Incubator:Requests for deletions

This page is for nominating test wikis for deletion, or for nominating pages related to the maintenance of the Incubator for deletion. Requests for undeletions can also be made here. To request the deletion of individual pages in a specific test wiki, please use the relevant talk pages where the editors of the test wiki are most active (such as the talk page of the test wiki's Main Page). Pages that should be speedily deleted should be tagged with {{delete}} with a proper reason.

It is typically not necessary to request that pages in a test wiki be deleted after the project has been given its own subdomain (e.g., aa.wikipedia.org), since such deletions are part of the normal workflow when creating new wikis. Eventually all pages in the test wiki will be deleted, leaving behind only the info page.

For the deletion policy, see Incubator:Deletion policy.

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day.

Wt/rml

All pages are completely written in Russian, not in Baltic Romani. Таёжный лес (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Судя по всему, автор, @Samuel.A.Kim:, не совсем верно понял смысл Викисловаря. Думаю, это нужно перенести в русский Викисловарь. I think, it should be moved to Russian Wiktionary. --Danvintius Bookix (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Автор понял суть словаря, но учитывая, что автор создавал материалы в инкубаторе, то в первую очередь приоритетом было наполнение словаря, а не перевод интерфейса. Кроме того, учитывая, что данный диалект использует русский язык в качестве основы, то при работе в инкубаторе было удобнее пользоваться интерфейсом, который был предложен, т.е. русский. Samuel.A.Kim (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Neutral Per Ethnologue, 7,280 speakers in Poland, 12,000 in Belarus, 460 in Estonia, 1,970 in Lithuania, 5,640 in Latvia, and probably there are speakers in Russia, and all are in 5* (Developing) status. Looks like both Cyrillic and Latin being used for these speakers, just depend on where they're living, better to give some months to see if such purely-russian contents can be translated or not. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Anyway @Таёжный лес: The Danvintius Bookix above recently contributed some contents at Wq/rml, is that project also meeting same issue? Or that project is in correct language? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

In the correct language. Таёжный лес (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. Empty articles may be deleted, but the project should be kept. Once a native speaker or one who can speak it sees that it exists at least here, maybe they will want to contribute. By having it here we are giving them some visibility, what is crucially important for these languages, and may be a decisive factor for someone to contribute. Many articles do have a major component in Russian, and that component may be deleted from those articles, but articles as such should be keptAndrijko Z. (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Wn/kk, Wn/sah, Wn/tt

These projects are already on Russian Wikinews 151.135.197.56 13:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Tend to support deletion of Wn/kk per the rejected RFL, which as only having little substubs before RFL rejection, there are merely no benefit for having a separate kk.wikinews. Eventually, it currently has no pages. (Someone would say that there's second open RFL, but its creator Bauka0625 didn't create anything except their own user page here)

The later two were discussed in 2019 which result no consensus, of which Tatar Wikinews has its RFL verified as eligible, I'm not sure whether there's really benefit for second trial of RFD em. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Support I support the deletion of the projects as per the request. Besides that, these projects have never been active in the incubator since their creation.--ꠢꠣꠍꠘ ꠞꠣꠎꠣ (talk) 08:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@ꠢꠣꠍꠘ ꠞꠣꠎꠣ The last Tatar one may be a sensitive question as, again, its RFL is verified as eligible, I contacted a user who voted keep in that 2019 DR, that has several contributions to Wq/tt. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

"Delete" (in scare quotes because no use of the MediaWiki deletion functionality is involved here - the page will really be replaced with a pointer) wn/kk as empty. Delete wn/sah, which only contains a main page and no other content. Inclined to delete wn/tt, which only contains a Main Page and one news article from 2020, as well, but not as strongly convinced. In any case these can be recreated if there's a movement to develop the project outside of Russian Wikinews.

Once these are deleted, we need to decide what to do with the domain names https://kk.wikinews.org, https://sah.wikinews.org, https://tt.wikinews.org.

Inclined to redirect https://tt.wikinews.org -> https://ru.wikinews.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B3%D1%8B_%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82, https://sah.wikinews.org -> https://ru.wikinews.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D2%AF%D1%80%D2%AF%D0%BD_%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%80%D1%8D%D0%B9, but redirect https://kk.wikinews.org to https://ru.wikinews.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8:%D0%9C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C (the project page explaining Russian Wikinews' multilingual initiative) since there isn't even a Kazakh Main Page. Although even the first two are very dead. And for all three domains redirect https://tt.wikinews.org/wiki/foo -> https://ru.wikinews.org/wiki/Foo. Pppery (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Pppery I think for 3rd one, once we indeed gain consensus to delete, we might need to discuss with langcom members on whether its RFL's eligible status should be revoked. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The project should remain in-theory eligible. I'm effectively saying to do a soft delete - delete the nearly-empty test currently there without prejudice against a new movement for starting a test if one forms. Pppery (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@OWTB: As you're most likely supporting to keep such "tocreate portal pages", do you have time on Pppery's suggestions above? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Anyway, it looks like the member who marked Tatar Wikinews request eligible doesn't agree to re-consider it should be revoked or not. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

If they are already present on Wn/ru, then at least, they should link to their respective pages on ru.wikinews. --OWTB (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Looks like the nominator already did so. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Wp/unm

Like some previous sections, Unami is an extinct language, so having a test project generally violates the LPP. Probably there are some useful contents that should be migrated to 3rd wiki platforms. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep while the Wikipedia page has it marked as extinct, ethnologue https://www.ethnologue.com/language/unm/ has this marked as an endangered language, to quote the "Language Vitality" section of ethnologue "Endangered — It is no longer the norm that children learn and use this language." which is what Unami is marked as. People are still learning this language and using this language, it is not extinct. Other Wiki's are up in incubator that would violate the LPP yet they are fine. The Taivoan, Aramaic, Coptic and Ancient Greek Incubators would have to be deleted yet two of those are features on the incubator.wikimedia.org homepage, It would be consistent to keep it based off of other decisions I have seen. [User:Flowingblaze|Flowingblaze]] (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@Flowingblaze Really "endangered" instead of just "extinct"? Even there are really spam pages featured in special:prefixindex/Wp/unm? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

That is what I see on Ethnologue. Unless I am reading it wrong? Ethnologue is a trusted source on langauges from what I know. If I am wrong feel free to let me know. I do not agree with the spam pages and I was planning to try to fix them up to not be so short, sometimes just a word like "tipas" was before I found the Wikipedia today and added some substance to it. Flowingblaze (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@Flowingblaze But what I can see on Ethnologue is The last known speaker, Edward Thompson, died in 2002. If you can't demonstrate that how you can speak this language, then you're not really seriously contributing, and I'd love to revert your contributions. The only article you're ever contributed, Wp/unm/Tipas, doesn't look different from a previous case - Wp/vot, to which a user who clearly can't understand that language contributed several "contents", later disclosed as "not in that language, by any circumstances". Verily, it looks like your edits on Incubator are your global "first pieces of your contributions", and I really can't believe that "freshmen" users know the function of requests for deletions discussion page, so I would also doubt if you're a legal "freshman". Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I literally just saw a thing saying this Wikipedia has a request for deletion on the homepage of the thing. Please stop emailing me. This has been my only account with Wikipedia. Do you speak Unami? I dont see that info on your page. How can you judge my skill in a language you do not speak. Flowingblaze (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@Flowingblaze Okay even a SRCU regarding your case is failed, the word "Endangered" was also almost not mentioned on that Ethnologue page except, as their general interface, on the page footer as "Endangered Languages" under "Further Reading", which is just a description page without list , so which thing give you to say the Unami is an "Endangered language"? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

https://ibb.co/1GF2rCXt Is a screenshot

https://www.ethnologue.com/language/unm/ is the link. Flowingblaze (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Flowingblaze That imgbb file looks like broken, and I even can't see "Language Vitality" on the very same URL (you can email me to request a screenshot from my part), probably that information is only available for your country living? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about that, https://postimg.cc/V5Xq944p I just uploaded it on this website, and from waht I see it did properly upload this time? Flowingblaze (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Also I saved the page I'm seeing to the in the internet archive https://archive.ph/MiS7h so you might be able to see what I'm seeing? What the archived has saved does have what I see if you scroll down a bit. Unless your country for some reason affects that as well? (As you said, this could be a location thing) Flowingblaze (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, I suddenly found Unlock The World’s Languages - Pricing, where it said for "Language Vitality", it only show "Simplified Scale" for Starter subscriptions, which cause this information doesn't show for me, such information shows to users with at least Essentials subscriptions, that can be free access for users from World Bank mid/low-income countries, but for some matters it can't work for me. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Ah. I am on free tier and I see that screenshot I sent to you, with the "Language Vitality" being on "Endangered". I don't have an Essentials subscription, I thought it was free for the longest time until LingoLizard mentioned it (A youtuber). In his video where he lists every living language he does list Unami but I didn't include that as a source since. Well its a youtube video and he sourced Ethnologue like me, and In my opinion that would be like citing from the same source twice and I don't think your supposed to do that, but I can sent you that aswell if you would like with the timestamp? If that would help at all? My apologizes if my reply is a bit confusing, for some reason I am confused but you reply a bit but I'm responding to the best of my abilities from what I am understanding. Flowingblaze (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, but even that's Endangered, how can it meet the policy on project languages? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Forgive me but I do not understand your reply. What do you mean by "well but even thats endangered"? Flowingblaze (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hmm interesting, that policy mentioned:

Ancient or historical languages

Only Wikisource wikis in ancient or historical languages are accepted, because resources in such languages continue to be important to the world, even in the absence of native, living speakers of those languages. Where possible, such languages should be bundled with the modern equivalent Wikisource project (such as Old English with English), though that is not required.

But didn't mention the status of "extinct" and (as you said) "endangered" languages, however for later one, I guess another sentence of the policy can also hold up from your strong "keep" idea?

The Wikimedia Foundation does not seek to develop new linguistic entities; there must be an extensive body of works in that language.

Do you really have an extensive body of works for Unami? If not, then by only your edits, this language is still not valid for testing, even you can edit the de facto articles, you can't create new ones. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Also, I'm appealing the tvx result above, so it may also have possible to be deleted. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@Flowingblaze For record, one of the examples you listed above, Ancient Greek (Wp/grc), has been nominated for deletion below. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Me, like the nominator, believed that this language is extinct. However, during the discussion it became clear that this is a controversial issue. So far I do not see any reason to remove the test project. --Danvintius Bookix (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@Danvintius Bookix I think we do have better 3rd party platform from those users who are indeed interested in such non-living languages, so I don't know what means "remove" by you, what I mean by this RFD is to seek for a migrate, not remove. Also, from what I can see, such non-living languages are technically not allowed on creating articles (even test projects exist), cause them generally dormant, and why this is a "controversial issue"? Isn't LPP clearly said "Only Wikisource wikis in ancient or historical languages are accepted, because resources in such languages continue to be important to the world, even in the absence of native, living speakers of those languages." Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete Per nom, there are no real speakers of Unami anymore. --2408:8411:900B:8751:2B1:1BCC:67AA:9257 00:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Ip Address person. This language still has classes for it see https://6abc.com/lenape-teach-language-indigenous-people-of-pennsylvania-teaching-class/12482441/

""The Unami, which is the southern dialect, that's what I teach," said DePaul"

Linguistics consider Unami and Munsee separate languages while Lenape consider them dialects https://www.talk-lenape.org/about-us the talk-lenape site is a Unami dictionary as you can see.

It can't both have classes for it and "no real speakers" Flowingblaze (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

If you think that that should still really be a "living" instead of an "extinct" language, you can always submit an ISO change request to correct this: Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@Flowingblaze It should also be noticed that according to SIL's query, there's no "Lenape" existing, so any claims which says, or previous said, and or will say, the "Lenape language", are by themselves confusing, since the w:Lenape language on enwiki redirects to w:Delaware languages, which matches the macrolanguage code del, that contains both Munsee and Unami. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

ALSO there is good reason to suspect your a sockpuppet of Liuxinyu970226 based on the whois data for your IP. https://whois.toolforge.org/gateway.py?lookup=true&ip=2408:8411:900B:8751:2B1:1BCC:67AA:9257

The WHOIS have you in China and the native language for Liuxinyu is Chinese. Your using your IP to make you look like multiple people to get this deleted from what I can see based on that evidence. Flowingblaze (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I am also suspicious because sockpuppetry is something I've seen him mention here and in Wp/tvx. Flowingblaze (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I have reported you, Liuxinyu to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. I made it clear that you stop emailing me and you emailed me under this IP of yours. You emailed me with false accusation of sockpuppetry. You left a comment on my talkpage saying that this page won't be deleted if I change the language code to DEL or Umu. I'm not the one who created unm, I don't know how to do that, and that would be pointless considering I don't speak Munsee. I speak Unami. You have even used your IP address to make it seem like mulitple people support the deletion of this unm page. I am done tolerating your bullshit and based on this nightmare experience as my first time giving me panic attacks and putting me in fight or flight whenever I see this stupid ass wikipedia in my inbox or its site layout I have seriously considered leaving Wikipedia because of all the pain YOU have caused me and your harassment. Wikimedia does NOT welcome new users and only argues in bad faith to get what they want based on what I've experienced as a new user. Flowingblaze (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@Flowingblaze I don't have other devices for logging and/or contributing, I even don't know who is that. Should I revert their edit as vandalism? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I've striked their comment, and warned that IP to login an account. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. Empty articles may be deleted, but the project should be kept. Once a native speaker or one who can speak it sees that it exists at least here, maybe they will want to contribute. By having it here we are giving them some visibility, what is crucially important for these languages, and may be a decisive factor for someone to contribute.Andrijko Z. (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Andrijko Z. The problem is that who speak this extinct language Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:14, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with that. Project visibility may encourage someone to contribute. Andrijko Z. (talk) 01:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Wb/be-tarask, Wn/be-tarask, Wq/be-tarask and Wy/be-tarask

According to I:PREFIX, the language (of test projects) must have a valid ISO 639 code, where Taraškievica doesn't, and I don't see any permits from e.g. Incubator:Requests for starting a test where this is however "specially permitted". --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

1. my activity was due to your invitation. Wikivoyage was created on November 6, 2013 . You created it.

2. there was an invitation to act on the page. So user:Ясамойла starting acting.

3. ISO 639 has a Belarusian language code (be) and Taraškievica is a orthography not a language.

4. right the truth. There's no money and the number of sites needs to be reduced.

Ясамойла (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Ясамойла: Why not just merge them with b:be:? Wn/be? q:be:? and Wy/be? invitation? No, that's from a bot called "Welcoming Bot" in 2014, that bot was not mine. "You created it." lol of lol, the creator is, as per Special:Diff/1104359 & Special:Diff/1101203, the @Travelour​:, so your first point is an instrument of ratification of your lies, as well as the second. The third one is correct, but as so, you shouldn't start such projects here, but try to use the existing be tests/project sites, as that's an orthography, and not a language, it's not belong to Incubator, but to the existing projects. And what's meant to be your last point? "no money", have you ever read m:Wikimedia Foundation? Wikimedia foundation is a non-profit organization, so why do you wanna it to have any "moneys" internally? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand why the user thought that such projects could exist. There is a Wikipedia in Tarashkevitsa. However, the current rules do not allow creating any other Wikimedia projects in Tarashkevitsa. These projects can be combined with the corresponding projects in the official orthography. Or, maybe, after some reworking, these projects can be made in Interslavic language understandable to all Slavs. --Danvintius Bookix (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Wp/grc

I used to be an administrator of the ancient greek wiki and looking back on it, it's just a mess. Most articles are so deficient linguistically, that it's an affront to the language for them to even exist. Most people that have written articles, including myself, were and are not skilled enough in the language to write properly. The prose is a syntactic mess that reflects modern greek, english, or any other manner of writing ancient greek except itself. I am close to finishing a classics degree, I know what I am talking about, this wiki makes me cringe. I would need too much time to invest to fix all the bad grammar, vocabulary and syntax present, and even if I had the time - which I don't - it's honestly better to start all over again. Do a service to ancient greek and remove this wiki from the incubator PastelKos (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

What led you to this change of mind? --MF-W {a, b} 12:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Before this section submitted here, I've discussed this matter at the talk page. So far, as the 5th rejection rationale said, Only Wikisource wikis in ancient or historical languages are accepted, maybe it's the time to migrate to Incubator Plus, like Wp/enm, Wp/goh, etc. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with migrating to Incubator Plus! As for articles being written in bad Greek, whether on the present or a potential new wiki, I don't think that's really an issue- this is a small hobbyist community so "Bad" Greek > no Greek. Besides, there are so many examples of bad Greek being used throughout the ancient and medieval world by both native and non-native speakers alike. Holding ourselves to perfect Attic/Koine Greek is certainly a noble goal, but it would probably discourage more people from contributing. Debosneed (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Debosneed @PastelKos @Liuxinyu970226 @MF-Warburg Συμφωνώ με την πολιτική πως κακά ελληνικά > καθόλου ελληνικά. BILL1 (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, οὐκ ἔστι οὕτω κακόν. The Ancient Greek Wikipedia is pretty good, as long as you’re searching for something that has anything to do with mythology, cities, countries, languages, Christianity or cultural topics.

There are some influences from modern Greek, but the worst part about that is the lack of accentuation that is so crucial in the ancient language — and the neologisms are also questionable when they’re derived from modern versions of the language.

Plus, the Orthodox churches still speak Ancient Greek for administrative and official purposes, and some use ΛΟΓΟΣ or Ἀθήναζε.

