Meta:Requests for deletion

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests and proposals Requests for deletion Archives (current)→

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

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

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

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki


SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 3 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 180 days.


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


Attack page of multiple users after local block. Violation of Meta:Inclusion policy, speedy deletion under G9. Kromsipol (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Base: Hello. The text of the page seems to be written in Ukranian. Could you please read it and advice? Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is in Russian. Kisnaak is actually blocked on Ukrainian Wikipedia until he removes that userpage content as per Arbcom decision: uk:ВП:ПЗВ155#Рішення. So it is actually that the block is for the attacks on this page, not the other way round (except for the last section). I do agree that it probably should be deleted, it does contain a few personal attacks as well as attacks on the Ukrainian Wikipedia community as a whole, but I would abstain myself: Kisnaak and I were both members of the previous Arbcom tenure, and I have somewhat tense relations with them. --Base (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will reverting to this good version work. If they revert the attacks back, will suggest we restrain their ability to edit that page. I hope the closing admin will also give them a note not to add anymore attacks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Camouflaged Mirage: The page contains no personal insults and therefore I don't think it violates the rules or anyone's rights, nor do I think it attacks anyone. You can verify this with using any online translator, such as Google-Translator. In addition, this deletion request looks like a personal attack and persecution. --Kisnaak (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kisnaak Hello, I am taking the word from Base for the attacks. Having ran parts of it through the Google translate, for the parts I did ran through it involves commentary about ukwiki. Even if there is no attack, such commentary is out of scope for here and also unacceptable for global userpage. It might be acceptable (if trimmed down and all attacks removed - i.e. no mention about personal users / arbs etc) on an user subpage on meta, but certainly not user page. If you want to mention users, the only place is suitable is a RFC. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Camouflaged Mirage: I am aware of who I am having this discussion with. I am inclined to continue to believe that my user page does not contain attacks. And now, until we're waiting for react of CU or other admins, we are forced to continue this discussion. As far as I know, criticism has not been made inappropriate by the rules of the Meta. In my opinion, likewise what I have written falls well within the wording of «essay». And yes, there are a several other personal pages made similar to mine that criticize other Wikipedias, but there is no claim to them - so I consider this statement from a «newly registered member» to be persecution. If the closing admin points out specific points that violate the rules of the Meta — I'm willing to remove them, but it seems absurd to me to remove the page completely and return it to, as you put it, the «good version». The problems, what I mentioned in my user page, cannot be solved without the participation of the Ukrainian Wikipedia community with help of RFC. Because this community unfortunately does not care about what is going on inside the local Arbitration committee. Kisnaak (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kisnaak The CU request you had filed was declined as non-actionable. I will ask you not to cast undue accusations to the nominator. Given there isn't a problem with the nomination, the least I could accept is to move the problematic revisions to an user-subpage failing which I will go with delete per Base / nom. Please keep meta scope here and specifically the point on meta isn't an appeal court - take local issues to local forums, not here. Reiterating the only acceptable place for such here is an RFC. In addition, the existence / non - existence of other user having such problematic pages isn't Germaine to this - this discussion is about your problematic userpage alone, and well if there are other such pages, feel free to list it here (with the caveat of good faith nomination and not POINTy ones though). I won't close this as I feel sufficiently involved. I hope you will understand my point and do clarify if necessary. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the author of the request for deletion registered his account specifically for make this request. I have already make my request for checkusers about this. --Kisnaak (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page consists of criticism of the Ukrainian Wikipedia, but does not contain insults or personal attacks regarding its members. And the place where I really made an inappropriate comment about another user after a dialogue with him was removed from the page. --Kisnaak (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kisnaak + Here: Criticism on a Wikipedia version isn't acceptable on global userpage, this we fairly uphold for all users here. Hope you get it. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This page contains only insults of the Ukrainian Wikipedia, individual users in particular and all users in general. The fact that these insults have been here for so long is a nonsense, and the fact that it has been discussed for so long is completely absurd. Ping administrators who understand russian @Base, Amire80, 1234qwer1234qwer4, Kaganer, and Vermont:. What you read on this user page does not violate meta:Inclusion policy? Kromsipol (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(RU) Я прочел. Похожие тексты с похожей критикой в адрес сообщества русской Википедии я уже ранее тоже встречал. Наверное, в такой критике (и в адрес украинского, и в адрес русского разделов) есть своё рациональное зерно. И там и там есть проблемы, с которыми локальное сообщество не справляется или справляется не очень хорошо. Но в данном случае я вынужден присоединиться к @Camouflaged Mirage: глобальная страница участника - это неподходящее место для подобных критических эссе. Единственное подходящее место и единственная подходящая процедура для публикации критических замечаний в адрес целого сообщества какого-то раздела или отдельных участников (когда эти замечания невозможно разместить в самом этом разделе) - это RFC.
Такой запрос можно сделать и на русском, но, естественно, форму изложения придется всё равно скорректировать. Для RFC недостаточно декларировать, что вас кто-то обидел и вы в чем-то разочаровались. Придется сосредоточиться на описании конкретных проблем (с примерами), показать, что сообщество с ними не справляется и, вероятно, сделать какие-то предложения, которые другие участники могли бы обсуждать.
(EN) I've read. Similar texts with similar criticism about community of the Russian Wikipedia, I also met earlier. Probably, in such criticism (both in the address of the both Ukrainian and Russian editions) there is a rational grain. In the both communities are problems that the local community does not cope with or does not cope very well with. But in this case, I have to support @Camouflaged Mirage: a global userpage is not the right place for such critical essays. The only appropriate place and the only appropriate procedure for posting criticisms of an entire wiki-community or individual wikimedians (when they cannot be placed in this wiki-edition itself) is RFC.
Such a request can also be made in Russian, but, of course, the form of presentation will still have to be improved. It is not enough for the RFC to declare that someone offended you and that you are disappointed in some way. We will have to focus on describing specific problems (with examples), show that the community is not coping with them, and probably make some suggestions that other participants could discuss. Kaganer (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kaganer. While criticism of projects can be in scope of Meta as part of discussions (though unsubstantiated insults are usually removed there too), this userpage at the very least does not respect Global user pages#Content. I suggest reverting it to the previous state as per Camouflaged Mirage; not sure if further action (such as revision deletion) would be required. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
16:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this user has specifically registered only to make a protest nomination for deletion. SummerKrut (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SummerKrut The status of the nominator is irrelevant, unless of course the CU can find something, where the page i question did indeed exceeds the scope of meta userpage. Hence, the nomination is valid. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I've never thought that a user can be fooled so easily. SummerKrut (talk) 07:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SummerKrut Proper commentary will be appreciated, but your comment isn't helpful or relevant in the first place. Given the declined CU, there is no reason to doubt the nominator and such commentary against the nominator without refuting the allegations will not be helpful. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages of Special:PrefixIndex/Skanwiki/Ugens_artikel/ and Special:PrefixIndex/Skanwiki/Dagens_artikel/[edit]

