Incubator talk:Main Page

Note: This page was originally found at Talk:Test-wp at Meta. The user signatures have been linked to user pages on that wiki.

Discussion moved from Meta:Requests for deletion

The following pages were kept since there was no consensus to delete them

Test-wp and others

Test-WP/zh-yue Test-WP/zh-yue/首頁 Test-WP/zh-yue/愛因斯坦 Test-WP/zh-yue/董建華 Test-WP/zh-yue/周星馳 Test-WP/zh-yue/番梘 Test-WP/zh-yue/廣東話 Test-WP/zh-yue/物理學 Test-WP/zh-yue/單車 Test-wp/sco/ Test-wp:Seeltersk Test-wp/Skandinavisk/Hovudside

Meta is not an encyclopedia nor hosting place for non approvied projects by concensus. --Aphaia | Translate Election | ++ 23:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. -Hapsiainen 15:06, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. -- These test wikipedias indicate the level of activity and competence which can be expected for a given language and help developers to judge whether it is worthwhile going to the effort of creating a permanent project or not. -- Derek Ross 18:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. - The time and resources of developers is highly strained. These test wikipedias are well within guidelines, and show developers that the committment of time required is worth it. BryanAJParry

• Keep. - This was suggested on Wikipedia-l, appears to be sanctioned by the Foundation (Angela, for one, endorses it), and is constructive and well within the guidelines. The entire purpose is for TESTING - these are Wikipedias that either were approved by consensus but have not yet been created, ones where there was no consensus and are in a test phase to see if a critical mass can be reached and brought back for a new community discussion, and ones where the community has not been asked. These are not new or unapproved projects. They are new languages for an existing project. Please, leave them alone. --Node ue 10:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • A language that no-one has suggested in Requests for new languages, is definitely new and unapproved project. Try to look for Skandinavisk Wikipedia among requests. And Anglela isn't the same as Wikimedia Foundation. She acts as a private person unless otherwise stated. -Hapsiainen 11:30, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, of course. James F. (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, Meta is exactly the hosting place for non approved projects under discussion. It is its goal. Anthere

• Keep Arbeo 10:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Trilobite 12:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Mendor 12:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep ILVI

• Build a formal Cantonese Wikipedia Because the cantonese wikipedia is tested for over 1 years! Oscarcwk 03:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Scotland

Meta is not an encyclopdia, maybe the page is useful elsewhere, but not here. oscar 07:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The whole point of the meta wiki in those languages (languages without a wiki, presently) is to give a taste for what a full wiki in that language would be like. If we are not allowed to put any articles in those metawikis, then those metawikis literally serve no function. -Bryan (anon)

Although it has a point, it doesn't fit in what Meta was intended for (see Meta:About). (unsigned)

Untrue. This article is an example of role 3 in the Meta:About article. -- Derek Ross 02:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Founding new encyclopedias here is impatient and selfish. Can't you just wait for the permission for a new Wikipedia? If you don't get it, the encyclopedia here has been only wasting the bandwith of Wikimedia Foundation. If you get it, you have still shot yourselves in the foot. Now you have difficulties in moving articles' edit histories to the new Wikipedia. -Hapsiainen 15:03, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Just how is it SELFISH? WASTING???????????? What are you talking about? Just leave these people in peace. --Node ue 10:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I wrote it for a principle, so it isn't only about one article. In retrospect, I used harsh language, but with this explanation, you should understand what I am talking about. -Hapsiainen 11:30, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