However, migration is still better than deletion. But it is still too early for that. Reputa qui sis (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Agree: It's pretty clear that this should probably not be deleted entirely. Hopefully unlike kl.wiki, it doesn't have too much of a chance of polluting the language with a horribly corrupted version of the language; and as a consequence having the possibility to even kill the language. If it does, which, what I just said would be a VERY extreme case, then fine. But surely that shouldn't be. Kxeon (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I've just now found out that they someone already tried moving onto Incubator Plus. And its remenants are still there. Kxeon (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

...but is that a blessing or a curse; considering there's already something there? Kxeon (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! As far as I understand, what you've found is a copy created in 2008 by a certain LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs, who unfortunately has been inactive for many years, so he cannot provide us with more information.

Apparently, he believed that the Ancient Greek Wikipedia project would have been deleted from the Incubator, so he created that copy. However, soon someone informed him that the project in the Incubator would not have been deleted, so the copy became useless (and soon also obsolete); nonetheless, for some reason it was kept there.

In my opinion, this duplication of the project generates some confusion, but my impression is that the copy was not developed after being created (contrary to the Ancient Greek Wikipedia in the Incubator). Just to be sure, is there a way to consult the list of the Ancient Greek articles in Incubator Plus, or to check the editing history?

In conclusion, I think there should be just one project. At the moment, there is no reason to move it away from the Incubator (I don't think that the GRC encyclopedia would get more visibility on Incubator Plus). Only if the LangCom for some reason decided to delete it, then it would have to be transferred on another website, like Incubator Plus. Anaxicrates (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

"Just to be sure, is there a way to consult the list of the Ancient Greek Articles in Incubator Plus"

There are two of them:

• One on Fandom (Incubator Plus)
• and the other on Miraheze (Incubator Plus 2.0) [I moved the main page to "Wp/grc/Κυρία Δέλτος" and made a {{test wiki}} template on the page of "Wp/grc". When doing this I made a mistake by moving everything in "Wp/grc" to "Wp/grc/Κυρία Δέλτος", but that has been fixed now.]

"or to check the editing history?"

As for the editing history of the Incubator Plus's Wp/grc, I have no idea how to access that for Wp/grc specifically. Kxeon (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, they are old copies, and no apparent development has been done upon them since 2008. Anaxicrates (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose.

Dear @PastelKos:

Please don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. What you’re proposing is, in my view, counterproductive. Should we really delete many valuable efforts just because someone who didn’t fully understand the language wrote articles like this?

Yes, many articles in the Ancient Greek Incubator are imperfect. But that is true of every Wikipedia project in its early stages. That's what the Incubator is made for. And here, the difficulty is orders of magnitude higher: we are working with a language with complex historical variation, no native intuition, and over two millennia of shifting conventions. Mistakes are inevitable – but that does not mean we destroy the foundations and walk away.

More importantly, the Ancient Greek Wikipedia Incubator has real cultural and educational value. Ancient Greek was used continuously for well over two thousand years as a medium of literature, science, philosophy and theology. It remains a key to understanding the foundations of Western civilization. Today, it is studied across the world by students, scholars, and autodidacts.

A functioning Wikipedia in Ancient Greek is not just a novelty – it’s a living exercise in language acquisition, composition, and philological practice. It allows learners to apply their knowledge in real-world contexts, and to engage creatively with a language that, although not spoken natively, continues to live in classrooms, books, liturgies, and the minds of those who study and practice it.

You mention the poor quality of some pages – and we agree. But rather than deleting them, we’ve chosen the more constructive path: to revise and improve. We’ve begun implementing a template system to flag articles that need correction, and a growing team of competent contributors is steadily working through them.

Your reappearance after a triennial silence to propose mass deletion – without first offering to help fix the problems – feels, frankly, abrupt. If you wish to contribute, we would gladly welcome your expertise. You could suggest standards, identify articles needing revision, or join the effort directly.

But we reject the idea that imperfection justifies destruction. If anything, it’s all the more reason to persist: not for some unreachable standard of perfection, but for the sake of continuity, collaboration, and the preservation of a language whose value has not faded with time.

Thank you. Anaxicrates (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose.

I register my strenuous opposition to the proposal for the deletion of the Ancient Greek Wikipedia Incubator. The suggestion that this project should be terminated is, in my view, a significant error predicated on a misunderstanding of both the historical nature of the Greek language and the fundamental purpose of the Wikimedia Incubator itself.


By way of introduction, I am a lecturer in linguistics with a specialization in historical and ancient languages. While my direct focus is not Attic or Koine Greek, I am thoroughly versed in the language, its history, and its structure, and I am an active contributor to this incubator project.

The critiques levelled against the incubator—citing inconsistencies in grammar, syntax, and style—are not without merit. Such issues are present. However, to present these as grounds for deletion is to mistake developmental challenges for fatal flaws. The very purpose of the Incubator is to provide a space where such projects can be "arranged, written, tested, and proven worthy," as the official documentation states. It is an environment designed to identify and rectify these exact inconsistencies through collaborative effort. The solution to these problems is not deletion, but rather the continued and active recruitment of knowledgeable contributors, a process which is currently underway.


More fundamentally, the demand for linguistic perfection misunderstands the sociolinguistic history of Ancient Greek. For the vast majority of its existence as a language of international importance, from the Hellenistic period through the Roman Empire and beyond, Koine Greek functioned as a lingua franca. It was a language of administration, philosophy, religion, and commerce for millions of people whose native tongues were other languages. The number of proficient second- and third-language speakers vastly outnumbered the native-speaking population. Consequently, Ancient Greek has always existed in a state that accommodated variation and non-native usage.

To hold the incubator to a standard that rarely existed in practice is ahistorical. This dynamic of a standard language being upheld by non-native speakers is not a historical relic; it is a common and essential feature of many of the world's most important languages, a principle reflected in the contributor bases of many extant Wikipedia projects.


Consider Latin, which for over a millennium following the collapse of Rome served as the exclusive language of scholarship, diplomacy, and science in Europe. Its entire literary and administrative corpus was produced by non-native speakers, making it the ultimate historical precedent for a learned language sustained by an educated community. Similarly, Modern Standard Arabic functions as the universal, formal language of the Arab world—used in literature, news, and politics—yet it has virtually no native speakers; individuals speak regional vernaculars like Egyptian or Levantine as their first language and learn MSA as the formal standard.


