1)  Technically we&#39;re in &quot;year 10&quot; so people might still reference it as an &quot;open&quot; matter until January 2012 (eg some kind of &quot;Wikimedia 10 in perspective&quot;).  I wouldn&#39;t necessarily assume we archive it until then, in case there are any &quot;end of year&quot; stuff people add to it before it&#39;s closed.<br>


<br>2) Once it&#39;s archival interest only, then close it via bugzilla request - unlikely to be controversial so long as the data is publicly preserved. If we don&#39;t have a &quot;Requests to close wikis&quot; page on Meta we probably should create one.<br>


<br>3) Finally, we should devise some kind of canonical naming for old inactive wikis which are being kept for historical/archival interest but are closed to public editing.  I&#39;d suggest something like <a href="http://ten.archive.wikimedia.org">ten.archive.wikimedia.org</a> -- hosting the same content but configured as read-only to all. Then leave <a href="http://ten.wikimedia.org" target="_blank">ten.wikimedia.org</a> as a one page soft redirect to this wiki. This will not be the only historical &quot;old&quot; wiki and a canonical naming system allows us to handle and index those to come.<br>


<br>FT2<br> <br> <br> <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Steven Walling <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:swalling@wikimedia.org" target="_blank">swalling@wikimedia.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>

<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hey everyone,<div><br></div><div>[I may forward this on to Foundation-l depending on replies. The list has been very quiet recently.]</div><div><br></div><div>I just wanted to poke those interested in the long term plan for <a href="http://ten.wikipedia.org" target="_blank">ten.wikipedia.org</a> about our options, since basically all we&#39;re getting activity-wise on the site is the very occasional edit including some vandalism that has required revision deletions. </div>




<div><br></div><div>As discussed on the Village Pump,[1] it looks like filing a bug to close it (meaning only Stewards could edit, but the site would be preserved) is the most viable option. The question I have is: would people like to open a formal request to close the project on Meta or are they okay with me just going ahead and filing a bug? </div>




<div><br></div><div>Your input is appreciated, <br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Steven Walling<div>Community Organizer at Wikimedia Foundation</div><div><a href="http://wikimediafoundation.org" target="_blank">wikimediafoundation.org</a></div>




<br>
</div><div>1. <a href="http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VP#Ideas_for_what_to_do_with_tenwiki_in_the_future" target="_blank">http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VP#Ideas_for_what_to_do_with_tenwiki_in_the_future</a></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
WikiX-l mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:WikiX-l@lists.wikimedia.org" target="_blank">WikiX-l@lists.wikimedia.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikix-l" target="_blank">https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikix-l</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>