Incubator:Requests for deletions

From Wikimedia Incubator
(Redirected from Incubator:RFD)
This is an official Incubator policy.
This page has been elaborated and approved by the community and its compliance is mandatory for all users. You may edit it, but please discuss major changes on the talk page first.

This page is for nominating test wikis for deletion, or for nominating pages related to the maintenance of the Incubator for deletion. For discussing about the deletion of pages in a specific test wiki, please use the relevant talk pages where the editors of the test wiki are most active in to discuss them (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.

Common reason for deleting pages here on Incubator include:

  • Speedy deletion requests (vandalism, spelling corrections, correcting prefixes etc.)
  • Deletion of a complete test wiki according to the policy's section "Closure or Deletion"
  • If a project is given final approval by the language committee, the test's pages will be imported to the new subdomain wiki. All pages here will be deleted, except the info page.

Deletion policy[edit source]

Requests for deleting single pages[edit source]

  • Pages that may be subject to speedy deletion:
    • In general, the rules for speedy deletion are the same as listed on Meta.
      • One rule for speedy deletion unique to Incubator is that pages in the wrong language — either with a prefix reflecting an invalid ISO 639 language code, or written in a language different from the one in the prefix — can be deleted.
      • Similarly, pages having an incorrect prefix where a copy with a correct prefix also exists are eligible for speedy deletion. Please include a link to the correctly prefixed page on the deletion template.
    • Speedy deletions may be proposed by putting {{delete}} (and a reason) on the pages that should be deleted and will thereby be added to Category:Maintenance:Delete, where an administrator will decide about them. It is not needed to vote on a speedy deletion. If there are doubts, the administrator reviewing the speedy deletion request will ask the proposer. If you have doubts, but are not an administrator, you are also free to add a remark below the {{delete}} template on the page.
      If the reason you give is because the current name is wrong, somehow (grammar, spelling, etc.), administrators normally assume the content has been moved to a different (better) location. It will help the administrators if you include a link to the moved page in your deletion request.
      Consider turning the wrong spelling into a redirect to the right spelling before asking for deletion. (And please note that if the wrong spelling is likely to be a common misspelling, it may be useful to leave the redirect, both here and once your test is in its own subdomain.)
      If you do not turn the wrong spelling into a redirect, please simply add {{delete}} to the top of the page. Do not blank out the rest of the page.
    • Please remember: pages cannot be speedy-deleted as long as other pages link to them. Please modify all incoming links before requesting speedy deletion; otherwise, simply leave the original page as a redirect. (Note: This rule doesn't always apply to incoming links from discussion pages and similar administrative pages, if the discussion is already settled.)
  • In other cases, you may put a request below.

Requests for test deletions[edit source]

  1. You can propose the deletion of an entire test-wiki. Common reasons for this can be that langcom has rejected the creation of this wiki as a separate project, or that the test-wiki only contains nonsensical content not written in the language it should be in.
    1. You can vote, but it has just a little bit of influence. Arguments are better.
    2. You can propose moving the test to the Incubator Plus.
  2. After 10 days, an administrator will make a decision about deleting the test or not. For obvious cases, especially when the pages only contain vandalism/spam/test edits, a decision can be made earlier.
  3. If needed, an XML file must be exported (needed means: if the test is not vandalism or nonsense – in general, use common sense).
  4. Remember that this has nothing directly to do with the decision of the language committee (langcom).

Requests for undeletions[edit source]

All requests for deleted pages to be restored can be added below, as well.

Requests[edit source]

Wp/odt, Wt/odt and Wp/dum[edit source]

Believe me, this hurts! I love the older stages of my native language.

