Wikipedia:Miscellany For Deletion : Soft.lk - A Premium Software Developers - Meet one of the most powerful and intuitive POS systems for retail in Sri Lanka

21 Aug, 2019
By, Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Miscellany For Deletion

Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). Purge this page

WP:MFD

Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information.

Deletion discussions
Deletion today Undeletion Deletion review Deletion log Request a copy of a deleted article
Articles
today all (sorted) closing log
Templates and modules
today all closing holding
Files
today all closing
Categories
today all category closing speedy working manual
Redirects
today all closing log
Miscellany
today all closing
Speedy deletion
candidates
Proposed deletion
all (sorted) BLPs
Policy Process Guide (Images) Administrator guidelines
v t e

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, MOS: (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect or one of the 5 disambiguation pages) and the various Talk: namespaces
Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.

Before nominating a page for deletion

Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

Deleting pages in your own userspace	If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}}. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Duplications in draftspace?	Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace	Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding `{{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~` to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}. Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first. Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion. User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion. Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages	Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere. Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages	It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status\|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable. WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication. Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion	Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems. Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6\|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD	Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
Wikipedia:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
Wikipedia:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Wikipedia" namespace pages
Wikipedia:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
Wikipedia:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes

How to list pages for deletion

Shortcut

WP:MFDHOWTO

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted)

Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.

Edit PageName:

Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion:

{{mfd|1={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd}}

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.

If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.

Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages.

Please include in the edit summary the phrase
Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
Save the page

II.

Create its MfD subpage.

The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry"

Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
Insert this text:

{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.

Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
Save the page.

III.

Add a line to MfD.

Follow this edit link and at the top of the list add a line:

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".

Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
Save the page.
If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add

{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.

If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add
{{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~
to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as
Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog
V	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	25	25
TfD	7	0	7
MfD	2	0	2
FfD	2	3	5
RfD	29	11	40
AfD	0	0	0

Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.

Archived discussions

A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.

Current discussions

Pages currently being considered for deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

November 8, 2024

Draft:Animatic Battle

Object shows probably fall under WP:BFDI TheWikipede (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The Dream Island essay explains why we do not have articles about animated battles on the Internet. This is a draft, and it was properly declined five months ago. There was no need to nominate it for deletion. If the nominator had waited a month, this draft would have died of old age. Now it will die of old age in May 2025. Rag picking to get rid of useless drafts is itself useless. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Delete

Message is identical to source, albeit with different casing (lowercase instead of uppercase). Please also see Special:AllMessages/delete and Special:AllMessages/protect. Awesome Aasim 00:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep unless the nominator can show that there is any actual harm in having these read-only files. It isn't obvious what the purposes of these files are, but it is even less obvious why they should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 7, 2024

