Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Inuktitut Wikipedia (2)

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is a proposal for closing and/or deleting a wiki hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is subject to the current closing projects policy.


The proposal is rejected and the project will be kept open.


  • Type: 1 (routine proposal)
  • Proposed outcome: closure
  • Proposed action regarding the content: should be transferred to Wikimedia Incubator
  • Notice on the project: (Please warn the project.)
  • Informed Group(s): (Which chapters, wiki projects, and other community groups have been informed, if any.)
Inuktitut Wikipedia is a project which has 2 sysops and bureaucrats but the wiki isn't very active. It only has 343 pages which is nothing compared to other wikis, even some projects on incubator has more. Another thing is the language, lots of the pages are in english. This wiki had another closing request 3 to 4 years ago (link here), the result was keep but now, its time to relist. No big improval from 2007. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs(a) 15:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Ebe123, did you notify the community at that Wiki? Otherwise, this is an invalid proposal... --Node ue 20:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I did yesterday. --თოგო (D) 11:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Support[edit]

  • I support the close of this Wikipedia, becase the Wiki isn´t being actualized. Kzyurt 09:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
    • "actualized" — please clarify. Seb az86556 09:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I think he means updated, his native language appears to be Portuguese and in Portuguese "atualizar" means "to update". Just an example of a "false friend". --Node ue 00:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • support. Nobody edits there for years. Please move it to the incubator wiki until the requirements for new wikis would be met (should be done for all wikis that are inactive and do not meet the requirements, because they were created before the requirements were established). --თოგო (D) 11:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
    "inactivity in itself is no valid reason". Seb az86556 16:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
    I do know about this policy. And I find it very stupid - just so you know. (That's because it does define the action "moving to incubator", but does not define the valid criteria on which this action can be done. The part you cited is preceded by "why it should be closed/deleted", not "why it should be moved to incubator" which is the third possible action besides closing/deletion defined in the policy.) Too bad that I'm not in the LangCom... ^^ Not meeting the criteria for new languages (translation of the interface is not nearly done), is a valid reason for me. All inactive projects not meeting these years-old criteria (enough time to do the relevant translations) should be moved to the incubator. --თოგო (D) 10:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
    Hi Thogo. You probably misunderstood the policy. Please see the green template above: there are two options, closure or deletion. When a wiki is closed or deleted, the content is often transferred to Incubator. This is *not* a separate possibility besides closure and deletion. The section "definition of actions" is to clarify what the terms "closure", "deletion" and "transferring content" (be it Incubator or another wiki) actually includes. As for the translated interface, you have a valid point that is probably lacking in the policy. Regards, SPQRobin (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
    No, I do understand the policy, but it does not seem realistic to me for cases like iu.wiki (I mean it just doesn't work for cases like iu.wiki), so I chose to not agree to it and to support this request, nevertheless, because the project can benefit from a move to the Incubator wiki more than from being let alone on a dead wiki, as there (on Incubator) the administrative structure is readily available and as soon as someone shows up to edit, there are people who can help with anything, with templates, wiki syntax and so on, which wouldn't be possible (because nobody would notice a new editor there) on a separate wiki that is dead for more than three years. --თოგო (D) 20:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
    Not true, these wikis are monitored daily. Seb az86556 00:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
    Yeah, by SWMT. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 18:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
    Your point being? Seb az86556 20:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
    The point is that an unexperienced editor does not need vandal-fighting in the first place, but technical advice, support, someone to ask questions and not wait for an answer for months, etc. All that is available on incubator, but not on iu.wiki. And don't tell me that the SWMT guys go to these wikis and help inexperienced users, there is simply no time for that. I was in SWMT for many years and I know what time-consuming grunt work it is to actually really help such a project - because I did that for this very iu.wiki. I was sysop on iu.wiki for 3 years and helped that one single user who worked there, but disappeared one day (3 years ago). Since then nothing at all happened there. If anyone shows up who has an interest in editing the wiki, well, fine, but there is simply nobody with such an interest in the last 3 years. --თოგო (D) 09:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I was actually talking about myself. I'm watching. Seb az86556 14:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
