Incubator talk:Featured wikis

From Wikimedia Incubator
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Why there is no Veps(vep) wiki?--Kaiyr 20:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Add it if you want it there! :) SPQRobin 00:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"These are active and might get their own site soon". Really? It seems like a lot of these are actually rather inactive. --OWTB 17:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Kichwa Wikipedia is inactive now, yes. The rest is in order.--U.Steele 18:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"These will likely stay here"[edit]

I believe there should be projects, which are noteworthy and have at least a little chance for creation. There are many wikis which will never be created (like Ottoman Turkish or Old Saxon), 10-20, or maybe more... but nobody added them here. These (wp/ota, wp/osx) just have no perspectives at all... and why exactly are these? What's for e. g. Coptic Wikipedia? Coptic language reviving, but have no guarantees for its project to be created too. --Tamara Ustinova (talk) 07:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Well... So, I think I can remove at least Ottoman Turkish Wikipedia from this list. And, as stated above, "keep the list short". (I see that Wy/zh is active too, I'll find a place for it). --Tamara Ustinova (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree; we should only list in the "these will likely stay here" section such test wikis which have such an activity (or at least number of pages) that they could also sometimes be listed in the "these are active" section. Not every extinct language wiki needs to be added. --MF-W {a, b} 03:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I happen to own a very old Ottoman Turkish-English hardcover dictionary. But I cannot imagine why anyone would even consider creating a distinct project in a script no one wants to read anymore.
What would be the point?
Turkish is difficult enough on its own without filtering it through a script singularly ill-suited to any language that is not Semitic.
For that matter, why are there two identical Byelorussian WPs, where the only difference between the two texts is the shape of the letter 'e'? How did that ever get approved?
On that (absurd) basis, each of the 5 distinct spelling standards for English should have its own set of 4 million articles, with 4 sets writing "manoeuvre" and 1 set "maneuver".
Varlaam (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Belarusian Wikipedias aren't identical, their differences are deeper. Official Belarusian spelling is mostly related to Russian language, pre-reform Belarusian is more closely to Polish and now it's using by the local opposition, Neo-Nazis, Russophobes... maybe in some remote villages. Although I also think there was no reason to create Wikipedia in pre-reform Belarusian, but... what's done is done. I doubt that the same situations will be approved at the present time. E. g. nobody will create the Wiki in pre-reform Russian (although I'd like this =) ); the same with Ottoman Turkish, that's just written in Arabic script (not Latin like the modern Turkish). --Tamara Ustinova (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Korean Wikivoyage inactive.[edit]

According to the stats there is barely any community left in the Korean Wikivoyage, and few edits are being made, it should be removed from the list and replaced by a more active wiki. Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

This was done now. But this is a wiki, you could also have done it yourself :) --MF-W {a, b} 23:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Room for two more wikis to be listed.[edit]

Goan Konkani Wikipedia has been moved to the approved section and I checked the stats on Zazaki Wiktionary and found that it has gotten quite inactive so I removed it from the list, that leaves space for two more wikis to be listed. Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC on incubating minor language Wikipedias in Taiwan.[edit]

moved to I:CP --MF-W {a, b} 23:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Once more: wikis "likely to stay here"[edit]

I suggest we remove them altogether from this page. For one thing, these predictions have sometimes proven wrong. For another, there are more test wikis likely to stay here. Do the test Wikipedias in Etruscan or Sumerian have a realistic chance of becoming real Wikipedias? Neither of them has any actual content, and unlike Ancient Greek very few people are likely to put some serious work behind them. The list of wikis likely to stay here would become very long when consistently maintained. Besides, it isn't good publicity for Incubator when the Main Page already says "this site contains moribund initiatives". So why not scratch it altogether? Steinbach (talk) 09:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

That's a very fair point. One of the purposes of this (previously) was that policy was interpreted to say that certain projects, especially in historical languages, would never be approved—even if very active. There is still some truth to that, but the definitions are more narrow. (I'm pretty sure Ancient Greek will be eligible when I get up to that on Meta.) I will pose the question at I:CP to see what the community thinks. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I repeat my comment from above: "we should only list in the "these will likely stay here" section such test wikis which have such an activity (or at least number of pages) that they could also sometimes be listed in the "these are active" section. Not every extinct language wiki needs to be added". No need to list Wp/sux if it is not active. In fact, Ancient Greek WP at the moment isn't very active, I removed it accordingly. --MF-W {a, b} 23:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Background information[edit]

There is still a fair amount of truth to that statement. But Wikipedias, at least, in ancient and historical languages that are still widely studied and have a substantial literature with a well-attested writing system, have a reasonable chance to be considered "eligible" for approval in the future.
  • Accordingly, it seems less likely–although certainly not impossible–that active, substantial test projects will have to stay here indefinitely. Tests that would remain eligible for that category would either be (a) not very active or substantial, therefore not good candidates for I:Featured wikis, or (b) have langcode or other structural difficulties that might make their presence at I:Featured wikis awkward, at least. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


  • I'm going to remain formally neutral on this idea. That said, I want to make it clear that I'm really ok either way. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "Likely to stay here" is such a negative word that I think even if the section is to remain, the subheading text should be changed with additional reason/information given about reason why each of those wikis aren't likely to be a main site for more clarity. C933103 (talk) 07:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove The entire function of Incubator is for things to "graduate" from here. That is one of the fundamental differences between this wiki and —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    • It seems like your statement is factually wrong, if such a section exists. --MF-W {a, b} 10:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Some tests have trouble graduating, but they should not always be removed here.--Jusjih (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Khakas Wikipedia is inactive[edit]

Khakas Wikipedia has gone without an edit for a while, and therefore should no longer be listed as active. In its place, I would recommend listing the Kumyk Wikipedia, which is currently active. DraconicDark (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

You can edit the page. --MF-W {a, b} 14:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
In fact you can't. I'm astonished. I will edit the page per your suggestion. --MF-W {a, b} 14:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


Do we really need to protect this page? I feel like recently it is already given way too much importance. --MF-W {a, b} 14:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

(ec) OWTB protected because of a series of edits in July that weren't exactly vandalism, but were certainly based more on favoritism than on objective measures. Really, this page shouldn't change so often, and it's probably better to at least leave the page semi-protected. I'll try that and see what happens. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I installed the protection mainly due to users thinking it should be translated (therefore edit=admin). I still believe there is no valid reason everyone should edit this page. In case someone believes his test should be on it, it can be discussed here instead. --OWTB (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)