Incubator:Requests for deletions

From Wikimedia Incubator
(Redirected from Incubator:RFD)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an official Incubator policy.
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.

Requests for deletion[edit]

Requests for deleting single pages[edit]

  • 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]

  1. You can propose a deletion of a test language. You may only propose a deletion of a test language which does not have a proposal on Meta or is rejected by the langcom.
    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.
  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]

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



Archived. Note being left in place here as a reminder that this test and Wp/pox will be moved to the new Incubator Plus on Miraheze as soon as it is open for business. (These are actually likely to be the first tests moved there.) StevenJ81 (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)



  • The proposal for this test on Meta was recently rejected. (See m:Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Ottoman Turkish 4.) The reasons for the rejection are detailed as item #1 in the white box in the section "Proposed decisions". Neither I nor anyone else on LangCom can really see those reasons not remaining valid for the foreseeable future. Accordingly, we do not see any likelihood that this test would be ruled "eligible" in the foreseeable future.
    Note: any discussion of that decision will be deleted from this page. Comment on Meta if you would like to challenge it. I only include the brief summary as background for this discussion.
  • Nevertheless, the rules on Incubator are less strict than the rules for independent projects. With few exceptions, any language with a valid ISO 639–3 code can have a project here. In particular, projects in historical languages whose requests have been rejected on Meta often stay here afterwards. I'm aware of at least 14 such projects here, and I'm sure as I continue to clear the backlog at m:Requests for new languages that there will be more in the future. Ordinarily, a test like this one would be allowed to remain indefinitely, though we would also support a community's request to move it elsewhere.

Reasons for proposing deletion[edit]

I am not sure now what to do about this test. I have created this proposal to delete the test in order to generate discussion around the issues at hand. The two main issues are as follows:

  1. It has been alleged that this test consists of content from Turkish Wikipedia machine-transliterated into Perso-Arabic script. If that is true, there are two serious problems with the test:
    • The copying from Turkish Wikipedia lacked attribution. A lack of attribution constitutes a copyright violation, even for material copied from Wikipedia, and copyright violations are to be deleted promptly.
    • The test is not really in Ottoman Turkish at all, but rather in modern Turkish, written with Perso-Arabic script. Now, Ethnologue describes "tr-Arab" as "no longer in use". More importantly, though, this test would be deletable because it's entirely in the "wrong language". And presumably if there were a desire for a Wikipedia in "tr-Arab", that could be arranged through a script converter on trwiki.
  2. Even if the preceding point is proved false, there is a serious concern that this project, if approved, would be little more than a content fork from Turkish Wikipedia, which is problematic in a number of other ways. Accordingly, it's best not to risk the possibility of that going forward, so we should delete this test.
Reasons I'm not so sure about (completely) deleting the test[edit]
  • Nobody has proved to my satisfaction that this test, in fact, consists of copyright violations. I have requested help in determining this, but have received no substantive responses to my requests at the time of this writing.
    The test has around 2,000 mainspace pages, plus support infrastructure. That's a lot of work, even if much of it has not been recent. In the absence of clear evidence that these pages are copyright violations, I am reluctant to delete that much work outright.
  • Nobody has proved to my satisfaction that this test, in fact, is in modern Turkish, rather than Ottoman Turkish.
    The same analysis would potentially answer this question. But if the test is in modern Turkish, yet not a copyright violation, there would be no problem in archiving the test before deleting it. Then the test could be moved to somewhere like Incubator Plus.
  • If the test is really in Ottoman Turkish, then we would probably encourage its community to move to a place like Incubator Plus, but could not insist.

Potential solutions[edit]

  • Outright deletion. If this test consists of copyright violations, it should be deleted. Period.
    Alternatively, if someone were really willing to make the effort, perhaps with the aid of a bot, to add attribution, we could avoid outright deletion. But that's a big job, and I would need to see a commitment from several people, and regular progress, to feel comfortable with such an approach. I'm guessing this won't happen.
  • Deletion after creating an XML archive. This solution is certainly the right one if the test is found to be in modern Turkish, but definitely not a copyright violation. We could also then assist with moving the test to Incubator Plus, if there is an interest.
    This solution also allows us to kick the can down the road a bit if we cannot prove the copyright violation one way or the other. But I'm not sure in this case whether it would be appropriate to post the archive file publicly or not, or whether it would be appropriate to move the test to Incubator Plus.
  • Leave the test in place. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, this test is assumed to be in Ottoman Turkish, and is therefore eligible to stay here.

In conclusion ...[edit]

I would appreciate a discussion of these issues, as well as recommendations from the community as to how to proceed. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


  • Did anyone respond to your inquiries about whether the test content is really copyvio'ed from trwiki? --MF-W {a, b} 21:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    Not so far. (Well, to be fair, a couple of people responded that they couldn't help.) Part of what gives me second thoughts on deleting this is that there are so many pages in this test: How many pages do we need to check before we decide the whole test is a copyvio? StevenJ81 (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Move to Incubator plus maybe non-Wikimedia users may interested in it. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
@Ebe123, Liuxinyu970226, MF-Warburg: It feels to me as if the solution is going to end up being to create an archive, then to delete the test, but not to post the test publicly in the File: namespace. This way, if we eventually get some proof that these are not copyvios—or that someone trustworthy is willing to go back and do attributions, the work is not lost. At the same time, we're not just leaving it available for anyone to do "whatever" with it.
Now, I have to admit that I don't entirely like the idea of such a file just living on my computer (or MF-W's or anyone else's). There seems to be a way to do something called a "stash" upload to a WMF wiki, where only the uploader has access. Does anyone know how to do that? If I did that, only I would have access, but it would be saved on a WMF server. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@StevenJ81:: It would be easier if we could un/delete by prefix. Remember that the deleted history of deleted pages still exists in the Wiki, just not accessible by non-admins. Therefore, we could just keep a list of all the deleted pages and get a bot to undelete the pages from the list if need be. Ebe123 (Talkabout it|contribs) 17:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ebe123: Fair enough. It's a lot faster to delete them (using the MassDelete gadget) than to restore them. But a bot can certainly do it if need be. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@StevenJ81, Ebe123: I suddenly also find an Ottoman Turkish Wiktionary, should we also make discussions regarding that? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: It's not so sudden. The last time a page was added to that Wiktionary was 2014. As long as there is no reason to believe that the project is laden with copyvios, there is no reason it can't stay where it is. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ebe123: Is there a bot that exists that undeletes pages? StevenJ81 (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed conclusion[edit]

It looks like the consensus here is that I compile a list of page names (in case we ever end up needing to undelete), and then simply mass-delete the test. Any further objections? StevenJ81 (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Stock post message.svg Doing...  In progress. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done StevenJ81 (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


The ISO code "spr" is supposed to be for Saparua, an Austronesian language from the Moluccas in Indonesia, but this test is written in a nonsense Slavic-looking language called "Superian." There are only four pages in this test: Wp/spr/Андин кюрь, Wp/spr/Бэларусь, Wp/spr/Испэниэ, and Wp/spr/Приднэстровьэ. DraconicDark (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done StevenJ81 (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)