That's irrelevant. Or would you notice if some editor there (or on any of the other merely inactive projects) had a problem with a template and doesn't know how to fix it? No, you wouldn't. It's not vandalism to desperately try to fix a template, so you wouldn't even notice these edits. So keep vandal-fighting, I'm sure you're doing a great job there, but that doesn't improve the wiki or the community. On incubator wiki there are not only people who can immediately help when someone is on the try-and-error-scheme, but there are also other facilities and a structure that users who want to start a community can really use. I'm still waiting for an argument why iu.wiki should be kept as a separate wiki, except for the blunt "that's in the policy" or "it doesn't hurt anyone" cries. --თოგო (D) 16:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Please do not project your own incompetence onto others. Seb az86556 21:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Cheap shot. I guess I was competent enough to find Inuktitut WP in need of help or do you think I had nothing else to do when I went there to take care of the place? But nowadays, with filtered bot-supported SWMT work, where only edits that the bot considers suspicious are watched, other edits are not really monitored. You know, when SWMT started, there was no IRC channel to monitor wikis, we simply went from one wiki to the next and looked through the recent changes of the past months to see what was going on. I'm not the bad guy you maybe think I am, you know. The only thing I want is to help the Inuktitut Wikipedia, and my claim is that this is best done by moving the wiki to Inc. and I gave you a number of arguments for this claim. --თოგო (D) 14:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Again, you're assuming things that aren't true; I don't use any "channels" or bots, I don't even know where that channel is, and frankly, I don't want to know. I don't have rollback or any other of those stupid automated thingies. It's good old manual work, and that's what I do. Ah well... Any more assumptions to clean up? (maybe we should just close that "channel", kill the bot, and withdraw global rollback... see what happens, I'd be for that...)Seb az86556 22:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I did assume that you are a member of the SWMT, sorry for that I didn't stalk your edits before arguing over Inuktitut Wikipedia. ^^ But still, please explain why it is better for the wiki to stay where it is. A couple of real arguments for that would probably help your point. --თოგო (D) 09:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that's the way it works. There are no good arguments for a closure, therefore the status quo remains :) And the new policy supports this view. Seb az86556 11:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
That policy destroys the prospects of these wikis, but it's ok for me, I've tried everything I could to help it. Maybe you now start looking for native speakers and drag them to the wiki... Not a single page on that wiki has been written by a native speaker btw., the only person who wrote the (content) articles, was iu-2, self estimated. So, someone should at least check it. --თოგო (D) 10:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm glad you're not on LangCom. What's the use in moving any project to Incubator? It won't take up less space there. Seb az86556 17:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
    Hm, I'm not sure you can show me where I ever talked about space... --თოგო (D) 20:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Most of pages are in English. They must be moved to the English Wikipedia or merge to exist articles on en.wp.
There shouldn't be any articles in English (maybe some left-overs), but most if not all of the WP: pages are in English, but that's no problem. But there are lots of such "articles" without any content. --თოგო (D) 16:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
A link would help; simply saying the same thing over and over again won't make it so. Seb az86556 21:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
That was a response to the unsigned comment above, not to you, (and I'm not sure you can show me where on this page I ever talked about the quality of the existing articles, especially "over and over again"...) Oh, and there is a link - you can find it in my comment above. (Or do you want one to an English page? I did say that English pages are *not* a problem on iu.wiki, so no link there, sorry.) --თოგო (D) 14:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
OK. misunderstanding then. Seb az86556 11:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think very short articles as pointed for the Nujait are a problem. I think it started like that even for the biggest wiki back in the days, like the article Apple who contained only "Apple is a fruit." on the French Wikipedia and now is a big article. I think we should let time to the Wiki to grow and to the articles to do the same; and the time scale isn't the same as for bigger wikis, if we have a reasonably motivated contributor every 5 years on iu.wiki, so be it, where is the issue ? Amqui 15:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  • Oppose: No valid reason given per policy ("inactivity in itself is no valid reason"). Most pages, albeit short, are in the language; vandalism is at a minimum, so it won't do any harm. Seb az86556 00:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
    Autually, lots is latin characters and not Inuktitut characters. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 15:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
    Ouch — that's because there are two writing systems deployed for that language, syllabics and Roman, both equally valid. Seb az86556 16:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seb is correct about the writing systems, and while I do not speak Inuktitut (I have been exposed to different dialects of Greenlandic, which is related), I don't see signs that the content is overrun with spam or other garbage. The dozen or so articles I looked at seemed generally to be simple and often-illustrated stubs, which would seem to me to bear some educational value. Further, I suspect (without a great deal of evidence) that there is some potential for future growth--it is not clear to me how widely deployed the internet is yet in communities with those native speakers. --Joe Decker 15:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose--Vaibhav Talk 16:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose-- per Seb. It's outrageous that this proposal was even made. If you're not satisfied with the activity level of the Inuktitut Wikipedia, go out and try to recruit people to create content for it. Look for solutions that will help; closing the project helps nobody. --Node ue 00:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
    It is a perfectly valid proposal, the wiki is dead for years and should be on incubator wiki. If you don't think so, go and get editors there. Try it. I tried it for a couple of years. Now it's your personal turn. Have fun writing to the Nunavut government, and all that. Maybe you are more lucky than me. I didn't even get a response. --თოგო (D) 11:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
    Read the new policy: "inactivity in itself is no valid reason". Seb az86556 16:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
    That doesn't automatically mean that the proposal is not valid or even "outrageous" as that user above calls it. It should be discussed at least, as it is a textbook case of a wiki that should be in the incubator. Note that moving articles to incubator wiki is not the same as closing the wiki (which is locking the database), the articles can be retrieved and edited perfectly at the incubator wiki. --თოგო (D) 10:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
    It means that to me. I like how you're sitting here spouting off nonsense about how you're so oldschool with SWMT, well guess what, I started SWMT, you want to know why? To keep Wikis like iu.wp from getting closed, which was the most popular idea at the time (since they were "prone to vandalism" and there was "nobody to monitor all of them"). I didn't start SWMT so people like you could complain about how disadvantaged and remote communities haven't spent enough of their time editing Wikipedia so we should punish them by revoking their site. So if you want to ask "When will this Wiki be active?", my answer for you is that it will be active when it's active. By the way, with regards to what you said about it being "my personal turn", don't think I haven't already done such things. Outreach is difficult, especially when a community doesn't have a lot of interest yet, but that doesn't mean we give up. So Nunavut government didn't help, so what? Who are we going to contact next? You don't give up until you succeed, or you don't blame it on the community when you do give up. --Node ue 01:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, no need to close per above. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with the above. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Can't give a reason to close it... --OosWesThoesBes 10:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not dead, not spammed, and it'll grow soon. The conversion script included in MediaWiki 1.18 will help a lot. Furthermore, iu:ᑲᓇᑕᒥ_ᐃᓄᐃᑦ_ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦ/Kanatami_Inuit_Uqausingit and iu:ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ/titiraqsimajunik nunalinni nunavummi are relatively good articles. -- Iketsi 00:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, no valid reason given, you have your Wikipedia, stop closing the ones for smaller languages you dont even speak and do something constructive. the smaller languages of course need just more time to grow, if it is closed, they can't grow ever. per above. --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 04:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think that at the moment there isn't any need to close. --Reder 10:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Don't see much reason to close the project. The pages are of rather good quality, vandalism is low and in general this is a good wiki. Considering Internet is rather scare in areas where this language is spoke, it might be better to leave it alone. As the internet grows, certainly this wiki will grow along with it. Speedy Gonzalez 22:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    Just to make sure... You consider such pages (and there are dozens and dozens of them) "rather good quality"? ^^ --თოგო (D) 10:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now - there may be a case later, but the country has just (i.e. in the last few months) registered a chapter and I think we should give them time to reach out to local potential Wikimedians or organisations (e.g. Inuit advocacy groups/institutes) who can update the iu-wiki. Only if they are unable to do so would I support closure. Orderinchaos 11:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Orderinchaos. I think there is good outreach potential to involve more Inuktitut editors. Aude 01:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. The Inuktitut Wikipedia has a small but active community, mainly due to its remoteness, difficult access to the Internet, and also because of the small amount of speakers of this language. I'm on the board of Wikimedia Canada, we are a very young association (recognized since May 23, 2011) and one of our missions is to promote the Wikimedia projects in languages ​​of First Nations (Wikimedia Canada:About). In a few weeks I will be