Meta:Requests for deletion/Archives/2021

Category:Extensions by theme and subcats

These categories are useless given that documentation about extensions is now stored on MediaWiki.org, not meta, and every extension that is in these categories would likely have been archived by now if it had been moved to MediaWiki.org. * Pppery * it has begun 16:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  Deleted --MF-W 22:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. —Hasley 21:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:Extensions by author and subcats

These have the same problem as Category:Extensions by theme (listed above), and none of the listed users have edited in years. * Pppery * it has begun 16:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  Deleted --MF-W 22:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Sgd. —Hasley 21:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:WRC tabs

Unused template. Translations were removed on July, 9th 2017. I don’t know about obsolete template policies. --Pols12 (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It's used in the userpage sandboxes. Can it just be userfied? María is no longer staff, but if I understand correctly it's from an alternate navigation system idea that she was designing, and it might potentially be useful to someone in the future. Thanks. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@Quiddity (WMF) If the result is userify, would you mind placing in your userspace? Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
If we keep it, it would probably be mainly to preserve old page versions, so, even if moved to user namespace, redirection should be kept. That’s why I rather keep it in its current location. However I would like it fix translation-marking appeal: should we restore translations (to preserve old page translation versions), or can I remove translate-tagging? --Pols12 (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Content: Removing the translate-tagging seems fine to me.
Location: I'd suggest userfying it to User:MCruz (WMF)/Sandbox/WRC tabs or similar, to keep it with the connected subpages. I imagine the only reason it wasn't initially drafted there, is that not everyone knows (or remembers) how to transclude non-template pages with the colon prefix! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Actually it was not a sandbox: this template was used on Wikimedia Resource Center page. So, if we move it without keeping redirection, old versions of this page will be broken. Pols12 (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying that. Then yes, let's just remove the translate-tagging. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
So I have proceed to this cleaning. Many thanks for your answers.
I think this request may be closed. -- Pols12 (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Speedy Kept as nominator withdrawn, no other opinions expressed that favor deletion. No prejudice to re-nominate should the situation changes. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Pseudo-Class/global.css

Due to user renaming, I cannot place the speedy deletion template in this page. Please delete it, Thanks. Pseudo Classes (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Pseudo Classes Done. Next time might want to tag the talkpage and we will delete the page. No need to list it here. Regards, Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
@Camouflaged Mirage: Thank you very much! I will do this next time. Pseudo Classes (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Wikipedia logos of uploaded by Guillôme

These logos were uploaded in 2003 by Guillôme. In February 2010 Anthere did tag them with the {{GFDL-presumed}} template as that was the license we used at the time. (See #1, #2 and #3). Ten years later, on February 2020, the uploader and presumed author removed those tags and replaced them with {{no source}} (See #4, #5 and #6). This Deletion Request is being filed to clarify their status and consider their deletion. If the uploader disputes themself the source of their uploads, I think that should be a valid reason to proceed with the deletion as it casts significant doubts on the legal status of the file (See Commons' precautionary principle). Note that it might also be that the uploader wants some information removed. In any case, without valid source/author/copyright tag those files cannot last on Meta. Uploader and Anthere are notified via Echo Notifications as well as talk page messages. Thank you, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Valid proposition. Anthere (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2021‎ (UTC)
@Guillôme One more ping for this issue, if you want the files to be deleted do let us know, we will be happy to delete for you. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, he's challenged the GFDL tags on his own uploads tagging them as unsourced. If the uploader now claims that even the source is dubious or non existent, I don't think these files can remain; so delete per my above nomination. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Deleted per consensus in this discussion. I think we have given enough time for uploader to air their views if they wished. I think there isn't a consensus to keep which means the files are deleted. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Authority control templates

These templates have been being unused since Evolution and evolvability imported the Lua version from Wikipedia in January. The corresponding Wikipedia templates have already been deleted in 2019. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, their deletion is fine by me. My understanding is that the {{Authority control}} template no needs them so they should be safe to delete. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Correct, the module integrates all of that. I checked all the proposed templates: they have no transclusions and the only backlink is this RFD. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Deleted - no opposition to deletion, consensus is clearly to delete. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

WikiGap Nigeria Online Challenge 2021

Since I have not received any answers from Kaizenify, I post here to ask community advice. That page seems to duplicate WikiGap Nigeria Online Challenge/2021, I think a redirection would be better for maintenance and to having a unique talk page. --Pols12 (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Pols12 If you aren't asking for deletion, I think there isn't a need to ask here, just en:WP:BOLDly redirecting seems alright. If they object, we can discuss then. I think this is acceptable on meta too. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
You’re right, this could be done (I just did it). However I still think this redirection is useless and could be deleted. Pols12 (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@Pols12 Well I think there can still be use of this redirect, and redirect is so called en:WP:CHEAP so no harm leaving this alone in my opinion. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
OK, no special need to remove. -- Pols12 (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Pages using invalid self-closed HTML tags

Category no longer populated by the software after gerrit:585519 * Pppery * it has begun 17:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Deleted. — xaosflux Talk 15:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux Talk 15:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Requests for new languages/Wikivoyage Japanese/ja

The following discussion is closed: Deleted

I don't see any reason why RFL pages need translation, anyway, this project is already existing. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete to stop this practice from spreading as having the translation splits the discussion.--Jusjih (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: 𝒬𝔔 20:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Chaton masqué

The following discussion is closed: Deleted

Hello, @Martin Urbanec: there's a cross-wiki bully writing vandalism on my secondary account. IP is 94.109.160.0/19 >> 94.109.99.14. Besides, could you please protect Chaton masqué's talk page? Best regards, - Bédévore (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Done by Billinghurst - thanks! Best regards, Bédévore (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: 𝒬𝔔 20:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Portal:Chapter & Thematic Org Applications

