Meta:Requests for deletion

(Redirected from Meta:RFD)
Requests and proposals Requests for deletion Archives (current)→
Shortcut:
WM:RFD

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

Participate:

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 3 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 180 days.

PagesEdit

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

User:KisnaakEdit

Attack page of multiple users after local block. Violation of Meta:Inclusion policy, speedy deletion under G9. Kromsipol (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Base: Hello. The text of the page seems to be written in Ukranian. Could you please read it and advice? Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
It is in Russian. Kisnaak is actually blocked on Ukrainian Wikipedia until he removes that userpage content as per Arbcom decision: uk:ВП:ПЗВ155#Рішення. So it is actually that the block is for the attacks on this page, not the other way round (except for the last section). I do agree that it probably should be deleted, it does contain a few personal attacks as well as attacks on the Ukrainian Wikipedia community as a whole, but I would abstain myself: Kisnaak and I were both members of the previous Arbcom tenure, and I have somewhat tense relations with them. --Base (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Will reverting to this good version work. If they revert the attacks back, will suggest we restrain their ability to edit that page. I hope the closing admin will also give them a note not to add anymore attacks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@Camouflaged Mirage: The page contains no personal insults and therefore I don't think it violates the rules or anyone's rights, nor do I think it attacks anyone. You can verify this with using any online translator, such as Google-Translator. In addition, this deletion request looks like a personal attack and persecution. --Kisnaak (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@Kisnaak Hello, I am taking the word from Base for the attacks. Having ran parts of it through the Google translate, for the parts I did ran through it involves commentary about ukwiki. Even if there is no attack, such commentary is out of scope for here and also unacceptable for global userpage. It might be acceptable (if trimmed down and all attacks removed - i.e. no mention about personal users / arbs etc) on an user subpage on meta, but certainly not user page. If you want to mention users, the only place is suitable is a RFC. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@Camouflaged Mirage: I am aware of who I am having this discussion with. I am inclined to continue to believe that my user page does not contain attacks. And now, until we're waiting for react of CU or other admins, we are forced to continue this discussion. As far as I know, criticism has not been made inappropriate by the rules of the Meta. In my opinion, likewise what I have written falls well within the wording of «essay». And yes, there are a several other personal pages made similar to mine that criticize other Wikipedias, but there is no claim to them - so I consider this statement from a «newly registered member» to be persecution. If the closing admin points out specific points that violate the rules of the Meta — I'm willing to remove them, but it seems absurd to me to remove the page completely and return it to, as you put it, the «good version». The problems, what I mentioned in my user page, cannot be solved without the participation of the Ukrainian Wikipedia community with help of RFC. Because this community unfortunately does not care about what is going on inside the local Arbitration committee. Kisnaak (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@Kisnaak The CU request you had filed was declined as non-actionable. I will ask you not to cast undue accusations to the nominator. Given there isn't a problem with the nomination, the least I could accept is to move the problematic revisions to an user-subpage failing which I will go with delete per Base / nom. Please keep meta scope here and specifically the point on meta isn't an appeal court - take local issues to local forums, not here. Reiterating the only acceptable place for such here is an RFC. In addition, the existence / non - existence of other user having such problematic pages isn't Germaine to this - this discussion is about your problematic userpage alone, and well if there are other such pages, feel free to list it here (with the caveat of good faith nomination and not POINTy ones though). I won't close this as I feel sufficiently involved. I hope you will understand my point and do clarify if necessary. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
And the author of the request for deletion registered his account specifically for make this request. I have already make my request for checkusers about this. --Kisnaak (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
The page consists of criticism of the Ukrainian Wikipedia, but does not contain insults or personal attacks regarding its members. And the place where I really made an inappropriate comment about another user after a dialogue with him was removed from the page. --Kisnaak (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@Kisnaak + Here: Criticism on a Wikipedia version isn't acceptable on global userpage, this we fairly uphold for all users here. Hope you get it. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
This page contains only insults of the Ukrainian Wikipedia, individual users in particular and all users in general. The fact that these insults have been here for so long is a nonsense, and the fact that it has been discussed for so long is completely absurd. Ping administrators who understand russian @Base, Amire80, 1234qwer1234qwer4, Kaganer, and Vermont:. What you read on this user page does not violate meta:Inclusion policy? Kromsipol (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
(RU) Я прочел. Похожие тексты с похожей критикой в адрес сообщества русской Википедии я уже ранее тоже встречал. Наверное, в такой критике (и в адрес украинского, и в адрес русского разделов) есть своё рациональное зерно. И там и там есть проблемы, с которыми локальное сообщество не справляется или справляется не очень хорошо. Но в данном случае я вынужден присоединиться к @Camouflaged Mirage: глобальная страница участника - это неподходящее место для подобных критических эссе. Единственное подходящее место и единственная подходящая процедура для публикации критических замечаний в адрес целого сообщества какого-то раздела или отдельных участников (когда эти замечания невозможно разместить в самом этом разделе) - это RFC.
Такой запрос можно сделать и на русском, но, естественно, форму изложения придется всё равно скорректировать. Для RFC недостаточно декларировать, что вас кто-то обидел и вы в чем-то разочаровались. Придется сосредоточиться на описании конкретных проблем (с примерами), показать, что сообщество с ними не справляется и, вероятно, сделать какие-то предложения, которые другие участники могли бы обсуждать.
----
(EN) I've read. Similar texts with similar criticism about community of the Russian Wikipedia, I also met earlier. Probably, in such criticism (both in the address of the both Ukrainian and Russian editions) there is a rational grain. In the both communities are problems that the local community does not cope with or does not cope very well with. But in this case, I have to support @Camouflaged Mirage: a global userpage is not the right place for such critical essays. The only appropriate place and the only appropriate procedure for posting criticisms of an entire wiki-community or individual wikimedians (when they cannot be placed in this wiki-edition itself) is RFC.
Such a request can also be made in Russian, but, of course, the form of presentation will still have to be improved. It is not enough for the RFC to declare that someone offended you and that you are disappointed in some way. We will have to focus on describing specific problems (with examples), show that the community is not coping with them, and probably make some suggestions that other participants could discuss. Kaganer (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Kaganer. While criticism of projects can be in scope of Meta as part of discussions (though unsubstantiated insults are usually removed there too), this userpage at the very least does not respect Global user pages#Content. I suggest reverting it to the previous state as per Camouflaged Mirage; not sure if further action (such as revision deletion) would be required. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
16:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Looks like this user has specifically registered only to make a protest nomination for deletion. SummerKrut (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@SummerKrut The status of the nominator is irrelevant, unless of course the CU can find something, where the page i question did indeed exceeds the scope of meta userpage. Hence, the nomination is valid. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Wow, I've never thought that a user can be fooled so easily. SummerKrut (talk) 07:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@SummerKrut Proper commentary will be appreciated, but your comment isn't helpful or relevant in the first place. Given the declined CU, there is no reason to doubt the nominator and such commentary against the nominator without refuting the allegations will not be helpful. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete and tagged RFD. Translating the content via Google shows heavy criticism with questionable civility.--Jusjih (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Deleted versions since 2021-08-03 as false vanishing and unacceptable use of global user page.--Jusjih (talk) 12:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jusjih: Do you think it's adequate and in accordance with the rules, that you first spoke out for deleting the page and then deleted it yourself? You don't think it's a conflict of interest? I would prefer to wait for an uninvolved administrator --Kisnaak (talk) 12:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
@Jusjih: So? --Kisnaak (talk) 11:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Kromsipol on 8 May 2022 first spoke out for deleting the page, so I do not feel any conflict of interest while talking so late. My deletion is per Global user pages#Content cited by 1234qwer1234qwer4 on 8 June 2022. If any other uninvolved administrator thinks otherwise, I will consider.--Jusjih (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

TemplatesEdit

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

Lang name templatesEdit

Extended content

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

  • Delete all per nom. * Pppery * it has begun 15:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
  • 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)

Global:Template pseudo-namespaceEdit

Out of scope per precedent at Meta:Requests_for_deletion/Archives/2021#Pages in Category:GlobalWiki test wiki pages * Pppery * it has begun 14:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Within scope in Global-Wiki, there's consensus for this Global-Wiki proposal. Domain names: meta.wikimedia.org . A lot of this was also inclided in the wishlists:

To include Global features included in the Community Wishlist Surveys:

BoldLuis (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  • None of this is relevant as long as global templates are still pie-in-the-sky. Kaganer's argument below is just as applicable here. Note that I did not object to the existence of pages associated with mw:Multilingual Templates and Modules, since that project has an actual workable implementation (even though it later broke), where as this seems to be "let's build some stuff now and hope it's useful later." * Pppery * it has begun 19:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Delete even IF such a wiki was created, this should still be deleted as it would exist on that wiki, rather than as a entirely useless pseudo-namespace on a unrelated wiki. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete, out of project scope per the previous discussion. I don't see the use of a bunch of templates that have been copied from other projects without attribution in a pseudo-namespace, e.g. Global:Template:Warning is just W:Template:Warning with the doc template name changed. If this project ever is created templates can be properly imported into that project (complete with history for attribution). 192.76.8.74 21:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Closing as delete. — xaosflux Talk 14:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
    Actually I was about to vote keep on Category:Global templates but apparently forgot to do so. It didn't quite fit the description as applied to the rest of the pages anyway, but can I just recreate it or should this follow some formal process? ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
    00:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
    @1234qwer1234qwer4 well I suppose it depends: why do we need it at all? For a category: Is there a primary page about the topic? Global templates is an off-project redirect. What type of pages would go in said category here? (As there are not any actual "global templates"). The prior category was bereft of any useful information, making it a subcategory of Category:Templates. If there is no main topic, and no pages to categorize in to a category - there isn't really a good reason to maintain it. — xaosflux Talk 01:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
    You have just removed it from the pages it was used on: Special:Diff/23845309, Special:Diff/23845310, Special:Diff/23845311. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
    01:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
    I have no objection to a recreation of this category. I suspect the reason I nominated it was that I interpreted it as a category intended to contain "Global:Template:Foo" pages that were deleted here. That said, I think a better name for the category you are trying to create would be "proposals for global templates", to clarify it's about proposals rather than templates themselves. * Pppery * it has begun 01:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
    @1234qwer1234qwer4 yes, but you didn't really answer my questions. None of those are a good primary topic page for "Category:Global templates". One might be for a new "Category:Global-Wiki" - maybe. Proposals to start two different new projects, and a essay looking page don't seem that related. If a new project that may host "Global templates" (along with possibly other things) does get created, they probably should be categorized on that project. Without more information, I don't think there is actually any need for this right now. — xaosflux Talk 16:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Imported templatesEdit

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

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)
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)
They are not included in Meta-Wiki. BoldLuis (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
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)
Move to Wikitemplates.

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

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. 163.1.15.238 11:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
It does, just not officially *yet*Ilovemydoodle (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
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. 163.1.15.238 16:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
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)
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? 163.1.15.238 17:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Got it. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not useful on this project, meta is not a test wiki, no point importing templates in preparation for a project which may or may not exist. 192.76.8.74 21:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    I agree, simple and compelling point. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • {{Category see also}} seems generally useful; I've been using it on other wikis. I wonder why it isn't used here... ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
    19:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
    Because {{see also}} could serve the same purpose? * Pppery * it has begun 15:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Template:Permanently protectedEdit

Only one legitimate use. People can figure out that a page is protected without needing a template to remind them. * Pppery * it has begun 18:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Conditional keep/edit make it into a top-icon.Ilovemydoodle (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Template:PP-template already exists as a top icon. * Pppery * it has begun 02:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@Pppery: {{PP-template}} has no indefinite/permanent indicator. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 04:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@Ilovemydoodle Yes it does. If applied to a permanently protected page the rollover text automatically changes to say that the page is permanently protected. 163.1.15.238 11:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
But, {{PP-template}} provides no way to have a topicon for a permanently protected page. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Merge instead? If the icon purpose is the only potential keep reason from you then I would rather suggest to keep just one icon template for such padlock icons, and technically delete all others. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
SupportIlovemydoodle (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Merge into one template for all protection options, including the option to choose if it should be an ambox, topicon, or both. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete as an unnecessary and hardly used template. We already have a selection of top icon templates for tagging protected pages, there is no need to tag these twice. The instructions on how to use an edit request are also unnecessary - if you attempt to edit a protected template the edit notice already contains instructions and a wizzard to guide the editor through submitting an edit request. 163.1.15.238 11:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Note I am currently in the process of merging this template into {{PP-template}}, please do not close this until I am done merging. Thanks, –Ilovemydoodle (talk) 05:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I've reverted that merge, which no one other that you asked for and seems like unnecessary feature creep to me. * Pppery * it has begun 14:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
@Pppery: What do you think of this? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
This is still inherently a solution in search of a problem. People's arguments on Commons have no relevance to Meta. * Pppery * it has begun 22:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
That doesn't make the argument any worse. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I am still working on making a (proper) merge on test2wiki. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: I am almost done, and this discussion is still active, so can you please leave this open. Thanks. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree with PPpery and would strongly oppose a merge here. Template:Permanently protected is useless and redundant to the existing protection templates, the message it contains doesn't add anything useful to the existing protection templates, and it is completely unnecessary bloat to add a template used on one page to a module used on thousands. 192.76.8.74 14:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
There is a significant difference between "permanent" and "indefinite", see this comment. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
@Ilovemydoodle Why on earth is a message on another project about the technical distinction between "permanent" and "indefinite" relevant to my response? How does that refute any of the points I made about this being pointless, barley used template bloat that allows you to repeat essentially the same message on a page twice? 192.76.8.74 21:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  1. Who cares if it's on another project if it's still a good argument.
  2. It is referring to this template on this wiki.
  3. None of it matters any more since the user who made that comment later retracted it.
Ilovemydoodle (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Are you trolling or are you genuinely this clueless? It's not a "good argument" because it is completely irrelevant to the point I am making. Why is repeating two copies of the essentially the same message on the same page useful functionality? Why is it necessary to have the same information presented in both a banner and a top icon? Why is the banner useful to editors, and not just clutter? Why is it useful to add functionality that is used on one page to a module used on thousands? 192.76.8.74 21:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
It is still a demo, it is NOT a finished version. Please stop responding as I have stoped participating per your request. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Also, the ability to create a banner is not a new feature, it is present in the current version and is, in fact, the current name of the template. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
I know that the template can produce banners, again that's not the point I'm making. There is no point having a top icon with rollover text that says "this template has been fully protected permanently" another top icon that says "this template has been permanently protected" and a banner which says "this template has been protected permanently" all at the same time - it is just pointless clutter. There is no point having three slightly different copies of the same message on the same page - it doesn't add anything useful. This template is basically unused and it would be innapropriate template bloat to merge it into a heavily used template. I don't see the argument about your attempted merge being a demo - a bad idea is a bad idea regardless of the completeness of the implementation. 192.76.8.74 22:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
This has a corresponding Category:Protected indefinitely, which might need to be considered together with this nomination. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
10:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Looks unrelated; that's populated by Module:Protection banner * Pppery * it has begun 14:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
@1234qwer1234qwer4: Do you support merging? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 07:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
DMacks also makes a good point in this comment. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
@DMacks: Courtesy ping. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete and not merge. Whether it's protected is important to know at a glance...that's why we have the padlock icons at all. Whether it's permanent or not (and how is "permanent" different from "a very long definite end"?) is not so important to readers or editors. Too much info in the icon makes it less immediately recognizable (i.e., the purpose of an icon) IMO. And it's one click away if anyone actually cares. DMacks (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    @DMacks: There would not be an over-complicated or multi-function icon, instead there would be two simple icons: one for the protection level and one representing that it would be permanent. See an early WIP demo here. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 19:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
@Glrx: Courtesy ping. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — xaosflux Talk 15:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Template:Title2Edit

Unused; appears to have only been intended to be used in context with Wikimedia Indonesia, according to which it is categorised. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
19:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

CategoriesEdit

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

Duplicate catsEdit

Seems to be redundant to Category:Javanese Language Wikipedia Revitalization Project 2012: Welcome to the activity report of Javanese Language Wikipedia Revitalization Project 2012-2013. The project itself in Javanese is called "Papat Limpad" or in English Fantastic Four (Javanese Language Wikipedia Revitalization Project 2012-2013/Activities). I suggest deleting (or redirecting) these and keeping the one named in line with the pages it contains. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
19:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

FilesEdit

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

RedirectsEdit

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

Requests for undeletionEdit

Submit your undeletion request at the bottom of this section.