Proposals for closing projects/Move Beta Wikiversity to Incubator: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
| (110 intermediate revisions by 34 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Closing project proposal
|type=2
|proposal=closure
|notice=[//beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Announcements/En&oldid=164442 project notified]
|content=should be merged to [[Wikimedia Incubator]]
| status = rejected
| comment = Slightly more than four years after the start, I close this proposal as REJECTED on procedural grounds. The discussion was started in 2013 as a section on [[Meta:Babel]] and was subsequently moved to a request for comment page on moving both the Multilingual Wikisource and BetaWikversity to Wikimedia Incubator. The discussion was then limited to only concern BetaWikiversity, and later on it was morphed into a "proper" proposal for project closure. Even in 2015 there was discussion on procedure, and by 2016 most support was given to "close this proposal as too old and open a new one to discuss the idea". Although it is unfortunate that this is the second time a long-running discussion has taken place on this proposal, opening a new one remains possible when well-prepared and well-executed: the proposal needs to be clearly defined (Wikisource and Wikiversity preferably treated separately) or have a clearly defined decision-making process, all stakeholders need to be well-informed and it should preferably be time-constrained. [[User:SPQRobin|SPQRobin]] <small>([[User talk:SPQRobin|talk]])</small> 22:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
}}
<div style="background:#E3F9DF; padding:0 10px; border:1px solid #AAA;">''
</div>
[[Category:Beta Wikiversity]] [[Category:Wikisource]] Hi, sorry for my bad English. Some words may be the same in the different languages - that's why Incubator exists and that's why we use prefixes. But we can't do it on betawikiversity and oldwikisource. For example, the word ''Шаблони'' is ''Templates'' in Ukrainian and Bulgarian. They are incubating on betawikiversity. So you have seen using this two sites is uncomfortable. On the other hand, there're prefixes '''Ws''' for Wikisource and '''Wv''' for Wikiversity on Incubator (you can check it yourselves). So I propose to move betawikiversity and oldwikisource to Incubator. [[User:AtUkr|AtUkr]] ([[User talk:AtUkr|talk]]) 11:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Line 20 ⟶ 23:
:::::Moving betawikiversity and oldwikisource will be terribly difficult (but problably not unfeasible) and in an other hand I don't understand what is the problem currently. Plus, Шаблони (bg) and Шаблони (uk) are write the same but it's two different words. Cdlt, [[User:VIGNERON|V<span style="font-size:75%">IGNERON</span>]] * [[User talk:VIGNERON|<sup>discut.</sup>]] 15:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
= 2013 discussion =
Honestly, I do not understand which problem is supposed to be solved by moving oldwikisource to the Incubator. Wasn't the Incubator intended for new projects instead of old projects? Likewise, I do not understand why some of you object to wikisource being split into per-language editions (with the exception of oldwikisource). Having experience with en.wikisource.org and de.wikisource.org, I found the differences stimulating. de has very strict policies that texts must not be added without having a scan at Commons and that whoever adds texts must also proofread other texts. en appears to be more liberal and welcoming but has more areas that need work. Both approaches developed over time and it would be hard (or pretty upsetting for many contributors) to enforce a merge back to one project. Diversity is good, individual projects can learn from each other but also preserve their culture of handling things. And it helps if one project uses one language. Not everyone masters English or feels easy with English. We see this at Commons where despite all efforts to internationalize tons of texts many who do not speak English do not feel comfortable. --[[User:AFBorchert|AFBorchert]] ([[User talk:AFBorchert|talk]]) 17:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
: I don't agree at all - on the contrary, I suggest a "change in nick name" for oldwikisource, that IMHO should be called "Common wikisource". :-)
Line 39 ⟶ 43:
:My experience from multi-language-projects (commons and wikidata) makes me strongly oppose any merge of the subdomains of Wikisource. People familiar with the lingua franca gets to much advantages and the culture of the smaller wikis will go extinct. I would fork under such circumstances. -- [[User:Lavallen|Lavallen]] 17:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
==
For reasons noted above,
* betawikiversity seems well-suited to the incubator; they do largely similar things. The incubator would be an improvement in ways: which is a reason to switch.
