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 requests for page deletion. For requests for speedy deletion from global sysops or stewards, see Steward requests/Speedy deletions. 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

Participate:

This box: view · talk · edit

Pages[edit]

Submit your deletion request at the bottom of this section.

CNBanner:ChangeToU2014 v1-close/qqq[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept. While I'm not a translation admin, the explanation of Verdy p looks reliable. Trijnsteltalk 12:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Err, I'm not sure what the purpose of this message, but I doubt it would help me translate. Perhaps it's a user justifying his translation into "ta" language a certain way, in which case it could probably be kept somewhere else. But I don't know what it's supposed to do here... TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The "qqq" is the easiest place to talk about individual translation items, it gives hints to translators as well as initial authors aout ambiguities of their initial terms. We can't easily use talk pages of translation units for each language.
So I see no reason to delete this; as this does not hurt at all. The "qqq" pseudo-code is useful and appropriate to keep a track of common translation issues, in any language.
Even if we prefer putting at top of these "qqq" subpages the comments about the source (English) message explaining what it means, how and where it is used, and how to translate it; nothing prohibit adding other comments related for other non-English target languages, notably when they explain why some choices were made by translators (we need to keep these useful traces). ! verdy_p (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Useless, IP was translating into ja, "neko" means cat in Japanese. This will not help anyone to translate, but may confused others. PiRSquared17 (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Keep - new version is acceptable and will help translators. PiRSquared17 (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
    Is it okay to have messages in languages other than English in /qqq pages? --Glaisher [talk] 06:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
    Even though I technically "nominated" this page for deletion, I'm really unsure what to do with it. I would probably agree to some extent that questions about the validity of a translation in a language other than English should be left to other translators to interpret (provided they can read the language) but I'm wondering if it's not better off a the Translators' noticeboard or something similar. Placing it in documentation space just seems kind of... odd. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
    Glaisher qqq pages was supposed to be notification that needed for translation, if and any notification is needed for certain kind of language it's fine to leave /qqq in many languages as possible to notify the translator about things they need to know when translating. Example when some words regarding laws about certain countries is not allowed to be translated because it going to change the exact meaning (kind of related to De minimis). It is important to leave the specific message for notifications.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 00:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
    It may not help much, but I doubt it will hurt. Maybe ask on translators' noticeboard or Meta talk:Babylon. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • DeletePer PiRsquared. That was cute by the way.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 12:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC) It's fixed, should be fine now.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 10:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per PiRSquared17 --Glaisher [talk] 13:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Closure of Kurdish 2 Wikipedia[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Trijnsteltalk 12:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

This redirect is probably taking up space for a future second proposal for closure request enacted against Kurdish Wikipedia should the need ever arise, which I hope not. Previous proposal for closure was at Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Kurdish Wikipedia. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: I fixed the only two links to point to Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Kurdish Wikipedia in case this is deleted. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
A correct new request would be named "Closure of Kurdish Wikipedia 2". --MF-W 22:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps, but then regardless it should be recreated at a later time to point to the new request, shouldn't it? There is no need for this particular redirect to exist anywhere at all. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Wikimedia Commons[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept, per TeleComNasSprVen. Also: talk redirects are usually redundant, while that's not the case for main redirects. Trijnsteltalk 12:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

What's the idea of deleting a talk redirect while keeping the main redirection? If different admins arrive at opposite decisions something with the deletion rules might be unclear. My preference would be (1) delete both redirects as bogus, (2) keep both redirects for consistency, (3) keep as is, i.e., bogus+inconsistent, nobody really cares. –Be..anyone (talk) 06:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

As I'm assuming this is a request for deletion proper, I've moved your comments up a few sections. I don't agree with the deletion of this redirect, but I've already fixed the appropriate links to point to the target title instead. As noted by others, this particular discussion is linked to from a few off-wiki places such as Bugzilla tickets and comments, which generally cannot be edited after they've been posted, so I think this redirect should remain for the benefit of those still reviewing the Bugzilla tickets. (For example, bugzilla:4676 and bugzilla:61431.) TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense. Maybe the rule should be as long as "A" redirects to "B", and "talk A" to "talk B" as it should, leave the "talk A" redirect alone.Be..anyone (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Calendrier des imports GPS T1 - 2012[edit]

This page was created in 2011 by an anonymous user. Its purpose is unknown, but seems to be unrelated to Wikimedia, and it may have been meant for another wiki. Since it is not clear what kind of "GPS" or "imports" are being referred to, this page only creates confusion. If anyone knows what it means, please tell us. BTW. I tagged this page as "looking useless" just over a year ago. Nobody has commented since. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - Does not appear to be relevant or needed. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 23:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - Visibly it was intended to be created on the OpenStreetMap wiki and the user confused MetaWiki and fif not kow the wiki site for OSM. I wuld have transfered the page to the OSM wiki before deletion, however the current content does not even contain enough relevant data or the OSM Wiki and I won't endorse it for the OSM project itself as it has never been updated for any actual use and there's visibly nobody interested and nothing indicating that and OSM user will endorse it (additionally there's no way to conact the submitter to ask him what to do). verdy_p (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Templates[edit]

