Proposals for closing projects/Deletion of Marshallese Wikipedia and Wiktionary

A Marshallese Wikipedia test project is open on Incubator. A new Marshallese Wiktionary test project can be started at Incubator.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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 rejected and the project will not be deleted.

  • A Language Committee member provided the following comment:
    I suggested to reject this and similar requests because the only reason given for deleting is that these projects are unlikely to be reopened. Not much value in doing that was shown, and per phabricator:T168764#3378717 and the page linked from there it seems that such a deletion would only cause unnecessary technical problems, especially if by chance one of them should be reopened. --MF-W 23:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Closed by MF-W on 20 July 2017. StevenJ81 (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Type: 1 (routine proposal)
  • Proposed outcome: deletion
  • Proposed action regarding the content: because there's no content, no actions upon it can be made
  • Notice on the project:
  • Informed Group(s): none.

Rationale edit

I propose to delete from the database the Marshallese Wikipedia and Wiktionary. Both projects are closed since 2007 (cfr. Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Marshallese Wikipedia and Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Marshallese Wiktionary) and it's content was imported to the Wikimedia Incubator. However since that time, there has been no development of it. If you check incubator:Special:PrefixIndex/Wp/mh/, contains the imported content of the Wikipedia, mostly "articles" with few words which can't be considered valid content. The situation of the Wiktionary is even worse with incubator:Special:PrefixIndex/Wt/mh/ showing no content at all. I think that this inactivity situation is not going to change any time soon, and that it will take a fair ammount of time to develop an usable Incubator content and an active community to take care of their own project. As such, I propose that both projects be deleted from the database given the long time they're closed and the absence of evidence that suggests this situation will be changing in the near future. Thank you. -- MarcoAurelio 21:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • w:mh: - Marshallese Wikipedia.
  • wikt:mh: - Marshallese Wiktionary.

Discussion edit

  • Oppose Although there is clearly virtually no content here, deletion would discourage the creation of any content. Having it in the Site Matrix does little harm and even though there is not much infrastructure here, if someone decides to come along and start building content in the language, it will help to form a community if there is already something pre-existing. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It is dobtful IMHO that having a locked project sitting there for years with no content would help create content on the Incubator. As things stand now, I very much doubt that the requirements for a project in this language would be met any time soon. I respect your opinion, of course, but what they have is already at Incubator. Regards. —MarcoAurelio 12:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I don't know if you realize, but the wiki won't just be unlocked at the drop of a hat if a community comes along. I am not sure if there is a precedent, but I think LangCom has to approve the request. In other words, the process for starting a wiki from scratch isn't much different from the process for reopening a closed wiki. This, that and the other (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per Koavf.-- 15:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Like Koavf, I see no harm in having the closed wiki remaining closed but available for access. --Hydriz (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Unlike Klingon, Toki Pona and Siberian, which were deleted from the system because they were not real languages, Marshallese is a real language and the national language of the Marshall Islands, it has potential to become again a Wikipedia, for the moment no one seems to be interested in the project, but in the future there may be willing contributors, all it really takes is a handful, the locked wiki remains as a place holder for its eventual recreation of the project, it is locked simply to prevent it from becoming a vandal wiki until true contributors come online, the project can still be edited on incubator where it can better be kept free of vandalism. Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Frankly, a Wikipedia that can't be edited is pretty much a dead letter. The lack of activity on Incubator makes it extremely unlikely that this Wikipedia is going to start again. As such, I support its being kept at Incubator, since most Marshallese would probably use the English Wikipedia for general reference. Eat me, I'm a red bean (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support It have been closed. If somebody wants he can start from scratch Macadam1 (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support deleting wikis like this that have been in a "vegetative state" for many years, having been closed for years with no content, no activity on Incubator, and no evidence of interest in developing a project. The presence of the empty locked wiki sites in Marshallese is confusing and rather pointless. Should there ever be enough momentum to restart projects in Marshallese in the future, it is trivial for system administrators to recreate the wikis from scratch. This, that and the other (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose' per Koavf. Deletion is a specifically radical answer to this, which does not solve anything. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 04:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Two useful projects. --Sarvaturi (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Two locked projects since 2007 without any content ain't useful at all, but a waste of resources. —MarcoAurelio 17:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per above. --Tremonist (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose No harm to keep the content. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Which content? —MarcoAurelio 18:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per Koavf. --Arthurteb303 (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - It's more than 6 months and I think that a decision regarding this request should be done soon. With all due respect to the opposition, I still believe this projects should be deleted. It is true that in its current state they do no harm, however we keep sites up and running when we can profit from them. MH-wiki/wikt are locked since a lot of years, their content was moved, and now those wikis and domains serves only as placeholders with absolutely no content to consult. As said previously, nothing suggest this situation would be changing anytime soon, and certainly in spite of the banner that for years has been announcing that the wiki is locked and that if one wish to contribute must do so in the Incubator, the result is that the test projects are in the same state as when the wikis were first imported. As thing stand now I still believe keeping this sites up makes no sense, and, with respect, I cannot find any of the arguments in opposition to the deletion any realistic. The new policy spirit was to also avoid the blanket opposition and the "let them grow"-like arguments. If this is an argumentative process rather than a vote, I suggest the LangCom to propose to the Board that the wikis be deleted. I'll respect however the final decision made upon this. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 16:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Is there a reason why can't be a redirect to The content of both projects (all 8 pages...) has already been imported to the Incubator where it can be viewed and edited so I don't see the point in displaying an uneditable and out of date copy of the pages. - Nikki (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support both projects. --Josep Maria Roca Peña (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support the closing of both projects. Why do people cling to these absurd fantasies of communities materializing out of thin air? Varlaam (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Both wikis are already closed. --Zerabat (discusión) 15:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)--Zerabat (discusión) 15:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. There is no reason to delete already closed projects. For one simple reason: the projects are there, and in case interested users build a community on the Incubator, it will be easier to unlock a wiki that is already there, than to recreate a wiki from nothing. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Ooswesthoesbes: And how about Wikidata? As far as I saw in these weeks, any links that link to closed wikis are speedy removed by some Persian (?) users, TTBOMK the status of supporting Wikidata features on Incubator is still a-blue-and-thin-mushroom hard. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is nonsense to remove links to inactive wikis. As a matter of fact, it only complicates things. Once a wiki is reopened, every single link has to be readded... --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 08:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Note that this is the second time you've opposed this. - Nikki (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak support but 1. please redirect these projects to incubator to avoid breaking links, 2. read wikitech:Delete a wiki, phab:T126832 and phab:T168764 before implantating (probably this is technically not worth doing and may be rejected by sysadmins).--GZWDer (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Really closed or not? edit

The Proposals_for_closing_projects says "Request closed on 20-Jul-2017", but the header template of this page still says "Meanwhile, users can still comment on the proposal.." --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@StevenJ81: ^^ -- 01:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed. StevenJ81 (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.