Meta:Requests for deletion

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from WM:RFD)
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
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose oldest comment is older than 180 days.


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

Template:Help translate/Content/zh-hans[edit]

Might be a duplication of Template:Help translate/Content/zh as [1] is probably enough. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

What's the difference between zh and zh-hans? If none, why do we still support two language codes? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: In my memory those zh-hans/zh-hant... pages were created due to phab:T51898, where disabled language codes can also be translated via a bypass way. Now as gerrit:306959 merged, we could just focus on translating pages to one /zh on Meta/Wikidata/ etc. So those zh-* pages are not required anymore. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I see the tabs above in /zh. How users can translate in those variants without /hans/hant/classical subpages? Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
phab:T150083& phab:T106131. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: To be stringent, there's early comments from Deryckchan:
  1. The issue at hand is that the we want to encourage zh variant translations to be done as a single zh translation plus Chinese conversion tool. But the interface is really clumsy. I think we're going down the right route, and there are few details to iron out.
  2. this is disabled on purpose to reduce the number of redundant zh- translations. The solution here should be that
  1. Users whose interface language is zh-* (rather than zh) should jump straight to the appropriate Chinese variant when they click on a page on which Chinese character and phrase conversion is enabled
  2. Fix any specific issues on Chinese conversion extension, not by re-enabling direct translations to zh- variants on multilingual Wikimedia projects.

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


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


We don't have any local ban policy, so what is a ban is unclear. Propose to redirect it to Template:Indefblocked I also propose to remove the "banned" option in Template:Indefblocked. For global ban we already have {{WMF-legal banned user}} and {{Community banned user}}.--GZWDer (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Redirect makes sense. As far as the "banned" option in {{Indefblocked}} goes, I'm substantially indifferent, but do have one question. My understanding is that in some circumstances, a community-banned user is still allowed to edit in a limited way on Meta, if for no other reason than to appeal the community ban. So I wonder if that option should stay, in order to call out a situation when a community-banned user is not even allowed that limited editing on Meta. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC) Clearly not necessary to worry about that. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
There's no banning policy alike w:WP:BAN here, yes. That doesn't mean that an indefblocked user can return with another account and we'll treat that as abuse of multiple accounts. I am indiferent as long as we don't start making things bureaucratic and difficult to understand. If any user is blocked on meta indefinitely for any reason, the user is not allowed to come back in general with any account. Obviously common sense apply and if the user was blocked because of their username, then if he returns with a valid username I'd say there's no violation here. —MarcoAurelio 10:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Merge with {{Indefblocked}}, we don't actually "ban" a user locally, it's enough to either indef block or global ban. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete, you can't be "banned from Meta-Wiki". --MF-W 13:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Better to let the whole template redirect, then, especially since redirects are cheap. That will remind anyone who actually has a thought about placing a "banned" template on someone's page that it's not a correct thing to do. (But then the banned option can be removed.) StevenJ81 (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I think that would tempt people to a wrong use of "banned" as a synonym for "blocked". --MF-W 23:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The term "banned" is already being misused.--GZWDer (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I do not speak English so I hope you all can excuse me for that horrible mistake. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete. I also think that deleting the template is better in order to avoid confusion, and also removing the "banned" option from the template {{Indefblocked}}.--Syum90 (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

  • substitute and delete; to avoid red-links. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment looking at how it is being used, I would recommend that we leave it as is. This template utilises "indefblock" and it is being used supplementary to either community or WMF-legal notice to indicate to users that the account should not be un(b)locked without further consultation. Each user with this template has been banned by one of the two processes, so it is the case that a ban has been applied.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
billinghurst It's funny you say that and within the same few minutes then protect the user page of a user who's ban was a bullying tactic by James Alexander of the WMF to show the community what happens when editors stand up to admin abuse. Reguyla was routinely bullied, trolled and harassed by admins and functionaries including on this very project right in front of you and you all didn't lift a should be ashamed of yourselves. Reguyla's ban wasn't done by the WMF, everyone knows it was just Jamesofur/James Alexanders that did it. What better way to show that the term "banned" doesn't have any value here. 2601:5CC:101:2EF2:3D95:A817:5B32:32B0 18:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure, whatever alternate view of reality you wish to put on it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


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


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

3 unused personal photographs[edit]

These three photographs of users from 2012 are unused images

as they are personal shots, they are not particularly in scope for Commons, and should be deleted (not that I have any particular issue with them migrating to Commons).  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Requests for undeletion[edit]

Submit your undeletion request at the bottom of this section.