Pages are out of Meta's scope and should be deleted. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam Encyclopedia conference[edit]

Out of scope. This conference has nothing to do with Wikimedia. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 18:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

Template:Example needed[edit]

One transclusion in the documentation part of Template:Round, which already includes examples. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 06:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Indiscriminately copying templates from elsewhere is the bane of wikis. * Pppery * it has begun 14:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have added a link to explain better the text in the context. It is not the use of indiscriminate templates, than have scarcely common ones with other wikis. And sometimes it is the case. BoldLuis (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @BoldLuis: The link you added (at {{Round}}) has nothing to do with {{Example needed}}. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 13:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh: Example it is not about round, but about the #expr, this is, where the template is located. Now, the user can click in the link and understand how #expr is used. BoldLuis (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @BoldLuis: If so, that specific sentence needs an {{Explanation needed}}, not {{Example needed}}. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 13:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. I wanted to say it needs explanation and some examples. In any case, I did it in the simpliest way, including a link to understand #expr and how it works. On the other hand, I could not use "explanation needed" template, because it is not included in Meta. I am sure both template are going to be used in Meta. BoldLuis (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Transl-1 and 7 others[edit]

Potentially superseded by Lua-based Template:Transl-n. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 15:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wiki Indaba/Footer1[edit]

One transclusion; can be replaced by {{Wiki Indaba/Footer}} with the corresponding bottom text. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
11:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Nearly unused template. When checking the first time, I saw four transclusions, in which two are accidentally, via a Transl-n template. Now, there's only two usages left, one on an user page of a deceased user who seems to intended to use it as an userbox, and one on a 2006-archived page, which can be easily subst'ed. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 14:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Language combination and 2 others[edit]

One transclusion: Category:Translator's Templates. I think a big table this is not a very nice way to showcase links to subcats and templates, considering the number of languages we support. As for the subcats part, it can be replaced with an inputbox that links to Category:Catname?subcatfrom=Translator foo-bar. Also, Translator foo-bar templates will soon be deprecated and nominated for deletion as I'm writing a Lua module that supersedes their function. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 16:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out that inputbox doesn't have a go-to-exact-link function. type=search can be used however. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 00:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lang name templates[edit]

Extended content

Superseded by #language. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 22:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User language and subpages[edit]

Superseded by {{#babel:}}. The following pages are transcluding at least one of them and will be affected:

