Meta:Requests for deletion

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from WM:RFU)
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)
  • My take on these has always been that a real person on that IP has been warned for something. With the more systematic forms of vandalism (extreme POV, spamming) that physical person may reappear on another IP. There is then not a necessity to warn that person again - they have been warned. Those warnings are traceable to the previous IP (in cases of systematic spam). Delete the talkpage and it is nearly impossible, even for admins, to find the warning back. Archive them makes it easier (best solution), or blank them (so they appear at least blue in range searches) is a good second choice. The warning may for the new user on the IP indeed not be actual, but outright deletion is just one of the solutions to that. —Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 15:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I'd agree with some sort of archiving or blanking as well too, if that's doable. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2019 (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)

Monthly goings-on[edit]

Goings-on/March 2004, April 2004 and May 2004 are already listed in Goings-on/2004. The same happens with Goings-on/02-2005 (see Goings-on/2015). Why maintain these monthly going-on pages when they've been already “copied” into their respective annual pages? It can be seen in Category:Goings-on that every other goings-on have been issued yearly. Eduardogobi (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Eduardogobi: If they are exact replications, then convert them to anchored redirects. No value in deleting long-existing pages, and redirects are cheap.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


Status:    Not done
  • Please delete User:Norcap AS because of username too similar other site.

User:Norcap_AS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Norcap AS (talk)

@Norcap AS: I see no page to be deleted. If you are referring to user accounts, they are not deleted. If you wish it renamed, please see Special:GlobalRenameRequest  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


  • Created by sock of global locked user User:Allthingsgo. CSD rejected twice by Billinghurst and Xaosflux. My rationale of deletion is spurious proposal, cannot be carried out anyway as it's a sock of globally locked user proposal. As well per general DENY.First time doing this hope that I done all the paperwork correctly --Cohaf (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Digital media use and mental health[edit]

Contested speedy by page creator User:E.3. Originally speedy by User:Leaderboard for out of scope. The creator unilaterally changed CSD to RFD without filing here. Procedural filing on behalf.--Cohaf (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  • @E.3:Let's discuss here rather than my talkpage. No comment on scope here for me. I abstain from any comments.--Cohaf (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for help from @Leaderboard: and @Cohaf:. The reason I consider it might be scope is because I have made several pages on several language projects - and wiki English currently considers this top importance for Anthropology and Sociology. However some pages are completely incomprehensible and I am just trying to get multilingual support to fix them at best. The pages are

Serbian French I consider is fine because we had a big discussion. Does that make sense? E.3 (talk) 08:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I've said this on my talk page, but it appears as if you want to get your article translated. That's not the purpose of meta if that's what you're looking for. Leaderboard (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh. I read this policy right here and thought thats exactly how you do it? How to request a translation[edit]If it doesn't exist yet, create the page you want to be translated here on Meta-Wiki. What have I misunderstood? Thanks for your help again --E.3 (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

X mark.svg moved to user namespace and a translation can be sought from there.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I think importing the history is needed to preserve attribution. Leaderboard (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
It is a copy of an article that isn't permanently going to live here, if you want to label it to point back to its origin, then go for it. The history is not pertinent to its userspaceness.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I've tried to attribute back to english wiki in my userspace. Thanks for your help, let me know if i've done it wrong. I'm just trying to translate thats it, gonna work on vietnamese for a bit. E.3 (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


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

Template:Open proxy[edit]

{{Open proxy}}
Unused, outdated, misleading, obsolete.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:16, 15 January 2019 (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.