Line 99 ⟶ 103:
* '''Support''' lol I just realised that I didn't vote here though I have knew about the RfC since the very beginning. Incubator is much more developed in terms of supporting test wikis. Besides there is indeed that above-mentioned stuff about not using prefixes in b.v. The problem of interlanguage homographs indeed is quite an issue. --[[User:Base|Base]] ([[User talk:Base|talk]]) 03:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
* '''Support''' per above. --[[User:Steinsplitter|Steinsplitter]] ([[User talk:Steinsplitter|talk]]) 11:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
*{{Strong support}} The beta wikiversity is nothing compared to the Incubator, the Incubator is well-organized, not like the Beta wikiversity. [[User:SleepyMode|SleepyMode]] ([[User talk:SleepyMode|talk]]) 15:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
* '''Support''' per above. --[[User:Josep Maria Roca Peña|Josep Maria Roca Peña]] ([[User talk:Josep Maria Roca Peña|talk]]) 09:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
*{{s}} According to the [https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Incubator:Site_creation_log site creation log] the last Wikiversity was created in 2013. If the goal of Beta Wikiversity is to create new Wikiversities it is failing. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 03:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
*{{Strong support}} Beta wikiversity is very slow and there are pages without the indication of the language.Incubator is organized and fast, and YOU can create new projects.--[[User:Rots vam Duats|Rots vam Duats]] ([[User talk:Rots vam Duats|talk]]) 05:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
===Arguments against===
Line 142 ⟶ 150:
**I don't see how Incubator is a site dominated by encyclopedic thinking; after all, it hosts nascent versions of Wikiquote, Wikinews and even Wikibooks. Differing policies between the different projects are well catered for on Incubator. As I see it, this proposal is more of a technical one than anything else. [[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] ([[User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]) 11:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
*{{Oppose}} – Per Abd. I know him well enough to know that he has Wikiversity's mission and best interests in mind. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 13:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
* Currently, English Wikiversity has its own Wikijournal subproject. However, [[Wikijournal]] is proposed to become a full-fledged project. Spinning Wikijournal off would affect interests in Wikiversity. Nevertheless, some or many courses in English Wikiversity have terribly aged. The Japanese Wikiversity was [[Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Japanese Wikiversity|proposed to be closed]]. The consensus on the proposal was divided. Those reflect declining interests in Wikiversity. <P>I am unsure how interested the Incubator editors are in Wikiversity. As said by Rschen7754, the Korean Wikiversity was the latest Wikiversity created in 2013. Since then, there haven't been any other Wikiversities created. There are still ongoing [[Requests for new languages#Wikiversity|proposals for new Wikiversity language sites]], yet none of them has become officially a wiki. As this proposal is neither closing nor deleting Beta Wikiversity, <s>I won't oppose moving Beta Wikiversity to Incubator. However,</s> this proposal has been ongoing since 2013. I believe that this proposal is too late to receive support from voters anymore. If this proposal is closed as "unsuccessful", but then Beta Wikiversity does not receive activity since, maybe we can revisit the proposal some other time. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 00:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC) <small>Moved from "neutral". --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 17:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)</small>
:: Change to <s>weak oppose</s> - After reading Samuele2002's latest comments, I think we can keep Beta Wikiversity for now. No prejudice to re-proposing the merger in the newer RFC subpage. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 17:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
:: Change to '''oppose''' - Recently, [[phab:T168765|a Phabricator task request]] to create [[Requests for new languages/Wikiversity Hindi|Hindi Wikiversity]] was made after approval, indicating that Beta Wikiversity can have value and should be retained. Also, after helping out a user who had difficulties writing/typing English language, I had to direct one user to one of [[:v:en:English]] courses, where he can learn English well. I realize that Beta Wikiversity may be needed for more language sites that deserve to be full-fledged. Also, more Wikiversity sites should have their own English courses for those wanting to learn English and wanting to write English Wikipedia. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 06:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
===Neutral comments===
Line 148 ⟶ 159:
* Although I made my !vote above, I think it is telling that beta.v has no news for over a year and the last thing it posted was this discussion. Similarly, if you move down the news from the main page, there are multiple proposals here on Meta to shut down beta.v. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 06:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
=== Rebuttals to concerns raised in this and earlier discussions ===
Read and compare: [[Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Beta Wikiversity]]
Line 304 ⟶ 315:
|}
[[User:AtUkr|AtUkr]] ([[User talk:AtUkr|talk]]) 16:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
: Projects are uncomparable. Incubator will have logically more users and released projects.--[[User:Juandev|Juandev]] ([[User talk:Juandev|talk]]) 17:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
== Moves to close Proposal 1 ==
=== Procedural concerns ===
So, it appears that the proposer here went gone back and "rebutted" -- often without new argument or evidence -- every opposing comment on the old project closure discussion, when many of those commenting back then will not even see this discussion. Shall we notify all of them that they were mentioned here? It seems this proposal was not made with careful awareness of [[Closing projects policy]], which actually suggests Beta wikiversity as a place to move content from closed projects of type 2. See below for a fatal flaw in this RfC. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 19:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
*This proposal violated [[Closing projects policy]], which is a strict WMF policy, not merely a community-generated policy. While the community may advise the WMF, project closure is not a community decision, the policy is explicit on that. The policy, adopted in March 2013, explicitly required the proposer to classify the project as Type 1 or Type 2. A lot of editor time would have been saved if the problems had been initially realized and this RfC immediately closed or at least suspended. Probably project closures should be filed, if they are going to be filed, under [[Proposals for closing projects]], not under general RfC. The proposal was originally made on Meta:Babel, 23 June 2013, apparently.[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Babel&oldid=5599452#Move_betawikiversity_and_oldwikisource_to_Incubator] It was copied here. Project closure proposals can be highly disruptive, and I suspect that this is why the Foundation created strict policy.
*The closure discussion was added to [https://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Announcements/En&diff=135724&oldid=126100 Beta Wikiversity Announcements] and the Beta [https://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3ASitenotice&diff=135726&oldid=133054 sitenotice] August 4, 2013. There was a link with no explanation or signature added to Beta on June 28, five days after this discussion started. The editor adding the link has only that single edit to Beta, and is a relatively [http://tools.wmflabs.org/guc/index.php?user=Bi%C3%B3logo+conservacionista low-edit user globally]. I assume that was not the proposer. Clearly the proposer did not follow policy, nor did the user who assisted the user by creating this RfC. This is really a project closure proposal, it was not so described, and it looks like the link on Beta may not have been noticed until August. That, by itself, is a fatal flaw in this proposal.