The following discussion is closed: Deleted

Not exactly sure how page deletion is done on Meta Wiki but this page was created by a new editor who also had userboxes stating they were an administrator and checkuser. I'm following their behavior on the English Wikipedia and noticed that they started editing here so I came here to review their contributions. I don't know of a purpose this page would serve. Liz (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@DNdubane (WMF): I see you've worked in this area, any reason this page is needed now? — xaosflux Talk 17:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Tegel. -- Pols12 (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: 𝒬𝔔 20:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Translation requests/Guidelines for future chapters/source

This is an outdated translation request, when there wasn’t Translate extension. I don’t know what to do with actual translations, but I think they can be deleted too; do you agree? --Pols12 (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Any reason it can't be marked "historical" or "archived" and leave it as is? Why does it has to be deleted? — regards, Revi 07:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
The only page which links to this page is Translation requests/Guidelines for future chapters/status which has no related page.
However, I have looked at some other old Translation requests, there seem to have several practises:
  1. target page was the /source page; when ready, it has been moved, so /source is now only a redirection.
  2. target page content is copied into /source page.
  3. target page was transcluded in /source, then it may have been updated to use Translate extension, so /source unexpectedly displays translate tags.
I don’t know what was the usual policy regarding translation requests. Very few pages include Template:Translation source: were the other ones deleted? Pols12 (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Keen to just mark it as historical/archived per -revi. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
So I tagged it with {{archive}}. I think this discussion may be closed. --Pols12 (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Page kept per above. — xaosflux Talk 14:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Quand le mouvement Wikimédia questionne le comment faire science

Plus all translations (subpages).

Imported from Wikiversity to use Translate tool (which was finally not used). It is still available on Wikiversity, and fully translated to English there. No page has linked to it on Meta. --Pols12 (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

If it's an exact duplicate of the Wikiversity one, then I think it can be deleted. Leaderboard (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes That's OK for me and Sorry about forfoted to ask it my self... Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 20:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  Done per the author's request. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Ajraddatz, can you process |its subpages too, please? --Pols12 (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Sure, all deleted. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Sandbox/Info/styles.css

Done. Speedy deleted. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Link Language

Unused (probably since its creation in 2011) and unclear use case, incomplete, and syntactically incorrect (should be using a switch anyway). ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
16:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  •   Support. It's not apparent how to use it. Daask (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Deleted - per clear consensus above. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikimedians by music preference

This kind of vanity content is better kept on user pages. Daask (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  Keep I don't see any harm caused by this page. Zoozaz1 (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - Was about to close this but well let me opine, this is in Meta Scope as some other pages about wikimedians, seemed to be alright to be included. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Kept. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
10:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Data dumps/Help in other languages

This is a "really small list" according to the page itself, and all these pages are stored at Wikidata, viewable in the sidebar. I've marked the main page, Data dumps, for translation (and some subpages could probably be marked too), as it does provide an overview different from how most other projects do it, so I don't see a need for this anymore. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
10:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I think deleting is OK. Leaderboard (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Fine by me, as long as anything linking to it is updated to point people to the translated pages or to nag people to please help translate. -- ArielGlenn (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux Talk 13:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Documentation Link

I don't see how this is related to Wikimedia. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
17:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  • G7 Speedy Deleted. — xaosflux Talk 19:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux Talk 13:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/Candidate Resources

Page wrongly created by me, I ask for its deletion. Juan90264 (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Juan90264   Done. Next time, you can use {{delete}}. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
14:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux Talk 17:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Template:Main Page/Sisterprojects/Cell/ldiq

Looks like a test, unused. Created by globally banned user. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
14:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Speedy Deleted as a test page (G1). — xaosflux Talk 17:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux Talk 17:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Hulged/common.js

Can this page please be restored. Hulged (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

An interface administrator is needed. Pinging @Billinghurst, who deleted the page. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
12:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  Done @Hulged: the page has been restored. — xaosflux Talk 13:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
13:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Please undelete my personal CSS page

I originally asked for it to be deleted to save Wikimedia servers some resources as I migrated my skin to a locally installed Stylus browser extension. Unfortunately, I lost the data on that computer, and I’d like to get the skin back. TIA!  Born2bgratis (talk) 06:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Born2bgratis Done. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux Talk 10:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:Spoiler

Does not look like this is useful, and "The Complete 1st, 2nd and 3rd and 4th Seasons." would not be in scope of Meta anyway. One apparently accidental transclusion in user talk namespace. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
12:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jusjih (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Translations:Template:Stragtey/Wikimedia movement/2017/Research and notes/Audit of past stragey process/13/zh

A. The creation of it triggered the abuse filter and B. Content is LITTLERALLY:

Yup. So, yeah, delete the page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk)

These pages have never been created.--Jusjih (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jusjih (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Templates

  1. Template:Banglacric (transcludes itself)
  2. Template:Birth date and ageI1962I2I8Imf=yes (probably created as of mistaken instead of using Template:Birth date and age).
In short, they are useless. ----Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
G7 speedily deleted. The first one was about some sports statistics (apparently cricket); the second looked like spam but was also created by a user evading a block looking at the block summary, and the fact that it contained a "I" symbol in the place where you would usually expect a pipe (|) doesn't make assuming good faith easier. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
09:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

More authority control templates

It seems that these can be deleted per the same argumentation as at Meta:Requests for deletion/Archives/2021#Authority control templates. No transclusions and seemingly superseded by module. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
19:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the notification, although I just imported them per request. If they're unused and/or superseded by a Module, then I guess deletion is probably okay. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - I used those templates some years ago on Commons, but have n0 idea what would they be good for here. --Jarekt (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Deleted - per consensus. No objections have been raised against deletion. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

.js redirects of renamed accounts

Please delete all these .js redirects of user accounts that were previously renamed. The targets of all these redirected pages don't exist, so, these pages are listed as broken redirects on Special:BrokenRedirects

--Meno25 (talk) 09:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. --MF-W 21:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
21:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Grouppage-OTRS-member

Please delete this unneeded MediaWiki redirect. The target of the redirect doesn't exist, so, this page is listed on Special:BrokenRedirects and the intended system message was renamed to MediaWiki:Grouppage-vrt-permissions. See phab:T280615.

