Meta:Requests for deletion/Archives/2007

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Deleted

Articles

WikiDevices

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

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

  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete definately per nom. Cbrown1023 02:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Jusjih 15:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --.anaconda 17:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It does not appear to be related to Meta in any way. --Majorly 22:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No relation to Meta, really not needed. Nishkid64 23:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not related to Meta. Naconkantari 23:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto, Slade 22:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also do not see anything related to wikimedia. Sorry. --La gloria è a dio 21:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above, its not related to wikimedia. Somitho 14:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ARTICLE tag

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

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

南方民主同盟

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Should it perhaps have been transwikied somewhere? ++Lar: t/c 14:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry no. cf. zh:南方民主同盟--Aphaia 14:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guerilla UK spelling campaign and Gorilla US spelling campaign

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cbrown1023 23:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --.anaconda 13:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; --Slade 02:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - we can always revert vandalism, and shouldn't use deletion as a defence. —Xyrael / 12:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Neutral (toward keeping) under the condition they are categorized unde Humor/Humour. Aphaia 12:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedians who were born between 1980 and 1984

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

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)[reply]

Delete duplicate to "List of Wikimedians by age". Cbrown1023 23:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be simply a duplicate, as said. —Xyrael / 16:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Jusjih 18:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; --Slade 02:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems a bit redundant. --Majorly 20:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete , arbitrary AND specific, and it's already merged. --Shrieking Harpy Gay flag.svgTalk|Count 03:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TomeRaider

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

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)[reply]

Marxist Wikipedians

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

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

  • Delete as nom. xaosflux Talk 07:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikimedians is probably assumed on meta. —Xyrael / 11:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speed delete -- MichaelFrey 13:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Majorly 13:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; --Slade 14:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Jusjih 14:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 01:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete I moved this page to Wikimedians, and this doesn't seem like a needed redirect. Nishkid64 01:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 04:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Forum

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

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)[reply]

Worldwide Lexicon

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

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)[reply]

Text in MediaWiki

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

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

  • Delete What is its point? --Majorly 13:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; --Slade 14:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per Majorly. Doesn't appear to have much of a point anymore. --Coredesat (en.wp) 22:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cbrown1023 01:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 04:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV warrior

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

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)[reply]

Minimal version to use PyWikipediaBot

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

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

Suppressionism

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

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

  • Delete, looks like POINT to me. Irrelevant to Meta, regardless. --Coredesat (en.wp) 02:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Coredesat. Could do as a Wikipedia essay perhaps, but not here. --Majorly 09:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per Coredesat. ERcheck 03:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per Coredesat, but it should be moved to the user's subpage.--Jusjih 16:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy --Doc glasgow 17:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; --Slade 20:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Translations/Test/it

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

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

Tiki malu

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete --Nick1915 23:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --.anaconda 14:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto, Slade 17:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and soon, this is an obvious speedy candidate. Majorly (o rly?) 17:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for insufficient relevance to Meta.--Jusjih 13:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense unless the language can be identified, otherwise just delete as irrelevant. --Coredesat (en.wp) 23:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]

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

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

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

  • delete' --Frieda 13:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete--Jusjih 16:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete --.anaconda 16:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. I moved the page on lmo.wiki --Snowdog 10:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--James, La gloria è a dio 00:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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[reply]
  • Delete --Slade 19:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleting is waste of work already made, and as such, waste of money.--OlBergomi 09:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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?)[reply]
  • Delete --Valepert 14:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Senpaiottolo 14:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

  • delete' --Frieda 13:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete--Jusjih 16:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --.anaconda 16:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fail to see the relevance. ++Lar: t/c 22:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. I moved the page on lmo.wiki --Snowdog 10:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--James, La gloria è a dio 00:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It serves as a purpose. (absolutely, Sir? Inflationated words, isn't it?).--10caart 16:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Slade 19:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleting is waste of work already made, and as such, waste of money.--OlBergomi 09:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete --Valepert 14:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Senpaiottolo 14:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

スチュワードの方針

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]


Manual of Style

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

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

  • Delete Been around a very long time but probably misplaced. ++Lar: t/c 16:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Delete No need for something useless. Nishkid64 21:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Delete per above, appears to be abandoned. --Coredesat (en.wp) 19:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • As such, I think that we should keep this article Gaillimh 20:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Jusjih 13:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above -- Til Eulenspiegel 16:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above are keep arguments, therefore this !vote has no backing given. Cbrown1023 talk 18:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video

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

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)[reply]

  • Delete Unless proven otherwise, I don't think this is a legitimate MediaWiki extension. Nishkid64 21:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per the RFD below for the Google Ads hack. --Coredesat (en.wp) 19:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • I misinterpreted it as the other way around - regular delete as irrelevant to Meta, then. --Coredesat (en.wp) 22:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Jusjih 13:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Slade 14:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Til Eulenspiegel 16:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please state your reasoning for your "keep" !vote. Cbrown1023 talk 18:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be fair, Jusjih and Slade haven't provided reasons either. Majorly (o rly?) 22:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • I misinterpreted it as the other way around - regular delete as irrelevant to Meta, then. --Coredesat (en.wp) 22:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Jusjih 13:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not related to Meta--Nick1915 - all you want 02:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Slade 14:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Til Eulenspiegel 16:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please state your reasoning for your "keep" !vote. Cbrown1023 talk 18:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, as above. Jusjih and Slade haven't given reasons either. Majorly (o rly?) 22:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funniest Wikipedia vandals and trolls