But we can't keep them, per language policy, and for the obvious reason that these projects haven't gained momentum. Old Dutch is very scantily transmitted, you'd have to reconstruct just too many words to even write a lemma about medieval things. It also has far fewer proficient readers than Old English. Middle Dutch does have a rich literature in all genres from religion to accountancy, and (in its written form) is much more different from modern Dutch than Middle English is from modern English, but again, a Wikipedia in it would violate policy and would probably never be succesful. And it, too, might attract nonsense edits. Steinbach (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak keep: On a first glance, the quality looks relatively well, so I wouldn't mind keeping them here. In case, the community decides otherwise, I will gladly export it to Incubator Plus as it would be a shame to see what little is there being deleted. --OWTB (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not commenting on their quality (btw wasn't it you who created both of them years ago). I'm just saying: why keep them here if there is absolutely no chance that they will ever be approved? Steinbach (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have only created the main pages to accompany any pre-existing subpages. The reason for not deleting them is that, while there is no chance for a subdomain, they are according to our policy valid, as they have an ISO-code. Deleting good contents is always unnecessary. As I'm more or less neutral to keeping them (and Wt/odt?) here, I am always willing to export them to Incubator Plus. --OWTB (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OWTB, I'd love to also mention Wt/odt in this section as it looks also badly contributed. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regareless, delete both, having bad quality articles that are wrongly maintained. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In case of deletion, please let me know, and I'll transfer them to Incubator Plus. --OWTB (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ooswesthoesbes I don't think they need to be exported since they are possibly copyvio pages. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Old Dutch (odt) tests don't look like they are copyvio pages though. The Middle Dutch (dum) do look more suspicious. --OWTB (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wt/cu[edit source]

Very small pages, test main page is a copy from cu:главьна страница, there is a Сѥ ѥстъ мъногоѩꙁꙑчьна отврьста єнкѷклопєдїꙗ · ѭжє къжьдо можєтъ иꙁмѣнꙗти ⁙ Википєдїꙗ пьсана [[||Словѣньскъ ѩꙁꙑкъ|словѣньскꙑимь ѩꙁꙑкомь]] начѧта ѥстъ їоунїꙗ 2006 лѣта Дьньсь Википєдїи 4 члѣни сѫтъ text (no difference from wikipedia), some english text in, unactive wiki. 155.137.183.105 17:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, This is the Wiktionary Old church Slavonic LOLI'mfriggin silly (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Inactivity itself shouldn't be a valid reason for deletion. Some pages aren't that small - Wt/cu/бесада, Wt/cu/бесѣда, Wt/cu/боукꙑ. A little number of English words and copied content could be fixed using a dictionary. --Wolverène (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Fixed. Not sure about the accusative form of "Викиаꙁъбоукъвьникъ" - either unchanged or "Викиаꙁъбоукъвьника". --Wolverène (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • KEEP no valid reason to delete was expressed. -Gifnk dlm 2020 Happy New Year 🎄❄️⛄️🎇 (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Due to Wp/orv success, I don't think there are no valid reason to delete this test project. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I didn’t say there are no valid reasons, I said that no valid reason were epxreseed. Change my mind. Anyways, I understand that Wp/omv was deleted because it was not written from a neautral point of view. -Gifnk dlm 2020 From Middle English Wikipedia 📜📖💻 (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete Has only contents that are propagandas rather than seriously contributed dictionary pages. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • May I learn more which pages can be considered as propaganda? Of course since it is written in a historical language now used as liturgical by the Church it may not be potentially 100% neutral in this field... or do you mean governmental propaganda? I looked at the Main Page and did not read anything special. --Wolverène (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Just see why Wp/orv was deleted, where I provided the link above, as said by an admin at I:AN, for projects listed at Category:Incubator:Test_wikis/code/history, They will eventually be deleted. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wp/osc[edit source]

Oscan is an ancient language. --Wolverène (talk) 05:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wp/tpn and Wp/tpw[edit source]

Per I:AN#Unable to create a page, both Tupinambá and Old Tupí are extinct languages, so having both test projects violate LPP, there's another living language Nheengatu to which modern Tupi peoples speak and write (see Wp/yrl), so there's nothing beneficial for me to still maintain two extinct coded projects. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Empty pages in Wy/bcc[edit source]

In the past weeks I've been using Special:Random a lot to test out the new interwiki gadget. Whenever I come upon a page from Wy/bcc, they are always exactly the same – the same headers just copypasted to hundreds of pages with no customization whatsoever. These are worthless, so I propose we just delete them all (as long as they don't have any adapted content besides the template). If you visit a few pages from Category:Wy/bcc, you will see that most (almost all?) are identical. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. --MF-W {a, b} 17:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]