Incubator:Requests for deletions

From Wikimedia Incubator
Jump to: navigation, 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.
    • 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.


Western Yugur Wikipedia (Wp/ybe)[edit]

I have no doubt that the language is a real one. But per the page Wp/ybe/Turkic based Western Yugur alphabet, it's not clear to me that this is an accepted writing system for the language, so I'm not sure whether this test should stay. I would appreciate opinions from the community. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I am unable to find any information about which script is used to write this language, if at all. This "non officiel script created in order to write Western Yugur language on Wikipedia" at least is claimed to be based on the works of some linguists. Maybe user:Elteriş would like to explain why he chose it. --MF-W {a, b} 00:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I have had a question out to him for a while at User talk:Elteriş#Wp/ybe. But maybe he'll answer here. StevenJ81 (talk) 03:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete, move to wikia no linguistic literatures say that ybe can use Turkish alphabets. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I think a deletion is too harsh. The English wiki page clearly shows that there is a writing system which includes several letters, such as "ś". Smaller languages often lack a clearly defined spelling and should be left to develop their own spelling. Even projects with multiple spellings can work out just fine. Take a look at the Limburgish wikipedia, which uses over 175 different spellings and works just fine. Contents should be viewed on language validy and content validy. Spellings issues can always be resolved later on. --OWTB (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@OWTB: I understand the idea that spelling is not necessarily uniform. I work on Judeo-Spanish Wikipedia, and we support a minimum of four lad-latn spelling conventions, plus a lad-hebr one. So that's not my issue.
My concern is that I think WMF doesn't especially want us to be the place where written forms of spoken languages are created. And that's what it appeared to me was happening here.
  • I didn't interpret the English Wikipedia article the way you did. I saw several "letters" in the section on phonology, but not much of anything in the section on writing systems, except perhaps for use of the Old Uyghur alphabet at some point in the past. This seems like more of a spoken language than a written language, though it also seems that there has been some writing in the past.
So maybe @MF-Warburg can comment on this, or ask LangCom what it thinks. Is this really "creating" a writing system for a spoken language? Or should we simply treat this as one of many possible competing writing systems that may be emerging to support this language, and we should leave it alone?
In any event, there's not much content here, and the original creator has not responded to questions any of us has asked. (I don't think there's really much of anything to send to Wikia if we delete this here.) StevenJ81 (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
There are many languages that have no defined/official writing system (anymore) and that are just spoken. Languages like these should be given the opportunity to develop. By sending them to Wikia, we are not going to help them; nor do we help ourselves with it. Most "dialects" in Europe lack(ed) a spelling, and people just contributed to their respective wikis by writing the way they thought to be appropriate. Some wikis developed their own spelling this way; others didn't. In my opinion, there is no valid reason to delete a (test) wiki when the reason is "they put structure in the way they want to write"/created their own spelling. --OWTB (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@OWTB: Again, this is not about "creating spelling". This is about creating a whole writing system. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that this Turkic based Western Yugur alphabet has really been used before. The author of the page even implies that s/he created it himself/herself—albeit with reasonable underpinnings. And see en:Yugur#Language: The native speaker group consists of about 4,600 people in North Central China, and there is no evidence that this script is being used anywhere there.
I do understand what you're saying. Maybe there is no harm in leaving this here. It's a long way away from being evaluated for approval as a project, after all. But suppose we get that far, and some language expert that LangCom brings in says, "What is that? Nobody ever wrote this language in a Turkic Latin script." So this is where I'm having a hard time. But I'm really willing to let this sit open for a while; I'd like to hear what Elteriş has to say. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Deferred Deferred to (at least) 23 September 2017: It is clear that there is no consensus to delete for now. I intend to keep this discussion here for a while longer in the hope that User:Elteriş will see it and respond. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done No consensus to delete. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


Not a live language, request was rejected: m:Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Middle English 3--GZWDer (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

There are several projects here that are similar. The rules on Incubator are less restrictive than the rules for project approval: in general, any legitimate project that correctly uses a legitimate language code can remain here. There are a few exceptions, but this project and others like it (Wp/orv and Wp/goh, just to name two) do not fall under those exceptions. So I see no reason to delete this test. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Neutral I would ask @Qmwne235, Gray Porpoise, Cbrown1023, Katxis, Varlaam:@Sgman1991, Crochet.david, X Parasite~incubatorwiki, Malhonen: the most "were active" users for suggestion. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I believe this Wikipedia hasn't been edited for long. If it was decided that it should be closed, I don't oppose as it has been left abandoned. --Katxis (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)