, amazing! Did you know that the Real Academia Española established Latin as the script for Spanish, yet some Jewish people continue to write their dialect in Hebrew letters, in contravention of this rule? Somehow, it's not a problem though.

   You do know that Ladino is not just Spanish written in Hebrew, as it is a dialect? You might also know that Ladino is officially regulated by a national institution in Israel. My belief is that Ladino is indeed Spanish, but maybe speakers of this language were interested in writing in the Hebrew alphabet. I don't see Moldovan users intrerested in an encyclopedia in Cyrillic. --Danutz 01:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   Unfortunately we have no actual native Ladino speakers on Wikipedia, yet we have taken the initiative to set up an entire (rather poorly written) Wikipedia for them, including several articles in Hebrew script. Anyhow, the point stands that RAE has established Latin as the alphabet of Spanish, of which Ladino is generally accepted to be a dialect, yet nobody claims that Ladino speakers are obliged to write in Latin script. Wikipedia is not bound by the rules of governments or academies, it is bound by community realities, and in this case there are communities which use Cyrillic, despite what the Romanian Academy thinks they should do.

   If there are no users then why was it created? It is true that Ladino is not 100% identical to Spanish, but I think it could co-exist with the Spanish Wikipedia. After all it is in the interest of the speakers to have access to 700.000 articles instead of 2000. I think they could make a script to convert Spanish to the Ladino spelling (my impression is that there are not actual differences between the languages, only in spelling, Ladino being more phonetic; I could be wrong though). After all our goal is not to fork in 100 projects because that only waistes energy (look at Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian Wikipedias: imagine how big a common project could have been).--Danutz 07:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   It was created because, like many Wikipedias, it was requested by an "interested user". As an example, the Navajo Wikipedia was initially opened by me, that is not a language in which I am fluent, and it has since been populated by much more capable users - including native speakers - who have dedicated much time to it and filled it with relevant content in the appropriate language. Ladino and standard Spanish do have some important differences, but they're certainly mutually intelligible, especially in written form, to the point that a converter might be useful if there are actually any people left on this planet who would rather read their information in Hebrew-script Ladino than in Hebrew, English or standard Spanish. Of course, due to the fact that Spanish has about 400 million speakers and Ladino almost certainly has less than 500,000 and quickly declining, it seems unlikely that es.wp community would agree to the same kind of converter as they have in sr.wp, so the best I would hope for is something like the two-way portal I suggested above.

   Well I doubt that Romanians users would agree to a solution as in sr.wiki either. But for me, adding an option in preferences, while also adding an appropriate and simple documentation written in both scripts and a visible link to that documentation (even on the main page) is somewhat a better solution. You know with the Cyrillic script option we don't want to iritate other Wikipedia users, but we just want to accomodate the possible Cyrillic-interested users. I think that in this manner we really do accomodate the Cyrillic-interested users and we don't stir possible malicous reactions. And again I say, we reach our goal without upseting other users. --Danutz 17:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

7. The petition was just a "surplus". Still, Wikipedia is often mocked in the Romanian-speaking media. See this articles: Timpul, Contrafort, Adevărul

   Re: The first one is a poor example, it's an interview where a guy who considers himself an expert in Moldovan topics says he is a "Moldovan Wikipedia"; the last two are both 4 years old, and the third one barely mentions it. As this is a topic that I have invested considerable time and energy in, I keep tabs to see when it's mentioned around the web, and outside of petitions and occasional discussion board posts, it does not seem to catch much notice, especially from the news media, with occasional exceptions.

   Re: Re: Actually the first one is the best example, because it shows "Moldovan Wikipedia" is now a public joke. He uses the expression without explaining it, in a peiorative way - by that he is demonstrating exactly a mockery to the Moldovan Wikipedia.--Danutz 05:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   It's a single sentence, you don't seem to have any better examples or you would've used them already, your evidence is thus very poor. --Node ue 18:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

