Meta:Requests for deletion

Shortcut:
WM:RFD

This page hosts local (i.e., Meta-Wiki) requests for page deletion. For requests for speedy deletion from global sysops or stewards, see Steward requests/Miscellaneous. Any language may be used on this page. Before commenting on this page, please read the deletion policy, in particular the criteria for speedy deletion, and the inclusion policy. Please place the template {{RFD}} on the page you are proposing for deletion, and then add an entry in an appropriate section below. As a courtesy, you may wish to inform the principal authors of the page about the request. After at least one week, an administrator will close and carry out the consensus or majority decision.

Articles that qualify for speedy deletion should be tagged with {{delete}} or {{delete|reason}}, and should not be listed here. (See also speedy deletion candidates.) Files with no sources should be tagged with {{no source}} and need not be listed here, either. To request undeletion, see #Requests for undeletion. See Meta:Inclusion policy for a general list of what does not belong on the Meta-Wiki.

Previous requests are archived. Deletion requests ({{Deletion requests}}) can be added to talk page to remember previous RfDs.

Participate:

Pages

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Matiia (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused (obsolete) translation units from Grants:PEG

Please delete some unused (obsolete) translation units:

This may be performet through Special:PageTranslationDeletePage, but this requires admin rights :(--Kaganer (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed: Kept. -Mh7kJ (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enwikipediathink

This essay was rightly moved to a less inflammatory title three years ago. There is no benefit in retaining this redirect, which has barely any incoming links and is an insult directed at a specific WMF project. That's not what meta is for, rather the opposite. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think enwikipediathink should not be deleted, as it is the title under which the page was originally written and is the much more proper title, as the majority of users exhibiting "bigwikithink" definitely come from enwiki, not dewiki, frwiki, etc. --MF-W 16:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument does not refute either of my points, that this has very few incoming links and is directly insulting a specific project, which I am saddened to see being supported by a steward. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this redirect should not be deleted. It is a well known and valid term for phenomena that has rooted itself within the WMF wiki's. In fact IMO the term ENwikipediathink is more accurate than the current title since it is the biggest wiki ever. Also for the reasons that MF-W states, we would lose the history. Reguyla (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see this as an insult directed at enwiki. --MF-W 00:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's the original title and nobody would even find this unless they looked into the history. This redirect isn't hurting anyone. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per PiRSquared17.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 05:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree this redirect isn't hurting anything. Reguyla (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the absurd insult - read Meta:About#Purpose #3: A forum for personal essays about Wikimedia projects. It fits well with one of the purposes of Meta, a forum for malcontents who struggle to understand that even wikis need some rules. 46.254.186.36 03:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Éduarel

Hello,

I want to delete my personnal page. --Éduarel (talk)

Done--Ste moc 01:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Matiia (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grants:PEG/WUG-CN/Chinese Wikipedia Education Program and Grants:PEG/WM ID/ESEA Meetup 2015

Since those page will not be open anymore, I request delete them. Thank you.--Liang(WMTW) (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Submit your template deletion request at the bottom of this section.

Unused CC templates and categories

I think it is time to start phasing out Creative Commons licenses from Meta. There are some templates that are no longer being used, so they should be deleted and a message placed in each one encouraging the upload of free files to Commons instead. Those CC templates that are still being used should not be deleted yet, but if the files that are using them are transferred to Commons, and if they are unused elsewhere, then I think they should also be speedily deleted. I am proposing deletion for the following templates (and a couple of related categories):

{{CC-by}} and {{Cc-by}}, unused redirects to templates that are used only by one file each
{{Cc-by-2.0}} (unused) and Category:CC-BY-2.0 (empty)
{{Cc-by-sa-1.0}} (unused) and its {{Cc-by-sa-1.0/doc}}, and Category:CC-BY-SA-1.0 (empty)
{{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} and {{CC-BY-SA-2.0}}, both linked only from a maintenance page
{{Cc-by-sa-3.0-hk}} and {{CC-by-sa-3.0-hk}} (both unused)

Thoughts? Green Giant (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hold until all files have been transferred to Commons IMHO. At least what I've been doing latelly is to fix description/licensing here first, then using a script to move them to commons. I think that it can help to have the templates until the process of moving and deletion of local files finishes (or really starts!). After that, yes, with the exceptions of files used in the WWW portals uploaded by Mxn and a couple of other files that need to be hosted locally, we can delete all of them. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 12:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, same here, I've moved quite a few files myself. Fair enough to keeping some of them for the moment but do we really need the CC-by and CC-By redirects which are misnamed anyway? I realise that only some users can upload here but as these templates are unused, this would be a good opportunity to at least discourage the uploading of further freely-licensed files under these particular licenses. Could we remove the license statements in these templates and instead have a message to encourage people to move their files to Commons (with similar links as in {{MoveToCommons}} such as CommonsHelper)? Green Giant (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can start deleting some of those, but since +1,000 files here still lack source, licence and description, I can't fully know if I may need some of those later. I'm trying to get as many files tagged as possible, but doing this alone is a pain, and slow :-) Best regards, —Marco Aurelio 14:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Many files on Meta are missing a copyright tag. If the uploader responds and wants to add a copyright tag to a file, it is useful if we have some copyright tags available. If we get rid of all of our local files (by deleting them or moving them to Commons), we can revisit this question at a later point. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Submit your image deletion request at the bottom of this section.

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Matiia (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All files in Category:Unfree Wikimania bid media files

The following discussion is on hold: until an EDP is discussed and set up Trijnstel_talk 13:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations. Meta-Wiki does not allow unfree content. Per wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy and the result of a previous request for deletion on fair use files. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't they just be speedily deleted per WM:CSD#G5 or WM:CSD#I1? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If not, just delete them. Files like this shouldn't be on Meta, as the project doesn't have an EDP. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's an EDP? Is it like an NDA or more like BBQ? Kaldari (talk) 07:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An exemption doctrine policy QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC) .[reply]

Please notify every uploader prior to any deletion. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've come to discussion because one of the files I uploaded as part of WM2013's bid is being nominated for deletion. My first point would be that this deletion request is effectively trying to overturn a convention which has been on Meta for years - working documents of Wikimedia events, which don't fit Commons' licensing criteria, are uploaded to Meta locally. So it isn't a deletion discussion that we need - a policy decision at Meta:Babel must precede this deletion. My second point is that, what do we do with future Wikimedia events which require inline quotation of non-CC-BY-SA-compatible media for logistical reasons? Deryck C. 15:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy discussion was at Meta:Requests for deletion/Archives/2012#All fair use files and templates and the outcome was that no one was interesting in establishing a policy allowing such images and that the images aren't allowed on Meta. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of this discussion has been given to mail:wikimania-l [1] and chapters-l (private mailing list for Wikimedia chapters). Der yck C. 16:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Meta needs an EDP; but I don't think that policy discussion should be used as reason to delete images in active use - it is simply a reason to set up an EDP as soon as there is an obvious need for one. As Nathan points out below, not being able to host documents that are used on other projects is contrary to the purpose of having Meta in the first place. As long as media posted here are acceptable on any of our projects they should be acceptable here in the same context; to enable coordination Meta should have the least restrictive of all wikimedia-project EDPs. –SJ talk 04:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There has been never a convention to host copyrighted files at Meta, simply a "couldn't care less" and lazy actitude about them on that area and many others. Per the bunch of discussions we already had on this topic in the past, no one is really interested in mantaining multimedia files as Stefan2 points out. Less talk and more actions, please. If you are really interested on setting a EDP for Meta that's fine; but I'd like to see a decent proposal. Because everyone that wants to keep this (currently) copyright violations hosted here simply opposes the deletion with groundless arguments but does nothing else, such as not proposing a draft EDP, for example. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Challenge accepted. Der yck C. 00:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The answer seems pretty straightforward; Meta is a site, not a project. It's a place for cross coordination between projects, not a project itself, and therefore isn't subject to the licensing resolution. The result that virtually all Wikimania or chapter related documents would be deleted is absurd on its face, so let's find a way to avoid that instead of speedy deleting files that are in current critical use. Nathan^T 16:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meta is a project as every other is. Meta is subject to the WMF resolutions unless there's an explicit exemption on the resolution itself. Those files are copyright violations and should be erased completly. Chapters should feel free to create their own sites (WMF provides wikis for them) to upload their documents if they want to, as some of them already do. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MarcoAurelio, I find your use of the phrase "copyright violations" disturbing. That the files are not CC-BY-SA compatible (in violation of current Meta policy) doesn't mean they're violations of copyright. As far as I understand, all the files in the category are used with permission or fall within fair use (which is acceptable by law regardless of project policy). Der yck C. 22:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Home page of Meta: Welcome to Meta-Wiki, the global community site for the Wikimedia projects and the Wikimedia movement in general. Meta-Wiki's discussions range from coordination and documentation to planning and analysis of future Wikimedia activities.

