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 all, if someone needs any of this restored to their userpage - no issues.. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Old/sandbox MediaWiki CSS pages[edit]

Speedy Deleted (G2). — xaosflux ^Talk 17:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted (G7) ((Nihiltres |talk |edits)) 23:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deleted (U1) — xaosflux ^Talk 17:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are all old or sandboxy type CSS pages that are mostly search clutter. Because of the content of these pages (CSS), they cannot be edited by most users. Today, their replacement would probably be dealt with using WP:TemplateStyles. I am happy to see these deleted, or moved to the user space of the primary author for each page. Izno (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I G7'd the one relating to myself and generally endorse the deletion or userfication of the others. ((Nihiltres |talk |edits)) 23:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Oppose userfying because the first two are by retired users and the third one is by an admin who can restore it to userfy themselves if necessary (and also isn't very active). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He can't restore that specific page as he is not an interface administrator, though he could view deleted. Izno (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True, forgot that. Doesn't change my conclusion (and in an earlier draft of that comment I said "view the deleted content if necessary"). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (no objection to userfying any that people want to keep) Normally, the correct namespace for site-CSS/global-CSS tests is userspace (because testing anywhere else would require intadmin powers). The only benefit to doing the tests in MediaWiki:-space instead is if a large number of people need to be able to participate in the test without manually copying the CSS over (this is probably the motivation behind the creation of MediaWiki:Gadget-NewMainPageTest.css – it would have allowed people to opt into the test in preferences rather than via manual CSS copying). Even if these tests had widespread participation once, they don't right now, so it doesn't make sense to have them in MediaWiki: space, and it's unlikely that anyone cares enough about them to userfy (but if anyone does, we should allow a userfication, either in this MfD or at WP:REFUND). --ais523 09:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ais523 being in MediaWiki space was necessary for others to load them with url parameters. I'm not arguing to keep them if they are no longer needed, just some background on why they had to be in that namespace. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed – the advantage to putting them into MediaWiki space is that it's easier to share the tests among a large number of people. However, that reason is unlikely to be relevant for these pages nowadays, even if it made sense to have them there at the time. --ais523 09:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, those tests should be long over now. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:05, 30 July 2022 (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.