Meta:Requests for deletion/Archives/2019

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 January 2019, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Grants:IdeaLab/Meth8/Lv4/Prover9

X mark.svg no consensus to delete

  • Created by sock of global locked user User:Allthingsgo. CSD rejected twice by Billinghurst and Xaosflux. My rationale of deletion is spurious proposal, cannot be carried out anyway as it's a sock of globally locked user proposal. As well per general DENY.First time doing this hope that I done all the paperwork correctly --Cohaf (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Digital media use and mental health

Contested speedy by page creator User:E.3. Originally speedy by User:Leaderboard for out of scope. The creator unilaterally changed CSD to RFD without filing here. Procedural filing on behalf.--Cohaf (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  • @E.3:Let's discuss here rather than my talkpage. No comment on scope here for me. I abstain from any comments.--Cohaf (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for help from @Leaderboard: and @Cohaf:. The reason I consider it might be scope is because I have made several pages on several language projects - and wiki English currently considers this top importance for Anthropology and Sociology. However some pages are completely incomprehensible and I am just trying to get multilingual support to fix them at best. The pages are

Portuguese
Spanish
Russian
Ukranian
Serbian French I consider is fine because we had a big discussion. Does that make sense? E.3 (talk) 08:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I've said this on my talk page, but it appears as if you want to get your article translated. That's not the purpose of meta if that's what you're looking for. Leaderboard (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh. I read this policy right here and thought thats exactly how you do it? How to request a translation[edit]If it doesn't exist yet, create the page you want to be translated here on Meta-Wiki. What have I misunderstood? Thanks for your help again --E.3 (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

X mark.svg moved to user namespace and a translation can be sought from there.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I think importing the history is needed to preserve attribution. Leaderboard (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
It is a copy of an article that isn't permanently going to live here, if you want to label it to point back to its origin, then go for it. The history is not pertinent to its userspaceness.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I've tried to attribute back to english wiki in my userspace. Thanks for your help, let me know if i've done it wrong. I'm just trying to translate thats it, gonna work on vietnamese for a bit. E.3 (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

All IP talk pages older than 1 year

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed as no consensus. — regards, Revi 18:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Some time ago MZMcBride did cleanup old IP talk pages. I guess we should do the same once more. Thoughts? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

It's ok for me, we can keep several of them if needed.--Syum90 (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Why they should be removed? The old discussion from 2009 is here btw: Meta:Babel/Archives/2009-01#Old_IP_talk_pages. Stryn (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Don't see the value in doing it. So unless there is a good argument put forward, not in favour.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
To me, the value in doing it—always assuming that the pages are quiet for a year—is that IP talk pages almost always reflect warnings of one sort or another, but not warnings that necessarily apply to a new IP coming to the project. Why start someone off with a negative perception? StevenJ81 (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleting IP talk pages never made sense to me, they could serve as warnings and might indicate if an IP is abusive in the same manner as before, if their would be consensus to delete I would move the IP talk pages to an archive and don't leave a redirect. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 🔒) (My global unlock 🔓) 11:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
If anything, I would suggest that archiving (not deleting) any IP talk pages (not currently blocked) with messages more than six months old, leaving a sharedIP notice and a note linking to the block log if there are any past blocks. That would balance the need to present a more friendly talkpage for innocent new users and the need to keep track of previous warnings and blocks. Green Giant (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I support Green Giant's suggestion as a more reasonable alternative to deletion. Archiving without redirect is effectively the same as deletion as it just buries it from sight. --mikeu talk 16:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
By 'archive' here I hope we mean 'archive to history' , not creating actual /archive subpages. — xaosflux Talk 16:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Sorry, I didn’t see your comment but yes leaving it in file history, not subpages. Green Giant (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Old IP talk pages typically aren't needed and they add unnecessary clutter to the live wiki and to database dumps. The idea that you'd need to reference a warning to an IP address from 2009 is pretty silly. And without any means of knowing whether the same individual is associated with the IP address, it's almost entirely meaningless whether the user was warned so long ago. Even if we could know it's the same person now as it was ten years ago, such an old warning would usually be stale and inapplicable so much later. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
@MZMcBride: I agree. Do you keep by chance the script you used to do that in the past? Thanks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • There are some IP talk pages that contain actual discussion other than warnings. For example, see User talk:74.192.84.101. Sure, these are probably a small minority, but it would be a shame if these were deleted. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Over at zhwiki we had a bot which will archive without a redirect any IP talk pages without editing activities within the last 30 days. Should the IP resume editing disriptively and new warnings are issued, the bot will automatically move the archive back to the main page and do a histmerge. May be relevant here.--Cohaf (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • My take on these has always been that a real person on that IP has been warned for something. With the more systematic forms of vandalism (extreme POV, spamming) that physical person may reappear on another IP. There is then not a necessity to warn that person again - they have been warned. Those warnings are traceable to the previous IP (in cases of systematic spam). Delete the talkpage and it is nearly impossible, even for admins, to find the warning back. Archive them makes it easier (best solution), or blank them (so they appear at least blue in range searches) is a good second choice. The warning may for the new user on the IP indeed not be actual, but outright deletion is just one of the solutions to that. —Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 15:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I'd agree with some sort of archiving or blanking as well too, if that's doable. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Move to close as no consensus to delete. Let's find another solution instead. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

  • +1 --Cohaf (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Antivegetarian Wikimedians

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus to delete. — regards, Revi 18:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

As a vegetarian, I find this page offensive. This page was already nominated for deletion once, but the "delete" template was removed and replaced by a notice claiming that the page was "intended to be humorous". All of the "humor" in the page, however, is simply making fun of vegetarianism. Humor whose main point is to make fun of a group of people is racistic, and shouldn't be tolerated, so I think this page should be deleted. 193.210.231.219 12:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep: just because you find something offensive doesn't mean it should be deleted. There is a fine line between acceptable humour at the expense of others and discrimination based on the grounds of a protected characteristic. For example, if there was a League of Misogynistic Wikimedians or a Wikimedians who support praying the gay away, I would probably !vote delete because those criticise people on grounds they have no choice over (sex and sexual orientation). However, vegetarianism is a choice. SITH (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment Vegetarians are not a race, as best I can tell, so be definition it isn't racist.

    Any page is able to be put up for deletion, and if a consensus is reached, then that will occur. So please look to remove the hyperbole and address this in terms of meta's scope, rather than you don't like it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Being a vegetarian is more of a lifestyle choice than an actual race if you ask me Saederup92 (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia France/Micro-financement/Demande/test

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Deleted, user reminded to use {{delete}}. — regards, Revi 18:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

You know, that moment when you click on publish while you where making a test. It just happen to me. :/ Please delete that page, thanks! Trizek from FR 17:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: {{Delete}}. Which means: Done. — regards, Revi 18:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Open proxy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Deleted. — regards, Revi 18:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

{{Open proxy}}
Unused, outdated, misleading, obsolete.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Personnal subpages

Hi would like to delete pages of this category:

► CreativeC to delete
no pages or subcategories

And also User:CreativeC/ContribColors.js and User:CreativeC/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js.

Thanks --CreativeC (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@CreativeC: Those can be speedy deleted under G6. You an tag them with {{delete|G6 Author's request}} or make a request at WM:RFH. Nihlus 22:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Clickpic

The following discussion is closed: Deleted.

{{Clickpic}}

Useless, since external images aren't enabled on Meta. Pppery (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Deleted per nomination. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:/Table

The following discussion is closed: Deleted

{{/Table}}

Notified the creator while unused.--Jusjih (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Per nomination.--Cohaf (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nomination. Incomplete and out of date. ~Moheen (keep talking) 15:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Deleted. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:SWMT-Members and Category:Small Wiki Monitoring Team

The following discussion is closed: Kept. No consensus to delete. Matiia (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think these lists are useful: They are largely outdated (many of members are inactive), does not have a criterion for inclusion, i.e. does not define a type of access (and thus may be treated as a trophy by hat collecters, and vandals and trolls may edit it for seeking recognition). Therefore it's impratical to find active members using such lists (IRC may be a better way).--GZWDer (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep Keep if they are outdated, they should just be updated - and either way the historical information could still be useful. — xaosflux Talk 18:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per GZWDer. I think a lot of newish users edit that template and then use that as justification to run for global rollback. --Rschen7754 19:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment What does the list mean? If it is informative to explain why some users are making edits, then it has some value, and I do use it as a reference point. I would think that we may just do better in having it up-to-date. Let us see whether we set some criteria for its use and some idea about activity. Clean it up and review.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment Eh? During year 2014-2016 only after you have GR tool then you can move to active member section, and it's usually not themselves who moved it, but other user, because who can make the assessment on how experienced or how active I am is other people especially fellow SWMT member (on some case CVN people did the move).--AldNonymousBicara? 20:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Xaosflux ~Moheen (keep talking) 17:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Maybe it would be a good idea to semi-protect it so that new users can not edit it. IRC does not seem like a good idea since not everyone uses (or can use) that platform to do anti-vandalism work and it would be a somewhat unfair limitation. —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 17:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete or tag historical. Unmaintained collection of usernames that do or did SWMT work. It's useless after all too, given that you add yourself to the list and being in there doesn't confer you any special "powers" unlike the list of administrators, etc. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. --Krd 10:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep and update. Nihlus 13:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Nihlus and Xaosflux.--Cohaf (talk) 11:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep. Currently there are few people managing and updating it.--AldNonymousBicara? 11:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    I've done removing all inactives and updating the template.--AldNonymousBicara? 12:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep per Xaosflux and Aldnonymous. I still see some practical value in it. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 14:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep It still seems realatively useful as long as it's updated on a regular basis. --Az1568 (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --AldnonymousBicara? 04:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:IRC/wikipedia-fr

Can Talk:IRC/wikipedia-fr be deleted (it was dummy before by blancking). My intent is to rename IRC/wikipedia-fr/Espace décisionnel to this page which looks more appropriate Xavier Combelle (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. Matiia (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Japiot/global.css

Can you remove this page, I only want my settings to work localy. thanks Japiot (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia for Peace Marseille

Yes check.svg speedied  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_deletion/Archives/2019&oldid=19104974"