Incubator:Requests for deletions/Requests

Requests edit

Wp/odt, Wt/odt and Wp/dum edit

Believe me, this hurts! I love the older stages of my native language.

But we can't keep them, per language policy, and for the obvious reason that these projects haven't gained momentum. Old Dutch is very scantily transmitted, you'd have to reconstruct just too many words to even write a lemma about medieval things. It also has far fewer proficient readers than Old English. Middle Dutch does have a rich literature in all genres from religion to accountancy, and (in its written form) is much more different from modern Dutch than Middle English is from modern English, but again, a Wikipedia in it would violate policy and would probably never be succesful. And it, too, might attract nonsense edits. Steinbach (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak keep: On a first glance, the quality looks relatively well, so I wouldn't mind keeping them here. In case, the community decides otherwise, I will gladly export it to Incubator Plus as it would be a shame to see what little is there being deleted. --OWTB (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not commenting on their quality (btw wasn't it you who created both of them years ago). I'm just saying: why keep them here if there is absolutely no chance that they will ever be approved? Steinbach (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have only created the main pages to accompany any pre-existing subpages. The reason for not deleting them is that, while there is no chance for a subdomain, they are according to our policy valid, as they have an ISO-code. Deleting good contents is always unnecessary. As I'm more or less neutral to keeping them (and Wt/odt?) here, I am always willing to export them to Incubator Plus. --OWTB (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OWTB, I'd love to also mention Wt/odt in this section as it looks also badly contributed. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regareless, delete both, having bad quality articles that are wrongly maintained. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In case of deletion, please let me know, and I'll transfer them to Incubator Plus. --OWTB (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ooswesthoesbes I don't think they need to be exported since they are possibly copyvio pages. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Old Dutch (odt) tests don't look like they are copyvio pages though. The Middle Dutch (dum) do look more suspicious. --OWTB (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wt/cu edit

Very small pages, test main page is a copy from cu:главьна страница, there is a Сѥ ѥстъ мъногоѩꙁꙑчьна отврьста єнкѷклопєдїꙗ · ѭжє къжьдо можєтъ иꙁмѣнꙗти ⁙ Википєдїꙗ пьсана [[||Словѣньскъ ѩꙁꙑкъ|словѣньскꙑимь ѩꙁꙑкомь]] начѧта ѥстъ їоунїꙗ 2006 лѣта Дьньсь Википєдїи 4 члѣни сѫтъ text (no difference from wikipedia), some english text in, unactive wiki. 17:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, This is the Wiktionary Old church Slavonic LOLI'mfriggin silly (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Inactivity itself shouldn't be a valid reason for deletion. Some pages aren't that small - Wt/cu/бесада, Wt/cu/бесѣда, Wt/cu/боукꙑ. A little number of English words and copied content could be fixed using a dictionary. --Wolverène (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Fixed. Not sure about the accusative form of "Викиаꙁъбоукъвьникъ" - either unchanged or "Викиаꙁъбоукъвьника". --Wolverène (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • KEEP no valid reason to delete was expressed. -Gifnk dlm 2020 Happy New Year 🎄❄️⛄️🎇 (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Due to Wp/orv success, I don't think there are no valid reason to delete this test project. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I didn’t say there are no valid reasons, I said that no valid reason were epxreseed. Change my mind. Anyways, I understand that Wp/omv was deleted because it was not written from a neautral point of view. -Gifnk dlm 2020 From Middle English Wikipedia 📜📖💻 (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete Has only contents that are propagandas rather than seriously contributed dictionary pages. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • May I learn more which pages can be considered as propaganda? Of course since it is written in a historical language now used as liturgical by the Church it may not be potentially 100% neutral in this field... or do you mean governmental propaganda? I looked at the Main Page and did not read anything special. --Wolverène (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Just see why Wp/orv was deleted, where I provided the link above, as said by an admin at I:AN, for projects listed at Category:Incubator:Test_wikis/code/history, They will eventually be deleted. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete Extinct language. 2A02:4780:1:17:0:0:0:E 20:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Provisional keep. Old Church Slavonic was a literary language invented in the 9th century by Cyril and Methodius. There sources describing Old Church Slavonic as an artificial language: [1]. On the face of those sources, Old Church Slavonic should be treated as an artificial language for the purpose of the language proposal policy. The language proposal policy allows artificial languages: meta:Language proposal policy. Therefore the language proposal policy allows Old Church Slavonic. Unless there is something wrong with the quality of the content, this test wiki should be kept. James500 (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @James500 That's only true if an artifical language is living artifical, where cu isn't. Living language requirement is having higher priority than artifical one. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep, there is no good reason to delete a project created in a living language and having meaningful content. Таёжный лес (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Таёжный лес living? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, the Church Slavonic language is still used in the religious sphere. Таёжный лес (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Таёжный лес Then please send a request to SIL to change its language type to Living instead of currently Ancient, otherwise non of new contents are allowed to create. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wp/tpn and Wp/tpw edit

Per I:AN#Unable to create a page, both Tupinambá and Old Tupí are extinct languages, so having both test projects violate LPP, there's another living language Nheengatu to which modern Tupi peoples speak and write (see Wp/yrl), so there's nothing beneficial for me to still maintain two extinct coded projects. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Considering that these pages are for the same language, there's any way to move it into Incubator Plus 2.0? There are some indigenous groups attempting to revive Old Tupi, so it might be useful to have something there. Erick Soares3 (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, if you want to, you may use Special:Export, then use Incubator Plus's Special:Import (ask their administrators if you saw permission errors). Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's always possible. If you want anything exported, give me a sign. --OWTB (talk) 08:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Take a note that a request for tpw.wikipedia is now rejected, so personally both projects can go to Incubator Plus now (if contributors are still thinking they are useful). Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wp/jat edit

Per w:en:Special:Diff/1121838578, it's suspected (at least by @Uanfala) that pages in this test project aren't written in Inku (aka Jakati, which iso639-3:jat points to), probably a linguist in the affected region should join here to discuss whether their suspect is true. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Example text in Inku language is same as Jatki language. The code Jat was initially fir Jatki languge. In the article of Inku it is clearly written that the language belong to Punjab pronvice of Pakistan.
This wikipedia is written in Jatki language. So, this wikipedia should not be deleted. Otherwise a large no of written material may be destroyed. So it should be continued. Sraiki (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, there used to be serious confusion about which exact language was denoted by the ISO code "jat". See the commentary in the Glottolog entry [2]. This appears to have largely been resolved now, with both Glottolog and Ethnologue using that code for Inku, the language of a few small itinerant groups of Afghanistan that was probably never written and that may well be extinct by now. The name "Jakati" [sic], surprisingly still visible in the ISO 639-3 code tables [3], is almost certainly erroneous. The similar name "Jatki" appears never to have been used for Inku, but was historically common for a number of related languages of Pakistani Punjab (see en:Jatki language), most notably for what is nowadays known as Saraiki, a language with millions of speakers, a solid written tradition, and a Wikipedia of its own. Now, I don't speak any of those languages, so I can't know for sure. My hunch is that those incubator articles about places in Punjab that appear to use what looks to me like Saraiki orthography, are unlikely to be written in a possibly extinct language of Afghanistan. User:Sraiki, maybe you can help us here: what exact language have you written those articles in? where is it spoken? by how many people? Uanfala (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These articles are written the language, which is known Jatki. It is mainly spoken in Bar region . It is called Jatki in the region. It is spoken by more than 50% population of that region. The population of Jatki is more than 10 M. In all old documents it is Jatki.This language is entirely different from Saraiki and Punjabi. See this for more details, .This language is also called en:Shahpuri dialect and en:Jhangvi dialect. This Jatki was also called en:Lahnda in old litrature whose Iso code is lah. As there is no current ISO code for Jhangvi and Shahpuri, I used Iso code of Jatki, because jat is code for Jatki and Jatki is mainly used for these dialects. See also This book is about Jatki language. Sraiki (talk) 12:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sraiki, Engr.ismailbhutta "I used Iso code of Jatki"? The problem is that iso639-3:jat page says Jakati, not Jatki, I'd say that this is an issue that should be resolved, or else it would be ultra-unfair for Inku/Jakati speakers (if any), as there are two cases the existing Wikipedias were occupied (good to say so?) codes for other unrelated languages (nrmwiki, says Norman Wikipedia but code is for Narom, and Wikipedia 10, which code is for Tama), and at least I really don't want it to be happened 3rd times and more. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would support the merger of this incubator with existing pnb Wikipedia if possible. The Jatki dialect is widely understood by speakers of other dialects—for example, it is the dialect of Toba Tek Singh District where my family is from. My family are Doabi speakers (an eastern dialect) but many of the words we use overlap with Jatki due to two centuries having passed since my family left eastern Punjab. The Shahmukhi Punjabi Wikipedia already has very few active contributors, and see this energy focused there instead would be most welcome. Any differences that make a given dialect distinctive could also be applied to any other, making it less clear what is left as non-dialectal Punjabi. What is called the “standard” dialect (Majhi) is much more loose of a definition than that of other languages—the language, especially as it is used in Pakistan, has never had a single register which can truly be considered the “main” one due to its lack of official status and use in primarily colloquial contexts. In John Beames's comparative grammar of the northern Indic languages, he reckoned that Punjabi likely has the most dialect variation within the language out of all the major ones for lack of a standard written register. I would say that in line with that, it is perfectly fine for pnb Wikipedia to include articles written in a variety of dialects, and in fact should be expected if the project is meant to represent Punjabi as a whole as it is used in Pakistan. عُثمان (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk) Jatki is well known language in Pakistan which is spoken in 11 districts (Jhang, Chiniot, Toba Tek Singh, Sargodha, Khushab, Sahiwal, Pakpattan, Okara, Bahawalnagar, Vehari and Khanewal districts) of bar region of Punjab province over the area of 49,121 km². The population of Jatki language speaking areas is 26,374,221 according to census 2017 which is more than 50% jatki speaking and others are settlers from India on partition and other parts of Pakistan but they are not locals. The main,local and ancient language of bar region is jatki which has very rich literature and culture. My forefathers migrated from bar region to Saraiki region but the term "inko" is new for me and the people of bar region because their language is Jatki. So I endorse the comments of Mr Sraiki and I request to carry on the Wikipedia project for jatki language to save its literature and culture, regards. Ismail Bhutta 14:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

OK, I see. So Jatki, the language variety that both Sraiki and Ismail Bhutta refer to above, is one that doesn't have a dedicated ISO code. It is intermediate between pnb ("Western Punjabi" as used by the SIL) and skr (Saraiki). It is one of the many varieties that fall under the scope of the macrolanguage lah (Lahnda), but I don't think the code [lah] can be re-appropriated specifically for this variety. The code [jat] can't be used either, as that presently refers to the Inku language of Afghanistan (there has been confusion around that code before, but never to my knowledge has it been used for a language of Pakistan). The only way forward that I can see is to come up with a new Wikimedia-specific language code and then move the test wikipedia accordingly. I don't know how exactly Incubator works, so someone more knowledgeable could take up this task? Uanfala (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In such cases, the new codes should be a part of SIL's code change requests, probably ask @Amire80: on the details? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wp/juc edit

iso639-3:juc is currently classified this language as Extinct, therefore having an Incubator test project violates LPP, as the Jurchen people (if even having elders) are nowadays shifted to speak Manchu (even though have low numbers of native speakers), I don't see why such finger-counted pages are having benefits here. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After reading Liuxinyu970226's request for deletion, I endorse the opinion of this user. Although Jurchen Wikipedia was created by myself, I think it's useless to maintain a Wiki project on an extinct language. My views on deleting Jurchen Wikipedia are as follows.
First and foremost, just as Liuxinyu970226 mentioned above, Jurchen is an extinct language whose speakers have shifted to Manchu. Jurchen script was created in early Jin dynasty (金朝, 1115-1234) by Wanyan Xiyin (完颜希尹) according to Chinese character and Nurhachi's grandfather Wang Gao (王杲, 1529-1575), who lived during the Ming dynasty (1368-1644) is thought to be one of the last person who can write Jurchen script. Moreover, The Jurchen characters I entered on the Jurchen Wikipedia are not included in Unicode, so they cannot be displayed correctly and are displayed as rectangles which are unrecognizable. The script used in Jurchen Wikipedia can only be displayed by the font called “CCAMC Jurchen & Khitan Std”. Afterwards, Jurchen script has not been completely deciphered, and there are still some characters that have not been figured out. Hence, from my perspective, we should focus on editing Manchu Wikipedia rather than the Jurchen one. So it's reasonable to delete the Jurchen Wikipedia. --MiiCii (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wp/akv edit

This project is following in the footsteps of the Ter Saami wp in that it is one word in the language followed by its equivalent in Russian and a pic. This project also has the equivalent in English for some reason. For example, this page on sheep, which also includes the Avar word for the animal. Main page is in Russian, except for the pagename, which is in English. Seems to mainly be the work of a non-native speaker. No request at Meta. Yupik (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wt/ota edit

Like the previous Wp/ota one (see archive), this language is already Historical for several centuries, and hence violate LPP. With regards to several look-like useful contents, it's preferred to merge this test project into Turkish Wiktionary, or else move to Incubator Plus. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there's an Incubator Plus or a domain of the Turkish Wikipedia where people interested in the language can make a case for it, these may be good solutions. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wp/fos edit

So far, this is an extinct language for 2 centuries, I don't see any reason we keep it for the future content creations, as such creations violate LPP. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Turkish pages on Wp/atv edit

All these pages were created by an anonymous user from Turkey in 2009 and are written in Latin, unlike the Cyrillic alphabet used in Northern Altai.

All of them are not written in Northern Altai, but in Turkish and contain only a few images from Wikimedia Commons. Таёжный лес (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problem has been fixed now Σιδέρης10 (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. Таёжный лес (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Existing pages of Wp/osx edit

This project is judged as rejected in the last month, but still has some remaining pages, I then asked an admin that what to do for them, but still nothing replied, probably they should be migrated to Miraheze or Fandom accordingly. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Deleted Jon Harald Søby (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wp/anp and Wt/ckb edit

So far, both projects are launched for half years, and since then many other projects also launched, I doubt if there are still pages not migrated yet. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wp/ojp edit

Even though there's a Meta request, which I really doubt that may be "eligible" instead of rejected, this project is by itself confusing between Classical Japanese and Old Japanese (code shall refer to the later one, but the portal said previous), and both are not allowed under LPP. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wp/dcr edit

iso639-3:dcr is currently classified this language as Extinct, therefore having an Incubator test project violates LPP. As the current residents of Saint John, Saint Thomas, and Saint Croix Islands are only speaking English in their life, there's pointless to still have a Creole which the last speaker deceased for 36 years. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wt/vot edit

The only page there is its main page, it hasn't been properly edited in years, and the main page has only been majorly edited by someone who have themselves confirmed to have low knowledge of the language. Gameoverbits (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wp/vot edit

Alright. After some deliberation, I came to the conclusion that deleting this test wiki is the best course of action. This test wiki looks to be overrun by editors who don't speak the language or know very little of it (some users have even confirmed this), and the content itself also looks fairly substandard (several very short articles, several pages having different titles compared to the content, etc.). Considering the difficulty (and frankly, the near impossibility) of finding proficient speaker contributors to fix the content, I don't think there's a better way out of this. Any comments are welcome. 2001:14BB:AC:B137:E9A3:D15F:7BF2:695F 10:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]