Incubator talk:Requests for starting a test

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikimedia Incubator

SPQ, isn't this a little bit too much? --Ooswesthoesbes 12:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you mean? (see I:CP#footer for discussion about this). SPQRobin 12:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ayy... Espeeku, Espeeku toch. Moet gauw worden opgenomen in het Koninklijk Hospitaal Vicistad :| Bucurestean 19:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tsss.. :-S SPQRobin 19:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dit gaat veelsteveel administratieve rompslomp geven. Trouwens, wel slecht dat je Alexandru niet even verwelkomt, tssss.... --Ooswesthoesbes 04:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Administratieve rompslomp? Ik heb op het overleg al gezegd dat het veeeeeel werk zal besparen. Ik heb de voorbije dagen al vele testprojecten moeten verwijderen omdat ze geen geldige ISO-code hebben. Beter dat we hier wat controle over hebben. Dan moeten we ook niemand teleurstellen als ze er al veel aan gewerkt hebben... SPQRobin 10:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dat krijg je als ze niet wille leze, dan wete ze toch dat ze naar Incubator+ moete? Trouwes, wat moet met Nyttfron gebeure? Maak je saan nag 's een plattegrond? --Ooswesthoesbes 17:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ik volg er echt geen flikker meer van. -Markvondeegel 14:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2 things[edit source]

__NEWSECTIONLINK__[edit source]

Should we have this? Like, we have the "create the new section" like on the instructions subpage and that shows an edit notice. I will remove it. Ebe123 (Talkabout it|contribs) 15:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free to add it... I did so now. SPQRobin 03:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Starting the approval of simple languages[edit source]

With the langcom may report, I think that in incubator, we should start accepting simple language tests that do comply with what the committee already decided, of

  • Language should be the world language.
  • There is a reliable published specification of "simple" (or equivalent) language.

Any thoughts? Ebe123 (Talkabout it|contribs) 15:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it is very logical that simple projects need to be incubated on their "mother" projects. E.g. a Simple French Wikipedia would need to start as a namespace on the French Wikipedia. If we allow it on incubator, we would have a lot of inactive simple projects. SPQRobin 03:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Policy[edit source]

I am wondering why the policy template is on this project page... it does not regulate anything, it simply works as a forum, as far as I understand. - Xbspiro 10:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right, I've removed it. SPQRobin 03:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protection[edit source]

I think the protection is only making things even more complicated. All that is required is an account. But if a user makes an account he still can't edit this page as he is not automatically confirmed. (many wikis have four days and a few edits as a requirement for that; not sure how much is required on this wiki). --OWTB (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think four days but zero edits.
I take the user's point, though; an IP that was eventually globally blocked for cross-wiki abuse created a bunch of the current ones. So, instead, I'm going to add a note on the page saying that anyone not confirmed can place the request on the talk page. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, that works too :) --OWTB (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where is the point in that? If that bad guy (tm) wants to spam us with nonsense requests, he will just spam the talk page. What advantage does that have except adding a hurdle for innocent IPs? --MF-W {a, b} 19:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, OK. I'll reverse it. I may not get to it for a couple of hours. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MF-Warburg: That said, the instructions say that only registered editors are supposed to put in requests. Am I to change that? The only people with an extra hurdle are registered users within the first four days. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, on second thought, we can simply use the revert button for every IP-rquest on this page. That's actually easier than the talk page system. --OWTB (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the one hand, that makes sense, on the other, I don't see much value in enforcing that only registered users make a request. Also very new users are more likely to use this page, so better not to have an additional hurdle for non-autoconfirmed people. --MF-W {a, b} 14:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, then. So what I am going to do is this:
  • Leave the line about "Be sure you have a user account..." intact. Reading more closely, it doesn't actually say "You need a user account to make a request", it only implies that. So I don't mind making IP users think twice before adding a request.
  • Then I'll unprotect the page.
  • I already removed the talk page bit from the instructions.
StevenJ81 (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]