Meta:Requests for deletion

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

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

Wikilawsuits[edit]

Indecipherable, unviable proposal creator insists on keeping open after multiple attempts at closing; nominating per w:wp:IAR and w:wp:SNOW. Dronebogus (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

in User_talk:Dronebogus#you_have_closed_wikilawsuits Dronebogus has shown me a wrong sentence and i have fixed it. he has not shown me any other concrete incomprehensible piece of text from the proposal. --QDinar (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The whole proposal is incomprehensible. Dronebogus (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i cite myself from your talk page:

... there are english words, which should be comprehensible each itself. you should be able to show at least a one point in the text which is incomprehensible, like several words used together and the meaning formed by them is not acceptable, because it contradicts some well known ideas, facts, or some other place of the text.

you must had read it and now you say this. what the "whole" can mean in this context, while some parts of the text are comprehensible? i am almost sure that any normal human speech text is a binary tree. single morphemes are at branch ends. then some of them form pairs of morphemes. maybe by "whole" you mean top node of the text? most top is the title and body. but you probably do not mean that. subtitles subheaders are not mine my text. let's look at the "Project description" or "Proposal" subsections' contents. let's look at the first, it is shorter. "open way to write declarations and track and upload documents for court publicly for topics that bother many people". it is "(open way) to (write declarations) and ((track and upload) documents) (for court) publicly (for topics that bother many people)". so, i started to find groupings of morphemes from the branches side, where they are not big. further to top it goes this way: "openway to (((writedeclarations and trackanduploaddocuments) forcourt) publicly) fortopicsthatbothermanypeople". (i simplified groups from previous step by joining the words). if to simplify this further, it is like "way to write for". it is "(way to write) for", not "way to (write for)", because, there is no such usual phrase "to write something for topics of something", but "a way for topics of something" is a usual phrase. so, top branching of the text is "(open way to write declarations and track and upload documents for court publicly) (for topics that bother many people)". this is what you did not understand? are one of these 2 branches not comprehensible for you?

--QDinar (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Remove - not a realistic or complete proposal, though fitting given the style of wikilawyering by the proposer. – Ajraddatz (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

why it is not realistic? how it is not complete, how it can be complete? maybe you mean more elaborate? if you mean that, i do not want to write very much text. i just use this system to write idea proposals. an idea can be written with a sentence. i have not seen any rule like proposals should be elaborate and include some kilobytes of text. if short idea texts are not allowed there then i will write them into forum or wikimedia list, probably. --QDinar (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: Largely incomprehensible proposal ("topics that bother many people"?), and it also seems to be a bad proposal. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  i do not know english very well. it is like "topics that are interesting for many people" or "problems that bother many people". feel free to edit. --QDinar (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

why, how it seems to be bad? --QDinar (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep, even though it's a terrible proposal (and will likely be formally rejected sooner or later). Dronebogus, you should realise that you may not always be in the right here (and this was closed per WP:SNOW). As incomprehensible as it is, it's useful to keep a track of past requests; deletion isn't always the solution for everything. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 07:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  if by "terrible" you say about the text, it is not a big problem, it can be edited. --QDinar (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  This is a behavioral issue, you should tell QDinar that they are not always in the right. I’m nominating this out of desperation to kill this hopeless project being filibustered out to no end Dronebogus (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  i do not think my behavior is incorrect or bad. deletion is not a default, usual behavior. just keeping to collect new proposals seems is default behavior. you may write discuss the proposals, you can write critics to them, you can rate them and sort them. deletion sounds like very decisive refusal. such decisive refusal should be with appropriate arguments. "it is incomprehensible" is not a proper argument. you can use that argument to anything, try to use it, and see how other people will behave. --QDinar (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Qdinar: my comment doesn't necessarily mean you're in the right; in fact, you should accept the consensus, stop edit warring, and move on.

  @Dronebogus: I was suggesting indef full protection, and again, as I said, deletion is not the solution to everything. Keep in mind that I've always been opposed to deleting talk page discussions – my opinion is influenced by this. SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 13:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  there is a mistake... the proposals are not deleted, they are closed. so, this is 1 bit, 2 values rating and sorting. closed and open proposals, opens are up and closeds are down. and there are also types of closed ones. from this description, it looks like i should not be afraid so much.

  but when i look to the types of the closeds i see: Rejected on red background, Procedurally closed on light brown background, Stale (could be re-opened) on pink background, Withdrawn and "Closed as part of a reform of the request process. (Could be re-opened under new policy)" on gray backround, Approved on green. there is some more elaborate description of them, but i did not read them at that time, so, i understood as that if it is closed, not {"stale" or closed as part of reform}, it cannot be reopened.

