Meta:Requests for deletion/Archives/2007

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2007, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Contents

Deleted[edit]

Articles[edit]

WikiDevices[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted per consensus.--Aphaia 09:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Not related to WMF or Meta. MaxSem 18:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Encourage the contributors to transwiki to en:wp perhaps (if it would pass en:wp:WP:WEB ... ) but does not seem to fit here. Delete ++Lar: t/c 21:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete definately per nom. Cbrown1023 02:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.--Jusjih 15:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --.anaconda 17:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It does not appear to be related to Meta in any way. --Majorly 22:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No relation to Meta, really not needed. Nishkid64 23:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not related to Meta. Naconkantari 23:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ditto, Slade 22:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I also do not see anything related to wikimedia. Sorry. --La gloria è a dio 21:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above, its not related to wikimedia. Somitho 14:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

ARTICLE tag[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted per consensus. --Aphaia 09:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be a redundant proposal with no discussion since 2003. --Majorly 23:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 23:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --.anaconda 22:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It has no usefulness now. Nishkid64 23:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ditto, Slade 22:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.--Jusjih 16:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom
  • Delete Per nom, it seems to be stale. Somitho 14:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • deletePer nom. --La gloria è a dio 14:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

南方民主同盟[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Speedy Deleted by Aphaia.

The content of this article has nothing to do with wikimedia.--Hillgentleman| 03:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedied Thanks for your nomination. From my rusty understanding, it is an encyclopedic article about Chinese political party based on Hong Kong (literally "Southern Democratic Union". I speedied it as "not relevant article to WMF nor meta". --Aphaia 05:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Should it perhaps have been transwikied somewhere? ++Lar: t/c 14:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry no. cf. zh:南方民主同盟--Aphaia 14:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Guerilla UK spelling campaign and Gorilla US spelling campaign[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted. Cbrown1023 talk 16:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Guerilla UK spelling campaign was originally created under the idea of humour (selling pun intended), but it strikes me more as a divisive example of Point and a cultural thumbing of the nose disguised as a joke. Please see the page's history. Then, as a fork we got Gorilla US spelling campaign, which, while not quite as vitriolic (it doesn't really mention the UK, while the first article directly states Residents of the United States are far more ignorant about the rest of the world than the rest of the world is of them.), should go as well. See diffs like [1] [2] and [3] clearly show that some of the creators think of this as far more than a joke. Please, I ask you to delete these divisive pages, which are not at all funny, but a way of taking jabs at people across the Atlantic. Meta is supposed to be a coming together of people, not an excuse for division (I note that this may have been created on meta, because it never could have existed under such a sorry state on en). Patstuart 17:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. These articles attract too much IP vandalism and I see no good reasons to keep them.--Jusjih 18:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless there's a real reason to keep, I think these two pages should be deleted. I don't think it has much use here at Meta, and as Jusjih mentioned, it just attracts IP vandalism. Nishkid64 22:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Cbrown1023 23:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --.anaconda 13:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; --Slade 02:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - we can always revert vandalism, and shouldn't use deletion as a defence. —Xyrael / 12:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral, if these are humor pages I'm fine with them, but think they may need to more clearly identify themselves as humor pages. Guerilla non-eEnglish spelling and grammar campaign may also need to be considered in this rfd, as it is related. xaosflux Talk 07:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral (toward keeping) under the condition they are categorized unde Humor/Humour. Aphaia 12:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedians who were born between 1980 and 1984[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted. Cbrown1023 talk 16:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why Wikimedians who were born between 1980 and 1984 should be kept. At List of Wikimedians by age, we already have an entire section for 1980s births, so I see no point in having an individual article for people born in the time frame between 1980 and 1984. If there appears to be some people who are not on List of Wikimedians by age, but are on Wikimedians who were born between 1980 and 1984, then I will merge those names before deletion. Nishkid64 22:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete duplicate to "List of Wikimedians by age". Cbrown1023 23:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Delete --.anaconda 13:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - appears to be simply a duplicate, as said. —Xyrael / 16:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment All people on this page have now been merged to List of Wikimedians by age (it was around 20-30 people I moved). Nishkid64 18:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.--Jusjih 18:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; --Slade 02:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It seems a bit redundant. --Majorly 20:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Too specific, all of the other years seem to get by fine without this level of breakout. xaosflux Talk 07:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete , arbitrary AND specific, and it's already merged. --Shrieking Harpy Gay flag.svgTalk|Count 03:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

TomeRaider[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted. Cbrown1023 talk 16:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This page is just a link back to enwiki, to a historical page that has a good few broken links - I'm not sure if it's useful anymore, so I propose it be deleted. —Xyrael / 20:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Coredesat (en.wp) 01:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It does not even qualify as an essay.--Jusjih 08:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ditto, Slade 13:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Steel en:Steel 17:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cbrown1023 20:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete seems to be pretty worthless. --Majorly 20:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --.anaconda 22:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Crossproject redirect not meta-related. xaosflux Talk 07:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Marxist Wikipedians[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted. Cbrown1023 talk 00:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This new page was immediately renamed by it's creator, this is an orphaned unlikely redirect. xaosflux Talk 07:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom. xaosflux Talk 07:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as Wikimedians is probably assumed on meta. —Xyrael / 11:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Speed delete -- MichaelFrey 13:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Majorly 13:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; --Slade 14:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Jusjih 14:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 01:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, although the redirect target might be deserving of its own RFD, as it only has one member on it and absolutely nothing else. --Coredesat (en.wp) 15:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. In fact, why not speedy? and the redirect target may well be deletable as well, but with proper nomming... ++Lar: t/c 20:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I moved this page to Wikimedians, and this doesn't seem like a needed redirect. Nishkid64 01:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 04:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion Forum[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted. Cbrown1023 talk 00:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that this belongs on meta - we have mailing lists for this sort of thing. Additionally, the page is long inactive. —Xyrael / 11:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  • (Comment) There are two pages linked from this page under pseudo-namespace "Forum". They would be also deletion candidates. --Aphaia 12:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It's empty, apart from two link. Pretty worthless, yes. --Majorly 13:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; --Slade 14:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete.--Jusjih 14:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Cbrown1023 01:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete along with Forum:semantic search and Forum:semantic attributes. No discussion going on, never had much anyway. -- Steel en:Steel 23:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unused, discussions can go on takl pages if needed. xaosflux Talk 18:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per other comments. ++Lar: t/c 22:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't seem necessary. Nishkid64 01:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete yup, useless.--Doc glasgow 17:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per ^. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 04:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide Lexicon[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted. Cbrown1023 talk 00:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This page isn't particularly coherent, and is clearly very out of date - I'm not sure it's a lot of use. —Xyrael / 11:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom - not been edited since 2004, and only twice. --Majorly 13:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; --Slade 14:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete.--Jusjih 14:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 01:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not sure what this is, exactly, but it's linked from Syndication feeds with the note "is this relevant?". Doesn't appear to be. --Coredesat (en.wp) 15:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, ancient, unused. xaosflux Talk 18:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete old, tired. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 04:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Text in MediaWiki[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted. Cbrown1023 talk 00:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Old, and not a lot of use anymore, so I propose we delete this. —Xyrael / 12:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete What is its point? --Majorly 13:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; --Slade 14:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: These are some texts copied from MediaWiki namespace. Only admins may edit these pages, but others may view.--Jusjih 14:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Majorly. Doesn't appear to have much of a point anymore. --Coredesat (en.wp) 22:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Cbrown1023 01:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly been abandoned/forgotten about. Original intention was "Suggesting changes", any changes to Mediawikispace are best suggested on the corresponding talk page. -- Steel en:Steel 23:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 04:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

POV warrior[edit]

The following discussion is closed: merged and deleted, with attribution to Raul654 in an edit summary. Cbrown1023 talk 00:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This page has one sentence of a definition only. If not to delete page history, how about merge to Neutral point of view?--Jusjih 16:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Minimal version to use PyWikipediaBot[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted. Cbrown1023 talk 22:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Not maintained anymore. The list was most probably never used. --Head 01:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Jusjih 07:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 21:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Majorly 22:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --.anaconda 17:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unused, why keep? Nishkid64 01:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; --Slade 20:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • delete --dario vet (talk) 10:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Suppressionism[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Consensus is to delete. Majorly (o rly?) 16:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested, given reason was: "Neologism, attempt to prove a point at en:". Cbrown1023 talk 00:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, looks like POINT to me. Irrelevant to Meta, regardless. --Coredesat (en.wp) 02:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Coredesat. Could do as a Wikipedia essay perhaps, but not here. --Majorly 09:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as the creator, I created the article to address what I see as opposition to my transwikian editing philosophy. I agree with Keynes and Hayek who identified information as the key determinant in human affairs, so I edit to expand access to what I understand as the truth. Suppressionist editing is the destruction of information so that the truth cannot disturb real-life affairs... but it might be a lot more appropriate for me to write an article characterizing myself instead of those who oppose transwikian editing. In any case, it would be very nice of you to vote keep. Thanks! JPatrickBedell 20:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • One problem with you comment: "I created... I see". Meta, like other Wikimedia projects, is not to publish original ideas. Nelogisms like these, should be placed on meta after wide-spread use by users on many projects. Not by I just one user ("I"). Cbrown1023 talk 01:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Coredesat. ERcheck 03:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • To feel good about a keep, I'd need some proof that there are some significant number of people that hold this as a wikiphilosphy, and that the term is used in discourse (I think most would agree that "deletionism" is a real wikiphilosophy, referred to by that term, and there are those that hold and practice it or variants of it, for example) this is just one person's view, and just a personal essay. It's better moved back to a user subpage of the author, preferrably on the home wiki. So, pending that proof, Delete per Coredesat. Note that I will gladly make the text available to the author on request if it should be deleted. ++Lar: t/c 17:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Coredesat, but it should be moved to the user's subpage.--Jusjih 16:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Userfy --Doc glasgow 17:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; --Slade 20:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- there's substantial evidence of so-called "suppressionism", certainly if you look at some spinoff projects, like Conservapedia and its criticisms. Closer to home, consider that pages like an open letter to Jim Wales get classified as "looks useless" simply because they lay out some uncomfortable experiences with the project. This is suppressionism as defined on the page, though perhaps a name like systemic imbalance would suit the NPOV zealots better. However, on meta there is a need for opinionated POV pieces to take strong positions, and the position that points of view are being actively suppressed is among the most important of these. The arguments given above are mostly relevant to Wikipedia, but not to meta.The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.177.110.197 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 22 February 2007.
  • Delete I don't think this is really wide-reaching enough for meta. —Xyrael / 21:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Translations/Test/it[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Speedy deleted as a test page. Majorly (o rly?) 19:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The only contributor blanked the page and the earliest content seems valueless. Deletion suggested.--Jusjih 15:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Tiki malu[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Nishkid64 23:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

What language it is? Googling gives nothing ehen searched for prases from this page. Is it relevant to Meta? MaxSem 09:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete I really can't find any reason to keep this article. It seems like some made-up article. Nishkid64 22:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --Nick1915 23:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --.anaconda 14:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Ditto, Slade 17:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and soon, this is an obvious speedy candidate. Majorly (o rly?) 17:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for insufficient relevance to Meta.--Jusjih 13:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nonsense unless the language can be identified, otherwise just delete as irrelevant. --Coredesat (en.wp) 23:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It shouldn't be speedy. Meta:Deletion policy says as following: Meta is a place where all languages are welcome. Ideally, all languages used on meta should be understood by at least one sysop. Unfortunately, this is not the case yet. It is recommended that sysops be extra cautious in deletion of pages in other languages.. Please note, meta is not English project and since I cannot read the language is not the case here on meta. --Aphaia 15:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Nod. Could (has?) someone asked the original poster what language it is, and what it says? I agree it's not a speedy if we don't know what it is. ++Lar: t/c 17:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Original poster made only one edit here, and that was creating the article. The user has made no edits since then (December 2006). Aphaia left a ntoe on the user talk page more than a week ago. Nishkid64 23:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Nod. That note was just a generic "this is up for deletion", though. I was going to elaborate on it, then I checked the contribs abd the dates and... although maybe a more specific note might have been nice, it's pretty clear that despite us not knowing what it says, this was likely a one shot contribution and can go away. ++Lar: t/c 14:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed colaboration between the community of lmo.wiki, Wikimedia Italia and Wikimedia CH[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Consensus is to delete. Majorly (o rly?) 09:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely irrilevant for Meta, Wikimedia Italia and Wikimedia CH--Nick1915 - all you want 13:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  • delete' --Frieda 13:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • delete--Jusjih 16:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete --.anaconda 16:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • delete. I moved the page on lmo.wiki --Snowdog 10:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete--James, La gloria è a dio 00:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It serves as a purpose. (absolutely, Sir? Inflationated words, isn't it?).--10caart 16:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)--- Oh Oh, yes ... Strong Keep
  • Delete --Slade 19:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleting is waste of work already made, and as such, waste of money.--OlBergomi 09:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sorry for delay, I have been taken ill. Ladies and gentlemen, some work has been done, that's collaboration amongst different communities, so it seems rather relevant for meta. I don't see any need for closing this door. Yes, absolutely looks like a bit amiss within a wiki project. Shouldn't one assume good faith, it would seem a little the will of raising conflicts. Best regards --clamengh 14:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC) (PS Stern keep?)
  • Delete --Valepert 14:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --Senpaiottolo 14:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed colaboration between the community of lmo.wiki, Wikimedia Italia and Wikimedia CH/first minimal issues[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Consensus is to delete. Majorly (o rly?) 09:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely irrilevant for Meta, Wikimedia Italia and Wikimedia CH--Nick1915 - all you want 13:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  • delete' --Frieda 13:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • delete--Jusjih 16:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --.anaconda 16:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - fail to see the relevance. ++Lar: t/c 22:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • delete. I moved the page on lmo.wiki --Snowdog 10:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete--James, La gloria è a dio 00:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It serves as a purpose. (absolutely, Sir? Inflationated words, isn't it?).--10caart 16:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --Slade 19:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleting is waste of work already made, and as such, waste of money.--OlBergomi 09:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sorry for delay, I have been taken ill. Ladies and gentlemen, some work has been done, that's collaboration amongst different communities, so it seems rather relevant for meta. I don't see any need for closing this door. Yes, absolutely looks like a bit amiss within a wiki project. Shouldn't one assume good faith, it would seem a little the will of raising conflicts. Best regards --clamengh 14:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --Valepert 14:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --Senpaiottolo 14:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

スチュワードの方針[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Majorly (o rly?) 18:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems machine translation from "stewards policy" or somewhat (without link to the original, so it's uncertain from itself). It is not clear the result can be released under GFDL. --Aphaia 12:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete unless it is proved that this page was produced by an engine which result can be freely used. --Aphaia 12:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Commnet: I have left a message to the first contributor of that page. Hopefully there will be a response, but I cannot speak Japanese.--Jusjih 16:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    The first contributor of that page has never answered and cannot be emailed. If any admin wants to delete this, I do not object.--Jusjih 13:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


Manual of Style[edit]

The following discussion is closed: No consensus (closer to keep). Cbrown1023 talk 17:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Dunno what HutWiki is, but this page is perfectly useless in its present state. MaxSem 19:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Been around a very long time but probably misplaced. ++Lar: t/c 16:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I am still dubious, this seems a very broad topic and many wikis have different styles, it may not be possible to write such a thing. But I think there is merit in trying and I commmend Gaillimh for taking this on. Change to Keep. ++Lar: t/c 20:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No need for something useless. Nishkid64 21:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't seem relevant or useful for Meta. Abandoned for a while, so no one will miss it if it's deleted. Picaroon 00:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    If Gaillimh thinks the page has merit and could be turner into a somewhat universal MoS, then we should give him a try. Switching to keep. Picaroon 00:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, appears to be abandoned. --Coredesat (en.wp) 19:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Can the phrase "HutWiki" simply be removed and replaced with "wiki" or "wikis run by Wikimedia." The page in question is actually a very nice beginning to a manual of style. Gaillimh 23:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Be bold. Do it... and report back, and I'd change my view to keep. But right now it's abandoned and too narrow focused for here. ++Lar: t/c 12:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I've gone ahead and tweaked the page a bit so it reflects a general MoS guide for all Wikimedia-sponsored wikis. As the page is admittedly a beginning, there is still a lot to be done before it becomes an all-encapsulating MoS guide. Gaillimh 20:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
        • As such, I think that we should keep this article Gaillimh 20:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.--Jusjih 13:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above -- Til Eulenspiegel 16:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The above are keep arguments, therefore this !vote has no backing given. Cbrown1023 talk 18:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, Lar changed to keep. Majorly (o rly?) 21:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Video[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete per consensus. Nishkid64 18:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is not for meta and looks almost certainly like a hoax (it was also created by an IP, leaving little credibility). I would move it to MediaWiki.org, but I doubt that they would like something that looks this unreliable. Cbrown1023 talk 01:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Unless proven otherwise, I don't think this is a legitimate MediaWiki extension. Nishkid64 21:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per the RFD below for the Google Ads hack. --Coredesat (en.wp) 19:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • As stated in the Google Ads RfD, the user did not request the page be deleted. He/she just said that they wouldn't mind the page being deleted as a result of the RfD decision. Doesn't look like the same meaning to me. Nishkid64 20:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I misinterpreted it as the other way around - regular delete as irrelevant to Meta, then. --Coredesat (en.wp) 22:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.--Jusjih 13:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, Slade 14:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Til Eulenspiegel 16:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Please state your reasoning for your "keep" !vote. Cbrown1023 talk 18:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
      • To be fair, Jusjih and Slade haven't provided reasons either. Majorly (o rly?) 22:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted per consensus. Nishkid64 18:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Almost the same reason as above: not related to Meta, and not really suitable for MediaWiki.org. Korg + + 22:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi, im new to all this stuff. It was me who posted the hack it is cheap and nasty but it works. Only put it here so others who want this solution can use. I really dont mind if it gets deleted or not :)
  • In that case, speedy delete, G6/author request. --Coredesat (en.wp) 19:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • He never said he wanted to delete it--he just said he wouldn't mind if it was deleted. Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't seem like the same thing. Nishkid64 20:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I misinterpreted it as the other way around - regular delete as irrelevant to Meta, then. --Coredesat (en.wp) 22:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.--Jusjih 13:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not related to Meta--Nick1915 - all you want 02:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, Slade 14:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Til Eulenspiegel 16:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Please state your reasoning for your "keep" !vote. Cbrown1023 talk 18:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment, as above. Jusjih and Slade haven't given reasons either. Majorly (o rly?) 22:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Funniest Wikipedia vandals and trolls[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Cbrown1023 talk 00:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The title says it all, doesn't it? Although this page is pretty out of the way (see the sparse edit history), it still constitutes feeding the trolls; they try to get reactions, and by making a page about them, we're giving them just that. In addition to that, attack pages, even when aimed at vandals and trolls, aren't appropriate. Picaroon 00:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete This page is not appropriate at all – and who decide what is a "funny" vandal or troll? Majorly (o rly?) 17:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    • We have at least one funny troll just for your information. Criteria could exist somewhere ... --Aphaia 09:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as irrelevant, possibly speedy under G7. --Coredesat (en.wp) 19:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.--Jusjih 15:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. No shrines for vandals Thunderhead 05:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above (en:WP:DENY) Martinp23 19:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --.anaconda 22:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above--Nick1915 - all you want 12:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't be a pest[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Majorly (hot!) 23:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Blatant fork of historic page Don't be a dick. I'm all for new essay's but be original, this is a word for word (well except for one word) copy.

  • Delete as nom. xaosflux Talk 01:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This was created by a user who was apparently objecting to the use of the word 'dick'. They created this page & redirected the historic page to it. I reverted the redirect, my apologies for not applying the RFD myself. --Versageek 04:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Versageek demonstrates that this was only created to prove an un-needed point. Martinp23 19:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Korg + + 20:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, don't bother redirecting. --Coredesat (en.wp) 22:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --.anaconda 22:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • delete --dario vet (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - pointless --Herby talk thyme 12:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure, leave a redirect behind, there's nothing wrong with that, but the essay should stay at the historic location. ++Lar: t/c 01:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --Brownout(msg) 03:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Lar in that a redirect would be OK, but the article itself should be left in its original location and should not be duplicated elsewhere on meta Gaillimh 06:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Change to redirect.--Jusjih 08:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Quality of articles[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted per consensus. Nishkid64 01:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been marked as "useless" and for speedy but the tag was removed with the suggestion the page should come here. Over to you --Herby talk thyme 11:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Yonatanh 11:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ++Lar: t/c 02:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --Brownout(msg) 02:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It'd be cool to have a page on meta listing the various article qualities (on en.wiki, we have stubs, "regular" articles, good articles, and featured articles), but as the page stands now, it doesn't provide anything of substance Gaillimh 06:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete--Jusjih 08:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • delete -- dario vet (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PTO 21:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; Slade 19:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Relatedly, I was relatively certain that we had a meta page like that which Gaillimh describes (enumerating at least the number of featured articles, which concept appears relatively consistent across Wikipeidas, per version), but I can't seem to find it; I surely wouldn't oppose the recreation of a page similar to Quality of articles either for the aggregation of statistics or for the proposal of such aggregation, but there's no indication of any usefulness here. Joe 19:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom.--James, La gloria è a dio 20:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Change Request System[edit]

The following discussion is closed: It was definetely irrelevant to meta. Speedly deleted to reduce bureaucracy. --Dbl2010 22:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the pages in the Category:Checkme marked for RfD below. Given that this category may well not be appropriate it seems sensible to bring the pages that previous users has found questionable to this forum so that the community can decide on it. Obviously if the community feel this is not appropriate I'm sure someone will let me know! I'll place a sample three pages here to test feelings.

Other than "checkme" tag IP edit only (& only contribution to Meta) in November 2006. --Herby talk thyme 08:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. ++Lar: t/c 02:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete.--Jusjih 08:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Newpageletter[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Cbrown1023 talk 00:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Other than "checkme" a single edit from October 2004 --Herby talk thyme 08:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Offensive username debate[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Other than Aphaia and myself, last edited a year ago when the "checkme" tag was placed. --Herby talk thyme 08:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete or Transwiki back to English Wikipedia: concerning only English Wikipedia policy and issue, no reason to move to meta. --Aphaia 09:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ++Lar: t/c 02:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --Brownout(msg) 02:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The page doesn't seem to apply to meta, so I'd be for deleting it or transwiki'ing it back to en.wp if there's a historical interest Gaillimh 06:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete.--Jusjih 08:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --.anaconda 23:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; Slade 19:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems worth transwikifying though. It appears to be the first time a block based on an inappropriate username was discussed. WjBscribe 23:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


Full file list[edit]

The following discussion is closed: closed as delete.--Herby talk thyme 07:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Woefully out of date, and overall redundant to Subversion. It would be a PITA to maintain this, so that's why I didn't transwiki it to MediaWiki.org; it is simply not necessary there. It also isn't necessary here, so I say delete. Titoxd(?!?) 05:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Countries of the world tables[edit]

The following discussion is closed: closed as delete. -- Herby talk thyme 08:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It could be historical. Or not. It may have served international coordination of formatting. Or not. I am not clear the past situation. Either once useful or not, Currently seldom edited, not to seem to be used and mainly luring test postings. --Aphaia 10:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles on fr.wiki no interwiki link to ja/E[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Majorly (hot!) 13:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

These are the majority of the remaining "Checkme" pages the category being for deletion below. At some stage in the past a user has seen fit to place a tag on here suggesting the page may not be appropriate for Meta. Aplogies for taking over the page but I guess I see these as in need of some housekeeping.

This one was marked for checkme a year ago --Herby talk thyme 14:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete; Slade 19:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete As well other Articles on fr.wiki no interwiki link to ja subpages. As 2004 creations, they are too outdated to serve housekeepers, while it was originally created for that purpose.--Aphaia 03:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --Brownout(msg) 06:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all subpages. --.anaconda 03:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all subpages, as they are outdated.-- Tdxiang 03:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Bibliothek für XSLT erzeugen[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Majorly (hot!) 13:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Marked in December, single edit from an ip prior to that --Herby talk thyme 14:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphan and never used. --Brownout(msg) 06:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Brownout. --.anaconda 03:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Multiedit[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Majorly (hot!) 13:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagged in June last year --Herby talk thyme 14:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep; Slade 19:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete orphan and unused (External link looks like spam to me). --Brownout(msg) 06:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No real activity for nearly three years. Sean William 02:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Brownout. --.anaconda 03:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

MySQL configuration[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Majorly (hot!) 13:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Originally marked as "sample/for comment" and tagged in June last year --Herby talk thyme 14:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

US-Ökonomen fordern Cannabisdebatte[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Majorly (hot!) 13:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Marked in September last year - looks like a debate on cannabis - not Meta? --Herby talk thyme 14:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Clearly unneeded here. --Johannes Rohr 12:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Irrelevant. PTO 00:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. An article about US politics translated to German (whyever...), not related to Meta. --Thogo (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Loeschen/Delete Ganz irrelevant. --Aphaia 16:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, appears to be irrelevant. --Coredesat (en.wp) 23:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Löschen, gehört nicht auf Meta. --Frank Schulenburg 17:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Žemaitiu kalba[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Majorly (hot!) 13:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Marked in September last year --Herby talk thyme 14:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

مازندران[edit]

The following discussion is closed: closed as Speedy per PTO. -- Herby talk thyme 12:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Again no idea what this is - single edit by ip October last year --Herby talk thyme 14:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete if still orphaned and dead-end after one week. (by Jusjih)
  • Strong keep unless Arabic speaking user(s) give information enough delete it. "No idea what this is" is not the valid reason for deletion on meta. For languages you cannot read, it is recommended to keep them until its reader appears and review it (see the deletion policy). --Aphaia 02:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The page name translates to "Abduction", and the page is marred with bad spelling (and wikilinks to Iran). Not relevant. PTO 14:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete In the absence of a contrary opinion, I trust PTO's explanation. Joe 17:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your translation, PullToOpen. So now we find it meet our speedy criteria, hence now rather Speedy delete. --Aphaia 01:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Irrelavant to Meta.-- Tdxiang 03:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


Introducción[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted by .anaconda, SD G4

This article certainly looks great and thorough, but it really isn't for meta and I don't think we would like it on MediaWiki.org. It is also in English, but with a non-english title and in a language-specific namespace. Cbrown1023 talk 23:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

And it is clearly a copyvio from Help:Introduction. --Thogo (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Simple copy of Help:Introduction, SD G4. --.anaconda 03:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Suomenlammas[edit]

The following discussion is closed: closed as speedy per Thogo & thanks. -- Herby talk thyme 09:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like offtopic text, but I'm not be able to translate/understand it!--Nick1915 - all you want 13:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment/Delete - I wondered about hitting delete on this one. It doesn't look like Meta but I too cannot translate it --Herby talk thyme 13:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Off-topic. It's an encyclopedia article about sheep (= Ovis aries). --Thogo (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Quality[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted per consensus. Nishkid64 00:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a chat page to me; what you think? -- Slade 19:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: It looks like a chat. I do not object deletion.--Jusjih 12:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - unless it is of any historical interest this does not seem to be anything but chat --Herby talk thyme 17:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Coredesat (en.wp) 23:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Normally, I would probably suggest that this be userfied, given that it appears to be an essay or perhaps a discussion best suited for a talk page, but since the page's creator hasn't edited since 2004, I concur with Slade that this article should be deleted Gaillimh 01:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Consumer Site Testing[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete. Majorly (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess this could be valid but a single IP edit from December 05 and the word "bizrate" at least makes me wonder? --Herby talk thyme 12:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as it doesn't seem remotely relevant to Meta. Picaroon (Talk) 18:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.--Jusjih 01:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Meta is not your test wiki. Delete as unrelated to our charter. ++Lar: t/c 03:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Enotif/Backup from testwiki[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted per discussion. Contact me to undelete if you actually were using this. ++Lar: t/c 01:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagged over a year ago and refers to Meta:MetaProject to Overhaul Meta --Herby talk thyme 14:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

With regards to this bunch of articles referring to Meta:MetaProject to Overhaul Meta, are they just leftover pages from completed tasks of the project or could they still serve some use? As someone who has no idea what any of the code means, I'm just wondering if it is now "obsolete" as a result of the project's efforts. Gaillimh 01:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we delete this, and the two others Herby nommed at the same time. If someone was using them, that should get their attention, and they can be undeleted if needed. But I suspect they are obsolete and not needed. ++Lar: t/c 18:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Lar - they've been tagged so long with no response that deletion is probably the only way to get the attention of whoever cares about them (if anyone). Martinp23 21:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Extensions/RpnCalc.php[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted per discussion. Contact me to undelete if you actually were using this. ++Lar: t/c 01:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagged over a year ago and refers to Meta:MetaProject to Overhaul Meta --Herby talk thyme 14:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Extensions/calc.php[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted per discussion. Contact me to undelete if you actually were using this. ++Lar: t/c 01:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagged over a year ago and refers to Meta:MetaProject to Overhaul Meta --Herby talk thyme 14:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Help:Mediawikiアーキテクチャ[edit]

The following discussion is closed: given the clarification, closed as keep. -- Herby talk thyme 14:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No idea what this one is about but there is some content on the talk page, oddly the "checkme" template did not show on this one so this may be an error rather than anything else --Herby talk thyme 14:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - it seems possible that this page was not actually in the "checkme" category other than accidentally - see here --Herby talk thyme 15:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Due to {{114}} :) I fixed it (a soft redirect to another redirect -> redirect to the final destination). --Aphaia 17:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

OTRS/en/Not a foo[edit]

The following discussion is closed: closed as delete. -- Herby talk thyme 08:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving infrequently asked OTRS question to OTRS/en which is watched by more people, and where discussion will be spotted. -- Jeandré, 2007-05-18t22:07z

  • These are obsolete templates that I don't think are even useable in the OTRS system. Gaillimh 00:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    They're not used by the OTRS system, they're listed on meta for discussion and as a quick way to copy/paste if not available in a specific queue. -- Jeandré, 2007-05-21t19:46z
    Exactly. I think that your sentiments echo mine, and apologies if I was not clear. I am in support of your proposal to delete these templates from Meta. Gaillimh 23:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this and the two below. Since they've been moved to somewhere more obvious, there's no reason to keep them. Martinp23 21:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

OTRS/en/Blocked proxy[edit]

The following discussion is closed: closed as delete. -- Herby talk thyme 08:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

See #OTRS/en/Not a foo. -- Jeandré, 2007-05-18t22:07z

These are obsolete templates that I don't think are even useable in the OTRS system. Gaillimh 00:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

OTRS/en/Email this article[edit]

The following discussion is closed: closed as delete. -- Herby talk thyme 08:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

See #OTRS/en/Not a foo. -- Jeandré, 2007-05-18t22:07z

These are obsolete templates that I don't think are even useable in the OTRS system. Gaillimh 00:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ca.wikinews Viquinotícies:Senyals dels articles[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Speedied "SDC: A1 --> transwikied to ca.wikinews" by User:Redux on 25 May 2007. Cbrown1023 talk 22:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Created in Feb 2006, it seems to be a duplicate (of an earlier version) of n:ca:Viquinotícies:Senyals dels articles, without noticing that. Thus, a copyvio? (--> CSD G5?) There are no links to this page in Meta. --Thogo (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's from those days when n:ca didn't exist separately. For deletion, thx. Aleator 21:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, I see, the n:ca: page is some weeks younger than ours here. So no copyvio. But it's certainly not necessary any more. --Thogo (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Given clarification "delete" is fine with me --Herby talk thyme 14:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I put an SD template there. The other pages of this kind (having been moved to ca.wn) are already deleted. --Thogo (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

ATHFWiki Proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed: closed as delete. -- Herby talk thyme 11:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be little irrelevat to WM projects--Nick1915 - all you want 19:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete: IMHO Wikia would be the right place for a project like this. --Brownout(msg) 19:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete like for the nominator, the term "irrelevant" springs to mind. Can't see any purpose for this. Martinp23 21:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Appears to have been created by accident? per nom, delete ++Lar: t/c 01:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I support the deletion of this proposal from Meta, but the deleting administrator should first try to get in touch with the fellow on where to best initiate his/her proposal Gaillimh 12:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete while irrelevant to WM.--Jusjih 04:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There is already a Wikia site on this at Wikiasite:ATHF. Angela 16:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    Given this new information, I think this page can now be "speedily deleted" from Meta Gaillimh 12:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

United wikipedia[edit]

The following discussion is closed: closed as delete.--Nick1915 - all you want 20:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a proposal that never got off the ground (or, for that matter, read). Martinp23 21:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete not useful now. Majorly (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete--Aphaia 23:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete--Jusjih 01:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete very poorly formed and not very coherent, old and apparently unused. Per nom. ++Lar: t/c 01:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This is certainly an interesting page if only for the fact that time has proven the exact opposite of the fellow's notions. I support Martin's idea to delete this Gaillimh 12:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ElinorD 22:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, Slade 23:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

OTRS/en/Details about article[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete per consensus. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This boilerplate message is the same as OTRS/en/Details on information in articles, but OTRS/en/Details about article is not called from (and listed on) OTRS/en. --Bensin 14:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - un-needed, and seems to be a mistaken creation. Martinp23 21:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Looking further into it, is seems that OTRS/en/Details on information in articles was created as a copy and paste from OTRS, while the OTRS version had been modified as a result of edits to OTRS/en/Details about article. Perhaps, in the interests of the GFDL, it would be best to delete the former, and move the latter into its place, then deleting the redirect if required. Martinp23 01:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree! --Bensin 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Dokumentation, Modul Wissensspeicher, Workflow[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted under CSD G7 criteria. Page is clearly irrelevant to the WMF, and therefore meets this criteria. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what it has to do with Meta.--Jusjih 15:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I would certainly say delete unless it should have been a user subpage? --Herby talk thyme 16:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If the page is clearly irrelevant to WMF, then it can be speedy deleted under CSD G7. However, I'm not totally sure what the point of the page is. There are two other pages that seem to be in the same category, so I've also added them to this RfD. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Meta:Template doc page pattern[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Redirect to Template:Documentation. Cbrown1023 talk 19:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This page describes a relatively complex procedure for documenting templates that has recently been deprecated by the instructions on the simplified {{documentation}}. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:50:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to {{documentation}} instead because there may be links from outside meta. -- Jeandré, 2007-06-24t08:17z
Redirect to {{documentation}}. Sr13 18:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete with redirect to {{documentation}}. FloNight 18:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

McFly[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted per consensus Nick1915 - all you want 10:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

An off topic fork of Wikipedia, unedited except for one vandal revert today, since its creation in 2004. I can't see its benefit here. Majorly (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  • delete per req--Nick1915 - all you want 12:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per request, old. Adambro 13:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • delete, also wrong place and no external link. -- Jeandré, 2007-07-16t17:48z
  • Delete per request. Joe 03:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not seeing that this belongs here so delete per request. FloNight 18:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per req. ElinorD 18:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - doesn't seem to belong here. WjBscribe 08:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • delete per request. --Brownout(msg) 01:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Greeves (talk contribs Wikipedia) 17:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Association of Sock Puppets[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted. MaxSem 13:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

We very often keep "humor" pages on Meta. But I think this one takes it too far. It suggests, among other things, that sockpuppets should be encouraged, and should be allowed to become administrators, bureaucrats, and even stewards. This is not acceptable behaviour, even if it is just humour. Sockpuppets are a problem, and do not need to be encouraged. Furthermore, the writer of the article seems to be following it quite happily, and has already tried to disrupt Kylu's RfA. It needs to go. Majorly (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If it were FUNNIER?... but no. Delete. ++Lar: t/c 03:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete!--Nick1915 - all you want 10:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete specially after seeing the author harass some editors. --Aphaia 10:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete --.anaconda 11:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think it should be speedied (SD G3) --.anaconda 12:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah. I might not oppose. And for your information, I blocked this account also. --Aphaia 12:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Amen! Closing as delete. MaxSem 13:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

יודל[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Speedy Delete: No meaningful content or history. EVula // talk // // 06:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello all, I don't see any reason why the link there (there is nothing else than a link to yi wikipedia) can't be put directly in Requests for permissions/Yiddish Wikipedia, thanks, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 00:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

LanguageNn.php and LanguageJa.php[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept, no consensus--Nick1915 - all you want 01:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems that these pages have been forgotten. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_deletion/Archives/2006#LanguageXX_pages_All_of_them --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 23:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - The two pages were restored: [4], [5]. Korg 01:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose for LanguageNn.php, since the local community found it historical interest. As for Ja, Tim Starling restored it ... before digging it, we'd love to ask him he still needs it, perhaps? I don't like to disturb techs unnecessarily in general. --Aphaia 01:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • That's right, I think then the templated should be restored also again, or removed because it is broken now, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 10:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Jcps31/Spambot investigation[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep per consensus. Nishkid64 (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the purpose of this page is exactly. Also, there is no evidence the user is a private investigator, and it could be considered an attack page. Has legal/biographical concerns too. Possible attack page. --WiganRunnerEu 23:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this page being an attack page by any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore, the user contacted Herby, a Meta bureaucrat, right after he created the page. While I don't really understand the purpose of the page, Jcps31 does appear genuine in his desire to help out. I suggest contacting the user personally first, before listing a page he created for deletion. As such, I'm OK with the page remaining on Meta given the limited information I have Gaillimh 00:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd say Keep; it was last edited on the 18th, so I think it's a bit too early to tell if it has been abandoned or not. It's certainly not hurting anything just staying there, and I consider any attempt at killing spambots to be good... EVula // talk // // 05:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Keep as above. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The reason I nominated it was, that it contained allegations about British pop stars which could constitute libel. The page isn't a bad idea, it's just the content that's the worrying part. --WiganRunnerEu 18:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm missing the libel part... at most, it makes reference to "members of well-known British girl bands", but unless names are named, I wouldn't consider it particularly libelous. EVula // talk // // 18:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I get your point. --WiganRunnerEu 19:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Hmm its a spambot Target tracker..that a very good idea..and we should allow it to be kept...since most spambots follow a similar spamming path and if you can get one blocked..you actually block many..this information can be really helpful to Meta Stewards and admins....--Cometstyles 10:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia.at[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept, translation showed it could be useful notafish }<';> 14:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't speak german, but by the look of this and the history, it seems like a chat forum of some kind, maybe someone can translate it's usefulness, right now Delete Jaranda | wat's sup 16:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - I agree with Jaranda's suspicion that it's a chat forum of some kind. Giggy\Talk 07:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I just ran it through OSX's Translation widget, and it appears to be a discussion about the site, which appears to just be an alternate method of searching the German edition of Wikipedia. Not convinced that this is a worthwhile bit of content on Meta. EVula // talk // // 07:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    See my response to Cbrown1023. EVula // talk // // 18:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Wait I have no time to give further investigation around this portal page feedback page, so only comment for now. But we have Wikipedia.de also and it works. Why not for Australia too? It is no one's fault the targeted audience is relatively in tranquility and it is a sort of tradition we have feedback pages on meta, if the website itself cannot be edited (cf. Wikimedia site feedback). --Aphaia 07:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It appears to be a discussion place for updates to, or comments on, the Wikipedia Austria portal: http://wikipedia.at. I don't think it should be deleted. Cbrown1023 talk 18:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    How common are these portals? I've never dealt with one before, but if it's a valid WMF project, I'd agree that it does have a home on Meta (though it might need to be moved and a multi-language description of what it is be written in its place). EVula // talk // // 18:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • keep, the site is for reporting errors, etc. for the searchpage/portal wikipedia.at, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 18:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but add a description about what it is so it doesn't get listed for deletion again. Angela 05:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • keep. This is the equivalent of Wikimedia site feedback for the wikipedia.at website, owned by Wikimedia Deutschland. I am taking the deletion notice down. notafish }<';> 14:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Collaborative images[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep per consensus. Nishkid64 (talk) 08:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Meta:Inclusion policy says that "Meta is a wiki about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects". This page doesn't seem to be fall within the type of content listed as being appropriate as the link to WMF projects seems unclear. As such, I propose this page be deleted. Adambro 20:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep -useful demonstration. Per Documentation intended to help users contribute and collaborate in other wiki projects. It can be used, for example, by wikiversity, which is basically a collaborative project. See also [6], syndication feeds#Visualization. Hillgentleman 20:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • All projects are collaberative though, what makes this useful to any project? Adambro 20:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    The aim of wikiversity is collaborative learning itself. The aim of wikinews is to provide news. The aim of wikipedia is to write an encyclopaedia. In this sense I meant "basically a collaborative project". See also syndication feeds#Visualization and [7]. Hillgentleman 20:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    Note also that we here provide documentations for projects using mediawiki, which are far more than the handful of wikimedia projects. Hillgentleman 20:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    On your last point, I don't believe that to be the case, what gives you that impression? Adambro 20:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, I suppose "Documentation intended to help users contribute and collaborate in other wiki projects" could be said to allow this but I think we've got to draw the line somewhere. Adambro 20:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    Meta host the general mediawiki user manual. Anybody who uses the mediawiki program can come to Meta to see what he can do with it (and go to mw: for documentations of the engine itself.) Hillgentleman 20:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Hillgentleman, but what should we do with Image:Poietic-generator.net.gif and Image:AgregateurPoietique.gif? Keep them here, send to Commons, or delete?--Jusjih 22:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    We should understand what Free Art Licence is. Hillgentleman 11:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Hillgentleman's argument. Documentation is a valid use for Meta. EVula // talk // // 23:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

独裁者[edit]

The following discussion is closed: speedily as an attack page and per discussion here --Herby talk thyme 11:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A page containing a list of Japanese Wikipedia editors (described as "dictators"). I don't think it is relevant to Meta. Korg 23:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delete Uh, yeah, just a list (and a potentially "I'm angry, and I don't like these people" list at that) isn't quite Meta material. EVula // talk // // 06:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Concur with deletion --Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delete per above.--Jusjih 20:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg even speedy As far as I understand it is a dumb copy of ja:Special:Listusers/admin (all admins are listed) with some addition perhaps by the poster. The poster might deserve blocking as vandal. --Aphaia 20:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Slade 21:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delete - sounds like its just vandalism by a disgruntled user. WjBscribe 02:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delete - Even though I don't speak Japanese, there are enough Chinese characters on that page for me to get at least a basic understanding of what it appears to be - an attack page. TML 11:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Michel Tavir[edit]

This user page should be deleted because it contains severe vilification against several users from the French Wikipedia. See http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discussion_Utilisateur:Michel_Tavir&action=history ~Pyb 16:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I +1 this request. The content at the bottom of the last version before blank is heavily problematic against some fr sysop. DarkoNeko 17:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Question While I admit I cannot figure out how this page requested for deletion is productive for our community, basically it seems to be identical with this version of the page you provided us. Why not delete the original either? --Aphaia 17:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah thanks (I got edit conflict in my first comment on the above) - you gave the diff: just looking the revision, I completely support this request and endorse its speedy deletion. --Aphaia 17:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done by Cary by the look of it --Herby talk thyme 17:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Stefán H. Ófeigsson[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted per consensus. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Page was deleted on is.wiki, last activity there was on 15.2.2006 (later only reverting vandalism). Imho since this person has no article and biography on is.wiki, there should be also none on meta, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 23:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  • delete as per request, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 23:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • delete Spacebirdy said it right. ----Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not exactly an article, but there seems to be no reason to keep this here. --Coredesat (en.wp) 12:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Since I pointed this out to birdy as an unnecessary article..I believe it should be deleted... --Cometstyles 12:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • delete --Herby talk thyme 13:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Organic periodic table[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted per consensus. Arria Belli | parlami 02:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This article serves no discernible function relevant to Meta. Possibly it was an exercise in table design; if so, it should be in a sandbox. Even if it were a serious article, it was begun in 2003 yet is still incomplete.--Poetlister 18:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, pretty much. The fact that it's been gathering dust, but has no historical value, is the nail in the coffin in my mind. EVula // talk // // 19:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per norm and per wikimedia clean-up campaign.. :P ...--Cometstyles 20:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'd speedy this on site, but oh well... --filip 20:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I wonder how this page stayed here unnoticed for so long. I'd delete it myself, but I guess at least one more vote is needed for consensus. Arria Belli | parlami 20:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Meno25 21:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination statement. ----Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Templates[edit]

Template:Checkup[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted template, category, and shortcut. Cbrown1023 talk 00:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed it recently thanks to user:Herbythyme. Perhaps a relics of past overhaul efforts (and failed). This template seems to me not to make a sense, since 1) there is no further explanation, rather it is isolated from all our deletion policy, while it claims it may be tagged on possible speedy candidate, and 2) if a page is really a speedy candidate, it could be tagged with start-delete-end. If it needs to be reviewed, it should come to here. Hence this template is redundant in my opinion. --Aphaia 15:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: Any replacements?--Jusjih 08:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Having thought about this one I would have thought that the vast majority of pages where deletion is seen as an option should fall into either "speedy" or RfD parameters. If uncertainty means this is not the case then I guess the page should not be deleted (or an informal enquiry of others will get clarification). I'll bring the remaining pages in this category here in the next day or so. --Herby talk thyme 11:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Templates copied from en-Wikipedia[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Keep template:tiw ( talk edit watch | history links logs localspace | delete ), Delete the rest. Naconkantari 19:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Link templates[edit]

The templates listed below were copied from the English Wikipedia, many as part of Fabartus' heavily criticized "WikiProject template sharing" (see the Meta talk page). Although templates designed to simplify editing are very useful, most of these are redundant, or make editing more complex by obfuscating the real syntax. For example, compare {{ut|Pathoschild}} to [[user talk:Pathoschild]]— there is no real improvement, while the user is left with no idea how to use the real wiki syntax. Other templates below are far more complex and confusing.

Further, these are all either placed in a number of parallel disjointed categories, or placed in categories that don't exist on Meta, or not categorized at all.

{admin} Pathoschild 06:49:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm: user talk:Pathoschild doesn't look much like Pathoschild to me... // FrankB 23:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
However, Pathoschild ([[user talk:Pathoschild|]]) looks like Pathoschild to me. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:49:03, 05 June 2007 (UTC)
  • These templates provide useful links, but duplicate the newer and simpler {{links}}:
    • template:lts ( edit watch | history links logs localspace | delete ) (templates);
    • template:lts/ ( edit watch | history links logs localspace | delete ) (templates, but without a link to the actual page);
    • template:lcs ( edit watch | history links logs localspace | delete ) {categories);
    • template:lps ( edit watch | history links logs localspace | delete ) (project pages);
      • FrankB says Links is certainly not simpler, it requires a parameter, and more typing than remembering a simple mnemoninc. Let the user choose which they prefer. For me all the extra links is waste space and NOT having the edit link makes it entirely useless save for display. No one here can look under the hood of these while considering the merits of this debate. Contrast that utility below:
      • template:Lts (edittalklinkshistory) (templates);
      • template:Lts/ (edittalklinkshistory) (templates, but without a link to the actual page);
      • template:Lcs (edittalklinkshistory) {categories);
      • template:Lps (edittalklinkshistory)
      • Second, Newer and Simpler is NOT SYNOYMOUS with BETTER. A point TSP was conceived to drive home watching the TFD blood flow ankle deep last summer on Wikipedia--huge arguements over nothing much at all.
      • None of us have the right to force others to use a useful tool in favor of one they find is more friendly TO THE WAY THEIR MIND works--such reasoning is SELFISH and NARROW MINDED--egocentric thoughts, not CONSIDERATE thinking from the other fellows boots. The cost of keeping both is trivial compared to the dismay and delay such wholesale eliminations COST ANOTHER because Pathoschild thinks one way and they another.
      • Lastly, ** {{links|template|lts}} (templates); versus *** {{lts|lts}} (templates); is far less susceptible to typing errors and further time waste. Me, I have big fat fingers and trip over myself have a dozen times a paragraph... how considerate is THAT to others with similar issues? Or to newcomers learning the ropes. HA! // FrankB
// FrankB 23:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep "tiw". In many cases only the four links "tiw" produces are needed, e.g. w:Template:stub (talk, backlinks, edit). Apart from the fact that linking to a different wiki has not yet been integrated into {{links}}, the latter should only be used when the extra links are needed. Also the link to the talk page and to the edit page are missing. The latter is not needed for editing, but for conveniently viewing the wikitext.--Patrick 11:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all These are all extremely confusing and I would never use them. For someone who doesn't understand template syntax, it is impossible to ascertain what these are supposed to be used for, thereby defeating the purpose of this project.--Shanel 01:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Note that the result of a template, like links in this case, can be used also by people who do not understand the template mechanism.--Patrick 13:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, once they figure out which does what. However, they could just as easily use [[user talk:]]; forcing users to depend on templates like {{ut}} (by muddying our pages with such templates) ensures that they do not learn basic wiki syntax, which is already highly simplified.
This is particularly true for the ridiculous number of interwiki variants. If these are actually useful (besides on each others' pages), they can be integrated into {{links}} or into a single template above. It strikes me as odd that a project which brags about providing technical expertise to all the rest of us poor peasants can't do that. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:12:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Read my comment about tiw.--Patrick 00:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Read my comment about expanding {{links}} or creating a single crosswiki {{tiw}}-like template. I've drafted an example at User:Pathoschild/Sandbox which can link to any English project with the syntax {{links|w:|template|foo}}, or to the current wiki with {{links|template|foo}}. Fortunately, all the templates above only support the English projects.
When bug 10093 ("{{fullurl}} query parameters are lost with consecutive prefixes") is resolved, this will work with all projects. (In the meantime, it would be possible to do it with the syntax {{links|fr.wikipedia|template|foo}}, but that's awkward.) —{admin} Pathoschild 01:46:19, 01 June 2007 (UTC)
user:Pathoschild/Sandbox ( edit watch | edits history links logs localspace | delete block ) has even a delete link. That may be convenient on a page like this, but is bizarre and cluttering in most contexts. Also, what is the need of a "watch" link? Why would someone want to watch a page if he does not even bother to have a look at it? Also checking the logs is not often needed in the framework of using and explaining (for example) templates. I saw that you added an edit link, for use with templates that is an improvement, but even then a special template for linking to templates is better: in that case "template" does not need to be typed, and the selection of links can be adapted to the specific needs with regard to templates. We can also add a link to the /doc page for them. But I guess several of the listed templates can be deleted.--Patrick 11:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I've added loads today both above and below, but the issue at stake here is whether someone that thinks one way should with a few cronies and syncophants determine the tools another or many of us already find comfortable. I give them freedom to use whatever links templates they like, but I've got a pretty good record at having dead wood deleted when it's not being used. Patrick's done a few of those for me here, and so have others elsewhere. More to the point, no template (or any software) is useless if it does something and someone may have a use for it someday. I haven't used {{tiw}} before, but now that I see it drops the talk, I will be using it sometimes going forward.

The better solution is to depreciate the use of such and keep them around. (Even obsolescent code is useful if someone is still using older machines, and I know there are still people out there running Windows 95 and using IE-5.) Templates should be conserved if they cannot be redirected or used as a filter template for something that does the same job. Same with category names--we all associate data differently, all have different life experiences, and usually are all distracted by some bigger task at hand than the fifteen ways a category 'holding such and such things' might have been worded by someone associating differently on some other day. Redirect, annotate, and go on. Deleting this kind of infrastrucure is evil, as it costs others their precious time. {{interwikitmp-grp}} costs no one anything, though I guess the fact it's categorization internals are in overhaul has. Sorry, but Wikipedia has been complicating the universal categorization we're striving for by re-catting their whole scheme. Add in a parsing error, and I just set it aside for a few weeks, or those that aren't currently catted, would be. Anything it's riding will be categorized and sensibly. // FrankB 23:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or else — This is an absurdity--Pathoschild is attacking more six man months of wiki-work and lying about it... or incompetent! Many of these nominated were written and developed here on Meta to satisfy criticisms from sister projects that documentation be site independent so that templates documentation could include side links (see also's) even if most of the similar templates aren't used by a sister project.

    Moreover, this is the proper repository for common materials to all sister projects, which is why the few that have been shared widely have been archived here, and we softdirected the project page here, pending a permanent move once it's past stub stage. (Kill the baby Pathoschild--but if you do, the tens of thousands of edits I may have made will go undone just as surely as the tens of thousands I made this past three years have happened; I'm sick and tired of you and your attitude toward a project clearly aimed at helping the greater majority of non-template savvy editors. What's your motivation??? What good will come of deleting these archives here? Is this not the site of the foundation?)

    Moreover, three people disliking a project on MP:TSP do not serve adequately in counter-acting dozens who have worked on and within it. We can't even get to the real meat of the project, developing user friendly documentation as some of us have livings to make, children to feed, and tuitions to pay for. I don't know what's so offensive to him/her about stabilizing and promulgating common and useful tool templates (Attacking {{lts}} is the stupidest action I can think of any editor (outside deliberate vandalism) could make—which serves to show you the degree of difference in working styles between us, as I'm sure Pathoschild isn't an idiot—but apparently does have an intolerant Nazi type of mentality as he or she wants to force everyone to think of things and do them her/his way!!!)

    That mindset and intolerance I will oppose to the death, as I did defending my country for 30 years to preserve among other things, diversity. So take that attitude and shove it, Pathoschild--I'm not your slave you can order around. You should know, that my mind and yours relate to things very differently, we have different values AS DO ALL PEOPLE, and all that SHOULD BE obvious to most anyone that considers and understands other people, even authoritarian people with too much time on their hands so they attack the work of others. Further, no one has yet addressed the point the concept behind TSP and these templates do no harm, and will do a lot of good as we get a manual together. Are we to write THAT so it doesn't work on other sister projects? Wouldn't that create hellacious problems should some other language attempt a translation?? Hell, we even built a SISTER parameter into such link templates so they'd be useful across languages. We're looking beyond to other projects, what aid is this act of yours to them and their editors? None -- a waste of time.

    Pathoschild clearly has more time to type than I, so she/he doesn't use template tools much. I value my time, and loath making pipetricks necessitated by typing a long "[[User talk: name|name]]" vice [[user talk:name|name]] and such. Let the computer do that bullshit work, I'm a human being, and that's it's job--mine is to make things make sense, and MACRO's have been part of computer programming since the early seventies if not long before. I must use template:Lts (edittalklinkshistory) fifteen times a day to examin unfamiliar templates within pages from in preview mode. Similar templates like {{las}} and {{lcs}} are similar time savers while editing something you have a question about and need to examin. But you have to be smart enough to know how to back up in your browser. Do you know how to do THAT basic task, Pathoschild? (Hint: Try your backspace key.) But obviously neither Pathoschilds time, nor mine are of value to him/her. So delete this if you will, but if you all choose to do that, I won't be supporting ANY foundation project hereafter like these. // FrankB 21:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Pathoschild is a he, and too lazy to be a Nazi.--Shanel 23:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Fabartus, you need to tone the attacks down. Opening a comment with "This is an absurdity--Pathoschild is attacking more six man months of wiki-work and lying about it... or incompetent!" is completely unacceptable. I'd encourage everyone to be civil in this discussion, even Pathoschild got a bit hot ("lavishing with gratitude") and not much fazes him..., but your entire screed is really WAY over the top. ++Lar: t/c 05:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I recommend you Fabertus to withdraw your several accusations, like Nazi or whatever. --Aphaia 06:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry I responded sarcastically; I've removed that statement below. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:02:20, 04 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Aphaia, it's not me shitting on 5-6 months of very hard diligent work for what I used to be convinced was a very worthwhile cause. I'm not attacking his work, but he mine, and Nazi's were rather infamous for burning books and otherwise using propaganda to further their agenda's. If stating my opinion of the fine fellow is offensive, well fine and good, but he'd better keep his facts straight and be prepared to take lumps for slapping me in the face this way! Below he AGAIN! (Note: He didn't list the Commons pump discussion where he interjected TSP, a wholly unrelated matter to the issue under discussion--costing me 4-5 hours of hard writing to untangle the two!) cites totally unrelated matters (My use of a faulty name for a category on Wikipedia--which had relevance to commons:category:Maps and such, but nothing to do with TSP--that was BEFORE I even concieved linking templates!!!) as if they are related to TSP. The very templates mis-characterized above by the blatant lie "Imported from Wikipedia", were written in point of fact as part of the feedback I got from Wikiquote, in particular Jeffq--ask him if you like. All along, I've tried to be responsive to feedback--aside from the screwy idea my concept had no merit--which even Pathoschild now acknowledges below!
Last fall I was traveling around on work, and what happened on Wikisource is similarly mis-characterized-- the trial concept of a template linking other templates was far cruder and frankly ugly, and I hadn't even begun to address categorization paths nor common user friendly usage. I certainly hadn't cobbled together a project page, however badly that draft is worded. I'm not an HTML savant, but a hardware engineer with a lot of programming experience in other computer languages.
Those things didn't come into play until late January and February at the earliest. Yet Pathoschild, a steward no less of the foundation, wants to slant things like they have significance. Sorry -- once again you show your biases and lack of reading comprehension at best, or hope no one will read those links-- Not going to happen, not over my dead body.
Friday and Saturday night I lost the whole night fuming over this matter -- my jaw has hurt for two days from all the teeth grinding. So yes, I'm vexed and provoked beyond what's fair or reasonable. I spent the weekend totally distracted by this, and trust me it's too bad Pathoschild is a male as the kindest words I used under my breath make comparison to Nazis "kind and gentle", which alas makes some of them inappropriate as well! (wrong sexual orientation--or at least plumbing! <G>)
For the February deletion on Wikisource, I admit I made an error. Not that anyone on either that occasion or the time before made a courtesy attempt at notification. (WHY IS THAT TOLERABLE compared to name calling? It's twenty times worse-- a slap in the face as you are disrespecting the work and effort and above all TIME that people made in good faith!) That came about innocently enough, as when I was making the trials in September, I really didn't pay attention to which sister sites I was putting up the templates in the kernal system as a sampler, nor did I have any recollection of them when I resumed building the project in the winter. Many templates' documentation pages in the early going were written so that formatting templates like {{w2c}} and most of {{indent family usage}} were used— one of the suggestions from JeffQ was to not have such in documentation, and they've been steadily been written out of such. note the same mistake was made in part on Wikiquote. One tends to spam things in the cut buffer following the link next link pasting that, and going on to the next link, etcetera. But it and they were NOT made to Wiktionary--there I'd recollected the TFD had happened. But that aside, without a notification of the deletion process on Wikisource (not even a talk post!), I had no way of knowing I'd dropped anything on that site before. Wikiquote was a similar mistake--which we adapted to immediately when I got a talk page note and because of that--the current template doesn't show a link of a site which isn't a participant, unless it's overridden deliberately, so one can't mindlessly copy a template where it's not wanted. So mea culpa, but throw stones only if you never make mistakes at 2 to 4 in the morning! The April thing on wikisource, I have no way of checking having little desire to be an admin, but that list deleted looks like it was likely user Mac's efforts--a kid aged 14-15 I didn't even know was "Helping". Note the reversion of his efforts MP:TSP
The bottom line here is THIS is the proper site of resources that are debugged and proved. There is too much anti-wikipedia sentiment in most of the small projects, so this is where the project belongs. God knows, working with template documentation (or just templates) day in and day out is boring to the degree of tediousness. I'd much rather edit some history, science, engineering, or geography article any day of the week, but I see this as a real service to those who have yet to edit their first page. Wikipedia has beyond any shadow of a doubt far more complex templates and a pool of template programmers that outnumbers the total number of editors on most all the sister sites put together. Compared to most of them, I'm a naif -- a beginner. That most complicated templates (e.g. infoboxes) on Wikipedia are unsuitable to other sisters is beyond contestation--those however are usually adequately documented. What are not, and what are available to all languages and all projects are the many excellent tools that ease the editor's tasks and improve their efficiency. Wikipedia has categories filled with such, and those with some local participants to talk them up and import them to a project can save many people time down the road. Those are the focus of this project and will remain so if it survives. If it dies here, I wash my hands of it--I've already request sys-op status on affected sites to "pick up my dirty socks" if that be the case. No one needs to loose sleep over work on any wiki anymore if this fails here. I'm done with that gut wrenching crap and if I hadn't spent over $300 on reference books Thursday night, with this nomination, I would be done with anything on Wikimedia foundation. People are just too casual as to how they throw other peoples efforts away. The irony is I paid for express shipping too! So don't tell me to think highly of people like Pathoschild -- they try to dictate what others value and distort facts to suit their beliefs. // FrankB 23:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The stated objectives of the project are perfectly fine, and if the members (including you) followed the guidelines, I would fully support it. Unfortunately, this is definitely not the case. Nor is this nomination the result of "three people disliking a project on MP:TSP": I've listed some relevant discussions below (note that I am not present in most of these).
This list is not at all comprehensive; I just got tired of listing them. Forgive me if I've misread the pattern here, but who, exactly, are "the greater majority of non-template savvy editors"? —{admin} Pathoschild 01:36:29, 03 June 2007 (UTC) †edited 23:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Funny -- looks pretty complete to my memory, but the expansion of the wikiquotes section into three parts is a bit over the top. It would have been easier to put in the wiktionary deletions back in the fall, and more honest. As if anything BEFORE February matters to the current group of templates or the very few categories we've been careful to use. As I said above, about half of these I didn't even know about. Or are you going to start dragging in MORE Wikipedia talk discussions on non-template matters, Commons discussions on category to category links, of templates to show parent categories on the tops of long category pages ({{Cms-catlist-up}} and {{cms-catlist-up}}) and so forth, things which have nothing to do with TSP in other words. So Put up or retract that -- but be sure to include things like this, the two TFD votes on Wikipedia in the early days (including while I was traveling), and the make distinctions between things which have no relevance (the Wikipedia user categories thing for example) if you're going to slime me with innuendo. What this says about YOU speaks volumes. I may be rude to your face, but you sir are an out and out sneak as such tactics demonstrate. Hell, why not throw in the lengthy talk page debate on what is and is not a "Ground breaking class of submarine", or discussions about getting articles to Featured Article state? // FrankB 23:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Thanks OH SO MUCH for costing me yet another huge chunk of time because you think less is more, or others should live inside your brain. Like I don't have anything better to do with my afternoons--which has now turned into evening! // FrankB 23:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
this is an interesting diff-- compare next two paras // FrankB 23:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have little time myself. I will soon switch to a job with 50-hour weeks (from 35-to-40-hour weeks), so I will have even less. The fact that I disagree with you, and spend large chunks of my free time performing what I believe to be cleanup, does not mean that my time is any less precious to me than yours is to you. The problem here is a simple disagreement on template coding, not that one of us having more free time than the other.
I don't see the problem with the diff link you bolded. I merged three consecutive comments and unindented them (since it was a new comment, not a response), and removed an exact copy that was accidentally (I presume) placed in the wrong section. The extra comment related entirely to the link templates, and was placed in the section about documentation templates. Since a copy existed in the correct section, I simply removed it. If you believe that this was not a mistake, I'll ask Hillgentleman (who posted the comment) if the change was acceptable.
The links I've provided are all relevant in that they describe parts of the "WikiProject Template Sharing", whether or not a particular template up for deletion was technically uploaded by the WikiProject or in the spirit of the WikiProject. They demonstrate that the notion has been repeatedly rejected, and that you should seek consensus and discussion on local wikis rather than simply dumping dozens of experimental templates. I did not list the other discussions you mentioned simply because I did not find them. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:19:54, 05 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the useful Template:tiw (talk, backlinks, edit). {{links}} is too long. Template:tim (talk, backlinks, edit) and Template:tiw (talk, backlinks, edit) form a convenient pair. And, Pathoschild, your suggestion of tailoring {{links}} would mean adding several variables to satisfy people with various needs, and will make it confusing. Wiki is not paper. Hillgentleman 07:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