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Queen Elizabeth slipped majestically into the water
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: keep. Per WP:SNOW FOARP (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia:Queen Elizabeth slipped majestically into the water Wikipedia:Queen Elizabeth slipped majestically into the water (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) – (View MfD) This essay is excessively obscene. It's largely based on sexual humor and contains multiple images that depict sexual intercourse for humorous, not informative, purposes. Moreover, sex jokes and the images of depicted or implied ("CENSORED") sexual intercourse are interspersed with non-sexual photos of real women, who most likely haven't been asked if they want to be shown in this context. I'm sorry to say this, but this page very much comes off as sexist. Were this in article space, it would have been in violation of WP:GRATUITOUS. Otherwise, if this page is not to be deleted, it would be good to at least remove the explicit images. NicolausPrime (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep, obviously. (I'm taking creator's prerogative by inserting my !vote here up top.) this page very much comes off as sexist ... it would be good to at least remove the explicit images manifests a complete failure to grasp the point. What would be good would be if an inexperienced editor, puzzled by the existence of a 5-year-old essay that numerous seasoned editors (including admins) have contributed to, would start by expressing his concerns on the talk page, before putting the ponderpous xfD machinery into motion. I've added a clarifying note to the essay [1] which I hope will prevent us having to go through this again someday. E Eng 07:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Speedy keep, helpful and appropriate as an essay on writing style. And as they say "a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down": the humor makes this memorable and readable, helpful aspects for a style guide to have. Bluenosing is not a valid deletion reason, and we do not have any valid reason given. See also WP:NOTCENSORED. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep. WP:NOTCENSORED, yes indeed. Essays, unlike policies or guidelines, do not have to have wide consensus. This essay is about writing style on Wikipedia, and so it is directly related to project concerns, whether or not one agrees with it. And I've looked at the images (no, not in that way), and I find it preposterous that anyone would really consider them explicit or offensive. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Among others, the essay contains the following two images: [2], an image depicting a man and a woman undergoing sexual intercourse, with a visible penis and a penetrated vagina, [3], a photo of a relief depicting an orgy. Please explain to me how do you find it preposterous to consider them explicit, especially the first one. NicolausPrime (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Because I know it when I see it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I mean, it's not really that preposterous to think some sorts of people would be offended. Ed 04:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] a visible penis and a penetrated vagina – You think an invisible penis would drive the point home more effectively [4]? E Eng 07:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Speedy keep as David Eppstein. No valid reason given for deletion. I'll tend to agree with David, part of the page's point is that the traditional nautical usage of "she" leads to quite terrible Wikipedia text more often than not. My father was the keeper of the Eddystone Light, but the option of using the feminine pronoun has long since sailed, IMHO. I think all four of us (so far) agree on that issue. This page utilizes exaggeration and irony to make the point. Salt is salt. I can't change that. But I can make fun of it, and this page takes me there. BusterD (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep within Wikipedia Castle. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I'd be open to userfying this per WP:USERESSAY. It's almost entirely the work of one user, and the way it gets its views across stems from that person's individual sense of humor. That said, it doesn't violate any policy that I can think of. Ed 04:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] For the record, while I won't deny that all the best, cleverest, funniest, subtlest, deepest, and generally all-around most brilliant parts of this were written by moi, about 1/3 of it is by others (see "Top 10 by added text" in [5]). E Eng 07:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I care not about ship naming, but I've definitely found the "into the woulds" section helpful in my Wikipedia editing. Which is to say, this has at least some greater purpose than the amusement of EEng. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Queen Elizabeth slipped majestically into the water

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Per WP:SNOW FOARP (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Queen Elizabeth slipped majestically into the water

This essay is excessively obscene. It's largely based on sexual humor and contains multiple images that depict sexual intercourse for humorous, not informative, purposes. Moreover, sex jokes and the images of depicted or implied ("CENSORED") sexual intercourse are interspersed with non-sexual photos of real women, who most likely haven't been asked if they want to be shown in this context. I'm sorry to say this, but this page very much comes off as sexist.

Were this in article space, it would have been in violation of WP:GRATUITOUS. Otherwise, if this page is not to be deleted, it would be good to at least remove the explicit images. NicolausPrime (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. (I'm taking creator's prerogative by inserting my !vote here up top.) this page very much comes off as sexist ... it would be good to at least remove the explicit images manifests a complete failure to grasp the point. What would be good would be if an inexperienced editor, puzzled by the existence of a 5-year-old essay that numerous seasoned editors (including admins) have contributed to, would start by expressing his concerns on the talk page, before putting the ponderpous xfD machinery into motion. I've added a clarifying note to the essay [1] which I hope will prevent us having to go through this again someday. E Eng 07:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, helpful and appropriate as an essay on writing style. And as they say "a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down": the humor makes this memorable and readable, helpful aspects for a style guide to have. Bluenosing is not a valid deletion reason, and we do not have any valid reason given. See also WP:NOTCENSORED. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOTCENSORED, yes indeed. Essays, unlike policies or guidelines, do not have to have wide consensus. This essay is about writing style on Wikipedia, and so it is directly related to project concerns, whether or not one agrees with it. And I've looked at the images (no, not in that way), and I find it preposterous that anyone would really consider them explicit or offensive. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Among others, the essay contains the following two images:
- [2], an image depicting a man and a woman undergoing sexual intercourse, with a visible penis and a penetrated vagina,
- [3], a photo of a relief depicting an orgy.
Please explain to me how do you find it preposterous to consider them explicit, especially the first one. NicolausPrime (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because I know it when I see it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it's not really that preposterous to think some sorts of people would be offended. Ed 04:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a visible penis and a penetrated vagina – You think an invisible penis would drive the point home more effectively [4]? E Eng 07:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as David Eppstein. No valid reason given for deletion. I'll tend to agree with David, part of the page's point is that the traditional nautical usage of "she" leads to quite terrible Wikipedia text more often than not. My father was the keeper of the Eddystone Light, but the option of using the feminine pronoun has long since sailed, IMHO. I think all four of us (so far) agree on that issue. This page utilizes exaggeration and irony to make the point. Salt is salt. I can't change that. But I can make fun of it, and this page takes me there. BusterD (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep within Wikipedia Castle. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be open to userfying this per WP:USERESSAY. It's almost entirely the work of one user, and the way it gets its views across stems from that person's individual sense of humor. That said, it doesn't violate any policy that I can think of. Ed 04:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, while I won't deny that all the best, cleverest, funniest, subtlest, deepest, and generally all-around most brilliant parts of this were written by moi, about 1/3 of it is by others (see "Top 10 by added text" in [5]). E Eng 07:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I care not about ship naming, but I've definitely found the "into the woulds" section helpful in my Wikipedia editing. Which is to say, this has at least some greater purpose than the amusement of EEng. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

MediaWiki:Abusefilter-blocker

Abuse filter blocking is disabled on English Wikipedia. Thus this message is pointless. There is only one log entry attributed to User:Edit filter: Special:Log/Edit filter. Awesome Aasim 19:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blockreason per nom. Unfortunately we have to keep blocker, since deleting it will just make things worse (change to fake admin account to User:Abuse filter rather than User:Edit filter, and require the crats to desysop the former, and otherwise cause more trouble than it's worth). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Can someone explain what the function or purpose of these two read-only files is, and what would be the effect of deleting them, and so why they should be deleted? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MediaWiki:Abusefilter-blockreason is the edit summary that would be used for blocks by the abuse filter if we had abuse filters configured to block accounts. Since we don't have that configuration, haven't had it in years, and have no plans to enable it, it's a useless leftover and can be deleted.
MediaWiki:Abusefilter-blocker is the username that would be used to carry out such blocks. Aasim thinks that it should be deleted for the same reason as my previous paragraph, and in an idea world I would agree. But unfortunately the AbuseFilter extension also forces that username to be an admin, even there are no blocks being issued and no technical reason it needs to be one. If we were to delete it, then it would revert to the upstream default of "Abuse filter", thereby causing that username to be an admin. A crat would then need to manually desysop "edit filter", and we would have caused a lot of churn and ended up in a much worse situation than we started in. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Edit

Inconsistent with MediaWiki:Skin-view-edit, MediaWiki:Monobook-view-edit, MediaWiki:Vector-view-edit, MediaWiki:Vector-2022-view-edit, etc. Should be deleted to allow the default "Edit" text to be visible. Since this page has a bit of a history I am hesitant to tag it for G6 and am instead sending it to MFD. Awesome Aasim 19:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Using a low-visiblilty MfD to make major changes to the interface like this is totally inappropriate and a solution in search of a problem. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen this message in a very long time. Probably because of VisualEditor stuff. Note "Edit this page" is the default for MediaWiki:Editthispage. Is MediaWiki:Edit even used? I cannot figure that out, it is listed on Special:AllMessages but I cannot figure out a way to get that message to show up. Tooltips? That is MediaWiki:Tooltip-ca-edit. But even then, it is awkward especially if called from templates (which will likely use something like {{int:edit}} if the contents were not "Edit this page"). Section links? MediaWiki:Editsection.

