Incubator talk:Featured wikis

Veps

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)

Inactive

"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"

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.

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.

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.

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

Once more: wikis "likely to stay here"

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

• I note that in the past, (non-Wikisource) projects in ancient and historical languages (if not grandfathered) were prohibited by the Language Committee's language proposal policy. Thus, projects like Ancient Greek Wikipedia were presumed "likely to stay here", even if active and having substantial content.

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)

Discussion

• 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 mul.ws. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 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)
• Remove Too hard to find an actual neutral criteria to add projects that "hey that project is technically active, but we shouldn't approve it". --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Khakas Wikipedia is inactive

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)

Protection

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)

Remove Western Armenian Wikipedia

The Western Armenian Wikipedia has moved to its own subdomain and therefor is no longer a Incubator wiki. Can someone remove it 88.105.197.116 19:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, it's listed under the "created/approved" list, so for now it will remain there as a notice to people who are looking for its contents. --OWTB (talk) 08:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Khowar Wikipedia

Khowar Wikipedia is missing in this featured wiki list, it is active currently now. Can I edit the Incubator wiki list? or request someone to edit. please check. thank you.--Samiullahtorkhowi 09:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

There are some reasons we're going to leave Khowar Wikipedia off this list for the time being. I'll take a new look at it in a couple of weeks. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: waiting sir, thanks --RAChitrali 05:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Saraiki Wiktionary

Wt/skr is missing in this featured wiki list, it is active currently now.Sraiki (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC) @Sraiki:

• I'd like to settle matters around Wp/skr first. Once that is done, not only will I add Wt/skr, but it may be able to go rapidly to approval.

  That said: One LangCom member has stated he thinks that all of the messages in MediaWiki core need to be translated before the second project in a language can be approved. I don't believe that is correct, but policy does state that subsequent projects need to make additional progress on this. So see if you can get this category up to 50% in the meantime. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Yonna

Tu yonnaka sukua'ipa wayuu — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yajaira1990 (discussion • contribs) 02:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC).

Maybe you can repeat your message in a different language? --MF-W {a, b} 14:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Kotava

MF-Warburg : Tokdume Kotava moe vexalaja tigir ? Isen tokdume mek bewik ke winafa neda gu eruna pebura meviele dulzer ? (Why the Kotava is blacklisted? And why is it that no member of your committee ever answers to requesting explanations?) Biscuit 26507 (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Translation

Could we make the project names (section headers) translatable? - Xbspiro (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why not. We could probably also use some magic to show the project names in a translated form, though I wouldn't know how to do that exactly without researching it. --MF-W {a, b} 08:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Tried to implement something of the sort. - Xbspiro (talk) 02:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Tamil Wikivoyage

I have activated the project, I wonder if it can be added to the list. Faster than Thunder (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Sylheti (W_/syl)

Any feedback on Sylheti? It ranked #1 in the most Active Languages. Sylheti Wikipedia ranked #1 in the Pages with the most interwikis. I would like to nominate it for the Featured Wikis. I would also like to invite you to Sylheti Wikinews, Sylheti Wictionary, Sylheti‏ Wikipedia and Sylheti Wikivoyage. Please visit and leave your valuable suggestions and feedback on the TALK pages. ꠢꠣꠍꠘ ꠞꠣꠎꠣ (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The active languages page only concerns translations. The wiki itself is not that active ([1]). --MF-W {a, b} 17:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@MF-Warburg bro, check now. নবাব (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@ꠢꠣꠍꠘ ꠞꠣꠎꠣ ꠜꠣꠁꠍꠣꠛ, ꠅꠈꠘ ꠎꠤꠇꠣꠅꠇ꠆ꠇꠣ ꠇꠥꠘꠔꠣ। নবাব (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@নবাব ꠁꠔꠣ ꠛꠣꠇ꠆ꠇꠣ ꠀꠉꠞ ꠨ ꠀꠝꠤ ꠅꠘꠥꠛꠣꠖ ꠇꠞꠣꠞ ꠡꠝꠄ ꠄꠇ ꠟꠝ꠆ꠛꠞ ꠅ ꠃꠑꠤꠉꠦꠍꠤꠟ ꠨ ꠅꠘꠦ ꠁꠔꠣꠞ ꠖꠞꠇꠣꠞ ꠘꠣꠁ ꠨ ꠀꠝ꠆ꠞꠣꠞ ꠢꠇ꠆ꠇꠟ ꠙꠎꠦꠇ꠆ꠐ ꠁꠇꠣꠘꠅ ꠚꠤꠌꠣꠞ ꠇꠞꠤ ꠖꠤꠍꠂꠘ ꠃꠇ꠆ꠞꠦꠘꠤ ꠜꠣꠁꠍꠣꠛꠦ ꠀꠞ ꠇꠥꠘ꠆ꠔꠣ ꠎꠤꠇꠣꠘꠤꠞ ꠖꠞꠇꠣꠞ ꠘꠣꠁ ꠨ ꠀꠞ ꠍꠤꠟꠐꠤ ꠃꠁꠇꠤꠙꠤꠒꠤꠀ ꠄꠈꠘ ꠀꠡꠟ ꠅꠄꠛꠍꠣꠁꠐ ꠅ ꠀꠁꠛ꠆ꠛ -- ꠢꠣꠍꠘ ꠞꠣꠎꠣ (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@ꠢꠣꠍꠘ ꠞꠣꠎꠣ ꠀꠁꠌ꠆ꠍꠣ ꠜꠣꠁ। 🙏🙏🙏 নবাব (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Central Kurdish Wiktionary (Wt/ckb)

