Meta:Requests for deletion

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from Requests for deletion)
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.

Wiki World Cup Hackathon 2022- Africa/Contribute and Wiki World Cup Hackathon 2022- Africa/Podcast[edit]

Both have been tagged with {{looks useless}} since 9th August, because they have not got any linked page. --Pols12 (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ping @Kaffzz as creator. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Pols, we were waiting to confirm certain information before we update the tabs. In the course of this week, the tabs will be updated with the necessary information. I don't think deleting the tabs is advisable. Kaffzz (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess with the above, I am leaning to Keep Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Extremely amateurish and barebones proposal that had zero chance of being picked up. No point in keeping. Dronebogus (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted. --MF-W 13:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — xaosflux Talk 16:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Indecipherable, unviable proposal creator insists on keeping open after multiple attempts at closing; nominating per w:wp:IAR and w:wp:SNOW. Dronebogus (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

in User_talk:Dronebogus#you_have_closed_wikilawsuits Dronebogus has shown me a wrong sentence and i have fixed it. he has not shown me any other concrete incomprehensible piece of text from the proposal. --QDinar (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The whole proposal is incomprehensible. Dronebogus (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i cite myself from your talk page:

... there are english words, which should be comprehensible each itself. you should be able to show at least a one point in the text which is incomprehensible, like several words used together and the meaning formed by them is not acceptable, because it contradicts some well known ideas, facts, or some other place of the text.

you must had read it and now you say this. what the "whole" can mean in this context, while some parts of the text are comprehensible? i am almost sure that any normal human speech text is a binary tree. single morphemes are at branch ends. then some of them form pairs of morphemes. maybe by "whole" you mean top node of the text? most top is the title and body. but you probably do not mean that. subtitles are not mine text. let's look at the "Project description" or "Proposal" subsections' contents. let's look at the first, it is shorter. "open way to write declarations and track and upload documents for court publicly for topics that bother many people". it is "(open way) to (write declarations) and ((track and upload) documents) (for court) publicly (for topics that bother many people)". so, i started to find groupings of morphemes from the branches side, where they are not big. further to top it goes this way: "openway to (((writedeclarations and trackanduploaddocuments) forcourt) publicly) fortopicsthatbothermanypeople". (i simplified groups from previous step by joining the words). if to simplify this further, it is like "way to write for". it is "(way to write) for", not "way to (write for)", because, there is no such usual phrase "to write something for topics of something", but "a way for topics of something" is a usual phrase. so, top branching of the text is "(open way to write declarations and track and upload documents for court publicly) (for topics that bother many people)". this is what you did not understand? are one of these 2 branches not comprehensible for you?
--QDinar (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


As per my close, this is a TED talk by an SPA, not a proposal, and its topic is obviously covered by other projects. As it’s both malformed and unoriginal I think it can be deleted as invalid. Dronebogus (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted. --MF-W 13:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — xaosflux Talk 16:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

Lang name templates[edit]

Extended content

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

  • Delete all per nom. * Pppery * it has begun 15:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For the record, I continue to support deletion, and consider the entire concept of deprecating templates or keeping them to preserve page histories to be inherently counterproductive. * Pppery * it has begun 17:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep, to preserve histories. But we still should request a bot to replace their calls, I think. --18:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC) — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pols12 (talk)
  • Deprecate per nom and Pols12. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Keep but mark deprecated, better to save for historical investigations. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Imported templates[edit]

Mass of templates indiscriminately imported from Wikipedia that are out of scope on Meta. * Pppery * it has begun 13:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Templates used in more places than Wikipedia (Wikimedia Commons, Wikiversity, Wikispecies...), so global, not included in Meta-Wiki. Useful to explain categories and templates. BoldLuis (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be honest, I'm completely failing to understand what you are trying to say. These are clearly included in Meta-Wiki as global templates are currently, to my understanding, a pie-in-the-sky idea, not an actual thing. * Pppery * it has begun 14:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are not included in Meta-Wiki. BoldLuis (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Possible global usage is not relevant cause for creating any local template in this site. If global templates proposal will be realised, then will be another situation. Until this milestone all uncaused imports will be considered as clogging the common workspace. Kaganer (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Move to Wikitemplates.

