Talk:Proposals for new projects

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Mass closure[edit]

Being bold I have closed many proposals as rejected following years (in one case a decade!) of discussion, all of which was moribund. If someone feels like any of these should be re-opened, please revert me. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--GZWDer (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question bank[edit]

Hello! I was not aware about new projects. But when I was searching for question related project of wiki, I reached here. I want to know about any question bank or quiz related project, if we have. If we don't have so can we open this kind of sister project or portal in wikipedia? Thank you. NehalDaveND (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quizzes are available on some Wikiversities. Many similar proposals exist, for instance: WikiQuiz, WikiTrivia, Category:Proposed projects - Q&A. --Nemo 15:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marking the page historical?[edit]

Let us be honest with ourselves - there is no process which can adopt any of these projects, and those which are marked rejected are only marked because of some individual decisions of some contributors (which may or may not be based on some prior discussions involving an arbitrary number of users). Attempts were made three (?) years ago to start this process, and these attempts are stale. In the Wiki-universe this means that the process will never be started and will never be in place. This conclusion must be properly reflected on the page, which currently gives a false impressions that new proposals will be reviewed and, in case of a positive review, will be adopted by WMF as sister projects.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ymblanter: The solution is to mark most of these as closed and then make a change to the page that says that new proposals which have no substantial activities after three months of being posted are closed. That would just leave WikiJournal, the proposal to adopt DMOZ, and the Non-Free Wiki, which are frankly, the only live options in any measure. I really don't see much prospect for a new project anyway. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But even if those three are left, I just do not see how they could be adopted. Of the last two projects which WMF adopted, Wikivoyage and Wikidata, Wikidata has not been to this page at all, and Wikivoyage was added to this page after WMF agreed to adopt this, but they decided to also secure a community support. All these three projects are here long enough, and nothing happens, meaning in my experience nothing would ever happen.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, there is substantial community support for WikiJournal becoming independent of Wikiversity (I personally would prefer it not be but I'm definitely in the minority). Whether that will happen, when, and if this page had any impact are all open questions. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, I do not think that this page has any impact on the decision. I guess for adoption there must be a good proposal sent to someone so that it can eventually make it to the Board. There is no mechanism anything from this page can make it to the Board.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People will keep proposing their ideas anyway, so maybe this page at least avoids a worse chaos. --Nemo 19:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would rather the page be updated to reflect that new projects don't come to fruition from this page, right now it reads like the proposals might be picked up. Change it to a wishlist page. Nothing wrong with that existing on a meta wiki, it's exactly the place for it. Supertrinko (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

wikibiography[edit]

hi please add my request to to page wiki biography site wikibiography.org example en.wikibiography.org many people have article on Wikipedia example messi but not videos of goals interviews pictures Documentarys books storys and more

Closing WikiFood as stale[edit]

I noticed that the list counter was false and the page was created 10 years ago. This is probably slightly early to close it. If you have any objections, please discuss them either here or at WikiFood#Conclusion. AnotherEditor144 t - c 07:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Create Wikipedia Palembang[edit]

Please create a Palembang Language Wikipedia and make me the admin--Ummu Afif (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiSports was rejected, should it be stale?[edit]

I went looking to see if there were any sports proposals, and found WikiSports, it's been marked rejected because it hasn't had a response in 4 years. Shouldn't it therefore be marked "Stale (could be re-opened)"?

I see the project didn't really have any actual proposal behind it, and I was considering making such a proposal. Would anyone have an issue if I changed this one to stale, and then re-opened it once I've had time to come up with a decent proposal? Supertrinko (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I decided to be bold and change WikiSports from rejected to stale. It was never rejected because the initial proposer didn't really give a detailed proposal for people to respond to. No one responded and it was rightfully closed. To me that qualifies as stale (if something that never really started can go stale). At some point I will design a proposal for this and re-open it for actual discussion, as I think it has potential. If there's an issue with this, happy to discuss. Supertrinko (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further to this, I've expanded the WikiSports proposal into an actual proposal and re-opened it. Supertrinko (talk) 03:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wednesday July 28: Wikispore Day Unconference[edit]

Wikispore Day 0, the picnic that partially inspired Wikispore.
Wikispore Day 1, last year

The second anniversary of Wikispore Day, observed on July 28, 2020, marks twenty-four months from the conceptual sprouting of the Wikispore idea from the Strategy Wiknic in NYC, which was held on July 14, 2019.

You are invited to participate in a virtual unconference for this year!

Wednesday July 28:

  • 12:002:00 pm (New York City time)
  • (16:00–18:00 UTC/GMT, 18:00–20:00 Berlin)
  • Social Hour

Since Wikispore is probably the only Wikimedia project to be born at a picnic, you are encouraged to participate from a socially-distanced green space outdooors if possible.