You ought to be banned for this petty, destructive behaviour. Trilobite 12:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I haven't destructed anything, I have just written here. I dropped a brick once, and I have publicly admitted that it was inappropriate. Even if I didn't have apologized it, it still wouldn't be a good reason enough to ban anyone. It seems that you are irritated because I have disturbing, devastating Wrong Opinion. But I still wonder, why I haven't run around raving mad, and blanked, cracked, and nuked anything I disagree, if The Opinion and I are that dangerous. -Hapsiainen 18:46, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. When I made the request that a Scots wiki be set up to the Wikipedia-L mailing list, the subscribers suggested that I create this temporary mockup in order to convince the WikiMedia Foundation developers that it was a worthwhile enterprise. While I was aware of the drawbacks that you have listed, I thought that I would give it a try. Now you are suggesting (a) that I am impatient and selfish for following Wikipedia-L advice and (b) that following it will have exactly the opposite effect to that which was intended. Which of these two conflicting viewpoints should I believe ? Yours or Wikipedia-L's ? -- Derek Ross 17:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, Derek, hence my frustration. Exactly what ARE we supposed to do, then. How exactly are we meant to have an ecyclopaedia mockup when we are not allowed to post anything at all that would be in the encyclopaedia? And Hapsiainen, I don't see how a single article is a consumption of bandwidth so great that it warrants us being called "selfish". Explain to me the harm of showcasing a single article in scots, and we shall most likely delete it ourselves. I do dout that you will be able to come up with a valid reason, tho' (for the reasons Derek has stated above). As anon. in fact stated earlier, role 3 of the Meta:About article says we are meant to prepare content for the (possible) upcoming encyclopaedia. That is what we are doing. BryanAJParry

• Delete: Derek, you got a wrong advice. There are many people who don't know meta policies and believe meta hosts also unapproved Wikipedia. In fact, meta is not an encyclopedia. And you can start your wiki on wikicities. --Aphaia | Translate Election | ++ 19:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I did get wrong advice. However at the moment I am unsure whether the wrong advice is coming from you or from other parties. I've been working on the Wikimedia projects for the last four years and I'm well aware of the difference between Meta and Wikipedia and the purpose of Meta. As far as I am concerned discussion of and experimentation on new Wikipedia editions falls well within that purpose. Meta:About seems to agree with me too. I am well aware that I could request that a new wikicity be set up for experimentation and I did consider that. However it seems to me that if that were to be done, we might as well just start up sco.wikipedia.org since it would involve the same amount of work as setting up scowikipedia.wikicity.org: work that would have to be repeated for sco.wikipedia.org and so I rejected the idea. -- Derek Ross 02:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Please. Please discuss it in Wikipedia-l and Foundation-l. PLEASE don't delete or destroy our beginning work, our hope. Please let it be here until it will moved to real Wikipedia!!!-Võrok 21:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Too late, Võrok; Aphaia has officiously destroyed the scots wiki for us. Well done, Aphaia. I can't express my disgust and absolute anger in polite words. I suggest you, Aphaia, make up for this act of total nonsense (nonsense as it contravenes role 3, mentioned above) by telling us exactly how we ARE meant to proceed.

• Keep -- This article is a test example for the prototype Scots wikipedia. When that is configured it will be time to delete this article but not before then. NB The article was accidentally created in the wrong place and I have taken the liberty of moving it within the Test-wp/sco sub-pages. -- Derek Ross 03:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. - The article is merely a test for the (possible) upcoming Scots wikipedia. It will be deleted when appropriate. It is well within guidelines and rights. --BryanAJParry (who forgot to sign it. Check the edit history if you want to confirm this.)

• Keep notafish }<';> 08:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep..... --Node ue 10:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - I don't know what Aphaia is thinking. Lankiveil 10:20, May 20, 2005 (UTC).

• I believe that demonstration projects are allowed on Meta (see also Wikinews demos at New language pre-launch), but that they should be limited in scope. I vote to keep as long as they are clearly used only to demonstrate, not to subvert the process for creating new language editions by filling Meta with encyclopedic content. Hence, I suggest that each of these projects is limited to 100 pages.--Eloquence 13:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -- though as Erik suggested, I think they should be limited in scope. Once they hit a certain number of viable articles, a Wikipedia should be launched for them. Unlike Erik, however, I think the bar should be lowered. 20 articles is a decent size. Danny 14:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not arguing they have to create 100 (or 20) articles to be recognized as a Wikimedia language, and I would caution against an automatism to that effect. A certain number of articles may be one necessary condition, but I don't think it is sufficient. There are plenty of constructed languages for which we probably don't want Wikipedia editions (remember Toki Pona?), and there may be ideas which are rejected for other reasons (e.g. a UK/US Wikipedia split). Whether people are interested in a language edition and willing to work on it is surely the single most important question to ask, but it's not the only one. The decision should be an independent one, and I fear that filling Meta with encyclopedic content, without limits, could undermine that. Hence my suggestion of an upper cap.--Eloquence 14:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. Only a small number of articles should be allowed. And achievement of x number of articles should not mean a language automatically gets it own wiki. One could ask whether Scots is actually a seperate language from English, but of course bear full in mind that "dialect" and "language" are not two seperate boxes. We can seethat: Scottish is the, or one, language of a nation (Scotland); different in wordhoard, grammar, and idiom to English (and other languages); was used as the "official" language of Scotland for some hundreds of years; has a long and extensive literary tradition; has several distinct, but clearly related, dialects. Bearing these things in mind, and considering how Serbian and Croatian have different wikis (not mentioning the Scandinavian tungs, of course) I think it is safe to say that Scots deserrves its own wiki. The differences between Standard Southern British English and General American are so small as to not warrant seperate wikis for them. And thus, if allowed, our good selves with an interest in Scots, either as outsiders or homeborn speakers of it, will continue to discuss any possible future Scots wiki in the meta-test-wiki, and also will go on with a small number of short articles. BryanAJParry