in touch with Inuktitut associations in Montreal, Quebec (Canada) to establish contributors who write the language. Closing this Wikipedia would be a mistake at this time, and stop potential contributors to participate. If you please give a little bit of time to Wikimedia Canada set up a recruitment drive among people Inuktitut, it would be appreciated. Regards. (sorry for my English) Antaya 21:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Opposition à la fermeture . Je trouve infiniment triste que l'on veille fermer le Wikipedia Inuktitut pour simplement qu'il n'est pas très actif et qu'il possède seulement 343 pages. Que de motifs technocratiques, on se croirait au Ministère canadien des Affaires indiennes. L'Inuktitut a besoin d'aide et certains veulent le fermer. Les communauté Inuits ont besoin de projets positifs (nous connaissons trop bien l’analphabétisme et le décrochage scolaire chez les jeunes Inuits). Rechercher plutôt des solutions constructives qui aideront les Inuits plutot que des gestes qui les marginalisent encore davantage. Et la difficulté d'accès à l'Internet dans le grand nord vous y avez songer vous du sud ?(Désolé quand je suis indignée et en colère j'écris alors que dans ma langue le français québecois ) --Ouikiki 00:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Hello. I'm not familiar with the processes you use to open and close Wikipedias, but I'd like to give my two cents as a board member of Wikimedia Canada. I would be disappointed to see this encyclopedia deleted or moved to somewhere where it is less likely to be found. I know that it is rarely updated, but given how little information is available on the web in Inuktitut, I think that the few articles that exist have the potential to be very useful to some people. I also suspect that this encyclopedia will grow as soon as someone who can do translations sees the value in it. Wikimedia Canada has as part of its mandate to promote Wikipedias in the regional languages of Canada, and hopefully at some point we will be in a position to encourage editing of this wiki. When we do so, it will be far easier to direct people to an Inuktitut website that looks just like the English Wikipedia rather than an incubator page. Arctic.gnome 06:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even if the wiki is inactive for now, I think it is important to keep it for the pages that are already there. Inuktitut speakers already have difficulty to maintain their language over English and French; so while not a responsability of Wikimedia Foundation, I think we should consider that aspect when taking a decision. With the recent creation of Wikimedia Canada, it is intended to develop those wiki in First Nations languages. A solution is to contact native schools and build projects with them to interest the young people in computers and in their own language in the same time. // Opposé Même si le wiki est inactif pour le moment, je crois qu'il est important de la conserver pour les pages qui y sont déjà. Ceux qui parlent l'inuktitut ont déjà de la difficulté à conserver leur langue par rapport à l'anglais et au français ; donc, même si ce n'est pas une responsabilité de la Fondation Wikimedia, je crois que nous devoins considérer cet aspect lorsque nous prenons une décision. Avec la création récente de Wikimedia Canada, il y a l'intention de développer ces wiki dans les langues des Premières nations. Une solution est de contacter les écoles des premières nations et de bâtir des projects avec eux pour intéresser les jeunes aux ordinateurs et à leur propre langue en même temps. Merci, Thanks Amqui 15:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Contre: Je ne vois pas en quoi placer iu.wiki dans l'incubateur améliorera le projet. À l'évidence, le projet n'est pas très actif, mais il ne représente pas un fardeau indu sur les ressources non plus.. Opposed: I don't see how placing iu.wiki in the incubator would help the project. Granted, the project is not very active, but it's not a major drag on resources either. Bouchecl 18:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Ouikiki. --Jagwar 交談 homewiki 21:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

General comments[edit]

  • Proposal is malformed; please indicate category. Seb az86556 00:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry, this is my first time. What do you mean as "category"? ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 15:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think google translate has an option for Inuktitut to English, and I don't want to vote here until I can read the Wikipedia. Does anybody know of any other way of translating the Wikipedia?--Gordonrox24 | Talk 03:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Try the Inuit Living Dictionary, you would have to go word by word however.
  • Umm, find someone who speaks it and pay them to translate every page for you? Or just don't vote? Or vote without being able to read it? --Node ue 00:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Note that I added a conversion script to the software which is included in MediaWiki 1.18 and will go live within some time probably. That will remove the need to have both scripts on each page, which might encourage people to edit the Wikipedia. SPQRobin (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
That's right. I'm one of those people. -- Iketsi 18:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Je ne comprends pas trop ce qui est en jeu ici. Quel est l'intérêt de transférer cette Wikipédia vers l'incubateur ? Je peux comprendre que certains projets doivent être mis à l'essai avant d'avoir la bénédiction de la Foundation, mais en ce qui concerne une Wikipédia dans une langue, l'admissibilité me semble évidente (quel est le nombre de locuteurs minimum d'une langue pour qu'elle mérite une Wikipédia spécifique ?)
    Si les quelques 30 000 locuteurs de l'Inuktitut tardent à contribuer à leur Wikipédia, est-ce que rendre plus difficile d'accès cette dernière en la « cachant » dans l'incubateur va vraiment aider à améliorer les choses ? Khayman 10:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
    Quelques gens veulent transférer tous les projets inactifs vers l'Incubateur. Sous la nouvelle politique, ce n'est pas une motivation suffisante pour fermer et transférer un projet. J'ai proposé au Langcom de ne pas le fermer, et je suis certain que le projet ne va pas être fermé. Il n'y a pas vraiment un nombre de locuteurs minimum; le nombre de contributeurs actifs et plus important (il y a une proposition pour un Wikipédia en livonien avec seulement quelques dizaines de locuteurs mais un projet actif). SPQRobin (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
    Merci pour vos réponses. Considérant le sujet qu'il traite, je trouve étrange que l'article Closing projects policy n'existe qu'en langue anglaise...
    Je trouve surprenante votre affirmation « Il n'y a pas vraiment un nombre de locuteurs minimum; le nombre de contributeurs actifs e(s)t le plus important ». Je crois que c'est mettre la mettre la charrue avant les bœufs.
    Je crois que le nombre de contributeurs est lié au nombre de lecteurs, qui dépend notamment du nombre de locuteurs en ligne et de la visibilité du projet (rang Google, etc.). Je suis sûr que l'on peut trouver beaucoup plus de contributeurs pour une Wikipédia en Klingon qu'en Inuktitut, mais cette dernière me semble beaucoup plus importante. Khayman 11:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
    Cette page est relativement nouvelle, et il y a beaucoup de pages qui ont besoin des traductions (langcom aussi). Le nombre de contributeurs actifs est plutôt important pour ouvrir une nouvelle édition de Wikipédia. Fermer un projet, c'est autre chose, où on doit demander "Est-ce qu'il y a vraiment un problème en gardant ce projet ouvert ?". SPQRobin (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
    Merci encore pour vos précisions. Au plaisir ! Khayman 12:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Do you have an example of a Wimedia Project in the incubator so we can have an idea of what it is exactly ? Amqui 19:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
    • go to http://incubator.wikimedia.org, find one. If you cannot find one or it takes too long to find it, then you've already come across one of the problems. :) Seb az86556 21:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Reading this makes me think Incubator is an obscure project nobody knows of :(. Is is that hard to find a test wiki on Incubator? Why do so few people know the Incubator? Why is it so hard to use? It appears much of my work there has little positive return. SPQRobin (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
        • This is the first time I read about the Incubator right here and I have been active on Wikipedia for over 5 years. Amqui 00:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
        • @SPQRobin: incubator is a flippin' catastrophe; you'll have to click yourself through at least 3 pages to get to the language version you might be looking for (if you find it at all), and all the content is in some weird WP/xxx/blahblah. It was confusing to me at first, and I know wikicode quite well. Imagine someone who's never even used wikpedia before (which is a learning-curve in itself) and now has to deal with that stuff. Incubator is a dumping-ground, and for low activity wikis that have been moved there, it's a graveyard, nothing more. Seb az86556 01:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
          • This last point, however, is probably more because the projects that were closed and moved to Incubator had no activity anyway. Regarding the rest of your comment; on Incubator both the navigation bar on the left and the main page have links to the list of test wikis, so I wonder why it was hard to find for you? --MF-W 18:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
            • Because I'm as dumb and retarded as most people. Thanks. Seb az86556 18:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
            • MF-Warburg, most of us aren't techno-geniuses who are instantly able to navigate poorly designed user interfaces. Many people, including many very intelligent people, even have troubles with some of the most basic functions in major OSs. Every additional click you require to reach a page is drastically lowering the likelihood that someone can find it. Let me outline the steps for you that make Incubator's current design awful and makes me angry:
            • 1: You go to http://incubator.wikimedia.org/ (what are the chances a person would even know to go to the incubator site in the first place? we don't exactly advertise it)
            • 2: You scroll down. You look for awhile. Unless you're looking for Kichwa, Ingush, Yucatec Maya or Tashelhit, you get confused and you look some more. Then you finally notice that there is a link to "incubating Wikis" (what does that even mean? yuck. poorest choice of link label ever!)
            • 3: You scroll through walls of text looking for your language. We're on at least the 3rd click by now. You must look through a long list of languages you probably don't even know are languages... how do you know you're even in the right place? Also, rather than sorting by project popularity, or putting the projects on separate pages, Wikibooks is first. THEN Wikinews. Then finally, our most popular project (by FAR), Wikipedia.