Delete per 163 and Kaganer – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do you propose to move these to a project which doesn't even exist yet? Even ignoring that issue why would wikitemplates want a bunch of templates which aren't designed to be used on multiple projects, and why would they want a copy of the template from meta missing all the page history instead of the original template from the project that creating it? This suggestion is nonsensical. 11:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does, just not officially *yet*Ilovemydoodle (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you are suggesting that the admins should move this, a copy of a template from another project, to a proposed project that doesn't even exist? Are you trolling or are you genuinely this clueless? If the unofficial beta test of a project needs/wants these templates they can import them by themselves from the original project that created them. 16:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am NOT suggesting that the admins of this site do it, but to give the admins of that site the chance to do it (assuming they want to). – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the admins of that site wants these templates they can properly import them from the project that created them. These already exist on other projects and nothing will be lost by deleting them here (hence why this discussion is called "Imported templates"). The admins of meta do not have the technical ability or right to force another wiki that isn't even part of the WMF to take these. Do you understand this or do I need to explain the same thing to you again? 17:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got it. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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


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

Wikipedia wordmarks[edit]

Unused. Redundant to File:Wikipedia wordmark.svg. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 12:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment Comment For context, these files were used by template (which has been archived for historical interest) to display the wordmark independently of the pixel resolution. On most wiki pages, MediaWiki takes care of scaling these images automatically, but the former project portals were unusual for containing raw HTML code that the servers served up verbatim on et al. Special:WhatLinksHere and the file usage lists don't track references in raw HTML. That said, at this point, I don't think there's any way left to preview the portal code as there used to be, so I don't think it would be a reason to keep these images. I'm not sure if there are other hidden uses aside from the old portals. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 05:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

Requests for undeletion[edit]

Submit your undeletion request at the bottom of this section.


I think it would be a status quo to return -- prefix for signatures, since that is the style that is added by the signature button on the tooltip. It would make sense for two parts of the interface to work the same way. People who dislike the -- can still just add four tildes manually, just like they either do that or remove the double-hyphen-minus when signing in plain wikicode editor. --Base (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This had been brought up at Special:PermaLink/20426322#Proposal_to_enable_DiscussionTools_on_Meta-Wiki; this will lead to anyone with seperaters in the lead of their custom sig getting extra unwanted dashes here, forcing them to edit every entry - that sounds like a net-loss. I'm not sure what you mean about being used to manually removing dashes in the plaintext editor, I don't see any extra characters inserted that way. I also don't think we should have different behavior here only for people who have their interface language set to plain English. — xaosflux Talk 18:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 I refer to the the signature button in the 2010 wikitext editor button. Upon click on it it inserts the tildes preceded with "--". Those people, that dislike the "--" have to remove the "--" manually (unless they use some script that modifies the button's behaviour. This is why I say that it should be the same way across the interface. Since that button does that, it has been doing that for as long as I am around, so should the automatic signature. --Base (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As to the last point, I have just checked it on ukwiki, where w:uk:MediaWiki:Discussiontools-signature-prefix does exist, when I have changed my interface language to non-default there English, the double hyphen-minus was still being inserted via the reply tool. --Base (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The default way to sign in the plain text editor has always been "use 4 tildes", which far preceded that button; the default plaintext editor also has the 4 tilde insert button in the "Insertable wiki markup" section - so it is a bit inconsistent. Thank you for the update that this ignores translations. — xaosflux Talk 10:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"use 4 tildes" is pretty much what I recommend to people that want to use custom stuff, while on the other hand keeping the way the interface acts consistent. --Base (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Comment Might have worth to write it as a gadget instead of directly adding back that function? Such ideas to just restore one local message may likely to be failed as like put mw.toolbar back. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]