Talk:Proposals for closing projects

Archives 1 Archive 1 (before 2010)

Thai Wikinews <500 edits/year

Much as it pains me, I think it's pretty conclusive that the Thai Wikinews should be closed. See here for all edits within the last 365 days.

I can't write in Thai, so I'm not sure exactly where to alert the project to impending deletion. Can someone who reviews the above list of non-bot edits (<500 in a year) and knows some Thai alert them to this? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Old proposals

I have noticed that there are proposals dating back a few years with Burmese Wiktionary open since 16 August 2007. Of course, the Burmese Wiktionary page, the Dzongkha Wikipedia, the Tatar Wikipedia page and Chechen Wikipedia pages seem like they should be kept. However, many are floating about for a long time. Perhaps a change to how this system works. I propose to add the following to the content page:

1. All proposals that have less than 10 votes after a six month period from when they were first proposed will be closed without prejudice or determination of outcome. This will be determined as a keep per lack of discussion, and there will be no statement against restarting the discussion.

I would like to also propose the following:

2. All closes are provided with a closing date on the form (and carried over into the archive) and proposals are archived after a standard period of 7 days.

I think that would help make things run a little smoother and get more activity on individual pages instead of allowing some of the proposals to just drag on forever. Ottava Rima 01:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

These ideas look reasonable. Ruslik 16:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Support this process. ++Lar: t/c 15:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• To add, with the 7 days archiving, a section in the archive will contain those not yet locked at the top. Ottava Rima 01:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Mandatory warnings -- please ratify

It has been asserted that the line Proposals with no fair warnings to the projects will be ignored was added by an IP and can therefore be ignored. I hereby ask for formal ratification.

• Support Makes sense. Seb az86556 19:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support, agree. It's unfair that wikis (some with sizeable communities) can be in the dark for months that they could be shut down any minute, as with the Sotho Wikipedia. They should be given a chance to defend themselves IMHO. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Per Tempodivalse --WizardOfOz ^talk 20:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support I think that the more relevant point was that the rule had no prior discussion, not whether it was added by an IP or a registered account. In any case, it makes sense to require warnings to ensure that it doesn't come as a surprise to the community if the project is closed. Jafeluv 22:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose so that this vote does not end unanimously. -- Prince Kassad 22:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment ratification for the sentence or the current version? As there is another IP added paragraph: [1] Bennylin 11:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement of what happens after closure

A recent addition to the description of common practices (not a policy), describing what happens after closure, did not appear to me to be entirely correct in a couple respects.

1. It is implied that a closed project cannot be deleted due to the GFDL and CC-BY-SA. Exercising permission to publish contributors' work under the applicable licenses does not create an obligation to continue publishing the work in perpetuity. Individual pages are routinely deleted from Wikimedia sites every day, and a difference in scale does not imply a difference in principle.
2. The unqualified statement that closed projects will be imported to the Incubator is overbroad. This only applies to content that meets Incubator policy and is potentially useful for a future WMF project. Sometimes projects are adopted at non-Wikimedia sites without being staged at the Incubator.

I have revised the paragraph accordingly, with some further elaborations, in an attempt to describe what appear to have been the common practices. The resulting language is rather indefinite about what will ultimately happen to a closed project, and intentionally implies that "long enough" is not a commitment for all eternity. Further clarification would be welcome, but it is hard to be precise about a procedure that is largely ad hoc, as disclaimed in bold red italics at the top of the page. ~ Ningauble 03:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess a dev could better answer this question. My knowledge of how a wiki is closes is that a dev locks its database and thus only stewards can edit it. But in the past projects have been also deleted: Proposals for closing projects/Deletion of Siberian Wikipedia & Proposals for closing projects/Deletion of Toki Pona Wikimedia projects are two examples.

I think that the content should only be imported to the incubator where that content can be useful and meets Incubator policies and guidelines.

-- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 10:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

German Wikiversity

Hmm. OK, it doesn't look like the German Wikiversity has been officially closed (AFAICT), so why does de.wikiversity.org return an error saying "wiki does not exist"? - dcljr (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Works okay for me... QU ^TalkQu 09:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just about to say it was back now. Anyone know what happened? - dcljr (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The weird thing is, the German Wikiversity was the only Wikimedia wiki (of the 790 I track the daily stats of) that was affected. - dcljr (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)