Incubator:Requests for deletions

From Wikimedia Incubator
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.

Requests[edit]

Wt/pox[edit]

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)

Wp/rus[edit]

See m:Language proposal policy#Requisites for eligibility, this especially violates "The Wikimedia Foundation does not seek to develop new linguistic entities; there must be an extensive body of works in that language." --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done StevenJ81 (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Recreation of Wp/rus[edit]

@Kaganer, Левъ Царёвъ, Timsher71: As noted above, and as I said at Talk:Wp/rus/Главная страница, this is not going to happen on Incubator or anywhere else in Wikimedia. (Belarus was a grandfathered case, and would not be allowed to happen today.) I intend to archive and delete this content in ten days. StevenJ81 (talk) (administrator) 13:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: Hello, I would like to challenge your decision to delete the project Wp/rus. This project aims to make encyclopedic information more accessible to Russian people reading and writing in traditional spelling. The expansion of the information space is included in the objectives of the Wikimedia project. Also, this section may be useful to Russians reading in modern spelling, expanding their horizons and promoting general education. Creating articles in pre-reform spelling on Russian Wikipedia (ru.wikipedia.org) is difficult for two reasons: firstly, automatic translation of articles from new to old spelling is not possible due to the dynamism of the pre-reform Russian language (this means that each article will need to be rewritten manually); secondly, will the coexistence of articles in the new and old spelling in Russian Wikipedia be acceptable? However, if you consider it possible for us to continue working within the framework of the Russian Wikipedia, we could transfer our activities. — Левъ Царёвъ (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@StevenJ81: This is "exotical" case, but - IMHO - that project may be implemented. There are many sources written using this spelling. And there are also many activists who practice writing in this spelling. If they prove that they are capable of supporting and developing such a project for a long time, then it would be wise to provide them with such a hosting. --Kaganer (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
PS: I understand your reluctance to see this case, but you did not bring rational arguments. This is a bad decision-making style in a public project. It makes me sad. The simple word "because" would make this statement more correct. --Kaganer (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
edit conflict @Kaganer, Левъ Царёвъ, Timsher71: I'll provide some time for discussion, and after discussion I will take to LangCom and discuss. Still, at least according to the ordinary rules, you would have to demonstrate the following (which are not necessarily in a particular order):
  • The community at Russian Wikipedia is not willing to include articles written in pre-reform Russian.
  • There is a community of people who need pre-reform Russian who cannot read modern Russian. Note: If this community is avoiding Russian Wikipedia over political or ideological issues, LangCom will say no.
You may also have to explain why working on the existing project at Wikia/Fandom is problematic, or why moving the project to the new Incubator Plus 2.0 on Miraheze and working on it there would be a problem.
The fact that sources exist is not relevant in and of itself. If Russian Wikisource wouldn't allow such documents (unlikely), we'd put source documents like that on Multilingual Wikisource. But the rules are different for Wikipedia, and I'm having a hard time seeing why you need to do this. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Technical note: Wp/rus is satisfactory for this purpose while in Incubator, assuming the project is allowed to stay here. It will complicate my life for you to create a whole tagged code like ru-x-old or something like that. We'll worry about a final coding for this if and only if the project is allowed to stay here and eventually becomes ready for creation as an independent wiki. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@StevenJ81: Hello. The spelling question in Russia is cultural, not political. The traditional spelling allows to convey more layers and nuances of meanings. Russian philologist N. Pertsov points that Pushkin's works (and, of course, the works of any other Russian author that uses the traditional spelling) lose the nuances of meanings when published using the simplified spelling. By the way, if the Bielorussian case cannot be an example, there is a Chinese case with two spellings, traditional and simplified. My English isn't good, sorry. :) --Timsher71 (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Any Pushkin's work can (and should) be placed in pre-reformal othography in Russian Wikisource: s:ru:Недоконченная картина (Пушкин)/ДО. AndyVolykhov (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • ISO-3 code "rus" for pre-1917-revolution orthography of Russian is lie. This code is for modern Russian (https://www.ethnologue.com/language/rus). Wiki cannot be created for language without ISO code, as far as I know. MBH (talk) 04:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Выше уже есть ремарка про код. Он условно приемлем для Инкубатора. Когда (и если) дойдет до создания полноценного раздела, тогда и будет решаться вопрос с кодом. Пока что обсуждается вопрос о принципиальной (не)возможности и допустимости такого проекта в Инкубаторе. --Kaganer (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I think, it's senseless to create pre-reform-Russian wiki. There are no people who can read pre-reform Russian and can't read modern (this people were in post-revolution Russian emigration, but all died). See local discussion. MBH (talk) 04:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
@MBH: Hello. You're wrong. Descendants of white emigrants live and now, I am one of them. Some, like me, continue to write in pre-reform spelling. For me, this spelling is native and I am not comfortable reading Soviet spelling. Yes, I can optionally read Soviet spelling, but it’s harder for me. It's as hard as reading «lenguaj» instead of «language», «kuin» instead of «queen». — Левъ Царёвъ (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Здесь есть некоторая ошибка в логике. Тот аргумент, что нету людей, которые могли бы читать дореформенную орфография, но не могли бы современную - ничего особенного не означает. Википедия на языке Саха существует, хотя все её авторы и читатели наверняка владеют русским языком. --Kaganer (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
      • There are also projects in North American and Australian aboriginal languages, even though generally those communities are fluent in English and/or French. But (a) they're still different languages, and (b) because of that, they potentially cover locally notable subject material that doesn't make the cut in a larger Wikipedia. In this case, LangCom will want to understand if there is a community that is going to be served that is not adequately served by ruwiki. Also ... I'm finding it a little hard to believe that the layers and nuances in the traditional spelling matter a lot in something like an encyclopedia.
Let me also point out that this has been requested previously. See m:Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Pre-reform Russian. Is there a new argument you make that is not already made there? StevenJ81 (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@StevenJ81: Hello. As I wrote above, I and other emigrants (as well as all Russians) can write and read if desired in Soviet spelling. But this spelling is harder for us. It is not perceived by us, it is not dear to us. It’s also hard and unpleasant, as you read and write “mather” instead of “mother”, “pis” instead of “peace”, “lav” instead of “love”, etc. Other arguments have already been named. But for me the most important thing is to write as my ancestors wrote. The modern Russian language, especially the literary one, is in decline (that is how I perceive it). And at the time of this crash, I hope to create a resource that reflects a holistic, clean, convenient and native language for me. — Левъ Царёвъ (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Question: Would it be possible to create a script converter between the standard and pre-reform orthographies (similar to Serbian, which has a Cyrillic-Latin converter)? If such a thing were to exist, it would eliminate the need for a separate Wikipedia in pre-reform Russian, while still allowing people who want to write in pre-reform orthography to contribute to Russian Wikipedia. DraconicDark (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@DraconicDark: You are absolutely right: the creation of a converter would resolve this issue without the need to create a separate Wikipedia section. However, this is not possible for several reasons. Many words, which are written differently in traditional spelling, began to be written equally in the reformed one. For a competent translation, it is often necessary to refer to the context and meaning of the phrase. So, for example, Tolstoy’s novel “War and Peace” in Soviet spelling is written as “Война и мир”, and there are two versions of the translation into the traditional spelling: “Война и миръ” and “Война и міръ”. You should also distinguish between the words "всѣ" and "все", which are often spelled the same in a reformed spelling: "все." There are different rules for writing the letters “e” and “o” in traditional and reformed spelling (writing depends on the openness/closedness of the syllable). In traditional spelling, feminine plural endings are distinguished. In reformed endings, masculine and feminine are spelled the same. In general, one can long list groups of words and constructions that cannot be translated into traditional spelling. — Левъ Царёвъ (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@Левъ Царёвъ: And then, can you please explain that why you can't contribute Wp/orv? That has a valid individual ISO code. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: Good afternoon. The fact is that the Old Russian language and the language in which the Traditional Russian Wikipedia is compiled are two different languages. Traditional Russian Wikipedia is written in modern Russian (which, of course, has some differences from the language in which Russian Wikipedia is written). Old Russian is the ancestor of Russian.
In addition, I should note that the project of “Old Russian Wikipedia” is compiled by amateurs who do not know the Old Russian language at all. This can already be judged even by their name: “Вікіпѣдіѩ” (the letter “ѣ” cannot be written in this word, since it is not Slavic; the letter “ѩ” also cannot be used here, it should be written or “ѧ” or “ꙗ”). — Левъ Царёвъ (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC).
A new request has created by an anonymous user: m:Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Traditional Russian. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Wp/sei[edit]

See m:Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Seri and mailarchive:langcom/2019-August/002394.html. This was apparently "outed" as fake about ten years ago, and almost no new pages have been created since. So I propose to archive and delete. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. --OWTB (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done StevenJ81 (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Wt/cop[edit]

An extinct language, plus there are no pages and there's no Meta request. Random Wikimedian (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

There are a couple of pages. See Special:PrefixIndex/Wt/cop/. Usually, unless such pages are outright inappropriate, we tend to leave them around. Is there a problem with them? StevenJ81 (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Random Wikimedian: I moved your previous request to the bottom, because new requests go at the bottom. And I already responded just above. Can you answer that question, please? StevenJ81 (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@StevenJ81: I didn't realize that, sorry. Random Wikimedian (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done. There is also a community that works on Wp/cop. We're going to leave the Wt/cop pages in place in case they need them. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Wy/no[edit]

So, as suggested by m:Requests for new languages/Wikivoyage Norwegian, there are nothing that can be considered as real Norwegian contents, neither Bokmål, nor Riksmål, nor Nynorsk, and nor Høgnorsk. Therefore I suggest to delete the de facto faux test project, and invite Native Norwegian speakers to re-start it from scratch. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

In principle, I agree. But I think I'm going to ask a Norwegian speaker over there to look at some templates here to see if they are usable—and maybe to fix just the main page. If there is usable infrastructure here, it would probably be better to keep it for a future test effort than to wipe it out. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)