   I will look for more next week, but three examples is allready ok, I think.--Danutz 01:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I answered to all your questions. --Danutz 18:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not really. --Node ue 01:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The converter's quality is so poor as to actually be hilarious, I've made my own converter several years ago using macros in MS Word and more recently using the ICU Transform program and it is really not so hard to achieve greater than 99% conversion accuracy with very minimal effort (it took about 15 minutes of input). Can you tell me what these words are supposed to mean (don't answer, I actually already know, but they're jarring): нațиoнaлэ, дeșи, aчeлașи, oфичьaлe --Node ue 01:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is a very resonable explanation why "ș" and "ț" are not currently converted: As you can see in the sitenotice at the Romanian Wikipedia, ro.wiki recently converted to the corect diacritics (s-comma and t-comma instead of s-cedilla and t-cedilla). You can read more about this issue here. Bassicaly s-comma and t-comma are different Unicode characters from s-cedilla and t-cedilla, that's why they are not recognised by the script (the script was developed in 2006, much time before ro.wiki converted to the new diacritics). However, you can imagine that can be corrected when the script is installed, is a matter of seconds. Other typos, you should just ignore, it is normal for a Wikipedia to have typos, and it is obvious that when a typo appears in ro.wiki, it will appear also in the converted version. --Danutz 05:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

These aren't due to typos on ro.wp, they're due to conversion errors. "același" is a correct spelling in the Latin alphabet, but "aчeлaши" is not correct in Cyrillic. It should be "ачелашь". Also note that the mistake was made of not converting homographs (i.e. Latin "a" is not converted into Cyrillic "а"), this ruins search engine accessibility and creates word processing issues. Essentially, someone made a converter that would take 15 minutes to do properly, but that was even too much time for them because they have so little respect for Moldovan Cyrillic, so they only converted heterographs and didn't take care to note any of the easy and regular rules of the Cyrillic script (final -i in Latin is usually final -ь in Cyrillic; initial ia- is converted to я, as in яр or януарие, initial iu- is converted to ю as in юние, etc). This is ridiculous. --Node ue 18:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Aham, but this all can be corrected (I think the problem with the final "i" is also caused by the ș/ț issue), at least they bothered creating the tool, just to show that it is technical possible. Is not their fault that they dont know the Cyrillic alphabet, and is not their fault there was no native user of Cyrillic who could help them develop a better tool. But imagine that when we will have native users interested in reading Romanian in Cyrillic, they could help us with the script.--Danutz 01:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that rather than improving the tool now, it will have to wait? Interesting. In negotiations, for example in international diplomacy, one side often conducts a "show of good faith" to prove that they have good intentions, such as freeing prisoners of war or some other symbolic gesture. Here, you are willing to do absolutely nothing, in spite of the fact that just about everybody in this conversation lowered their expectations quite a bit. So your view seems to be this: You want mo.wp deleted, but you will not agree to the creation of any sort of content to replace it, now or in the future, unless a specific condition is fulfilled, in which case you could very easily go back on all of the nice things you've said here (if a Transnistrian shows up at ro.wp tomorrow asking for help, what accommodation will you really give? tell me honestly here, as it's not as unlikely as you seem to think.) So what you are saying, basically, is that you believe mo.wp must be deleted but that nobody else must do anything in return. That makes no sense and is not fair to anybody except you and your agenda. --Node ue 05:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You're telling me that the creation of this script is not a show of good faith at all? These nations free only a few prisoners of war, and keep the rest as a backup for future relations; so they are trying to improve the script, but at the very least they have created it. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Node, you should know by now that I'm not a broaded person, and we managed to reach an agreement in the past; an agreement that was in ok with the state of things at that time (at that time Wikimedia didn't have a clear language policy, and the status of Moldovan was not clear either - now things have changed; Wikimedia has a much more clear policy on languages, and nobody contests the Molovan-Romanian identity). So don't see me as a mean person, because I am trying my best here to be as fair as I can be. What happens is that I'm not the best in technics. But we will get that tool work accurate, one way or another. I did contacted Bogdan (the creator of the tool), even from the moment I put this request up, but I'm still waiting for a response. However, you did say you created such a tool also, so maybe you could give us a hand. Anyway we have other programators at ro.wiki that can fix the tool, no problem, still we need somebody that knows the Cyrillic script, or at least a book with the rules. Believe me, when I said I have not met somebody writing in Cyrillic, I really ment that. I don't know anybody that knows the Moldovan Cyrillic conversion rules at ro.wiki, and even if I did, I'm not sure we can rely on memory. We need a guide or something like that. How did you learn the rules yourself? Is there any documentation on the web? I'll make it myself, I learn quickly, but I need a source first. --Danutz 07:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as helping with improvement of the tool, I'd be glad to help; if you'd like to learn more about the mechanics of Cyrillic Moldovan yourself, this is a good starting point; many of the rules can be easily learned by reading texts in Moldovan Cyrillic; if you don't want to read texts from PMR's court website, there are several other limited options online; offline, slightly more extensive sources can be obtained. Try searching Google for common Moldovan/Romanian Cyrillic function words that don't occur in other Cyrillic languages (for example this search), it will usually return at least 100 pages of text that can be used. --Node ue 20:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's make this simple, Danutz: The walls of text you are posting clearly shows you are on a crusade-like mission. What is your motivation for starting this? What bothers you so much about it? (if you don't like it, just don't look at it) Seb az86556 06:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I avoided to talk with you because in your comments you make all discussion personally. But the discussion is not about me, nor about Node_ue, or you. I put the arguments on the main page, I think they are well argumented. Please don't make it personally because it is not. What bothers me or what doesn't bother me is strictly my business. We are not friends (enemies even less), neither did we met at any time, so my personal feelings should not be your concern. --Danutz 07:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You're the one who's obviously arguing from the gut, thus, you make it personal. So again, what bothers you? Just be honest and state your motives; thus far, you're unconvincing to me. Then again, book-burners don't need arguments, only some gas and matches... Seb az86556 07:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I really gave you the arguments (those arguments are neutral, just facts). I reiterate: my opinions, my problems, my botherings I don't want to share.--Danutz 08:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I`m from Transnistria.And in Transnistria Moldavian language on Cyrillic is one of the state languages.On Moldavian language newspapers are published "Адэвэрул Нистрян"-unique in the world, writing only in the Moldovan language on Cyrillic.A state-run television and radio broadcasts in Moldovan, with Moldovan Subtitle.Transnistria-the only place on Earth where the Moldovan language is preserved in the Cyrillic alphabet--Eugen Abramov 11:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Stop vandalising the introduction