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

Quote templates[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept as long as the transclusions aren't fixed so still in use as of now. Trijnsteltalk 12:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

These offer redundant functionality to the already existing template at Template:Cquote, and they have been very little used so their passing will not be missed. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you please fix all transclusions to use the new template, or perhaps just redirect to the new one? PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Trijnstel, the second template Template:Quote2 does not appear to be in use judging from a quick Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Quote2 report, so could that one be deleted? Or alternatively redirected to the other template Template:Rquote, which currently shows use in the Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Rquote report? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

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


None currently

Images[edit]

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

All files in Category:Unfree Wikimania bid media files[edit]

Copyright violations. Meta-Wiki does not allow unfree content. Per wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy and the result of a previous request for deletion on fair use files. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Can't they just be speedily deleted per WM:CSD#G5 or WM:CSD#I1? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
If not, just delete them. Files like this shouldn't be on Meta, as the project doesn't have an EDP. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
What's an EDP? Is it like an NDA or more like BBQ? Kaldari (talk) 07:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
An exemption doctrine policy QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC) .
  • Please notify every uploader prior to any deletion. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I've come to discussion because one of the files I uploaded as part of WM2013's bid is being nominated for deletion. My first point would be that this deletion request is effectively trying to overturn a convention which has been on Meta for years - working documents of Wikimedia events, which don't fit Commons' licensing criteria, are uploaded to Meta locally. So it isn't a deletion discussion that we need - a policy decision at Meta:Babel must precede this deletion. My second point is that, what do we do with future Wikimedia events which require inline quotation of non-CC-BY-SA-compatible media for logistical reasons? Deryck C. 15:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Notice of this discussion has been given to mail:wikimania-l [1] and chapters-l (private mailing list for Wikimedia chapters). Deryck C. 16:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that Meta needs an EDP; but I don't think that policy discussion should be used as reason to delete images in active use - it is simply a reason to set up an EDP as soon as there is an obvious need for one. As Nathan points out below, not being able to host documents that are used on other projects is contrary to the purpose of having Meta in the first place. As long as media posted here are acceptable on any of our projects they should be acceptable here in the same context; to enable coordination Meta should have the least restrictive of all wikimedia-project EDPs. SJ talk  04:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    • There has been never a convention to host copyrighted files at Meta, simply a "couldn't care less" and lazy actitude about them on that area and many others. Per the bunch of discussions we already had on this topic in the past, no one is really interested in mantaining multimedia files as Stefan2 points out. Less talk and more actions, please. If you are really interested on setting a EDP for Meta that's fine; but I'd like to see a decent proposal. Because everyone that wants to keep this (currently) copyright violations hosted here simply opposes the deletion with groundless arguments but does nothing else, such as not proposing a draft EDP, for example. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The answer seems pretty straightforward; Meta is a site, not a project. It's a place for cross coordination between projects, not a project itself, and therefore isn't subject to the licensing resolution. The result that virtually all Wikimania or chapter related documents would be deleted is absurd on its face, so let's find a way to avoid that instead of speedy deleting files that are in current critical use. Nathan T 16:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Meta is a project as every other is. Meta is subject to the WMF resolutions unless there's an explicit exemption on the resolution itself. Those files are copyright violations and should be erased completly. Chapters should feel free to create their own sites (WMF provides wikis for them) to upload their documents if they want to, as some of them already do. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
MarcoAurelio, I find your use of the phrase "copyright violations" disturbing. That the files are not CC-BY-SA compatible (in violation of current Meta policy) doesn't mean they're violations of copyright. As far as I understand, all the files in the category are used with permission or fall within fair use (which is acceptable by law regardless of project policy). Deryck C. 22:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Home page of Meta: Welcome to Meta-Wiki, the global community site for the Wikimedia projects and the Wikimedia movement in general. Meta-Wiki's discussions range from coordination and documentation to planning and analysis of future Wikimedia activities.
Like Nathan wrote, meta is not a wikimedia project, it's a coordination site, per definition file host on meta should be the one that do not belong to commons.--Charles Andrès (WMCH) 15:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The words "project" and "site" are not mutually exclusive. For example, Wikipedia is a site, but it is also a project. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I think what we're really trying to achieve with these discussions is very simply the tidying up of all media files hosted on Meta. Files that can be moved to Wikimedia Commons should be moved to Commons and then deleted from Meta (as is standard practice when you move a file to Commons). Any other files should either be properly licensed (now I see work has started on an exemption doctrine policy) and sourced, or deleted. Giving uploaders a reasonable time frame (30 days?) to provide source and licensing information once the EDP is in place, after which remaining files should be deleted seems reasonable to me. In the mean time we should work on getting an EDP for Meta and where possible start the transfer of CC-BY-SA and similar licensed images from Meta to Commons. Thoughts? Thehelpfulone 23:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Is there consensus for or against this yet? Any progress? Currently, we have all files in this category in the RfD category. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    Pictogram-voting-question.svg Progress report? PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • If the files have been specifically created as a specific component of the bid for hosting Wikimania, then it would seem that they are provided to the Wikimania bid committee as records and such they should be retained as records for archival purposes. I would see that the letters have been provided in that context and should be retained, they clearly have valid historical perspective. If we have a policy/procedure that did not consider such record retention then it is clearly flawed and should be updated to allow this to occur. If the files are supplemental to the bid, eg. they are stock items and not part of record, then we should consider their deletion. I note that where the winning bids have a requirement for these images, they should consider moving them to the corresponding wikimania in line with the appropriate copyright restrictions. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I think, whenever and however possible, as many of these files should be kept as we can for historical purposes. Even a bid that did not win has historic value to people working on Wikimania. The visuals that go with those bids - like the letters and hotel layouts - can be valuable. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 00:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment Comment I propose that this be closed as no consensus as an overarching proposal, and those who wish to propose individual files can do so. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Support closure. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Not possible: All projects are required to follow wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No discussion in the last few months. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