Like Nathan wrote, meta is not a wikimedia project, it's a coordination site, per definition file host on meta should be the one that do not belong to commons.--Charles Andrès (WMCH) 15:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The words "project" and "site" are not mutually exclusive. For example, Wikipedia is a site, but it is also a project. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think what we're really trying to achieve with these discussions is very simply the tidying up of all media files hosted on Meta. Files that can be moved to Wikimedia Commons should be moved to Commons and then deleted from Meta (as is standard practice when you move a file to Commons). Any other files should either be properly licensed (now I see work has started on an exemption doctrine policy) and sourced, or deleted. Giving uploaders a reasonable time frame (30 days?) to provide source and licensing information once the EDP is in place, after which remaining files should be deleted seems reasonable to me. In the mean time we should work on getting an EDP for Meta and where possible start the transfer of CC-BY-SA and similar licensed images from Meta to Commons. Thoughts? Thehelpfulone 23:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there consensus for or against this yet? Any progress? Currently, we have all files in this category in the RfD category. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Progress report? PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the files have been specifically created as a specific component of the bid for hosting Wikimania, then it would seem that they are provided to the Wikimania bid committee as records and such they should be retained as records for archival purposes. I would see that the letters have been provided in that context and should be retained, they clearly have valid historical perspective. If we have a policy/procedure that did not consider such record retention then it is clearly flawed and should be updated to allow this to occur. If the files are supplemental to the bid, eg. they are stock items and not part of record, then we should consider their deletion. I note that where the winning bids have a requirement for these images, they should consider moving them to the corresponding wikimania in line with the appropriate copyright restrictions. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think, whenever and however possible, as many of these files should be kept as we can for historical purposes. Even a bid that did not win has historic value to people working on Wikimania. The visuals that go with those bids - like the letters and hotel layouts - can be valuable. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 00:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I propose that this be closed as no consensus as an overarching proposal, and those who wish to propose individual files can do so. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support closure. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not possible: All projects are required to follow wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion in the last few months. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can we move forward? I don't see consensus to delete, but it might be required. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One way to move forward is to adopt an exemption doctrine policy and see if the files match that policy, but the discussion at Meta talk:Exemption doctrine policy has been stale since August. Without an exemption doctrine policy, I don't see how we can keep the files. File:Entrepreneurship index 2010.gif is probably below the threshold of originality. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried taking a stab at establishing an official guideline myself, located at User:TeleComNasSprVen/sandbox. The notice at the top of the page Meta:Fair use says that in order to revive the proposal: "...you may use the talk page or start a discussion at Meta:Babel". However, the extant problems are that the talkpage for that proposed policy page is unwatched by many, thus the discussion there would simply become inactive again, and Meta:Babel has also become quite inactive recently, with not many people commenting there at all. If discussions would go stale so quickly like this, how can we come to a proper consensus conclusion about what to do with these images? Or how to properly implement a policy that is needed to satisfy Wikimedia's licensing resolutions, which are applicable to all Wikimedia wikis? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally speaking, per the licensing resolution, discussions about the status of nonfree images default to delete rather than keep, contrary to what normally happens in discussions concerning other content. So please, do not close this discussion yet, we may still need these images. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image for example looks like some sort of public theatre or auditorium. If it indeed was designed to be used as a public theatre, and not merely used only for the Wikimania conference in the Netherlands, it could qualify for moving to commons under Commons:Freedom of panorama#Netherlands. Only problem is deciding what license the original uploader Mwpnl releases the pictures under; unfortunately though he's been inactive since 2012. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original uploader can only license the picture if he is the copyright holder. Image now tagged a "no source". Unfortunately, per the deletion policy, files with insufficient legal information can only be deleted if they are unused. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait @Stefan2: why'd you tag it as having no source? It's clearly indicated on the image description page as originating from Tuschinski theatre, and the license is marked "Copyrighted with all rights reserved". I'm not seeing the insufficient lack of legal information that you are talking about. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The text "auditorium 2 of the Tuschinski theatre" only tells where the photograph was taken (auditorium 2 of the Tuschinski theatre) but not by whom (a visitor? the uploader? an employee?). --Stefan2 (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then it'd technically be lacking authorship information, but then can't we assume it's Mwpnl who uploaded the picture? In any case, without an EDP looks like most of these are going to have to go regardless anyway. It's too bad no one has tried to take their own gander at it, or look to see what could be improved from the current language at Meta:Fair use. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It currently doesn't say where he got it from. Maybe he took it himself, maybe he got it from the owner of the building.