--Meno25 (talk) 09:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  Deleted. I hope this does not break any interface messages. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
09:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Category:Queering Wikipedia Conference

Articles moved to Category:Queering Wikipedia 2020, now that we also have Category:QW2021 Working Days and Category:Queering Wikipedia 2022 — OwenBlacker (Talk) 18:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello @OwenBlacker. I tagged the category as a redirect to Category:Queering_Wikipedia_2020. If deletion is still preferred I can do it. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio Maybe it makes more sense to redirect it to Category:Queering Wikipedia. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
11:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, wondering if we should delete Category:Queering Wikipedia 2020/Translations as empty too. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio and @1234qwer1234qwer4: I don't have strong feelings beyond tidying up. If we tend to redirect rather than deleting here, then the redirect to Category:Queering Wikipedia 2020 makes sense. As you suggest, it probably makes sense to delete Category:Queering Wikipedia 2020/Translations now it's empty, though. Thanks! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 11:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
@OwenBlacker: No preference between deleting vs redirect. If we're positive that the old category names will remain unused an no one will be confused, I'm very happy to delete instead of having yet another empty page with only a template on it :-) I'll delete the Translations one as empty. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: If there's no preference, then I'd suggest deleting for tidiness's sake. Given we (WMLGBT+) have used the name once now and we're using it to refer to the 2022 event we're currently planning, as well as the cancelled 2020 event, it feels to me that deletion of the non-disambiguated category is prolly cleanest. Either way, thank you 😊 — OwenBlacker (Talk) 18:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted then, thanks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Freenode

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.
Result: Kept (as redirect). — xaosflux Talk 18:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

We migrate from Freenode to Libera, thus this redirect is not very good anymore. No usages should be left. --Zabe (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I think, this template meet the criteria for speedy deletion. I placed the corresponding request into the template's source code. --Indoor-Fanatiker (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
And I undid it. The conversation should take place.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  Question: It still exists in versions/histories and deleting it will affect those pages if viewed. What is the issue with it continuing to exist as a redirect?  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no big issue with keeping this as a redirect. However, I think we don't need to keep any redirects which are relics and imply a wrong purpose in terms of content. The redirect was hardly used anyway. --Zabe (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I concur; in the future, as Freenode further slips into irrelevancy, the redirect’s existence may be misinterpreted (by those unaware of the Andrew Lee fiasco) as a Wikimedia endorsement of the brand. —Born2bgratis (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Weak delete - Redirects are cheap and to be honest, I don't see too much issues of having it now. But it might end up irrelevant and slightly misleading IMHO. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't think deletion is necessary; as per Camouflaged Mirage, redirects are cheap. Vermont (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I would agree with Vermont, no harm keeping it. Leaderboard (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux Talk 18:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

SourceWatch

The following discussion is closed.

SourceWatch and the majority of similar sites listed in Category:Non-Wikimedia projects. They have either been abandoned, transformed into attack sites against a politician or two, or look like obsolete draft notes of webmaster of WP:THETRUTH woo sites: Integrating Two Integrative Sites -> https://noosphere.cc/ etc. Zezen (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Don't delete, just mark as obsolete. Or redirect each of them to a section in a single page about [historical and current] Non-WM MediaWiki projects. –SJ talk  16:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Note:There is a related discussion on Meta:Babel Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Kept. No consensus to delete after more than one week of discussion. Marking as obsolete or redirecting the page to a more suitable place can be done outside the RfD process. Thank you, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Undeletion request for el.wikipedia

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

Good morning.I request the undeletion of page Astronomical image of the Day in Greek wikipedia.Here is the public logs https://el.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%CE%95%CE%B9%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%BA%CF%8C:%CE%9C%CE%B7%CF%84%CF%81%CF%8E%CE%BF&page=%CE%91%CF%83%CF%84%CF%81%CE%BF%CE%BD%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE_%CE%B5%CE%B9%CE%BA%CF%8C%CE%BD%CE%B1_%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%82_%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%AD%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%82

Thanks Nikos M Mastromihalis —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nik0swikimastr0 (talk)

Wrong Wiki, you have to ask for this at elWP, they are the ones, who are solely responsible for such content decisions, this ain't anything for Meta, let alone the WMF. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 15:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux Talk 14:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Template:Indefblockeduser

The following discussion is closed.

Template and category created without community consensus for creation; only transcluded onto one page yet. Proposing deletion per w:WP:DENY. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
16:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not that we need community consensus to create this kind of templates, but they serve no useful purpose IMHO, and are redundant with {{blocked}} which supports an |indef}} parameter for indefinitely blocked users. In addition, I agree we should tag less and WP:DENY much more. Block logs are there for anyone willing to see. There's often no need to tag indefblocked users. We should empty and get rid of category:blocked users too by the way, which is not being populated since September 9, 2015. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Deleted - early closure as this seems straight forward enough. No objections anyway. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Wikimedia Enterprise

Absurd 'request for comment' which mis-describes the topic entirely and is a blatant piece of electioneering by a candidate for the WMF. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Deletion is inappropriate given the participation, but I think the RfC should be withdrawn or procedurally closed. MarioGom (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
MarioGom, RfCs are not immune to the deletion policy, and I believe that it is within policy for the outcome of a RfD discussion to be to close a RfC. This isn't exactly clear, though. Vermont (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Independent of anyone's opinions on Wikimedia Enterprise (full disclosure, I'm personally against it), the opening parts of the RfC very incorrectly describe what it is, and many of the oppose comments thus show a misunderstanding similar to the background section. It is also important to note that this RfC does not have any actionable resolution beyond determining community opinion. The fact that the creator is a candidate for the board, though concerning, is not relevant to the RfC's validity (or lack thereof). I would be inclined to close it as invalid due to the combined lack of possible resolution and biased start/description, and perhaps encourage interested editors to open another RfC with a more unbiased and clear background section and purpose. Looking forward to hearing others' thoughts, though. Best, Vermont (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Ordinarily I wouldn't support deleting a request for comment merely because it is disagreeable or poorly conceived. I would support the deletion of this one as it is a flagrant abuse of process intended to mislead the community on a project that the original poster disagrees with. There is no useful record to preserve here, and if a request for comment is done on Wikimedia Enterprise at all – and I don't know what value that would bring, considering Wikimedia Enterprise is an outcome of the multi-year RFC that is movement strategy – it should be on a blank slate. Harej (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
  • It's not a neutral RfC, so it cannot lead to a true consensus or reliable results. Suggest procedural closure at least, with no prejudice to another, more neutral RfC. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's exactly what the German Wikipedia word for RfC is: Meinungsbild. Any consensus reached by this RfC is not actionable but could stimulate the WMF into thinking for and abut the people who contribute to Wikipedia for once, rather than thinking about themselves. Kudpung (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Procedural close/deletion. I agree with Proc here, a non neutral RFC cannot possibly lead to a informed consensus Asartea Talk (Enwiki Talk (preferred)) 07:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it matters. It is also important to note that this RfC does not have any actionable resolution beyond determining community opinion. Anything as absurd as making people pay to use the content just so the WMF can line their pockets is going to be met with strong resistance by the community volunteers who work for free with not as much as a 'thank you' from the WMF - whichever way an RfC is formulated. Kudpung (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a request for comment, not a request for action, so it's fine. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 07:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
  • To clarify my intentions, here is the email in moderation that I just sent to the wikimedia-l mailing list:

    (In French below)
    Dear Wikimedia community,
    As some of you may have noticed from my interventions during the global conversations, I am not a fan of elections. Like my compatriot David Van Reybrouck (https://www.polemia.com/contre-les-elections-de-david-van-reybrouck), I am an advocate of direct democracy and consensus, and when this is not possible, I am in favor of drawing lots for candidates with short and non-repeatable mandates.
    So, you may wonder why I have proposed myself as a candidate for the current elections of new board members of the Wikimedia Foundation?
    The answer is that it is for me a nice way to discover how these elections work, but also and above all, it seemed to me to be a nice opportunity to raise within our community some questions that worry me a lot.
    Unfortunately, I see that my candidacy has an opposite effect than the one I hoped for. I had indeed wanted to launch a debate about the Wikimedia Enterprise project in the form of a call for comments. But this one seems to be compromised because of my lack of understanding of the project, but also because of my candidacy to the board (see :Requests for comment/Wikimedia Enterprise, Talk:Requests for comment/Wikimedia Enterprise, Meta:Requests for deletion#Requests for comment/Wikimedia Enterprise)
    My approach may be clumsy and certainly original, but it starts from a good background. I want to help our movement to make good decisions at the beginning of discussions that I think are important.
    I am therefore sending you this message in order to receive opinions and advice regarding this situation. I wonder indeed if it would not be useful that I withdraw my candidacy to the board of directors to be able to continue the debates that I would like to launch more serenely? It is just an idea, because I am afraid that it would complicate the voting process, which has already been postponed once. I thank you already for the help you could give to this situation.
    Sincerely, Lionel Scheepmans

    Chère communauté Wikimédia,
    Comme certains d'entre vous l'auront peut-être remarqué lors de mes interventions durant les conversations mondiales, je ne suis pas un adepte des élections. Comme mon compatriote David Van Reybrouck (https://www.polemia.com/contre-les-elections-de-david-van-reybrouck), je suis un partisan de la démocratie directe et du consensus et quand cela n'est pas possible, je suis favorable au tirage au sort des candidats avec mandats de courtes durées et non reproductibles.
    Vous vous demandez alors certainement pourquoi dans ce cas, je me suis proposé candidat pour les actuelles élections des nouveaux membres du conseil d'administration de la fondation Wikimedia ?
    La réponse est que c'est pour moi une belle façon de découvrir le fonctionnement de ces élections, mais aussi et surtout, cela me semblait être une belle occasion pour soulever au sein de notre communauté des questions qui m'inquiètent beaucoup.
    Malheureusement, je constate que ma candidature a un effet inverse à ce celui espéré. J'avais en effet envie de lancer un débat concernant le projet Wikimedia Enterprise sous forme d'appel à commentaires. Mais celui-ci semble compromis en raison de mon manque de compréhension du projet, mais aussi en raison de ma candidature au conseil d'administration. (Voir : Requests for comment/Wikimedia Enterprise, Talk:Requests for comment/Wikimedia Enterprise, Meta:Requests for deletion#Requests for comment/Wikimedia Enterprise).
    Ma démarche est peut-être maladroite et certainement originale, mais elle part d'un bon fond. Celui d'aider notre mouvement à prendre de bonnes décisions au départ de discussions qui me semble importante.
    Je vous adresse donc ce message dans le but de recevoir des avis et conseil par rapport à cette situation. Je me demande effectivement s'il ne serait pas utile que je retire ma candidature au conseil d'administration pour pouvoir poursuivre les débats que je voudrais lancer plus sereinement ? C'est juste une idée, car j'ai peur que cela complique le déroulement du scrutin qui déjà fut reporté une fois. Je vous remercie déjà pour l'aide que vous pourriez apporter à cette situation.
    Bien cordialement, Lionel Scheepmans''


    Sincerely again,Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 10:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete/Close Regardless of the other factors that people have highlighted, the RfC itself has little use. Nothing actionable can or will come out of it. There is no point to further taking up the time of editors for an RfC going nowhere. According to the Request for Comment policy page, "RFCs are not immune to Meta-Wiki's deletion policy"; our deletion policy says that pages can be deleted for "any stated reason," and I believe this is a valid one. Zoozaz1 (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Garder, car c'est un débat intéressant qui est en cours, quitte à le dissocier de son lanceur, Lionel Scheepmans, qui je pense n'avait de toute façon pas de mauvaises intention à but éléctorales derrière cf son messages, mais qui souhaitait juste lancer un débat, peut-être pas au meilleur moment. -- Nemo Discuter 08:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see a reason to delete the RfC despite, as some note, there being some faults with it. The issue raised is clearly genuine. Leaderboard (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep This RFC does contain some community input and opinions and regardless how useful it is, I don't think we should delete it. --Zabe (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
  •   Keep No need to delete, all the discussions are fine to me. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Not done No consensus to delete. --MF-W 00:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: MF-W 00:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Mike6Matthews17

The following discussion is closed.

Created by a confirmed sock from en.wiki, and both replies are from users who have done cross-wiki abuse in the space of two weeks. All three accounts involved are on the same global lock section on Steward requests/Global#Global_lock/unlock_for_Cez5Cherry25, one of whom is glocked already. Iggy the Swan (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


Speedy deleted; CSD#G1. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Requests for new languages/Wikivoyage Estonian

An IP vandaler wrongly acted "BlueWhale" when submitting this RFL, looks like somewhat a bug of AbuseFilter. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Mentioning @MF-Warburg for a decision. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. It's no surprise that the filter didnt block it, as it was not originally created as a proper subpage. --MF-W 21:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: MF-W 00:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

ISO 639 name from code sub‑templates

The following discussion is closed.

The {{ISO 639 name}} master template has been changed to use Module:ISO 639 name, matching Wikipedia. Meta‑Wiki, unlike Wikipedia, only has a few name from code sub-templates, the list of which is:

These templates are no longer in use, with me removing the last usage in {{language icon}} earlier today, and may be deleted just like they were on Wikipedia.[1] — ExE Boss (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


Deleted. Per nom. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Meta-Wiki archives

I don't see how this is different from Category:Archives. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
14:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Have you even looked at Category:Archives? It also contains Category:MediaWiki archives and so on. The general Archives category contains archives of all sorts, its subcategories contain archives on individual topics like Meta-Wiki itself. Nemo 15:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
This means we should probably update pages in Category:Archives with Meta: namespace to tag them in Category:Meta-Wiki archives instead. -- Pols12 (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but only if the topic of the page is actually Meta. Sometimes that's not so strictly enforced on pages in the Meta namespace. Nemo 19:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  Not done --MF-W 00:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: MF-W 00:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Other interface screenshots

The following discussion is closed.

"Other" than what? The category's only member is currently Category:Move to Wikimedia Commons‎, which has no specific limitations in scope, and thus can (and does) contain more than interface screenshots. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
14:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


Deleted. Unused category. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Nulisa.png

The following discussion is closed: Withdrawn, moved to Commons.

Unused file. Transfer to commons may be possible but if unused maybe it's not worth the time. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I can put it to use on the intended pages. Thanks for the notif. It should've been used when I uploaded it, maybe someone delete the usage from the pages. PS: I'm also OK if someone moved it to Commons. The image was created with the fund from the grant, so it should be okay to move it to Commons. I might had other consideration to upload it locally here back then, but it doesn't matter now. Bennylin 16:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @Bennylin. I'm withdrawing the RfD as the file is now in use, and will transfer it to commons later. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Rapid Grants/Template

It appears that this is redundant to Category:Rapid Grants templates. Since the latter is more grammatical and subpages are not enabled in category namespace anyway, I suggest deleting this one. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
18:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux Talk 15:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Really Reformed Church of Wikipedia

Not funny, and therefore has no reason to exist. Has been contentious for at least a decade. Just because something is likely to be offensive to Christians of multiple denominations and to various living people doesn't constitute humor. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  deleted --MF-W 22:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
22:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Jimmyshjj

Attack page. --2408:8210:6012:3B22:5102:B459:A635:C0A2 14:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the "attack" and left the box about the user being retired. --MF-W 22:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
@MF-Warburg: w:en:WP:POINTy disruption continues at the page. JavaHurricane 04:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
All the vandalism has been removed, so is there still a need to delete the page? --Ferien (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
User is blocked; no further action needed. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
10:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
10:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Category redirect demo page

The first page is apparently supposed to demonstrate the use of a category redirect on a page, but the redirect has been "fixed" by MABot since 2017. This also resulted in a category loop at the non-redirect cat. Do we really need a demonstration like this here on Meta? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
22:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

No; this is more something within mediawiki.org's scope for a technical documentation page, not really something to be messing around with in Meta-Wiki mainspace. Vermont (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Delete per Vermont. We don't need these testings on mainspace. No objection if it is in some user space or whatsoever. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Delete per Vermont. SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 11:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: All deleted per above.— xaosflux Talk 13:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Wiktionary

There’s nothing wrong with the proposal. 217.117.125.83 10:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems the proposal is just empty and the above is trolling but let me ping @MF-Warburg: on the safe side. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
+ Talk:Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Wiktionary should be deleted too? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • It isn’t empty. And why do you think that this is trolling? 217.117.125.83 17:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Category:Protection

Looks like this is redundant to the much older Category:Page protection category. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
13:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I (category creator) agree. Apokrif (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Recategorised the three pages. I could have just G6 speedied it now, but I figured redirecting would be the better alternative. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
13:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
20:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Category:Page Elements

I can't make sense of this – how are the two templates specifically related to "page elements"? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
18:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Deleted, no objections - no obvious need to keep. — xaosflux Talk 00:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Template:REVIVEWIKI

I don't see how useful this template this is for meta. Sure, it's the format used when a Wiki goes into a soft closure, but regardless, it has no useful purpose on meta (I also have the concern that the IP that started this template thinks that Wikipedia is the only WMF project, although that's irrelevant to this request). And finally, its not used anywhere, nor even linked (except on this page). Didn't notify the page creator since the IP that started it is globally blocked. SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 10:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Just noticed this at special:PageTranslation. Indeed this seems more like something in scope of Incubator. However, since templates like this are usually substituted, the lack of transclusions would in general not be a problem, even if the template was years old. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
11:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. — xaosflux Talk 13:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux Talk 13:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Category:模

As far as I understand it, this should have been replaced by category:Templates/yue. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
13:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Delete - useless for now. Replaced. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Delete useless cat (for now) SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 12:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Deleted. — xaosflux Talk 13:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Wy/id/Template:Pagebanner

Appear to be misplaced, see incubator:Template:Wy/id/Page-banner. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
17:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Deleted. --MF-W 16:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux Talk 14:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Grants:IdeaLab/ world's welfare

Doesn't look like a project like this is remotely in scope of Wikimedia grants/IdeaLab. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
18:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Deleted. --MF-W 16:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux Talk 14:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:1880 songs

Appears to be out of project scope – delete and remove category (along with other redlinked ones) from the only member. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
12:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Deleted. --MF-W 16:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Uncategorised. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
22:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux Talk 14:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

WikiMemes User Group

The following discussion is closed: Kept as per clear community consensus shown. --Base (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Converted from speedy, given reason: WM:CSD#G8 --Krd 13:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Clearly not an advertisement, and not sure what benefit there is in deletion given the number of members. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
13:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Not sure how it meets G8 criteria, or any deletion criteria. Though it is humor-oriented, it is within Meta’s scope. Vermont (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
It at least states to be a real proposed Wikimedia User Group, so I think it does fall within project scope. --Zabe (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Keep - it definitely does at a second look. --Zabe (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
The group is active and has a membership. Appropriate and in scope. Seddon (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Weak keep It's not the best user group page, but it should just be tagged with the humour template SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 06:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Keep – I don't see any issues with it. --Hulged (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Speedy keep, right? What am I missing? –SJ talk  18:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Keep - For great justice.--Pharos (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Keep - memes are not spam.  Mysterymanblue  18:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Delete - The primary purpose of the page appears to be driving traffic to the group's Telegram, Facebook, and Instagram pages, two of which glorify shitposting by name. Shitposting on WMF projects is abusive, as is glorification and promotion of it. The page is not acceptable per WM:IP. -- Jeff G. ツ (please ping or talk to me) 10:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Delete WM:CIVIL : By editing Meta-Wiki, you agree to respect other users, be civil, respect basic etiquette rules [...] and Meta:What Meta is not : Meta is not a battleground [...].
As their name indicates, this group wants to be synonym of "shitposting". Definition in Oxford dictionary : "shitposting vulgar slang. The activity of posting deliberately provocative or off-topic comments on social media, typically in order to upset others or distract from the main conversation". Definition in Collins dictionary : "shitpost in British English, vulgar, slang. 1. an item posted on a website that provokes, irritates, or distracts other users of the site 2. to post provocative, irritating, or distracting material on a website". Is this goal, purposely renamed under a candy "WikiMemes User Group", fine for us?
In their presentation, this group pretends to "Communicate about the projects through memes and new media content, always with full due regard of everyone involved and strict respect of the CoC" This is totally false. On the contrary, they break many rules, for example the user name Wikishitposting violates Commons:Username policy : Disruptive usernames, this includes outright trolling or personal attacks, or otherwise clearly disruptive intentions. and Offensive usernames that make harmonious editing difficult or impossible. When reused, this picture inserted on Wikipedia will be credited "Wikishitposting", and this is basic disruption. The member Slowking4 is permanently blocked on Commons. The group does not respect COM PEOPLE nor COM:L. Through the social medias, the members diffuse problematic contents (problematic for us) claiming "free pictures" and respect of "code of conduct" while these images are just copyright and personality rights violations. The Simpsons are owned by Matt Groening, South Park is copyrighted by Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Harry Potter is not free, etc. The recognizable child who is shown drowning in the sea with a humorous message could sue the illegal use of their image. That's NOT Commons.
Hidden behind a hypocritical appearance and a neutral logo, this group in reality contributes to an uncivil environment, glorifying shitposting, to derail discussions. -- Qpy (talk) 05:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  Comment Meta-wiki has a long history of allowing humorous content, and this user group should not be the exception. Memes are a long-recognized way of the internet, and there is nothing exceptional or wrong about this user group's use of memes. The user group and the social media channels associated with it can be a humorous and good-natured way of poking fun at Wikimedian life.
Let's address some of the concerns of those who support deletion of this group.
  • Licensing It is highly unreasonable to apply the same strict licensing principles to the off-project actions of user groups that we do to on-project actions. Wikimedia Commons' licensing policy only applies to content uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and cannot reasonably be construed to extend to social media platforms. While many of the externally posted memes are not free content, they are likely fair use, or the original authors of the images tacitly allow their use in memes by refusing to enforce their copyright. As Wikimedia Commons' precautionary principle and prohibition of fair use do not apply outside the project and are not based in strictly legal concerns, there is no real copyright infringement concern with these images. I will point out that people have, on many occasions, sent non-free "memes" to the Wikimedia Commons telegram group - so if there's an issue, it extends far beyond this one group.
  • Abusive behavior I also question the assertion that this group is in any way abusive.
First of all, "shitposting" is not inherently abusive. The OED definition includes the qualification that shitposting is "typically" meant to distract others - not that it always does that. Additionally, our dictionary's definition says a shitpost is a seemingly worthless or superficially meaningless image or video posted to a social media platform that is intended to be humorously or ironically enjoyed. No mention of abuse anywhere in that definition - only humor. In my experience as an extremely online person, both definitions are accurate in different situations. In any case, it's difficult to say that shitposting is inherently disruptive 100% of the time.
Another important factor is considering where these "shitposts" are primarily being shared. To invoke Collins dictionary, a shitpost is an item posted on a website that provokes, irritates, or distracts other users of the site. Since the shitposts are primarily being posted to off-wiki social media, they can only potentially distract users of those social media sites - they will not disrupt on-wiki conversations. Even when memes are brought on Wiki, they may have a place in correspondence between users in good faith - but of course the situation is entirely context dependent.
The final thing to consider why we are thinking about the definition of "shitpost" in the first place. Maybe instead of looking at the word "shitpost" and drawing our conclusions about the content, we should just look at the content itself. When you actually visit the facebook page, the memes are clearly not abusive and are all in good fun.
  • Username: While the act of shitposting may be abusive in certain contexts, the word "shitposting" is not, in itself, abuse. Likewise, the word "shit" is not offensive because it is not being directed toward any person or group of people. It is profane, yes, but not particularly harmful toward anyone. There is no real issue with usernames.
  • Identifiable people Again, on-wiki policy does not apply off wiki. Also, common image macros that include identifiable people do not pose a significant privacy risk because 1) the images are typically taken in a public place or with consent 2) the content has typically already been published elsewhere and 3) the images are often so widely shared that there is no privacy interest in the image left to protect.
There's nothing wrong with this humorous user group and it should be kept. Perhaps those who wish to have it deleted lack a certain sense of humor.  Mysterymanblue  09:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Humor is important in life; shitposting is disruption. Wiktionary's definition quoted above was edited by an IP and is certainly not exact. Notable dictionaries are more meaningful. (Moreover, wikis are not reliable sources for wikis.) The only purpose of this group is to promote their Facebook, Telegram and Instagram pages. It is so clear. When created on meta in August, the "History" section was entirely dedicated to external websites, showing this group was used as a promotional tool. WM:IP Not acceptable: Information about non-Wikimedia wikis. There was only two users at the beginning: 1) Sabas88 and 2) Wikishitposting. The user "Wikishitposting", now blocked, was introduced by Sabas88, then replaced by Ferdi2005 (so, probably a sock-puppet). The user page of Wikishitposting is the mirror of this group, where they promote their personal websites : Hello there, we're the team behind the Facebook page Wikishitposting. We plan to release the memes which were created using free content back on Wikimedia Commons. Follow us on the notorious social media platform(TM). Pretending to use free content on Wikimedia Commons is pure nonsense. Nearly all is copyrighted. Thus this is using Commons and Meta to promote personal content through misleading allegations. WM:IP: Acceptable: Documentation intended to help users contribute and collaborate in other wiki projects. Where is the educative purpose of shitposting? Only provocations, irritations, distractions. -- Qpy (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
A 3 week old account with this edit history accusing other people of sockpuppetry? You do have a sense of humour after all! the wub "?!" 12:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikishitposting is undoubtedly a sock-puppet because the name was included in the group by someone else, then replaced by another person. Very few edits made by this contributor and the user page says "we're the team behind the Facebook page Wikishitposting." So they are a "team"...-- Qpy (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Excuse me @Qpy:, there's an entire user group. Wikishitposting (which will soon become "WikimemesUG" as there has been a rename request) is an organization account. Such a thing is not allowed on Wikipedia (therefore it's not used there), but it's perfectly allowed by the commons policy.
If you took some time to verify, you would've easily discovered that Sabas88 and I are two different people and that I'm a a real person and not a sockpuppet. Please, do not accuse others of sockpuppetry without a solid basis (I have to agree with the wub: the pot calling the kettle black)...
Anyway, to be clearer for the public (and also for you, who clearly misunderstood the entire goal of our usergroup), we're renaming everything to WikiMemes. If you looked at our content, you would see that we adhere to the Wikitionary definition of shitposting (a seemingly worthless or superficially meaningless image or video posted to a social media platform that is intended to be humorously or ironically enjoyed): our goals are clearly listed on the Meta page (promotion of Wikimedia projects through funny content; improvement of funny content on Wikimedia projects), I don't feel the need to repeat myself. -Ferdi2005[Mail] 20:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Keep: whatever the definition of shitposting is, the scope of the User Group (who was officially proposed to AffCom, please note the categories) and the pages are obvious. We're proceeding to rename the pages to WikiMemes in order to make the scope clearer to the public. I remember to Qpy that only freely-licensed memes are being uploaded on Commons and fair use is permitted for "satire, critic and discussion" in almost any legislation.--Ferdi2005[Mail] 10:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Keep: as per Mysterymanblue and Ferdi2005 --CristianCantoro (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
First of all, I am not advertising a social network page, they simply exist because the idea to start an User Group came from them gathering some following interested Wikimedians. We wanted to create the user group to get more in line with the wiki policies. Related to the name itself: when applying to AffCom we clearly stated that we can change the name of the pages if it is a blocker for recognition (and we're doing it now so we won't see more arguments like yours) so the accusation of "driving traffic" is simply false because they are the main aggregation of the candidate user group members. Related to "shitposting" as a word, it is worth discussing it (but it doesn't make sense to do it here): in recent years it has changed more to represent a way of producing memes without being particularly disruptive. --Sabas88 (talk) 11:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Memes are something that large global online communities use. There is a demographic of people who create, use, and share memes. With a user community as large as the Wikimedia Movement, it seems fine to have a group for sharing memes. Other social communities like the Wikimedia Cuteness Association are comparable. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Keep - very unclear how the page meets the rationale for deletion outlined in the nomination. Fits within Meta's scope. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Base (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:DISPLAYTITLE/doc

The following discussion is closed.

Doc of nonexistent page * Pppery * it has begun 00:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deleted. Sgd. —Hasley 13:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
18:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Wikidata Users

Misspelt and less populated version of Category:Wikidata users, created by the same editor. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
09:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Can be converted into a redirect. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 13:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  deleted no value in a redirect to essentially same name  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Minorax«¦talk¦» 23:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:দপ্তর সম্পাদক

Google translates this as "Office secretary", so I suppose the more specific (and populated) Category:Wikimedia Bangladesh Online Meeting already covers this aspect of categorisation. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
18:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  deleted --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Minorax«¦talk¦» 23:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Meta:Home

Meaningless redirect, main page isn't a homepage for Meta Namespace, it's for all namespaces. The redirect shouldn't exist in meta namespace anyway. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Delete pointless redirect. SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 07:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  deleted by Billinghurst. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 23:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Minorax«¦talk¦» 23:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Meta:Title blacklist

Title Blacklist isn't a meta blacklist, this makes no sense to redirect. It's also confusing per say. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  deleted by Billinghurst. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 23:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Minorax«¦talk¦» 23:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Meta:Page collection list

Useless crossnamespace redirect, clearly won't be used. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  deleted by Billinghurst. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 23:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Minorax«¦talk¦» 23:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:Weather box

Useless, almost-out-of-scope template dependent on module that seems to have never existed. This was previously used on 3 pages (Wikimania 2014 bids/Arusha, Wikimania 2015 bids/Arusha, Wikimania 2015 bids/Dar es Salaam), each of which was causing a script error, and I replaced them with the wikitable produced by expanding the template on the English Wikipedia. * Pppery * it has begun 00:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Deleted. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:JS migration

Per w:Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 March 21#Template:JS migration * Pppery * it has begun 16:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

What about the pages where it is still in "use"? --MF-W 22:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
It does nothing other than populate a maintenance category which is now useless (for the reasons I explained on enwiki) and should be removed in all of those cases. * Pppery * it has begun 04:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Removed the template from some pages, but really a bot would be helpful. --MF-W 16:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I may be able to run a bot job on this soon. — xaosflux Talk 14:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
    Hey @Xaosflux, how's the bot job for this going? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry haven't done it yet - but still can, just busy. — xaosflux Talk 11:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
    Job running. — xaosflux Talk 01:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned documentation pages

The following discussion is closed.

Documentation pages of templates that have already been deleted (1, 2, 3, 4). Serve no purpose any more. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
13:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete – no purpose to be kept here. Hulged (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Deleted. Sgd. —Hasley 17:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:Indefblocked/sandbox

The following discussion is closed.

Q28 is the only contributer. TylerMagee (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy Keep - invalid reason for deletion. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Speedy keep What's wrong with Q28 being the only contributor? SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 07:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  Neutral It seems unclear that if such /sandbox subpages are required dynamically cleanup or not here. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • keep it is a sandbox to an existing template, why would we delete a sandbox? Seems pointless.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Kept, no consensus to delete. Sgd. —Hasley 17:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:Collection

The following discussion is closed.

No idea what is this about, clearly without any purpose. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Delete OOS. SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 07:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, aren't some Wikibooks sites have this template? Though, as spammly created, I prefer delete. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
It seems the WB templates are for ordering printed books or downloading printed copies (based on the en and fr ones. Haven't checked the others) SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 05:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Deleted. Sgd. —Hasley 16:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:114

Do we have any ideas on how VoIP service links are necessary on Meta? This template is nonsense to me if there aren't. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

This template has nothing to do with VoIP service links, and it is not nonsense. It was originally created in 2006 as a request to move a page into a translated help namespace, and then became obsolete in 2012 when the namespace in question was removed. So delete, but I don't see why this needed to be brought to RfD instead of letting my {{looks useless}} tag resolve on January 3. * Pppery * it has begun 14:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Delete useless template. It's easier to type Please move to namespace 114 as well. SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 09:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:Table

The only 5 transclusions are incorrect (they seem to expect this template only contains “class=wikitable", probably the behavior on another wiki). --Pols12 (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:Birthday Committee/Inactive

This template is related to the Birthday Committee on the English Wikipedia, I have no idea why the birthday committee would be notifying people that they're being removed from the list on meta. This was created in 2019, substituted onto one user talk page a minute later by it's creator and hasn't been used since. 192.76.8.84 01:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Deleted. --MF-W 15:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Templates using ParserFunctions

Per w:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 21#Category:Templates using ParserFunctions. The category's text even acknowledges its own obsolescence. * Pppery * it has begun 19:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pppery: still populated. Let us have a solution for the contents first.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Just remove them? * Pppery * it has begun 16:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
There are thousands of templates using parser functions at this point, and only 37 templates in this category. Long obsolete and potentially misleading; no objections.   Deleted. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
14:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Meta:Only edit vandalism

The following discussion is closed.

No purpose, possibly negative effects. It isn't clearly enough out of scope for me to feel comfortable deleting it without discussion. Best, Vermont (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Delete Why? That doesn't look like humour at all. SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 05:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Deleted. Sgd. —Hasley 16:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
02:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Pages in Category:GlobalWiki test wiki pages

The following discussion is closed.

Out of scope of meta. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  • delete ... seems way ahead of itself. No requirement for proof of concept, we know what a wiki looks like.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yup. Delete * Pppery * it has begun 18:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete --MdsShakil (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Delete OOS SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 05:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as out of scope. Furthermore since the idea of this wiki seems to be "host global userpages/userscripts somewhere other than meta" there is absolutely nothing worth prototyping, everyone here knows what a userpage looks like. 163.1.15.238 15:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Deleted. Sgd. —Hasley 16:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
02:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)