The pattern continues with modern global languages. French, spoken by 320 million people, depends heavily on its majority of second-language speakers, with the language's vitality and global reach, particularly in Africa, stemming from its role as a lingua franca. English, the very language of this discussion, demonstrates this principle most dramatically, with nearly three times as many L2 speakers (over 1.1 billion) as L1 speakers (approximately 380 million); indeed, the English Wikipedia itself stands as a testament to the power of a global non-native community. Likewise, Swahili, serving as a major lingua franca across the African Great Lakes region, has far more L2 speakers (over 150 million) than native speakers.


Therefore, to suggest the Ancient Greek incubator should be imperilled because its contributors, being non-native, necessarily produce errors would establish a perilous standard. For each language cited, non-native contributors are essential. It is a linguistic universal that all second-language production contains systematic deviations from native-speaker norms. To treat this inevitability not as a natural process but as a critical failure would be to unjustly deny a vibrant intellectual community its place within the Wikimedia ecosystem.

To delete the Ancient Greek incubator on the basis of the critiques raised would set a damaging and illogical precedent. It would penalize a project for exhibiting the exact developmental characteristics that the Incubator was designed to foster. It would apply a standard of linguistic purity that is historically unfounded and would, if applied consistently, call into question the validity of Wikipedias for many of the world's most significant languages.


The correct course of action is not deletion, but active and constructive support. Rather than moving for deletion, community efforts should be directed toward suggesting improvements, contributing expertise, and actively recruiting more specialists to the project. The focus must be on fostering the community of classicists, linguists, and philologists working to bring this historically vital language into the Wikimedia fold, not on dismantling their work before it has had the opportunity to adapt, evolve, and mature.

Please see this rebuttal also in Ancient Greek for further testament to the continued relevance of both the language and the project.

