Incubator talk:Policy

From Wikimedia Incubator

If you want to propose a change to the policy, it is more likely to be noticed on I:CP.

Comments of first draft[edit source]

Please add your comment about this proposal!

Misschien is het beter om ook eens na te denken over dat er meer dan 1 persooon actief is bij een test anders gaat test-adminship niet door. -Markvondeegel 13:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please in English, so every one can follow. (Maybe it's better to thinking about adding that more than 1 person have to be active at the test language, otherwise a test adminship is not allowed.) Good idea, I will add it. SPQRobin 13:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we better can use Wikt/xx because it's the interwiki link (wikt:) wt:. But especially because many projects already use wikt/xx. -Markvondeegel 13:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know really. "Wt" is shorter and is more consistent with the others. SPQRobin 13:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allright, but I think you also need to agree with wikt/xx. -Markvondeegel 13:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, but new Wiktionary tests have to be made with "Wt/xx" SPQRobin 13:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok. -Markvondeegel 13:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I felt the same as Markvondeegel when I first saw it. But I agree with you now, we don't have a wp: prefix. ;) Otherwise looks great! Cbrown1023 talk 14:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those wikt prefixes could be changed with Timichal's mymove (you know, to move test-wp => wp) MF-Warburg 15:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's necessary. -Markvondeegel 15:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, let's first see to make this an official policy. SPQRobin 19:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also add following:

That is not true, see [1] SPQRobin 13:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant they can start a test without proposal, but they must submit a proposal later: every project must leave an Incubator once --VasilievVV 14:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that but how long has a testproject before it needs to have a proposal on the meta? -Markvondeegel 14:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One year (as for inactive projects)? --VasilievVV 14:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And for active projects? I was more thinking about the number of pages: User:Markvondeegel/Metaproposalpolicy -Markvondeegel 14:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My version:
            • You can start a project at any time, but after 6 months passes and your project has 15 pages (this includes templates and excludes talkpages, redirects, mainpage), you must make a proposal on Meta or your test will be deleted
- VasilievVV 14:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allright. And more active tests? -Markvondeegel 14:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better to make it same both for active and inactive tests: active tests will be approved (or rejected with important reasons), active tests will be deleted (and may be recreated later) --VasilievVV 16:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean with: If a project is given final approval by the language subcommittee, the test's pages will be imported and redirected to a subdomain wiki of its own.

  • All pages of the test or
  • Only the mainpage

I think the mainpage is enough. -Markvondeegel 14:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the text to If a project is given final approval by the language subcommittee, the test's pages will be imported to the new subdomain wiki. All pages will be deleted, except the main page, there will be addded a notice, {{approved}} (see /Test language status for further information). SPQRobin 14:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allright. -Markvondeegel 14:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we also have to think about some rules on meta like: no different writing methodes. And lock or delete those projects before they start to grow. -Markvondeegel 14:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get what you mean? SPQRobin 14:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody comes with a arabical french, we immediately delete or lock the project. -Markvondeegel 14:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, based on the Latin Russian test. Well, I think maybe we can make a page for requesting to delete a project that has not a proposal on Meta. SPQRobin 14:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or has no valid request or no valid language. -Markvondeegel 14:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary. I've added You can propose a deletion of a test language at Incubator:Test deletions. You may only propose a deletion of a test language which does not have a proposal on Meta. SPQRobin 19:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Incubator does not host a test project, which is proposed at meta:Proposals for new projects." What do you mean with this? Projects with proposal are not allowed? MF-Warburg 15:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means that it's incubator for new languages only --VasilievVV 16:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe is clearder now: * Incubator does not host a test project which is not in the list above (i.d. the proposals on meta:Proposals for new projects). SPQRobin 19:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why this rules says to keep rejected projects? If langcom rejects it, it must be deleted --VasilievVV 16:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The langcom has nothing to do with Incubator. It's just a proposal, and you can be against it. SPQRobin 19:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Comments[edit source]

How do these rules apply on test who already exist? -Markvondeegel 14:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... good question. We will see SPQRobin 14:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voting[edit source]

Please vote about this revision.