  now, i have read the descriptions (legend) and i have some comment: "or is not a serious or intelligible proposal ... Procedurally closed" - i think, this says about not this level of unintelligibility as in my proposal, but something much more meaningless like random letter sequence. "stale and has few support ... tag ... Stale" - this would be proper tag for my proposal. "no consensus ... tag ... Rejected" - i cannot understand, cannot agree with this. as i understand, consensus does not mean approval, it means some agreement between people, either on approval, or refusal, or something in between. so, as i see, it was good that i reopened it, because the tag set, or that was going to be set, was incorrect.
  QDinar (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete This page is nothing more than an attention magnet wasting everyone's time and I fail to see the value in retaining it. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 04:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. This is largely a duplicate of Wikisource, if it is uploading existing documents that are publicly accessible and meet the necessary licensing requirements. Having said that, the overwhelming majority of documents pertaining to lawsuits include unproven allegations, boilerplate text, and similarly problematic material. In most jurisdictions that maintain public access to court documents, there are existing websites that maintain this kind of documentation in a far more useful way. And the designated names of the project are all problematic and imply that it's Wikimedia/Wikipedia/Wikimedians initiating lawsuits. So....delete. Risker (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  court websites in russia publish only courts' decisions, not declarations and other letters by citizens. also one of the proposed functions is the writing process. writing a document together can be done also in google documents, and probably in similar site by microsoft, but why not to use the mediawiki engine? seems there are some advantages of mediawiki and wikimedia. i cannot agree that the designated names mean that wikimedians initiate lawsuits... i still understand "wiki" as name of wiki editing technology. wikilawsuits means lawsuits written and tracked using wiki technology. --QDinar (talk) 12:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  "unproven allegations" - maybe they can be disallowed? if they are really unproven, maybe they are useless in court. "boilerplate text" - maybe template functionality is good for that. "largely a duplicate of Wikisource" - https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:What_Wikisource_includes : " Entirely new compositions written by contributors are not appropriate here ... Works created by Wikisource users or otherwise not published in a verifiable, usually peer-reviewed forum do not belong at Wikisource. " . but i have found another critique against this proposal. seems mediawiki does not have a way to hide private data. for example, if users want to mention a person with full name, and maybe other private information like place of work, living, cites from private talk. maybe this is not a big problem if they are disallowed. because in the collective appeals defending things like human rights, there may be no usage of such private data, public data may be enough. QDinar (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment this RfD shouldn't discuss whether the proposal is correct or not, rather whether the proposal page should be kept or not. On the other hand it has been re-opened twice (I won't count a third) and the RfD seems to be the only way to settle the issue. Given that the proposal didn't receive support, given that its scope is not clear (mainly the overlaps with existing projects and other proposals) I plan to close both this RfD as not done and the proposal as procedurally closed. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  i announced about this in wikimedia-l only several days ago, so, can you be sure that it has not received support? about the scope: i copy a new text by me from the project's page: "for example, for collective declarations for court to defend human rights of minority groups, in various countries. to write the declarations together, and if declaration is written again for an upper level of court, to track that process." . about existing projects: WikiLaw (3) seems is for documents that are already published, come into force, and it aims to collect them all. but my proposal is for crowdsourced writing of declarations, and not aiming to collect all the laws. it is just aiming to track the cases people are interested in. it can link to the texts of laws in other websites, maybe also in wikisource. WikiLegalCases is "A wiki for legal cases an archive of all legal cases their documents and judgements for researchers". so, it is mostly for lawsuits/processes that are already done, completed, for historical purposes. but my proposition is like wikinews, for current processes. and how they, author of WikiLegalCases, planned to publish declaration texts? in russia, they are not published in court websites. also, it aims to collect them all, this proposition does not. --QDinar (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1980s Wikipedia[edit]

This is a blatant joke proposal, which should never be put in a serious project area. This is just embarrassing clutter. Dronebogus (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems to contain contributions by several editors, and in the history seems to point to a RFH thread, I think there's sufficient scrutiny in the past for it to stand in it's existing form. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Lang name templates[edit]

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

• Delete all per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 15:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  For the record, I continue to support deletion, and consider the entire concept of deprecating templates or keeping them to preserve page histories to be inherently counterproductive. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 17:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep, to preserve histories. But we still should request a bot to replace their calls, I think. --18:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC) — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pols12 (talk)
• Deprecate per nom and Pols12. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep but mark deprecated, better to save for historical investigations. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Category:News 2002 and all “News YYYY”[edit]

Categories “News YYYY” (from Category:News 2002 to Category:News 2022) in Category:News look pretty useless. Years categories (e.g. Category:2002) are sufficient, according to me. I ping Verdy p, their author. --Pols12 (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They were categorizing by year, like all other years in the series. Note that there should be other members for each related year. This was done for some years, but the simple Category:2002 for example would contain things not related to (Wikimedia) news but also for other things or events. Many of these categories have multiple pages. But they may also be grouped in "News by year", to avoid overpopulating "Category:News". Over time, the number of pages has increased, and there are subtopic in "Category:News" that are also dated and could have also their members sorted by year. There's been an old project to trace the history of Wikiemdia and make it summarizable and easily searchable. verdy_p (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Submit your undeletion request at the bottom of this section.