Why is "WikiVoice" using the Look'n'Feel of the Wkipedia Brand?[edit]

Hi,

checking some names for an idea I discovered a quite obscure website called WikiVoice. Having no imprint this "love project" looks quite suspicious. Where do we solve such cases? --Jensbest (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why don't make new proposals as subpages of this page, rather than a page?[edit]

I think we should make new proposals as subpages of this page, rather than a page, because it would be easier to coordinate and have a more formal request. The request period is like 30 days, with what's the project about, Wikispore/demo link, and another extension/MediaWiki improvement. Then we would have a discussion, and after 30 days there is consensus to do so, the WMF would say to other com-tech team and other teams to create the new project. Thingofme (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That sounds fine Thingofme -- how would that make coordination easier than having a shared category? It would just take redirecting existing and new proposals to the proper name. Perhaps just Proposals/project name -- currently proposals redirects to Proposals for new projects, but that could be reversed to leave a shorter parent-page. –SJ talk  19:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jorge Domingues Lopes not sure, if Wt/kgk is a serious proposal, but if so, it should be added at Proposals for new projects#New projects. -- Johannnes89 (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's probably a misplaced request for a new language. --MF-W 18:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Time format[edit]

Is there a reason for timestamps to be written in d-M-Y (e.g. 15-Feb-2024) format? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 08:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose not. yyyy-mm-dd would be preferable. But more ideally, aren't there date templates that set the date based on the user's localisation? Supertrinko (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should there be a fourth category for broken/incomprehensible proposals?[edit]

Recently I closed Wikilawsuits as basically incomprehensible and categorized it as “procedurally closed”. But procedural closure is for redundant, not malformed, proposals. The same thing with Fanonpedia— it was basically a w:wp:SNOW reject. 1980s Wikipedia also counts as “broken” because it’s a gag proposal. Should there be a close category of “broken proposal” for these cases? Dronebogus (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think so: "This is nonsense, so we can't discuss it in principle" or "This was a joke, not even an actual proposal, so we aren't going to discuss it" seem like valid ways of "closing by procedure". —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should I expand the definition on the main page to include “jokes, trolling, and patent nonsense”? Dronebogus (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems sensible to me. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From the Board of Trustees[edit]

Hello all,

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees (Board) is aware that the discussions about new Wikimedia projects through this process have stalled over the last decade, particularly due to the lack of a clear process to make a decision. There have been a few notable exceptions (Wikidata, Wikifunctions, Abstract Wikipedia) that have been approved anyway through other processes - we would like these to indeed be exceptions, and to have a clear process through which proposals will be reviewed.

Improving the new project process has long been overdue, and the Community Affairs Committee (CAC) of the Board has begun reviewing and refining the process as part of its charter. Defining what is a successful project for the Wikimedia community is a particularly important part of this process - we need to make sure that any newly approved project is set up for success, and has the resources it needs to function well. This is a complex problem to consider. We hope to come back to this page soon to report our initial thoughts on the matter.

In the meantime we want to encourage you to post your thoughts here on this talk page. In particular, how would you define success for a project; what metrics need to be considered; how would you define failure; how to decide when a project should be closed down or merged; and what could Wikimedia Foundation best do to support this process? We would really appreciate your honest, and constructive, input. We will be seeking voluntary advisory members to the Sister Project Task Force appointed by the CAC in the near future. Victoria (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Really appreciate the update. Some of the projects suggested here would make valuable contributions to Wikimedia's goals of free and open access to information. Many have only stalled because there is no clear path to progressing.
How would you define success for a project:
An active userbase, an effective moderation team, and valuable information that has a clear advantage in being its own project, rather than being part of another sister project.
How would you define failure:
I think we should be very loose here. If a wiki simply isn't very active, but the information on it is valuable, then it's not necessarily a failure, it's just static. What constitutes failure would be a clear inability for the wiki to moderate itself. If it's overtaken by "malicious editors" and the resources available on it aren't taking care of that, then the existence of the wiki being supported by Wikimedia could do more damage than good. In that case, it needs to be closed or merged.
What could Wikimedia Foundation best do to support this process?
Something like WikiSpore is a fantastic suggestion on how we could really support this process. Let people start up whatever test wikis they want. With a clear disclaimer that the wiki is not an official Wikimedia project. Let people build, and where we see useful or active projects that are doing well, pluck these and "graduate" them into full sister projects. By creating a test bed for actual wikis, you'll give people the tools they need to develop great ideas that we might otherwise never have become aware of.
Looking forward to seeing what you come up with in future. ElDubs (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiUnicode proposal[edit]

I am requesting a wiki called WikiUnicode. It will be a wiki on Unicode characters. HHSharkBoyBackup4 (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]