            • 4: It's probably been about 5 minutes already, you're getting bored of this searching. OK, whatever. Then you finally find your language. Let's pick the Central Morocco Tamazight test-WP, which has lots of speakers but is near the bottom of a VERY long list of test-Wikipedias.
            • 5: What's this? There are 5 different links to click. Chances are, you either didn't notice or you no longer remember what the column labels said, so you have no idea why there are 5, or what the difference is. So at this point, your chance of clicking the right link rather than just giving up is 1/5. Also, the most intuitive link to click, the language name + Wikipedia ("Central Morocco Tamazight Wikipedia", leads to the PROPOSAL on meta, not the test wiki!
            • 6: Somehow, you figure out which link is the right one to click. Even for the tech-savvy, this takes 6 clicks already and is somewhat of a nightmare. Then, once you click it, where do you land? Is it the main page of the test wiki? Please? NOPE! It is a stupid, pointless, totally useless "splash page" that serves no purpose to users, only to incubator admins and nobody else.
            • 7: If you made it to this point, you've probably used Incubator before when it was slightly more user friendly (you guys redesigned it to be even LESS usable, I didn't think that was possible but you surprised me!), or you're just very determined. Anyhow, thanks to people like Jose77 and Marrovi, there's a good chance that the page you do end up at if you find your language will be totally useless and worthless, possibly filled with fake writing that isn't actually in your language, or is suppposedly in your language but makes no sense at all. So even if you made it to this point, you'll still get discouraged and leave! --Node ue 05:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
              • Well, I don't think I'm a "techno-genius" myself, but I can't agree with everything you said -
              • 1. Unfortunately, Incubator is not really advertised, indeed, but this is also a difficult thing to do - "go to Incubator where you can contribute to 543random number, I don't know how many are there exactly wikis, maybe even in a language you know"? I think we mainly have to rely on word-of-mouth advertising by people who are already contributors; additionally, there's a link to the "development wiki project" on each request at Requests for new languages, if you get aware of it that way.
              • 2. So, if I really come to Incubator not the way that someone gave me the direct link to a test wiki there, that I however search one of which I know it exists, I scroll down and look for awhile. I read "Incubating wikis" (This is indeed a strange name, currently we are still using "test wiki" nearly everywhere else, and are reflecting on better names). Now, above Kichwa WP etc., there is "For a full list of wikis on Wikimedia Incubator, see: Incubator:Wikis" - a link I'd click. (The full list used to be on the main page, but this was recently changed, see incubator:Incubator:CP#Main_page).
              • 3. There's a table of contents where you can also click the Wikipedia section (the 2nd click now for me).
              • 4. I doubt the five minutes, whatever, can you think of a better solution than just listing all the tests we have?
              • 5. Indeed. However it won't harm to click any link there, as they more or less still lead you where you want to go (even the proposal on meta, as said above).
              • 6. We need this info page, which provides everyone with the relevant links and basic information. There is a link "enter the test" at the top-right of it, which leads you to its main page.
              • 7. Well, the most visible change is from my opinion the introduction of the info pages which aren't a great hurdle; we had the "horrible tables" on Template:Tests even before (they were much worse, as they also included a lot more unneeded links). I can't judge the content of test wikis of languages I don't know, but if you are aware of such issues, please address them on Incubator (to the users involved, or to "the community" in general), or the language committee (which also "verify test project content with a reliable neutral source, such as a professor or expert" before they fully approve a wiki).
              • It is to add that you are the first one to mention these things (at least to me). You might argue that people who would like to too can't because Incubator is too complicated, but adding a comment on Talk:Main Page (although it is misplaced there, it will be noticed) is something that even the most confused user can do.
              • We appreciate your input on incubator:Incubator:Community Portal or incubator:I:Feedback. --MF-W 14:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
                • And what part of "testing" do a wiki that has been existing for some years (like iu.wiki) need ? Amqui 23:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
                  • @Node_ue: although I do not like your tone, you provide some good feedback, which is more than welcome. I improved the incubator:Incubator:Wikis list so it is more intuitive, I hope. As for the order, it is alphabetically. Btw, I plan to make a kind of "language searcher" to more easily find test wikis. #Amqui: iuwiki doesn't need testing, it won't be closed. SPQRobin (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.