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.) Images 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}} can be added to talk page to remember previous RfDs.
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki
This box: view · talk · edit
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 180 days.


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

All IP talk pages older than 1 year[edit]

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: 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)

2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Invitation/* and Translations:2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Invitation/*[edit]

When Fuzzy moved 2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Invitation to Community Wishlist Survey 2017/Invitation, it forgot to also move its translations. Because of this, they can't be edited anymore, but they still appear as suggestions when translating similar messages. I propose the removal of all these (and these) pages, since some of them contain typos (that, as I said, can't be edited). Eduardogobi (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Those pages that could be moved over could be copy and pasted IF THERE IS VALUE in doing so. Or we could see if someone could move them over from the backend.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
As a comment, it seems that the bot should be improved to move Translation: ns pages if the main ns pages are moved.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal (WMF): who moved the parent pages.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, FuzzyBot failed to copy over a lot of translations when we did the rename of the older surveys. I asked on IRC and it apparently is a known bug. Even with sysop rights it appears you can't delete or move them manually. I do have a script I can use to copy over translations from the old locations. I will do that. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Although, I should point out that notification won't be used anymore (that was for the 2017 survey). Maybe we should just disable translations, at this point? What do you think Eduardogobi? MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I've deleted the template. I don't think FuzzyBot deleted the new translations, or the old ones... Not much I can do there :( But hopefully it's at least not showing up as needing translation anymore. Regards, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment That is an interesting question about YEAR pages and their translations. Do we wish to continue to have them open for translation and improvement? Or are these pages to be marked as historical and terminate translation. Even to the point of minimising further editing—which we can do by abuse filters.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


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


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


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

Requests for undeletion[edit]

Submit your undeletion request at the bottom of this section.