    Please note that in the rationale of deletion:

    The templates listed below were copied from the English Wikipedia, many as part of Fabartus' heavily criticized "WikiProject template sharing" (see the Meta talk page). Although templates designed to simplify editing are very useful, most of these are redundant, or make editing more complex by obfuscating the real syntax. For example, compare Pathoschild to user talk:Pathoschild— there is no real improvement, while the user is left with no idea how to use the real wiki syntax. Other templates below are far more complex and confusing.
    Further, these are all either placed in a number of parallel disjointed categories, or placed in categories that don't exist on Meta, or not categorized at all.

    <----- The second paragraph is not reason for deleting a template. Causing confusion is. However, Template:tiw (talk, backlinks, edit) has clear use, and does not confuse. In the English wikipedia there are hosts of w:Template:infobox (talk, backlinks, edit) and w:Template:delete (talk, backlinks, edit). They are in similar ways redundant - we just need a basic wikitable.

    Note also that "making editing more complex" is a subjective statement. His [pathoschild's] argument is weakened by his statement that "most of these templates are redundant or making editing complex" If some of them are neither redundant nor confusing, why do you propose their deletion? I will rarely use the rest of the templates, but Farbatus has explained below how these templates simplify his own editings. Hillgentleman 07:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The system nominated for deletion is more confusing than {{links}}. There is one inconsistently named template for every wiki, requiring memorization of a large array of templates. In contrast, the version of {{links}} I'm coding simply makes use of normal link syntax: {{links|template|foo}} links to "template:foo" on Meta; {{links|w|template|foo}} or {{links|w:|template|foo}} (no real difference) links to "Template:Foo" on Wikipedia; {{links|w:fr:|template|foo}} links to the French Wikipedia. As long as one knows link syntax, the template should be pretty intuitive. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:18:59, 04 June 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevant -- noone using one or the other need know the other. The memory space requirement of template storage is trivial compared to a page like this. If you don't want to use something--don't. But don't force others to use your brilliant idea. It's not all that hot. Half the links are useless in most tasks. // FrankB 23:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I understand you value your time, but Meta has its inclusion policy. I don't think it a public infrastructure as you claim. And it is not the purpose for meta to satisfy someone's self-dignity feeling. If the majority think it an infrastructure, they will plea for keeping them. Sorry, the fact is the contrary. Therefore I vote:

    Delete all except the temlate(s) at least one editor besides its creator would like to keep. --Aphaia 01:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete all per Pathoschild--Nick1915 - all you want 14:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Documentation 'shortcut' templates[edit]

The templates listed below place various categories, blobs of text, and boxes. The categories added are largely redundant and useless, and should not be placed by a multitude of obscurely named templates. These complicate the code to the point of total illegibility and hide the real syntax from editors. Mass categorization is best done by bots if it is necessary, though it is generally not if one avoids complicated and duplicative category schemes.

{admin} Pathoschild 06:49:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete all. See rationale above.--Shanel 01:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep threeSee also Templates: [[:Template: | ]] , interwikitmp usage, interwikitmp-grp, and interwikitmp-grp ineligible as they are integral to the revised project. I've been having the suffixed one's deleted gradually as I tidied up, so the others are speedy candidates so far as I'm concerned. // FrankB 21:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Those have been deleted by your request; awaiting the results of this discussion for the rest. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:18:48, 03 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep for tim, while I am okay with tl for the sake of Hillgentleman. Delete the rest. --Aphaia 01:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Templates copied from Wikisource[edit]

Inferior to common tools in long use like {{lt}}, {{lts}}, links is further complicated in that it requires extra typing to build the three links most necessary AND further adds a bunch of mostly useless links to the average editor, though they may have some utility to an occasional control freak, and a rare admin. // FrankB 21:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  • While {{links}} does involve a slightly longer text string than {{lts}}, it combines many older templates, is memorably and descriptively named, and automatically switches between relevant links for any namespace or pseudonamespace. This contrasts with the templates you argue in favour for above, which require the memorization of a great number of templates named more for saving bytes than for being memorable or descriptive. For example, {{links}} performs the functionality of {{lts}}, {{lts/}}, {{lcs}}, and {{lps}}; a version I'm coding now also performs the functionality of the crosswiki variants {{ltsany}}, {{IWG links}}, {{ltsmeta}}, {{ltsmta}}, {{ltswpd}}, and {{tiw}}. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:23:41, 02 June 2007 (UTC)
Live and let live![edit]
  • Pathoschild, That is irrelevant. I will only need {{tim}} and {{tiw}}. You can have your own preferences. I have mine. The existence of template:tiw ( talk edit | history links ) does not affect you. You are free to advertise your own templates. But do not tell others what they should use. Pathoschild, Live and let live, and don't waste your time and our time. If you insist, I suggest that you go also to English wikipedia and nominate all but one of the deletion templates for deletion. You would ever only need one. The multiplicity causes confusionl. Hillgentleman 10:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    There is only one deletion template per process on Wikipedia. All others are "shortcut templates", which fill in the parameters for that template. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:08:51, 09 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment after close[edit]

There were too many variants, and it is unclear which template should be used in what context. Would you guys support a catch-all template such as an improved {{links}} that provides optional parameters? For example, {{links|edit=|talk=|history=|backlinks=}} to show edit, talk, history and backlinks only. All these parameters would be a burden to type, so we can define some sets of links for use in certain contexts, e.g. {{links|rfd}} for the current version being used at RFD, and {{links|see}} for use in See also sections, etc. If you want the links to be wrapped in <code> in a smaller font, use parameter code=. If you want it to show substitution, use parameter subst=. In effect, this would be a mega-template that covers all bases. The interwikis can adjust accordingly, hopefully simplifying later maintenance. I can help work on this if there is interest. Pomte 21:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I did something similar before I noticed your comment; see template:links-small ( talk edit | history links ), a filter for {{links}} with fewer links to replace the variants above. It would be possible to manually change the links shown, though there's little reason to. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:46:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Whitespace templates[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Majorly (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The first group add a new line and an indentation, equivalent to wiki syntax such as ':' at the beginning of a line, the HTML '<br />' tag, or the special <poem> tag. They only seem to be used by Fabartus, their creator.

The latter templates add spaces. They were copied from Wikipedia, where they are presumably useful. They are unused. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:48:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete... better to use standard syntax for standard things. ++Lar: t/c 04:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Better to keep it simple. Need to reduce the number of templates not used or ones that are redundant. FloNight 13:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 00:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as standard syntax is preferable to templates. Very easy to type by hand, too. Picaroon (Talk) 19:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

4x4 type squares[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted per consensus --Thogo (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The "4x4 type square" templates are most-perfect magic squares, created in 2005 by Gangleri (see his introduction). They are only used in his test subpages and discussion about themselves. I don't think there is any use for these on Meta.

  1. redirect template:4x4 type square ( talk edit history links )
  2. template:4x4 type square/ ( talk edit history links )
  3. template:4x4 type square/T ( talk edit history links )
  4. redirect template:4x4 type square/T/ ( talk edit history links )
  5. template:4x4 type square/T/1 ( talk edit history links )
  6. template:4x4 type square/T/A ( talk edit history links )
  7. template:4x4 type square/T/A/ ( talk edit history links )
  8. template:4x4 type square/T/A/-15 to 15 ( talk edit history links )
  9. template:4x4 type square/T/A/0 to 15 ( talk edit history links )
  10. template:4x4 type square/T/A/1 to 16 ( talk edit history links )
  11. template:4x4 type square/T/A/Kabbalah ( talk edit history links )
  12. template:4x4 type square/T/A/Melancholia I ( talk edit history links )
  13. template:4x4 type square/T/A/Yang Hui ( talk edit history links )
  14. template:4x4 type square/T/A/reference/signed binary ---X ( talk edit history links )
  15. template:4x4 type square/T/A/reference/signed binary --X- ( talk edit history links )
  16. template:4x4 type square/T/A/reference/signed binary -X-- ( talk edit history links )
  17. template:4x4 type square/T/A/reference/signed binary X--- ( talk edit history links )
  18. template:4x4 type square/T/A/table of Jupiter ( talk edit history links )
  19. template:4x4 type square/T/A/wiki ( talk edit history links )
  20. template:4x4 type square/T/B ( talk edit history links )
  21. template:4x4 type square/T/B/ ( talk edit history links )
  22. redirect template:4x4 type square/T/B/Melancholia I ( talk edit history links )
  23. template:4x4 type square/T/B/Melancholia I (2x2) ( talk edit history links )
  24. template:4x4 type square/T/B/fix values/T129 ( talk edit history links )
  25. template:4x4 type square/T/B/fix values/T324 ( talk edit history links )
  26. template:4x4 type square/T/C ( talk edit history links )
  27. template:4x4 type square/T/C/ ( talk edit history links )
  28. template:4x4 type square/T/C/000 ( talk edit history links )
  29. template:4x4 type square/T/C/Kabbalah 00 ( talk edit history links )
  30. redirect template:4x4 type square/T/C/analysis ( talk edit history links )
  31. template:4x4 type square/T/C/black ( talk edit history links )
  32. template:4x4 type square/T/C/wiki ( talk edit history links )
  33. template:4x4 type square/T/all ( talk edit history links )
  34. template:4x4 type square/T/all/details ( talk edit history links )
  35. template:4x4 type square/T/all/show/ ( talk edit history links )
  36. template:4x4 type square/T/all/show/y ( talk edit history links )
  37. template:4x4 type square/T/bugs ( talk edit history links )
  38. template:4x4 type square/T/commutativity check ( talk edit history links )
  39. template:4x4 type square/T/duality/LTR ( talk edit history links )
  40. template:4x4 type square/T/duality/RTL ( talk edit history links )
  41. template:4x4 type square/T/indexes ( talk edit history links )
  42. template:4x4 type square/T/overwrite A ( talk edit history links )
  43. redirect template:4x4 type square/T/overwrite A/ ( talk edit history links )
  44. template:4x4 type square/T/overwrite B ( talk edit history links )
  45. redirect template:4x4 type square/T/overwrite B/ ( talk edit history links )
  46. template:4x4 type square/T/overwrite C ( talk edit history links )
  47. redirect template:4x4 type square/T/overwrite C/ ( talk edit history links )
  48. template:4x4 type square/T/table ( talk edit history links )
  49. template:4x4 type square/T/table/ ( talk edit history links )
  50. template:4x4 type square/T/table/(10x10) ( talk edit history links )
  51. template:4x4 type square/T/table/(10x10)(code) ( talk edit history links )
  52. template:4x4 type square/T/table/(code) ( talk edit history links )
  53. template:4x4 type square/T/table/cuneiform ( talk edit history links )
  54. template:4x4 type square/T/table/cuneiform (code) ( talk edit history links )
  55. template:4x4 type square/T/table/futhark ( talk edit history links )
  56. template:4x4 type square/T/table/futhark (code) ( talk edit history links )
  57. template:4x4 type square/T/table/signature ( talk edit history links )
  58. template:4x4 type square/T/trace/ ( talk edit history links )
  59. template:4x4 type square/T/trace/y ( talk edit history links )
  60. template:4x4 type square/T/transitions ( talk edit history links )
  61. template:4x4 type square/T000 ( talk edit history links )
  62. template:4x4 type square/T001 ( talk edit history links )
  63. template:4x4 type square/T002 ( talk edit history links )
  64. template:4x4 type square/T003 ( talk edit history links )
  65. template:4x4 type square/T004 ( talk edit history links )
  66. template:4x4 type square/T005 ( talk edit history links )
  67. template:4x4 type square/T006 ( talk edit history links )
  68. template:4x4 type square/T006COPY1 ( talk edit history links )
  69. template:4x4 type square/T006COPY2 ( talk edit history links )
  70. template:4x4 type square/T006COPY3 ( talk edit history links )
  71. template:4x4 type square/T007 ( talk edit history links )
  72. template:4x4 type square/T008 ( talk edit history links )
  73. template:4x4 type square/T009 ( talk edit history links )
  74. template:4x4 type square/T010 ( talk edit history links )
  75. template:4x4 type square/T011 ( talk edit history links )
  76. template:4x4 type square/T012 ( talk edit history links )
  77. template:4x4 type square/T013 ( talk edit history links )
  78. template:4x4 type square/T014 ( talk edit history links )
  79. template:4x4 type square/T015 ( talk edit history links )
  80. template:4x4 type square/T016 ( talk edit history links )
  81. template:4x4 type square/T017 ( talk edit history links )
  82. template:4x4 type square/T018 ( talk edit history links )
  83. template:4x4 type square/T019 ( talk edit history links )
  84. template:4x4 type square/T020 ( talk edit history links )
  85. template:4x4 type square/T021 ( talk edit history links )
  86. template:4x4 type square/T022 ( talk edit history links )
  87. template:4x4 type square/T023 ( talk edit history links )
  88. template:4x4 type square/T024 ( talk edit history links )
  89. template:4x4 type square/T025 ( talk edit history links )
  90. template:4x4 type square/T026 ( talk edit history links )
  91. template:4x4 type square/T027 ( talk edit history links )
  92. template:4x4 type square/T028 ( talk edit history links )
  93. template:4x4 type square/T029 ( talk edit history links )
  94. template:4x4 type square/T030 ( talk edit history links )
  95. template:4x4 type square/T031 ( talk edit history links )
  96. template:4x4 type square/T032 ( talk edit history links )
  97. template:4x4 type square/T033 ( talk edit history links )
  98. template:4x4 type square/T034 ( talk edit history links )
  99. template:4x4 type square/T036 ( talk edit history links )
  100. template:4x4 type square/T042 ( talk edit history links )
  101. template:4x4 type square/T044 ( talk edit history links )
  102. template:4x4 type square/T049 ( talk edit history links )
  103. template:4x4 type square/T050 ( talk edit history links )
  104. template:4x4 type square/T051 ( talk edit history links )
  105. template:4x4 type square/T054 ( talk edit history links )
  106. template:4x4 type square/T055 ( talk edit history links )
  107. template:4x4 type square/T056 ( talk edit history links )
  108. template:4x4 type square/T057 ( talk edit history links )
  109. template:4x4 type square/T059 ( talk edit history links )
  110. template:4x4 type square/T060 ( talk edit history links )
  111. template:4x4 type square/T061 ( talk edit history links )
  112. template:4x4 type square/T062 ( talk edit history links )
  113. template:4x4 type square/T064 ( talk edit history links )
  114. template:4x4 type square/T065 ( talk edit history links )
  115. template:4x4 type square/T066 ( talk edit history links )
  116. template:4x4 type square/T067 ( talk edit history links )
  117. template:4x4 type square/T068 ( talk edit history links )
  118. template:4x4 type square/T069 ( talk edit history links )
  119. template:4x4 type square/T070 ( talk edit history links )
  120. template:4x4 type square/T071 ( talk edit history links )
  121. template:4x4 type square/T072 ( talk edit history links )
  122. template:4x4 type square/T073 ( talk edit history links )
  123. template:4x4 type square/T074 ( talk edit history links )
  124. template:4x4 type square/T075 ( talk edit history links )
  125. template:4x4 type square/T076 ( talk edit history links )
  126. template:4x4 type square/T077 ( talk edit history links )
  127. template:4x4 type square/T078 ( talk edit history links )
  128. template:4x4 type square/T079 ( talk edit history links )
  129. template:4x4 type square/T080 ( talk edit history links )
  130. template:4x4 type square/T081 ( talk edit history links )
  131. template:4x4 type square/T082 ( talk edit history links )
  132. template:4x4 type square/T083 ( talk edit history links )
  133. template:4x4 type square/T084 ( talk edit history links )
  134. template:4x4 type square/T089 ( talk edit history links )
  135. template:4x4 type square/T090 ( talk edit history links )
  136. template:4x4 type square/T091 ( talk edit history links )
  137. template:4x4 type square/T092 ( talk edit history links )
  138. template:4x4 type square/T097 ( talk edit history links )
  139. template:4x4 type square/T101 ( talk edit history links )
  140. template:4x4 type square/T103 ( talk edit history links )
  141. template:4x4 type square/T109 ( talk edit history links )
  142. template:4x4 type square/T111 ( talk edit history links )
  143. template:4x4 type square/T113 ( talk edit history links )
  144. template:4x4 type square/T115 ( talk edit history links )
  145. template:4x4 type square/T118 ( talk edit history links )
  146. template:4x4 type square/T120 ( talk edit history links )
  147. template:4x4 type square/T121 ( talk edit history links )
  148. template:4x4 type square/T123 ( talk edit history links )
  149. template:4x4 type square/T126 ( talk edit history links )
  150. template:4x4 type square/T128 ( talk edit history links )
  151. template:4x4 type square/T129 ( talk edit history links )
  152. template:4x4 type square/T130 ( talk edit history links )
  153. template:4x4 type square/T133 ( talk edit history links )
  154. template:4x4 type square/T139 ( talk edit history links )
  155. template:4x4 type square/T145 ( talk edit history links )
  156. template:4x4 type square/T150 ( talk edit history links )
  157. template:4x4 type square/T153 ( talk edit history links )
  158. template:4x4 type square/T155 ( talk edit history links )
  159. template:4x4 type square/T156 ( talk edit history links )
  160. template:4x4 type square/T160 ( talk edit history links )
  161. template:4x4 type square/T163 ( talk edit history links )
  162. template:4x4 type square/T169 ( talk edit history links )
  163. template:4x4 type square/T177 ( talk edit history links )
  164. template:4x4 type square/T187 ( talk edit history links )
  165. template:4x4 type square/T193 ( talk edit history links )
  166. template:4x4 type square/T196 ( talk edit history links )
  167. template:4x4 type square/T203 ( talk edit history links )
  168. template:4x4 type square/T209 ( talk edit history links )
  169. template:4x4 type square/T211 ( talk edit history links )
  170. template:4x4 type square/T212 ( talk edit history links )
  171. template:4x4 type square/T219 ( talk edit history links )
  172. template:4x4 type square/T223 ( talk edit history links )
  173. template:4x4 type square/T226 ( talk edit history links )
  174. template:4x4 type square/T227 ( talk edit history links )
  175. template:4x4 type square/T232 ( talk edit history links )
  176. template:4x4 type square/T233 ( talk edit history links )
  177. template:4x4 type square/T236 ( talk edit history links )
  178. template:4x4 type square/T238 ( talk edit history links )
  179. template:4x4 type square/T241 ( talk edit history links )
  180. template:4x4 type square/T244 ( talk edit history links )
  181. template:4x4 type square/T245 ( talk edit history links )
  182. template:4x4 type square/T251 ( talk edit history links )
  183. template:4x4 type square/T257 ( talk edit history links )
  184. template:4x4 type square/T260 ( talk edit history links )
  185. template:4x4 type square/T265 ( talk edit history links )
  186. template:4x4 type square/T266 ( talk edit history links )
  187. template:4x4 type square/T273 ( talk edit history links )
  188. template:4x4 type square/T275 ( talk edit history links )
  189. template:4x4 type square/T276 ( talk edit history links )
  190. template:4x4 type square/T282 ( talk edit history links )
  191. template:4x4 type square/T290 ( talk edit history links )
  192. template:4x4 type square/T291 ( talk edit history links )
  193. template:4x4 type square/T297 ( talk edit history links )
  194. template:4x4 type square/T300 ( talk edit history links )
  195. template:4x4 type square/T308 ( talk edit history links )
  196. template:4x4 type square/T314 ( talk edit history links )
  197. template:4x4 type square/T324 ( talk edit history links )
  198. template:4x4 type square/T330 ( talk edit history links )
  199. template:4x4 type square/T340 ( talk edit history links )
  200. template:4x4 type square/T346 ( talk edit history links )
  201. template:4x4 type square/T350 ( talk edit history links )
  202. template:4x4 type square/T354 ( talk edit history links )
  203. template:4x4 type square/T360 ( talk edit history links )
  204. template:4x4 type square/T364 ( talk edit history links )
  205. template:4x4 type square/T372 ( talk edit history links )
  206. template:4x4 type square/T378 ( talk edit history links )
  207. template:4x4 type square/T384 ( talk edit history links )
  208. template:4x4 type square/colors 00 ( talk edit history links )
  209. redirect template:4x4 type square/colors Kabbalah 00 ( talk edit history links )
  210. template:4x4 type square/colors analysis ( talk edit history links )
  211. template:4x4 type square/colors analysis T324 ( talk edit history links )
  212. template:4x4 type square/colors analysis fractional mirroring NW - SE ( talk edit history links )
  213. template:4x4 type square/colors analysis fractional rotate clockwise NE - SW ( talk edit history links )
  214. template:4x4 type square/colors analysis mirroring of the two 2x2 NE - SW subsquares ( talk edit history links )
  215. template:4x4 type square/colors black ( talk edit history links )
  216. redirect template:4x4 type square/colors leave Jain 00 ( talk edit history links )
  217. template:4x4 type square/fractional mirroring NW - SE ( talk edit history links )
  218. template:4x4 type square/fractional rotate clockwise NE - SW ( talk edit history links )
  219. template:4x4 type square/method ( talk edit history links )
  220. redirect template:4x4 type square/method/reference/signed binary ---X ( talk edit history links )
  221. redirect template:4x4 type square/method/reference/signed binary --X- ( talk edit history links )
  222. redirect template:4x4 type square/method/reference/signed binary -X-- ( talk edit history links )
  223. redirect template:4x4 type square/method/reference/signed binary X--- ( talk edit history links )
  224. template:4x4 type square/mirroring of the two 2x2 NE - SW subsquares ( talk edit history links )
  225. template:4x4 type square/shift right one column ( talk edit history links )
  226. template:4x4 type square/shift right two columns ( talk edit history links )
  227. template:4x4 type square/sisterprojects ( talk edit history links )
  228. template:4x4 type square/sisterprojects/user ( talk edit history links )
  229. redirect template:4x4 type square/table ( talk edit history links )
  230. redirect template:4x4 type square/table/ ( talk edit history links )
  231. redirect template:4x4 type square/table/(10x10) ( talk edit history links )
  232. redirect template:4x4 type square/table/(code) ( talk edit history links )
  233. redirect template:4x4 type square/table (10x10) ( talk edit history links )
  234. redirect template:4x4 type square/table (code) ( talk edit history links )
  235. template:4x4 type square/update ( talk edit history links )