Changes (except unimportant changes) since that revision: [2], [3], [4] and [5]

  • support
  1. SPQRobin 19:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Ooswesthoesbes 06:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. VasilievVV 12:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. My support, but I think that a rejected proposal with a deletion tag still get some chance to start a wikia or so. -Markvondeegel 12:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, At wikia (wikicities:Wikia creation policy/Encyclopedias) there is "If, after discussing or trialing your language at Meta, you find there is no support within the Wikimedia community for that new language, then you can consider using Wikia instead.". SPQRobin 13:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like Wp/aeres goes to aeres.wikia.com. -Markvondeegel 13:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The policy sounds reasonable ∴ Alex Smotrov 14:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Why not? MF-Warburg 15:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Reasonable enough. Cbrown1023 talk 15:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose
  1. "You may only propose a deletion of a test language which does not have a proposal on Meta." Maybe add, that he may also deleted if proposal is rejected. Otherwise, strong oppose --VasilievVV 09:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea, please look at this change SPQRobin 11:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks better, but I hope, that bureaucrat will base their decision on arguments --VasilievVV 12:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Off course SPQRobin 13:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ...

deletion of failed nonsensical tests[edit source]

I think that test projects in languages which were deemed nonsensical by langcom should be deleted. Examples would the failed requests for Cyrillic Swedish and transliterated Russian. There is no reason to keep them, as the condition which led to their rejection will remain unchanged. --Johannes Rohr 13:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have said it too up above. But I don't know if anybody understood it. -Markvondeegel 13:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you will just have to propose the deletion on Incubator:Requests for deletions. That's more fair. The only disadvantage is: you have to wait 10 days :-) SPQRobin 13:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think this is fairer? Ten days more or less do not make a big difference, however, I feel that a policy should be comprehensive and thus cover this case. Further, requests for deletions have to be filed individually for each page. I really would not want to file 80 individual requests, when a single one could be enough. --Johannes Rohr 18:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at that page? What you say is not true. The policy says "You can propose a deletion of a test language at Incubator:Requests for deletions. You may only propose a deletion of a test language which does not have a proposal on Meta or is rejected by the langcom. Active contributors to the test can vote, other people can only give arguments against the deletion and in favor of the deletion. After 10 days, a sysop will make a decision about deleting the test or not." SPQRobin 19:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Official?[edit source]

Should I close this voting or what? 7 support votes and 0 oppose votes. Tommorow I am away for a few weeks so I can't close this voting then :-( SPQRobin 18:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that there is no need to hurry. I only discovered this discussion today and I might not be the only one. There is still enough to be discussed. --Johannes Rohr 18:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but I will be not here to participate with the discussion :-( SPQRobin 19:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No code - no project?[edit source]

As the draft currently reads, a valid ISO code is an indispensible requisite for a test project. What about linguistic entities which do not yet have this degree of recognition? Should they be excluded? This might save some trouble but at the same time I feel this is too strict. --Johannes Rohr 18:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. good question. Currently the langcom rejects languages without a valid ISO code, so actually I don't think we may allow these languages until the langcom has a solution, decision in favour of the language, or a change in the policy. SPQRobin 19:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incubator Plus[edit source]

Please also note that proposals who are about to be deleted or without an ISO-code can be moved to or made at the Incubator Plus. -Markvondeegel 18:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just taken a look at it and I think it should also be a part of the policy: If a test is inactive for over a year it should be moved to the Incubator Plus and be deleted here. --Ooswesthoesbes 18:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please join the discussion below about the same. I will mention Incubator Plus anyway. SPQRobin 22:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of sensible tests?[edit source]

I don't like that the policy says to delete conditionally-approved tests which are inactive for 1 year.

