I don't think it's right to delete content just because someone doesn't like it without creating any sort of alternative. In addition, I don't see how ro.wp community support would be needed if a separate subdomain were used to set up such a gateway - it would really be little more than a mirror hosted by the foundation.
All other cases where wikis with content were *deleted* rather than just locked fell into two scenarios: content was replaced (zh-tw was replaced by a conversion system on zh), or was in a conlang and was migrated, sometimes by a 3rd party (toki pona, klingon, ru-sib). Cyrillic Moldovan is a legitimate system that is currently used by over 100,000 native speakers as a habitual language variety/script pairing, there are a handful of websites written in it and it is used in an official capacity by a de-facto independent political entity. It scares me to think that we could delete content, with no replacement in sight, for a legitimate modern language variety used habitually by that many people in a defined territory (and potentially in a diaspora, but that's open to debate and there's no solid documentation that I'm aware of), simply due to the expressed dislike or anger of a particular group of people. -m. 2010/10/5 Nathan <[email protected]>: > On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 7:26 PM, M. Williamson <[email protected]> wrote: >> Nathan, perhaps there is a communication error here. GerardM and I are >> arguing for the same thing, which is a transliteration engine, but >> ONLY so long as it allows people to read AND contribute, rather than >> just being read-only as proposed by Marcus. My other contention is >> that if this is not possible due to community opposition at ro.wp, >> then mo.wp should be kept; GerardM seems to disagree there and says >> that such a solution should be done whether ro.wp community approves >> or not. I'm still not sure how any of that is unreasonable. >> >> -m. >> > > Perhaps there is - you and Gerard appear to be arguing that a > round-robin transliteration option (on ro.wp, presumably) should be a > precondition for dealing with the existence of mo.wp. It seems > plausible that would be an unpopular proposal on the Romanian > Wikipedia, and there don't appear to be any volunteers for doing the > work to set it up. Almost as importantly... Since a permanent solution > for mo.wp hasn't been forthcoming in the past 4-5 years, I'm not sure > it's a great idea to be adding barriers -- especially when a simple, > common sense solution is available and there appear to be few if any > actual Transnistrians interested in a project in their script. Does > that clear things up? > > > Nathan > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