I think what is unclear is what message is used where and if they are still being in use. Awesome Aasim 18:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I turned off the visual editor to see if phab:T310529 is what is happening, apparently not! I am debating withdrawing this to discuss on WP:VPT which may give clearer guidance on what should happen. Awesome Aasim 19:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Note for non-technical editors: Doing "?uselang=qqx" at the end of the URL gets the names of MediaWiki interface messages. We probably already know this, but stating it for the record.) Awesome Aasim 19:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I don't understand the context or purpose of this MFD, and so am opposing deletion until it can be explained. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 6, 2024

Draft:A Car's life: Sparky's big Adventure

Draft by a quickly blocked vandalism-only account. soetermans. 13:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Does the film exist? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NDRAFT. Deleting drafts is busywork. -1ctinus📝🗨 19:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G3. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:E4CF:BC31:3E2B:DEFF (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an account, it is a violation of WP:SOCK to edit projectspace logged out. If you don’t have an account, please WP:REGISTER. Some level of medium-term accountability is important for editors of projectspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I have verified that the film does exist. The draft is the work of a vandal, but is not vandalism itself, only a stupid draft. Stupid drafts can be ignored for six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not vandalism. Author is therefore not a vandalism account. The terse nomination is wrong. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 4, 2024

Template:User BYU old

No transclusions. There is no reason to keep old versions of templates; they can be seen in the page history. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. If history merge is needed then it should be done, but we don't need to keep multiple sets of "old" templates. Gonnym (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once-used Userboxes need to be kept to avoid breaking old versions of userpages. SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:PC

Virtually blank draft, consisting of a Wikipedia maintenance template but no actual content, with no obvious reason to exist. This appears to have been created in an attempt to institute a "PC" --> Pony Canyon redirect as a bypass of the fact that PC already exists in mainspace as a disambiguation page listing a lot of things (including, but not limited to, the obvious one that would have a much stronger claim to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for it than Pony Canyon ever would), and has been filed in Category:Pony Canyon a couple of times in defiance of WP:DRAFTNOCAT, even though filing it there wouldn't even serve any useful purpose anyway: even where shortcut redirects are in place, they don't need to be filed in their target's eponymous category as an alternative way of getting from the category to its own head article that's already in the same category.
So there's just no need for this, if its only purpose is to try to bypass Wikipedia's standard processes. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a mistake by a new account, perhaps even an alt account of someone already involved. Glad to see it brought here so the community can see it. BusterD (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - If it is a mistake by a new account, the user can tag it with G7 for deletion. Otherwise it is the sort of junk that can be left in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion as this seems like a test page. TheWikipede (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:DontWatchMePls/sandbox

Likely WP:HOAX. Other than small changes being made to the introduction and infobox to present the subject as "A(u)gustus Huckleberry" (a name that doesn't verify on the Google as having any connection to Carnegie Mellon University at all under either spelling), this is otherwise a mixture of text copied and pasted from Farnam Jahanian without being significantly changed, and boilerplate placeholder text of the lorem ipsum variety. Also, the photo in the infobox is clearly not of a man in his 60s. Bearcat (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This may have had the involvement of one of the minions of Genseric. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2, 2024

Template:User Oppose VHP

Unused userbox that appears to violate WP:UBDIVISIVE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - We have usually kept controversial political userboxes, as long as they did not advocate violence. This userbox does not advocate violence, but opposes an organization that is said to advocate violence. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Oppose Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