Line 350 ⟶ 363:
:::::I had already agreed that Liuxinyu970226 provided the absolute wrong response to Abd, history set aside. I doubt Abd could actually ''read'' zh at the moment of his writing, so the only conclusion I could draw was that his original comment referred to the userpage located [[User talk:Liuxinyu970226|here]] saying "PLEASE PLEASE AND PLEASE SUPPORT USER:ATUKR TO MERGE BETAWIKIVERSITY INTO INCUBATORWIKI", which comment about likely aggressive user's userpage, again, was likely to provoke an adverse response from said ''especially aggressive'' user. Anyway the fact remains that bringing up the issue of said user's userpage is now driving the thread off-topic and into the ground. [[User:TeleComNasSprVen|TeleComNasSprVen]] ([[User talk:TeleComNasSprVen|talk]]) 22:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
=== Suggested outcomes, 2014 ===
As this is posted in the [[requests for comment]] discussion venue, I would like to discuss what it exactly means to "close" Beta Wikiversity should that arise as an outcome in the future. Oftentimes in the context of the multiple discussions currently at the [[proposals for closing projects]] page "closure" of a wiki typically means to lock it to prevent further changes to it except for stewards, but the central point of this proposal has been more to "merge" existing content into another wiki. I would like a clarification on what "closure" and "merge" really mean in the context of large-scale wikis, as well as in the context of RFC discussions which allow for alternative solutions than simple locking of a database. For the supporters of the close:
# We could just lock it from further editing except for stewards and use Special:Import to transport content to incubator.wikimedia.org
Line 361 ⟶ 375:
::::And I do see the problems of complete outsiders interfering with Wikiversity in other languages, to the point of seeing the Dutch Wikiversity going to waste due to an outsider. Every option that brings Wikiversity closer to a more independent status (i.e.: with its own administrators/custodians and not depending on outsiders) would be beneficial. [[User:The Banner|The Banner]] ([[User talk:The Banner|talk]]) 17:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
=== Proposer's comments ===
It was difficult to understand Abd's comments with my English :). I must say I am unpleasantly surprised. I have outlined one (in my opinion, the most important) argument at the beginning of the discussion. A few more have been added by other users. As for the comments about the violation of Closing projects policy, this request for comments was created to ask the community about the expediency of closing the project to save time. I didn't want to distract users from editing, but I believe that the creation of new projects will be more comfortable in Incubator. I understand that I had to do this before, here is my mistake, so I chose the main reasons for the closure of Beta Wikiversity.
# Beta Wikiversity was created for the original design of rules, format, and sample articles of Wikiversity. After completion of this work and the beginning of the first language editions project become unnecessary.
Line 376 ⟶ 391:
** I have responded to Abd on Talk. [[User:AtUkr|<span style="color:#436eee">'''AtUkr'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:AtUkr|<span style="color:#836fff">(talk to me)</span>]]</sup> 15:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
= Revisiting this, 2015 =
== Move to close ==
{{Ping|Amire80}}, {{Ping|Antony D. Green}}, {{Ping|Bèrto 'd Sèra}}, {{Ping|Maor X}}, {{Ping|GerardM}}, {{Ping|Jon Harald Søby}}, {{Ping|Karen}}, {{Ping|Arria Belli}}, {{Ping|MF-Warburg}}, {{Ping|Evertype}}, {{Ping|Millosh}}, {{Ping|Baba Tabita}}, {{Ping|SPQRobin}}, {{Ping|Santhosh.thottingal}}, {{Ping|Shanel}}, and {{Ping|ZaDiak}} Two years is long enough to discuss this. My preference is stated above and I hope it's what passes but either way, there is no value in leaving open the discussion indefinitely. Can someone please make a final decision on this? —[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 02:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
:This is not within Langcom's competence. --<small>[[User:MF-Warburg|MF-W]]</small> 11:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Line 399 ⟶ 416:
:: Thanks {{Ping|Mu301}}, I agree it should be done with full notice to the affected communities. A banner on beta would be a necessary early step, letting people know this is being seriously considered. {{ping|koavf}}, since you are currently keen on this - what is driving your interest? Is it just a desire to see things done in an orderly way? Is there a particular part of wv-incubation that you think will be done better after a move?