Meta:Fair use does not seem to cover many of the files in this category. Meta:Exemption doctrine policy misses the condition in wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy which forbids replaceable content when it talks about "Reports, financial statements, letters, and other documents" as such documents are replaceable by a freely licensed summary of the documents written by someone else. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Progress report? I understand we should accept an EDP such as this proposal or this draft. Maybe Peteforsyth could assist here? Trijnstel_talk 12:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm flattered that you would think of me, but I have not given this much consideration since it came up for discussion before. I have just given the two links you (@Trijnstel:) provided; I am generally impressed, they both do a good job of laying out the relevant issues. I'm not sure how I can best help. It seems that the people who produced those two files might want to put together an RFC or similar? If any of them would like some feedback before publishing a formal RFC I would be happy to take a closer look. Also, I'm not sure why there are two separate proposals; from my quick read, it seems that the substance of the two is pretty similar, just with different formatting. It might be worthwhile for them to either settle on a single draft to propose, or else make it very clear how the proposals differ, and what is at stake in choosing one over the other. I will keep an eye on this page in the near future, but feel free to ping me again if I miss a comment. -Pete F (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've outlined a very general approach toward putting these two draft policies up for community review and possible adoption, here: Meta talk:Exemption doctrine policy#General support Any feedback? -Pete F (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion request is over a year old; it's time to discuss the proposed EDP drafts. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. I'm officially putting this request

On hold until an EDP is discussed and set up. Plus, we shouldn't forget this. Trijnstel_talk 11:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both, this discussion and the proposed EDP one are stagnated. Attempts to get this unlocked at RFH have been futile. How much time do we need to wait to get a decission over this, with things as clear as wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy? - In claris, non fit interpretatio... No policy = no fair use. Sorry, but IMHO it's as simple as that. It's been clear that this community don't have any interest in developing and approving such a policy. Thanks. -- M\A 16:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Almost two years and still no agreement. It is sad to see that eight years since the WMF resolution, there are still numerous wikis like Meta that still don't have an EDP but do host hundreds of thousands of unfree files. For me the obvious solution is to move free, licensed images to Commons and unfree, useful images to a NonFreeWiki. The whole approach of hosting these unfree files locally has create a confused and confusing mess. Support NonFreeWiki and solve the problem. Green Giant (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The rule is that we must either get an EDP, or delete the content no later than 23 March 2008 (about seven years ago). --Stefan2 (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still interested and the EDP draft looks ready. How do we get it enacted? Der yck C. 10:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion about fair use I just closed on Meta:Babel ([2]), fair use should not be allowed on Meta. It might be wise to proceed with the deletion of these images therefore. --MF-W 22:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, a decision! Have you taken into account the points raised by User:NickK ? 46.254.186.36 03:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Matiia (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Projects.png