{admin} Pathoschild 01:46:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Not seeing that this belongs on meta so delete per request. FloNight 13:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Last time 'round, I said to keep as it might be useful to explain to people how to use the templating system etc. I disagree with myself on reflection; what I said was wrong, and what Tim (Starling) responded was correct - whilst description and explanation might be useful, demonstration is not (especially when on so large a scale). Delete the lot. James F. (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Ceterum ... um. Delete. --Aphaia
  • Delete. As James F. puts it, some description and explanation might have been useful but large scale demonstration isn't really. No reason to have this on meta. WjBscribe 00:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete--Nick1915 - all you want 10:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Scion-tech skin.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted--Nick1915 - all you want 11:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Screen shot of a website using the MediaWiki software to illustrate a Gallery of user styles. The image is licensed under the GFDL however this is clearly not valid. The image contains two copyrighted logos, that of Google and eFax which prevent this from being GFDL. The photographs of cars are also of unknown status. Adambro 15:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Far too much of the content is unfree for a GFDL tag. The car images are likely to be copyrighted publicity shots and the eFax logo is pretty prominent. I'm sure a properly free alternative could be used just as well on Gallery of user styles. Also, I note the image had been deleted twice before it was reuploaded with the purported GFDL license. WjBscribe 09:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and WJBscribe. --Aphaia 10:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom--Nick1915 - all you want 10:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for all the above (& I was the deleting admin!). I guess I just took the license at face value and should have looked harder so thanks for finding it (there was another "contribution" but that was never licensed so I deleted it <g>) --Herby talk thyme 10:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per reasons given by Adambro and WjBscribe. We need to be diligent and prompt in keeping the Gallery of user styles page, an area where questionable additions are likely to occur, in compliance with our policies. FloNight 14:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per WJBscribe. ElinorD 18:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WJBscribe. --.snoopy. AKA dario vet · (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per nom and WJBscribe. Greeves (talk contribs Wikipedia) 13:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Submit your request at the bottom of the section.

Category:Ak-Kvarim[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: This page does not exist. xaosflux Talk 08:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I propose deleting the category Ak-Kvarim. The category was included in the list of Unknown Categories. "K'varim" is Hebrew for "graves", and the three photos included were of graves. I added a description to each one, removed it from this category, and added it to Category:Graves in Israel. —12.109.41.2 22:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

4 unused non-English categories[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted by admin Nick1915. Nishkid64 00:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. Category:ユーモア (ja)
  2. Category:サンドボックス (ja)
  3. Category:Руководство МедиаВики (ru)
  4. Category:Ελληνική τεκμηρίωση (Greek)

These were added late last year or earlier but unused now. No idea if they have ever been used. Regular deletion suggested to allow discussions.--Jusjih 17:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete For your information the top two mean "Humor" and "Sandbox" respectively. I don't remember if they have ever used. --Aphaia 14:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete If unused then not needed. ++Lar: t/c 16:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Ditto, Slade 17:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikimedia categories[edit]

The following discussion is closed: SD: M4 Categories empty Nick1915 - all you want 18:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Contains nothing but Category:Wikimedia copyright, which is empty, and Category:Wikimedia administration, which just loops back to Category:Wikimedia categories. All three categories were created in May, and nothing seems to have been done with them since. Didn't know if they could all be considered speedies. --Kbdank71 17:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete – useless, defunct. Anthøny 16:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as content-less and useless:
We have Meta:Copyrights and Category:Copyright to replace Category:Wikimedia copyright.
We have Category:Meta-Wiki administrators (albeit somewhat misnamed) and Category:Policies to replace Category:Wikimedia administration.
Category:Wikimedia categories is inherently useless, since it would be all-inclusive, whereas an experienced Wikimedian would use All pages (Category namespace) instead.
~Kylu (u|t) 19:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikimedia administration[edit]

The following discussion is closed: SD: M4 Categories empty Nick1915 - all you want 18:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Contains nothing but a link back to Category:Wikimedia categories (see above listing). --Kbdank71 17:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete – per my comment in the above discussion ... I feel like an echo :) Anthøny 16:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:!Pages may be integrated into the process at Wikimedia Incubator[edit]

The following discussion is closed: closed and deleted--Nick1915 - all you want 23:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This only contained Proposals for new projects by way of User:Dbmag9/Incubator, which is being used as a template. I re-catted it to Category:Proposed projects as it is better named and more widely used. So now it's empty. Speedy? --Kbdank71 17:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we are better not to merge new language version of existing project and proposal of project based in a new concept and purpose. So I strongly doubt if the suggested merger should happen. However since this category is almost empty, I don't oppose to delete it. --Aphaia 17:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't exactly sure where it should go, but I thought Category:Proposed projects might be a good category as Proposals for new projects/inactive is already there. --Kbdank71 17:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, however I am afraid you didn't grasp what I said. I think it natural inactive ones are classified to "proposed projects", because both are concerned with new concept projects which has no version among Wikimedia project. On the contrary, I rather oppose to merge new language projects, which may be integrated into Wikimedia Incubator, to that category you mentioned. So your reply doesn't sound me as an answer to my comment. I doubted instead, to merge new language projects (new version of Wikipedia etc.) into the "proposed projects". --Aphaia 07:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians[edit]

The following discussion is closed.
  • Neutral – I'd like to see a justification for deletion by the nominator, before I agree or disagree. Anthøny 18:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian associations[edit]

The following discussion is closed.
  • Neutral – I'd like to see a justification for deletion by the nominator, before I agree or disagree. Anthøny 18:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikimedian associations[edit]

The following discussion is closed.
  • Neutral – I'd like to see a justification for deletion by the nominator, before I agree or disagree. Anthøny 18:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Template[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted, and all items in the category have been recategorized. Nishkid64 (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the category 'Template' be renamed to 'Templates'. Plurality is traditional and intuitive, since it categorizes more than one template; see Commons, en-Wikibooks, en-Wikinews, en-Wikipedia, en-Wikisource, en-Wikispecies, en-Wikiquote, and en-Wikiversity. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:04:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Rename as above It does seem to make more sense that way....after all, it does include multiple templates :) Plus, all the other categories from the other projects really make this seem like it should be done. I see no reasons not to support. Happy editing, ARkY // ¡HaBLaR! 03:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename Yeah, that makes sense. EVula // talk // 03:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename Sensible to change the name. FloNight 10:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Not rename The pages listed there are not templates but always a single one. On de.wikipedia categories have singular names generally: w:de:Kategorie:Vorlage: --Thogo (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename - I believe this is the most common approach - it may not be what happens on de.wikipedia, but in most other cases (AFAIK) it is. Giggy\Talk 00:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename - Of Course. Violence never solves anything :P ...--Cometstyles 04:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename the plural makes more sense. AnonymousDissident 06:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename, per nom. @pple 09:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, Thogo, not so long ago the root category has already been renamed to category:categories in alignment with the english wikipedia. - Hillgentleman 03:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Archive[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Rename xaosflux Talk 03:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

For the same reasons as a previous request, I propose to rename the category Category:Archive to Category:Archives. Korg + + 17:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Rename - good point. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename Agree with the nomination rationale, but something like "Archived pages" would work too (slightly more wordy, but a bit more descriptive). EVula // talk // 21:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename "Archived" or "Archived pages" works for me. My condolences to whoever closes this. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I notice that the category contains the subcategories Category:Archived discussions and Category:Archived proposals, and several media files; maybe "Archives" (or "Archived" :) is sufficient? Korg 01:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename - Per nom. Greeves (talk contribs Wikipedia) 14:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Are there any bots on Meta that could assist with the process of renaming the categories on 200+ pages? Nishkid64 (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    • We could approve one :D --Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Pfft, just 305 pages. If I've got the time later tonight, I might just do it myself. :P EVula // talk // // 22:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename - Archives sound way better and makes more sense...--Cometstyles 09:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename. We cannot move categories and no one solves this concern. :-( --Jusjih 20:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename Slade 21:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I propose that, the future requests for a major category move can nominate a robot from the start, and include clause that, unless explicitly stated otherwise, a rename vote automatically implies a for vote for the corresponding robot. Hillgentleman 22:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note Bot request put in at Meta:Babel#Request_for_Bot_Status, please comment there. xaosflux Talk 05:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • When (if?) approved, will process list. xaosflux Talk 05:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Renaming task currently running under my bot (as it's initial trial) User:Fluxbot. The majority of these pages were getting this template from {{historical}}. The template has been updated, currently awaiting category catch-up. xaosflux Talk 03:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Category emptied and deleted. EVula // talk // // 05:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Thanks for your work! Korg 13:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Image:Monopoly.JPG[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted by consensus, image exists at commons (even thought someone pointed may not be free) drini [es:] [commons:] 00:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This is part question, part RfD - this is an image that is used in a foundation quarterly news item and also exists on Commons. I have doubts that it can be considered GFDL given that its content is of a monopoly board, which is presumably under copyright - it probably is a derivative work of that, and should probably be removed both here and on commons, if I interpret things correctly. I noticed this while doing some meta cleanup and preparing to delete the local copy so as not to be redundant to commons. --Improv 17:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, this image is not free. It should be replaced in the quarterly reports; I'm sure there are some free images representing money and so forth. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --dario vet (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Per above. Also what is the point in even having it here? Even if it was free I probably would vote to delete it. --Sir James Paul 23:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Cbrown1023 02:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --.anaconda 17:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete it isn't a free image. --Majorly 22:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Pathos. Nishkid64 23:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.--Jusjih 16:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. Somitho 14:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as clearly copyrighted. —Xyrael / 16:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete dubious licensing, already on commons. Delete on here, list at commons for deletion if desired. xaosflux Talk 08:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Unused images[edit]

The following files are unused, orphaned, and with no incoming links. Files that are useful should be categorized and linked to; please don't claim vague usefulness unless you can suggest where it is useful. (To keep discussion neat, please place comments under the appropriate header, general discussion just under this paragraph, and comments about a specific image under that image's bullet. Thanks.) —{admin} Pathoschild 22:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

All deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Unused data (graphs, etc.)[edit]
Unused logos[edit]
Unused screenshots[edit]
Unused miscellaneous files[edit]


Unused images[edit]

The following files are unused, orphaned, and with no incoming links. Files that are useful should be categorized and linked to; please don't claim vague usefulness unless you can suggest where it is useful. (To keep discussion neat, please place comments under the appropriate header, general discussion just under this paragraph, and comments about a specific image under that image's bullet. Thanks.) —{admin} Pathoschild 00:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete when they are not useful, but have their uploaders been notified?--Jusjih 15:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    Yep. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Data (graphs, et cetera)[edit]

Except as noted I have deleted the images in this section as no one has spoken up to object and we thus have consensus after two weeks ++Lar: t/c 21:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Logos[edit]

Except as noted I have deleted the images in this section as no one has spoken up to object and we thus have consensus after two weeks ++Lar: t/c 21:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Photographs[edit]

Except as noted I have deleted the images in this section as no one has spoken up to object and we thus have consensus after two weeks. ++Lar: t/c 21:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots[edit]

Except as noted I have deleted the images in this section as no one has spoken up to object and we thus have consensus after two weeks. ++Lar: t/c 17:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous[edit]

Except as noted I have deleted the images in this section as no one has spoken up to object. ++Lar: t/c 17:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fusion vo status.gif[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Majorly (o rly?) 01:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No source and unused. The only contribution of the uploader (notified).--Jusjih 18:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete unless relevance to WMF/meta is given. --Aphaia 18:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 talk 19:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete also no source--Nick1915 11:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the notification could have been a bit more explicit, so I replied, noting that the image is being nominated for deletion. I see no use for this image here. If anywhere, Commons, assuming properly sourced. Delete ++Lar: t/c 22:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    I had to type my own text to notify the uploader. Template:No source does not tell how to notify the uploaders in a fast way with a template. As I administer Wikipedia and Commons, they have easy template codes.--Jusjih 16:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Would it make sense to bring some common, useful templates for these sorts of things over from Commons or some other appropriate wiki? Note that Commons has put a fair bit of effort into making their templates multilingual... doing the same could make this a bit of a project... ++Lar: t/c 19:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - No source and no real potential for use here. I can't tell what it's supposed to be, either. PTO 00:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --.anaconda 16:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • delete --Filip (§) 16:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:BACC front.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted per request by uploader. --Aphaia 13:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Unused with no source. Uploader notified.--Jusjih 13:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

sorry, it seems that I missed this one (the rest I uploaded here before was moved to commons), it was taken by one of my friends here for the Wikimania bid as Aphaia mentioned. now moved to commons, I changed the template on the picture page here to {{NowCommons}}, you can delete it now. Thanks :) --Mido 16:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless 1) license info is provided and 2) it is used. Supposedly uploaded for Wikimania bid, and they may want to reuse it for the 2008 bid .... (BACC stands for Bibliotheque Alexandria, I suppose, and Mido is one of cheif figures at Alexandria Team).--Aphaia 09:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no source and unused--Nick1915 11:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Earth poster small.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. It's not used here, it can be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons as necessary. Majorly (o rly?) 01:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Unused without clear source. If it is truly PD, it should be uploaded to Commons. I have asked the uploader.--Jusjih 16:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, also possibly not within Commons scope (and the "FREE" watermark would have to be removed). Chick Bowen 03:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    The uploader Tlogmer just added the source and removed the deletion tag. The inage is modified from commons:Image:Astronaut-EVA.jpg.--Jusjih 11:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, didn't mean to remove the deletion tag. I was pressed for time and copied the description from Image:Earth poster large.jpg. I would generally oppose deletion, though, because the image appears on cafepress merchandise in the Wikipedia store (a purpose for which I designed it to begin with); having it on meta is useful becuase it could eventually be added to the Store wiki portal. Tlogmer 19:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    Also, having it on meta allows it to be added to meta categories/galleries -- also useful for the store portal. (For example, see Category:Images portraying unusual wikipedia articles. Tlogmer 19:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    Where is the Wikipedia store? How does it use the image here? As Meta is not Commons, I am unsure how to use Meta images outside Meta.--Jusjih 10:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Wikimedia store is on cafepress, not a Wikimedia site, but it is useful to collaborate on the images for merchandise here.--Pharos 21:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    Plus, the wiki store portal increases the store's viability. If the wiki portal is robust enough, we could automatically redirect visitors from http://www.cafepress.com/wikipedia to it, then use the portal as a frontend to the individual product pages and ecommerce functionality on cafepress. Once people got used to the wiki portal as the default storefront, we'd be free to switch from cafepress (or keep it, of course), or to sell products using a mix of sites including cafepress -- the wiki frontend would be agnostic towards the actual store. Just an idea, but it demonstrates why it's useful to keep merchandise images on meta. Tlogmer 03:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    I would like to ask how the Meta image is used at the Wikimedia store. When the image source and license are known, I no longer vote to delete.--Jusjih 13:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    It's on these posters. Tlogmer 23:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless it can be used on Meta. Images on Meta cannot be used elsewhere, and this wiki is not an image repository. Consider uploading to the Wikimedia Commons instead, which is an image repository. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:03:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Assist1.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Orphaned non-licensed image. xaosflux Talk 03:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Unused with no source. Uploader notified. At this time, I would like to remind any admins that a few more images are at Category:Images with unknown source.--Jusjih 14:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete (maybe speedy deletion for all the category?)--Nick1915 11:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete This is only edit of uploader and seems not to relevant (No, never please unless you are sure what are going on meta in its every corner. For myself, I cannot assert such knowledge...)--Aphaia 12:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - No copyright info and no use on Meta. PTO 23:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Screenshot of a problem with the current Hebrew layout.png[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted (uploader does not object). Majorly (o rly?) 17:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Unused and unsourced. Uploader notified in English Wikipedia via redirect herefrom.--Jusjih 15:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Uploader (and creator) here. No objections from me to delete this. — Timwi 16:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:README PW.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Speedy deleted as a test, nonsense, and not for meta. Cbrown1023 talk 19:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

