Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/styles.css

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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:  speedy delete. G7 Izno (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/styles.css

 * – (View MfD)

Not really sure if this is better here or at TFD... opted for here.

This is a currently-unused essentially-trivial experimental styles page for WP:VPWMF that was removed with consensus after reasonable requests from WMFers. Basically, it colored signatures of WMF editors such that they are easy to pick out.

I don't see a need to keep it around accordingly. Izno (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC) Also, for the record, I fully believe MfD is the right venue for this discussion. It's a page in projectspace with a non-standard content model, and MfD was literally designed to be a place for random discussions. MfD is a catch-all deletion forum made for things that might not make sense discussing elsewhere (drafts, userboxes, project pages, timed text, Portals, etc.) &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 15:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC) Yeah, after reading that, I would say my vote is to delete. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 15:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, TfD is the correct venue. --Gonnym (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Take to WP:TfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please skip the buro. --Izno (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You have not provided a valid deletion rationale. Why not archive or redirect?  Why the need to do anything?  MfD is not for random discussions, or it would die from scope creep.  The use of these templates is technical, and talking about the purpose, use, and redundancy of this template requires awareness of other templates, which is why Templates for Discussion is a separate forum.  Close, refer to WP:TfD.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it's not technically possible to redirect TemplateStyles pages while having them still function as TemplateStyles pages, and it's unclear what archiving would even mean. Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * it's not technically possible to redirect TemplateStyles pages while having them still function as TemplateStyles pages That's the sort of technobabble that is the reason functional templates below at TfD. People interested and conversant in this stuff watch TfD not MfD. Archiving usually means placing a archive hatnote, and possibly moving the page to some other place, such as under an archives title, or userspace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Question. Do you have a link to the consensus mentioned in your nomination statement? I was going to suggest turning this into a userscript, but if WMF staff have stated objections I'd like to read them before I cast such a vote.
 * Question. Do you have a link to the consensus mentioned in your nomination statement? I was going to suggest turning this into a userscript, but if WMF staff have stated objections I'd like to read them before I cast such a vote.
 * MJL, WT:VPWMF. --Izno (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you!
 * I created the stylesheet mainly as a demonstration that it is possible to use TemplateStyles to render css styling effects directly on arbitrary pages (i.e. outside of article space; and not templates). I completely sympathise with the WMF staffers who were not keen on the effect and don't think that the stylesheet has any real use beyond a proof-of-concept for that sort of styling. Unfortunately, also contributed not insignificant tweaks to the page, otherwise I'd have been happy to delete it as WP:CSD. As it is now demonstrably trivial to create analogous stylesheets for any other page that would have a legitimate use for it, I also see no reason to keep this particular page. --RexxS (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel like this is a reasonable case for an IAR multi-author G7 since I clearly have an opinion :^). --Izno (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Go for it: I'd certainly support that. Or do you want me to do it as you are the nominator? --RexxS (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.