Meta:Requests for deletion/Archives/2009

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2009, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.



Steward requests/Speedy deletions/nospam[edit]

The following discussion is closed.
  • Deleted per discussion. xaosflux Talk 11:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This is obsolete - spambot page creation is best handled by the title blacklist (and most is handled from Meta anyways).  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - if it's obsolete it has no advantage. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, we don't want people thinking they should be doing this instead of just protect the page from recreation. Cbrown1023 talk 01:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Pages from Mike.lifeguard[edit]

The following discussion is closed: All tended to as appropriateAnonymous DissidentTalk 07:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Incoming requests – Deleted —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Has been obsolete & less-than-useless for a long time.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, according to the huge notice the page should have been deleted in 2004. Nakon 17:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Nakon and Mike.lifeguard. —Dferg (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, needless. – Innv | d | s: 10:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Caractères spéciaux – Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
If any information is needed on this subject, it should be on, not here. The page seems to contain nothing useful in any case.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, useless. Nakon 17:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • DeleteDferg (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, old needless page. – Innv | d | s: 10:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Browser issues with MediaWiki – exported to —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
If this is somehow useful, it should be moved to However, it seems far more likely that is entirely useless.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to MediaWiki. Nakon 17:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to MediaWiki. —Dferg (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete in Meta and transfer to MediaWiki. – Innv | d | s: 10:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki extensions/Address Book – Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Might belong at, but certainly not here; Meta isn't your personal sandbox wiki.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki feature request and bug report discussion – Per lifeguard; this is useless even for —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Totally useless, just a pointer to bugzilla. When deleted, please create a link to bugzilla in case this is linked anywhere.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to MediaWiki. Nakon 17:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to MediaWiki. —Dferg (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Meta-Namespace – Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
If it has any utility, put it in bugzilla.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Montparnasse skin – Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC) If this has any utility, move it to  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-development tasks for developers – Kept and marked historical. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks useless - might be worth saving for historical interest on wikitech?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Mark Historical, appears to have served some use in the past. Nakon 17:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Mark Historical and keepDferg (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Poor language skills – Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a discussion yanked from enwiki's village pump in 2003, and has only been vandalized since then.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep/Mark Historical, appears to have been useful in the past. Nakon 17:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Mark HistoricalDferg (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm the one who moved it here, but it didn't lead to anything useful. The content is still available in the page history of the village pump if anyone wants it, along with thousands of other more productive discussions. Angela 03:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per Angela. – Innv | d | s: 02:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Prefix change proposal – deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
If this has any relevance still, put it in bugzilla.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, feature requests should be made at mw:bugzilla. Nakon 17:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete we have bugzilla for this. —Dferg (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Privileged templates – deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
If this has any utility (dubious) then put it in bugzilla  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, feature requests should be made at mw:bugzilla. Nakon 17:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per Nakon, actually we have bugzilla for this. —Dferg (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sister Sites – deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
This belongs either on or in bugzilla as an extension request.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Requests for dumps – Kept and marked historical. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
This is useless, and the page has a massive notice saying as much. It should be deleted and people redirected to  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Mark Historical, appears to have served a useful purpose in the past. Nakon 17:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and mark historical. —Dferg (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep for Meta history. – Innv | d | s: 10:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Space at begining of line problems – Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Belongs in bugzilla, but would almost certainly be marked INVALID.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, bug reports should be made at mw:bugzilla. Nakon 17:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per Nakon. —Dferg (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

String replacement – Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Belongs in bugzilla as an extension request.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, feature requests should be made at mw:bugzilla. Nakon 17:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete we have now bugzilla —Dferg (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - page for Bugzilla. – Innv | d | s: 10:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Summary tables for special pages – deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Belongs in bugzilla as a feature request.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, useless as MediaWiki's function in this area has most likely changed dramatically since the request was made. Nakon 17:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per Nakon. —Dferg (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk Merging – Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC) This belongs on or in bugzilla.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, feature requests should be made at mw:bugzilla. Nakon 17:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per Nakon. —Dferg (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete this page needless on Meta. – Innv | d | s: 10:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Permissions By Page – deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC) This belongs on if anywhere.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete per the Really Big Notice at MediaWiki which says "MediaWiki was not written to provide per-page access restrictions, and almost all hacks or patches promising to add them will likely have flaws somewhere". Nakon 17:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Dferg (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Meta namespace cleanup – Kept and marked historical. It's of archival interest. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC) This cleanup has long been completed, making the page worthless.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete/Mark Historical, appears to have served some function in the distant past. Nakon 17:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • DeleteDferg (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the inappropriateness of many of these pages for Meta. However, several seem to be nominated solely because they, to put it summarily, "really belong at". Yes, many pages are yet to be exported, but is nominating a large batch for deletion to expedite the process 1) a proper use of the venue 2) a good way of tackling the exportation backlog? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ru.wikinews Метки статей[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted.--Jusjih 14:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Needless for Meta-wiki. Page was imported in ru-wikinews in 2008. Also this page have only 1 link with main namespace. – Innv | d | s: 06:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I support deletion of this page, per Innv argumentation. Courbd 07:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I cannot read russian but it seems some sort of warning templates table. In this case, it's unuseful for meta and I'd say delete. —Dferg (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Dferg. Nakon 00:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews pages[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted all.Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Uk.wikinews Article flags Delete, per argumentation "Ru.wikinews Метки статей". – Innv | d | s: 02:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to uk.wikinews (if it is not already done) and delete here. —Dferg (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator, useless content on Meta. Courbd 20:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ru.wikinews Администраторы Needless page, imported in ru-wikinews. – Innv | d | s: 03:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete I do not see the need of this page if it has been imported. —Dferg (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, imported. Nakon 17:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, unnecessary now. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator, useless content on Meta. Courbd 20:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It.wikinews Wikinotizie:Amministratori Delete, per argumentation in "Ru.wikinews Администраторы". – Innv | d | s: 09:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Merge the useful content in Wikinews/it (by creating a subpage, a section, etc...) the content is OK for me. —Dferg (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - seems pointless here on meta: The links all point to articles on enWP (that (obviously) don't exist, given the Italian titles) fr33kman t - c 19:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator, useless content on Meta. Courbd 20:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ru.wikinews Холодный Душ Page in not for Meta, but for Wikinews on Russian. – Innv | d | s: 03:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, unused page and appears to be located at n:ru:Шаблон:Water cooler on the project. Nakon 17:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator, useless content on Meta. Courbd 20:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Uk.wikinews Water Cooler Needless, blank page. Delete per "Ru.wikinews Холодный Душ". – Innv | d | s: 03:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  • DeleteDferg (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, Nakon 17:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, unnecessary. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator, useless content on Meta. Courbd 20:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ru.wikinews Оригинал Page for Wikinews, needless for Meta-wiki. – Innv | d | s: 05:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, unnecessary here. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - doesn't seem to serve a purpose here fr33kman t - c 19:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator, useless content on Meta. Courbd 20:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ru.wikinews Сообщить новость Page for Ru-Wikinews, needless for Meta-wiki. – Innv | d | s: 05:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - unnecessary. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - doesn't seem to have a purpose here fr33kman t - c 19:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator, useless content on Meta. Courbd 20:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ru.wikinews Первая страница Bad copy of Ru-Wikinews Main page. Needless for Meta-Wiki. – Innv | d | s: 05:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nomination. Nakon 17:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, unnecessary here. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator, useless content on Meta. Courbd 20:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia runs slow[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted.Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Useless, and misleads people into thinking their posts might get read or something. This seems to have zero historical or technical value which might otherwise lead to it being moved to wikitech.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

True, but possibly this page was created out of desperation about the lack of a pro-active feedback from those who are responsible for (or take care of) the servers to the project communities or at least to the admins. On Commons, since days you cannot reliably upload and delete files; thumbs mostly aren't shown. Everything is slowed down about 10 to 100 times, surely an efficient way to spoil the time of admins and other volunters. This could a great time for vandals and copyviolators, if they knew, because admins have little to no chance to come by. Honestly it would be better to close Commons for all edits until the current problem is solved. --Túrelio 08:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. J.delanoygabsadds 19:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete but perhaps redirect to somewhere useful if possible, I don't have any suggestions though. Do we have a server status page somewhere? This page seems to be the first result for "Wikipedia slow" on Google and so it is unsurprising that it often gets found. Adambro 19:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: Created by JamesDay in 2003, definitely some historical value to it. I agree that the recent activity on the page is misguided. Seems like a reason to tag it and possibly protect it, but not a reason to delete it. --MZMcBride 20:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    The historical aspect can have some relevance in some circumstances but not in all. Just because a page was created six years ago, it doesn't mean it is worth keeping. In this particular instance, where this page is so prominent in Google searches, rather than protecting it merely to maintain it due to some apparent historical value, it would be more helpful to our users if we redirect them to somewhere appropriate like a server status information page if one exists. I don't really see any historical value anyway, this page, even before it turned into a venue for reporting problems with Wikipedia, never seems to have been an important part of the history of the development of the WMF. Adambro 20:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    If I had to guess, I'd bet the recent IP traffic came from Google (example search). All the more reason to keep this page. It could (and probably should) be updated to reflect recent information about why Wikipedia is slow for users at times. It's certainly asked occasionally. --MZMcBride 21:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed: Deleted by Majorly talk 22:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Dynamic Iframe[edit]

Found this while surfing for exportation candidates. Seems completely useless. A description of the extension is not even given. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nominator. —Dferg (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as unsuitable. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, looks useless. Nakon 00:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Global blocking/log[edit]

The following discussion is closed.

Mothballed version of Special:GlobalBlockList. It's only linked to from Global blocking and it's language specific subpages, and all links pointing to the subject page can be swapped directly with the log without issue. Not sure if the IP addresses are included in the other page, but given that it's outdated by at least a year... --Sigma 7 01:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - I have added a note on the stewards noticeboard regarding this deletion request. df|  09:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • This was never really needed, it is only because in the beginning we used some short-hand that people didn't know and they complained. As the impetus for having it has been removed, the blocks are all expired, and the list has never been anything more than hopelessly incomplete, I don't see any use for it.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete -outlived usefulness. ++Lar: t/c 03:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted - as per comments below. df|  08:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Twext method[edit]

The following discussion is closed.

Outside the scope of the project as it is an unsourced encyclopedic article. MBisanz talk 13:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as outside the project's scope. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Clearly out of scope. ++Lar: t/c 14:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed.

Just reviewing the category I've found that this page was tagged by Spacebirdy but it seems it was never discussed/forgotten so I bring it there so that fellow users can voice it's oppinion about this page. Following Spacebirdy's original nomination:

Seems to have been forgotten. See [1]

Spacebirdy [2].

--Dferg 15:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Per previous RfD of the other pages. No use. Pmlineditor  15:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This can be speedied in my view. We can always bring it back if need be. ++Lar: t/c 16:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - Huib talk 17:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed.