PDF upload from an unresponsive user. Jkelly 04:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy deleted. I've already speedied the same one before. Cbrown1023 talk 19:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I didn't realize that that post was from me. :) I sent that message after I deleted it the first time and he re-uploaded it. Cbrown1023 talk 19:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


Image:Russia flag medium.gif[edit]

The following discussion is closed: speedy deleted. MaxSem 21:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we need this unused file here while we can get a Russian flag from Commons? I have notified its uploader for courtesy.--Jusjih 00:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, not really. We can just use one from Commons. --Coredesat (en.wp) 23:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No reason to have here given the abundance of flags on Commons, e.g. Image:Flag of Russia.svg. WjBscribe 23:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • strong delete, not for meta --dario vet (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment can be speedied as NowCommons. — Timichal 07:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Del offtopic and nowcommons--Nick1915 - all you want 01:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - Now commons, not relevant. Sean William 02:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Speedy deleted (copyvio)--Nick1915 - all you want 19:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)]]

Image:Nikki 4.jpeg is uploaded by Zanimum and tagged Template:fairuse but unused. I can see no good reason to keep it here.--Jusjih 18:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I boldly added all images uploaded under the fair use doctrine to this nomination.
The {{fairuse}} template itself should be deleted too, because it does not fall
Since all Meta content is not educational, encyclopedic or whatever, using fair use images here is explicitly prohibited by the recent foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. MaxSem 19:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all as copyright violations; fair use images are not appropriate for Meta-Wiki. Picaroon (Talk) 20:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all. --Aphaia 00:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all fair use content. These could be speedily deleted as violating the copyright guideline in the inclusion policy. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:55:17, 05 May 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: For your information, the fair use template is written in Cantonese claiming Hong Kong fair use then English claiming American fair use. I support its deletion.--Jusjih 14:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    Comment/Question: There are probably many more copyvio (or used under fair-use) media here not tagged with any template. I suppose the outcome of this discussion is we should delete them on sight? — Timichal 20:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
There's whole bloody bunch of them at Trophy box. Probably, it should be transwikied to the foundation site? MaxSem 21:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Transwiki seems fine, but before that, it need to be cleaned-up. Some coverage/awards were great at that time, but it is equally significant in this moment too? I am not sure. --Aphaia 09:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:160pixeliä.jpg and Image:Userwaerth.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is closed: closed as delete. -- Herby talk thyme 11:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

They are unused and I would like comments as to what they have to do with Meta. Uploaders notified.--Jusjih 01:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Images were once speedily deleted at 09:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

I would ask all editors not to archive this discussion for a while. I have no good reason to speedy deletion candidates on this page without any discussion. Thanks. --Aphaia 11:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Undeleted per Aphaia request. I've noticed that both imgs are nosource, unused and really offtopic (not relevant for meta wm project... and there isn't any user pages on meta link to these file ). Usually I consider these kind of contributions as speedy deletion...--Nick1915 - all you want 12:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment I would appreciate clarification here too. Had these been uploaded when I look in the log I would have deleted them as "off topic - no license" like Nick --Herby talk thyme 12:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The former one is not off topic in the historical context - it was uploaded by CimonAvaro who said in the summary says "vote for me"; it seems to be originally used for his Board election platform. Please note I have no opinion on images per se, but rather no content to skip the procedure and the logic behind speedy. I think that we are better to ask them to give license information and also that we can ask them to move (newly upload) their image to commons, and that we may finally delete them due to lacking of license information; on the other hand it doesn't mean all user images are off topic here as principle. Specially after experiences unexpected deletions by Commons admins (they haven't hesitated to delete even images used on the Foundation website for years), I think we have a good reason to keep images we need locally, things which serve important interests to the community, such as Board election. --Aphaia 12:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:ThomasPrazenica.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is closed: closed as delete. -- Herby talk thyme 11:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Offtopic, unused and no license--Nick1915 - all you want 14:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete & speedy for me but......! --Herby talk thyme 15:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, no license and no copyright tag. Picaroon (Talk) 01:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It's probably best to delete this from Meta, but if it is appropriate and/or feasible to put this on Commons, I suggest the closing admin do so before deleting the image here Gaillimh 10:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    I don't think it would be appropriate. Images on Meta must have a copyright tag and information on their copyright status, and this picture has neither. Tpraz323 has no edits or logged actions besides uploading this image, so it is not likely he would run over to Meta and provide it with some tags. Picaroon (Talk) 20:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    Ah, ok, I think I had just been under the assumption that the fellow uploaded it himself for use on WMF projects, given the username and file name similarities. As this is obviously a bit tenuous, I agree with you that it's not appropriate to send this to Commons, and I appreciate you taking the time out to clarify this for me. Thanks! Gaillimh 04:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    Er, for clarification purposes, when I said "Meta" twice in that comment, I meant Commons on both occasions. Meta has similar image policies, I believe, but it was Commons that I was talking about. Picaroon (Talk) 02:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I do not support speedy its deletion, but I just notified the uploader.--Jusjih 02:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No source nor license. Martinp23 21:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bucket.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, unlicensed and unsourced--Shanel 01:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Unlicensed and unsourced; not applicable for CSD I2 because it is not orphaned. Picaroon (Talk) 22:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - off topic, no license --Herby talk thyme 14:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - off topic, no license etc.--Nick1915 - all you want 18:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - interesting.... Also, no license nor source. Martinp23 21:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I just notified the uploader.--Jusjih 01:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. Certainly an odd image though! ++Lar: t/c 01:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiWebCalendars[edit]

Not relevants for meta, unsourced and unlinked.--Nick1915 - all you want 00:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and tagged them with {{no source}}. I've also notified the uploader in case they want to join in the discussion. Cheers, Tangotango 14:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks but I would underline the irrelevance of these imgs.--Nick1915 - all you want 15:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with you that the images are irrelevant. It's just that now that the images are tagged as having no source, and because they're orphaned, they will be speedy-delete candidates in a week :) - Tangotango 15:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curious since when "nosource" is included into meta speedy deletion criteria? At a certain time it wasn't, if I recall correctly. --Aphaia 16:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
It looks like it was added to the Deletion Policy with this diff: [8], back in October 2005. Cheers, Tangotango 01:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Oddly there is no discussion about that on the talk ... I am not sure if it was the editor's personal idea or on the community consensus. Personally I prefer to remove it and back to the previous "no image should be speedied" policy. Though I asked the meta editor not to delete election related images for the sake of Eleccom and candidates , some editors tagged such with this tag. I am very saddened to see a request from Eleccom ignored in such a manner and after that it makes me hard to rely meta admins won't speedy images inappropriately. I think the current so-called policy is problematic and doesn't fit the reality of meta. --Aphaia 16:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC) 16:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... I did find this topic from October 2005, a few minutes after the speedy delete criteria for images was added, but it seems to have gone without any replies. Maybe we should have a discussion about this on the talk page of the policy page, or at least update the policy page to reflect Meta's realities? - Tangotango 05:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thank for pointing out. I don't think it is a proper way to add something new to the policy. I'd love to have a discussion about that. In my opinion until we reach the consensus, such additional clause should be removed, or at least noted as proposal with a pointer to the discussion. --Aphaia 05:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted : no source, no license, orphan... guillom 15:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lingotto6.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is closed: All 6 deleted. Majorly (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Without the source or usage in any article, this would be unfair. Uploader has been notified.--Jusjih 17:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete unless uploader assists in adding proper lic and it is used per image policy. FloNight 17:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • delete--Nick1915 - all you want 18:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • delete --Herby talk thyme 18:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Claimed as fair use but not used on any pages. No explanation of what use would constitute fair use... WjBscribe 14:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • delete --.snoopy. AKA dario vet · (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --Adambro 13:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Until Frieda comments, I am neutral. I left a message on her Italian Wikipedia talk page for a faster response. It could have easily been an un-used picture for Wikimania 2007/Torino, like Nick1915 had said. That still doesn't explain the fair use issue though. Greeves (talk contribs Wikipedia) 14:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per FloNight. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fair use does not currently apply... would be great if a free alternative of the same location could be found. - Tangotango 15:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete – unless acceptable licence is found ~ Anthøny 20:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per... everyone else. I'm surprised we don't have a free use image handy. EVula // talk // 16:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
They're all speedy candidates because Meta does not have its own EDP policy. Therefore fair use is not allowed here. MaxSem 19:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:BFHTowers.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted by User:Spacebirdy -- Adambro 00:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Where this image can be used here on Meta? Maybe it be passed to Commons? Slade 23:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral by now. Slade 23:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi, I deleted it, it had no source, no licence, nothing to do with Meta and was not used, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 00:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:WPLogoglow.png, Image:Wplogo5.png, Image:Vikio.png, Image:Wiki-pl.png, Image:Vikio.jpg, Image:Wiki-logo nl.png, Image:Vikireklamilo1.png, Image:Vikireklamilo2.png[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept as historical --user:Anonymous Dissident

All these date from October 2002 and are unused, lack any information about their source and any details of their licence. I'd like to say they serve some historical purpose but as so little information is known about them I'm afraid I doubt they are worth keeping. They were proposed for deletion earlier this year and the result was keep but nothing has changed, we're still in a position where we can't really do anything with these since we don't know anything about them. For these reasons I propose we simply delete them, if they do turn out to be of some historical significance they can always be undeleted but considering how nothing has happened since the last RfD several months ago I doubt this will happen, they're just clutter. Adambro 17:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep for historical interest. --Nick1915 - all you want 17:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    What historical interest? We don't know anything about them. These images could be speedily deleted according to policy since they lack source and licence details. What is so important about them that we should ignore policy? Adambro 17:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    For the 2nd time: Meta is not Commons! Historical interest? Do you remember wikipedia in 2002?--Nick1915 - all you want 20:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    Meta is not exempt from image policy. Potentially unfree images should not be kept, and as we have no idea with these unused images, they should be deleted. 82.31.11.207 21:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    This is the meta inclusion policy: Documentation and discussion concerning the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects (see some current discussions). History is included--Nick1915 - all you want 22:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete if the uploaders do not respond and they cannot be considered copyrighted by Wikimedia. We should uphold our copyright policy rather than keeping historical interest.--Jusjih 20:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Frieda 20:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • keep per nick --.snoopy. AKA dario vet · (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Keep --Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    Why? Adambro 17:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per Nick1915..--Cometstyles 10:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Why? Adambro 17:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Nick e Frieda. Also I would add those images were submitted once to this page much earlier and kept just for the same reason - historical interest. --Aphaia 17:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    If kept, how should we tag them? GFDL presumed or copyright by Wikimedia?--Jusjih 01:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Were the images modified from originals which were copyrighted by wikimedia? Hillgentleman 09:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
They are all dated on 10 October 2002 credited to (Automated conversion). This is why I wonder how they should be tagged while there was probably no Wikimedia Foundation.--Jusjih 22:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I believe there could also be some sort of pride about what all this started from, and since WMF servers can store symbols of many natures and different importance, imho they can store these ones as well, which are important symbols to many users ;-) --Gianfranco 23:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    Please come to Metapub#Uncategorized_images_and_unused_files for a discussion.--Jusjih 04:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:'auto'-bumper-white.png[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept as uploader provided required details. Adambro 21:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No source or license. Uploader notified.--Jusjih 20:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete after seven days if information is not supplied as per the speedy deletion policy. Images such as this do not need to be listed here, you can use {{no source}} which categorises it for deletion after seven days. Adambro 20:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    OK. Thanks for your hint, but that template does not have a simple code to notify uploaders, so I consider notifying them hard here, unlike Wikipedia and Commons where I am an admin there.--Jusjih 19:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note The source is fairly obvious, since the user lays claim to creating them himself on his userpage. The license is a bit of a trickier issue, but I don't feel that it's a pressing enough need to warrant deletion (given their usage on the WM CafePress store, though I realize deletion here doesn't equate to removal from the CafePress system). Even if it's deleted, it can be restored at any time if the user provides a license for us to use (though really they should be pushed over to Commons). EVula // talk // // 23:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    Also, I've left a message on Tlogmer's en.wp user talk page; he appears to be more active there than here, and it's more likely to get a response from him. EVula // talk // // 23:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I created this image myself, and it solely uses wikipedia text, so I guess a GFDL license would be appropriate -- feel free to tag it however you like. On another note, cafepress doesn't support full-size images, so the only way prospective buyers can properly evaluate the image is by seeing it here. 68.42.74.83 21:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Oops, wasn't logged in. Tlogmer 21:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I've tagged the four bumper stickers (one of which had been deleted) with {{GFDL}}, and cited your above edit in my edit summary. I believe that this RfD can be closed, but I'll recuse myself, having participated in it... EVula // talk // // 21:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Where is the full text of the GFDL and history log stickers? -- Jeandré, 2007-12-09t18:02z

Miscellaneous[edit]

Submit your request at the bottom of the section.

Personnals subpages[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Speedy deleted. Majorly (talk) 03:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I request for deleting the following personnal pages :

--Bertrand GRONDIN – Talk 11:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC) PS : Motifs, on m'a plus ou moins fait comprendre que j'étais de trop ici.

fr: Je les ai supprimés. Vous pouvez aussi utilisé {{delete}} pour marqué une page for suppression rapide.
en: I deleted them. You can also use {{delete}} to mark pages for speedy deletion. —{admin} Pathoschild 16:43:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

4x4 square test pages[edit]

The following discussion is closed: speedy del. No utility after templates deletion, test's pages--Nick1915 - all you want 12:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The 4x4 type square templates were deleted (discussion), but the test pages are still around and categorized to Category:4x4 type square. These pages now only contain redlinks, so they have no utility. The user has been inactive on Meta for just over a year, and apparently inactive on all Wikimedia projects for nearly as long.

  1. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square ( talk edit history links )
  2. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/ ( talk edit history links )
  3. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/384 ( talk edit history links )
  4. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/Frénicle standard form ( talk edit history links )
  5. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/Sir William Rowan Hamilton ( talk edit history links )
  6. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/about ( talk edit history links )
  7. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/bug/ ( talk edit history links )
  8. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/bug/colors 00 ( talk edit history links )
  9. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/bug/method ( talk edit history links )
  10. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/bug/table ( talk edit history links )
  11. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/colors 00 ( talk edit history links )
  12. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/colors Kabbalah 00 ( talk edit history links )
  13. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/colors analysis ( talk edit history links )
  14. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/commutativ subgroup generated by T021, T029, T082 and T084 ( talk edit history links )
  15. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/commutativ subgroup generated by T034 and T036 ( talk edit history links )
  16. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/commutative subgroup of column and raw shifting (0, 1, 2, 3) ( talk edit history links )
  17. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/commutative subgroup of column and raw shifting (0, 2) ( talk edit history links )
  18. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/complement ( talk edit history links )
  19. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/examples ( talk edit history links )
  20. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/exponentiations of T006 ( talk edit history links )
  21. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/fractional mirroring NE - SW ( talk edit history links )
  22. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/fractional mirroring NW - SE ( talk edit history links )
  23. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/fractional rotate clockwise NE - SW ( talk edit history links )
  24. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/fractional rotate conterclockwise NE - SW ( talk edit history links )
  25. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/generating magic squares with T000 ( talk edit history links )
  26. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/iterations of T006 ( talk edit history links )
  27. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/iterations of T050 ( talk edit history links )
  28. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/iterations of T130 ( talk edit history links )
  29. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/iterations of T150 ( talk edit history links )
  30. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/iterations of T156 ( talk edit history links )
  31. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/iterations of T196 ( talk edit history links )
  32. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/iterations of T236 ( talk edit history links )
  33. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/library ( talk edit history links )
  34. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/method ( talk edit history links )
  35. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/method/reference/signed binary ---X ( talk edit history links )
  36. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/method/reference/signed binary --X- ( talk edit history links )
  37. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/method/reference/signed binary -X-- ( talk edit history links )
  38. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/method/reference/signed binary X--- ( talk edit history links )
  39. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/methodcolors ( talk edit history links )
  40. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/methodcolors/ ( talk edit history links )
  41. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/methodcolors/complement ( talk edit history links )
  42. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/methodcolors/fractional mirroring NE - SW ( talk edit history links )
  43. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/methodcolors/fractional mirroring NW - SE ( talk edit history links )
  44. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/methodcolors/fractional rotate clockwise NE - SW ( talk edit history links )
  45. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/methodcolors/fractional rotate conterclockwise NE - SW ( talk edit history links )
  46. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/methodcolors/mirroring of the two 2x2 NE - SW subsquares ( talk edit history links )
  47. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/methodcolors/mirroring of the two 2x2 NW - SE subsquares ( talk edit history links )
  48. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/methods = transitions = morphisms ( edit | history links )
  49. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/mirroring of the two 2x2 NE - SW subsquares ( talk edit history links )
  50. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/mirroring of the two 2x2 NW - SE subsquares ( talk edit history links )
  51. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/noncommutative subgroup of rotations and reflections ( talk edit history links )
  52. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/patterns ( talk edit history links )
  53. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/potencies of T006 ( talk edit history links )
  54. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/reference ( talk edit history links )
  55. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/table ( talk edit history links )
  56. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/table (10x10) ( talk edit history links )
  57. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/table (code) ( talk edit history links )
  58. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/transitions of order 2 in the range from 129 to 256 ( talk edit history links )
  59. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/transitions of order 2 in the range from 257 to 384 ( talk edit history links )
  60. user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/wikimania ( talk edit history links )
  61. user talk:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/384 ( talk edit history links )
  62. user talk:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/Frénicle standard form ( talk edit history links )
  63. user talk:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/Sir William Rowan Hamilton ( talk edit history links )
  64. user talk:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/commutativ subgroup generated by T021, T029, T082 and T084 ( talk edit history links )
  65. user talk:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/commutativ subgroup generated by T034 and T036 ( talk edit history links )
  66. user talk:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/commutative subgroup of column and raw shifting (0, 1, 2, 3) ( talk edit history links )
  67. user talk:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/commutative subgroup of column and raw shifting (0, 2) ( talk edit history links )
  68. user talk:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/generating magic squares with T000 ( talk edit history links )
  69. user talk:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/iterations of T006 ( talk edit history links )
  70. user talk:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/iterations of T050 ( talk edit history links )
  71. user talk:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/iterations of T130 ( talk edit history links )
  72. user talk:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/iterations of T150 ( talk edit history links )
  73. user talk:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/iterations of T156 ( talk edit history links )
  74. user talk:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/iterations of T196 ( talk edit history links )
  75. user talk:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/iterations of T236 ( talk edit history links )
  76. user talk:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/noncommutative subgroup of rotations and reflections ( talk edit history links )
  77. user talk:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/reference ( talk edit history links )
  78. user talk:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/sandbox ( talk edit history links )
  79. user talk:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/transitions of order 2 in the range from 129 to 256 ( talk edit history links )
  80. user talk:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/transitions of order 2 in the range from 257 to 384 ( talk edit history links )

{admin} Pathoschild 03:45:45, 01 August 2007 (UTC)

Kept[edit]

Articles[edit]

Wikimedia meetup Central and Eastern Europe et al.[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: kept per consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 16:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This event didn't, in the end, have any international character whatsoever. This page doesn't present any value, sentimental or otherwise.