• Keep as a demonstration project. This is precisely one of meta role. Anthere

• Keep, but it should be created very soon real Scots language Wiki, Scots deserves it -Võrok 00:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Arbeo 10:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Mendor 11:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Ban Aphaia for going round trying to destroy nascent projects like this. Trilobite 12:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

• Trilobite, I certainly have noticed, just thro' incidence, that Aphaia seems to be editting and destroying lots of things that he shouldn't. Generally making a nuisance out of himself. However, the number of Keep votes here I think, combined with the work being done on the test wiki, mean that it won't be long afore a fullblown Scots wiki is made (touch wood). BryanAJParry

• Let's hope so. I think it's a good idea in general that when the viability of a new language wiki is in question, it should begin on Meta and be allowed to 'go live' when a few articles are written and it's clear that there's sufficient interest to stop the project from stalling. I saw that this had been decided on the mailing list and came over to see how the Scots wiki was getting on, only to find that someone was trying to destroy it. This seems to me another reason why the mailing lists ought not to exist at all. If the discussion had taken place on the wiki the objections of Aphaia and others could have been raised in advance and this acrimony would have been avoided. While I'm not really in a position to contribute to a future Scots Wikipedia I wish you all the best with it and I'll look forward to reading it. Someone pointed out somewhere that Scots is now almost the only language of any great size in Western Europe not to have its own edition of Wikipedia. The sooner this can be put right the better. It's unfortunate to see others pushing in the opposite direction out of some petty urge to zealously 'police' the wiki. Trilobite 16:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Another "Wikipedia"

Test-wp/fiu-vro/, Võro kiil', Image:Voromkaart.jpg. Meta is not an encyclopedia and it is rude to make a Wikipedia within meta. Those editors have to get consent from the community. --Aphaia | Translate Election | ++ 20:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -- Under role 3 of Meta:About this article and all its subpages have a perfect right to exist on Metapedia as a demonstration project for discussion purposes. -- Derek Ross 03:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

This (Test-wp/fiu-vro/) is test page for en:Võro language. This is recommended in Wikipedia-l list that it should be created a test page in new language before creating new Wikipedia in this language. See request of Võro Wikipedia. It was suggested in Wikipedia-l that new languages' editors should create a test page here and reach some 100-200 articles before real Wikipedia in the new language will created. If this is not true way, please give me another place for this beginning work. -Võrok 21:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not a rude criminal. Please don't be rude with me! Please understand that I want to do my best for my small endangered language!!! Please! Please discuss it in Wikipedia-l and Foundation-l. PLEASE don't delete or destroy our beginning work, our hope. Please let it be here until it will moved to real Wikipedia!!! -Võrok 21:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Võrok, don't sweat it. Aphaia is often rude with people when it is not warranted. It isn't personal. --Node ue 10:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

1. Please read Meta:About.
2. Meta is not Wikipedia, and your requests is against meta policies including the above and Meta:Deletion policy. And wikipedia-l has no right to set meta policies. You should have talked on Meta:Babel if you want to change meta policies.
3. "A test page" - okay, but "some 100-200 pages" are not equal to "a one test page"; it is too much and unacceptable. You mean your "test wiki" will be grown up to one tenth of meta content. Even your onw "small" wiki. Such attempt will bother other editors including me, and disturb their activities. Meta RC will be flooded with your stubs.
4. And you can utilize wikicities instead of meta. --Aphaia | Translate Election | ++ 21:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read Meta:About yourself, Aphralia -- #3 indicates this. --Node ue 10:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I am really in panic now. How can I know that my work will not be threaten to erase from Wikicites after some days. Can somebody help me to save my work from this dangerous place. Can somebody show me the place (in Wikicites or wherever) where I can copy Võro page to save it from here?-Võrok 22:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you took my wording so aggressive. I think you are on a good faith, but your idea and way doesn't match meta policy. For a long time we haven't accepted "Wikipedia on meta", and we have good reasons to keep it as our policy from our experience.

In the past, some of wiki started from meta but they had only sone "two or three" test pages - Main Page and some example articles. I think it is a bad idea to keep a sample wiki with over 100 articles. Instead of stubs, you were better to submit one or three certain long articles.

I think wikicities willingly incubates your wiki - If you are afraid, ask Angela whether your wiki will be welcome on wikicities. Good luck. --Aphaia | Translate Election | ++ 23:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

A core policy on Wikicities is that a wiki will not be created if its main goal is to fork or duplicate content which is, or potentially could be, on a Wikimedia project. There would need to be consensus within the Wikipedia community that this language could not be an official Wikipedia language before Wikicities would be allowed to have it. Having said that, this policy does not apply to our "Scratchpad" wiki, where anyone can create a temporary mini wiki without any approval, so long as that meets the Terms of use. Angela 01:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. These demo Wikipedias have a lot more relevance to Wikimedia that playing chess. Angela 01:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC) [this comment applies to all the test wikipedias currently listed for deleton, not just the fiu-vro one. --Angela]

• Well said, Angela. -- Derek Ross 02:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Role 3 of Meta:About makes these wikis quite appropriate. It is the best way to test-run wikis, and show developers that any possible wiki is worth their time.BryanAJParry

• Keep. But I would have voted for the chess to be kept as well ;-) notafish }<';> 08:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Come on already!!! --Node ue 10:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• I believe that demonstration projects are allowed on Meta (see also Wikinews demos at New language pre-launch), but that they should be limited in scope. I vote to keep as long as they are clearly used only to demonstrate, not to subvert the process for creating new language editions by filling Meta with encyclopedic content. Hence, I suggest that each of these projects is limited to 100 pages.--Eloquence 13:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with a hundred page limit. If any demo wiki reaches that size then it has demonstrated that it is viable in any case (assuming that there are no other reasons preventing its creation). Moving a hundred or more pages to a new location (and probably losing their history in the process) is not a good use of anybody's time. Twenty well chosen and well executed pages should be enough to convince the community. -- Derek Ross 14:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Anthere

• Thank you all, who helped save vro and sco test Wikis! It seems it is safe now to continue writing articles in these test Wikis. :) -Võrok 00:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• • Absolutely!! Your support, everyone, has gladdened my heart greatly!! :D BryanAJParry

• Keep. A beautiful language, an enthusiastic contributor! Võrok has shown with his/her test articles that he/she is committed to contributing to a Võro Wikipedia. How about we move past the bureaucracy and actually set one up? Ronline 02:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Arbeo 10:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. People have had time to back up their edits. I agree that test wikis may fill recent changes and make it inaccessible. For people that point to Meta-wiki rule #3, the rule has a loophole because it doesn't define what appropriate content would be. I have always thought that the appropriate content in #3 is about collaboration between Wikimedia projects. -Hapsiainen 11:30, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This attempt at castle jumping makes me very angry. Trilobite 12:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • You can't see through anyone, when you are angry. -Hapsiainen 18:46, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Conserver / Keep Alvaro 15:13, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
• Keep Mendor 22:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Test-wp versus Test-WP

• Halló! Please take a look at

1. special:Prefixindex/Test-WP
2. special:Prefixindex/Test-wp

• It would be more easy to find the pages if they would have the same "parent page".
• Best regards Gangleri | Th | T 20:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Test-WP/foo versus Test-WP/foo/

• Halló! Please take a look at Test-wp/nor/Angliais. The "parent page" Test-wp/nor/ is not shown. Note that Test-WP/hsb/Domowina shows Test-WP and Test-WP/hsb as "parent pages".
• Best regards Gangleri | Th | T 20:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

How About To Make a Chinglish Wikipedia

en:Chinglish is a mixing language of :en:Chinese and :en:English, it is mainly used in en:Hong Kong and en:Singapore because they mixed up the grammar of Chinese and English, and than Wikimedia is welcome to write wikipedias in all languages, so I hope the Chinglish Wikipedia can be formed early.

