From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:German Empire Armies. No opposition after 2 relists indicating a WP:SILENT consensus. (non-admin closure) ‑‑ Trialpears ( talk) 00:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Template:German Empire Corps with Template:German Empire Armies.
Please see below. PPEMES ( talk) 20:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:55, 16 December 2019 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:German Empire Armies. No opposition after 2 relists indicating a WP:SILENT consensus. (non-admin closure) ‑‑ Trialpears ( talk) 00:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Template:German Empire Divisions with Template:German Empire Armies.
Would this be possible in order to accomplish something along these lines (but in Wikipedia template presentation)? PPEMES ( talk) 20:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:55, 16 December 2019 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus in prior deletion discussions and at WT:FOOTY. Frietjes ( talk) 15:41, 16 December 2019 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Limited related links. We can cover these using 'see also' section. Störm (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Keep "Faisalabad is the third-most-populous city of Pakistan. Historically one of the first planned cities within British India. It has been referred to as the 'Manchester of Pakistan." The city has a population of over 2 million people per the census conducted in 1998.

I am copying the above lines from the Wikipedia main article on Faisalabad city. Anyone that looks at this Faisalabad city article, would also see that there are 173 references there that back up and support the main article - Faisalabad. So it's totally unbelievable for me to see above statements by the Deletion nominator - "Limited related links." Ngrewal1 ( talk) 23:21, 16 December 2019 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 December 24. (non-admin closure) ‑‑ Trialpears ( talk) 00:20, 24 December 2019 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) ‑‑ Trialpears ( talk) 00:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Unnecessary template, unsourced Migsmigss ( talk) 03:25, 16 December 2019 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review).
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:German Empire Armies. No opposition after 2 relists indicating a WP:SILENT consensus. (non-admin closure) ‑‑ Trialpears ( talk) 00:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Template:German Empire Corps with Template:German Empire Armies.
Please see below. PPEMES ( talk) 20:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:55, 16 December 2019 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:German Empire Armies. No opposition after 2 relists indicating a WP:SILENT consensus. (non-admin closure) ‑‑ Trialpears ( talk) 00:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Template:German Empire Divisions with Template:German Empire Armies.
Would this be possible in order to accomplish something along these lines (but in Wikipedia template presentation)? PPEMES ( talk) 20:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:55, 16 December 2019 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus in prior deletion discussions and at WT:FOOTY. Frietjes ( talk) 15:41, 16 December 2019 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Limited related links. We can cover these using 'see also' section. Störm (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Keep "Faisalabad is the third-most-populous city of Pakistan. Historically one of the first planned cities within British India. It has been referred to as the 'Manchester of Pakistan." The city has a population of over 2 million people per the census conducted in 1998.

I am copying the above lines from the Wikipedia main article on Faisalabad city. Anyone that looks at this Faisalabad city article, would also see that there are 173 references there that back up and support the main article - Faisalabad. So it's totally unbelievable for me to see above statements by the Deletion nominator - "Limited related links." Ngrewal1 ( talk) 23:21, 16 December 2019 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 December 24. (non-admin closure) ‑‑ Trialpears ( talk) 00:20, 24 December 2019 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) ‑‑ Trialpears ( talk) 00:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Unnecessary template, unsourced Migsmigss ( talk) 03:25, 16 December 2019 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook