Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Warcraft Cleanup

Wikipedia:WikiProject Warcraft/Manual of style[edit]

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 debate was redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Warcraft/* pages to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games (I did it to the closest thing I could find: Article guidelines, Deletion, and Peer review). Delete the templates. - Nabla (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Warcraft/Deletion
Wikipedia:WikiProject Warcraft/Review
Template:WPW_Announce
Template:WPW Review
Template:WPW Subpage
Template:WPW Talk
Template:Warcraftbox contents
Template:WPW Navigation

Requesting deletion as the project is being downgraded from a project to a taskforce. Project has been inactive for over a year, project mainpage has been redirected to the new taskforce page. Gazimoff (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Project moving over to WP:VG, not much need for these things. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G6 you don't need to list this here for a wikiproject section, the project just asks an admin to do it for them, so speedy delete per CSD G6, uncontraversial housekeeping.--Phoenix -wiki 12:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaning, yes, uncontroversial, apparently not. Keke. --Izno (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect of the two Wikipedia pages serves clean-up needs without losing history. Martin (talk)
Redirect might be the best way to deal with this. I'm not sure how useful the page histories are, but redirects are cheap, and it would be easy to retrieve something if needed later on. -- Ned Scott 03:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The templates shouldn't be template spaced, for one, two, I see little use in the top two items. They can be edited on the task force page, rather than some separate pages. --Izno (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, possibly keep the MoS; we can use it as a basis for the task force. --Izno (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that WP:VG, which this has been devolved into a taskforce of, has it's own supporting MoS pages. It makes the Warcraft one surplus to requirements.Gazimoff ^Write _Read 21:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Surplus is not bad. =). It's not a point I will argue with, and will work with whatever result comes of this mfd. --Izno (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- T:Warcraftbox contents is now completely redundant to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Warcraft/to_do. I edited out the red links and such, and summarized what needs to be done. --Izno (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems relatively redundant to the respective WP:VG material. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the MoS for historical purposes and delete the rest. Add a notice to project page and MoS page about them being predated by WP:VG before closing this XfD --Enric Naval (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2008 (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.