:: It's not clear to me that there's anything wrong with a patchwork approach that isn't entirely consistent. It makes sense that this should only be done if there's enough interest among people who are motivated to a) carry out the migration, b) coordinate with the current users of beta, and c) use the resulting incubator to work on wv ideas and pages. But there are obviously some quite active people including koavf and atukr who have worked on incubator and are interested in this change. <span style="background-color:white;color:#bbb;">–[[User:Sj|SJ]]<small> [[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;">talk</font>]] </small></span> 00:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
:::Thanks Sj. With only 16 edits to this page during all of 2015 many of us on wv projects had assumed that this long dormant proposal was abandoned due to lack of interest. --[[User:Mu301|mikeu]] <sup>[[User talk:Mu301|talk]]</sup> 21:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
:::{{Ping|Mu301}} Everyone at beta.wv has had ample notice, as most of the notes on [[v:beta:Main Page]] are mentioning discussions to shut down beta.wv or newly added editions of Wikiversity. From a technical perspective, transwiki-ing pages to Incubator should not be particularly difficult and since [[mw:SUL]] is active on WMF wikis, users are working on beta.wv can seamlessly edit Incubator. The thing that's gained is centralization of resources for users editing small projects: that's why Incubator exists in the first place. Is there a guideline or some documentation somewhere that outlines how due process is ''not'' being followed here? —[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 04:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
{{Ping|Sj}} Re the closing & moving: Feel free to poke project-moving-experienced Incubator "staff" ({{Ping|SPQRobin}}, {{Ping|MF-Warburg}}, myself) to help with the migration roadmap.<br />— [[User:Danny B.|Danny B.]] 18:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
: Thanks for the clarity Danny B. So Justin, to get back to you question that started this section: I think any bold meta editor could close this thread and recommend a specific change, but it's not clear to me how to close it. If the supporters above were all interested in building a better wv incubator within incubator.wikimedia.org, this approaches consensus to move; which would need to be confirmed with renewed communication on beta and the current wv's. If none of them really care that much / rarely use wv anyway, there's no real consensus and this can be closed for now as such. <span style="background-color:white;color:#bbb;">–[[User:Sj|SJ]]<small> [[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;">talk</font>]] </small></span> 00:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
<span style="background-color:white;color:#bbb;">–[[User:Sj|SJ]]<small> [[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;">talk</font>]] </small></span>
:: Is that even needed? I think one could just as well "deprecate" BetaWV and let future language versions incubate on incubator, while leaving the already active test versions on BetaWV, letting them finish their work. Once BetaWV's activity amounts to zero, one could think about moving the "dead" test Wikiversities without a chance to get an own wiki in the near future over to Incubator. --[[User:Vogone|Vogone]] ([[User talk:Vogone|talk]]) 00:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
::: That's a better idea. Have any new language versions start on incubator; and offer to help editors migrate from beta:wv to incubator (since that should be scripted), including for instance interwiki link conversion, so that <tt>[[ pl: ]]</tt> keeps pointing to pl.wv. Again, only worth starting if there is at least one community of beta.wv editors who are ready to lead the way and migrate their work to incubator. <span style="background-color:white;color:#bbb;">–[[User:Sj|SJ]]<small> [[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;">talk</font>]] </small></span> 16:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
:::This is a very bad idea, it will only lead to confusion, as it makes it more difficult to find the test-Wikiversity of a language and is prone to cause splits/accidental "doubling" of test-projects, one on BetaWV and one on Incubator. It will also require useless fiddling to adjust the missing.php. --<small>[[User:MF-Warburg|MF-W]]</small> 15:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
:::: There wouldn't be any accidental doubling if new development on BetaWV was paused. But like any categorization/classification shift, it's a lot of work, and only worth doing if a group that cares about classification cleanliness (or in this case, expanded incubator functionality) is willing to shoulder all of that work. I don't see that interest, so I agree that this can simply be closed as no consensus. <span style="background-color:white;color:#bbb;">–[[User:Sj|SJ]]<small> [[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;">talk</font>]] </small></span> 22:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
:I'm not sure if this is productive or not. Lack of consensus for years means there is not enough consensus, and it should be closed as no consensus for now and started from the scratch again. And, 'incubator is proper place for incubating test projects' is not a strong argument to move away from status quo. I agree with the opinion 'it's hard-working with no fruits.' — regards, [[User:-revi|<span style="color:green;font-family:Courier new, serif;font-variant:small-caps">Revi</span>]] 12:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
::And it's fairy to see Babel categories conflicts such as [[:Category:User yue]] vs. [[:Category:User zh-yue]] because of the historical reasons, and that will have much more hardly works than this? I can't agree with you, as nothing can't be done if you have Operation access. --[[User:Liuxinyu970226|Liuxinyu970226]] ([[User talk:Liuxinyu970226|talk]]) 03:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
:::Virtually everything can be done if you have ops access (ie. reset password even if you don't have email set on account) but practically there is no fruit doing this imo. I still believe this should be started from the grounds again. (ie. Make (2) RfC.) — regards, [[User:-revi|<span style="color:green;font-family:Courier new, serif;font-variant:small-caps">Revi</span>]] 09:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
== Next step ==
@[[User:Sj|Sj]]: This discussion is from 2013. I think it should be closed with "No consensus" as the resolution. If you are bothered with the existance of the beta.wikiversity project, is there anything that prevents you from opening a brand new proposal to move the project where you can explain your reasons? Most of the comments on this page are so old that I don't think they are relevant anymore. --[[User:Lsanabria|Lsanabria]] ([[User talk:Lsanabria|talk]]) 02:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
:I dont think much has changed about the arguments; they certainly remain relevant. --<small>[[User:MF-Warburg|MF-W]]</small> 09:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
:: @[[user:Lsanabria|Lsanabria]], @[[User:MF-Warburg|MF-W]], I am bothered only that this request remains open, and some participants were confused about who could implement a possible move. We seem to have clarified that:
::# People with operations access are willing to help make a change if the communities want it and define how it should happen.
::# No current group of beta.wv users, or incubator users, or potential future users, have offered to organize a move; this has been a mainly theoretical discussion.
::# While many of the respondents above (who may or may not have been wv or incubator users) supported a move, they weren't offering to execute it. [[user:koavf|koavf]], [[user:AtUkr|AtUkr]] and [[user:MF-Warburg|MF-W]] are all prolific editors interested in a move, but I don't know if they have the time to make one happen. (fixing interlang links, fixing babel and other category conflicts, all the details beyond a normal technical move.)
::# beta.wv editing activity is already quite low, suggesting it may simply not matter.
