Talk:Inactive wikis

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hi, has anyone tried to aggregate the Recent Changes RSS/Atom feeds as a tool for monitoring "inactive"/barely active/infrequently edited Wikipedias? Also, do we have some statistics on the amount or frequency of spamming across the board for these projects? A-giâu 18:58, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think both are good questions. I would like to know about them, too.

I just wanted to offer what I knew about Japanese Wikipedia. It was one of the earliest non-English Wikipedias. One and a half years later, there were only 10 registered users & 10 articles or so. There was some obscene vandalism at some point (did not remain forever, of course). Things started rolling only after a press coverage by Wired News (of English Wikipedia). The article was translated into Japanese and released through Wired Japan's web site.

If there aren't many people who cares that particular language, it may not grow that easily. So closing some small wiki is not a bad idea. But my idea is based only on Japanese Wikipedia, so I don't know how other language-projects gained momentum. It would be interesting to know.

Tomos 20:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Tomos, Almost none of the languages we have today were sparked by a similar press release. It seems that in fact *most* Wikipedias were started by a single person or two people, a dozen by three, and only a handful by four or more. So basically, every Wikipedia has a "jumping off point", and some of them you expect will take off, but then they don't, or you think they're dead but they have a sudden growth. --Node ue 05:13, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would like to remove the part about wasting time. I do not feel this is a waste of MY time, for one, and find it highly offensive that Angela should presume to speak for me. I have no problem and no lack of time for these activities. I am not employed nor am I a full-time student, and have at least 6 hours on the average day to donate to either this or to something much less useful. --Node ue 05:09, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Node what do you want ? You reverted three times.[edit]

Mark,
You have removed a lot of information about marginal wikipedia's because you are of the opinion that they show activity. Some of them like the Nauruan are edited by people who need a book to learn about the grammar while adding content to the wikipedia that is to be a resource about this language.

What on earht do you mean do you mean, "you are of the opinion that they show activity"? LOOK AT RC ON NA.WIKIPEDIA!!! Even if the Nauruan used there isn't "proper" Nauruan, it is no longer squatted, and it's most definitely NOT inactive, thus its removal from this page (the same has been done in the past for other Wikipedias which have suddenly become active). If you still have a problem with the Nauruan Wikipedia, you could've updated your nomination, but even then this is not the appropriate place to discuss such a problem (how many other Wikis are there written mostly by people with poor language skills? many). As you have sneered at me many times in the past, the point of locking inactive Wikipedias is to prevent squatting or vandalism. With the current level of activity, there is NO way that somebody can squat or vandalise this Wikipedia without being reverted within 24 hours by a regular user (this is based on active registered users and the actual level of activity; vandalism would still be reverted promptly by myself: see SWMT but so far I haven't removed candidates with that as tjhe sole basis because obviously many people believe I shouldn't be trusted with vandalism cleanup and for that reason Angela still checks every single Wikipedia on a monthly basis), the Nauruan used NOW is most definitely not "false" even if it uses bad grammar, and perhaps you should create a new page Possibly bad grammar wikis so people can post claims there, this is ONLY for inactivE Wikipedias which that is NOT.

You are a "warrior" for all these languages and you do your utmost to defend their right to have their place under the wikipedia sun. That is all well and good, but you know that your opinions on this differ markedly from the generally held opinions. Your suggestion that others deleted stuff is a bit rich given your POV. I also remind you that you have reverted several times and are therefore in breach of the 3R rule. GerardM 22:32, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1) Others have deleted stuff. Did you notice how many times YOU and ELIAN deleted MY opinions regarding Lojban, Klingon, and Syriac? 2) There has still not been a poll about inactive Wikipedias, and anyhow that is a moot point now as ba: was unlocked and the problem is being dealt with right now in another way (monitoring all low-activity Wikipedias; if you really want I can start one for all Wiktionaries too), so whether or not people agree doesn't matter a lot. 3) The 3RR doesn't apply on Meta. Sure, I have reverted more than 3 times, but there is no rule about that on Meta. --Node ue 23:32, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and I highly object to you using my real name! Oh noes everybody can see it now it is private information even though I give it out on the mailinglist and anybody can know it easily!!! It isnt your place to reveal it oh my gosh!!! Whatever shall I do1!?!?!?!1111 --Node ue 23:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