Thank you, James Qcomplex5 (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. If if edition of Wikipedia can't be created, useful and interesting articles shouldn't be deleted. Although I would support migration to Wikisource. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Discussion hidden. Please don't continue the discussion about eligibility here. --MF-W {a, b} 19:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
@Anaxicrates & Qcomplex5 Whether you both inputed so many texts, the policy is still unchanged, that only Wikisource allow such non-living languages, and non of other Wikimedia projects should allow them in any circumstances. That also said, the reason why Coptic is however marked eligible is what I even can't understand. This is again confirmed on m:Requests for new languages/Wiktionary Ancient Greek. So far, if you both don't oppose me from doing so, I'd love to also list Wt/grc for a migration discussion. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC) The rationale for this removal is based on the assertion that "only Wikisource allow such non-living languages," a view derived from a single clause in the Language Proposal Policy. While I acknowledge the existence of this clause, I contend that applying it as a rigid, absolute ban is a fundamental misreading of Wikimedia's policies, which, when viewed holistically, have consistently made exceptions for classical languages of significant cultural and literary importance. The proposal for removal is inconsistent with long-standing, established community practice. 1. The Precedent of Existing Projects: The De Facto Policy The most compelling evidence against this narrow interpretation is the existence of numerous, successful Wikimedia projects in other ancient and classical languages. The "Wikisource-only" rule has been demonstrably and repeatedly set aside. Consider the following active projects: Latin Wikipedia (la.wikipedia.org) Sanskrit Wikipedia (sa.wikipedia.org) Classical Chinese Wikipedia (zh-classical.wikipedia.org) Old English Wikipedia (ang.wikipedia.org) Old Church Slavonic Wikipedia (cu.wikipedia.org) Gothic Wikipedia (got.wikipedia.org) Furthermore, there are active Wiktionaries in both Latin and Sanskrit. To argue that Ancient Greek is uniquely ineligible is to ignore the overwhelming precedent set by these projects. The question is not whether the rules allow for an ancient language project, but rather why Ancient Greek should be uniquely excluded from the same privilege afforded to Latin, Sanskrit, and others. 2. The Principle of "Substantial Body of Literature" is Embedded in Policy The Wikimedia community has always recognized that a language's value is not solely determined by the number of its native speakers. The principle of recognizing a language based on its literary heritage is already embedded within the Language Proposal Policy itself. The policy uses "an extensive body of works" as a core criterion for establishing a language's fundamental legitimacy. To repeatedly apply this principle and then disregard that same quality when deciding on eligibility for a project like Wiktionary or Wikipedia creates an illogical inconsistency. Given that Ancient Greek, with its foundational and colossal body of literature, meets this criterion more profoundly than almost any other language, its exclusion is particularly disjointed. This inconsistency is further highlighted by, as stated by yourself, the continued approval of the Coptic Wikipedia. It is a demonstrably discriminatory application of policy to grant eligibility to one project based on a flexible, community-focused consensus, whilst applying the contrary, literalist interpretation to deny the Ancient Greek project. 3. Community Consensus and Formal Debate Support This Interpretation This is not a novel interpretation. The Wikimedia community has formally and extensively debated this very issue. The Requests for comment/Start allowing ancient languages page on Meta-Wiki documents a strong consensus that a distinction must be made for "Classical languages" due to their "long and continuing traditions of second-language, non-native production" and immense "cultural significance." These discussions reveal that what truly matters for a project's viability is not a "native speaker community," but an active user and contributor community—a condition which Ancient Greek clearly possesses. Conclusion The proposal to remove the Ancient Greek incubator rests on a flawed, literalist reading of a single policy clause that is contradicted by: Overwhelming historical precedent across numerous successful projects. Internal logical consistency with other principles within the same policy. Documented community consensus from formal policy discussions. To deny Ancient Greek a place here would be to create an arbitrary and inexplicable exception for one of the most foundational languages of world civilization. The existing incubator has a dedicated community ready to build a valuable resource that aligns perfectly with Wikimedia's mission. We therefore urge the community to affirm these precedents, reject this removal proposal, and support the continued development of the Ancient Greek incubator. Qcomplex5 (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC) @Qcomplex5 Regarding "The Precedent of Existing Projects: The De Facto Policy", All of your examples given are created BEFORE the establishment of the language committee, and can't reflect the current situation, under current situation, they are barred for creation, and once anyone of them are nominated for closure, then believe me, they will not be rejected for closure and not allowed for re-opening. A simple word for describing them is just grandfathered, and has been confirmed more than dozens of times per years. Regarding "The Principle of "Substantial Body of Literature" is Embedded in Policy", I've carefully searched all the source codes of that policy, around all historical editions and amendments, I couldn't see any mention of "Substantial" and "Literature", "Body" currently happened twice - there must be an extensive body of works in that language and so that nobody is excluded from participating if they do not understand the English-language user interface, "of" is commonly seen but the only thing related with our topic discussed here is just a deny thing - even in the absence of native, living speakers of those languages, so which page were you finding where you have seen the "Substantial Body of Literature"? Regarding "Community Consensus and Formal Debate Support This Interpretation", just see the rejection rationale of the RFC you mentioned: No consensus has been found; the RFC has been radically changed a few times inbetween, to no avail. Anyway, I would rather not love to discuss that RFC since its creator, Gifnk dlm 2020, was later been confirmed as a sockpuppeter, means that such supporters, even really existing, are therefore and thereafter problemic by themselves. Hence, your "conclusion" is therefore and thereafter null and void. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC) And to someone who wanna keep just based on "support the continued development of the Ancient Greek incubator", Wikimedia isn't a lonely wood bridge for wikis, we have many other opinions, Fandom, ABXY, wiki.gg, Miraheze, Weird Gloop, etc. Many other hosting platforms are also available, and Wikimedia isn't by itself imperfect either, as there are questions that whether Wikinews is suitable as so or not. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC) Thank you for the ongoing discussion. Your argument to disqualify the Ancient Greek Incubator is fundamentally flawed on two distinct levels: first, it fails on procedural grounds, as it relies on an invalid retroactive application of policy. Second, it fails on substantive grounds, as your interpretation of precedent, policy principles, and community consensus is incorrect. 1. The Policy is Not Retroactive The entire case against the incubator rests on a rule that did not exist when the project was created. This is a fatal procedural flaw The Factual Timeline: Mid-2007: The Ancient Greek Incubator is created. The Governing Policy at that Time: The official policy in effect was the 2007 Language Proposal Policy (the GerardM-Pathoschild policy draft). This historical version confirms there were no restrictions on ancient languages and no "Wikisource-only" rule. The project was created in full compliance with the rules. 2009: The restrictive "Wikisource-only" clause was added to the policy in 2009. The Logical Conclusion: Attempting to apply a 2009 rule to a project created in 2007 is a retroactive action. The project's eligibility to exist is therefore grandfathered, according to your own argument. To allow a community to spend over a decade building a project, only to disqualify them with a later rule, moves the goalposts in a way that is profoundly inequitable and undermines the purpose of the Incubator. 2. “Grandfathering”, Literary Corpus, the RFC Furthermore, besides the fatal procedural flaw of retroactivity, your specific points about precedent and policy interpretation do not hold up. On "Grandfathering" and the Validity of Precedent: To dismiss active, thriving projects like the Latin and Sanskrit Wikipedias as mere "grandfathered" historical accidents is to miss the point entirely. Their continued existence and support from the Foundation and community represent a continuous, de facto endorsement of their value. Their persistence is not an oversight; it is an ongoing choice that reflects community values, rendering the threat of their closure a non-falsifiable hypothetical. Dismissing them is an attempt to sidestep the inconvenient truth they represent: Wikimedia has always been more pragmatic than a single restrictive clause suggests. On the Principle of a Language's Literary Corpus: My argument was regarding the principle articulated by the text you yourself found in the policy: "there must be an extensive body of works in that language." The policy already uses the existence of a significant literary corpus as a core metric of a language's legitimacy. The logical inconsistency of using this as a valid criterion in one context, yet completely disregarding it for projects like Wikipedia, remains unaddressed. On the RFC, Consensus, and the Ad Hominem Fallacy: Your attempt to dismiss the RFC is flawed. In Wikimedia governance, "no consensus" is not a rejection; it is proof that the community is deeply divided and that significant support exists for the position I have articulated. More importantly, dismissing the arguments of the many respected editors who contributed to that RFC because of the later actions of its creator is a textbook ad hominem fallacy. The validity of an argument must be judged on its own merits, not by attacking the character of the person who proposed it. Conclusion The case for the Ancient Greek Incubator is overwhelming. It is supported by: Procedural Fairness: The "Wikisource-only" rule cannot be applied retroactively. Living Precedent: Thriving classical language projects whose existence is a continuous choice. Logical Consistency: The policy already recognizes an "extensive body of works" as a sign of legitimacy. Documented Community Support: A significant portion of the community has long advocated for this position. A policy is not merely its most restrictive clause; it is its history, its practical application, and the values of its community. Based on all these measures, the Ancient Greek Incubator is a legitimate and valuable project. Qcomplex5 (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC) @Qcomplex5 Please do not take "Conclusion"s by yourself, as I consider such long texts are not from yourself, but rather AI-generated, which in my territory, they may affect copyright violation concerns. Thanks a lot. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC) Copyright has absolutely no relevance to the validity of any arguments stated above. The concern for any material or text posted to Wikimedia is not that of “did you personally write this?”, but rather “is the text that is contributed appropraitely licensed and compatible with CC BY-SA 4.0?” I refute your statement and iterate strongly that all arguments above as stated are my own. In contributing them to wikimedia, I also recognize their *defacto* status as licensed and compatible with the aforementioned Creative Commons Attribution license. Regarding your argument of AI generation: any such text, were they presented by any user, would not be considered copyrightable, and as such would require no such CC BY-AA licensing: they would be *ab initio* within the public domain, as considered by such as the U.S. Copyright Office, and perfectly compatible therewith. Your “copyright violation concerns” are, legally and factually, nonsense. Your response is, infact, no response, and merely a poor rhetorical strategy as a failure to refute such as above arguments validty. You are acting merely to divert from the central issue. Therefore to return to the actual matter in hand: how do you justify the retroactive application of a 2009 policy to a project created in 2007? Qcomplex5 (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2025 (UTC) @Qcomplex5 Because the arguments you inherented above on policy are not affected by the "fear mongering" by some. At the same time in the later suggestions there is nothing new. For me, there is no reason to revisit the criteria, but I open for opinions on others' criterias. If there are difference does it make which I didn't faced-to-faced, let us know (not only let me know, but also let above users know, let sysops know, ...). Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC) The criteria did not exist at the time of the creation of the Ancient Greek incubator project. It therefore cannot be applied after the fact and does not apply to this project. This argument is, in your words, "null and void". Qcomplex5 (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC) @Qcomplex5 What differences do the grc projects (this and Wt/grc) make? The policies are clear, the arguments why have not been refuted are those have been followed over time by the members. It's still to explicitly invalidate any and all arguments that were used before. No need to take points in looking in older history, as it shows the genesis of the policy, it was accepted by the board of the Wikimedia Foundation, where your grandfathered examples weren't. As you said, they were existing before the policy, and hence before the (establishment of) langcom, outside the remit of them, so my arguments are still valid herebefore and hereafter. All of the above texts (hence must include your two "conclusion"s) are only redressing a potential "unfairness" you seek procedural arguments why modifying the policy is to be considered. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC) The project was created in 2007. Then the rule regarding Ancient Languages was created in 2009. You can’t then go and say “we are going to use that rule to delete the project” now. If a rule is created after something has already happened, the rule does not apply to that thing. The existence of the incubator is due to an action in 2007, so it cannot be deleted based on a 2009 rule. It doesn’t matter what else has happened within that project after that. IF you were going to apply that rule (contrary to all norms of law) to the project, it should have been done in 2009. But it’s now being suggested SIXTEEN years later. If you build a house on a hill in 2007, and then create a law in 2009 saying houses can’t be built on that hill, you can’t then knock down that house whether in 2009 or in 20025, the law only applies to prevent NEW houses from being built. So, this rule does NOT apply to this project. It only applies to projects created AFTER 2009. Qcomplex5 (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC) @Qcomplex5 So? In this case can you please allow me to nominate another grc project, Wt/grc for deletion as it's after 2009? They aren't "no response"s, nor "ad hominem"s, just the fact, real fact. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC) There is also the concept of the statute of limitation. You cannot prosecute a rule/law, long long after the action/crime has been committed. You've had 12 years to propose and delete the Ancient Greek wiktionary if that was to be done. So, to that I say, it's too late. It should have been done earlier if it were to be done at all. Qcomplex5 (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC) For "you can’t then knock down that house whether in 2009 or in 20025", very sadly, it can, really can, in some certain countries, so such sentenses don't give any facts but rather, a daydream. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC) Please restrain your totalitarian drive. Thanks. Anaxicrates (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC) @Anaxicrates Sorry but what means "totalitarian drive"? I currently don't have my own cars, so nothing to "drive". For record, I may also consider supporting an amendment of such policies to give benefits for your favorite extinct and/or historical languages, however it's still the stuck of upstreams whether such discussions can indeed be initialized or not as per this declined U4C case. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC) "Drive" in psychology can mean "urge, impulse". If you consider supporting an amendment of the policies in favour of Ancient Greek, that's welcome. As of now, we are working to tidy the Incubator up. When this problem is solved, we will report it to LangCom, and there will be an occasion to express support. The correct place for a Wikipedia is Wikipedia (and the Incubator, if the project is not yet ripe), not another website. Migration should be considered only as a last resort. Anaxicrates (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC) Wikimedia Foundation's servers are located in five data centers: United States: Virginia, Texas, and San Francisco. EU: Amsterdam and Marseille. Singapore In all of which, laws cannot be retroactively applied. Therefore, the principle goes here for the Ancient Language rule within the Language Committee policy. It may be a daydream in "some certain countries", but it is not where the wp/grc data is held, it is statute. Qcomplex5 (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC) @Qcomplex5 For Marseille, it's a part of France, where although prohibited in principle, retroactive law may be passed under certain limits for special situations. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC) Article 2 of the French Civil Code technically prohibits retroactive laws. The General Council allows exceptions only for tax, financial and national security concerns. Regardless, are you saying that wp/grc is therefore a "special situation", and is being treated differently to another project? Qcomplex5 (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC) @Qcomplex5 So are you thinking that I'm supporting deletion? That said, no, I also oppose deletion, but support migrating. Still, WMF isn't the only wiki hosting platform of the world. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC) Anyway, you said "Overwhelming historical precedent across numerous successful projects." could you please explain on 5W1H (What? When? Where? Who? Why? How?) makes such projects (e.g. lawiki) successful? Peoples write there? There are real world readers? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The point being discussed here is NOT whether the Incubator should be authorized to become a Wikipedia now, but whether it must be deleted or not. There is a big difference between the two.