Please stop vandalising this proposal. It is a proposal to delete this wiki, not to keep it. If you realy want, you can add a section with your arguments, but donot intercalate text, because your are making people think it is what I wrote. Also put sources, I sourced every one of my arguments. Just saying "that is a lie", without any proof is not an argument against. (Remember we talk, express opinions on the talk page, not on the main page). I didn't put my personal opinions on the main page, I just put sourced arguments.) I will request the protection of the introduction, because you keep vandalising it. I understand you don't want this discussion to take place, but that does not mean you can distort the proposal. If people will find my proposal not welcomed, they'll vote against, but donnot distort what I proposed. I put my signature there, and what you are doing is called "forgery" (ro: "fals intelectual", fr: "faux intellectuel", es: "falsificacion de documentos") in criminal law, because I wrote that content authenticated, and I signed it (electronic signature has the same value as the normal signature). --Danutz 08:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually no, you did put your opinion. Prosecuting attorneys would love it if defendant's attorneys never got to speak on their behalf, but that's not how the world works; you got to make your case against mo.wp, now someone gets to make an argument for it. I doubt anybody is stupid enough to mistake what you wrote for what I wrote, that's why I used bold text. --Node ue 18:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Did I put my opinion? Where? --Danutz 01:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

A few questions

1. Could the people who learn the Cyrillic script also understand the Latin one?

   I don't have a concrete statistic, but here are some facts that could answer your question: (1) between 1989 and 1992, Transnistria also switched to the Latin alphabet and (2) Internet users must have a knowledge of the Latin alphabet, because otherwise they could not type URLs (including wikipedia.org).--Danutz 09:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   This isn't really relevant; just because someone is able to decipher script X doesn't mean they are comfortable with it or that it feels natural for them. If I drilled you into Korean script you'd be able to read in it 밭잍웓스틸뤀윌르드투요 (but it would still look weird to you). Seb az86556 15:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   I think the question was not if they are confortable with the Latin script. My impression is that TCNSV asked this to know if a Cyrillic user could make a request of Cyrillic functionality in ro.wiki at some point (I mean understanding the word "modificare" - edit - or "salvare pagină" - save page). Is that what you've had in mind?--Danutz 20:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   I interpreted it differently. The question was if people who learn[ed] Cyrillic can also understand Latin. Similar questions have been asked about other Wikipedias in the past. --Node ue 21:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   Yes to both, Node ue and Danutz. I'm going to give a bit of a further explanation on the topic below. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