This image was sourced from sxc.hu when it was uploaded in good faith but the link now goes straight to a Getty Images website, which has a very restrictive license. The last archived version does say there are "no usage restrictions" but there is no image so it is difficult to verify. The license at the time appeared to allow free re-use but does say images cannot be sold without written permission. The file is in use on Meta, but I'm not sure how strong a case could be made for keeping it. Green Giant (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please fix {{WQ-2-header}} as you see fit. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the image was not in use, sure, though as the sites have all changed, then I am not going to say that it wasn't suitably released. Ideally, have WQ replace the image in their template and we can remove it. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: there appear to be several images from the same source that should be deleted as well. I have replaced them with free images in all the pages that were using them except one, Translation requests/NL-1/En: because it is protected. Please could you replace the following images on that page:

Image:Projects.png with File:Wiki-project-icon.svg
Image:Interview2.png with File:Microphone.svg
Image:Press2.png with File:News.svg
Image:International2.png with File:Globe.svg
Image:Endnotes2.png with File:Notepad icon.svg

Thanks in advance. I'll nominate them all for speedy if there are no objections. Green Giant (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Matiia (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Interview2.png

As for File:Projects.png, this image was sourced from sxc.hu when it was uploaded in good faith but the link now goes straight to a Getty Images website and there is no image. The website has a very restrictive license. The last archived version does say there are "no usage restrictions" but there is no image so it is difficult to verify. The license at the time appeared to allow free re-use but does say images cannot be sold without written permission. The file is still in use on Meta, but I'm not sure how strong a case could be made for keeping it. Green Giant (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as above — billinghurst sDrewth 07:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Matiia (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stopx.png

I propose that this file be deleted and replaced with the same Commons image (File:Stop x nuvola.svg), which is move-protected and upload-protected. P.S. I added the {{RFD}} template to the talk page because the file is protected. Green Giant (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tag moved, protection removed. Support deletion and replacement can be done by my bot. —MarcoAurelio 18:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support with deletion and use Commons image.--Syum90 (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarcoAurelio: can you please replace it now? Matiia (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Matiia (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:TieredDR.png

Unused. See also File_talk:TieredDR.png and WM:PPM. SVG version avalaible at File:TieredDR.svg. —Marco Aurelio 13:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support with deletion.--Syum90 (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused files

Moved from Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat.--Syum90 (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused files - Why do we need these files???, necessary to remove them.--6AND5 (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There might be normal links to some of them. In that case, it may be useful to keep the files. I don't think that it is useful to list the whole set as a mass nomination. If some files are missing foreseeable use, please nominate those files individually instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for undeletion

Submit your undeletion request at the bottom of this section.

The first useful map

Deleted The first useful map is AWOL on Maps and related files in Category:Wikimaps history, a set of 5…10 years old files about geocoding projects before OpenStreetMap took over. If an undamaged version can be undeleted, please do. Also see Special:WhatLinksHere/The first useful map to find the 2009 deletion debate, apparently the file was tagged as {{looks useless}} for months.
If the first useful map is decisively garbage please check The second useful map, maybe there was some file move vandalism. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion debate is at Special:PermanentLink/1743484. @Be..anyone: What is the purpose for undeletion? Is it for transfer to Commons, or are you declaring that it is not useless and should be displayed at meta as "in scope". — billinghurst sDrewth 07:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW The first page has no visible image (name was non-descriptive), just a red link. The second page has two of three images visible, and a red link. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just wanted to get rid of the red links on some historic pages if and only if the deleted map was actually "useful" instead of "useless". If what you see makes no sense thanks for checking, and let's forget it. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

multiscript collaboration

Status: Done

^{PAGEID: 1231 · links here · ^purge ↺ · REVISIONID: - · permanent link}

https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=1231#multiscript_collaboration

