Talk:Proposals for closing projects

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

Order of second table[edit]

I think it would be a lot friendlier if the second table on this page was in reverse chronological order (newest on top). I know it is sortable, but it is just annoying to always have the old Xitsonga and Scots requests on top. Would this be sensible? This, that and the other (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection if you make this change. Unfortunately it seems that it's impossible to simple tell the software to sort according to the date (beh!) - though we might need to add a new column for the date of the closing of the request then. --MF-W 08:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I have now added a new column for that. It is however currently not showing up for whatever problem with the template. --MF-W 09:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
There, I fixed it. My proposal was to rearrange the rows into reverse chronological order by closure date: I will try this now. If it is not wanted, the edits can always be reverted. Thanks, This, that and the other (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I understood that that was your proposal; my additional idea to it was to add the closure date into the table as that is what determines the sorting order of the table (whether in chronological or reverse order).
Your fix works, though I wanted to make the parameter have no output at all for use in the table of open requests (where it's clear that there is no end date yet). --MF-W 10:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I tried to fix my fix, but I gave up... the template is too hard to repair :/ Sorry about this, I didn't see that the same template was used in both tables. This, that and the other (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)
IMHO content in the wrong language should always be deleted. --MF-W 22:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Maithili Wikipedia[edit]

I want to closed Maithili Wikipedia but, there is no article was created. Making of Incubator Wikimedia you can closed this new language Maithili Wikipedia. 12:01, 09 November 2014 (UTC)

It's no import in Mai wikipedia, so there is no article was created. It can't be closed. --Ricknator (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for new languages wikipedia. Create more articles after new languages has created. You can create 8 languages wikipedia incubator there is : Rinconada Bikol, Northern Luri, Goan Konkani, Dotyali, Ancient Greek, Silesian German, Talysh and South Azerbaijani. (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Reporting situation on Swedish Wikinews[edit]


I would like to report what is going on Swedish Wikinews.


Local users claim that the project is not active anymore and intend to close. They changed main page and added a sitenotice informing about the informal closure.

Despite the statement about inactivity seems to be true, the closure wasn't discussed on Meta and editing is still possible. I believe there is no real argument to close according to closing policy. I am reporting just for logging and in case somebody want to take any action, such as better guide local users on how to deal with inactivity. Regards.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 13:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Teles and MF-Warburg: I think that fighting the reality is pointless, the wiki needs to be migrated to Incubator and we move on. Having wikis sitting unattended, and being homes for spambots to create and edit, and for global renames to be attended to is wasteful. I think that there needs to be expectation that if the community abandons that it should be more quickly rolled into incubator. Within 6 months would seem appropriate, and not two years later where it is stagnating and ignored. We are taking process bureaucracy to far.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it's usually better to let wikis open if they are not extraordinary spam targets (and this wiki doesn't seem to be one), as spam nowadays is quite well-managed with global sysops, global filters, global blocks etc. Global renames also are not more difficult if one wiki more or less is open. On the contrary, it is much easier for users to restart activity in a wiki if it has an own subdomain, as opposed to a test-wiki on Incubator. --MF-W 00:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Stagnated proposals[edit]

Hi. Can we have some maintenance on the requests opened on 2013 and 2014? I think that they've been opened for long enough. Thanks. -- MarcoAurelio 02:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Request / proposal for RE-open of Sindhi Wikinews[edit]

I would request to reopen the Wikinews , I'll bring life in it and update it, previouslly some one(User:Kanzler31) said that local community is informed and some one replied that local community is informed but his statement is without sound proof that the local Sindhi Wikipedians local community have been informed or not, I ask that honorable User to give me sound proof of it, and I would suggest that this Wiki should be give life again so it should be reopened And I may be given admin (sysop) rights for Sindhi Wikinews so I could perform all its technical and other tasks, I shall try to convince Sindhi users to it, expecting positive and dignified role from you,, Thanks.........

Proposals for closing projects-Move Beta Wikiversity to Incubator[edit]


Could someone act upon this conversation and close the proposal?

Once closed, I will draft a new one as agreed among the people who participated in the conversation.

I understand it must be closed by a member of the Language Committee. If we can close it ourselves, let us know and we will do that so that we can start the fresh conversation.

Regards, Lsanabria (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Any words or advise on this? Can we close it ourselves and open a new one? Regards, Lsanabria (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

azb wiki is Unclear[edit]

azb wiki articles are Unclear and unmeaning for 99% of south azerbayjani speakers. many of articles are writen in north azerbayjani or turkish or even ottoman turkish and we dont could understand them. how we could change or if no close this --Alp Er Tunqa (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you show statistics for your claim of azb wiki being unclear for 99% of the speakers, because if its unclear and written in other languages then how can you and these users[1] use and edit articles and join discussions on azb wiki?! The Use of references which are written in south azerbaijani (such as this articles reference) shows what language azb wiki is. --Ilğım (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Moldovan Wikipedia[edit]

I'd like to ask why the Moldovan Wikipedia is still opened, ignoring the fact that it was voted to be closed ten years ago. --Sergii-rachmonov (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Where do you see it open? --MF-W 09:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe he means why the deletion request page is still open. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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

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)
Some of the proposals are closed, Lsanabria. I guess best to wait for another while. --George Ho (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@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)