2. Can you show me solid evidence, in the form of wikilinks, that would show articles on mo.wp not duplicated on ro.wp and would therefore be lost in the process? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

View by TeleComNasSprVen

If the current mo.wp duplicates the ro.wp domain but only retains the Cyrillic script, then it doesn't meet the criteria outlined specifically in the Language proposal policy and therefore does not fit within the scope of the Wikimedia Foundation. Currently, if it is true that the mo.wp ISO-code is truly deprecated, then it fails criteria two; and if the only difference that remains between these two "languages" is the Latin and the Cyrillic script, then it fails criteria three, namely that mo.wp is merely "different written forms of the same language." The Language committee's Frequently Asked Questions page also provides additional information on the scope of the Wikimedia Foundation, and why it should not be appropriate for extinct, historical or duplicated wikis to exist. As it now stands, the mo.wp domain is locked from further editing indefinitely, and since it is invalid as regards to the proposal policy, our Incubator Wiki has formally rejected it as a test wiki. The purpose of locking it was to prevent vandalism whilst a working copy could be properly developed in the Incubator, but since even the Incubator rejects it, there is no hope for it and no way to propose its unlocking. Any improvements to the wiki becomes impossible, and so it sits there lacking many articles that it would have had from ro.wp if it remained open to editing, as a monument to failure. What purpose would it be to have it kept locked indefinitely, incomplete, sitting around and wasting disk space, when its current embarrassingly unfinished state is the same as having it deleted anyway?

Therefore you are left with four options:

1. Ask the Language committee to accommodate their policy so as to allow this wiki to be opened for improvement, or show evidence that there was a compromise established between them that would allow Cyrillic content to be equally accessed as well as the other wiki.
2. Start your own wiki, either by yourself or with the help of Wikia directly or on their Incubator Plus Wiki or some other alternative, by backing up (saving) the files onto your computer, moving it off the Wikimedia domain and uploading/transferring it somewhere else.
3. Help the ro.wp users with setting up their script properly.
4. Continue to oppose futilely, as the wiki will remain closed until the end of time, wasting disk space.

:| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I was never under the impression, based on statements from langcom members, that simple incubator activity would result in the reopening of mo.wp. The current sentiment from that direction seems to be that mo.wp will continue to exist until ro.wp community is willing to agree to some sort of fair compromise; all compromises that have been offered by Danutz and other people claiming to represent the wishes of ro.wp have been rejected by langcom since they violate several important principles - no ease of access (why should, say, Saterlandic Frisian speakers get automatic access to their wiki with a direct URL, while Moldovan Cyrillic users must enable a special script, instead of being able to just click a tab?), read-only capabilities (the Wiki principle = all users can read and write; should not be too difficult to enable cyrillic-to-latin conversion for saving content back to the server). I have offered to work with Danutz, Gutza, etc. but please understand, at this point it has become clear that any statements from them that they are interested in an actual resoltion are nothing but a smokescreen, as soon as mo.wp is gone, that is the end of this issue for them, there will be no accommodation, there is no desire to resolve this fairly. I hope they will prove me wrong, I would be absolutely delighted to see any kind of solution that accommodates the real existing users of Cyrillic script, but I have become resigned to the likelihood that WMF will eventually aquiesce to the petitions from nationalistic users against Cyrillic script, or this proposal will succeed, or something, and there will simply be no replacement for the content, the "solution" will be that Transnistrian Moldovan users can just go read in Romanian WP (sadly it is more likely they will choose to read ru.wp or en.wp, data from [the rest of] Moldova suggests this already and in a place like Transnistria it is even more likely), whether they like it or not, and any complaints from them in the future will be met with silence. --Node ue 08:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