How can we move forward? I don't see consensus to delete, but it might be required. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
One way to move forward is to adopt an exemption doctrine policy and see if the files match that policy, but the discussion at Meta talk:Exemption doctrine policy has been stale since August. Without an exemption doctrine policy, I don't see how we can keep the files. File:Entrepreneurship index 2010.gif is probably below the threshold of originality. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I've tried taking a stab at establishing an official guideline myself, located at User:TeleComNasSprVen/sandbox. The notice at the top of the page Meta:Fair use says that in order to revive the proposal: "...you may use the talk page or start a discussion at Meta:Babel". However, the extant problems are that the talkpage for that proposed policy page is unwatched by many, thus the discussion there would simply become inactive again, and Meta:Babel has also become quite inactive recently, with not many people commenting there at all. If discussions would go stale so quickly like this, how can we come to a proper consensus conclusion about what to do with these images? Or how to properly implement a policy that is needed to satisfy Wikimedia's licensing resolutions, which are applicable to all Wikimedia wikis? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Naturally speaking, per the licensing resolution, discussions about the status of nonfree images default to delete rather than keep, contrary to what normally happens in discussions concerning other content. So please, do not close this discussion yet, we may still need these images. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This image for example looks like some sort of public theatre or auditorium. If it indeed was designed to be used as a public theatre, and not merely used only for the Wikimania conference in the Netherlands, it could qualify for moving to commons under Commons:Freedom of panorama#Netherlands. Only problem is deciding what license the original uploader Mwpnl releases the pictures under; unfortunately though he's been inactive since 2012. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The original uploader can only license the picture if he is the copyright holder. Image now tagged a "no source". Unfortunately, per the deletion policy, files with insufficient legal information can only be deleted if they are unused. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Wait @Stefan2: why'd you tag it as having no source? It's clearly indicated on the image description page as originating from Tuschinski theatre, and the license is marked "Copyrighted with all rights reserved". I'm not seeing the insufficient lack of legal information that you are talking about. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
The text "auditorium 2 of the Tuschinski theatre" only tells where the photograph was taken (auditorium 2 of the Tuschinski theatre) but not by whom (a visitor? the uploader? an employee?). --Stefan2 (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Then it'd technically be lacking authorship information, but then can't we assume it's Mwpnl who uploaded the picture? In any case, without an EDP looks like most of these are going to have to go regardless anyway. It's too bad no one has tried to take their own gander at it, or look to see what could be improved from the current language at Meta:Fair use. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
It currently doesn't say where he got it from. Maybe he took it himself, maybe he got it from the owner of the building.
Meta:Fair use does not seem to cover many of the files in this category. Meta:Exemption doctrine policy misses the condition in wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy which forbids replaceable content when it talks about "Reports, financial statements, letters, and other documents" as such documents are replaceable by a freely licensed summary of the documents written by someone else. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Progress report? I understand we should accept an EDP such as this proposal or this draft. Maybe Peteforsyth could assist here? Trijnsteltalk 12:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm flattered that you would think of me, but I have not given this much consideration since it came up for discussion before. I have just given the two links you (@Trijnstel:) provided; I am generally impressed, they both do a good job of laying out the relevant issues. I'm not sure how I can best help. It seems that the people who produced those two files might want to put together an RFC or similar? If any of them would like some feedback before publishing a formal RFC I would be happy to take a closer look. Also, I'm not sure why there are two separate proposals; from my quick read, it seems that the substance of the two is pretty similar, just with different formatting. It might be worthwhile for them to either settle on a single draft to propose, or else make it very clear how the proposals differ, and what is at stake in choosing one over the other. I will keep an eye on this page in the near future, but feel free to ping me again if I miss a comment. -Pete F (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I've outlined a very general approach toward putting these two draft policies up for community review and possible adoption, here: Meta talk:Exemption doctrine policy#General support Any feedback? -Pete F (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Requests for undeletion[edit]

Submit your undeletion request at the bottom of this section.


None currently