.[edit]

  • na:. Thought to be squatted; the word Nauruose only exists within wikimedia context :( - [User:GerardM|GerardM]]
w:en:User:CdaMVvWgS is active on this wikipedia, asked him for clarification. NB this is a group of people from Basel, Switserland. GerardM 18:50, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"All people who contribute to this wikipedia do NOT know the language well. None of them know the grammar of the language. So if active, it is on probation. GerardM 14:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It should be noted that, while the former text there was not real Nauruan, the current text *is* Nauruan, although I do not know whether or not it is grammatical. Therefore, it is no longer being squatted and I feel this should be noted here so people don't just get Mr Meijssen's skewed descriptions. --Node ue 05:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The Nauruan Wikipedia is now active. With the help of w:en:User:Belgian man and the help of a very rare nauruan grammar book containing about 250 pages which I got recently, I shall be able to create some articles. By the way, "Nauruose" is a false creation by somebody unknown. The real and true translation of "Nauruan language" in Nauruan is Ekakairũ Naoero (if somebody can change the also-false "Nauri" in the interwiki links, please do so as soon as possible!). Thank you and Greetings. -- w:en:User:CdaMVvWgS 15:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Now the na:wiki is active, every day there are edits, I am now an admin there, and the language is correct. Belgian man 17:17, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Locked inactive wikis[edit]

'moved from Requests for permissions since stewards can no longer do this

  • za wikiquote, za wiktionary, za wikibooks 30 day without any edit, also without create any page --Shizhao 13:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Have any of those ever been vandalised? If not, is there another reason they need to be locked?? Node ue 08:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • csb.wiktionary should be locked - it has only one page (the Main Page), the interface isn't translated. Since that wiktionary has never taken off, some months ago I put a note on the Main Page of that Wiktionary stating that the csb.wikt can be developed within the Polish wiktionary (100% of Cassubians speak Polish) and it does work - the Cassubian content in PL.wikt is growing and the cooperation is going smoothly. CSB people have hardly the human resources to work on the csb.wikipedia, not to mention wiktionary. CSB.wikt Main Page, apart from the invitation to PL.wikt, states clearly that if you are willing to work on this project, remove this notice. Noone has done it for months, the Wiki is empty. The situation is stable: ppl work on the CSB content within PL.wikt and/or CSB.wiki. I suggest thus that csb.wiktionary gets locked. / tsca 11:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Have any of those ever been vandalised? If not, is there another reason they need to be locked?? Node ue 08:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Just wanted to inform everyone, that stewards at the moment can not lock inactive wikis, since after the upgrade to 1.5 the way of locking databases has been changed. Any requests can be left here, but they won't get fulfilled until this issue has been solved. Datrio 11:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Termination history[edit]

Is there any log available about this inactive wiki termination? Borgx 04:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Questioning the need for this page[edit]

I am aware that some vandals with too much time on their hands and a desperate need to simply vandalize something will run to these projects, but I would also like to point out that even for vandal attacks these are seldom visited sites. While I might have questioned the need to start these projects, the fact is that they have been started, and I've seen over the past year or so many of these "inactive projects" simply take off. The most notable to me is the Macedonian Wikibooks project, which has grown from just a handful of pages to now over 1000 pages of meaningful content (and currently #11 for all Wikibooks projects).

Certainly what we don't want to do is stop contributors from doing exactly that sort of success, or throw up roadblocks to keep legitamate users from adding responsible content.

I also don't see any sort of standard being applied to naming any particular project for freezing, other than a very subjective view that it isn't "active". What does that mean? What does "it doesn't have a community" mean? --Roberth 11:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Archive the current page?[edit]

Since the current page mainly contains wikis which were inactive four years ago, this page should be archived and restarted, so people can list wikis which are currently inactive. -- Prince Kassad 21:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Concur. --Aphaia 11:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 12:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)