The key facts to be considered are:

• The main contributors to this Project agree that revision is a better course than deletion, because the Incubator contains very valuable materials, along with materials to be revised.
• Pros and cons must be evaluated: deleting the Ancient Greek Incubator would cause major damage without any benefit. Why should one want to do this?
• Policies are not immutable: At least part of LangCom is not contrary in principle to authorizing an Ancient Greek Wikipedia in the future, if there is a sufficient community that ensures the quality of the project. Read e.g.:
  • "For me, Latin, Sanskrit and Ancient Greek are the three languages that could possibly support a classical language Wikipedia. We have two of them, and I’m personally concerned about how marginal Ancient Greek is relative to Latin and that we might be releasing a Wikipedia full of bad Ancient Greek." (quote from User:Prosfilaes 20:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC))
  • Indeed, in order to meet Prosfilaes requirements, we are gradually but steadily eliminating from the Incubator any bad Ancient Greek we can find.
• To my knowledge, there is no policy stating that a project in the Incubator must be deleted, even in the scenario where such a project is not probable to be soon authorized as a full-fledged Wikipedia under the policy in force at that moment. Some members of LangCom have been also making a distinction between not giving final approval to a Wikipedia and deleting the project in the Incubator.
• Furthermore, even if such a policy existed, the Ancient Greek Incubator predates the policy excluding historical languages. The policy should not be retroactively applied.
• Finally, the correct place for a Wikipedia is Wikipedia (and the Incubator, if the project is not yet ripe), not another website. Migrating the Incubator to another website wouldn’t benefit this project in any way, and there is no reason to prefer another website to the Incubator of Wikipedia. Migration should only be considered as a last resort.