Unused userbox that appears to violate WP:UBDIVISIVE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just as there are userboxes that support various political ideologies, having a userbox that expresses opposition to a specific ideology contributes to a balanced representation. It’s crucial that Wikipedia reflects a spectrum of viewpoints, especially on contentious topics. Secondly the existence of such userboxes is constructive, they allow individuals to express their views and engage with differing opinions, which aligns with Wikipedia’s goal of providing a platform for diverse perspectives. There are several instances where userboxes representing differing ideologies exist without being flagged for divisiveness. This suggests that our community values the representation of diverse viewpoints. If the support template exists for a organization like RSS which is often regarded as terrorist organization or far right extremist, and often blamed for assassination Mahatma Gandhi, there is a need of the template which is in opposition to the ideology of RSS and PFI. ZDX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 14:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - We have usually kept controversial political userboxes, as long as they did not advocate violence. This userbox does not advocate violence, but opposes an ideology that is said to advocate violence. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Oppose PFI

Unused userbox that appears to violate WP:UBDIVISIVE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just as there are userboxes that support various political ideologies, having a userbox that expresses opposition to a specific ideology contributes to a balanced representation. It allow individuals to express their views and engage with differing opinions. There are several instances where userboxes representing differing ideologies exist without being flagged for divisiveness. ZDX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 15:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - We have usually kept controversial political userboxes, as long as they did not advocate violence. This userbox does not advocate violence, but opposes an organization that is said to advocate violence. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Ban PFI

Unused userbox that appears to violate WP:UBDIVISIVE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - We have usually kept controversial political userboxes, as long as they did not advocate violence. This userbox does not advocate violence, but opposes an organization that is said to advocate violence. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 1, 2024

Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo/What to do with Afghan training camps?/Merge less well referenced articles to Afghan training camp... or to a new article...

I originally just redirected this but it was contested. Contextless Guantanamo related page, part of a project to make a lot of pages on a lot of Guantanamo prisoner BLPs (many of which are being slowly deleted as given our current rules they are non-notable) by an indef banned user that never went anywhere masquerading as a WikiProject page. Also, WP Terrorism is no longer a wikiproject so these are attached to a project that no longer exists. Marking it as historical is negative for that reason. I see no harm in letting it exist as a redirect so the page history is accessible but I do see issues with letting it remain attached to nothing.

Also nominating:

PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I would like to know whether I understand. It appears that there was a WikiProject until 19 October 2024, and then it was moved to become a task force of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo was a subpage of the project, and it had its own subpages. So the issue is what to do with the subpages of something that no longer exists. Is that correct? My own thinking is that marking them historical is exactly what should be done, to record the historical link to the renamed project. Is my reading of the history correct? If so, why shouldn't we record the strange history? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon What's the point of keeping project pages that have no project? I find they tend, even if marked defunct or historical, to attract random edits, vandalism, and people for asking for help on the wrong pages to get no response. Redirecting it stops that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 22, 2024

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Aramea
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia:WikiProject Aramea Wikipedia:WikiProject Aramea (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) – (View MfD) WikiProject Aramea was created in 2015, and through viewing the edit history, has rarely seen any edits or discussion on creation or editing of articles since that time. Additionally, many of its formerly active members were sockpuppet accounts of users that have since been blocked indefinitely. The WikiProject itself is almost an exact carbon copy of WikiProject Assyria, with the same sections, graphics, and layout. I am proposing that the WikiProject be deleted as it essentially acts as a content fork, which is one of Wikipedia's criteria for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surayeproject3 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] Would normally suggest keeping archive as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Dealing with inactive WikiProjects..... However reviewing the Page's history it seems that this is all shock puppetry.... so deletion is fine nothing to save here. Moxy🍁 18:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] Comment: I don't think it being a "content fork" is a good justification for deletion given that only really applies to articles, and all it is is made from the same template. The real reason for deletion would be that it is inactive and hasn't done much, plus the sockpuppets, I think: the relevant policy is: "If an inactive project never seems to have grown beyond its founding, you may consider moving it to the founder's userspace or nominating it for deletion at MfD. In general, medium or larger projects are marked as defunct rather than deleted to preserve the project's history. For more, see Wikipedia:Project namespace#Deletion of project pages." Looking myself there has been 1 non-bot comment on the talk page, 8 years ago, by someone who was not a member of the wikiproject. There are no members and because there is no category for WikiProject aramea articles, it is unclear how many articles are associated with it. Support deletion given if someone actually wants to make this wikiproject they can make another one, and it does seem to meet the criterion of not having grown much since its founding. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] Delete - A WikiProject that has never had a post from a member on its project talk page in nine years and has a history of sockpuppetry is a project that is not worth keeping as a defunct project. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] Delete. For future similar interests, engage with Wikipedia:WikiProject Syria. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Aramea

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aramea

WikiProject Aramea was created in 2015, and through viewing the edit history, has rarely seen any edits or discussion on creation or editing of articles since that time. Additionally, many of its formerly active members were sockpuppet accounts of users that have since been blocked indefinitely. The WikiProject itself is almost an exact carbon copy of WikiProject Assyria, with the same sections, graphics, and layout. I am proposing that the WikiProject be deleted as it essentially acts as a content fork, which is one of Wikipedia's criteria for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surayeproject3 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would normally suggest keeping archive as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Dealing with inactive WikiProjects..... However reviewing the Page's history it seems that this is all shock puppetry.... so deletion is fine nothing to save here. Moxy🍁 18:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think it being a "content fork" is a good justification for deletion given that only really applies to articles, and all it is is made from the same template. The real reason for deletion would be that it is inactive and hasn't done much, plus the sockpuppets, I think: the relevant policy is:

"If an inactive project never seems to have grown beyond its founding, you may consider moving it to the founder's userspace or nominating it for deletion at MfD. In general, medium or larger projects are marked as defunct rather than deleted to preserve the project's history. For more, see Wikipedia:Project namespace#Deletion of project pages."

Looking myself there has been 1 non-bot comment on the talk page, 8 years ago, by someone who was not a member of the wikiproject. There are no members and because there is no category for WikiProject aramea articles, it is unclear how many articles are associated with it. Support deletion given if someone actually wants to make this wikiproject they can make another one, and it does seem to meet the criterion of not having grown much since its founding. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A WikiProject that has never had a post from a member on its project talk page in nine years and has a history of sockpuppetry is a project that is not worth keeping as a defunct project. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For future similar interests, engage with Wikipedia:WikiProject Syria. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 00:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC) ended today on 9 November 2024. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action.

October 31, 2024

Wikipedia:WikiProject Percussion/Core

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) 18:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary when Category:Top-importance Percussion articles exists. Has not been edited since the first day of its creation nearly twenty years ago. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Historical - No need to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it even historical? It has been edited by only one editor on one day over a decade ago. It does not represent the larger WikiProject at all. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mark as historical or redirect to main WikiProject page: was once useful and there's no reason its content should be inaccessible to non-admins, which is all that deletion achieves. Per the links to the page, it was mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Percussion/Archive 1 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Percussion/To do/Archive 1. Also, it was created in February 2008, which is more like 16-and-a-half years ago than 20 (fairly important because Wikipedia changed a lot between November 2004 and February 2008). Graham87 (talk) 09:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer a move to the original author's user page per WP:PRJDEL. Why? I Ask (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) 18:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Percussion/Collaboration of the Month

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) 18:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not been used since its creation in 2008. Wikipedia:WikiProject Percussion/In progress seems to be an attempt at re-creating it, thus this is unnecessary. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Historical - No need to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has never been used. The only edits are its creation and tagging of inactive. It is not historical. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mark as historical or redirect to main WikiProject page: was once useful and there's no reason its content should be inaccessible to non-admins, which is all that deletion achieves. As it says on the page, the only collabroation of the month was [[List of percussion instruments, so it was used for something. Graham87 (talk) 09:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) 18:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates