Wikifunctions:Requests for deletions
Latest comment: 10 days ago by GrounderUK in topic Z29839, Z27142, Z31260, Z29317
Functions or implementations or tests which do not work properly, do not meet notability criteria or are duplicates of another object can be deleted. Please nominate items for deletions under the "Requests for deletion" section below.
If it is obvious vandalism, just report it in Wikifunctions:Report vandalism, or ping an administrator. Contact can also be made with an administrator on Telegram or IRC #wikipedia-abstract.
If it is a predefined object (it's ZID is less than 10000), please see Wikifunctions:Report a technical problem.
 | SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day. |
| edit |
 |
|---|
| Archives |
Requests for deletion
Circular (multi-step, but ends up calling its own function). Feeglgeef (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Empty configurations. Feeglgeef (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Done ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:32, 27 January 2026 (UTC)- This section was archived on a request by: ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:32, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Feeglgeef, @Bunnypranav: Two of these seem to still be wired up, so shouldn't have been deleted, and are causing production errors.
- Z27142: Used by Z27147.
- Z29317: Used by Z29319 and Z30180
- @Feeglgeef: How did you determine that they were ready for nominating for deletion?
- @Bunnypranav: How did you delete them? Did you check usage first? Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for the ping, and apologies for the deletion. I have now undeleted those two items. I usually do check the whatlinks page, but somehow seem to have missed it for this one. I will make sure I don't do it again. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 02:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Bunnypranav: No worries, it happens. :-) Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- They were empty, I did not realize that they were in use. Functions using them should be changed to just use the default function. Feeglgeef (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Feeglgeef: Please check more broadly before nominating in future. I agree that if they're not currently obviously useful, they might be worth deleting, but also they might be in-process of being used. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks, James. Our deletion policy, as articulated above, applies only to functions, implementations and tests. In general, objects should not be deleted without consultation unless the request comes from the object creator. I think consultation can be limited to a notification on the object’s talk page. In addition to the criteria given, there should be an explicit pre-requisite that a function must not be used by any implementation of any other function. This pre-requisite should probably also apply to other objects (like a configuration or persistent typed list) if the deletion policy is extended to include them. GrounderUK (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- I should probably have said “…used in any composition other than one that implements or tests the function itself…” GrounderUK (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- I believe the RfD page to be sufficient consideration for deletion. Additionally, given that Wikifunctions is a wiki, I would not extend any extra weight to the opinion of the object creator unless the creation of the object was recent. Feeglgeef (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- The reason why we should prefer the proposal to be flagged on the talk page is so that contributors who have the object page on their Watchlist will see the proposal.
- Besides their probably being better informed than the average contributor, the only reason to treat originators any differently is to allow speedy deletion of objects created in error etc.
- For the avoidance of doubt, I would expect the proposer to have exercised due diligence before making the request here, leaving the administrator to confirm that the process has been followed. But that is not currently our explicit policy, so it is at the administrator’s discretion. GrounderUK (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- I suppose flagging for the watchlist is an okay requirement, but it should be a notice linking back to this page.
- I agree.
- Sure. Feeglgeef (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- @GrounderUK: Indeed, see my post on the talk page suggesting pinging the creators in these threads. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Per the staff editing policy, you should use a volunteer account for this discussion. Feeglgeef (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- This is only a draft. --Ameisenigel (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm aware. As is our blocking policy, but you still do issue blocks. The policy, or at least its principles (that WMF accounts participating in discussions is obviously problematic) supercedes the template. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Feeglgeef: No, this is me speaking as staff saying that failing to build stable, reliable processes is a risk to the feasibility of the site, which is part of my rôle, and I'm here to help the community be inclusive and successful. Are you suggesting that holding this wiki's processes to the same standard as other Wikimedia wikis is a "controversial topic"? I'm rather confused by your comment. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Is it the position of the WMF it ought to interfere with notification requirements on projects? That seems like a severe infringement on community autonomy. This is deeply concerning to me, and I'd be inclined to support copying over the staff editing policy of the other Wikimedia wikis if this is the case. Feeglgeef (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don’t think making a suggestion can reasonably be construed as interference. So far, no one has objected to the substance of the suggestion, so it is not currently controversial. There is no consensus on imposing any staff editing policy on this wiki. It hasn’t been discussed, as far as I’m aware, because no one has raised it as an issue yet. (Personally, I would favour more staff editing, rather than less.) GrounderUK (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Is it the position of the WMF it ought to interfere with notification requirements on projects? That seems like a severe infringement on community autonomy. This is deeply concerning to me, and I'd be inclined to support copying over the staff editing policy of the other Wikimedia wikis if this is the case. Feeglgeef (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- This is only a draft. --Ameisenigel (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Per the staff editing policy, you should use a volunteer account for this discussion. Feeglgeef (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks, James. Our deletion policy, as articulated above, applies only to functions, implementations and tests. In general, objects should not be deleted without consultation unless the request comes from the object creator. I think consultation can be limited to a notification on the object’s talk page. In addition to the criteria given, there should be an explicit pre-requisite that a function must not be used by any implementation of any other function. This pre-requisite should probably also apply to other objects (like a configuration or persistent typed list) if the deletion policy is extended to include them. GrounderUK (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Feeglgeef: Please check more broadly before nominating in future. I agree that if they're not currently obviously useful, they might be worth deleting, but also they might be in-process of being used. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for the ping, and apologies for the deletion. I have now undeleted those two items. I usually do check the whatlinks page, but somehow seem to have missed it for this one. I will make sure I don't do it again. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 02:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