Extended content

NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 08:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Basic information[edit]

Ill-defined, overly broad navbox. * Pppery * it has begun 15:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. this is a direct parallel of an existing navbox, en: Template: Basic information. right now, there is no resource which helps visitors to find various resources at the Meta website. we can reduce this navbox, or edit if you wish. Please don't remove it. I feel that this navbox provides a helpful resource to assist others to find items here at meta website. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This or something like it is commonly used on projects, including multilingual ones. I think it's valuable in principle and if a particular article should be added/removed, then it can be changed, but I don't see how deleting would be helpful to users. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don’t understand how this navbox can be useful. It doesn’t link any “basic” thing, actually. There are already many portals and lists which painfully try to stay up-to-date. How do you evaluate some information as more “basic” than other ones? --Pols12 (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find this template useful. So far as I know, this is the best navigation box for directing people to different major categories of content on Meta-Wiki. If there are better comparable resources then please share links. If this is overly broad then that is a reason for editorial discussion and revision, not deletion. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Divstyleaqua and 16 others[edit]

​* Template:Divstyleaqua

Superseded by Template:Divbox/styles.css. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 21:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Dagbani Wikimedians Chapter/Templates/Tabs[edit]

These aren't templates, and I'm not sure what this has to do with "tabs". Looks like all of these can be recategorised under Category:Dagbani Wikimedians Chapter, which only cointains Category:Dagbani Wikimedians Chapter/Templates at the moment, though it might be worth renaming it to Category:Dagbani Wikimedians User Group in line with the mainspace pages. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
21:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist to delete, it then at least can we simply rename it to Category:Dagbani Wikimedians User Group without moving, just so we can keep all the subpages intact? -—M@sssly 17:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand your request. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
19:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename the categories to User Group rather than Chapter; and move everything in /Templates/Tabs to Category:Dagbani Wikimedians User Group. (since they aren't templates; only the header/footer directly under Category:Dagbani Wikimedians Chapter/Templates are. –SJ talk  18:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@1234qwer1234qwer4: I have moved Category:Dagbani Wikimedians Chapter to Category:Dagbani Wikimedians User Group and clear Category:Dagbani Wikimedians Chapter/Templates/Tabs, so it and Category:Dagbani Wikimedians Chapter could be deleted. I have also moved Category:Dagbani Wikimedians Chapter/Templates to Category:Dagbani Wikimedians User Group/Templates altogether, and the former redirect page could be deleted too. —— Eric LiuTalk 12:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one to take care of this? —— Eric LiuTalk 09:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ericliu1912 is the only thing left to do here to delete the now-empty Category:Dagbani_Wikimedians_Chapter/Templates/Tabs? — xaosflux Talk 14:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You could delete Category:Dagbani Wikimedians Chapter, Category:Dagbani Wikimedians Chapter/Templates, and Category:Dagbani Wikimedians Chapter/Templates/Tabs. —— Eric LiuTalk 14:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tools or Category:Tools and scripts[edit]

Currently, we have the two categories Category:Tools and Category:Tools and scripts, which are only linked to each other by a "see also" hatnote. The first one is categorised under Category:Software and Category:Infrastructure, while the second one belongs to Category:Documentation. Judging by the name though, it looks that both have essentially the same scope, so this splitting makes pages harder to find. While "Tools" is shorter and more concise, "Tools and scripts" appears to be slightly more inclusive, as well as having a significantly higher number of translations. I would lean towards deleting/redirecting the first one, though I am open to see additional arguments here. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
22:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are there anyone have ideas on how can a bot script or template populates one of both? If no such scripts or templates, I prefer merge 1st to 2nd. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also prefer merging two categories (are all the same). Thingofme (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge these two categories by deleting Category:Tools and scripts and then move Category:Tools to Category:Tools and scripts. —— Eric LiuTalk 12:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Links to Category:Tools should be manually changed to retain the translations of Category:Tools and scripts. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 09:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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


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


Ambigous redirect; no actual links. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 14:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh what's going on with the hundreds of links in to this first? — xaosflux Talk 14:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: It is not actually linked to as a redirect to en:WP:SISTER. Most of those links refer to Wikipedia, some others Wikimedia projects, Wikipedia 15, Wikipedian or simply a Wikipedia page. The solution is perhaps to either delete it or choose another target. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 14:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh I agree this is a bad redirect, but am concerned about all the links that will end up becoming redlinks. — xaosflux Talk 14:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have a Redirects for discussion process, hence this section. It doesn't need to be deleted. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 15:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging as {{interwiki redirect}} may be appropriate for now. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for undeletion[edit]

Submit your undeletion request at the bottom of this section.