:: If noone wants to change 2-4 above, perhaps it's best to close this proposal as "no point in moving until the move solves a specific problem". If interest in Incubator or WV increase significantly in the future, if maintaing beta.wv at any point creates extra overhead, or if a new WV finds beta.wv insufficient for their needs, this can be revisited then. <span style="background-color:white;color:#bbb;">–[[User:Sj|SJ]]<small> [[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;">talk</font>]] </small></span> 22:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
:::{{Ping|Sj}} I am willing to help in moving the content if that's what it takes. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 22:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::I think some Incubator admins (including me) would also certainly be involved. --<small>[[User:MF-Warburg|MF-W]]</small> 11:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
::::Looks like this is not going anywhere. Would it make sense to contact the editors with more than 5 edits in the last 30 days directly (I can help with that)? What would be the next step to take a decision and either move the wiki or close this conversation? --[[User:Lsanabria|Lsanabria]] ([[User talk:Lsanabria|talk]]) 18:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC) [reply below -SJ]
Close as {{keep}} betawikiversity or leave open which {{keep}}s betawikiversity - it's a WIN-WIN! --[[User:Marshallsumter|Marshallsumter]] ([[User talk:Marshallsumter|talk]]) 19:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
:{{ping|Marshallsumter}} Are u asking we must also try to fix [[phab:T54971]] for betawikiversity? --[[User:Liuxinyu970226|Liuxinyu970226]] ([[User talk:Liuxinyu970226|talk]]) 06:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
::{{ping|Liuxinyu970226}} Out of curiosity, what does that Phabricator ticket has to do with this conversation? --[[User:Lsanabria|Lsanabria]] ([[User talk:Lsanabria|talk]]) 13:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
:::I think he refers to the fact that the solution of that bug is much easier for Incubator than for BetaWV. --<small>[[User:MF-Warburg|MF-W]]</small> 18:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
::::Unfortunately, I do not know enough about the Wikiware involved to suggest a solution, but my limited experience with the Phabricator volunteers indicates they can solve the bug on betawikiversity, even though the bug has been around several years. --[[User:Marshallsumter|Marshallsumter]] ([[User talk:Marshallsumter|talk]]) 21:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Marshallsumter}} Please document the word "Wikiware" as our software is '''MediaWiki''' (you should know I'm working on Translatewiki.net, btw, there have many wiki sites that are not using MW). --[[User:Liuxinyu970226|Liuxinyu970226]] ([[User talk:Liuxinyu970226|talk]]) 15:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Liuxinyu970226}} Here's a couple for you: "In order to facilitate development of new wikiware and to simplify maintenance of existing wikiware, one can rely on methods and tools from software language engineering." V Zaytsev, arXiv preprint arXiv:1107.4661, 2011 [http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.4661 MediaWiki grammar recovery] and "In contrast to these static and feedback-free sites are those that use “wikiware,” made popular by Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org)." KA Meyer - Journal of Educators Online, 2007, [http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ907745.pdf Does Feedback Influence Student Postings to Online Discussions?]. I hope these help. --[[User:Marshallsumter|Marshallsumter]] ([[User talk:Marshallsumter|talk]]) 18:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
: as per [[Marshallsumter]]: Close as {{keep}} betawikiversity, ----[[User:Erkan Yilmaz|Erkan Yilmaz]] 14:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
::{{ping|Erkan Yilmaz}} So even if there has [[:d:Wikidata_talk:Wikiversity#Topic|a namespace conflicting]] it's fairy to you?! So even if we should wait for a century before global merging two (or more?!) accounts it's fairy to you?! So even if we cannot kill [[:mo:]] it's also fairy to you?! --[[User:Liuxinyu970226|Liuxinyu970226]] ([[User talk:Liuxinyu970226|talk]]) 15:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi {{ping|Lsanabria}}, I think this page is confusing enough that the old proposal could be closed a new one started (you can transclude the old discussion). It should summarize
* The end result of a move - how would it feel different to editors? And who would be affected (mainly current betawv users, potential future users, devs maintaining the two relevant codebases). Answer the questions raised by [[User:TeleComNasSprVen|TeleComNasSprVen]] above.
* The pros listed so far, including which betawv groups want to switch, and why other communities might want to (e.g., resolving [[phab:T54971]], any other feature requests for betawv).
* The cons listed so far, and what could be done about them (e.g., allowing Fair Use images, having a multilingual-wv site [on incubator?], fixing templates, interwikis, redirects). In addition to the specific cons, Mikeu makes good points about the inherent risks in uprooting a current community, so the proposal should indicate why this is worth the effort.
* People available to implement a move, and steps involved. So far koavf, MF-W, and Danny B. have all offered. You would also want one or two active betawv editors, to catch all of the details.
That would clear up what's being proposed. At which point you could reach out to the current active users. <span style="background-color:white;color:#bbb;">–[[User:Sj|SJ]]<small> [[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;">talk</font>]] </small></span> 21:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
:Hi {{ping|Sj}}
:The thing is, I am not proposing to close Beta Wikiversity (but I am not saying it should stay open either) so I am not sure if I should open such a request on my own. Also, there are comments above indicating that this might not be the proper way to request the project's migration to the incubator. What I think I can do is open a new section below including the information you mentioned above and asking if this proposal should be closed with no action or rebooted as a new RFC. We can leave this open for 2 more weeks (or a little more) and then take whatever action comes out of it. I can help with the new RFC if the participants want to open one but I will personally ask for it to be timeboxed. If you are OK with this suggestion and no one else objects, I will proceed with it. --[[User:Lsanabria|Lsanabria]] ([[User talk:Lsanabria|talk]]) 17:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
:: That sounds sensible [[User:Lsanabria|Lsanabria]], thanks. Both timeboxing (some above have offered to ping current users of the incubators) and doing this as a new section below. Perhaps also refactoring the earlier sections so there are clear "in 2013" "in 2016" top-level sections. <span style="background-color:white;color:#bbb;">–[[User:Sj|SJ]]<small> [[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;">talk</font>]] </small></span> 16:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
::: Ok @{{ping|Sj}}: I will move forward and add the pool. Feel free to make any changes you like. -[[User:Lsanabria|Lsanabria]] ([[User talk:Lsanabria|talk]]) 05:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
== What to do with this proposal? ==
This section is a poll to find out what to do with this proposal. It was openned on 2013 and several arguments have been mentioned since then supporting both options but so far it has not reached consensus to take any actions or to abandon it. To inform the participats, the following table includes a quick recap of some of the arguments discussed above:
{| class="wikitable"
!Arguments in favor
!Arguments against
|-
|The incubator already have prefixes for the Wikiversity projects.
|It is not clear the problem caused by the existence of Beta WV that would justify the work needed to migrate it.
|-
|The incubator has better support to separate different languages.
|There is content on Beta WV related to interlanguage coordination and policy definition that might not be suitable for the Incubator.
|-
|Meta is already available for any interlanguage coordination needs the Wikiverstity projects might have.
|This proposal might not follow the established practices and policies for closing a wiki.
|-
|Incubating the WV projects in the incubator will provide a more active and maintained environment than is currently available in Beta WV due to the lack of participation over there.
|The community using the project should be the one making this decision and it is not clear that the editors currently contributing to Beta WV are interested in this change.
|}
The options on the table are:
* '''Option #1''': Close this proposal with no action and keep Beta Wikiversity as an active project.
* '''Option #2''': Close this proposal as too old and open a new one to discuss the idea, providing a summary of topics discussed here and contacting individually any active editors (more than 5 edits on the last 30 days) on Beta WV asking for their input.
This poll is timeboxed and will be open until March 31 and the option will be selected by simple mayority. Please add your signature under the subsection corresponding to the option you prefer.
--[[User:Lsanabria|Lsanabria]] ([[User talk:Lsanabria|talk]]) 15:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
=== Option #1: Close this proposal with no action and keep Beta Wikiversity as an active project. ===
* +1 ----[[User:Erkan Yilmaz|Erkan Yilmaz]] 13:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
* +2 {{keep}} It generally takes 3-5 times to produce significant statistics so I suppose we still have to go through this 1 or 2 more times. --[[User:Marshallsumter|Marshallsumter]] ([[User talk:Marshallsumter|talk]]) 14:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
* +3 --[[User:Param munde|Param munde]] ([[User talk:Param munde|talk]]) 08:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
* +4 {{keep}} As I'm +/- active in that beta-wikiversity project, I vote. I'm sorry for voting too late, but I did ''not'' see any notice before. --[[User:Kusurija|Kusurija]] ([[User talk:Kusurija|talk]]) 15:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
* +5 {{keep}} After official approval of [[Requests for new languages/Wikiversity Hindi|Hindi Wikiversity]], a [[phab:T168765|Phabricator task]] was made to make Hindi Wikiversity a full-fledged language site for the first time since Korean Wikiversity was made in 2013. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 06:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
=== Option #2: Close this proposal as too old and open a new one to discuss the idea ===
* From this 2 options I choose this. While I believe that the arguments are written by users for 3 years - are still relevant. — [[User:Green Zero|<span style="font:17px impact;color:green;">Green Zero</span>]] [[User talk:Green Zero|<span style="font:10px arial;">обг</span>]] 18:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
* Lsanabria just pointed out that some of the relevant issues in the original discussion (the ability to have fair use images, for instance) have changed. And Green Zero's comment above is one I hadn't seen above: an indication that at least some wv users would prefer to use incubator. So a new discussion makes sense. <span style="background-color:white;color:#bbb;">–[[User:Sj|SJ]]<small> [[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;">talk</font>]] </small></span> 18:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
*: The problem is that BetaWV is not exclusively a wiki incubator but also covers other aspects. Regarding the incubating part I guess there is absolutely no doubt the incubator extension serves this purpose better, the question is rather if splitting the wiki and therefore also the community (one half to metawiki because it does not belong to the incubator, the other half to incubator because it doesn't belong to meta) is such a good idea. Perhaps implementing the incubator ''extension'' on BetaWV could be considered instead, but that would require at least one developer willing to do so. --[[User:Vogone|Vogone]] ([[User talk:Vogone|talk]]) 15:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
*::Does this activity with "other aspects" really exist? I can't discern any by looking at the recent changes. --<small>[[User:MF-Warburg|MF-W]]</small> 01:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
* {{support}}. I think this is a good proposal, but could be refreshed just to make things clearer. — [[User:Samwilson|Sam Wilson]] ( <span style="font-size:0.9em">[[User_talk:Samwilson|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Samwilson|Contribs]]</span> ) … 23:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
* Support closing this discussion and producing a summary that clearly states what we're voting to do exactly. Closing beta.wikiversity.org and moving it's function to where? It looks to me like it was already decided to move it to the incubator but... [[User:CQ|CQ]] ([[User talk:CQ|talk]]) 14:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
* {{support}}. I support ideas from this proposal and it shoule be re-opened again. --[[User:Trần Nguyễn Minh Huy|<font color="green">'''minhhuy'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Trần Nguyễn Minh Huy|talk]])</sup> 16:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
* {{support}}. [[User:Psychoslave|Psychoslave]] ([[User talk:Psychoslave|talk]]) 07:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
* {{support}}--[[User:John123521|John123521]] ([[User talk:John123521|talk]]) 12:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
* {{support}}--[[User:Arian_Ar|<font color="#000000" size="4" face="Hacked">'''Arian'''</font>]] <sup>[[user talk:Arian_Ar|<font color="E11717" size="4" face="IranNastaliq">Talk</font>]]</sup> 10:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
* {{support}} --[[User:MohammadtheEditor|MohammadtheEditor]] ([[User talk:MohammadtheEditor|talk]]) 03:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
* <s>Support. As said in [[#Neutral comments|the discussion]] about the original proposal, this proposal is getting too old. We can try a new idea sooner or later if Beta Wikiversity receives less activity than now. Or we can revisit this in another time. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 00:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)</s> See newer comment at Option #1. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 06:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
=== Comments ===
I am - active user of [https://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%96%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B0 Ukrainian Wikiversity] (since 2015). I dont see any prospects on the beta.wikiversity.org. It is a Babylon from Holy Bible. No development, all is mixed, often there are linguistic curiosities, because a number of languages may have the same words. Beta.wikiversity.org have no future. Prosperity and successful development of beta.wikiversity.org like a communism - utopia. If beta.wikiversity.org not be migrate to incubator, I've want that only Ukrainian Wikiversity to migrate to incubator, where I and others will develop the Ukrainian project. — [[User:Green Zero|<span style="font:17px impact;color:green;">Green Zero</span>]] [[User talk:Green Zero|<span style="font:10px arial;">обг</span>]] 14:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi! Could express your support for one of the 2 available options? How to address your concern will depend on what option gets selected. --[[User:Lsanabria|Lsanabria]] ([[User talk:Lsanabria|talk]]) 15:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
* This (unsigned, thus trying to face more official) poll and its preceding <q>quick recap</q> are ''heavily biased and unbalanced''. For instance, there is no option to vote for moving to Incubator, although there are 26 supports for that which is almost double to 15 opposes, and the table doesn't mention all arguments. This poll therefore does not have any predictive value at all and in general is useless thus can not be taken as obligatory.<br />— [[User:Danny B.|Danny B.]] 15:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
*:Hi! I added my signature. Sorry for the omision. :-) This is to find out what to do with this page, not with Beta WV. It has been open for more than 2 years so I think it is time to close it or reboot it. If you believe the recap is not fair to either side, let me know what arguments I missed and I will add them. I didn't include any items no longer applicable (for example Beta does not allow users to fair use images anymore so that point is no longer relevant, etc.) Also, this does not try to have predictive value (statistically speaking) it is just trying to figure out what the people contributing to this page and the community in general wants to do with it. --[[User:Lsanabria|Lsanabria]] ([[User talk:Lsanabria|talk]]) 15:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
*:
** ...Where is this incubator, now? When I google 'wikiversity incubator' I find only pages at beta.wikiversity.org or en.wikiversity.org or meta.wikimedia.org (this page). According to [[foundation:Our_projects|https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_projects]] there is no established incubator space for Wikiversity. I verified that fact by searching for Wv content at incubator.wikimedia.org and found none except this redirect https://incubator.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wv&redirect=no So how much work we talking about here? [[User:CQ|CQ]] ([[User talk:CQ|talk]]) 14:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
**:Hello! The current incubator for Wikiversities is Beta WV. The Wv prefix in the Wikimedia Incubator redirects the users to the WV portal page. --[[User:Lsanabria|Lsanabria]] ([[User talk:Lsanabria|talk]]) 16:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
**:: Also, about the comment next to your vote, no decision was reached. There was no consensus. The vote on 2013 was ~60% support, ~40% oppose. The 2008 proposal was closed as no consensus with ~40 support, ~60% oppose, so the same thing should have been done back then with this request. --[[User:Lsanabria|Lsanabria]] ([[User talk:Lsanabria|talk]]) 16:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
**:::So my opinion is Option #3: Close as '''approved''', and then create a set of Phabricator tasks for migration. --[[User:Liuxinyu970226|Liuxinyu970226]] ([[User talk:Liuxinyu970226|talk]]) 12:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
==== Option #3: Close as approved, and then create a set of Phabricator tasks for migration ====
* {{support}}. So I add [[User:Liuxinyu970226|Liuxinyu970226]] proposal in available answers, as I would also be more interested with such a solution for Esperanto Wikversity. Maybe [[User:Trần Nguyễn Minh Huy|<font color="green">'''minhhuy'''</font>]], [[User:CQ|CQ]], [[User:Samwilson|Samwilson]], [[User:MF-Warburg|MF-W]], [[User:Vogone|Vogone]], [[User:Sj|SJ]], [[User:Green Zero|Green Zero]] would like to opt for it too. --[[User:Psychoslave|Psychoslave]] ([[User talk:Psychoslave|talk]]) 05:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
*: I guess this section defeats a bit the purpose. There are still some unclarified points so I doubt there's anything which could be "approved" based merely on this discussion. --[[User:Vogone|Vogone]] ([[User talk:Vogone|talk]]) 10:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
*::I agree. Even more, I am not sure this kind of decision can be taken by simple vote. If I understand the closing projects policy correctly, the arguments must be outlined clearly, all involved parties must be notified and after their comments, [[Closing projects policy#Decision|'''the Language committee will make a decision''']]. I offered myself to help draft that if #2 is the option selected. Please specify if you want to close this proposal without action (#1) or if you want to continue with the effor to move away from Beta WV (looks like that is the case) by selecting to open a new proposal (#2). With all due respect, I moved paragraph under the comments section. --[[User:Lsanabria|Lsanabria]] ([[User talk:Lsanabria|talk]]) 15:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
*:::{{ping|MF-Warburg}} Could you clarify if my understanding of the closing projects policy is correct? --[[User:Lsanabria|Lsanabria]] ([[User talk:Lsanabria|talk]]) 16:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
*:::: Hi [[user:Psychoslave|Psychoslave]]: you make the second wv-communty (UK, EO) that wants to use incubator. That's a sign that a move might be possible. But an updated proposal should come first, since people have been confused about next steps ==> it's not clear what the Phabricator tasks would be. Lsanabria, thanks for offering to help draft that. I don't know if langcom wants to be involved in the final decision; that would make sense to me — but if they decide that's not their job, the outcome of an RFC can be enough. <span style="background-color:white;color:#bbb;">–[[User:Sj|SJ]]<small> [[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;">talk</font>]] </small></span> 22:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC) ([[user:Lsanabria|Lsanabria]], thoughts? :)
* {{support}} Don't ignore that the [[#Arguments against]] section (large above) has users that blocked on enwiki, which means their comments are funny. --[[User:Liuxinyu970226|Liuxinyu970226]] ([[User talk:Liuxinyu970226|talk]]) 23:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
=== Outcome ===
Since most of the support is for option #2, I added a note [[Talk:Proposals for closing projects#Proposals for closing projects-Move Beta Wikiversity to Incubator|here]] asking the Language Committee to close this proposal or to let us know if we can close it ourselves. Once it is closed, I will draft the new one. Sorry for the delay acting on this! --[[User:Lsanabria|Lsanabria]] ([[User talk:Lsanabria|talk]]) 15:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
== Value? ==
May the supporters of beta.wikiversity summarize the value of the project? I see that the dominant edits there are housekeeping ones. --[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] ([[User talk:Millosh|talk]]) 18:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
:I'm also talking about beta.Wikiversity administrator. I am opposed to this proposal because I think it is advantageous to keep beta.Wikiversity for a variety of reasons: to help create new Wikiversity and to have a special project could stimulate the creation of new Wikiversity (also note that Wikiversity is The project with less language versions). Plus having beta.Wikiversity is easier to monitor the creation of new pages in the various wikiversity hosts on beta.Wikiversity also the beta function is to be a reference point for the communities of various Wikiversity in any language (eg a few months ago there We are coordinated and decided there to edit the Wikiversity logo) both for proposals that relate to the project and to help individual wikiversities in introducing into original searches. In addition, beta.Wikiversity would be the place to test experimentation on the project or to try extensions (eg Education_Program and Quiz) all this if beta.Wikiversity was moved to an incubator would not be possible. --[[User:Samuele2002|<span style="color:#0080C0;">'''Samuele'''2002</span>]] <small>[[User Talk:Samuele2002|'''<font face="Cursive"><font color="#F50">(Talk!)</font></font>''']]</small> 12:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
::[[User:Samuele2002|Samuele]] is right. It should not be transferred to the Incubator. This is a separate project where new ideas and extensions related to education are tried. It needs to be improved. But moving it is not the right option. If we solve the issue of redirection of beta wikiversity, then it will be a good project. -[[User:Jayprakash12345|Jayprakash12345]] ([[User talk:Jayprakash12345|talk]]) 07:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
:::{{Ping|Jayprakash12345}} So should we not have test Wiktionaries and Wikipedias at the Incubator? Why is this any different? —[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 17:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
:::The question I have to ask then is this: why was the last Wikiversity site created in 2013? [https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Incubator:Site_creation_log] Is beta.wikiversity actually fulfilling its goals? Do you have any data to support this, besides pontification? --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 18:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
:{{ping|Rschen7754}} Wikiversity has made every effort to fulfill its goals. If you see, they were not approved even after good activity in Chinese wikiversity and Estonian wikiversity. It is the lack of language committee that they consider wikiversity as a failed project. I am quite busy for Hindi wikiversity. I have to develop some new course every day, so I have no time for comment here. -[[User:Jayprakash12345|Jayprakash12345]] ([[User talk:Jayprakash12345|talk]]) 04:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
= Closure =
Tomorrow is the 4th anniversary of this proposal. It's clear that there is no consensus and most probably, there will still be no decision about it if we just continue sporadically renewing the topic for another 4 years. There is no reason to keep this open after 4 years of discussion and no common agreement. Thus, I'm proposing to close this proposal. [[User:TVShowFan122|TVShowFan122]] ([[User talk:TVShowFan122|talk]]) 11:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
: [[User:SPQRobin|Robin]], may you do the honours? --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 03:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
::I hereby closed the proposal. [[User:SPQRobin|SPQRobin]] <small>([[User talk:SPQRobin|talk]])</small> 22:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
| |||