User:Dcljr/Requests for new languages inconsistencies

Copied from Talk:Language committee/2015#Requests for new languages inconsistencies, so I can continue to work on this (maybe).

Requests for new languages inconsistencies

edit

Perhaps I'm not understanding certain aspects of this process, but I've found the following inconsistencies in the Requests for new languages page (the "summary" page) and its subpages. (Apologies for the huge post.)

Extended content
  1. Open requests marked "Verified as eligible" on the summary page but only marked "submitted" (as opposed to "verification") on the individual request subpages:
  2. Open requests marked as being in "Discussion" on the summary page but "verified as eligible" on individual request subpages:
  3. Open request marked as being in "Discussion" on the summary page but "rejected" as "final decision" on individual request subpage:
  4. Open requests marked as "on hold" on summary page but no indication of why (in template at top, at least) on individual request subpages:
  5. Open requests with (possibly) inconsistent capitalization in subpage titles (similar requests have been redirected to capitalized versions):
  6. Open request with no template on request subpage:
  7. Wikivoyage "fast-tracked" languages marked as "Approved" on summary page but not marked as "verified as eligible" (merely "submitted") on the individual subpages:
  8. Closed requests marked "Created" on summary page but with no link to separate wiki on subpage (in template at top of page, anyway):
  9. Closed requests marked "Rejected" on summary page but marked "submitted" (as opposed to "final decision") on individual request subpages:
  10. Closed request that was closed awkwardly (judged an April Fool's joke, but the terse closing comment left that unclear) and has seen problematic editing [1] (including a move to a new title) by (mostly) IP editors since then:
  11. Request subpages in Category:Open requests for new languages (all at the "submitted" level and many, but not all, having a relatively trivial edit history) that do not appear on the main summary page (note bad page titles for some of these):
  12. Request subpages in Category:Failed requests for new languages that do not appear on the main summary page:
  13. Request subpages in Category:Failed requests for new languages that would seem to fit better in Category:Old requests for new languages:
  14. Request subpages in Category:Requests for new languages verified as eligible (and marked "verifed as eligible" on the subpages) that do not appear on the main summary page:
  15. Request subpage in Category:Approved requests for new languages not appearing on the main summary page that may not have been closed properly ("closed" by a now-blocked user):
  16. Request subpages in Category:Approved requests for new languages not appearing on the main summary page that do not have an indication that they were "approved before the implementation of the standardised Language proposal policy" (as do the rest of the similar pages in that category):
  17. Request subpages listed in the nonexistent Category:Invalid language request template usage because of some kind of template usage error:
  18. Request subpages not appearing on the summary page or any subcategory of Category:Requests for new languages (or Category:Invalid language request template usage, for that matter), usually because they're incomplete and/or malformed requests:
  19. Non-subpages that appear to be badly named and/or malformed requests for new languages:

Note that if any subpage appears in multiple categories mentioned above (but not on the summary page), it will only appear in one of the above lists (usually the earliest one).

Having now gone through every subpage I could find, I should point out that I've already fixed some minor errors I found here and there, but for the stuff listed above I either didn't know what to do about them or I figured they'd be better dealt with by an admin. - dcljr (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow, these are quite a lot. I will start with some comments:
Those in no. 1-4 and 9 have the status that is indicated on the request page. The "summary page" should be updated according to them (Exception is the 1st one listed for no. 9: It was in reality rejected, but the template parameter on the request page was vandalized/changed by an IP -- now reverted).
Those in no. 8 do exist; if it's desired, the links to the subdomains can easily be added (though they are also in the request template, as for all requests). --MF-W 20:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
And Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Montenegrin 5, no summary, broken template, and per the 4 former discussions it can be 5th rejected (Forgive my all-caps oppose comment). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
TL;DR, Requests for new languages/Wikivoyage Zazaki has two header templates, a "verification" one and a "submitted" one. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Some non-standard/rude titles are fixed by me... --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@MF-Warburg: You said, "Those in no. 1-4 and 9 have the status that is indicated on the request page." Unfortunately, that does not appear to be true in every case: When I started to go through syncing the summary page with the subpages, I found that the 2nd and 3rd subpages in my list (under #1 above), Wikinews Basque and Wikinews Sicilian, were given the status "verification" by an admin ([2], [3]) and were changed to "submitted" status years later by an IP editor ([4] [5]). Looks to me like the subpages (request pages) are wrong in those 2 cases, and thus will likely be wrong in other cases, as well. (BTW, three other similar edits by that IP editor at the same time did not involve a change in subpage status, but should probably be checked by an admin, anyway.) I have started to sync the information on the summary page with the subpages that appear to be correct, crossing out the entries in the above lists as I go. When I come across a subpage that appears to be incorrect (as with the Basque and Sicilian Wikinews requests), I will mark them with "??" and not change anything (yet). Someone else can change the subpages if they feel it is appropriate, but I'm going to stick with fixing the summary page in "obvious" cases for now. - dcljr (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I see, I didn't think about the possibility that the request pages could also have been changed wrongly, when actually no decision to change a request's status was made. In most cases, if a "submitted->verified" or "open->eligible" change wasn't made by a Langcom member, it is wrong. I checked the edits of the IP you mentioned and corrected them; that was in fact a past abuser. Thanks for your cleaning up in this area. --MF-W 00:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)