Jump to content

Talk:Proposals for closing projects

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 12 days ago by 2601:644:907E:A450:B4AE:2B3F:293E:B126 in topic Parentheses

Sotho Wiktionary[edit]

I just got informed that Sotho Wiktionary is entirely written in English and contains no Sotho content at all. I am not entirely sure how to handle this case. I think it's clear that content that's not in the target language is not useful. Now, what should be done? Should all pages be deleted and the then empty wiki nominated for closure? Or should the wiki be nominated for closure now with the English-language content intact?

I asked around on English Wiktionary if they have any use for the pages from Sotho Wiktionary. It seems they don't want them due to quality concerns. -- Liliana 10:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Normally you would propose it for closure before deleting any content; that way, we can see just how bad it really is! This, that and the other (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
IMHO content in the wrong language should always be deleted. --MF-W 22:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Strange proposal[edit]

Apparently, Pitpisit is trying to start a new proposal for closing Norwegian Wikinews (they posted a link to a newly created page Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Norwegian Wikinews 3 to my discussion page in German-language Wikipedia, probably because I was involved in Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Norwegian Wikinews 2). However, this new "proposal" currently looks very strange / incomplete. Pitpisit just copied the 2013 proposal into it, including the rejection decision, and replaced the closing Langcom member's MF-Warburg's signature with their own. As they're trying to start a new closure proposal by appropriating the rejection statement of all things, I suspect a language barrier here (most of Pitpisit's contributions are in non-English projects); anyway, I would suggest deleting that page if no actual new proposal is created. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I deleted the page. --MF-W 00:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Older ongoing proposals[edit]

Some of the proposals needs to be closed, including the oldest one, Proposals for closing projects/Move Beta Wikiversity to Incubator. We can't continue ones that are ongoing for three or four years and that are lacking consensus or receiving major opposition. --George Ho (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Pinging SPQRobin, Millosh, and MF-Warburg. --George Ho (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, please close that proposal. It was clear from the last conversation there that there is no consensus to close it and the project has become more active recently. Regards, Lsanabria (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Some of the proposals are closed, Lsanabria. I guess best to wait for another while. --George Ho (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@George Ho: I was referring specifically to Proposals for closing projects/Move Beta Wikiversity to Incubator. But it is fine to wait. It is more than 3 years old anyway. A few extra days won't be an issue. Regards, Lsanabria (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

My withdrawn proposals are not listed[edit]

On August 26 I made two proposals: one for the deletion of Simple English Wikiquote and Wikibooks and the other for the closure of Uzbek Wikiquote. Today I withdrew both proposals, but these withdrawn proposals are not listed in the closed proposals. Please add them. Agusbou2015 (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

My apologies. I had two copies of the page open when I was marking things up, and guess I saved the wrong one. Now corrected. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

My recent withdrawn proposals are not listed[edit]

I withdrew my proposals for closure of Papiamentu, Tajik and Turkmen Wikipedias, as well as Tajik and Turkmen Wiktionaries. Please close the discussion of my latest proposals and list them under the closed proposals. --Agusbou2015 (talk) 13:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Agusbou2015: I will do that for these five proposals. However, I note that you have made and then withdrawn seven such proposals in the last six weeks or so. These proposals did not meet the policy for closing projects whatsoever, and I would have been well within guidelines to delete the proposals as invalid, rather than closing them as withdrawn. So please be advised: if you make any more proposals to close projects, they will be deleted as invalid (rather than closed as withdrawn) unless you can give a very good reason for the proposal. (And keep in mind that outside the extremely exceptional situations around the Moldovan and Alemannisch projects, no project has been closed since July 2013. A project's condition must be severe in order to justify our closing it. It is very, very unusual these days for projects to be that problematic.) StevenJ81 (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
I propose to delete these frivolous proposals and to remove them from the list. It makes this whole process look like a joke and troll playground. --MF-W 22:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
I proposed to warn, but if you want to delete those that no one else responded to, it's fine with me. StevenJ81 (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
The two proposals from August and the first from October had material discussion that needs to be retained, so they will be retained. The other four from October will be deleted. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Soft close[edit]

What is it? The term is not mentioned here nor on Closing projects policy. --bdijkstra (talk) 08:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

bdijkstra, good question. One place where it is described pretty well, including the motivation to have it as a distinct approach, is Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Finnish Wikinews#Soft close.
— Luchesar • T/C 09:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I've added a line on the policy page. --bdijkstra (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
That's a good idea, I guess, but since we're speaking about an official policy, it would be best to have this discussed, at least to make sure that the text does reflect the LangCom's actual policy correctly. In particular, the statement “all pages are protected” may not be entirely correct (AFAIK, the only change is the replaced front page, nothing else). Steven, what would you say?
— Luchesar • T/C 10:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
I've added some nuance for now. On elwikinews I observed that most mainspace pages are protected, but perhaps that is not part of the soft close action? --bdijkstra (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Tbh "soft closes" are outside of this policy, they are just a more or less serious warning that the project is outdated. --MF-W 15:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Regardless, the term should be explained somewhere. --bdijkstra (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
But it makes it hard to remove inactive admins from sites like svwikinews, per AAR, since they have their own activity policy. --Rschen7754 22:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
What policy do they have? O_O --MF-W 23:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
See [1]. Because it's not formally closed the rights can't be removed under CPP. --Rschen7754 23:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that makes sense. But how absurd regarding "normal" removal after 2-year inactivity. --MF-W 19:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'll see to a proper explanation. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

My understanding is that "soft closure" is easier to bring about than actual project closure (because they're perceived officially as less extreme), and at the same time less likely to be reversed (because they're essentially an invitation to go away). --Pi zero (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Deindexing a site[edit]

If I think a closed site should be de-indexed from search engines is this the proper forum to propose that? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Barkeep49 Hello, right now, it's not easy to change that. __NOINDEX__ and __INDEX__ doesn't work in the main namespace (and even if it did, one would have to insert it everywhere). A wiki community can change (or - if there's a valid reason - even deindex the whole main namespace), however, closed wikis have no such community. I think the correct way forward would be to start a global RfC, deciding that all closed projects are de-indexed. Best, Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Navajo Wikipedia[edit]

This proposal was created yesterday by a globally locked user without adding it to Proposals for closing projects#Open requests. It should be speedily closed in my opinion as it's clearly nonsense. @Masti fyi as you blocked the user. -- Johannnes89 (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I deleted it. --MF-W 21:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Merging Srbpski, Srpskohrvatski and Hrvatski wikipedia[edit]

Serbian and Croatian are too simillar and are the same language so the wikipedias should be merged. 12:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Article has grammatical error[edit]

I'd fix this myself but I'm not established enough yet here. The article has the following sentence (underlining added by me for emphasis):

• No users fluent in the wiki's language is active and the wiki's content is not coherent (example).

Note the lack of subject-verb agreement in the underlined words.

I suggest changing "is" into "are" or (less preferably) changing "users" to "user" — either would fix the problem.

Carney333 (talk) 05:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply


Why do some subsequent PCPs have their number in parentheses, while others just have the number without parentheses? 2601:644:907E:A450:DC8E:E069:FAA3:40C5 17:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

It means there are more than one request for the same wiki. Stryn (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I know that's what the number means, but why do some have parentheses and some don't? It makes it harder to find them or link to them. 2601:644:907E:A450:B4AE:2B3F:293E:B126 17:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply