Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/2011/Q1

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

March 12, 2011 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Deleted. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Mikemoral

Template:Explicit [edit]

Wikinews is not censored, and it is not our place to decide what counts as explicit. Is the F-word explicit? What about the word "bloody"? By a devout Muslim, a picture of a woman's ankles would be considered explicit - by most of us, it wouldn't. The point is, different people have different ideas about what counts as explicit, and we can let them decide for themselves. Δενδοδγε t\c 17:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

Votes [edit]

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


March 1, 2011 [edit]

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Untranscluded templates [edit]

Here's a selection of dubious untranscluded templates. There's a few hidden gems in there, such as {{Australian federal election 2010}}, that should probably be used. However, there's some templates that seem to serve little or no purpose. As a way to stimulate discussion over the list, here's a few examples I picked up on:

— μ 12:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Prolly shouldn't be done as a mass delete discussion - which is why people aren't commenting. These are a real grab bag of historical, usable and useless templates all jumbled together. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


February 28, 2011 [edit]

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Old prepared stories [edit]

A collection of stories prepped under WN:SP but never developed into articles when the event happened.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Votes etc [edit]

Done I left a note. --Pi zero (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove. Insert some dysphemism for 'delete' here. — μ 09:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove all of these are too old to publish, even if the Halterman interviews were done, they too are outdated whether or not original. If it desired to move to his user-space, then fine by me. --SVTCobra 00:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom. (Although, they /could/ be deleted as "Stale article, old news" or similar (which is under the speedy deletion criteria AFAIK)) Diego Grez return fire 01:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


February 17, 2011 [edit]

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Marked as {{historical}}. Diego Grez return fire 01:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Manual log pages [edit]

Pages have been superseded by Special:Logs. — μ 10:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

I have to agree with Diego Grez, below. I think this is the only history of those earliest administrative actions. - Amgine | t 04:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The single still-visible entry for the upload log is visible on Image:Wiki.png; a random click on one of the deletion logs shows that the revision is still there. I'd hazard a guess that all the other administrative actions are, in fact, logged in the database. — μ 10:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

Please vote using Keep, Remove, Neutral, or Comment followed by signature

  • as nom — μ 10:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral Dunno, I'd rather like them tagged as {{historical}} or something, instead of being deleted. Diego Grez return fire 15:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree with Diego. Its not like we're running out of disk space (not that deleting stuff saves disk space). Bawolff ☺☻ 04:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Mark as Historical No need to outright delete, but make damn sure nobody decides to try and use them again. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Mark as historical No need to delete them, just tag it with {{historical}}. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 11:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Mark as historical per above. Δενδοδγε t\c 13:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


January 30, 2011 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is CLosed jointly; both are getting deleted. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Blood Red Sandman

Wikinews:Accreditation requests/shakeelgilgity [edit]

This was proposed for speedy, but since I didn't see it obviously fitting the criteria and we take accreditation requests pretty seriously, I figured it should be brought up here. This was created mid-last-year by a user who never did anything else here before or since, and didn't link the request from anywhere else. --Pi zero (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

Votes [edit]

  • Remove as nominator. --Pi zero (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove; I came across this when using Special:PrefixIndex to categorise requests properly; the user neglected to post this to the main WN:AR page, so no-one noticed. Hopefully, that problem's slightly less severe now that the AR count on {{votings}} increment automatically, meaning that people are far more likely to spot & catch it. As the AR request never, to all intents and purposes, actually took place, I see no reason for keeping it. — μ 14:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove per π0. Diego Grez return fire 15:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikinews:Accreditation requests/Lance Gurwell [edit]

Largely as #Wikinews:Accreditation requests/shakeelgilgity, but for an exchange on xyr user talk with Brian McNeil. --Pi zero (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

Votes [edit]

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

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Closed as successful: Speedily deleted as empty category. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Diego Grez

Category:Chitral [edit]

We aren't systematically creating categories for any class of places to which this belongs, and apparently string "Chitral" doesn't occur at all in mainspace. --Pi zero (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

Votes [edit]

  • Remove as nominator. --Pi zero (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove. Google says there's three mentions of Chitral, but not once in mainspace, rendering it useless. — μ 00:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove per nominator. Diego Grez return fire 00:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


January 29, 2011 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Closed as successful - There was previous consensus to delete the template, but it wasn't deleted thereafter. Template provides no usefulness, as it can be easily overtaken by a [[w:Main Page|]] link. And, the current consensus also shows that the template is useless. I will, however, do the job of substing and fixing the problem caused by its deletion.. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Diego Grez

Template:W [edit]

Deletion request filed on January 29; expires 5 February 2011.

Nominated two or three times, {{w}} is a throwback from before, I assume, the pipetrick of [[w:Main Page|]] came into existence. It's a pointless template; why would we ever use it when such functionality is built into MediaWiki itself?

Whilst you're here, admire the new DR system (or send hate mail). — μ 22:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

  • Separate files for each deletion request is way too much bureaucratic red tape. That's a potent evil of Wikipedias that might be required for a huge and sprawling project, but is neither necessary nor desirable for our small and inherently centralized project here. Diego changed the RFPs page to do something like this, we quickly got a consensus to undo it, and you're reminding me that although I finally got around to fixing the first section (requests for adminship), I've only gotten as far as figuring out how to fix the rest of the sections of RFP. --Pi zero (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
    It's relatively easy to revert (it's lots of deletions and a rollback), but I quite like the idea that things like {{votings}} update automatically. If anything, I think that RfAs perhaps are the likeliest candidate for subpages, as you can easily associate it with users. It's been done with AR, so I assumed that it'd be fine to do so here. — μ 23:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
    I've been thinking about why the separate AR pages don't bother me. AR is peculiar in that, if it's successful, at any time thereafter one should be able to authenticate the consensus discussion, which means having the discussion's revision history at one's fingertips. That's only feasible if the entire discussion took place in the first place on a dedicated page. Most of our consensus discussions mainly need to be authenticated at the time the discussion ends, so later we're happy to rely on a repository archive. --Pi zero (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Seems like Blood Red Sandman has reverted the change. Diego Grez return fire 23:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "is a throwback from before, I assume, the pipetrick of [[w:Main Page|]] came into existence" As an aside, I believe the pipetrick existed before we (as a project) existed. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

  • Supposedly it was designed for the lazy people... but AFAIK, nobody uses this template anymore. {{subst:}} it and Remove it. Diego Grez return fire 22:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Why are we having this discussion again? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
It's still here, it's still pointless, and as far as I can tell, the last DR was closed as delete, but was still kept. — μ 23:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
So in other words, we have to go through the whole discussion all over again instead of somebody mopping up the result of the last discussion? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Or someone could speedy it. — μ 23:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This came up because I mentioned I might want to reuse the name "Template:w" for something that has somewhat different, and maybe even remotely useful, behavior. If we can get rid of the useless existing template, that leaves the way free and clear for a possible different use of the name. So I'm in favor of deleting it. I'm not going to speedy it since I have an ulterior motive, but if someone else wants to speedy it on the basis of previous consensus, I won't shed a tear. --Pi zero (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove as an unneeded template, but don't forget there are several articles that use it for some reason. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.


January 18, 2011 [edit]

Consensus has been reached on this deletion request, and the result is Closed as successful - content replaced. Do not add any more votes or comments on this request. Closed by Diego Grez

Template:Foreign language [edit]

Superseded by {{delete|not english}}. I suggest that we replace the content with <includeonly>{{tlx|delete|not english}}</includeonly>. — μ 00:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

Question Are you proposing to delete it, or proposing to replace its content? --Pi zero (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm proposing that, if the final verdict is 'redirect', that, rather of #REDIRECTing, we stick the code outlined above in instead, allowing the {[tlx|delete}} template to parse the appropriate parameter (a simple redir will result in the equivalent of {{delete}}, a copy/paste will result in {{delete|not english}}, a much more meaningful result. I'm ambivalent as to whether we delete or replace the code. — μ 01:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page, the Admin's talk page or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Deletion_requests/Archives/2011/Q1&oldid=1204038"