Please consider this request to encompass the above page plus Wikimedia meetup Central and Eastern Europe/Poland and Wikimedia meetup Central and Eastern Europe/Archive. Thanks. --TOR 09:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Abstain. --Aphaia 10:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • From the similar reason, I would however like you all to consider Wikimedia meetup Eastern Asia and Oceania as deletion request as another futile meetup planning. --Aphaia 10:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Abstain. The pages may have a little value, but I am not so sure.--Jusjih 18:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

IRC channel quotes[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: kept due to consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 16:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is quite funny, and I like it. But 1) it is a publication of IRC logs without evidence of permission (I certainly didn't permit my contributions to be published). This is the very issue that is causing a song and dance on en.wikipedia right now. Hosting this is a clear double standard. (many of these extracts are from the confidential en-admins channel) 2) The page contains clear personal attacks and incivility that we would not tolerate in any other forum "Daniel Brandt is the most common sexually transmitted disease after children" - and that's just one. 'I like it', is no reason to keep something as odious as this.--Doc glasgow 13:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Some of the quotes are funny, but quite a few of them do more harm than good. --Coredesat (en.wp) 14:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - if given quotes are odious, delete them. If you don't ant to be quoted, delete your quotes saying so. The page itself is of great cultural use, as noted at the top - David Gerard 14:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Unacceptable. The policy is you don't post logs without permission, not that you can until someone happens to see them and objects. That totally undermines the non-disclosure policy. Can anyone now post logs on their userpage and take the same attitude? --Doc glasgow 14:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, people are supposed to ask first. If you have been quoted without asking, have you even bothered dealing with the editor in question before coming here? - David Gerard 15:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per David Gerard keep it, and delete the quotes relating to you. Somitho 14:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - the edit button is right beside the page, the quotesfile is way long, so would infact benefit from judicious pruning. snip away at what you find odious, but don't fell the tree. it bears good fruit. -- Cimon Avaro 14:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The policy is the IRC logs are not to be published. This is a clear violation of that policy and has the potential to cause harm to individuals and the Foundation and associated organizations. FloNight 14:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • People are supposed to ask before quoting people there. Doing otherwise is impolite- David Gerard 15:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
      • That's obviously honoured more in the breach than the observance, and this page simply encourages it, with no net gain. Further, it encourages the unhealthy impression that foundation IRC channels are for clever rhetoric and witty put-downs rather than serious discussion. We do have a problem with a certain climate on IRC, no need to glorify it.--Doc glasgow 15:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
        • If you did not bother contacting the editor who quoted you without permission - that is, the person actually responsible for the problem you cite - before coming here, why not? (This discussion is reminiscent of Aphaia's repeated attempts to get Don't be a dick deleted) - David Gerard 15:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Eh? My reason for mentioning that I'd been cited without permission was to show that there is a problem with this page and its culture. Rebuking that user would not eliminate that - it would only deal with one symptom. Fortunately, I don't deem any of my quotes to be damaging, but if I wait until someone publishes something I regard as confidential then it is too late. This thing shouldn't exist. Sure its fun, but the fun is outweighed by the problem which is well demonstrated by personal attacks, libellous statements, and posts-without-permission that currently exist on it. It isn't one problem, it is many. --Doc glasgow 15:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. If we are not going to follow policy with IRC, why should we keep this page? It may be Wikipedia culture, but some of the quotes are offensive, and most of the people quoted have never been contacted. Nishkid64 22:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I wanna keep 'em. That's my stance. DS 22:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Hm, so do I really, but 'I want to keep them' isn't a reason to do so. Do you have an answer to the reasons I've given to delete?--Doc glasgow 10:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all quotes that include people that haven't given permission, then put a signup section at the bottom for permissions, but keep the page. ++Lar: t/c 02:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • We have no verification that any of these abstracts have the permission of all parties. So I guess, you want them all removed but the page kept?--Doc glasgow 10:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Correct, remove them all, pending reintroduction of specific ones, after every person cited in that specific quote has signed in the signup section to verify permission. If it runs empty for a bit and no one is willing to either sign or do the work to chase after sigs, then it failed. But I'm not ready to give up on it just yet. I think it's good and valuable and funny. If the privacy concerns can be addressed I don't see a strong rationale for deletion. That is very much not an ILIKEIT. ++Lar: t/c 14:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • At least one quote quotes me alone, and it has my permission to remain. Demi T/C 05:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per David Gerard. Raul654 05:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm actually quite disgusted that experienced users are using the ILIKEIT defence. We'd slap people using the same arguments on AfD.--Doc glasgow 10:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Good thing we're not on AFD, eh? —Ben Brockert < 03:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Lar. --Slade 13:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is a morale-booster. Bastique 03:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Integral part of Wikimedia IRC fun. — Timichal 04:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep not this page, any page but this one TehKewl1 05:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even if the policy of a freenode channel was that "logs are not to be published" it has nothing to do with the editorial policy of meta. Secondly, this page is freely editable, so anyone who is quoted without permission may remove their quote. Thirdly, even if it were relevant (that is, even if the policy of an unrelated organ were somehow to dictate deletion criteria here) these are not posted logs but edited excerpts; short ones have always been allowed per channel policy. Demi T/C 05:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Muy importante. --72.130.208.225 05:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Would this happen to have anything to do with the super scary trollboard, by chance? --75.126.48.146 05:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - though add a note that permission must be gained for the quote to be added, and that if a quote is added without the permission of the person being quoted they are justified to remove it :-) Michael Billington 08:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The condition "without the permission ..." is unnecessary, I think. "The person quoted may remove the part his or her quotes are included whenever they want" - it is much simpler and avoid controvercies I expect. --Aphaia 09:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment OK, I can read the way this is going. But we must insist that the onus is on the poster to get prior permission, NOT on the person mentioned to happen to see it and remove it. And all posts that are discussing a third party should be prohibited.--Doc glasgow 10:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • We who? Deletion votes aren't really the place to write policy, especially useless goofy policies. —Ben Brockert < 03:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is not a bending of the no logging policy but merely an exception to it. —Xyrael / 23:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep with an admonition not to glorify personal attacks or post sensitive logs. This is supposed to be in good fun. Triona 08:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Why keep it? It promotes community, particularly the real-time community, which is essential to rapid support and problem-solving in real editing as well as personal attachment of editors to the project. However, nominator makes the valid point that we must obtain permission from all parties before publishing. If anyone cannot be contacted, we simply have to either drop it or edit them out. This can't be done after the fact, as a matter of both respect for the privacy of users in IRC (as implied by the no logging policy) and copyright. At a bare minimum names should be changed. Permission logs should be posted on the talk page and any quotes posted contrary to this should be speedy removable by anyone at all. As for personal attacks - WP:NPA regards attacks of people involved in the discussion, which certainly should not be posted without their permission. But antagonists like Brandt are not people on #wikipedia, they're icons used as running gags and tools of rhetoric. Dcoetzee 08:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, and I personally allow quotes of me that are already there. If you want to add other ones of me, contact me first and I'll give you the okay, more likely than not. (Mike_H on IRC). TheCustomOfLife 08:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. bash.org isn't as editable... DarkoNeko 13:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep it's not short mildy funny quotes like this that people have a problem with but wholesale logging.Geni 10:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Does it directly advance the goals of the WMF? No. But there's always a place for humor, provided it's kept out of article space (which isn't applicable on Meta to begin with). It's not against the logging policy, because the quotes are (or should be) by permission only. As for not being by permission only, I admit I've sometimes been guilty of that, but I'll add a section to address that now. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. An integral part of Meta's mission to contain Wikipedia humor. FWIW, I hereby release all IRC messages, past, present, future, and contrafactual, into the public domain. --Gwern 23:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The crème de la crème of the Wikimedia projects' output.—Nat Krause 18:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It should have community value.--Jusjih 19:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Channel logs should either be allowed to be published, or not at all. This kind of breaks the boundary having a quotes page. And who's to say what is appropriate and what is not? --Majorly 20:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Keep page, edit (delete) mercilesly any incivil quotes. xaosflux Talk 07:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, per DG. —Ben Brockert < 03:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Bookshelf logos[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: The result was kept due to lack of consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 20:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

These should be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons; I don't see any reason to have them on Meta instead. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The second one carries "This image is used on the http://www.wikipedia.org home page through direct linking, and should not be deleted."... anyone know why this is that way, and why it can't be moved to commons? I was about to move these and protect them when I saw that and paused. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
It's used in the www.wikipedia.org template; it'd be easy to update. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an admin on meta to do that though, it's (wisely) protected... let me know if I should perhaps first create the images on commons and then have you make the change? someone who is admin in both places might be best suited to fix this. I plan on standing for admin here soon enough so if it could wait? ++Lar: t/c 22:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It shouldn't be moved to Commons because the portal templates are located on this wiki, and sysop who edits these pages should be able to update images, too. Meta must not depend on Commons. MaxSem 22:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Commons is the repository for all images, project wide, unless there is some strong reason to have an image locally (like, they are copyrighted and used as fair use, for example). Do these images (often? ever?) need updating (rather than replacing with different images outright?)? Presumably they would, if uploaded to Commons, subsequently be protected by a commons admin (which I was offering to do if needful). Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 00:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
We already had problems with Commons, when they deleted an image for being a resized duplicate. No more problems, everythig should be under control of local admins. MaxSem 00:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a specific image in mind that was deleted? I think there are good reasons for keeping duplicates around and would support undeletion of such images if warranted. I also think that there are enough folk who are going to be dual admins here and on commons that this won't, long term, be a problem. I think it's better to use Commons for what it is intended for if at all possible. I'm not sure how to proceed further, I certainly can create these images on Commons if desired, and protect them. I just can't tell what the desire is here yet. ++Lar: t/c 21:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per MaxSem.
To Lar, I have seen they deleted logos which were used on other our websites and they claimed they had made checks. Consequently we found sometimes red links on foundationwiki and others. I think they are trying to improve the project on a good faith, but at the same time their work isn't reliable enough trust all images we need locally. --Aphaia 08:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm an admin on Commons and if you (or anyone!) can point to specific images that were deleted incorrectly I will be happy to undelete them for review and start a discussion on why they may or may not have been deleted incorrectly. Let's discuss and correct the matter! Further, I sympathise if incorrect deletion impacted things but am not totally convinced that an incorrect deletion of one image is a reason not to host a different image in the "right place". ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The fact you seem not to know the fact I pointed out makes me stick to my standpoint. It happened again and again around several logos on several wikis. And there are something we cannot face the risk of turning into redlinks ...... Please see Commons VfD logs since 2005 summer. Forgotten past events could easily happen I am afraid. --Aphaia 14:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
IF you or anyone can point to a specific image that this happened to, I'll go undelete it myself and start the discussion again. But pointing to deletion logs without a specific example doesn't seem like efficiency, I don't remember, you do. I wasn't a commons admin in the summer of 2005, things have changed there since then. ++Lar: t/c 02:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your offer, but no thank you for undeletions; we have found substitutions and there is no need to bother you. The point of mine is not that I would like to undelete something but I think we cannot allow Commons admins to make redlinks on certain pages we offer to the external people as something important like official public relation pages from the Foundation or global portal pages. I don't argue the past incidents here but future risk we cannot take. Oncd failed, they promised improvement but the similar happened again - not once but multiple times. So I claim it is generally too risky to have Commons host our crucial materials. They do not care if the image they are going to delete is really not used. If they check Wikipedia and not used it is just okay for them. I am fed up with such their excuses. I think therefore we cannot take the further risk specially after our project becomes larger than those incidents happened, and our mistakes can take attention from the external people. --Aphaia 06:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak deleteComment. Both images are derived from Image:Booksshelf.gif without copyright tag.--Jusjih 16:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    Wait. Meta:Copyrights does not specify image policy. I would like to have an answer.--Jusjih 17:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Academia Related[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept per consensus. Nishkid64 22:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't content for Meta. --Slade 20:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete; --Slade 20:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.--Jusjih 11:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC) changed to keep
  • Delete --Nick1915 11:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It's an interesting essay, but it's not appropriate for around here. —Xyrael / 21:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Meta is also a repository of user essays on Wikimedia project. This page discusses citing Wikipedia; I think it within the scope. --Aphaia 06:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Aphaia. Cbrown1023 talk 16:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Aphaia. MatthewFenton 13:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but suggest that the essay be rewritten a bit to broaden scope from just Wikipedia to all WMF projects... ++Lar: t/c 22:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but tag it as an essay.--Jusjih 10:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Association of Deletionist Wikipedians[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 15:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This association is non-notable and irrelevant at best, and the article here is not more than vanity. -- 172.192.10.126 07:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - this is not Wikipedia, and I have to question the faith of the nominator because none of the other "association" pages have been nominated. --Coredesat (en.wp) 23:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - The ADW is a strongly supported group of edits at the English Wikipedia. Also, notability guidelines don't exist at meta. PTO 23:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --.anaconda 01:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Associations of Wikimedians (particularly those limited to Wikipedians) serve no useful purpose. At best, they do not organize or encourage contributions or maintenance. At worst, they serve as a noticeboard for like-minded individuals intent on overturning general community processes by rallying around their common cause and unfairly slanting votes and discussions in their favour. If we wish to document deletionism, that is already accomplished at deletionism. One of the association's stated goals applies well in this case: "Outpace rampant inclusionism". —{admin} Pathoschild 01:03:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This page is pointless. Also, one must enjoy the irony here. -- Suzumebachi 22:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Associations of Wikimedians (even those limited to Wikipedians) serve a very useful purpose, which is community-building. A little fun never hurts. Jon Harald Søby 22:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The reason ("non-notable", "irrelevant at best", "more than vanity") is pointless. Also, I strong suspect a bad-faith nomination; user's first edit. Call me for a nomination that proposes deleting all the associations. I'll happily vote delete. Utcursch 14:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I ought to say delete for this one and keep for AIW, to keep the irony straight, but I'll say Keep just the same. This has been around for a long time and is of historic interest even if you don't agree with the approach. Mark it inactive or deprecated if you like but don't actually delete. Note that I disagree with the argument Pathoschild is making here, as I did with other association related deletions. ++Lar: t/c 14:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There is no need to delete this article. Peace:) --La gloria è a dio 18:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep it serves a purpose. 58.178.156.37 23:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but move to Wikimedians. --Slade 19:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, just to spite these guys. Also delete all their accounts and blow up their houses. -- Sy / (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, there are lots of wiki(p|m)edians associations, and most harmful of of them are inclusionists, who are responsible for crapload of articles about schools and one-hit bands, thus severely damaging Wikipedia's reputation and credibility. MaxSem 07:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, Morale builder. Bastique 12:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems notable enough. Also, has anyone noticed yet that the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians is up for deletion? Captain panda 23:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Either they're all deleted or none are. Btw, I'm an inclusionist/mergist. Enjoying the irony... Neko 01:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

See also this previous discussion (there may have been others): Meta:Requests_for_deletion/Archives/2006/01#Association_of_Deletionist_Wikipedians_and_.2Fmembers ++Lar: t/c 17:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Help:Template名字空间[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept. Majorly (hot!) 13:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No idea what this one is about, oddly the "checkme" template did not show on this one so this may be an error rather than anything else --Herby talk thyme 14:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is a Chinese page corresponding to Help:Template in English.--Jusjih 23:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - it seems possible that this page was not actually in the "checkme" category other than accidentally - see here --Herby talk thyme 15:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I moved it to 帮助:Template名字空间. When this page was created, I guess, there is no particular namespace for help in Chinese... --Aphaia 17:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; per Aphaia. Slade 19:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep both, I suppose. The new name is the correct format and the old one has a good amount of links. Picaroon (Talk) 23:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Soemarno Wiryo Di Harjo atau Pak Singa[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept. Majorly (hot!) 13:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagged in September last year, if I saw this now I would probably mark it as "speedy" and hope an admin sorted it! It does not look like Meta content to me --Herby talk thyme 14:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep until somebody provides some sort of translation to English. Sean William 21:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per PullToOpen until somobody gives information. It would be Indonesian or Malaysian or whatever. Seems encyclopediac or news. If it is news, it could go to New language pre-launch#Bahasa Indonesia, but I am not sure. I left a Indonesian editor a note asking for help. --Aphaia 00:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

راهنما:راهنما[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept. Majorly (hot!) 13:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No idea what this is. Only contribution from a user in October last year and marked immediately after creation --Herby talk thyme 14:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete if still orphaned and dead-end after one week.--Jusjih 00:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep unless Arabic or Persian speaking user(s) give information enough delete it (I am not sure its language even). WM:DP says "If the value of a page in an unusual language or character-set is not obvious, the page can be listed for deletion; however, it should not be deleted until someone who knows the language has seen it and commented on it.". "No idea what this is" is not the valid reason for deletion on meta. For languages you cannot read, it is recommended to keep them until its reader appears and review it (see the deletion policy). --Aphaia 02:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe keep. Hm... مدیاویکی reads "MediaWiki"... So it seems to have something to do with it... But I can't identify the language. It looks Indo-European, so perhaps Urdu, Persian or Kurdish. --Thogo (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept due to consensus. --Nick1915 - all you want 18:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This title can be perceived as offensive and I fail to see the point of the article. - Gilliam 21:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep - it is satire. If your read the essay, it should become apparent that the title and entire subject matter is facetious. It pokes fun at the stuidity of vandalism, but is not meant to be taken literally. It's hilarious! Aleta 00:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep It's a joke page... relax...--Nick1915 - all you want 00:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep - it's satire --Versageek 03:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep - obvious satire. ++Lar: t/c 04:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
LOL -- 10:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Er, means "keep"? :-) --.anaconda 03:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep The first humor essay I read. Gave me a positive impression of a "whistle while you work" attitude on the projects. FloNight 12:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep - per all of the above. Smokizzy 14:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep Martinp23 14:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
delete --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 14:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The humor shows a positive trait of the Wikimedia projects. - Tangotango 15:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It's sarcastic satire. Take a peek at Jonathan Swift's 1729 "A Modest Proposal" (Wikipedia - A Modest Proposal or the full text at A Modest Proposal). Though, this does bring up a good point: it might be an idea to stick the purple "intended as humor" tag on the article. --slakr 20:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep It's a satire that pokes fun at Wikipedia vandals. It's had over 250+ edits over the past three years. And while I can't speak for the whole community, I think it's in good taste. 76.201.152.54 21:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Rename. Content is funny, but I agree with nominator that the title can be perceived as offensive. --Bensin 23:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep per FloNight. I'm sure nearly everyone who first sees the title is a bit taken aback (I was), but one only needs to read the article to realize that it is meant to be satire. The point of the article is a light-hearted chuckle at the expense of immature vandals. Picaroon (Talk) 00:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Rename The point is a good one, but the page isn't strictly needed (nothing in it isn't already covered by the existing vandalism and spam pages). What we don't want is to offend people by a pages title. A better title, keep the article, everybody wins. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 00:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
As part of a possible compromise on the name (since there are two renames so far), I would suggest maybe replacing "gays" with "homosexuals" or "gays" with "gay people," since, at least in my opinion, both sound better and/or more scientific and neutral. The "homosexuals" one might actually increase the humor of the article, since the article's type of humor seems to approach in a pseudo-scientific over-exaggeration of types of editors that must be barred from editing based on the prevalence of perceived vandalism from those types of editors. Alternatively, we could also reword the article to something more all-inclusive of the bulk of the article, which mainly deals with other types of vandals (friends of gay people are only 1 of 5 "vandals" discussed). *shrug* --slakr 03:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
delete While I understand that it's satire and agree that it is indeed humorous, I was under the impression that the Wiki was not a place for people to publish their own work. It seems like this belongs on a blog, in an article, on a personal page, or on a website. But not this Wiki. 71.103.255.17 20:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Satire. Actually, this wiki has plenty of essays, humor or otherwise. Andre (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd keep it. And if I well remember, this is not the first time the community is asked for an opinion about this article. Renaming it could be a solution, but the new title should be as funny and effective as the current one. --Paginazero - Ø 13:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it's great, very edgy, so keep. But if gays are being offended (even after reading the article itself) then it should be at least renamed. But I think the title arouses curiosity by being so bizarre (what about gays themselves?) more than it offends. The subtlety is beyond some, I'm sure. Dandolo 14:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I see people saying it "could" or "might be" offensive, but I'm not aware at the moment of anyone who has actually been offended -- probably because the sorts of people likely to find it are also quite intelligent enough to recognize it as one of the best satire pieces on meta. Humor is a good quality, it should never overtake our primary goals, but I don't see any significant problem, here. Luna-San 23:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep but renaming might not be a bad idea, simply because the gay part is only part of the joke. I don't think anyone is actually going to be offended when they read the page. -- Ned Scott 23:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Not singling you out, a few people have brought up the idea of renaming, but I'm not sure if anybody's proposed a place we might move it to -- ideas? I guess "friends of gays" is one option, but it'll probably be difficult for me to think of a good move target, without knowing a little more about the line of thought that suggests a move. Luna-San 04:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Amusing essay that is well know. Its obvious from reading it that its a joke - nothing wrong with a bit of humour. WjBscribe 03:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. What's wrong with a little humor? I don't mind a rename, though. Sr13 08:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It is funny. It is satire. It is great. It is offensive to promote humor. Though offensive to promote humor is fine in most circumstances, it's not something that the project should be supporting. If the article read "Friends of blacks should not be allowed to edit articles" we would not be having this discussion. Arichnad 17:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It's hilarious, AND meaningful. If deleted, a friend of a gay will probably recreate it anyway. G1ggy
Keep. Its a joke, and referenced to by my wp userpage, Urdna 03:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep—just who are these people who are "potentially" going to be offended by this? Gay people? I've shown this to many, telling them that I'm not allowed to edit Wikipedia, and they all get a great laugh out of it. Friends of gays? I certainly never thought for a second that this was offensive. I mean, if it said "'gays are not allowed to edit", I could see how the title could be offensive, but "Friends of gays" is just too odd to even begin to take seriously! Just about the only group I can think of that really might be offended is vandals, and frankly, I'm not too worried about offending vandals. (Xtifr@en:WP) 64.81.58.33 11:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep Platonides 12:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep It's satire. Keep it. This place needs to loosen the tie once in a while. 69.92.245.2 17:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Please don't w:appeal to ignorance. Hillgentleman 07:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep Probably the first article I read on Meta. As stated by G1ggy, hilarious AND meaningful. Garion96 23:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Well, it took me some seconds to understand the true meaning of this article :) DarkoNeko 15:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Reading the article clears up any possible misunderstanding that this should be considered offensive. Adambro 20:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Newuserlog[edit]

The following discussion is closed: made it a soft redirect. --.anaconda 03:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This MediaWiki extension-related page is actually outdated and the Newuserlog page on MediaWiki.org is better, so I figured there's no point of having the same thing in two different places... --Roosa (Talk) 12:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Special:Version links to the Meta page. A soft redirect would be better. --.anaconda 13:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I concur with .anaconda. It is our custom to keep at least six months Softredirect for this kind of things. --Aphaia 13:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Soft redirect for now. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Phonetic schema[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept for historical purpose. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

With the same rationale as the above; an ancient Wikipedia discussion wasting space. Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Again, apathy. Just marking stuff as being no longer active and/or relevant seems just as productive as putting it up for deletion. EVula // talk // 05:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I've added {{historical}} to the page. I doubt much more than that needs to be done. EVula // talk // 14:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • as above, tag or delete, whichever is desired. ++Lar: t/c 13:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Apathy - Tagged, it's fine. Giggy\Talk 07:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as historical. --Aphaia 12:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no need to mark as historical, as barely anyone would be interested in it. Majorly (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As a linguist I *am* interested in stuff like that. :p --Thogo (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • keep --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 14:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • keep --.snoopy. AKA dario vet · (talk) 12:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Making Wikipedia more accessible to the blind[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept for historical purpose. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an old discussion from a Wikipedia page, and currently its just wasting space and collecting dust. Outdated, unused page - I think this should be removed. AnonymousDissident 14:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete old Wikipedia discussion, no longer relevant today. I see no need for it to be kept. Majorly (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - harddisc space should cost less than this very discussion and the subsequent deletion. - Hillgentleman 03:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Apathy Just mark it as historical/closed/whatever (no {{old as hell and nobody cares}}, eh? too bad). EVula // talk // 05:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not about space wasted, it's about potential confusion if someone finds it via search and thinks it inapplicable. I'd support either a delete or a historical, whichever, but it shouldn't stay as is unless it is relevant. (that's a general principle, I think). ++Lar: t/c 13:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    • What Lar says is true. I would also personally support the addition of an historical tag, but I think a deletion would be simpler, easier, and less confusing, really. ~Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I've taken the liberty of placing {{historical}} on the page. Doesn't get much simpler and easier than that. ;) EVula // talk // 14:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I suppose, but I guess pressing the delete button is just as easy. Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • {{Historical}} - It's already tagged, is it not? Giggy\Talk 08:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    • It is now.[10] It wasn't when AD nominated it here. EVula // talk // 21:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as historical. --Aphaia 12:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as historical.--Jusjih 02:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Keep as historical. --OosWesThoesBes 09:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Keep as historical. --.snoopy. AKA dario vet · (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous[edit]

Help:Turkish characters[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: no real consensus, weak keep. Cbrown1023 talk 20:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The information on this page is now outdated and irrelevant. (I guess this page must be deleted on meta before it can be deleted/redirected on en:) —Ruud 00:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This really shouldn't be at the Help: namespace. As a technical info, it might be good idea to MediaWiki site. --Dbl2010 04:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's of much use there either. This page has been useless since MediaWiki 1.5 was introduced. —Ruud 20:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
There might be some worth in keeping it, for people still using old versions of MW (I'm sure there are some...). If kept then it should be moved to MW.org (tag it with template:MoveToMediaWiki. --HappyDog 16:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A consensus? --Slade 20:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I do not understand Turkish, so I can only lean toward weak keep.--Jusjih 15:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Unused images by "(Automated conversion)‎"[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep per consensus. Nishkid64 00:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:WPLogoglow.png, Image:Wplogo5.png, Image:Vikio.png, Image:Wiki-pl.png, Image:Vikio.jpg, Image:Wiki-logo nl.png, Image:Vikireklamilo1.png, Image:Vikireklamilo2.png are dated 10 October 2002 by ‎(Automated conversion). I just wonder how they were generated and what exactly automatic conversion is and would like to request comments as to whether to keep or delete these unused and unsourced images.--Jusjih 08:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep for historical interest. Those images are previous WP logos, and "automated conversion" was done to launch this side, copying some materials on English Wikipedia at that time, as far as I learned. --Aphaia 15:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    If no significant users vote to delete them, how about a gallery to show them?--Jusjih 23:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    Having an gallery of past logos/candidates would be a good idea.--Aphaia 01:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    Good idea in my opinion --Herby talk thyme 06:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    We have an article Logo. If we are to keep these unused logos, should they be tagged "CopyrightByWikimedia"? I will be willing to withdraw my deletion proposal if these questions are answered.--Jusjih 23:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    Their statuses are obscure ... some of them were created before the Foundation was founded. I would like not to merge them into Logo page, where people may expect to find only official & Foundation-copyrighted logos, but keep them separately. --Aphaia 17:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per the discussion above, a page with past logo candidates could be useful, but I agree that these should not be added to Logo since most of them predate the Wikimedia Foundation. --Coredesat (en.wp) 23:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Inclusionist Wikipedians[edit]

The following discussion is closed: No consensus Thunderhead 16:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

These categories and the tree were a mess. I tried to consolidate and simplify things under Category:Users and Category:User associations, which left these all empty. --Kbdank71 18:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Dude... like stop... I am all for being bold, but you're being too bold. Discuss first. Wikipedians and Wikimedians are not synonymous. People find themselves differently, discuss before you do all this stuff. Cbrown1023 talk 18:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree. Also there is historical interest here as well. ++Lar: t/c 19:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand they're different. The largest category was Category:Wikipedian associations, which had a mixture of wikipedian and wikimedian articles. It was also in two categories, Category:Wikimedian associations and Category:Wikipedians. Category:Wikimedian associations had very little besides Category:Wikipedian associations in it. Like I said, it was a mess. I figured that since things were already combined, and a little hard to find as well, consolidation and simplification would be a good thing. However, if people disagree with what I've done, I can go ahead and undo it, no problem. --Kbdank71 19:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I could have undone it all, easily. :-) (just mass-rolled back all your edits). But that would be crazy now... just hold-off and discuss first. You move everything, then nominate the cat for deletion, why not just nominate it first and then we can discuss what to do with the content (i.e. move them all to Users... then delete cat)? IMO, that's a better timeline. Cbrown1023 talk 19:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikimedians[edit]

The following discussion is closed: No consensus on deletion --.anaconda 00:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral – I'd like to see a justification for deletion by the nominator, before I agree or disagree. Anthøny 18:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral I agree, no reason for deletion in my opinion. Thunderhead 16:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Now it seems almost empty, but I suspect the nominator made it empty: history of category:user associations say "17:38, 17 August 2007 Kbdank71 ", and he emptied older category category:wikimedian associations (created Oct 2006). It looks to me useless and unhealthy self-display. This kind of replacement doesn't help meta housecleaning and deprive its historical interests (much older category:wikipedian associations were also made empty and speedied because of "emptiness"). I don't say it should be reverted, but also not welcome this kind of editings. --Aphaia 17:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral as the others. Please provide some justification. AnonymousDissident 07:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral Personaly I can't make a decision without a reason. Please post one. Yamakiri 19:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral. The nom should have given any reason. I have no reason to delete it yet.--Jusjih 19:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Until there is a justification from the nominator, I will stay neutral. Greeves (talk contribs Wikipedia) 12:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Ditto. --The Random Editor 23:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Coloured box templates[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Everyone seems to concur they are useful in demonstration --Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

These templates were created by Patrick in June 2005 to generate coloured boxes and grids. They are uncategorized and orphaned, and have apparently never been used. They seem to serve no useful purpose on Meta.

  1. template:box ( talk edit watch history links logs localspace delete )
  2. template:box a ( talk edit watch history links logs localspace delete )
  3. template:box b ( talk edit watch history links logs localspace delete )
  4. template:box cond ( talk edit watch history links logs localspace delete )
  5. template:box f ( talk edit watch history links logs localspace delete )
  6. template:box g ( talk edit watch history links logs localspace delete )
  7. template:box l ( talk edit watch history links logs localspace delete )
  8. template:box r ( talk edit watch history links logs localspace delete )
  9. template:box s ( talk edit watch history links logs localspace delete )
  10. template:box w ( talk edit watch history links logs localspace delete )
  11. template:box x ( talk edit watch history links logs localspace delete )
  12. template:box y ( talk edit watch history links logs localspace delete )
  13. template:boxgen ( talk edit watch history links logs localspace delete )
  14. template:calla ( talk edit watch history links logs localspace delete )
  15. template:color b ( talk edit watch history links logs localspace delete )
  16. template:color f ( talk edit watch history links logs localspace delete )
  17. template:color g ( talk edit watch history links logs localspace delete )
  18. template:color l ( talk edit watch history links logs localspace delete )
  19. template:color r ( talk edit watch history links logs localspace delete )
  20. template:color w ( talk edit watch history links logs localspace delete )
  21. template:color x ( talk edit watch history links logs localspace delete )
  22. template:list of template calls/wikitext generator ( talk edit watch history links logs localspace delete )
  23. template:numbered repetition/10 ( talk edit watch history links logs localspace delete )
  24. template:numbered repetition/100 ( talk edit watch history links logs localspace delete )
  25. template:numbered repetition nl0/100 ( talk edit watch history links logs localspace delete )
  26. template:rectangle/wikitext generator ( talk edit watch history links logs localspace delete )
  27. template:square 8x8 ( talk edit watch history links logs localspace delete )
  28. template:square 8x8 pentomino example ( talk edit watch history links logs localspace delete )

{admin} Pathoschild 18:33:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 18:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And {{square 8x8}} looks rather useful to me. Wikversity will want it sooner or later. Hillgentleman 05:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. They are used to demonstrate how a diagram can be created, built up from colored rectangles, and help to construct such a diagram. They are auxiliary pages of the MediaWiki documentation, referred to in Help:Table:
A table can be useful even if none of the cells have content. For example, the background colors of cells can be changed with cell parameters, making the table into a diagram, like Template talk:Square 8x8 pentomino examplehttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Square_8x8_pentomino_example. An "image" in the form of a table is much more convenient to edit than an uploaded image.
I renamed Template:Square 8x8 to Template:Rectangle 8x8.--Patrick (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful demonstration templates. Korg + + 21:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Primarily only because I agree that Meta should be used to document stuff like this. Are these templates even used on any projects, though? EVula // talk // 14:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
    Apparently not. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:37:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless they are being used as I see no purpose to keeping them otherwise. The pages seem to remain orphaned and uncategorized. If they are being used could someone make where and how? FloNight 23:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
    • It has been used to produce commons:Image:Tst.png with minimal use of a graphics program. This image is used as demo image on Help:Images and other uploaded files. Like when you substitute a template, the template shows up as orphaned even though it is used. In applications where one should be able to edit the image easily, the template call can better be kept. For now I have put the main templates in Category:English documentation, because they are used to demonstrate a technique explained in the documentation.--Patrick (talk) 08:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • See also Template:Rectangle_8x8#Frieze groups example. For cases where only a simple diagram is required in terms of number of pixels/rectangles, the advantage of such images is that they are much easier to create and edit, just by editing the wikitext, without a graphics program and without a file upload procedure. Also, when changing the image diff works.--Patrick (talk) 10:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep , per Documentation intended to help users contribute and collaborate in other wiki projects. FloNight, being orphaned or uncategorised are not mentioned in the inclusion policy. Such works on meta are to be available for all wikimedia projects, and even other projects that are using mediawiki that we know not of. And these demonstrations and documentations are amongst the most useful things on meta; for a common editor they are more useful than the various policies, essays, foundation election stuff, etc. Hillgentleman 09:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • For informational purposes, I was interested in seeing some evidence about what is linked to them. Being orphaned and not categorized is often an indication that something is not being used. If they are link in another way, such as help on another site, then that is important to note. Also, it is best if they are categorized in a manner that show there usefulness so that new wikis can find them and use them. That is the reason for my question and conditional delete. FloNight 19:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • We are here to document the uses of mediawiki. Several users have found it useful and explicitly stated so, and explained why. That is enough. And that is more meaningful than your dumb (in the sense of "without any use of judgement") test. It doesn't matter if 10 million users will never know how to apply it, or if we have not yet got round to apply it in to further our education mission. Hillgentleman 03:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Keep and Template:Remove[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

While I know this is not the english wikipedia, but meta-wikimedia, I don't think this will make the votes any more noticeable at Meta:Administrators/confirm. If you want to use the icons, it won't be much more work to type it out or make a derivative of w:User:Ais523/votesymbols.js for meta. —[[Animum | talk]] 17:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Keep They can also be used here on Requests for deletion. Majorly (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Keep Though they may have been created for admin confirmation, like Majorly said, they can be used elsewhere as well. EVula // talk // 18:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, the icons are unnecessary and frivolous. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:38:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Keep For people who don't speak English, a green icon says more than thousand English words. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 11:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - another useless/unnecessary template since simple method of Keep/Remove works way better..--Cometstyles 09:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Keep per above reasons, + why not Symbol support vote.svg Keep them? --OosWesThoesBes 09:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol comment vote.svg Comment I just created two templates, {{vote+}} and {{vote-}}, which are the standard support/oppose templates but can be updated to say whatever a user wants (mess with people's heads with Symbol support vote.svg Oppose). Dunno if they render {{Keep}} and {{Remove}} obsolete or not, but I did create them with an eye for limiting the proliferation of variant templates. EVula // talk // // 18:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, useless templatecruft that increases server load. MaxSem 11:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --.anaconda 12:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Writing three ' instead of two { is not very much work. --Thogo (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, writing [[image:symbol support vote.svg|20px]] takes more time... ----Anonymous DissidentTalk 19:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
      • But that image is not needed to express "keep" or "remove". The letters do that good enough. :o) --Thogo (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, as has been noted above, a green plus sign is pretty much a "panlingual" (if that's a word) expression of support. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 19:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Keep Adambro 22:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Keep and further, extend these as Commons did to be multilingual so that the icon shows intent regardless of what your native language is. ++Lar: t/c 14:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Keep Good point, Lar. Graphical signs help internationalize the community which meta is intended to be so. While I myself prefer not to use them, it is a false assumption, regretfully, English words are no problem for all Wikimedia editors. --Aphaia 10:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Keep - Per Bryan. Greeves (talk contribs Wikipedia) 18:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Keep per Lar --Herby talk thyme 18:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Images[edit]

The following discussion is closed: All images are tagged now (and before the request!) --Nick1915 - all you want 00:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I've De-tagged fundraising imgs... we need all of them today (and they're all WM copyrighted)--Nick1915 - all you want 10:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank for pointing out the rest is used for the bid ... I think BA related images can be also safely de-tagged. So all images can be de-tagged. Moushira just had no time to tag all her uploads ... as intention, she said, to release in PD. See her talk for further information. --Aphaia 23:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose imgs licensed, used for fundraising or bids--Nick1915 - all you want 19:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 19:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. For example, Image:Donatenow7.png is a Sandy Ordonez of Wikimedia Foundation's upload, which she commented "don't delete, for fundraising." Deleting them as unlicensed is, eh, too much of bureaucracy in my humble opinion. --Aphaia 19:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
PS but not the correct "bureaucratic" procedure ( see {{no source}} template ) ;)--Nick1915 - all you want 19:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all images missing source and licensing info as per policy regardless of how they are being used, they all must comply with policy. I note attempts have been made to resolve this issue on some of the images so my delete votes doesn't extend to all the images above. Adambro 22:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Sandy uploaded, and she said she had got all necessary permissions ... or Moushira, our friend and co-organizer of Wikimania. And you want to delete them. Now I think you shouldn't be granted deletion access on this project. Never. Your saying is actually only to go to disturb Foundation people a/o friendly external org people and accumulate their workload unnecessarily imho. --Aphaia 12:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sorry but what you are saying is that I should never be given admin rights because I have implied that I intend to follow policies. That is ridiculous. Regardless of the uploader we have to demand that everyone ensures the policies are complied with. Granted, this could have been dealt with more efficiently by simply contacting the uploader and asking them to provide the required info but I'd note that not all these images are in the same situation so it is difficult to comment on the entire list. In my delete vote, I've entrusted the closing admin to use their judgement to determine what should be deleted on the basis of policy not who the uploader is. I don't care who they are, Jimbo Wales could upload an image without source and/or licence info, I'd still press to ensure policies are followed and the required info supplied. I'm not stupid, I wouldn't delete an image uploaded by someone from the Foundation without first contacting them to resolve an issue but looking at these images, some of which lack the necessary info, I'm afraid I have to say they should be deleted per policy if the info is not forthcoming. Adambro 21:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meta is not like other projects. If someone in good standing says these are for fundraising and you are concerned, work with them to get the image tagged correctly. That's a better use of everyone's time in my view. ++Lar: t/c 14:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    I've touched on your point in my comment above but I would reiterate that we must ensure that all uploaders comply with policy, not just those not considered to be "in good standing". I would agree though that in the first instance the uploader should be contacted and the images should be tagged with {{no source}}. I'm slightly unsure as to why this has appeared on RfD before other avenues have been explored. Adambro 21:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • A possible solution is that, we add a note of hint to the upload notice, asking such uploaders who have no time to tag individual images to declare their licences with a public notice to meta:babel or even to requests for administrative action, and somebody with a robot (e.g. Siebrand) can tag it accordingly. Hillgentleman 23:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Sounds sensible. Could you please lay your idea down more closely? --Aphaia 15:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Something in the line of images uploaded on meta must have appropriate licences, images without licences may/will be deleted; if you have urgent need to upload a large number of images and you need help in tagging the images with appropriate licences, please ask for help in meta:babel or wherever, stating clearly the sources and licences. Etc. Hillgentleman 00:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
        • A most excellent idea. ++Lar: t/c 04:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Other[edit]

Categories[edit]

Category:Top level[edit]

The following discussion is closed: To be renamed "Categories". --Aphaia 09:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the category Top level be renamed to Categories. This is the traditional and expected name; see Commons (sortof), en-Wikinews, en-Wikipedia, en-Wikisource, en-Wikispecies, en-Wikiquote, and en-Wikiversity. The odd ones out, with widely divergent names, are en-Wiktionary (Fundamental) and en-Wikibooks (Main page). 'Categories' also follows with the logical tendency to name categories based on their expected contents, rather than any other characteristic. For example, 'Categories' and 'birds', rather than 'Top level' and... um. :)

Since it is the top level category, very few pages need be changed and there is no need for users to adjust to the difference, since no new pages should be categorized there. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support ++Lar: t/c 21:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Cbrown1023 02:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Greeves 17:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Just to be consistent. --Majorly 22:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Nishkid64 23:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: In most German pages the top category is !Hauptkategorie. In Latin it is Omnia, in Nederlands it is Alles. In Svenka it is again Topp.---Hillgentleman| 01:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support--Jusjih 17:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Somitho 14:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, we want continuity like this. —Xyrael / 16:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC).