Meta:Requests for deletion/Archives/2011

Deleted

Articles

Www.wikinews.org portal/My username

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Daniel (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Www.wikinews.org template/My username (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Edited by multiple anons and "My username" is too ambiguous to find out who created or would want to create these pages. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Global sysops/hi/विकि समुच्चय

The following discussion is closed: Deleted Changed link to main template which I removed the "language" (ie: English) on the wikiset and changed the links. We can now use Global sysops/wiki set for all languages. fr33kman 15:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Duplicated of Global sysops/wiki set. One only paragraph translated. Looks useless. -- Dferg ☎ talk 22:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to remove the English text altogether from Global sysops/wiki set and just link to it from all language versions. The list is pretty self-explanatory anyway. Jafeluv 18:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  Done fr33kman 15:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Българска уикипедиа

The following discussion is closed.

Information about the principles of the Bulgarian Wikipedia, which are the same elsewhere. Trijnstel 18:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the reason of the request: is the page a duplicate? Nemo 21:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
No, it's not a duplicate - it's more or less because of no meaningful content. I don't see the value of this page. Trijnstel 18:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Page is just a joke from an user. For speedy. --WizardOfOz talk 19:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. -Barras 20:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

WIKI projet CRM

The following discussion is closed.

French page. What is it? Possibly a promotional page. Nemo 19:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Mislocated page, most likely. Only edit by that IP, and none of the organizational units are ones we use. ("secteur et par pôle" for instance, doesn't show up on the wikimedia.fr site.) Kylu 19:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree that this is not meant for meta, but it would be nice if one of the WM France people could confirm. Tentative delete. Courcelles 21:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete as out of scope. -- Dferg ☎ talk 15:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete per dferg. I have nevertheless left a message to a member of WM France to be sure this content is useless for them. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleted by Matanya -- Quentinv57 (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC).

Wikimedia Saudi Arabia

The following discussion is closed.

Empty page for more than 2 years. --Meno25 09:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete No content and no recent activity either. Theo10011 14:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with Theo. mickit 14:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete --WizardOfOz talk 16:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete Trijnstel 16:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete Also, Wikimedia chapters and User:JF Lepage/Bac à sable should be updated to either delink or completely remove the link. The Helpful One 16:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Dferg ☎ talk 13:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • delete No prejudice to recreation if someone wants to work on a proposal, but as it is, the page is an illusion of something that doesn't exist. Courcelles 00:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete per Courcelles. Unlike it is said on the page, apparently there's no discussion and that page was abandoned. In case of need, it can be restored. Some might want to delete also "Category:Wikimedia Saudi Arabia", that lists only this page.” Teles (Talk @ C S) 05:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I endorse the deletion of the category too (as it will be empty when the page is deleted). The Helpful One 09:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. –BruTe talk 08:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  Done Category:Wikimedia Saudi Arabia has been deleted too -- Quentinv57 (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Delinked the 2 pages as well, as per my first comment. The Helpful One 14:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Content tagged for transfer to Mediawiki wiki (#1)

The following discussion is closed: Mainspace ones deleted. I intend to delete the userspace ones after a reasonable amount of time has passed, and I will notify the authors of this decision. Courcelles 04:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the first batch of content tagged (either directly via template or indirectly in a tagged category) for transfer to mediawiki wiki. This content is unwanted at mw wiki, generally due to the age making it irrelevant or usable in the current state, and if the authors cared about them they would have been done by now. Peachey88 (Contribs) (Wikipedia: User) (Wikipedia: Talk) 13:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

  • delete as nominator. Peachey88 (Contribs) (Wikipedia: User) (Wikipedia: Talk) 13:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete all the mainspace pages for sure. Delete ones in user space after we've made sure to notify the authors (at least one or two I spot are still pretty active) and asked them to move it to mw.org. ^demon 13:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

please delete my userpage subpage

please delete User:Ayda/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js. I don't need it anymore. Thanks --Ayda 11:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  Done, deleted by Savh. Trijnstel 11:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Stewards/elections 2011/statements/190.234.1.221IP

The following discussion is closed.

Stewards/elections 2011/statements/190.234.1.221IP (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Obvious, I guess... Plain nonsense, as many others from this category that we may want to deep review as well. -- Dferg ☎ talk 16:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

  • delete them all in this cat. Totally unneeded and useless. -Barras 17:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No content, no reason to keep. Jafeluv 11:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Sounds like Criteria for speedy deletion "G7" or "M1" ... a×pdeHello! 15:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
    •   Done Speedy per G1 -- Avi 04:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
    • All similar pages that had nothing added to them outside the original templates have also been deleted. -- Avi 04:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Other requests

The following discussion is closed.

Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Other requests (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
There's no consensus (yet) for splitting WM:RFH (see talk page). This subpage should therefore be deleted, until consensus is reached. Mathonius 19:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

  Comment: Does the author disagree with deletion? Maybe he can be contacted and, if he is agreed, the page can be deleted with no further discussion.” Teles (T @ L C S) 20:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  Comment: I've contacted the creator, following your suggestion, but he does not respond. Mathonius 01:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Marco Aurelio 09:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete until consensus has been reached, especially since the page is duplicating discussions being held on the main page. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. No consensus for creation.” Teles (T @ L C S) 18:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat after Merge of content there or to Requests for comment (or their respective archives/subpages). The base page is already the place for "other" miscellaneous requests, and is the place for requesting action by a functionary, not for initiating discussion to seek community consensus. This usage also seems prone to duplicative forum shopping. ~ Ningauble 18:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
    I see no reason to redirect to Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat as this page is not currently linked to any page. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per consensus. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Kinky Wikimedians

The following discussion is closed: deleted out of scope for meta a×pdeHello! 17:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I stumbled on Kinky Wikimedians. It's a short list, with little context, of Wikimedians, that hasn't been updated since January 2006. It seems to me that userboxes have taken on this role, at least on English Wikipedia. Is this the sort of thing we should keep on Meta? I don't see any compelling reason to keep, but I am new to page deletion here, so I am interested to hear what others have to say. -Pete F 03:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: There are a great many lists of Wikimedians, and it doesn't appear that the inclusion policy covers this sort of thing. It might be worth considering this a little more generally. Surely there are worthwhile kinds of lists to have, but I would think that some (such as this one) serve no useful purpose, and are a potential source of drama. If we were to draw a line for inclusion, what is the best reason? Also, if anyone is interested, the reason I'm looking at these is because of an essay I've been working on: User:Peteforsyth/Essay: Lists of Wikimedians Comments welcome about the essay as well (but my talk page might be a more appropriate venue for those). -Pete F 03:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  •   Keep: it has some "members", it's not against the inclusion policy (belongs to Meta) and has never created any drama in 7 years except this deletion, so there's no reason to delete ("potential source of drama" is not a reason, as "potential vandalism" is not a reason for full protection of all pages). I don't see why userboxes should supersede all lists, and we have already somehow drawn a line for inclusion when we've decided to delete (only) the intrinsically controversial/attacking lists (especially political lists), see Meta:Requests_for_deletion/Archives/2006#List_of_Wikipedians_by_politics and neighbours. Nemo 12:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
    Comment: Nemo, thank you for the very helpful link -- glad to know there is some precedent to draw on here. Also, you're right -- I may have been letting my imagination run wild as far as "drama." So I've struck that part of my nomination. Still, I think some of the issues that were raised before for the narrower set of political lists may apply to these other lists. A couple quotes from those discussions:
    • "not related to any project's community-building"
    • "neither community-building nor relevant to any Wikimedia project"
    For a little context, I am not opposed to social aspects in Wikimedia projects, and in fact think that well-conceived social tools will help build a sense of camaraderie and shared purpose that will be very healthy to the projects. However, I don't think lists like this serve any effective purpose. (I do think there may be exceptions; for instance, even as a mostly-vegetarian, I respect that Antivegetarian Wikimedians was kept for its humor value in earlier discussions.) I suppose I mostly find this sort of thing cruft that distracts from the seriousness of our mission, without serving any useful purpose like building community. It may very well be that in 2005, when many of these lists seem to have originated, they did help a much smaller community build a sense of camaraderie; but if so, I think the pages would be better kept under an {{archive}} banner as a piece of our history, rather than in main space. I also wonder about the fact that, on Kinky Wikimedians, the first user is someone who was banned years ago. I don't know if there's a specific danger in that, but I hardly see the advantage, either. -Pete F 19:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete off topic and out of scope for Meta. P.S. it was created by a banned user. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete I really can't see what value this is bringing to Meta. Regardless of the subject, I don't think it really fits in with the goals of meta as "...the global community site for the Wikimedia Foundation's projects and related projects; from coordination and documentation to planning and analysis." It hasn't been updated in quite sometime and I do think that userboxes have met the match for a list like this - it's easier for me to find kinky Wikipedians on Wikipedia than it is here :) SarahStierch 20:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete why was this here in the first place? Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  Comment This was no list of wikimedians/wikipedians with a special ability or interest to help this project, therefore out of project scope for meta! a×pdeHello! 17:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Soviet Wikimedians

The following discussion is closed: Deleted by Barras on 25 November. Trijnstel 16:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The user created this list for his own needs, but there has never been any interest in this essay by other wikipedians. --David 13:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a KGB/ru

The following discussion is closed: Deleted by Anthere on 4 December. Trijnstel 17:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Created by a vandal, the target of this essay was to insult as many wikipedians as possible. --David 13:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Here is a translation link to English. [1] Need a little more time to read carefully. -Pete F 18:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

From a machine translation I don't see anything special nor any insult in this page. I'd like David to explain why he thinks that this essay insults someone and who is/feels insulted by it, otherwise I don't see any comprehensible reason for deletion ("created by a vandal" is not a reason, by the way). Comments by Meta users who speak Russian are needed before deleting. Nemo 09:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
So, please explain us (from the machine translation), why Meta should keep every bullshit written by any person. --David 23:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
That's not what Nemo was saying at all, is it? Could you please explain why you feel this essay is insulting? Jafeluv 00:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The essay certainly expresses a point of view, and based on the machine translation, I would say it is not a very articulate expression. But I am also failing to understand why this should be deleted. There are lots of essays here, some are higher quality than others. I don't see the need to delete this one. Perhaps if there were some clear standards for inclusion written up relating to essays, I might feel differently; but in the absence of clear standards, it seems OK to me. -Pete F 02:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete: Scrappy text, the second half of it is not connected to the first. This essay without humor and sense shall be vanished.Carn 12:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete per Carn. Although I don't think the original nomination captured any good reason to delete, I agree that the "essay" is poorly formed, presents an incomplete point of view without providing sufficient context. If it were a recent essay under development, that might be fine; but this has not been worked on since 2009. It may be that there is a kernel here that could be built upon, but in its present form -- and with no apparent reason to believe the essay will be improved -- I don't think it's of any use to Meta's readership. -Pete F 19:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Lisi-rafa:

The following discussion is closed: speedy deletion a×pdeHello! 22:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No meaningful content. What's the relevance/purpose of this page? Trijnstel 21:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete Agreed, also, the purpose of Uicchipèdie is unknown to me. The Helpful One 16:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Obvious case of speedy deletion ... processing! a×pdeHello! 21:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Templates

Template:Prettytable

The following discussion is closed: Deleted per comments. Deprecated template and thus unnecessary. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The "prettytable" style is deprectated, but the very reason for nominating this template for deletion is that making a template that just contains class="wikitable" just makes no sense to me. It had it's sense when the code to construct a table was this; but nowadays I think that the template has lost his usefulness. I've replaced with Dfergbot (talk · contribs · CA) all uses of the template (though at the time of posting this some of them still appear listed -- caché issues I think). -- Dferg ☎ talk 15:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Subst the remaining transclusion, then delete. The template may have been useful once, but now it seems totally unnecessary. Jafeluv 10:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Tts

The following discussion is closed.

Deleted. Unused templates, discussion is continuing for over 20 days. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:T pdc (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Template:If p2 is empty call p3 else call p4 (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Template:Template call2 (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Template:Lop (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Unused templates, looping back on themselves. Probably an old form of encoding the {{{1}}} and {{{2}}} variables into templates in early MediaWiki software. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 09:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I do not really understand what those templates really do. I'm tending to say delete here. -- Dferg ☎ talk 00:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Per Dferg. They're unused, and the creator said on their talk page that they're not particularly interested in keeping the templates. Jafeluv 08:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Election templates

The following discussion is closed.

I propose to delete the following templates. I believe that we should create templates when the same text has to be placed loads of times (ie.: {{done}} or {{not done}}). The following are, not only year-dependant, making them useless for the next election but are used one only time in Stewards/elections 2011-2. On the election commitee we can't expect more disqualified candidates because the disqualification is before the elections and they're already opened. And given the low number of candidates in this election (unlikely other years) manual listing would not overload. Nothing that we can't already easily do with a simple wikitable. -- Marco Aurelio 13:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The first one   Done per author request since it's no longer linked anywhere. The second one was deleted by Tanvir earlier. Jafeluv 08:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  •   Comment We'd change the whole election templates to have *one* template for all following elections, the only part that differs is the date! Move "2011-2" to a parameter in all templates to be filled and move those to an undependent root! a×pdeHello! 10:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Babelold

The following discussion is closed: migrated and deleted.

This template mimics the old babel format user language templates, which was used when Meta migrated to a unified user language template. This is no longer needed now that the #babel extension has been enabled. I propose migrating usages to {{#babel:}} and deleting the template. —Pathoschild 04:31:18, 01 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Migrate and delete. Nemo 16:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. For the migration of this template and Template:User language, we should use a bot. Can somebody help ? (I can do it by myself else). -- Quentinv57 (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
    I have a script that will perform the conversion and present me with a diff and preview. —Pathoschild 16:36:53, 02 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - Why even ask? This seems like basic maintenance. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, this looks like maintenance to me. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Migrated and deleted. —Pathoschild 04:42:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Sockpuppeteer

The following discussion is closed: Deleted. Jafeluv 11:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I know that some wikis like to glorify their vandals, but I don't see the need here at meta. I personally hate these templates - they serve no useful purpose. We should have better things to focus on than glorifying those who attempt to disrupt this project, in my opinion. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment: Your comment makes sense. However, it seems that there is a useful purpose, which may be especially important here on Meta, where many users who don't know one another or share a language interact: the ability to clearly and efficiently indicate that a user has violated an important behavioral code. Sockpuppeting is often a tool used in misleading users and evading behavioral sanctions. It seems important to have some way of remembering, and expressing to admins/users who are not familiar with a user's history, that a pattern has been established. Maybe there is a way to do it that is less blatant than this template, though; I don't know. -Pete F 15:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    I would say that meta's smaller size and lack of topic bans/behavioural sanctions would make this unnessesary, then. On enwiki, sockpuppetry is more of a problem and being able to quickly identify sockpuppets is important. Here, however, sockpuppetry is not a problem, and even when it is the block log is of more use than some template on the sockpuppet's userpages. When it comes to countervandalism, I personally prefer a policy of "revert, block, ignore" - all information on what accounts have been involved and why can be found in the block/checkuser log, and unless there is a huge need for a template like this, I'd prefer to not have it. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    Ajraddat, thanks for the explanation. This all makes sense. Since I have no experience dealing with sockpuppetry or related stuff here, I'll stay neutral on this, I'm sure people with more direct experience like yourself will make the right call. -Pete F 19:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  •   Neutral No pages link to this template, so I don't mind if it will be deleted or not (I don't use it). We also have {{Checkuserblock}} and that is used more often. Trijnstel 17:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with Trijnstel, there is also the same sockpuppet template here. I created this because for paying attention of administrators using this becuase if a person is caugt using multiple accounts to abuse here. On October 2011, when I was seeing the results for RfA on the English Wikipedia, I saw this log here that a person used multiple sock puppets to vote more than one in RfA votes, which means that the RfA candidate suceeds by next week. --Mohamed Aden Ighe 22:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • As CU I think I've only used a couple of times both {{sockpuppet}} and {{sockpuppeteer}}. Most of the time I (and we) do not use those templates. As for myself I'd say «delete», but if the meta community finds them useful I don't mind them to stay, either. Best regards. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 14:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Never used them as a CU myself here. Can be nuked. -Barras 19:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
    • That's probably because it was created on 15 November (and nominated for deletion on the same day!) by Katarighe. Trijnstel 19:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories

Category:In other languages templates

Nomination of Kronf with the following comment: "There is Category:Other languages templates." Trijnstel 19:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted by Savh. -- Dferg ☎ talk 08:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed: Deleted by Peteforsyth on 14 November. Trijnstel 17:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"Wikimedia in (year)" categories

Rationale: I've been doing a lot of category work here on meta. One thing I've found is that there are two category trees that seem redundant: "Wikimedia in xxxx" and simply "xxxx" for each year. Since everything on this wiki has something to do with Wikimedia by definition, I propose that we just recategorize everything in the "Wikimedia in…" tree, into the simpler "xxxx" tree. It's not a ton of content, but I thought I should check here before doing it. Any concerns? -Pete F 17:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Does everything here have to do with "Wikimedia" by definition? If so, then delete the one set of categories. But if it turns out we want to separate out, say, "Wikimedia" from the "Foundation" or something more specific like "Commons", then we might need them. I haven't been able to look at everything categorized yet to determine that. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Ottava, I think if somebody, some day, wants to make a further distinction within years (as you suggest), there's nothing wrong with that. But at the moment, I don't think there's any particular reason for the two trees; they don't reflect a meaningful distinction as far as I can tell. And there's not a tremendous number of pages in either. So, without prejudice toward future refinement if somebody feels the need, I think that just combining these ones makes the most sense right now. -Pete F 05:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, then it looks like basic consolidation of categories with redundant names, and since categories can't be moved, it is basic maintenance that you should probably be able to do without filing an RfD. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
As a note, I am basing it off of four clauses in the deletion policy for speedy deletion: [2] G4 Redundant, G7 Pages or media files clearly irrelevant (since they would be consolidated), M1 Trivial deletions, and ultimately M4 Categories empty. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Fine by me, I just wanted to get a second opinion first -- thanks for providing it. I've been doing so much recategorizing here lately, and it's odd to do so much structural work and get no feedback at all (at least coming from a Wikipedia context, where about 15 RfC's, an election, several straw polls, and a carefully negotiated sale of a healthy donkey would be required for the sort of stuff I've been doing :) Just wanted to check in, more than anything else, about how categorization is handled here. But it sounds like the stuff I'm doing is probably in line with current processes. -Pete F 17:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Fairfield Shipbuilding and Engineering Company

