The result of the following proposal for closing a WMF project is to CLOSE the project. Please, do not modify this page.
The following discussion is closed: Project to be closed per consensus —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dferg (talk • contribs) .
- see also Wikiquality
The Wikimedia Quality wiki was intended to be a single point of information for key quality initiatives related to Wikimedia projects. Looking at its index and RecentChanges it is obvious that this project is totally inactive from a mission point of view (is has only had 1,400 edits in it's two and a half years of operation). Also, the mailing list associated with this wiki  equally inactive. Today the function of reporting on quality initiatives is more than adequately handled by Meta, the WMF-wiki, the developer section of MediaWiki. This project is therefore inactive, not fulfilling its mission, and that mission is already duplicated by other WMF projects.
- I propose to close this discussion in one week from now. —Dferg (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- MBisanz talk 04:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- The project itself is not dead, but the wiki is (and do we really need a whole wiki for every undertaking? I rather think not.) - it serves no useful purpose which could not be served by a workspace/portal on Meta. Beyond that, I don't agree regarding the mailing list activity or where such initiatives should be handled, but none of that is relevant here. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Per MBisanz. Inactive project with little potential. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the idea was sound to begin with. An entire wiki was never required. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- This seems utterly pointless to start with, and it's clear that, unlike some other apparently-pointless initiatives, the community has not made it work. Happy‑melon 08:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Close, per Mike.lifeguard's rationale. —Dferg (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Close - also per Mike.lifeguard. Barras 11:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- I even did not know about it. All its content can be moved to meta. Ruslik 15:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Close per others. Tempodivalse [☎] 16:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- No point in an inactive wiki being in existence, when it just confuses matters. Majorly talk 16:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Close per above. FunPika 19:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Close and migrate to Meta, updating and expanding on wikiquality - but take time to understand why the initial interest that led to project-founding has faltered. -- sj | help translate |+ 21:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like the only activity has been userpage setup (and, surprisingly, not even from me! :D) and redirect creation, with a touch of Grawp for good measure. The wiki's dead as a doornail, let's close it down. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Close but keep open temporarily in case anyone else wishes to re-use the content. Some of the content could be transwiki'd, which would be a useful thing here for sysops etc. Also, what about http://usability.wikimedia.org - which apparently for some reason stewards can't change rights on? (No, not a proposal to close the project - just a technical question?) Mike.lifeguard has made a rational argument. I see that there are good arguments for its deletion, namely duplication, and inactivity. Would this be better kept on here, or moved to Incubator via the import/transwiki process. Unless there's interest in reviving the project, maybe we should let it go. The SITENAME.wikimedia.org sites (except grants, exec, chapcom, office, internal) should be discussed first, and only then with significant consensus should they be created - that's my take on things. I hope my arguments have made some sense. As a webmaster myself, even I know when the time is right to close down/lock dead projects. User:Sunwell5/mysignature 23:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agree, the discussion has been closed now, but I think that leaving the database unlocked to import or transwiki things would be useful, once is done, we can request the closure. :) Cheers. —Dferg (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- A prime example of an interesting meta-project that could be used to make meta more vibrant and useful that was instead split off into its own wiki. On the other hand, there is a /lot/ more to be said on the subject, and a lot more regularly said, than shows up on that ml or the two wiki pages mentioned... a new wiki was created in part in recognition of the importance associated with the idea -- we should think about how to provide a usable space (a portal? a digital whiteboard? a newsgroup? an airship?) for people to address the many issues it raises. -- sj | help translate |+ 21:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- A wiki was never the answer. A portal on Meta and a mailing list is probably sufficient to coordinate these efforts. The mailing list in particular has been effective for discussion between interested parties. Unfortunately, discussion has died down, though it seems the efforts are still ongoing. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
See bugzilla:18456. MBisanz talk 23:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)