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

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)[reply]

Don't be a pest

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

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete - Versageek demonstrates that this was only created to prove an un-needed point. Martinp23 19:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Korg + + 20:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, don't bother redirecting. --Coredesat (en.wp) 22:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --.anaconda 22:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete --dario vet (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pointless --Herby talk thyme 12:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete --Brownout(msg) 03:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Change to redirect.--Jusjih 08:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of articles

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

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)[reply]

  • Delete Yonatanh 11:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ++Lar: t/c 02:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Brownout(msg) 02:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete--Jusjih 08:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete -- dario vet (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PTO 21:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Slade 19:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom.--James, La gloria è a dio 20:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change Request System

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

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)[reply]

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

Newpageletter

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

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

Offensive username debate

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ++Lar: t/c 02:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Brownout(msg) 02:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete.--Jusjih 08:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --.anaconda 23:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Slade 19:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]


Full file list

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

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)[reply]

Countries of the world tables

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

Bibliothek für XSLT erzeugen

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

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

Multiedit

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

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

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

MySQL configuration

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

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

US-Ökonomen fordern Cannabisdebatte

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

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

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

Žemaitiu kalba

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

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

مازندران

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

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

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete In the absence of a contrary opinion, I trust PTO's explanation. Joe 17:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Delete. Irrelavant to Meta.-- Tdxiang 03:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Introducción

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)[reply]

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

Suomenlammas

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Off-topic. It's an encyclopedia article about sheep (= Ovis aries). --Thogo (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quality

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

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

  • Comment: It looks like a chat. I do not object deletion.--Jusjih 12:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Coredesat (en.wp) 23:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Consumer Site Testing

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

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)[reply]

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

Enotif/Backup from testwiki

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Extensions/RpnCalc.php

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)[reply]

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

Extensions/calc.php

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)[reply]

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

Help:Mediawikiアーキテクチャ

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • Due to {{114}} :) I fixed it (a soft redirect to another redirect -> redirect to the final destination). --Aphaia 17:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS/en/Not a foo

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

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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

OTRS/en/Blocked proxy

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

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)[reply]

OTRS/en/Email this article

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

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)[reply]

Ca.wikinews Viquinotícies:Senyals dels articles

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, it's from those days when n:ca didn't exist separately. For deletion, thx. Aleator 21:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

ATHFWiki Proposal

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

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

  • Delete: IMHO Wikia would be the right place for a project like this. --Brownout(msg) 19:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Appears to have been created by accident? per nom, delete ++Lar: t/c 01:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete while irrelevant to WM.--Jusjih 04:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is already a Wikia site on this at Wikiasite:ATHF. Angela 16:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Given this new information, I think this page can now be "speedily deleted" from Meta Gaillimh 12:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United wikipedia

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

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

  • Delete not useful now. Majorly (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Aphaia 23:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Jusjih 01:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very poorly formed and not very coherent, old and apparently unused. Per nom. ++Lar: t/c 01:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ElinorD 22:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Slade 23:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS/en/Details about article

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

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)[reply]

  • Delete - un-needed, and seems to be a mistaken creation. Martinp23 21:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dokumentation, Modul Wissensspeicher, Workflow

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)[reply]

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

  • I would certainly say delete unless it should have been a user subpage? --Herby talk thyme 16:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Meta:Template doc page pattern

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

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)[reply]
Delete with redirect to {{documentation}}. FloNight 18:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McFly

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

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)[reply]

Association of Sock Puppets

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

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)[reply]

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

יודל

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

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)[reply]

LanguageNn.php and LanguageJa.php

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

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)[reply]

  • Comment - The two pages were restored: [4], [5]. Korg 01:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

User:Jcps31/Spambot investigation

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Keep as above. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
OK, I get your point. --WiganRunnerEu 19:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Wikipedia.at

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

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)[reply]

  • Delete - I agree with Jaranda's suspicion that it's a chat forum of some kind. Giggy\Talk 07:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • keep, the site is for reporting errors, etc. for the searchpage/portal wikipedia.at, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 18:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Collaborative images

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • All projects are collaberative though, what makes this useful to any project? Adambro 20:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    We should understand what Free Art Licence is. Hillgentleman 11:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hillgentleman's argument. Documentation is a valid use for Meta. EVula // talk // // 23:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

独裁者

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Concur with deletion --Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delete per above.--Jusjih 20:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete Slade 21:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delete - sounds like its just vandalism by a disgruntled user. WjBscribe 02:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

User talk:Michel Tavir

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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

Stefán H. Ófeigsson

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

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)[reply]

Organic periodic table

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete - per norm and per wikimedia clean-up campaign.. :P ...--Cometstyles 20:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'd speedy this on site, but oh well... --filip 20:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Templates

Template:Checkup

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

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)[reply]

  • Comment: Any replacements?--Jusjih 08:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Templates copied from en-Wikipedia

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)[reply]
Link templates

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)[reply]
However, Pathoschild ([[user talk:Pathoschild|]]) looks like Pathoschild to me. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:49:03, 05 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Pathoschild is a he, and too lazy to be a Nazi.--Shanel 23:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agreed. I recommend you Fabertus to withdraw your several accusations, like Nazi or whatever. --Aphaia 06:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
this is an interesting diff-- compare next two paras // FrankB 23:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Templates copied from Wikisource

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)[reply]

  • 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!
  • 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)[reply]
    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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 00:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as standard syntax is preferable to templates. Very easy to type by hand, too. Picaroon (Talk) 19:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4x4 type squares

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

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