Hello @Liuxinyu970226, I wanted to know why you deleted the Central Kurdish Wiktionary project here. If the answer is inactivity, then I would say that they said in MetaWiki (here) that if you are active for 3 to 4 months, we will consider approving the project. We spent the entire summer and fall of 2022 on this project, but there is no news of acceptance! I know you're looking at that numbers tool, but we really don't care about the number of edits and pages. Please take a look this Quarry query to see how many pages in main namespace have been created and what their quality is. We care about quality, not quantity. Indeed, if numbers are important, we can easily increase numbers, but we don't want to do that. Personally, because of the university, I had fewer opportunities for this project and since the Mahsa Amini protests, most of the users of this project in Iran have been cut off from the project due to internet connection problems, lack of speed and internet interruptions. The bulk of other users, were discouraged when there was no news on the acceptance of the project. Thanks! Aram (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Re-added, thx for poking, I just looked blk too quickly via catanalysis tool. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Aram (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Related discussion

There is an ongoing discussion about this page: Incubator:Community Portal#Find a way to limit Incubator:Featured wikis entries. -- ꠢꠣꠍꠘ ꠞꠣꠎꠣ (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Top 10 Wikipedia Projects

Based on minimum number of users (3) and longest duration of sustainable activity.

1. mos
2. igl
3. kus
4. syl
5. knc
6. bew
7. btm
8. efi
9. dtp
10. nup

-- ꠢꠣꠍꠘ ꠞꠣꠎꠣ (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Interslavic Wikipedia

It seems to me that there is fake activity in this test project. There are 2 renamed vanished accounts, such coincidences do not happen. We need to check if these are real people creating articles there or one person under different accounts. Until then, we need to remove this suspicious test project from here. Shumadan62 (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

As I explained on Meta, it seems unlikely that both accounts belonged to the same person. The first one initially voted against creating the project but then apparently changed his mind and started contributing to it by copying material from Medžuviki to the Incubator. The second one did some copying from Medžuviki as well, but also wrote a few articles himself in reasonably decent Interslavic. I don't know why they decided to have their accounts locked, but I haven't noticed any kind of abuse on their part, nor can I think of any reason why that should make their previous activity fake. One possibility I can imagine is that a person simply decides to take on a different username and lock the old one instead of having it renamed. If that's the case, there's obviously nothing wrong with that.

Besides, what's there to be gained from making a lot of edits first and then locking one's account, as it will probably mean that their contributions won't count anymore? And how would that invalidate the project as a whole? For the record, ca. 300 new articles have been written since August/September, and only four of five of those were added by the accounts in question.

No, if there's anything suspicious here, it's a person who never made a single edit to any Wikimedia project suddenly popping up out of nowhere, finding the talk page of an embedded page of the Incubator and attacking a project in a language that many people consider obscure, claiming to know precisely what kind of coincidences do not happen.  IJzeren Jan (besěda) 23:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

"These are active and might get their own site soon": Criteria?

I guess the question has already been asked many times but what does it take to be listed there? Wp/nij is listed with only 58 articles while Wp/apc isn't despite 2,700 articles and a few active contributors. A455bcd9 (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

If you think the list should be changed, feel free to do so :-) --MF-W {a, b} 18:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@A455bcd9 Wp/nij is active and might get their own site soon. Wp/apc is not active yet, just a lot of articles by 1 user, that means the project is still not active enough. -- ꠢꠣꠍꠘ ꠞꠣꠎꠣ (talk) 01:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@MF-Warburg: I don't know if the list should be changed as I don't know what the criteria are. Is there a page where one can find the definition of "active" and the criteria required to "get their own site"?

@ꠢꠣꠍꠘ ꠞꠣꠎꠣ: What's the definition of "active"? Over the past 30 days:

• wp/nij had 5 non-minor edits in main by 2 contributors
• wp/apc has 109 non-minor edits in main by 3 contributors

A455bcd9 (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I see, you are just looking into recent activities. To check if a project is active or not, you need to:

• Go to the info page Wp/nij > click Check wiki activity (At least 3 users must be active. They are active for 4 consecutive months)
• Go to the info page Wp/apc > click Check wiki activity (At least 3 users must be active, currently only 2 for this month)

You are right, there should be more clarity. However based on previous discussions, currently, only the top 10 projects are kept in the featured section, and they are selected based on having 3 or more active users and the longest active period. -- ꠢꠣꠍꠘ ꠞꠣꠎꠣ (talk) 11:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Amazing, thanks a lot! A455bcd9 (talk) 11:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)