P.S.: I was not aware of the fact that the support for this RFC was made problematic by this Gifnk dlm 2020 being found as a possible sockpuppeter. Wouldn’t it be necessary to open a new, clean RFC, at this point?

P.P.S.: In my opinion, it is acceptable to delete the Ancient Greek Wictionary, because of its total inactivity and very low quality. Anyway, an Ancient Greek Wictionary in itself would be useful, if properly done, in the same way that a monolingual English dictionary is useful, even if there are good English dictionaries in all the major languages of the world already.

P.P.S.: Yes, classical languages have real world readers, and there are also tools measuring frequentation of any Wikipedia edition. Anaxicrates (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Given that the "Deletion policy" provides that "after 10 days, an administrator will make a decision about deleting the test or not", our community has been long expecting an answer.

As you can see through the RecentChanges tool, in the last months there has been a constant flow of new articles being created and revised, ensuring the growth of the Ancient Greek Wikipedia not just in its numbers but most importantly in its quality.

So – I would like to ask – what is the reason for this delay? Is my understanding of the policy erroneous?

If the actual policy is "after more than 10 days", you might want to make this clearer, in order to leave no room for ambiguity and misunderstandings. Thank you very much for the attention! Yours, Anaxicrates (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@Anaxicrates The actual policy is, as written several times and confirmed by the rejected Wikipedia and Wiktionary requests: Only Wikisource editions in ancient languages are allowed, and even they are encouraged to be a part of Wikisource in a modern version of that language. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. It's a good historical record. Others may be interested in it later.Andrijko Z. (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. Ancient Greek is, along with Latin, the most studied ancient language nowadays. I am currently learning it, so once a university professor confirms that I master the language, I will start contributing to this Incubator. Hopefully it will become its own Wikipedia edition in the future. I believe in exceptions. If Latin, Old English, Gothic, Sanskrit, and even Church Slavonic have their own Wikipedia editions, I don't see why Ancient Greek can't have one. We can always make exceptions to the rule. On top of all this, there are thousands of people in the world who can read Ancient Greek, so it is the total opposite of a obscure extinct language. --Humberto del Torrejón (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. If one participant is disappointed with their contribution, that's no reason to delete the work of others. Demetrius Talpa (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Don't mind me, i'm just giving a reminder to MF-Warburg and SPQRobin about this request's existence, just in case they forgot. Kxeon (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Wt/grc

As suggested by the rejected request, and even agreed by a "keeper" of #Wp/grc above, there's blatantly no reason for having a Wiktionary in Historical language such as in Ancient Greek. For writting definitions of Ancient Greek words, the existing Wiktionaries e.g. Greek Wiktionary are already hard on doing so. I would hence prefer to merge these contents into el.wiktionary. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I did not say that "there's blatantly no reason for having a Wiktionary in an historical language such as Ancient Greek". I don't agree on that point! What I've actually said is that I don't see reasons to preserve this draft of a Wiktionary, because the lemmas are too few and, above all, almost exclusively (80%?) written in Modern Greek. Probably, it is a draft by someone who wanted to translate them in Classical Greek but never had the time to do so. Since this Wiktionary is also inactive, and since there is no probability at all that this person will ever continue what he barely started, I don't find particular reasons to keep this very rough draft of a project alive. If someone wanted to restart an Ancient Greek Wiktionary, he could start it anew: having this draft or not would make very little difference!

On the other hand, having a real Ancient Greek Wiktionary would be useful: who could say that monolingual dictionaries are of no use for students of foreign languages? Nobody could say that! Therefore, a functional Ancient Greek Wiktionary would be very useful for the ca. 1 million students of Ancient Greek around the globe. Unfortunately, no scholar is currently willing to write such a monolingual dictionary for free. Anaxicrates (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. It's a good historical record. Others may be interested in it later.Andrijko Z. (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Andrijko Z. A good historical record? At least one former active user Leonardo José Raimundo is nowadays global banned. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

For me it's not an argument. The project may be cleaned if necessary, but not deleted. Andrijko Z. (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Wp/atv

See Incubator:Administrators'_noticeboard#Wp/atv_existence. Таёжный лес (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Wy/wal, Wy/zu, Wy/mg, Wy/aa, Wy/zyj, Wy/udm, Wy/wym, Wy/jbo

These projects only have one page, usually the main page, and have never been active since creation. They should be deleted. Breck0530 (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Wq/so, Wq/blk, Wq/dtp, Wq/aa, Wq/zgh, Wq/tcy, Wq/se, Wq/ary

Again, These projects only have one page, usually the main page, and have never been active since creation. They should be deleted. Breck0530 (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Wb/ab, Wb/ain, Wb/bhi, Wb/bug, Wb/mos, Wb/rw, Wb/sn, Wb/tum, Wb/ddo, Wb/lki, Wb/wal

Again, These projects only have one page, usually the main page, and have never been active since creation. They should be deleted. Breck0530 (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

wn/ace, wn/ain, wn/am, wn/gl, wn/ady, wn/ceb

Again, These projects only have one page, usually the main page, and have never been active since creation. They should be deleted. Breck0530 (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Wp/mki, Wp/beu, Wp/com, Wp/lrl, Wp/mhp, Wp/bgx, Wp/enx

Again, These projects only have one page, usually the main page, and have never been active since creation. They should be deleted. Breck0530 (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)