Incubator:Requests for deletions

From Wikimedia Incubator


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.

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 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 source]

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

Requests[edit source]

Wp/fax[edit source]

Purporting to be a project in xalimego language, but just a bunch of crap with no relation with that language. Unfixable, abandoned since 2016.--DarwIn (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep: The assertion that the articles are 'crap' are unfounded and not verified by independent credible language experts. Also, the mere fact that it is currently inactive are not grounds for deletion as users do return to make edits over time and this has occurred on many other wikipedia language editions (for example, Oriya wikipedia) --Ernesztina (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- If we would delete incubator projects for non-activity, we probably wouldn't have the newest Wikipedia since it was mostly inactive for 9 years before people got interested in it. I can't say anything about the quality or veracity of the Wp/fax project, so I won't say to keep or delete one way or another right now. -Yupik (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@Ernesztina: On which source are you basing yourself to say that what is there is not crap? Please read xalimego or otherwise inform yourself about the xalimego lang before making that sort of uninformed - and apparently random - comments.--DarwIn (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The stub was created by an IP in 2010 without any kind of process or approval. Years later, Gato Preto started pilling unrelated crap over it. What would be the point of keeping this here?--DarwIn (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
@DarwIn: User:Gato Preto has now been notified of this discussion. We should allow him an opportunity to respond to this discussion. --Ernesztina (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep this wiki has quite a few articles and is growing. Inactivity isn’t a good reason to delete it because it’s not like nobody is contributing. A wiki shouldn’t be deleted just because one person called it “crap”. Also this language was verified as eligible so it can’t be deleted. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Keep, has an eligible request and enough useful articles, though their community members are required to be aware of their contribution qualities to avoid from another lrcwiki-like joke wiki. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Wp/enm[edit source]

The Middle English Incubator has been largely abandoned by the project creators, appearing now to be headed by a "CanadianToast", who doesn't claim any level of literacy in the language. It is being completely overrun by "meme" edits and inaccurate language. I couldnt find a single editor who advertises any understanding of the language. The few pages that do exist, are largely inaccurate, minuscule, or irrelevant. 46.208.10.44 14:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep - Instead of complaining and trying to delete the entire project you could just contribute to it. The way you're speaking makes it seem like you are knowledgeable in Middle English and could help fix issues. That is a whole lot better than getting rid of everything so many people have spent time building. It's not that hard to mend 100 articles. I'm a newer learner of Middle English, and I understand that some of my edits may not be accurate but I welcome any and all corrections to my work. This project has been inactive for some time, and myself and a few other editors are doing our best to revive it. --CanadianToast (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Fixing the existing pages isn't practical currently in my opinion, all it takes is a "Frogge / Dogge / Pigge" comedy video going viral again, and you'll immediately have dozens of people making non-serious edits for their own fun. Without fluent moderation to prevent that, it just allows a free-for-all to take place, leading to the Incubator looking extremely unprofessional and unappealing for more fluent users. Barring an extreme change to the method of moderation, I don't see a positive reason for the continued existence of the project, thus my request. --46.208.10.44 22:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Just look in the recent changes, most of the changes are not joke edits and those that are get reverted. Btw, you can revert those joke edits yourself if you notice them. Also, you can ask an admin to ban the users who vandalize. Fixing the existing pages is very practical and is happening. Also, Middle English Wikipedia grows by several pages every day and those aren’t joke edits. To conclude, the actual contribution by far outweigh the joke edits. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 07:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Move to Incubator Plus, by simple keeping we only got more and more scowiki-like problems, I see no reason this language will be accepted by langcom, but still useful for non-WMF materials. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226 How would one go about starting a project on Incubator Plus? --CanadianToast (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
And how do you think that this project can be accepted? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
What do you mean? --CanadianToast (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@CanadianToast: Per m:LPP:

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.