੭	੧੨	੧	੧੪
੨	੧੩	੮	੧੧
੧੬	੩	੧०	੫
੯	੬	੧੫	੪

7	12	1	14
2	13	8	11
16	3	10	5
9	6	15	4

transcription of
the indian numerals

most-perfect magic square from
the Parshvanath Jain temple in Khajuraho

Hi! Some years ago (in January 2008) I received a picture about a most-perfect magic square from the Parshvanath Jain temple in Khajuraho. According to magic square#India ^{Magic Squares and Cubes By William Symes Andrews, 1908, Open court publish company} the square is more then thousand years old / from the 10th-century. There is an additional text above the square. I hope to receive a translation and/or additional details about this text from contributors on languages from India.
Meta:Requests for deletion/Archives/2007#4x4 type squares dates back on my work on meta before 2007. It contains a list of nested templates up to a dozen levels deep and data of all 384 transformations from one most perfect magical square to another most magical square which are mutually undistinguable. Because each such transformation contains 16 relocations of the 16 matrix cells the total of 147.456 values are lost and unavailable to generate usefull SVG files and / or Lua code.
https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most-perfect_magic_square provides transliterations for a dozen of ISO 15924 scripts as Latn including Roman numerals and binary, Deva, Guru, Arab, Armn, Beng, Grek, Gujr, Hans · Hant · Jpan, Hebr, Knda, Kore, Mlym, Taml, Telu, Tibt and maybe some more. The wiki source code can be used for articles / stubs in languages using these scripts. Fonts are not optimized and all comments are welcome at the test subdomain page [3]. Thanks for all your efforts in advance!
Beside the listed templates also the talk pages, some categories and probably a few pages from other namespaces have been deleted in 2007. Please restore / undelete all revisions of these pages to enable access to the lost data. Thanks in advance for your support! lɛʁi ʁɑjnhɑʁt (Leri Reinhart)
‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 07:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

support

Support - I have reread it again. Should be undeleted, because there is a need and use of this in Meta. --Ochilov (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

opposition

Oppose undeletion. Out of scope for Meta as in 2007. —Marco Aurelio 21:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - still out of project scope --Ochilov (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comments

rakonto 15 in Esperanto created on the same subject in 2009 and uploaded as OGG files some days ago

Comment

In order to have access to the 147.456 values included / partly coded in the transformations of the 384 mutually indistinguishable most-perfect magic square of order 4 ^{Clarke's third law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.} there are the following solutions:

restore / undelete the meta pages permanently
restore / undelete the meta pages for a definite period of time (I suggest six months)
import the meta pages to testwiki: ^rights or test2wiki: ^rights or b:eo:Main Page ^rights (i.e. to Vikilibroj en Esperanto!)
provide administrator rights at meta for a definite amount of time to לערי ריינהארט
in order to access the content
restore the pages and tab them as {{historical|2007}} ^{template:historical · T · /doc}

Best regards lɛʁi ʁɑjnhɑʁt (Leri Reinhart)

‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 14:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

updated 18:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You mean this? Meta:Administrators#Temporary_sysop_status?--AldNonymous^Bicara? 13:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@לערי ריינהארט: I restored all the pages here and imported the last version of all of the user and template pages to testwiki -- I will delete the pages on meta in two days unless you object. BTW here is a copy of the full history of all those pages that can be imported to any wiki if you have import xml right: https://archive.org/download/MetaWikiMagicSquares/Meta-20150827060436.xml PiRSquared17 (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@לערי ריינהארט: I forgot to remove bot flag before replying so pinging again to ensure you receive a notification PiRSquared17 (talk) 06:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @PiRSquared17 for your help! I looked at special:PrefixIndex/user:Gangleri and special:PrefixIndex/user talk:Gangleri and I found https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=8390752 again.

template:4x4 type square/shift right one column is one of the few blue links at https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=8390806 i. e. at user:Gangleri/tests/4x4 type square/methods = transitions = morphisms. It is hard to find all relevant datas from 2005 (the year of the first Wikimania). As far as I recall there have been all 384 most perfect magic squares in a table (list). The list is template:4x4 type square/T/all. As you can recognize all talk pages are missing / not restored and there are more red links.

Can you skype? My nickname is "irelgnag". I am either "gangleri|back" or "ganglery|away" at freenode.net #kavehoyz.

Thanks @PiRSquared17 for your work! Can you please transfer also category:4x4 type square. note: there was no category talk:4x4 type square. Thanks in advance! Gangleri alias בײַ מיר ביסטו שיין (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@לערי ריינהארט: Done PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @PiRSquared17! Gangleri alias ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 04:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]