To TeleComNasSprVen: That was also my point here. Mo.wiki cannot remain just as a „bugaboo” for the Romanian Wikipedia community (I don't see other sense for it at this moment). As it cannot be restarted (being deleted from the incubator), then why should we keep it? We can work a solution on the Romanian Wikipedia, a solution that won't look scary or damaging to the community. All we need to have is an open mind, and not be conducted by politics. After all is not our job here to do politics. Remember that the Wikimedia Foundation does not seek to develop new linguistic entities, and that the distinction of a language must be sufficient to convince standards organizations to create an ISO-639 code (instead, standards ogranisations deprecated the „mo” ISO 639 code). Also, we are talking here about content/articles that are included in the Romanian Wikipedia, so no content is actually lost. --Danutz 16:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

To Node_ue: Look, I reiterate here that I don't speak on the behalf of the Romanian Wikipedia community. And neither does Gutza, we are just users. All that we can do is suggest solutions and hope that they would be accepted in the Romanian Wikipedia. But the point is not to suggest something too radical, because it has little chance of being accepted (you allready know how Wikipedia functions). We should suggest constructive solutions, that have a chance to be accepted (and I did so on this page), not just lose our time in sterile discussion. If you want to continue to oppose futilely, do so, but don't expect us all to be patient (maybe some of us will lose their patience). Things change over time, and we are not in the same situation now as we were at the time of the closure of mo.wiki back in 2006. I understand it can be frustrating for you because you employed a lot of work to put up this Wikipedia (and you participated in lots of discussions), with good faith (or bad faith; until the disproof we can presume it was good faith). But this is the system in Wikipedia: many things, many articles that existed at one point in Wikipedia, were replaced or deleted over the course of this 10 years. Still we don't complain about that, as the content became better through this. Also, remember that those articles we are talking about are allready avaible at ro.wiki so they won´t be actually deleted.

Of course you should continue to support your beliefs, but do you want by all means to keep a very very small mo.wiki, blocked from editing? Don't you want instead to make Wikipedia accessible for Cyrillic users? Because if you want to make Wikipedia accessible for Cyrillic users, you should work with us trying to achieve a solution proportional to the needs and not just irritate Romanians because you resent them (or some of them). Again, do so if you want, but don't expect all Wikipedia users or the Board, or the langcom to agree with you. Maybe they will, but my guess is that they wont.

Compare the situation to the current situation of the Romanian and English languages on the web. English is the most used language on the web, so you can find virtually everything on the web if you look in English. People tried and continue to try to get more and more content in Romanian (and there is a lot now), but still it is incomparable to the one in English (it is estimated that 0,4% of the web pages are in Romanian and more than 40% in English - that is 1:100). So people started to provide automatic translations so that Romanian speakers can access the extraordinary resources on the web previously only available in English. At the beginning the automatic translation was ridiculous, but it gets better everyday. Unlike creating an automatic translator (that is very much to work on), creating a transliteration is very simple, and at least people not knowing the Latin alphabet could access more than 150.000 articles in ro.wiki. But if you just insist with this mo.wiki, all you do is drawling the reach for a equitable and proportional solution to accomodate the Cyrillic users. I repeat, do so if you want, but be realistic about the outcome of this actions. --Danutz 19:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, in one sentence you say that you'll assume good faith; later you claim I only do this because I want to "irritate Romanians" because you think I "resent" them. That is a silly accusation that has been leveled at me since this all started 5 years ago. I have never been to Romania and I have no reason to resent Romanians, all Romanian people I have met, online and in real life (with the exception of Bonaparte - remember him?) have been good people, even if we have had disagreements. This is not about causing annoyance to anybody, it is about providing a fair and equitable solution for a struggling population, upholding principles of fairness and equality, and demanding that people not be disrespected simply because their preferred linguistic modality makes some people uncomfortable. I don't think reopening mo.wp is a viable solution anymore, I have repeated several times what I think viable solutions could be, but deleting mo.wp and just saying "Oh, ro.wp will form a task force/committee/whatever" and then never actually doing anything is not a viable solution. Neither is "Well, if a user ever comes along and requests it, we'll consider it then". What percentage of Wikipedia readers gets up the courage to make an edit? Transnistrian residents know Cyrillic is controversial, my guess is no matter how much facility they have or don't have in reading/writing Latin alphabet, they will be extremely hesitant to request accommodations, much less at a Wikipedia known only as the "Romanian Wikipedia", since many of them consider their language to be different (not saying I agree with it, but in Transnistria the common sense idea seems to be that if the language is written in Latin, it is the "Romanian language", if it's written in Cyrillic it's the "Moldavian language", and the two are considered distinct by many in that area). It is for this reason that I suggested using a subdomain as a transliteration portal. This way, users can both read and write on ro.wp in their native script, yet it is not "forced" on ro.wp users by making it visible and unavoidable from the main page (it seems reasonable to predict that a sr.wp-style conversion system that is displayed prominently on every page of ro.wp will not be well received in this context). As far as people being offended by the mere existence of a Wikipedia written in a certain linguistic variety or script, this is unfortunate but I would say it's unavoidable. We can't suppress content just because some group of people find it offensive that native speakers actually write in a particular script, that goes against all of our principles. Implementing a real, usable transliteration system should not take more than a day's work, and I would be happy to help in whatever way possible. Believe me, I am just as eager for this to be resolved as anybody else, I just don't intend to agree to a false compromise that restricts participation. --Node ue 21:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I said that i presume your good faith in starting and editing mo.wiki back then. As for your resentment on some Romanians, that was my personal impression after you said that proposals by me or Gutza should be regarded as smokescreen. Anyway, nevermind. About, the Cyrillic script, I said it before, why should we risk annoying some users at ro.wiki (even though they should not be offended in a perfect world) if we can achieve the same thing without doying that? Also, as Wikipedias are always created by request, new enhancements are added by request, why not wait for an actual request? That is what I cannot understand. Beginning with little does not mean that we will not add step by step even further enhancements for Cyrillic script. But if no one requests anything, I strongly oppose creating a priori a Cyrillic script enhancement, because in my opinion it would only show our support for the Transnistrian propaganda. And is not my job, and neither the purpose of ro.wiki to promote the official policies of the PMR (or any other recognised or unrecognised government). That is why I oppose it, not because of the Cyrillic script per se. Of course, if people would request it, then of course we should accomodate them, proportional to their interest (after all it is in our interest to keep people on Wikipedia, and not make them run). But otherwise, I only see such a feature as an affiliation of Wikipedia to the policies of the PMR, and I can't agree to that. How do you know that Internet users there don't know or don't want to use Latin? You can't know, so why promote it's use? Just to comply to the policies of the PMR? That is not an argument, I'm sorry. Instead an argument would be a clear and free survey, or requests by Cyrillic users. This are two possible arguments, there might be more. But Wikipedia does not work on asumptions and it is not affiliated to governments (both recognised or unrecognised). P.S. The fact that this issue should be resolved within the borders of ro.wiki, that does not mean that you or other users cannot participate in the discussion. Of course you should. --Danutz 22:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I find that disingenuous. You say it is Transnistrian propaganda; I suspect you will handle any potential request in that light. Seb az86556 22:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Lets not make interpretations, at this moment we don't have potential requests, we don't have nothing. I said many times that having requests changes the facts. Maybe I did not make it very clear, I wasn't speaking neccesarilly about propaganda employed directly by the Transnistrian government, but adding such an option without having actual users, or figures on the preference of the Cyrillic strict, will mean a direct support from Wikipedia to the official policy of the PMR. Otherwise said, that will mean that Wikipedia will promote the use of the Cyrillic script, without being asked to do so. What does that mean? That Wikipedia will look like a propaganda tool. I reiterate, the problem is not about the Cyrillic script, the problem is about the use of Wikipedia as a tool to promote a certain policy (having no users interested in using ro.wiki in Cyrillic, but creating a Cyrillic version looks to me as a promotion of the policy of the PMR). Now lets decide, is Wikimedia Foundation the "foundation for promovation of the official policy of the PMR" (or any other recognised or unrecognised government), or it is a foundation that promotes the free knowledge, without interfering with politics? Remember, here we are not talking about article content, were we put as many POV's as we can, this is an internal usability problem. Cyrillic script is not a bad thing, but promoting politics of a governament is a bad thing. Let them promote their policies, and if it gains momentum people will come to us. --Danutz 23:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It cuts both ways. Your politics are just as obvious as theirs. Seb az86556 23:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right, and believe me there are also Romanian propagandists. We fight them often at ro.wiki. But remember that ro.wiki (with its Latin alphabet) was created in 2003, after a request by Bogdan Stăncescu. Mo.wiki was created automatically without any request, because at that time it had assigmed an ISO code (without any request). P.S. Please note that the discussion is about the deletion of the mo.wiki (the discussion of the use of Cyrillic script at ro.wiki is an internal problem of ro.wiki). Here we are not talking about giving something in exchange. If you think that here our goal is to make exchanges (I give you this, you give me that), my opinion is that you are wrong. Using mo.wiki as a pressure to impose a policy without actual momentum is useless. I wont support that at all. The discussion about the introduction of the Cyrillic script at ro.wiki should be based on arguments and actual need/request, and pressuring with mo.wiki is not an argument.--Danutz 23:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Good. So instead of posting walls of text, you could simply say "I don't give a flying fuck what others think." Seb az86556 23:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Lets try to remain civil. It is very good to express opinions, or likes, but sincerily personal likes are just preferences. Arguments are the ones that will get us to a decision. Otherwise, you are right again, we only end posting walls of text.--Danutz 00:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Short view by Danutz

As we expressed concerns that the discussions on this page are very long and repetitive, I want to write a brief inform about how I think this problem should be resolved. So this is my view:

(1) First of all, mo.wiki should be deleted as it has no chances of being reopened and it does not comply to the official policy (also, all content is allready present at the Romanian Wikipedia).
(2) After this is acomplished, the community should have a discussion about the introduction of the Cyrillic script in the Romanian Wikipedia (here at Meta or at ro.wiki). Moldovan Wikipedia should not be used as an instrument of pressure in the discussion about adding a Cyrillic script enhancement to the Romanian Wikipedia.
(3) The problem is not about the Cyrillic per se, is about whether Wikipedia should or should not promote a policy forced by Transnistrian unrecognised government, a policy that didn´t translate in actual users of the Cyrillic (as we donnot currently have Romanian speakers wanting to read or edit in Cyrillic).
(4) My opinion is that the introduction of the Cyrillic script at ro.wiki should be made gradually, proportional to the needs, and only based on real requests [to use the Cyrillic script] or on real and clear data that people want to use this script (like a survey or something like that). History shows us that a moderate, gradually approach is the best to avoid nationalistic resentment.
(5) I agree with helping users get their content in the script that they preffer but I don't agree with helping a government (be it recognised or unrecognised) to promote its policies.
(6) Until we have actual speakers willing to read and/or contribute in Cyrillic, I think that adding such an enhancement would only be an effort to show Wikipedias promotion and affiliation to the policies of the unrecognised government of Transnistria.
(7) Wikipedia should not involve in politics, however it should address the requests of its users (but until now, there were no such requests by actual speakers of the language).
This is my view, please donnot alterate it in any way. Feel free to comment below if you want. --Danutz 15:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that linguistic and human rights issues should be divorced from politics as much as possible. Regardless of who "promotes" Cyrillic script, it is undeniable (ok, you seem to deny it, but can you really suggest nobody uses it?) that real people use it. It should not matter if these people are in a recognized country like Italy or Peru or a separatist region like Transnistria. We have a wikipedia in Abkhazian after all; in the past there were some Georgian users who said its mere existence supported separatism. I disagree - having a Wikipedia in Abkhazian does not mean we support (or for that matter, are against - we are neutral) Abkhazian separatism/independence; nor does having / creating content in Cyrillic Moldovan mean we support PMR, despite perceptions. We also have Wikipedias in other languages from conflict zones; NPOV means we cater to all readers, many Wikipedians might disagree with the policies of Lukashenko but there are currently two Belarusian Wikipedias. The reason Wikipedias are not created until they are requested has nothing to do with a lack of audience; it has to do with a lack of editors who can create content. In this case, that is not an issue since we can create thousands of pages overnight. --Node ue 20:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Don´t compare Wikipedia content to Wikipedia usability (interface). Of course we don´t request articles but we do request functionality. Wikipedia is a platform created by the Wikimedia foundation, and the intempestive conformation of this platform to the official policy of the PMR (without actual request from users) is a clear involvment in politics (in my opinion) and a favourisation of the PMR politics.

Also please note that Wikipedias such as Belarussian-Taraškievica don´t comply to the language policy, they were just exceptions. Reopening mo.wiki would mean that it must comply to the current language policy, so in my point of view this subject is closed and mo.wiki should be deleted (that does not mean that the discussion about the Cyrillic alphabet for Romanian should dissapear, not at all).

Now about Romanian speakers in Transnistria. I don´t deny that they donnot learn and know the Cyrillic script, I only find it dubious (debatable) that Romanian-speaking Internet users in Transnistria would want to edit or read in Cyrillic instead of Latin. My opinion is that such users don´t exist, but they can of course proof me wrong. I previously compared the situation to Gagauzia only because there are similar economic conditions, similar number of reported speakers, similar Internet access, and still Gagauzians appeared to Meta. Until Transnistrians say they want to read/contribute at Wikipedia in Romanian with Cyrillic, or at least until we have a survey, how can I know that Romanian is not a dead language there, or that the Cyrillic script is not used at all by any Internet users there, or that they don´t have any Internet access at all, or even that Wikipedia isn't blocked there? --Danutz 22:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

1) How am I comparing content to usability? Wikipedia interface is already available in Cyrillic Moldovan (or will you request that to be deleted too?).

2) If you choose to see it that way, which I think is unnecessary, then it could also be said that not having accommodations is an endorsement of the other side. However, we aren't talking about global conflicts or separatism here, we're talking about human beings who happen to write their language in Cyrillic. Providing NPOV content to people can never be POV due only to the linguistic modality used to transmit the content, despite percptions to the contrary. Anti-Arab propaganda can be written in Arabic, anti-communist/anti-PMR documents can be written in Moldovan Cyrillic. The OSCE mission to Moldova has published some of their documents in Moldovan Cyrillic in the recent past, this is not an endorsement of PMR.

3) The dual situation of Belarusian was implemented after the language policy was created; the implementation of the policy is at the discretion of the language committee. If they were to suggest that mo.wp should be moved to ro-cyrl.wp and reopened, or that any new Wikipedia in any language should be created, if they give consent it will be carried out. So it is up to their interpretation, not yours or mine. That is why we have two Belarusian Wikipedias although such a situation is clearly in contravention of the language policy.

4) I think the mo.wp should be deleted eventually, however I think it is a happy convenience for you to erase it before ro.wp community implements any solution, so that once mo.wp is deleted people can simply say "Well, we didn't reach consensus so the issue was dropped." As it is now, we are providing content, although clearly not an ideal solution since there are a miniscule number of articles and no current opportunities for growth.

5) Proof is never enough for you, if a user came asking for Cyrillic content (there was at least one Transnistrian user on mo.wp, not that it mattered to anybody), the response would be predictable: "This is clearly the only person in all of Transnistria who actually wants to use Cyrillic, we don't need to create content for just one person" and so on and so forth. Documents showing people use Cyrillic are insufficient, you still choose to believe - in contravention of all evidence to the contrary - that they somehow do not exist. The guy who wrote the Moldovan version of the PMR constitutional court website, you think when he writes a letter to his wife or leaves a note for his kids, he does it in Latin alphabet, using Cyrillic only at work? You seem to have this vision that all Transnistrian Moldovans dream of nothing more than using the Latin alphabet to write their language, as if that is something they all care about. You even suggest that Moldovan may be a dead language in PMR... such a preposterous suggestion it's clear that no evidence, no matter how great, will ever convince you. --Node ue 23:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedias interface, usabillity features, domains are subject to the Wikimedia Foundation. That is separate to the editorial content.--Danutz 23:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I don't get what your point is in repeating yourself over and over - I don't see how your statement is related to this issue. --Node ue 00:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You claimed we don't make requests to create Wikipedia articles. Of course we don't because that is editorial content. Also while Wikimedia is not directly responsable for the content, it is directly responsable for its features, domains, and final approval of major policy decisions. Compare to the situation of a forum, where the owner is not directly responsable to the comments written by third parties, while it is responsable for its policies.--Danutz 00:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't seem to remember or find the part of this page where I said that. Would you be so kind as to point it out for me? --Node ue 20:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

My bad. :) --Danutz 14:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)