Proposals for closing projects/Closure of wikipedia ten

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.

This is a proposal for closing and/or deleting a wiki hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is subject to the current closing projects policy.

The proposal is accepted and the proposed actions should be taken.

I am requesting the closing of the ten.wikipedia since 2011 is over soon. The wiki has no big purpose now and all the events are done. On a non-policy note, the wiki is inactive but that is no reason to support closure. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 20:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support edit

  • Support lock but not any deletion of content. Preserve it for the future. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Per Ottava Rima. I support a lock, but please don't delete the content. Trijnstel 20:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support use as a historical reference --Mohamed Aden Ighe 20:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support A closure, but not deletion. The clear consensus on the Village Pump of tenwiki is for closure whereby Stewards could edit but otherwise it's un-editable and closed. The site was originally opened by myself only for the 10th anniversary and with eventual closure in mind, and since it's inactive except for vandalism or other drive-by edits, I think it's time. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per Steven. Philippe (WMF) 23:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, but not before January 15, 2012! WP10 takes a full year :) Effeietsanders 23:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per Steven. —Ancient Apparition 00:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per Steven and Rima. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 08:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, per above. No activity and might as well preserve as archive. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support but, if possible, import into Meta as a namespace. Some of the content might be used going forward, and with Meta's infrastructure of sysops and stewards, we can watch it much better for spam and nonsense than a separate, low-traffic wiki can. Courcelles 23:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This proposal would leave the content at its current domain, though nobody except stewards would be able to edit it. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Of course, since it's CC-licensed you could also copy anything you want over to other projects. If people ever need a full revision history, I'm happy to commit to fulfilling transwiki import requests too (staff rights let me do that like a Steward). But my understanding from talking to more technical folks is that importing a wiki into a new namespace inside an existing wiki is not typical because it's a pain in the neck. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It can be done very easily with the importupload right. All you need to do then is add all pages to a category, go to Special:Export and create an XML file, run a simple find/replace in the XML file to add a namespace in front of every title, then reupload with importupload. Since both staff and stewards have access to that right, there isn't a problem :-) Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes and no. Even with a namespace, there is also duplication or potential conflicts between the categories, templates, and perhaps other content of tenwiki and Meta. There about 3,000 pages on the site, including 44 translated Main Pages. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Obvious. Email Vaibhav Talk 17:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Very strong support, per everyone supporting. Total Lunar Eclipse 10:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per Ottava and etc Matanya 08:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Locking only : there is no more reason to allow editing. --Jagwar 交談 homewiki 16:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per Steven. --Rasmus 28 19:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support closure, per others above. —stay (sic)! 15:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose edit

  • Oppose. Please keep this Wiki open until at least January 2011. We are still in the 10th year. --Tobias talk · contrib 10:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is October 2011. Also, the discussion will last just to January 2012 most probably. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 19:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - keep open for another ten years just in case, then rename to twenty. Egg Centric 20:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments edit

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.