Under this sentence is in Chinglish:

Chinglish is a Chinese-English mixed language. Because they mixed up the Chinese's and English's Grammar, they usually to use the Chinese's grammer to write English, this is mainly see at Hong Kong and Singapore. I hope the Chinglish Wikipedia can earlier formed.Oscarcwk 01:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

For a Zazaki Test Wikipedia!

You can see here, that Zazaki is NOT a kurdish dialect. The kurds will be assimilated the zazas. We need strongly a own zazaish Wikipedia! Thank you! --Sobê 17:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages#Why_we_not_compare_Zazaish_and_Kurdish.3F

Hi Sobê, you're right. Consider the request for a Zazaki wikipedia approved (it has had enough approval), most probably you can it to the page Approved requests for new languages, where it can attracj the attention of a developer. Caesarion 21:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Caesarian, are you crazy? About half the votes are opposing. --Node ue 22:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Node, you know I'm not. The reason I said he could move the request was that most of the votes, at least at the moment I was writing it, were clearly politically inspired: "Zazas are Kurds, so Zazaki is Kurdish and should not get its own wiki", often accompanioed by some hollow insults. That's entirely the wrong reason to oppose a new wiki, and I my opinion those oppose votes did not really count. However, I think it would be wiser not to move the request at least until the case has cooled down a bit: it would cause an edit war and some new personal attacks. Caesarion 08:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Chaldon Siberian

I do not know what is Yupik, the Chaldon is Nothern Russian of Novgorod, codifying by Siberian grammar and fonetics of the Northern Russian--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

So, in two hours there are FIVE contributors who want to write on the sibwiki, and this is only the beginning. Only 2 hours before I invited chaldons to contribute from our site. May I begin the full test of the siberian wikipedia? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 17:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

List Cleanup

The complete list of test codes has been reviewed according to standards, and cleaned up, making distinctions between inexistant codes whose pages should be renamed, and those that are standardized.

Please keep the list clean. Don't invent codes that don't exist. Look into ISO 639 (notably ISO 639-3 and in the associated Ethnologue report to see how languages are currently classified, and whever they have or don't have a reserved code).

Many pages now need cleanup by moving them to the appropriate code. When this cleanup will be done, it will be much easier to migrate the tests to an acutal wiki project, without having to infer many links

Please keep the incubator clean and respect the naming conventions for easier migration later. You'll find help about ISO 639 at top of the page. It was a nightmare to find the various inaccuracies, and unfortunately, bad codes have been created for a few rencently opened wikipedias; for example:

• "fiu-vro", using the "fiu" standard ISO 639-2 code but for the Finno-Ugrian family, followed by a non-standard variant code, instead of "vro" which existed in ISO 639-3,
• "map-bms", using the "map" standard ISO 639-2 code but for the Malayo-Polynesian family, followed by a non standard variant code, instead of using "jv-bms" (for the Javanese language under which the Banyumasan lange is classified in ISO, and should have been encoded as a variant).

This would not have happened if people had looked into standard references (but the previous page was not very informative enough to make the proper checking.)

Now it's time to ensure that all articles in closed tests (imported too within the new Wikiepdia incubator project instead of keeping them on Meta) have been migrated into the new open Wikipedias. If so, start deleting the old articles (comment those articles that you have verified and reviewed when blanking them, administrators will then delete the old test pages that have been blanked or marked for deletion.

Thanks.

Note: the table is in a template that is still used for maintenance of the incubator project. But a better home page should be made, giving a simpler view of active tests. This maintenance page should be kept but moved somewhere else in a meta page. Some test languages still don't have a correct description anywhere. If you find it somewhere on Wikipedia, add them. Don't forget to fill in as well the English and local language names.

— The comment above was made by a user at the IP address 86.221.102.98.