Meta:Requests for deletion

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


The following discussion is closed: No reason to delete it. Matiia (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

common.js with no use

User:Husain shah/common.js - I wonder if it has any use except propaganda or promotion. --Ochilov (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I don't see how a single word can be propaganda or promotion in itself on a neutrally titled page like this. That said, the page doesn't contain valid Javascript code. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The user whose page it is obviously does not understand what are .js and .css subpages for, but I do not see a reason to delete them. --Base (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikivoyage/List of Wikivoyagers by destination[edit]

Request seems to have been discussed by Wikivoyages community at the talk page as being unused Special:PermanentLink/15269081 and mentioned at enVoy. It is my opinion that a short listing here should be sufficient, though it does need to appear here. (It was brought to my attention)  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

thanks for billinghurst to bring it here.. (I had brought it thinking enough was for an admin to deal with), however I can see here in his post, the need for a link here, despite being unused. please see a 4 year wait for this at [1] :JarrahTree (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


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

Unused CC templates and categories[edit]

I think it is time to start phasing out Creative Commons licenses from Meta. There are some templates that are no longer being used, so they should be deleted and a message placed in each one encouraging the upload of free files to Commons instead. Those CC templates that are still being used should not be deleted yet, but if the files that are using them are transferred to Commons, and if they are unused elsewhere, then I think they should also be speedily deleted. I am proposing deletion for the following templates (and a couple of related categories):

Thoughts? Green Giant (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Hold until all files have been transferred to Commons IMHO. At least what I've been doing latelly is to fix description/licensing here first, then using a script to move them to commons. I think that it can help to have the templates until the process of moving and deletion of local files finishes (or really starts!). After that, yes, with the exceptions of files used in the WWW portals uploaded by Mxn and a couple of other files that need to be hosted locally, we can delete all of them. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 12:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Aye, same here, I've moved quite a few files myself. Fair enough to keeping some of them for the moment but do we really need the CC-by and CC-By redirects which are misnamed anyway? I realise that only some users can upload here but as these templates are unused, this would be a good opportunity to at least discourage the uploading of further freely-licensed files under these particular licenses. Could we remove the license statements in these templates and instead have a message to encourage people to move their files to Commons (with similar links as in {{MoveToCommons}} such as CommonsHelper)? Green Giant (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe we can start deleting some of those, but since +1,000 files here still lack source, licence and description, I can't fully know if I may need some of those later. I'm trying to get as many files tagged as possible, but doing this alone is a pain, and slow :-) Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 14:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. Many files on Meta are missing a copyright tag. If the uploader responds and wants to add a copyright tag to a file, it is useful if we have some copyright tags available. If we get rid of all of our local files (by deleting them or moving them to Commons), we can revisit this question at a later point. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment This is somewhat tangential to the current discussion; perhaps somebody can direct me to a better place to discuss (or a past consensus). What should be done with files that are already hosted here, are freely licensed, but have minimal value? For instance, this proposed (but not adopted) logo for Wikibooks: File:-Wikibooks LogoProposal.Risk.VerySmall.svg Is it really best to clutter up Commons with something like that, when there's no reason to think it will be used in the future? -Pete F (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
    Well, Wikimedia Commons does host proposed logos (including proposed milestone/annoversary logos for e.g. 10 years of a wiki or 500k articles in it) so I do not think it would be a problem to move there a few another. --Base (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed: Kept, no consensus. Matiia (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Like and Template:+1

Useless & Meta is not a social network. This kind of templates only generates the impression this is another one. —MarcoAurelio 12:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Comment I don't disagree with Marco on most issues, but I would like to point out the usage of those template here is more sarcastic and ironic, as I assume was the intention when they were created or imported. We already have a facebook like notification system in echo, a facebook like comment system in flow, and twitter like '@' and mentions get highlighted, using templates like this just points out sarcastically what we are becoming and copying. I don't think we had literal usage of this where someone wants to like comments and things to become more like social networks. It mostly helps remind the wmf staff and our community, where things are moving, as sort of a commentary. If it doesn't live up to that purpose, it can be deleted. Thanks. Theo10011 (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Useless seems a bit strong. Maybe stupid or silly would be better descriptors. Given that we have other similar templates such as {{support}} (or even {{@}}, as Theo mentions), I'm not sure there's much reason to delete these templates. They're certainly dumb templates, but it feels like a situation where users who dislike the templates should simply not use them. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Meta is not Facebook. --MF-W 00:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep {{Like}}, weak keep {{+1}} but change it to remove the "g". Per MZMcBride. The phrase "Meta is not a social network" is not an absolute truth; in spite of important differences with networks like FB and G+, there are many ways in which it is and/or should be a social network. We use social processes to do our work; we are a network. Expressing agreement is an important social activity in decision-making processes. -Pete F (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Prettty much same as Peterforsyth. Vermont starman B.A.R.M.A.N. (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Striking blocked vandal's "vote" --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 18:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete... Meta is not Facebook... I've seen this template deleted on SEW for the same reason. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 22:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, agree with MZMcBride that if someone doesn't see their value then they can skip using them. They are not out of scope since we do have discussions where they can be used. And they have been used so this is not a theoretical statement. (From first glance, it doesn't appear that all uses were sarcastic or ironic as Theo10011 suggests.) And saying that "Meta is not a social network site" doesn't adequately address the overlapping beneficial methods of communication that people employ on meta and social network sites. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


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.

The first useful map[edit]

Deleted The first useful map is AWOL on Maps and related files in Category:Wikimaps history, a set of 5…10 years old files about geocoding projects before OpenStreetMap took over. If an undamaged version can be undeleted, please do. Also see Special:WhatLinksHere/The first useful map to find the 2009 deletion debate, apparently the file was tagged as {{looks useless}} for months.
If the first useful map is decisively garbage please check The second useful map, maybe there was some file move vandalism. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion debate is at Special:PermanentLink/1743484. @Be..anyone: What is the purpose for undeletion? Is it for transfer to Commons, or are you declaring that it is not useless and should be displayed at meta as "in scope".  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
FWIW The first page has no visible image (name was non-descriptive), just a red link. The second page has two of three images visible, and a red link.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
No, I just wanted to get rid of the red links on some historic pages if and only if the deleted map was actually "useful" instead of "useless". If what you see makes no sense thanks for checking, and let's forget it. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)