What does this have to do with WMF? Fails WM:IP. Pmlineditor  11:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I really tend to speedy it. --Barras 14:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as out of scope, I think... not entirely certain what I'm looking at exactly. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • A text like this belongs on a user page, not in the main ns. Delete or move to User talk:Apogr. Wutsje 17:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with Wutsje. Besides, I don't think I quite agree with user's advice. ;) Guido den Broeder 17:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, Apogr hasn't edited in five years, so I doubt userfying it will be very effective. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy as out of date irrelevant and in the wrong place. Majorly talk 18:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy per above --Herby talk thyme 19:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Huib talk 19:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The first useful map[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted.Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

After about six months marked as looks useless, I think this can be deleted. I don't see that this page helps in any way the wmf or meta or any wiki or whatever. --Barras 21:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

  • No comments in seven days... --Barras 17:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think these can be deleted now, since there's been no objections after seven days. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The second useful map[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted.Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

After about six months marked as looks useless, I think this can be deleted. I don't see that this page helps in any way the wmf or meta or any wiki or whatever. --Barras 21:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

  • No comments in seven days... --Barras 17:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


Template:Partest and Template:Test1/1[edit]

The following discussion is closed.
  • Speedily Deleted as G1 (test edits). xaosflux Talk 11:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Unused and apparently useless. 95KB of nothing. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Added {{Test1/1}} on similar grounds. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not used on any pages, therefore uneeded. Malinaccier (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Deleted. The discussion has been opened for a month and nobody offered a rationale about what this page should be kept. Per previous RfD and given that {{#language:ja}} exists, the page is deleted. —Dferg (talk) 09:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Pathoschild nominated this page for deletion in 2006; see here. The "historical significance" referred to by Aphaia remains unclear and unexplained, and, because this page appears to have no purpose or function, I hereby nominate it for deletion per Pathoschild's reasoning two years ago. Actual explication of the page's importance or continued relevance may be helpful in this debate and a repeat of the 2006 discussion would be lamentable and unproductive. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Please use {{#language:ja}} instead.--Kwj2772 () 13:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, per AD and Pathoschild's reasoning two years ago. —Dferg (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per previous RfD rationale. –Juliancolton 

Templates of ru & uk and it-wikinews[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted

These templates was imported in uk & ru wikinews. Needless for Meta-wiki. Also similar template was deleted. – Innv | d | s: 03:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

+ Also (templates for it-wikinews):

Innv | d | s: 05:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Huib talk 18:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed.

Ironic, gives that I created it, but nonetheless. Per those below me. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete per what I stated already below. Not really useful and a kind of redundant. Barras 14:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delink and delete or mark historical. --Dferg 14:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC) PD: If the result of the RfD is finally to delete my bot can help in the process.
  • Delete per nom and Dferg in the below discussion. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Not really useful. Pmlineditor  11:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete it is. The template can be deleted as soon as this stuff is cleaned up. Dferg offered to do so. --Erwin 19:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Delinked & deleted --Dferg 20:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


Category:MediaWiki source code[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted — vvv 20:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Completely redundant, unneeded. Empty, and Meta shouldn't be hosting such source codes anyway ( —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, empty and needless now category. --~Innvs: 06:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, per AD's rationale, we have for this imo. —Dferg (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Needless category. AdjustShift 15:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed.

Seems to me to be wholly redundant to Special:UncategorizedPages and its brothers. Moreover, it reduces those pages' usefulness by competing with them. Vacate and delete. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

  • delete no need for this cat. The special page is imo enough. Redundant page. Barras 13:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we should RfD too {{uncat}} imho as this is the template that puts those pages there. --Dferg 13:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I fully agree with you, Dferg. This template is as useful as the category and should therefore be deleted. Barras 13:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Delete per above and above RfD. --Dferg 16:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Depopulate and delete per nom and Dferg. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Depopulate and delete Per nom. No use. Pmlineditor  11:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete it is. The category can be deleted as soon as this stuff is cleaned up. Dferg offered to do so. --Erwin 19:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Depopulated and deleted. --Dferg 14:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Uncategorized templates[edit]

The following discussion is closed: I've gone ahead and killed it, since the recent request for Category:Uncategorized generated clear consensus on the whole batch. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Per the rationale on Meta:Requests for deletion/Archives/2009#Category:Uncategorized. It's wholy redundant & useless with Special:UncategorizedTemplates. I think it can be speedied but I'd like to make the formal process. Thank you, --Dferg 15:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Uncontroversial maintenance; redundant and useless category. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, though I must say as a side note the various special pages like Special:UncategorizedTemplates have been quite helpful when doing project cleanup work. :) Cirt (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - yep, seems reasonable - Alison 22:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


File:Qmmas.psp and File:Qmmasnow.psp[edit]

The following discussion is closed.

Deleted; even discarding my remark, it seems as though we have a rough consensus here. No-one's been forthcoming with a means of conversion, so I guess we'll just delete them as invalid types. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Our current file uploading form does not allow ".psp". Both are linked from International logo contest/Logos 26-50 and say: "Warning: This file may contain malicious code, by executing it your system may be compromised." With the uploader notified at the Wikipedia talk page, I would like to seek comments as whether it is safe to have them while I dare not to open them.--Jusjih 02:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, they're basically bitmapped images. To be sure, I've scanned them (AVG and Avast) as well as w/ Spybot S&D. None of the three had issues with either file. Note that this is no guarantee of safety, you're responsible for your own actions, prices and participation may vary, void where prohibited by law. Kylu 07:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Is there any reason these can't be converted to file types we actually accept?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the reason the artist uploaded the .psp version was to have a transparent/color-neutral version of the image. This might be possible via svg/png, I don't know. I don't have any programs that can open them and attempt a conversion, sorry. Kylu 20:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
In lack of a way to convert these files, protocol suggests that we should delete them. Therefore, delete if conversion is not possible; convert if possible. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Convert if possible; otherwise delete it. Huji 11:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete if can't be converted - agree with Anonymous Dissident and Huji, above. Cirt (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


Its upstream File:WikiBooks.png has been deleted as a copyvio. I have also nominated downstream File:Wikibooks NoTitle.svg on Wikimedia Commons for deletion as well.--Jusjih 00:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Source was Kylu 03:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed.

Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks redundant to File:Flag_of_La_Francophonie.svg on Commons while nowhere used here.--Jusjih 00:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Erciyes Gazetesi.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Speedy deleted: Off-topic for meta, unlicensed and logo from h-ttp:// (please note the "-" at the beggining. The URL is blocked by the spam filter) —Dferg (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Unused image with no licensing information and ambiguous permission information. No apparent value. Adambro 12:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Not undeleted per Spacebirdy.Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason of deletion was freaking-huge file that doesn't even link anywhere, but actually, this file is linked on zh:User:Sz-iwbot. If there's any other reason, please keep deletion. --Liangent 06:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Comment - Could you please give a reason for undeletion that has more value than that the reason is strange, I rather don't see a reason why we should undelete the warnfiles that are now 4 years old. Huib talk
Comment can't be done File is too old, the file can't be restored, only the text of the file description page, the file was from 2005 when file restoring was not available! Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 09:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Wiki development test image.png[edit]

Are some images I created for discussion between developers/system admins when I was one and an admin here. Not of historic interest and not worth sorting out the copyright status of the included works. Jamesday 05:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment Comment Can't this be speedied as author request? Pmlineditor  07:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Nuked  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


T, S[edit]

The following discussion is closed: help translate

T should be deleted in a few months - there is clear consensus that these single letter redirects aren't particularly useful or helpful. However, Kylu's suggestion to allow people to begin to use the more likely redirects (e.g. TR) in emails is a sensible one, whilst phasing out the use of the T. Six months from today, they should be summarily deleted per this RFD. Majorly talk 17:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

S has been deleted per this nomination, waiting to see if there are any more hold out's on T. xaosflux Talk 05:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Upon accidentally typing a random letter into the search and pressing enter, I happened upon this. I think that this is a much too generic redirect; it is a single letter. I'm not even sure the target is the best possible candidate for it. In addition to that, the target is linked in the navigation toolbox anyway. I think it's generally bad form to have a single-lettered mainspace redirect, as a general rule. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. Would you prefer outright deletion or, perhaps, a "disambiguation" page of sorts, pointing at various popular destinations? If the latter, we could make it a decent little project for some folks. Kylu 09:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I'd prefer outright deletion. I can't imagine anyone typing in the simple letter 'T' into the search box with the intent of actually finding anything. It goes against common sense. It's a character, not a page name. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I also nom S, which seems even more ridiculous. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I very much disagree with deleting single-lettered redirects. Most of them (especially this one) are widely linked from many different places and in use. There are no problems with keeping them and many problems would be created with deleting them... they're in use, it shouldn't matter. Cbrown1023 talk 02:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Cbrown, there are only two slrs on the whole site. "Most" doesn't particularly make sense here. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Further to that, "widely" is unbelievably hyperbole; "T" has 9 links and "S" 4. Come now. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
There are more links than just those used on this wiki... we use it frequently in e-mails and on IRC. Cbrown1023 talk 02:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I can't comment on that, but, the fact of the matter is that offwiki you have to give a url either way. I seriously have doubts, even then, on how widespread its usage could possibly be in emails or on IRC. I mean, really. How could you know how much they were used in emails anyway? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
My comment above with "most of them" was talking about all the redirects of this type (including those on other wikis, for an example). Cbrown1023 talk 23:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete If you check the 'What links here' for each redirect, there are very few hits. Each is a very general redirect going to a much too specific target (and I agree that S is even worse). I believe that deletion is the best option here. Malinaccier (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm going to have to agree with Anonymous Dissident. These are unlikely search terms, unless you know where it redirects to. –Juliancolton (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - These pages are too generic of redirects to be of any use here. Razorflame 00:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep for T as moral support, since I believe I have used this redirect several times on IRC or emails, including OTRS inquiries in translation queue. Unless there is any other conflicting candidates of this redirect (then let us turn it to a disambig), I prefer to keep it. --Aphaia 01:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Why would a MediaWiki redirect be useful offwiki? You still need a url. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
      • ...because either way we want to save space? Ultimately, who cares, AnonDiss? What's the problem? Why should we waste our time with this discussion when the poor little redirect isn't doing any harm and there are no conflicts? We can bring this up if there is a conflict and something else wants to use the location. Look at w:WP:3 for example... that's one character and there are other things that could occupy the same name (mentioned in the first line), the same thing with w:WP:D, w:WP:A, w:WP:B, w:WP:C... I could go on. I really do not understand what the problem is with these redirects.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cbrown1023 (talk)
        • No, those redirects have four characters, not one. 'W', 'P', ':', '<letter>'. Not one. You're the one debating here, you're the one protesting; therefore, it's no fault of mine if you feel you are wasting your time. It's semantically wrong, and it did do "harm" in that I accidentally went to it when I was typing a pagename into the search and pressed enter by accident. It just feels wrong, hence my nom. The redirects are not useful, because the targets are so random for such generic pagenames. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Perhaps you want to rephrase? You just said that you nominated them because you accidentally went to a page because of a screw-up. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 21:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
              • Eh, touché. :) But I stand by my original nomination. Too generic, not useful. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete I really think one letter like this is pushing it. TR would be much better. Majorly talk 23:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per Majorly. IMHO TR is more understandable. —Dferg (meta-w:es.) 21:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
    • AnonDiss I meant the redirect's URL has been given to the outside people when we communicate by email. I don't want them find a redlink when they come to meta. For communication consistency I think it should be kept. --Aphaia 05:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Aphaia, would you be willing to allow for a "delayed deletion" instead? Start using TR in mails, and after a period of time (6 months?) we can delete the redirect? Kylu 01:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Personally, I think 6 months may be slightly in excess, but, of course, the caveat that I am the actual nominator comes with that view. However, I suppose the redirect isn't really a blatantly inappropriate page that need be deleted right now, so I wouldn't be opposed to some dilation between the closure of the request and the actual performance of the deletion if that is deemed beneficial or desirable. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I approve of Kylu's idea -- a good process for deleting any in-use redirect. -- sj

Multi-lingual title housekeeping[edit]

The following discussion is closed

Taken care ofAnonymous DissidentTalk 08:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a set of articles with non-english titles that have been kept around for years. Please comment on those whose scripts you read regarding their transwiki suitability and status.

  • Delete all - rationales seem sound. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all --Mardetanha talk 06:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC) i have deleted both of them as i was sure there were out of scope ولماس , اِشناسِندِن
  • Delete if you can read it. The proposer cannot even tell the difference between Japanese, Chinese and Korean, so there is no guarentee that he could make any reasonable judgement. Next time you can try the "auto-detect" function of Hillgentleman 07:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    Heh. I actually read a bit of Zh and Ja and Korean's 3-radical form is quite distinctive, but was entering them in a rush... now Malay I can't identify without help! -- sj | help translate |+
Okay. Pleased to help out. Hillgentleman 17:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. --~Innvs: 09:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Speedy deleted. Cross-wiki spam deleted previously —Dferg (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

User is just trying to get more hits for his personal website; user has never edited meta, and on en-wiki he has repeatedly created articles about himself or his made-up things (such as an alphabet he made up, and an imaginary country ruled by him). This is abuse of the site; meta is not a personal webhost. Rjanag 01:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Deleted.Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This page was created by an anonymous editor and I'm not sure if it User:Cwtiyar simply logged out, vandalism or what. But I think it should be reviewed by the sysops. Personally I think it should be deleted. If the anon is attempting to talk to User:Cwtiyar they should be using their talk page. Cheers fr33kman t - c 19:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Note Note: Deleted by Spacebirdy. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)



Don't be a dick/ru[edit]

The following discussion is closed.
Kept per consensus (also, I have to note that only two native speakers of Russian supported its deletion: one of them is indefinitely blocked by Arbitration Committee and another one is known for his provocative actions; many people would call him troll) — vvv 16:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This essay uses extremely offensive language. Russian word "мудак" is roughly translated as "shithead", but actually this word is even more offensive. I'd agree that "Не будь мудаком" is а proper translation of "Don't be a dick" phraze. There's simply no way to say "Don't be a dick" in Russian without being extremely offensive. In Russian culture, cuss words are much less acceptable than they are in Anglophone culture. And since this essay addresses itself to Wikimedia projects editors, it openly violates en:Wikipedia:Profanity, en:Wikipedia:No personal attacks and en:Wikipedia:Civility. P.S. I do not visit meta on regular basis, so please contact me via ru:User:Netrat Netrat 21:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If it uses offensive words, then please edit the page to use non-offensive words which gets the point across. I don't see a rationale for deletion here, just a reminder that this is a wiki.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
As I have already said, "Не будь мудаком" is а proper translation of "Don't be a dick". You can't say "Don't be a dick" in Russian without insulting a person very hard. Netrat 21:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Even if that's true, I don't see how that's a problem. If the only suitable translations are extremely offensive then so be it. "Don't be such a fucking asshole" has a nice ring to it, and gets the fucking point across.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 09:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
If the word is so offensive in Russian, then just don't use a literal translation. Call it "Don't be a jerk" or something.--Pharos 16:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep No reason to delete, just a reason to edit. However, given the fact that the whole point of the "Don't be a dick" essay is the fact that it's a bit on-edge, I'm not entirely sure if the editing is actually warranted. The English Wikipedia pages you cite (which, it should be noted, have no bearing on any project other than the English Wikipedia itself) are all irrelevant; en:Wikipedia:Profanity is about citing profanity in articles, en:Wikipedia:No personal attacks is about actively insulting other users (which the essay doesn't do, though it does say "Telling someone 'Don't be a dick' is something of a dick-move in itself"), and en:Wikipedia:Civility only comes into play if someone is citing the essay in an abusive manner. EVula // talk // // 05:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Russian WP have the policies similiar to English WP:Civility, WP:Profanity and WP:No personal attacks. I chose to link English versions just because I doubt anyone here understands Russian. I realize these rules apply to WP, not Meta-Wiki, but does it mean it's OK to use extremely offensive words that are not allowed in any Wikimedia project? Telling someone "Dont' be a dick" in Russian Wikipedia would earn you at least 1 week ban. Saying someone is acting like "мудак" is very extreme insult in Russian language. Meta-Wiki provides a guide and coordination to Wikimedia projects. I believe it should follow the high level of verbal culture accepted in individual Wikimedia projects - and demonstrate it to its users and visitors. Telling essays published on Meta-Wiki are not for WM projects editors would be hypocritical. And what would visitors think of WM projects if they see it's OK to insult their editors in such manner? That was the point. Netrat 21:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
      • If saying "don't be a dick" in Russian gets you a week long block... don't do it. Just because there's an essay doesn't mean that everyone should go around saying it to everyone else. It's an essay about how people should be nice, the page in question is merely a translation of that essay. EVula // talk // // 16:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with Mike.lifeguard. Move the page or change the wording. This is a wiki. :-) --MZMcBride 08:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that this shouldn't be deleted. If the extreme offensiveness can be edited out without destroying the sense of the essay, great, but this essay makes a point with sarcasm/exaggeration. Sometimes that can be lost in translation, of course. ++Lar: t/c 18:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • It cannot be. Netrat 21:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, very offensive word in Russian. Serebr 04:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, the argument to delete it is very sound. It was mention early and repeatedly that there is no Russian word for the English word "Dick" that is not offensive. The arguments to keep seem to ignore it. It dubious keep even for the English version but if other cultures find this essay offensive why force it upon them. --MarsRover 08:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Please explain how a translation on Meta is being "forced" upon anyone. EVula // talk // // 16:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. It is offencive (More precisely, it is not offencive, but ->) vulgar word, but it is very correct word in this context. There is no need in hypocrite censorship. Lvova 16:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    According to ABBYY Lingvo, this word is both offensive and vulgar. Netrat 13:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    It isn't true. Lvova 11:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
    +"Существование этой страницы не даёт разрешения публично называть какого бы то ни было участника Википедии мудаком." from those page means "The existence of this page does not give permission to publicly call any wikipedia user 'dick'" Lvova 17:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    If so, then what is the purpose to keep such essay on Wikimedia server? Netrat 13:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    Learn wisdom by the follies of others. Lvova 18:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Lvova. -- 17:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per Mike and Lvova. ~ putnik 17:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per all above, there is no reason to delete. It is very good essay. It makes correct recommendations how to behave in wiki-projects.--Аурелиано Буэндиа 17:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Actually, the essay at least implies that you should not tell someone that s/he is a dick, which would surely result in a deserved block. :) So called “strong words” are actually just words as much as so called “non-strong words” are, and you can offend a person with any word as well as you can say this word in a non-offending way — everything depends on the context and the attitude. If you are afraid that an attitude of a similar negative kind can be applied to you… then you’d better just think about it ;) — Kalan ? 17:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    Huh? There's no way to say this word in Russian without insulting a person. Netrat 13:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    You have this word in your deletion request. Do you think that you have insulted someone? If yes, how? — Kalan ? 18:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Another circus, no more here. -- 17:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's felicitous translation. I think that this striking essay comes to the point of the phenomena. And see Lvova's remark also. --Gruznov 19:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --Kaganer 20:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. -- 12:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, per arguments above. KillerChihuahua 12:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Lvova and Kalan. -- 07:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • You probably don't get it, but implying there there are editors in WM projects who diserve to be called that way is a clear violation of "Civility" policy. And if this essay does not imply that, what it has to do with WM? Netrat 13:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
It's advice that applies to all projects. Advice essays that apply to multiple projects are frequently posted to Meta. EVula // talk // // 21:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
This does not answer "implying there there are editors in WM projects who diserve to be called that way is a clear violation of "Civility" policy" consern. Netrat 09:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The essay begins with "The presence of this page does not itself license any editor to refer to any other identifiable editor as “a dick”." note, making it obvious that the mere existance of it confuses editors and does not benefit for friendly atmosphere. I don't think such essay is appropriate as "An essay related to Wikipedia". I would support the deletion of either versions of it, but since English is not my mother tongue I don't think I can evaluate the degree of insultingness in English version, but when in comes to Russian language version, I'm pretty sure. Netrat 09:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • This phrase has a particular cultural, if recent, use in some English speaking countries, so I would argue to keep the English version. However, if Russian wikimidians do not want it, then let us delete the Russian version. Is there a consensus of Russian wikemidians? --Bduke 10:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Certainly not. Just look at the Russians who have voted "keep". Note also that it is quite clear that the page was worked on by more than one Russians. 10:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
    • where is russian users want to delete this page?! Netrat and Serebr only vs me, Kaganer, Kalan, putnik, Аурелиано Буэндиа and Gruznov! Lvova 11:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. This whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. --Морган 12:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. --ВиКо 21:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename, reword, and keep. -- sj | help translate |+ 03:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Licenses extension[edit]

The following discussion is closed: To be transwiki'd. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There's probably a lot of this sort of old junk lying around that's of no value either here or on Emufarmers 17:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't see a lot of use for it, but perhaps we'll get other people who work on documentation to chime in? Kylu 01:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    • This belongs archived somewhere on, definitely transwiki (perhaps to the talk page about the current process for localizing licenses?) and don't just delete. -- sj

Linux user Wikimedians[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Clear keep. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Not related to Wikimedia Projects, nominated to delete per «Meta Wiki is not a hosting». 11:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep It's not a vanity page, which would fall under the "Meta Wiki is not a hosting" argument. There are several other pages that are either directly similar or peripherally similar in Category:Lists of Wikimedians; while they may not be the most important pages on the site, I don't see anything wrong with them. EVula // talk // // 14:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • keep There are still a lot of other lists about wikimedians. I don't see the need to lose this one and keep the rest. Huib talk 14:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, Semi-related to the project and its existence is not causing problems. Nakon 18:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Eh? Why is this on Meta? Is it still actively maintained and does it still serve any type of helpful purpose to the Wikimedia Foundation? --MZMcBride 03:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per EVula. Meta Wiki is not a hosting - no argument for deletion this page. --~Innvs: 03:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete It is obviously not actively maintained and so has little value. If this was an up to date list of users who use Linux then it might have some value if someone needs to contact such a user but considering it clearly isn't going to be up to date, it hasn't any value. If someone wanted to find a Linux user they'd probably find it more effective to ask on a talk page somewhere. Adambro 15:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • keep --.snoopy. 08:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Agree with EVula. Not a very important page, but there is no harm in keeping it. AdjustShift 17:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed: Kept — the channel is working perfectly and exists, so the page is not obsolete. Please contact and operator to fix your invex or gain access. —Dferg (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

#wikimedia-admin is forwarding to #wikimedia-stewards. Now this page is obsolete. Kwj2772 () 08:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep — The channel is working perfectly for me and not redirecting to #wikimedia-stewards. It redirects you when you have no +I. See IRC/wikimedia-admin#Gaining_Access if you can't join. —Dferg (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The channel redirects non invited users to #wikimedia-stewards, user that are invited see the admin channel. If you normally can enter it and now you can't please check if you did login on the freenode servers /msg nickserv identify password. When you are identified to the services and still can't enter the channel please contact Mike or Birdy. Huib talk 10:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dferg. –~Innvs: 11:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • We could close this, it's just a misunderstanding...--Nick1915 - all you want 11:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg Done — closed as keptDferg (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ayuda:Caracteres especiales[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep – discussion has stagnated.Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The page should be added to w:es:Ayuda:Caracteres especiales not on Meta, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 07:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  • The page is already translated to other languages on Meta, e.g. Japanese and Russian. In Italian there is a sort of disambiguation page which links to the English Meta version and to the Italian Wikipedia version. In either case, I don't think this page should be deleted, after all, Meta is multilingual. Sabbut 08:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The question is not if Meta is multilingual but if that content is required here, if there exist other pages they should IMHO also be merged to the local ones. These pages are creating redundant work, why not adding the content to the source page (also authors of the original one on where not named in the modified copy here!) and linking from here to the page on Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 11:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
      • In that case, the content is relevant to any Wikimedia project in Spanish, so it would be better off in Meta. I also understand that the authors of the original translation should be acknowledged, of course. Should the original page (with its whole history) be imported then to Meta? On the other side, the English version of "Help:Special characters" exists both in Wikipedia and in Meta, but not in other projects. Is there a common policy regarding the duplicity of help pages between Wikimedia projects in the same language? If so, I think it would be fair if that policy were applied in the same way for all languages. Sabbut 23:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Acknowledging the original authors is not complicated, we can import the history. df|  09:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Sabbut. This page has been translated in some languages and I think it feets perfectly within the scope of meta as it is documentation about a Wikimedia project. IMHO this page should be kept. But what Spacebirdy points is correct too. I'm afraid. df|  10:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Azimuthal projection[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Marked historical.Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The page has been there for six years; but I don't think it falls within our inclusion policy. I'm not totally sure about a SD, so I put up this RfD. Pmlineditor  18:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep Keep I'd agree that the purpose of this page isn't particularly clear. However, I believe it formed part of a project to source or create maps for WMF projects (see Maps) so does fall within the scope of this project and so should probably be kept for historical purposes. Adambro 18:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    Perhaps mark it as historical? Pmlineditor  07:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    Done. Adambro 10:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Association of Stroopwafel Addicts[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Result is to keep per consensus below. 8 users stated to keep this page against 3 who want the deletion. Kylu pointed out good reasons to keep it. --Barras 22:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Wikimedia? Majorly talk 22:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete; clearly constitutes socialisation beyond scope. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • To expound: I understand the argument that pages like this help to built Meta's community atmosphere, but we do need to draw the line somewhere. When we come to a page that could just as easily be a group on Facebook, we need to review whether we've taken things too far. Humour and community pages are fine, but they should be at least indirectly germane to Wikimedia. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete; beyond our scope; has nothing to do with WMF. Pmlineditor  08:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I thought it was just a joke association, like many others (would all these be deleted too? There seems to be more non-serious ones). -- Mentifisto 11:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • No: most, if not all, mention Wikipedia or wiki in the title. They could possibly be discussed separately, but they are not the same calibre as this page. Majorly talk 13:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as beyond the project scope and as such a distraction from work that is. I've seen it argued that humorous pages like this can help build community relations but I see little real basis to that suggestion. That's not to say that all humour should be outlawed, rather a line has to be drawn somewhere and I think this, and some of the other similar examples highlighted by Mentifisto go beyond where I feel this line should be. I don't think, as Majorly seems to have suggested, that incorporating "Wiki" in someway in a page's title necessarily does anything to make a page more relevant and useful. From a purely practical point of view, the more pages we have the harder it is, for example, to monitor for vandalism and ensuring pages are appropriately categorised, so such pages do distract from more useful content within the project scope. Adambro 13:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Coment: If Jimbo participate on this, why not? I don't see any problem, but, I agree with all above, is beyond our scope. Alex Pereira falaê 13:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: It involves Wikimedians. That's what has to do with Wikimedia. It's a community thing. What more do you really want? It's Meta... --MZMcBride 14:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Breathing involves Wikimedians. So do many other things, but we're not going to be creating such pages here. Majorly talk 14:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: Eating Stroopwafels at Wikimedia meetings is a popular in-joke and this page makes sense in that context, just as much as anything else in Category:Humor. Angela 07:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep: this one of of many user associations and, of course, some are silly and useless. If this is to a how we set the bar for these sort of articles the argument to delete needs to be more specific. Are user associations based on food now outlawed? --MarsRover 08:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - As per Angela. This is a fairly typical joke for IRL wikimedia gatherings. No gathering is complete w/out Stroopwafel. --Philippe 08:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Strange, I must have been to nearly 10 meetups and one Wikimania, and I've never even heard of this until I noticed it on recent changes. Must be a very deep in-joke. Majorly talk 10:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I move to Keep per a review of policies and guidelines related to deletion:
    1. Meta:Inclusion policy#Policy
      • (Inconclusive) Not covered in either "Acceptable" or "Not Acceptable" categories.
    2. Delete:_this_page_does_not_belong_on_meta#What_is_Meta:
      • (Possibly inclusive) See "Wikimedia association issues"
      • (Very slightly inclusive) This page mentions "historical pages" under "Which pages are more likely to be a victim of deletionists",
      but does not specify that this is correct behavior or not. The word choice leads me to think not.
    3. Meta:What Meta is not:
      • (Inclusive) #3, "Meta is not entirely formal, and many of its pages are meant to be humorous." seems to apply.
    As currently written, the deletion policy as well as historic precedent seem to weigh in on the side of keep.
    The outcome—either way—should likely be recorded on the inclusion policy page, for future clarification. Kylu 05:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Meta is meta not Wikipedia fortunately. And per Kylu & MarsRover --Herby talk thyme 07:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kylu. – Innv | d | s: 09:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - largely per Kylu and per Angela. It's a harmless 'in-joke' :) - Alison 13:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)



The following discussion is closed.

Images which uploaded before 2006 without license tags shouldn't be believed as GNU FDL. Because the possibility that authors were newbie and didn't know about FDL at that time, I think images without license tags should be considered as © All rights reserved. I searched some information, I realized the facts. "Without license tags, All things are all rights reserved" and "Copyright must not be believed in good faith". If the way to contact is open, we must ask copyright information. If not, all images without license tags must be deleted.--Kwj2772 12:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it'd be best to try to resolve licensing issues first, before simply mass deleting images. It's a bit early yet to propose the template itself for deletion. Kylu 09:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I wrote it at final line. (underlined)--Kwj2772 () 23:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for attempting to clarify your statement, though I did understand it the first time. I apologize if I was less than clear, but the template is here under consideration for deletion, not to examine the merits of the images that are tagged by it. If you want to suggest we depreciate it first, don't you think that'd be better handled in a different forum? Then, once the template is no longer important, then we bring it here to delete it. Have you started contacting the uploaders yet? Kylu 02:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
OK.--Kwj2772 () 02:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I tried to raise the issue before bringing it from English Wikipedia. Please see Wikimedia_Forum/Archives/2008-04#Images_uploaded_to_Meta_before_29_December_2006_without_copyright_license_declared and Meta:Babel/Archives/2008-12#Template:Proposed_logo. I have tried to ask some uploaders but many have never answered. Let us bring this concern to a wider community talk while earlier file uploading form here did not warn that files without copyright license declared would be deleted.--Jusjih 03:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Inkey Template from Dzongkha Wikipedia[edit]

The following discussion is closed.

Can someone please delete the Inkey template user Eukesh put on the Dzongkha Wikipedia. This is totally useless for typing Dzongkha and actually makes it much harder to input/edit Dzongkha than if it wasn't there.

(Because the Tibetan script in which Dzongkha is written is an Indic script Eukesh, without knowing Dzongka, seems to have assumed a transliteration system for typing Indic languages would work. However he seems to have failed to realize a) that Tibetan and Dzongkha, although written in an Indic derived script, are not Indic languages ~ so the standard transliteration system is very different from that used for Indic langages. b) the encoding model used for Tibetan script in the Unicode standard is totally unlike that used for other Indic scripts.)

I appreciate Eukesh had good intentions by adding the template, but the result in this case is worse than useless. CFynn 19:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

what needs to be done is to have this line removed from dz:MediaWiki:Monobook.js:
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' + '"' + '&action="raw"></script>');
You'll want to ask a steward to remove this, actually. Kylu 21:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, please put
var realTime=false;
into Your personal monobook for disabling it for You (and clear the cache afterwards to make it work) on any wiki with such function, if var realtime should be disabled for all should probably be asked locally in the village pump, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 21:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)



File:Relly Komaruzaman.png[edit]

The following discussion is closed.

File:Relly Komaruzaman.png, despite being labeled as the author's creation, appears to be an identity card from Indonesia. A Google translation of the Indonesian Wikipedia's version of it (the author's home wiki) claims that the author created it through the district office of the Indonesian district of Kepahiang. As I understand it, this would mean that the copyright to the ID belongs to the government, not the uploader and that its use here is a copyright violation. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Another version was uploaded with just his picture in it. He needs a picture of himself for his Board of Trustees candidacy. Capmo 18:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a en:derivative work, which means it is every bit as bad as if it was the entire card, copyright-wise. It should not fall under fair use, imho, unless a reason is given that he cannot get a picture taken of himself (as an example, on en.wikipedia fair use is never allowed when the subject is living and most wikipedias have even stricter rules than that). --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, I suspect that the Foundation's Licensing Policy would apply here. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't get the point. He obviously took the picture before the document was released, so the picture can't in itself be a "derivative work" of the document. Besides that, the copies of this picture belong to him for him to do whatever he wants with them, despite the fact that one of the copies was used in a document. Also note that now he seems to have applied the correct copyright template to the picture's page. Could you also please explain where exactly did he fail to adhere to the Foundation's Licensing Policy? Do you mean by that that the picture should have been uploaded to Commons instead? Thanks, --Capmo 03:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, you mean that he took the picture that was used in the ID card? Then of course the picture is fine. I had understood that the creator of the ID card was the one who took the picture. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes ;) If you look at the ID card you'll notice that the picture was glued to it, differently from the process more in use nowadays where a digital picture is taken by the ID card issuer and printed together with the document. Capmo 11:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Capmo is totally right! Thank you for the supports. Actually, I have a buch of the lastest pictures of me. But, I just want to share my legal identity for this community. If this picture make you sick, I'm sorry. Relly Komaruzaman Talk 06:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I would like to withdraw the nomination - if an admin wanders by and would like to close this properly? (I'm not familiar enough with process here to close myself atm.) --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done - This image is needed for the board elections so I would say if this is indeed a copyvio we can handle it after the election, its not like will be sued today if we don't delete it. And the nomination is withdraw offcourse. For now, this is closed as not done :) Huib talk 20:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)