I've got too many window open at the same time. I created the page here at the place of commons. All my excuses. -- ChristianT 15:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

  Done. Trijnstel 15:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Images

File:Wikipedia World Logo7.doc

The following discussion is closed: Deleted

Is nowhere linked into. --Jusjih 17:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  • In trying to look at it, I get no image but I do get this warning: "Warning: This file type may contain malicious code. By executing it, your system may be compromised." Ottava Rima (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    It's not an image but an MS Word document with 2 alternative versions of File:Wikipedia World logo.png. Not sure where it was used -- maybe something related to the International logo contest? Jafeluv 18:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete I think - the only real reason for keeping it would be "historical" and it doesn't seem that important/interesting? --Herby talk thyme 18:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. –BruTe talk 10:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleted: orphan, doesn't contain anything more than the other Special:Contributions/Rosario (I've restored File:Logo without text.png, though), apparently was not added to the actual contest pages. Nemo 07:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia-logo-pi.png

The following discussion is closed.

Speedily deleted per {{NowCommons}}. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Has a duplicate on Commons, is relatively orphaned, and copyrighted by Wikimedia. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete, is now in commons. No need to have duplicated files on different projects. The one from commons is also avalaible for all projects, not just meta. -- Dferg ☎ talk 00:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. Shouldn't {{NowCommons}} be a speedy criterion? Jafeluv 08:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dferg. I believe this could be deleted without discussion. mickit 11:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Ford Foundation.png

The following discussion is closed.

Non-orphaned file with no license information and/or source. Trijnstel 13:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Wikimedia Foundation.png

The following discussion is closed: All uses of file replaced by svg version, file speedied. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 12:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Non-orphaned file with no license information and/or source. Trijnstel 13:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This one is (c) Wikimedia Foundation, all rights reserved. (See File:Wikimedia-logo.svg or File:Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg.) That said, the image is a scaled-down duplicate and probably unneeded in any case. Just replace it with the equivalent from Commons. Jafeluv 13:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Pertamina.png

The following discussion is closed: Deleted.

Non-orphaned file with no license information and/or source. Trijnstel 13:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

For SD. @ 1996 - 2011 PT Pertamina (Persero) Corporate Website --WizardOfOz talk 21:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete, copyvio. No fair use at meta. -- Dferg ☎ talk 18:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep or Move to Commons if only for the moment on Meta. There's no copyright that could be assigned to this image, since it does not meet the w:threshold of originality. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Logo doesn´t shows only text but also a graphical part which is coyrighted as told on the Partemina page. --WizardOfOz talk 06:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Vivanewslogo.png

The following discussion is closed: Deleted.

Non-orphaned file with no license information and/or source. Trijnstel 13:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

For SD. Copyright © 2011 PT. Visi Media Asia - News & Community Portal. --WizardOfOz talk 21:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete, copyvio. No fair use at meta. -- Dferg ☎ talk 18:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Traxfmjkt.png

The following discussion is closed: Deleted.

Non-orphaned file with no license information and/or source. Trijnstel 13:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

For SD. Copyright © 2011 Traxonsky. All Rights Reserved. Developed by arried.com. --WizardOfOz talk 21:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete, copyvio. No fair use at meta. -- Dferg ☎ talk 18:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair use images

The following discussion is closed.

Deleted by Fr33kman. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 09:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Meta does not have an exemption doctrine policy allowing fair use, and there seems to be no support for creating one. These images should be deleted since they're kept on Meta on an explicit claim of fair use. Jafeluv 07:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Fire -- Dferg ☎ talk 14:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete all, without an exemption doctrine we have no basis for hosting these. Courcelles 15:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete --WizardOfOz talk 19:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete, but for the last two please ask the uploaders to move them to Internal before (there's a category for such things). Nemo 19:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - copyrighted images QU TalkQu 20:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I have restored for now File:Accreditations presse WMF.jpg so that the original author has time to save it elsewhere.

Point is....that image is used and only used in our chapter annual report. That's part of a legal documentation regarding our organization. And that documentation was approved during a membership meeting. And until today served as a public reference of our annual activity. It is a bit embarrassing to remove part of an official document :(

Chapters are *required* to provide annual reports to the other wikimedia organizations, and the logical place to publish them is meta as long as chapters do not have a website. So, in the past, Wikimedia France reports were uploaded on meta. And yes, chapters reports often include non free images. Which are not welcome here. Go figure about the slightly funny situation we are confronted with.... publishing a budget under a free licence makes very little sense. LOL. And being asked to publish an annual report on a site which does not welcome them. Anyway, please give it a few days for the author to have the opportunity to save the image concerned. Then dump the image if you like.

Incidently... when I upload an image, I have only "no licence chosen" in terms of choice for licence publishing. Is that entirely normal ? Anthere 09:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Our MediaWiki:Licenses is blank. The dropdown licenses should be there in a manner similar to commons:mediawiki:Licenses. May I suggest we start a Meta:Licensing page to organize the various options? If you could provide examples of when Meta needs to host non-free images, it'd be of help in this. Kylu 12:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually that image could be placed under a free license by the uploader and the rest would IMHO be de minimis; Anthere, did you save the last two files (or at least File:Svm1.jpg) to Internal? Nemo 19:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I was tricky, I uploaded the pdf version of the entire report :) (the copyrighted image is hidden there, smallish. Shhhhh, do not repeat it, that's a secret). Otherwise, Nemo, to answer your question, yes, I saved the two files last week. It's somewhere on my computer now. Anthere
Made Meta:Licenses btw, feel free to add to the page. (Or, subtract, multiply, divide, whatever operation floats your boat. Let me know if you figure out how to XOR it with another page and come out with an intelligible result...) Kylu 20:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

File:Alineación.PNG

I, the author of this file, request its deletion. The bug is fixed and it ilustrates nothing. Thank you, -- Dferg 08:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

  Done -- Quentinv57 (talk) 08:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

File:Status iucn3.1 km.svg

The file is unlicenced, and is not used on any Meta pages. It appears to be a derivative work based on content at Commons:Category:IUCN Category diagrams, which does not have any clear relevance for Meta. ~ Ningauble 14:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

  Done as SD. Thanks --WizardOfOz talk 14:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Transferred to commons. Deleted locally. -- Marco Aurelio 20:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:BOKE sees.jpg

Non-free media: if this is indeed a still from the TV series American Candidate, then it's most likely copyrighted content, which cannot be released under a free license by someone other than the copyright holder. Mathonius 19:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

  • COMMENT by uploader: I made a video of myself which I submitted to American Candidate in an application. None of the video (of myself) that submitted was ever used in the series (like hundreds of other people who sent in video of themselves. I mention American Candidate because that was the reason the video was made. This image is a still frame from my own work. -- Proofreader77 19:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  Speedy deleted. File is available on commons, so no need to upload locally on meta, where it falls out of the project scope. Savhñ 19:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. I uploaded it here first by mistake. Then uploaded to commons. Thanks. Proofreader77 19:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Deleted locally. Transferred to commons. -- Marco Aurelio 20:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Saeed Marame Saran.jpg

Off-topic. Trijnstel 16:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Transferred to Commons. Jafeluv 22:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Deleted. Courcelles 06:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Scott-Schaefer.jpg

Off-topic. Trijnstel 16:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say delete. Images of productive contributors are generally accepted on Commons as {{Userpageimage}}, but this (along with Lexington-Development-Logo.png) seems more like autopromotion than anything else. Jafeluv 07:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Both files are without valid copyright tag! a×pdeHello! 11:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the license written on the logo image description page would count as {{attribution}} on Commons, although the logo might be ineligible for copyright in the first place. The bio image is less clear -- what they probably meant was {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} with an attribution requirement? Jafeluv 11:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - offtopic for meta. Orphaned. -- Marco Aurelio 20:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete, not relevant for meta. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above, offtopic for Meta. –BruTe talk 05:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Deleted by Courcelles

File:Lexington-Development-Logo.png

Separate entry for this file (mentioned above under deletion for File:Scott-Schaefer.jpg. Has no place on Meta as is a corporate logo unrelated to WMF or the projects. Purely promotional and copyrighted with a (dubious / unclear) copyright release QU TalkQu 21:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Off-topic for meta, unlicensed, unclear copyright status. -- Marco Aurelio 21:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Deleted Off-topic and promotional. Courcelles 15:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  • File deleted by Courcelles; closed as such. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Deleted by WizardOfOz per G7

File:FC Chkherimela.gif

Off-topic image for Meta. Trijnstel 22:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete - This looks like it could be speedied. It would belong in Commons or a Pedia (but has too much detail to be CC-SA). Doesn't even have copyright info. So many reasons to delete. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - Orphaned, copyright concerns, per above. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
G7'ed. Courcelles 23:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

File:PEMIKIRAN PENDIDIKAN AL-GHAZALI DALAM KITAB AYYH aL WALAD.pdf

Off-topic (pdf-file) for Meta. Trijnstel 14:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

  • SD for me, off topic, orphaned. --WizardOfOz talk 14:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Speedy - it looks like it was uploaded to the wrong project. Wikisource perhaps? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete, off topic for meta. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Speedily deleted. Courcelles 23:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

File:1.jpg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Copyright violation and out of scope. Trijnstel 20:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete, unused, out of scope. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Deleted Out of scope, no source, no licence. Courcelles 07:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

File:Pcm2.JPG

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Copyright violation and out of scope. Trijnstel 20:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Too simple for copyright. And additionally available under MIT free software license. I agree, out of scope. -- 77.184.146.157 22:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete, unused, out of scope. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Unused, out of scope, no source, no licence. a×pdeHello! 09:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

File:Stadtgymnasium Detmold NRW Germany.jpg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Off-topic for Meta; should probably be transfered to Commons. Trijnstel 13:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete, unused and out of scope. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete out of scope could/should be speedy had I seen it. --Herby talk thyme 14:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Transfer to Commons The image is of decent quality, and fairly encyclopedic. It may be of use to one of the other projects. Alpha Quadrant talk 04:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Transfer to Commons - good quality image. --Simone 13:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Deleted locally The uploader uploaded it on Commons [3] on 20 October. I'm going to delete the local copy under I3. Courcelles 17:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed: Deleted Aude 13:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

File:American Flag Military salute tattoo.jpg

Off-topic for Meta; should probably be transfered to Commons. Trijnstel 14:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Notified him at commons:User talk:Citizeninkstudios#m:File:American Flag Military salute tattoo.jpg. a×pdeHello! 14:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed: Deleted Aude 03:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Pgs crest.tiff

Off-topic for Meta; could be useful for Commons though imo. Trijnstel 22:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

We have a template {{move to Wikimedia Commons}} for these, you know. Or is there a reason why this one requires discussion? Jafeluv 23:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I didn't know about that template and it seems that it's not used for quite a while... Trijnstel 14:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Since there is no readily available information about the image's authorship, copyright status, or applicability to any Wikimedia project, doesn't it make more sense to simply delete rather than queueing it up for a move to Commons, where it may not be appropriate anyway? No objection to moving it if somebody sees the value and/or wants to spend the time on doing so, but in the absence of those, I vote Delete. -Pete F 19:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed: Deleted Pete F 08:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Airman-Web-Vsphere 01.gif

Possible copyright violation. Out of scope for Meta. Trijnstel 19:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete I have also now notified the uploader of this discussion: User talk:Alexandre.derksen -Pete F 19:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obviously out of scope (which is a speedy criterion, by the way, so I don't think these require discussion). Jafeluv 01:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed: Deleted Pete F 08:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Airman-Web VSphere 01.png

Possible copyright violation. Out of scope for Meta. Trijnstel 19:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete, see above. -Pete F 19:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

No seas pendejo (redirect)

The following discussion is closed: Deleted - We don't need such kinds of offensive redirects. -Barras 12:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to No seas estúpido (Spanish translation of Don't be a dick). Pendejo is a vulgar and despective term, estúpido is despective too but much more proporcionated & not vulgar. Since the redirect is unused & orphan & has an innapropiate title IMHO I'm bringing it here for discussion. Note: at eswiki we have Wikipedia:No seas estúpido, which follows the same naming as on meta. Thanks, --dferg ☎ talk 23:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Might want to include the English-language redirects don't be a cunt and don't be an asshole in the nomination. Jafeluv 00:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe. I'm not familiar with the term "cunt" (looks very vulgar IMHO). --dferg ☎ talk 02:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, delete. Regarding the other two redirects, keeping them will just create bad precedence for dealing with "don't be a fucker" etc. (and I don't really want to discuss all the different possible synonyms for "dick"). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Kept

Articles

Requests for new languages/Wikijunior Hungarian

The following discussion is closed: Not deleted - Please archive the page properly. There are several such requests archived instead of deleted. -Barras 12:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Invalid request; Wikijunior does not exist as a separate Wikimedia project wiki, so this request can never be fulfilled. This should be moved to the Hungarian Wikibooks and deleted. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

  • It would be nicer to explain this to the proposer, close and archive (there are lots of invalid requests in the archives, if I remember correctly). --Nemo 09:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I've left him a message at the Hungarian Wikipedia. Regards, :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't know how to perform such archiving myself. Usually when I crawl through old requests I see that a langcom member has done it and none of them so far have I seen closed by normal editors. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Then poke a langcom member (Patho, Shanel, etc.) -Barras 16:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Meta:A prepaus Meta

The following discussion is closed.

There just doesn't seem to be enough content to figure out what this translation really means, or what it looks to. At best, it appears to be the main page, and should be moved to the appropriate namespace, because the English Main Page is in the mainspace. At worst, it should be deleted as having little to no history. I'm bringing it here for clarification. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It's the Catalan Occitan? version of Meta:About. Maybe someone who knows the language could expand the translation. Jafeluv 07:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose valid if undeveloped Meta page --Herby talk thyme 10:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep & develop if possible. -- Dferg ☎ talk 23:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Kept.Jusjih 14:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Link madness

The following discussion is closed.

A sort of stream-of-consciousness essay. What it's used for here on meta or elsewhere, I can't really tell. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose: it's not an essay, rather the (on scope) description of a known pattern (as the category suggests), although a bit humourous. I've slighty improved it. --Nemo 10:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Nemo. Please get to know Meta before making deletion nominations. --Herby talk thyme 10:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Kept. Jafeluv 18:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Global sysops/Excluded wikis

The following discussion is closed: Kept and marked as historical. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 16:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This page looks redundant to Global sysops/wiki set. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

  Comment: There's actually quite a lot more information on the page than in Global sysops/wiki set, namely all the rationales why individual wikis have been deemed "small" or "large" for the purposes of the global sysop proposal. Maybe it would be worth saving for historical purposes. The raw list itself is redundant, of course. Jafeluv 11:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Redundant pages

The following discussion is closed.

Toolserver/news: page no longer updated. --Trevj 13:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete / Mark historical -- Dferg 14:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Marked historical (it already was, actually). --Nemo 18:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

சமயவாரியாக விக்கிபீடியர்கள்

The following discussion is closed: Kept per consensus. Nemo 12:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Nominated by Sodabottle: "This page is irrelevant to Wikimedia. It lists Tamil wikimedians by religion. (No idea who started this and why this was allowed to grow)." Mathonius 01:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment Jafeluv has pointed out to me that a similar English page exists. I was under the impression that such lists weren't allowed and only user page categories are allowed. If such lists are fine per Meta policy i have no objection to the page existing (or if it should be merged to the English page, i can do it once the discussion is closed).--Sodabottle 04:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep, per similar page (or delete them both). I personally don't see any harm in keeping both of them. If editors want to identify by that, why not? Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep: as the English one, if it survived the deletion of all "political lists" and didn't cause controversy, there's no reason to delete. Nemo 09:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  •   Comment Noone should be allowed to add someone else but him-/herself!! a×pdeHello! 13:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

P-cactions change proposal

The following discussion is closed: Kept, no consensus for deletion in over one month. Nemo 09:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Dormant proposal from 2005 that belongs on Bugzilla anyway, if someone feels that the idea is still relevant. fetchcomms 02:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete, per the fact that it is very outdated and never took off in any way. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep: it's within inclusion policy, why delete it? Nemo 09:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Голосования — зло

The following discussion is closed: Kept. Nemo 14:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It duplicates the RuWiki-essay ВП:НЕДЕМОКРАТИЯ. --David 13:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. The fact that ru.wikipedia hosts a similar essay a reason for deletion. Wikipedia is not the only Wikimedia project, and general essays not directly related to any specific project are better hosted at Meta where they can serve more than just one project. Furthermore the page is not even a duplicate. ru:ВП:НЕДЕМОКРАТИЯ is a policy page of ru.wikipedia, not an essay, and it contains just one paragraph whereas the Meta essay has a lot more content. Jafeluv 16:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Did you read this essay? --David 17:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC) If yes, please explain its correlation with this policy and this much more useful essay. --David 17:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Or let us say so: if you manage to explain me why the Meta must keep older variants of essays of diverse language projects, I will even agree with you. --David 17:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I haven't read the Russian version, but I'm aware of the essay -- I wrote the Finnish translation of it. Russian Wikipedia is of course welcome to host essays that are better related to issues in that project, but there's no need to delete stuff from here just because some project has their own local version. Meta is a multilingual project, and essays hosted here should be available in many languages. We certainly should not host any old variants of local projects' essays, but my opinion is that essays with a general or cross-wiki scope are more useful here where it can serve more people than just the editors of one project. Jafeluv 17:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Our deletion process is very accommodating to help users who don't understand what Meta is, otherwise this request should be closed for invalid and contradictory stated reason. Nemo 09:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The essay doesn't talk about Meta, it's all about Russian Wiki, and it was written in time when there had been many discussions on whether the voting must be or not. The community has made its choice and it does use voting in some cases - for instance, by electing admins, crats and others. Thus, this essey reflects a very specific view of some (not many) Russian Wikipedians, which (I'm talking about their point of view) then became antiquated and this topic has almost never arisen since then on the forums. --84.176.138.58 02:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC) David
Good, so there's no problem. No reason to delete, translation within inclusion policy: kept. Nemo 14:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


Fundraising committee/2006

I'm not proposing outright deletion of the page, but deletion of its content in order to repurpose as an overview/disambiguation page.

After a bit of review, what I found is that this page reflects an effort to start a new page for the 2007 fundraiser, based on this page: Fundraising committee/2006/Main page.

Bastique created the page; and then, about a week later, Mav copied the previous year's information there. Since then, little activity has taken place; the only substantial changes to the content were the addition of two usernames to the committee. Here is a diff of all activity since then.

It seems to me that the page Fundraising committee/2006 should provide an overview and history of what kinds of committees existed in what year. If there were any meaningful content here, I'd propose that it be moved to Fundraising committee/2007/Main page or similar. But as it is, I think it's better to just blank the page and start from scratch.

Just hoping to get a little feedback on that idea before I forge ahead. -Pete F 16:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any other fundraising committee has ever existed under any name and this was the official name of the committee now disbanded by the WMF board: I don't see what else could be put under this title. Nemo 20:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Nemo, here's my understanding: there was a fundraising committee (so named) in 2006, and a committee in 2010 that, though it didn't formally have a name, might just as well have been called the "fundraising committee". In 2007, what I see at fundraising committee appears to indicate that there was an early effort to establish such a committee, but that it didn't go anywhere.
It seems to me that the page fundraising committee should ideally tell that story (serving as an overview or a disambiguation page). If the board formally disbanded the committee as you state, a link to that resolution would be useful. I don't have any problem keeping this page at a different name if you truly feel there is something useful there; it just seemed to me that there wasn't anything worth preserving. I'd be happy to modify my request though to: move fundraising committee to Fundraising committee/2007/Main page, and then I'll summarize the points from this discussion at fundraising committee. How's that? -Pete F 19:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I disagree, the 2010 committee isn't in any way comparable to a committee established by the board and wasn't even called "fundraising committee" (for a reason). Besides, moving the page with all subpages would cause quite a lot of disruption. Nemo 08:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Nemo, I was unaware that there was a formal committee that was formed and then disbanded by the board. Thank you for clarifying that here and with the banner at the top of Fundraising committee, and especially for the link to the relevant board resolution. I don't really see how the formal name of the committee is important; and I still think that in the long run, it would be more useful to have a descriptive page as the landing page, and link from there to something archival for those who want to dig deeper. But, the page is improved with your banner, and it's not so urgent, so I'm willing to let it drop.
One other observation: apart from the Meta wiki (and the Wikimedia office wiki), every MediaWiki-based site I've worked on has concluded that sub-pages are, in most cases, a poor organizational tool, and have used namespaces and categorization instead. I think your point about the disruption of a page move reflects some of the problems of sub-pages. I'm not looking to resolve that in this discussion, but just letting you know that in general, I tend to think sub-pages are not the best way to go.
Anyway, I'm happy to consider this discussion resolved -- thanks again for talking it through and for adding the banner, it's helped me get a better feel for how things work on meta. -Pete F 00:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The page is kept. Nemo 20:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania 2013 bids/Lima

Sadly, Lima doesn't have an active community (nor a chapter or even a projected one). The user who proposed Lima as a possible location doesn't have any edits neither on eswiki nor on enwiki. Therefore, this isn't a serious proposal, Andreasmperu 09:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this page should be kept. There is no formal bid submission process announced yet; in the absence of that, all this page represents is someone's desire to see a bid developed. Pros for keeping the page: (1) It's desirable for people to try to organize locally around Wikimedia; supporting that kind of behavior is, I believe, one of the most important roles Meta Wiki serves. (2) How do we know there is no Lima community? It's possible that there are two or three Wikimedians who know each other in Lima, but have not been public enough in their communication yet that we know of their existence. This could easily form the kernel of a successful Wikimania bid either in 2013 or later. What are the "cons"? I don't see any. Once there is a formal process, I could imagine the Wikimania Jury at a certain time endorsing some bids, calling them "finalists," or similar. Even at that time, I'm not sure why a page would need to be deleted -- it might simply be removed from the list of formal bids. I think we should encourage people to use Meta Wiki to begin projects, even if their hope of success is minimal; if people are not given space to organize, then organization will never happen. -Pete F 01:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The page is kept. Nemo 20:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Templates

The following discussion is closed.
Kept with the recommendation to make generic fr33kman 01:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Global sysops-status

Has lost its spirit when the proposal passed. Blanked since that date. Looks useless to me right now. I have delinked it from the pages it was contained. -- Dferg ☎ talk 20:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably we should've used {{Proposed}} instead, and should use such in the future. No real historic reason for its continued survival. Kylu 15:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
This has quite a few translations. Maybe it should become a generic {{vote open}} template? It might be useful for future proposals, steward elections, and so forth. —Pathoschild 17:47:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Pathoschild. Just make the discussion link a parameter and the template is pretty generic already. It would be a shame to have to translate all those languages again if something like this is needed in the future. Jafeluv 13:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Babel

The following discussion is closed: marked as deprecated.

This template has now been replaced by the new {{#babel}} extension. —Pathoschild 16:10:00, 01 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete. Nemo 16:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I replaced the template on user pages (they were only 2), so I'm now okay for deletion too. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - Why even ask? This seems like basic maintenance. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, general maintenance. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I marked it as deprecated for eventual deletion, since some new users will continue using it before the new format spreads crosswiki. They'll see a little "please use {{#babel:...}}" message under their user boxes (see example). —Pathoschild 16:25:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Help

The following discussion is closed: Closed, as suggested by opening user, because it's considered useful. Nemo 09:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... I can't think on any use of this template, which is a simple green text. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 12:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the request: did you notice that it's a demo template, used on Help:Advanced_templates#Variable_templates? Nemo 14:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes but, excuse my ignorance, I still see no usefulness for it. Do we really need a template for that?. I came across it trying to find another template ({{helpme}}). Moreover if the template itself is for showing how {{NAMESPACE}} works, why it's absent on the template? If it's really useful to have it then please close this :-) Best, —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 18:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Unless Patrick confirms that it's not needed on the page, it is needed. Nemo 09:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep, as it's used as an example on the link given by Nemo. Trijnstel 16:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:User language

The following discussion is closed: Thehelpfulone has migrated all users to the new system with a variation of Pathoschild's script; the template stays as a placeholder for categories until we decide what to do with them on Talk:Babel extension. Nemo 20:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This template was implemented in 2008 to unify the older {{user xx}} templates into a single template. It has now been replaced by the new {{#babel}} extension. I propose migrating usages to {{#babel:}} and deleting the template. —Pathoschild 16:14:32, 02 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete, see Template:Babel and Template:Babelold -- Quentinv57 (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
There are over 2500 pages linking to this template... -Barras 16:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I have a script that will perform the conversion and present me with a diff and preview. It will still take a while, but it's not prohibitive. —Pathoschild 16:30:13, 02 October 2011 (UTC)
2,243 transclusions at present.  Hazard-SJ  ±  21:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Once Pathoschild moves things over (or someone else does), this should be deleted. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Migrate and delete, doing everything is needed. Thank you Pathoschild! Nemo 16:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete once migrated, per above. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Migrate and delete per above.  Hazard-SJ  ±  21:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Migrate and delete per above --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 23:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Categories

Images

The following discussion is closed.

Licence changed, can be moved to commons now. --WizardOfOz talk 19:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-commercial images uploaded by Hashar

All are licensed under cc-by-nc-sa-2.0, but the noncommercial provision is not compatible with Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 or the GFDL. The first one is used at Wikimedia servers network proposal. Others are unorphaned images that appear orphaned. I wonder if "fair use" is reasonable.

Jusjih 23:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  • As files stand now with the non-comercial provisions I have to say delete. Fair use is not enabled on meta. If the author wants to change its license so that they comply with the provisions of our terms of use then keep. -- Dferg ☎ talk 21:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • keep for now - has anyone asked hashar about these? Let's ask him... he's on IRC regularly and I don't mind asking next time I see him on (~tomorrow). If he's not willing to change the license, then I say delete. Aude 04:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
    Sent Hashar an email to let him know about these images. Will see what he wants to do with them. Aude 14:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


Hello!

User:Jusjih contacted me about those images [4]. I am not sure why they appear as orphaned, probably because the page referring to them got updated meanwhile. I firmly believe the images should be kept for historical purposes. When in decades someone will want to write an history of the early days, it might prove useful. As for the license issue, I am not sure why you care about us having NC materials on meta which is not really the content we want to deliver to the world. Anyway, I will be happy to dual license them under Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 and GFDL. I just do not know which template to use :b

Ashar Voultoiz 17:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have unorphaned the images by adding them to a gallery :b
You can use {{CC-by-sa-3.0}} template. --WizardOfOz talk 17:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Also {{GFDL-self}}. Jafeluv 18:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
DONE!!! Files are now dual licensed :) Thanks for the template links! Ashar Voultoiz 19:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. --WizardOfOz talk 19:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Wiki-he.jpg

The following discussion is closed: Kept: GFDL-presumed and used in a discussion. Nemo 21:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Non-orphaned file with no license information and/or source. Trijnstel 13:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This one is from 2003, so {{GFDL-presumed}} applies (although interestingly the template has been tagged as being "phased out" since creation). Jafeluv 14:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

File:TopTabs.png

Non-orphaned file with no license information and/or source. Trijnstel 13:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Dferg ☎ talk 18:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: it's more or less just a screenshot of GPL software; the derivative should be copyleft, I suppose. Necessary to understand a "discussion", but not an important one. Nemo 21:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • CommentLooks like a Wikimedia screenshot to me, so we could relicense it as GFDL under that, as those are the tabs used in the Vector skin. Courcelles 21:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept as free screenshot. Nemo 13:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Undeleted

Articles

WikiOldTimeSolutions

WikiOldTimeSolutions (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Please undelete http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiOldTimeSolutions , because it is refered by http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proposals_for_new_projects --Sebastien.Binet 23:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment the page only contains links to non-existent pages. Deletion falls under WM:CSD#G1. -- Dferg ☎ talk 13:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
    So give it more time to develop, rather than deleting it immediately... Sebastien, I recommend writing about each of your ideas on that page, rather than making separate wiki pages for them. Until the page grows too large, at least. SJ talk | translate  
  • Undeleted for now. Please expand the page so it is clearer what you have in mind. SJ talk | translate   11:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Templates

Categories

Images

Miscellaneous

The following discussion is closed.

RadioFamily.de

Hi, I´m wondering why "RadioFamily.de" was deleted. What is the exact reason? GT The preceding unsigned comment was added by Radiofamily (talk • contribs) 10:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

You mean de:Radiofamily.de? It looks like it was deleted due to promotional content, but you would have to ask at the German Wikipedia. This page is for undeletions on the Meta-Wiki only. Jafeluv 14:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Please go here for a deletion review of the articles in the German Wikipedia. -Barras 16:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:

User:Manning Bartlett

User:Manning Bartlett - Was deleted on the grounds of RTV, despite the fact I never exercised that right, here or on any other site. Please undelete talk page as well. Manning 08:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

  Done -- Dferg ☎ talk 08:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)