If a test has been approved, there is something sensible in it, and it can be developed further at some time, when more active participants find it.--Imz 18:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I've looked to the text and maybe it would be good to change the following:
"Tests that are inactive for over a year will be deleted." to "Tests that are inactive for over a year will be proposed for deletion on Incubator:Requests for deletions."
"Or, as mentioned a few lines above, it will be deleted if it is inactive for over a year." to "Or, as mentioned a few lines above, it will be proposed for deletion on Incubator:Requests for deletions."
What do you think? SPQRobin 22:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe change "Tests that are inactive for over a year will be deleted." to "Tests that are inactive for over a year will be proposed for deletion on Incubator:Requests for deletions and can be exported to the Incubator Plus."
"Or, as mentioned a few lines above, it will be deleted if it is inactive for over a year." to "Or, as mentioned a few lines above, it will be proposed for deletion on Incubator:Requests for deletions and can be exported to the Incubator Plus." -Markvondeegel 06:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's good too. SPQRobin 08:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I also think is a good change.--Imz 16:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody is against, I will change this. SPQRobin 16:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Test[edit source]

Please review our Bikol Wikipedia proposal and test project. --Filipinayzd 11:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? SPQRobin 22:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


New comments[edit source]

I propose that we introduce an edit limit for votings: If you vote (polciy voting or election or something else) you have to have a number of edits, not too much, for example 25 to prevent multiple votes with socks (see User_talk:MF-Warburg#Pauk, but "newbie" is not defined). I think this would be good. --MF-W {a, b} Visit IRC! 16:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I think. SPQRobin 17:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely New Projects vs. New Language Projects on Incubator[edit source]

Clarification is needed on this page, as indicated at Incubator:Community Portal. Squideshi 22:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is very clear: Incubator does not host a test project which is not in the list above (i.e. the proposals on meta:Proposals for new projects). See the Incubator:Policy#What Wikimedia Incubator hosts section. SPQRobin 16:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The word Incubator is typically used in the context of growing something completely new--not merely for simply facilitating the creation of a version of something already both existing and proven, such as a new language version of an existing project. Who made the decision that Incubator is not for completely new projects--only new language versions of existing projects--and how was that decision made? Is this decision still open for discussion? Squideshi 04:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was a proposal in all versions of the policy drafts, and the discussion can you find on this talk page (above). The word Incubator is a description of the goal of this site, the goal of this site if not derived from the name (the discussions about the name can you find here) SPQRobin 14:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incubator:Policy/Draft[edit source]

What is the relationship between Incubator:Policy/Draft and this page? Squideshi 04:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Euh... that is a previous draft and Incubator:Policy is an official policy, after discussion and a voting above. First there was Incubator:Policy/First draft, then Incubator:Policy/Draft, and now Incubator:Policy. SPQRobin 15:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Test Adminship End[edit source]

Currently, we have: If the language is approved fully, the test admin will lose their status here (they can reapply it in the normal way).

I suggest to reword this to: Once a language is approved fully, and its contents have been completely moved to a wiki on their own, the test admin will lose …

We do not want to desysop test admins while a test is waiting for a project to be created, do we? That process is usually taking many months these days. --Purodha 08:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right; this is also what is actually done. I believe this needs no discussion, so I changed it. --MF-W {a, b} 15:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untranslated sections[edit source]

Maybe add "Note:..." phrase and name of "Policy" template into translation tool? Or change {{Policy}} as autotranslated? --Kaganer (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"List the test on Template:Tests."[edit source]

Proposed new text:

List the test on Template:Tests (rather, in one of its sub-templates: Tests/wp for Wikipedia, Tests/wb for Wikibooks, Tests/wq for Wikiquote, Tests/wn for Wikinews, Tests/wt wor Wiktionary, and Tests/wy wor Wikivoyage).

--Kaganer (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about replacing the link to Template:Tests with Incubator:Wikis and referring to the "add a wiki below" links which are included there at the beginning of every table? --MF-W {a, b} 22:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now he saw. :( This unclearly... --Kaganer (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what do you mean? --MF-W {a, b} 15:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repositioning translate tags[edit source]

  • @Minorax: Sorry to trouble you again. It might be necessary to reposition translate tags on this page, as they are replaced with a span tag for untranslated lines in translated versions, and this does not let * to be interpreted as list marks (* would have to be the first character in the line). - Xbspiro (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Xbspiro: Done, along with other stuff. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://incubator.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Incubator_talk:Policy&oldid=6206060"