Talk:Volapük Wikipedia

Article in the WP namespace
Well this is strange. Volapük Wikipedia appears to be, by every indication, an article. It's categorized, referenced, has incoming links -- even linked by Template:Wikipedias and, most significantly, Volapük Wikipedia itself. It looks like the second AfD was kind of confusing. !votes were almost all for keep, but the arguments somewhat lacking, so the article moved to the Wikipedia namespace as a sort of compromise (pinging AfD closer, ). It's an itneresting idea for a closing option, since it's an article about Wikipedia and the Wikipedia namespace is for pages about Wikipedia, but because it's constructed as an article and treated as an article, the close was effectively keep but move to a namespace that isn't for articles. To me, articles related to Wikipedia shouldn't have any privilege/exception when it comes to AfD. If the consensus was not to keep, there shouldn't be a purgatory just because Wikipedia has a namespace for itself (just as Wikipedia-related articles aren't automatically kept in general). It seems like the best options are (a) stop treating it like an article, unlink it from other article namespace pages, change the Volapük Wikipedia redirect back to List of Wikipedias, and keep this in the Wikipedia namespace as a strange one-of-a-kind (to my knowledge) pseudoarticle. (b) stop treating it like an article (as above) and move to the Drafts namespace until improvements can be made. (c) move it to the article namespace and, if someone wishes, start a new AfD. Thoughts? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Moving to DRAFT might be the way to go. It is in a way a draft, as it might have been incubated before. There are other "articles" in WP-space, on various Wikipedia/Wikimedia-related topics, and this is a Wikipedia-topic, so is an internal self-referencing article.
 * However, it should be delinked from articlespace unless the link is a selfref type link. And decategorized from article-categorization (project categories are separate) say by moving it to Category:Wikipedia culture
 * -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 4 January 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No moved. Per comments pointing out that this was moved to Wikipedia space through an AfD decision, the correct procedure would be to overturn that decision through WP:DRV. Note that the AfD decision determined that the Volapük Wikipedia page in main space should redirect to List of Wikipedias, and it was only later changed to redirect to Volapük Wikipedia. I am reverting that redirect, and retargeting it back to List of Wikipedias. Again, that can be contested in the AfD review process if users do not agree with the decision that was made there. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Volapük Wikipedia → Volapük Wikipedia – This is in the wrong Namespace, this is an article, should either be in article space or deleted. Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * As noted in the section above, the location of this article is a result of this AfD decision. —  AjaxSmack   01:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy procedural close goes against an AfD outcome that moved this out of articlespace. Nominate it for deletion via WP:MfD if you wish, or start a new AfD to overturn the prior AfD. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I support this proposal. Quite honestly, I've never understood the outcome of that AfD. Perhaps I am not up-to-date, but I've always been under the assumption that it's about consensus. With ten votes for "keep" and two for "delete", the only possible conclusion would be either "keep" or "no consensus". While I am inclined to agree that not all arguments provided by the keepers are strong, neither are the arguments provided by the deleters. This is a very decent and well-referenced article, much more detailed than most other articles about Wikipedia editions. My personal impression is that some people are being especially tough because Volapük is a constructed language and because years ago it suddenly made it into the top 10 as a result of the massive creation of bot-generated articles. But look at Cebuano Wikipedia and Waray Wikipedia: both Wikipedias are in the top ten today with more than a million bot-generated articles, and both articles about them are based on nothing but primary sources and one thing that appears to be a blog. Somehow I haven't heard any complaints about them. I'm surely not asking to delete those, let alone to delete all self-referencing articles, but for heaven's sake, let's not be overly demanding when it comes to languages that may seems obscure to some. &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  16:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Contesting the closure of the AfD should be done through WP:DRV not as a move request. Move requests are not part of the deletion process, but the result of an AfD is, so DRV or a new AfD should be done instead of a move request. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I know, it's just that after more than ten years of being a Wikipedia editor I really don't have the stomach and the time to go through all these procedures anymore. &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  00:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 31 December 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to Draft:Volapük Wikipedia. I'm ignoring the rules because consensus on article titles shouldn't be generated at a deletion discussion, that's what requested moves is for. I have read the whole AFD and it seems the closer moved it there because it's kind of internal and so as to avoid complete deletion. I get that, but it's clear that the Wikipedia namespace is the wrong place for it. Therefore, I'm incubating it in the draftspace. (closed by non-admin page mover)  SITH   (talk)   22:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Volapük Wikipedia → Volapük Wikipedia – See Volapük Wikipedia (Q714826) in Wikidata. Why is only English Wp using the Wikipedia Namespace and redirecting Volapük Wikipedia to List of Wikipedias? X1\ (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Because of AfD and as pointed out above you can use deletion review if necessary not this. Did you read the section above? 