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: Ah, I see. So it looks like it doesn't have a good chance of being accepted, but despite this I think it should be kept here. There are other projects in similar situations on Incubator and Middle English Wikipedia has been here since at least 2005 if I'm not mistaken. However, I'm not entirely opposed to moving it to Incubator Plus. --CanadianToast (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Afaik, "Incubator Plus" is supposed to work like Incubator, just that it isn't Incubator. --MF-W {a, b} 08:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. --CanadianToast (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
That is correct. It has the same prefix system and can draw images from Commons. The only true difference is that it is hosted by Miraheze and not Wikimedia, which allows Wikimedia Plus to host projects that are rejected from here. --OWTB (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep I agree with CanadinToast, if you know that there are mistakes in our Middle English, why don’t you correct it? Also if you look on the test wiki activity, you can clearly see that on January it has received more attention and much more people have contributed so there’s no any reason to delete it. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
If there’s inaccurate language you can correct it, then ping the user who made the mistake and explain why it’s inaccurate. I’m sure most of the users try to write as accurately as possible. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, @ScriptorHistoriae: told in the proposal page that while he thinks that the proposal is weak, the test wiki is impressive that he think it can be created once we have more than 100 pages. If I’m not mistaken we already have more than that. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@Gifnk dlm 2020: Wikipedia isn't the only wiki to describe in one language, we have many other opinions. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226:, what do you mean? Also, about the statement that only wikisources can exist in an ancient or historical language, it’s written in Wp/enm:"This test has a valid language code, but note that it is an extinct, historical or ancient language so it will be hard to get a Wikimedia project." Yes, I agree that it’s hard but it’s not impossible so I don’t see why you want to close it. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
@Gifnk dlm 2020: If you think that there should really have an enm.wikipedia.org, you may try to request it at Meta-Wiki, but then what will be happened? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete or move, whatever. The Language Policy is crystal clear about ancient languages: no new projects are to be created. They seldom get substantial: those few that can write in the language usually abandon their hobby after a few months. This is, of course, a problem with wikis in regional languages too, but these are supported by ideals (language preservation, emancipation, alternative perspectives) that wikis in ancient languages fail to meet. Besides, in its written form, the English language has changed little since the twelfth century. You could say a Middle English Wikipedia already exists. Its similarity to Modern English also means that this project is likely to attract non-expert edits à la sco.wiki, as has already been pointed out above. Steinbach (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Middle English Wikipedia is not a new wiki-it was created in 2009. Also, this specific wiki is substantial-just look in the recent edits or press "Check Test Wiki Activity". And also, Middle English is different from Modern English so it’s impossible to say that Modern English Wikipedia is a Middle English Wikipedia. And to all the people who say it attracts joke edits, all wikis attract joke edits so you might as well shut down the Wikimedia Foundation if you are gonna use that sort of logic. Do you know how many joke edits in English Wikipedia survive for several days? Also, it’s written that deleting a test wiki isn’t related to the LangCom. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
@Gifnk dlm 2020: The third proposal for such an enm.wikipedia was rejected 4 years ago as "An extinct proto-language." I don't see why you have reasons to contest. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226:, because this test wiki is very active so I think that this rule should change. This test wiki is prospering in the Incubator but if it is moved to incubator plus I think many people would lose interest. Also, if we allow wikis in historical languages, this will prove the point that there are wikis in ALL languages and might encourage speakers of endangered languages to contribute to wikis in those endangered languages. Also, some people might be interested only in editing in historical languages wiki at first, but then spread out and also edit in wikis in modern languages and this will be beneficial for all wikimedia projects. Wikis in historical languages are usually not active not because people don’t want to edit in those languages but because people are not aware of those wikis. If you know people who know Middle English you can tell them about this wiki, and you can also read a bit about the differences between Modern English and Middle English and then contribute by yourself. I recommend you use this Middle English dictionary. (BTW, the message about contributing is not specifically to you but to all the users who read this). -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 08:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep --PastelKos (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Why? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226:, idk why you expect him to answer if you haven’t pinged him but there are many arguments for keeping it above. Also, I don’t see what you or anyone else can gain from deleting Middle English Wikipedia. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I would like to add that people interested in ancient languages can start editing wikis in those ancient languages and then expand to other wikis which will be beneficial to the entire wikimedia foundation. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Please feel free to do so, by submitting here. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226:, thank you very much for your reply! The reason I haven’t submitted yet is because I’m not sure which way is better: submitting a fourth request with all the arguments why I think there should be wikis in ancient languages or first post a request for comment from an admin requesting to change the policy. Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
If there’s now an open request, doesn’t that mean that this proposal should be closed? -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: In Incubator:Requests for deletions it’s written that you can only request to delete test wikis that don’t have a proposal or were rejected. This test wiki now has an open proposal so shouldn’t the proposal to delete this test wiki be closed? Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Because the proposal has been rejected, which nobody is surprised about. I suggest moving this project somewhere else. --MF-W {a, b} 21:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
This is just why I voted "move to Incubator Plus" instead of "delete" above, since this language code isn't suitable for Wikipedia, and the contents look very well. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment I emailed a Miraheze administrator today to see if they're interested in taking over this test project or not, this will let this project be a domained, though not part of WMF, encyclopedia project. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment I posted a request for comment at meta to change the policy. If the content really looks very well then using common sense it should be allowed to stay. Despite the fact that I have only left the request today, two people have already left comments expressing their support. Moving those wikis from WMF will cause a migration of users from WMF, however keeping them will cause users interested in ancient languages to join WMF and they might expand their reach to other projects as well. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes, Future Perfect at Sunrise: What's your opinions on their RFC? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
And Gifnk dlm 2020, your RFC has recently got two oppose responses, so I don't know how I can support you, as that said, Good Bye, your works very well, but the WMF is a dead stone for you and me, that WMF won't change anything here. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
Comment It looks like @BlueWhale35 was contributing some pages on both tests. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Regareless, delete both, having bad quality articles that are wrongly maintained. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Wn/lzh[edit source]

RFL was rejected 2 years ago, and has no useful newspages, to be honest the lzh community members were already established their own news portal on w:lzh:維基大典:世事, and per [1] there has entirely no futures to see an independent domained Wikinews. The only 5 non-redirect pages are just copy-pasted from lzhwiki so even no benefit for re-importing back. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Wp/rus/Создать статью, Wp/rus/Главная страница, Wp/rus/Википедия:Мастер статей/2, Wp/rus/Википедия:Мастер статей/1, Wp/rus/ Африка, and Wp/rus/Россія[edit source]

What are these pages? 6 hoaxes? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Wp/rus/Учасᲅникᲆ: Novarussia

Per above, looks rather nonsense. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


All deleted and recreation of Wp/rus pages prevented. --MF-W {a, b} 16:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)