Wikibooks talk:Incubator

Major project requirements
An edit summary was made with the following: "the requirements for a subproject at least shouldn't be much stronger than those for a whole new Wikimedia wiki". The requirements for a new wiki should be documented here or linked to. As the page currently says, major projects have "a self-titled namespace, a link on the sidebar, and a prominent mention on the Main Page". This is why it's important that activity be proven. The fact of the matter is that right now neither the Cookbook nor Wikijunior have ten active contributors, and they are major projects at this time. A mere five contributors without a requirement for a year of proven activity would not convince me personally to get behind a new namespace and sovereign project at Wikibooks. Fortunately the 30 supporters/70% remain. – Adrignola discuss 04:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The requirements for a new wiki are five active editors, as stated here: Meta:Language proposal policy#Verification; for a subproject it should perhaps be something less, but certainly not more. I think a hard requirement for a year would be overkill, though certainly granting major project status should be far from automatic, and demonstrating quality and staying power should of course be the major criteria.--Pharos (discuss • contribs) 19:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * First a whole new project is not the same as starting a new language edition for an existing project nor the same as hosting a new project within an existing project. Second the requirements for closing a new language project are not as clear, but lack of activity for 30 days seems to be one criteria I have seen mentioned. I think the requirements for new languages has little baring here.
 * I think demonstrating quality, proving activity, having substantial materials, and showing staying power are all key factors which contributed to Wikijunior and Cookbook being acknowledged as major projects. BTW requiring more than 10 active contributors as a requirement occurs to me, with the idea that it need not necessarily be the same contributors for the entire year. I also didn't suggest a specific growth rate on purpose, but if it helps we could say something like 1% growth each month. --dark lama  20:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there are two things we want to assess here, (1) "community vitality", and (2) "whether it's actually a good concept". For (1) I think the same or an easier standard would apply as for a whole new wiki, while (2) is exactly why we're proposing a consensus vote based on the wisdom of the Wikibooks community evaluating this particular project- because this will require a careful qualitative decision unlike the stuff that is determined simply by ISO codes.--Pharos (discuss • contribs) 20:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see "community vitality" as being a combination of an ability to create quality content and meaningful contributions over a long period of time, and an ability to keep and attract new contributors over a long period of time. I think a project isn't viable as a major project if quality and the number of contributors decreases over time. I think for that reason an ability to sustain and strengthen over a long period of time both in terms of content and contributors is needed. I see "over a long period of time" as being at least 1 year.
 * I think "whether a project is a good concept" is also somewhat demonstrated by an ability to create quality content and meaningful contributions over a long period of time, an ability to keep and attract new contributors over a long period of time, and an ability to sustain and strengthen over a long period of time. I think by having these things as requirements the first can be assessed and second can be mostly assessed. I think the second part can be completely assessed by asking the community to discuss and decide whether a project is "good enough" to be a major project.
 * I think we may not be on the same page as to what a "whole new wiki" means. To me Wikiversity may be the last project that qualified as a "whole new wiki". --dark lama  12:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, each language edition is a new "community", and I think that the amount of community vitality needed to sustain something like Pennsylvania German Wikibooks would be comparable to, or really rather more, than that needed for a new major subproject on Wikibooks (since the potential vitality of the new language edition would be quite limited enough by the sheer tinyness of the Pennsylvania German speaking population). I do quite agree that measurements of vitality should be made over time, but I don't think some strict absolute requirement for a year would be helpful, as that is a very long time in the online world, and the very idea might scare off some potential bold experimenters.--Pharos (discuss • contribs) 19:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)