63.139.68.86 (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: Pretty strange decision. This should either be deleted or sent to draft space if not notable, or if it is, moved to article space. There is no reason at all for it being in the project space. --Gonnym (talk) 10:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree the "Volapük Wikipedia" article should not be in the wp project namespace! If you look at the wikidata above, you'll see this topic is significant enough to to be be kept in article space.  It is beyond "Draft".  Do you know if there is a special process beyond a regular move request for this situation?  X1\ (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, which is why I didn't !vote, as I'm not sure if there is an underlying issue here for the previous reason. Anyways, I'll support the move unless someone can explain the previous reason. --Gonnym (talk) 11:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree the decision to move the article to Wikipedia space was a very strange one. I appreciate it that the closing admin apparently didn't want the contents of the page go to waste entirely, but IMO it would have been more logical to turn it into a redirect without deleting the page's history. In any case, when the page was nominated for deletion, the sourcing was indeed weak, so from that point of view the decision to delete it was justified. On the other hand, lots of pages about Wikipedia language versions are completely unsourced but for a few references to statistics and perhaps some private blog. For example, look at those about Wikipedia editions in Afrikaans, Breton, Cantonese, Georgian, Hindi, Judaeo-Spanish, Kyrgyz, Macedonian, Mongolian, Nepal Bhasa, Ripuarian, Serbian, Tatar and Vietnamese, just to name a few examples. Of course, I know very well that the existence or non-existence of an article about subject A can never be used as an argument for the existence or non-existence of an article about subject B, but still, one might wonder why articles like those are much less of a problem to some people than an article about an edition in a constructed language, even though the latter is in a much better shape (I'd even say: over-sourced). In any case, I don't see any reason why the article in its current state can't be moved back to main space either. &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  15:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree the histories should be save as was done on the move here. I'm guessing this was a temporary "save" of this topic, while some controversy/drama was occurring ... until now when a move could be properly done in the article namespace.  A redirect from here to there sounds appropriate.  Should we just do it, or is there any other process that needed to be done, as I have never moved/redirected from a Wikipedia namespace?  X1\ (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Makes sense since it seems like it has a reasonable amount of sources.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Copied from here, not knowing any better, I went Bold and copied contents of this page to Volapük Wikipedia namespace. Hope this is appropriate.  If there is consensus, I'd put a redirect here to there, Okay?  01:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * X1\, copy-and-paste moves are deprecated; see WP:CUTPASTE for more information. Because of this, I have undone the changes. Further, it should be left to an uninvolved editor who is familiar with move procedures to close the discussion. You can learn more about the normal process of closing discussions here. Dekimasu よ! 01:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. Sounds good.  01:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Status?
what is the status of the incubating it in the draftspace? I have not found where the progress of this already developed article is. Its lack of apparent progress is already having impact. X1\ (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your message. I was just implementing consensus from that particular requested move.  As a page mover, I only have the technical ability and permission to move pages on English Wikipedia, and I certainly can't delete them as would be the case if it were to be found not notable, there's no point keeping it in the draftspace, or any namespace.  It was, as I recall, moved to the Project namespace, but it's not part of this project, so maybe a transwiki to Meta is an option.  The AFD resulted in redirect to List of Wikipedias, I'll just check that that is still the case and if not make the redirect.  If you want, you could take it to WP:MFD.  Thanks,   SITH   (talk)   11:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you know the status of this Draft? Do I to continue? It shouldn't have an issue moving to articlespace, replacing the Redirect page. X1\ (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Reviewer Note
The history to this page is bizarre. My first thought on reading this draft was to accept it. On seeing the long strange history, it appears that multiple efforts to obtain consensus have had various conclusions, but that the most current view seems to be to go ahead and accept it again. Rather than having the existing redirect deleted, I will move it to some dustbin. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC) User:X1, User:StraussInTheHouse Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)