- Of those 53,
Chinese has nearly 800 pages in its root category, and five other tests have from about 375 down to about 260 pages. No other test has even 100 in its root category. (Caveat: I haven't tried to see if there are pages in subcategories
but not in the language's root category.) Based on the
list at Meta, I will assume for now that fewer than 100 pages (and possibly even fewer than 200 pages) is considered prima facie "too small".
- Exactly four tests show some activity nearly every month, and a fifth test is worth a mention.
- Chinese: As I wrote recently, if one counted the substantial contributions by IP editors, there would be easily be sufficient activity to make this Wikiversity test approvable. This test had long stretches between 2012 and 2015 when it always met the activity
requirement outright. I do not know why the project was not approved then, but it is certainly possible that the lack of approval at that point eventually discouraged some contributors. Given that this Wikiversity is also much bigger than any other test here—it
would be around #10 in size of all Wikiversities if approved—LangCom should consider whether or not this should be approved now, even if the activity requirement is "not quite" met.
- Ukranian (305 pages) and
Hebrew (87 pages) have some activity every single month. Neither has ever had three consecutive months of three registered users with ten edits each, though Hebrew had a stretch of 19 months during 18 of which it had at least two registered users with ten
edits each.
- Estonian (262 pages) has some activity most months. It had stretches in 2009-2010 when it met the current eligibility requirement, but
it's not really close at present.
- Lithuanian (326 pages) met the eligibility requirement during nearly all of 2015, but has been completely dormant since. Again, I do wonder
if the lack of attention at a certain point eventually discouraged some contributors.
- The other two "large enough" tests (Bulgarian and Persian) have a certain amount of intermittent activity, but nothing regular in the last couple of years.
As for the proposal to merge Beta into Incubator, my official position is to be neutral on this, and ultimately I am. But, frankly, from a strictly pragmatic perspective, I don't need the extra load in Incubator right now. And I don't need a bunch of former
Beta administrators telling me I'm not handling their projects correctly. So either don't do it, or at least don't be in so much of a hurry to do it. It's easy enough to keep track of what's going on over there.