The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac ( talk) 23:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Incorrectly titled navbox, and no navigable entries at all, rendering it useless. The artist has had a long and successful career in Germany, with number-one singles and albums, so it is conceivable that entries could be created in the future. However, the creator of this template has now been blocked for socking, so it's unlikely anything will be created soon – this template should be deleted for now, and if articles for the songs/albums are created in future, it can be recreated under its correct name. Richard3120 ( talk) 21:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Techie3 ( talk) 23:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
As the lists that were included in this navbox have been deleted, this no longer serves a purpose. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 18:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Techie3 ( talk) 23:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The main article has been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arlesdale Railway (2nd nomination). Now, this template is unused, and is pretty much fancruft out of scope for anything else. Of the remaining bluelinks, most are to articles currently up to deletion. Hog Farm Bacon 16:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was merge. Reasonable nomination, no opposition. Primefac ( talk) 23:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Propose merging volleyball/field hockey/basketball templates with
Template:National squad/
Template:National squad no numbers.
All these templates have the same general functionality and purpose, and with a few small adjustments can be handled by the broader templates {{
National squad}} and {{
National squad no numbers}}.
S.A. Julio (
talk) 10:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus. There are valid arguments on both sides of this discussion, and I was tempted to relist, but based on similar batch-discussions I have read and/or closed in the past I am concerned that the discussion with fracture into "this template is okay, but delete that template" and it will be nearly impossible to pick everything apart. There is NPASR for individual templates provided good rationale is given. If this action is undertaken, please consider staggering the nominations so there are not 19 nearly-identical nominations all on one day. Primefac ( talk) 23:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Based on recent deletions, there is concern about the verifiability of members of royal houses of abolished countries. There is no current legal basis that defines members of these royal families, so it seems difficult to source. 73.110.217.186 ( talk) 02:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. There is no consensus for a cross-namespace redirect, and attribution has been provided. Primefac ( talk) 23:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
This page was nominated for deletion through TfD at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 August 11#Template:Tfd instructions, and, pursuant to the unanimous consensus of the participants, I recently closed the discussion as "subst and delete". The page was then deleted pursuant to that consensus. It was restored pursuant to a request at WP:REFUND. For the the reasons underlying the unanimous consensus of the previous discussion, I recommend substitution and deletion. For procedural reasons, this discussion should only be closed by an admin. — Mdaniels5757 ( talk • contribs) 02:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Please note that this page is NOT for challenging the outcome of deletion discussions or to address the pending deletion of any page.It further clearly states,
Note that requests for undeletion are not a replacement for deletion review. If you feel an administrator has erred in closing a deletion discussion or in applying a speedy deletion criterion, please contact them directly. If you discuss but are unable to resolve the issue on their talk page, it should be raised at Wikipedia:Deletion review, rather than here.DRV clearly states its scope over this issue per points 2, 3 or 5 of WP:DRVPURPOSE. I'm not saying you're wrong re. attribution, I'm saying (a) the admin at REFUND should not have undeleted, and (b) in any case, any further discussion should be raised at WP:DRV, not a new TfD. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 16:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
To contest deletions that have have already been discussed (in particular, at Articles for deletion), or that are likely to be controversial, please make a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review instead.(both points were fulfilled: there was a TfD discussion, and the closer contested undeletion at WP:REFUND before you undeleted). Although the page does mention G6 as being refundable, I'm pretty sure the point of that is other uncontroversial maintenance deletion reasons, not TfD deletions; I don't think REFUND is meant to be controversial... I suppose the only reason TfDs can be included in G6 is because they can be closed by non-admins (though it begs the question, why use G6 for TfDs, incl for admin closes, when all other XfDs just link the deletion discussion?). If there's a talk discussion somewhere about this matter proving me wrong I'd appreciate a link, but I really don't think WP:REFUND is meant to be applied to TfD deletions. And certainly, even if it were, a REFUND shouldn't mean a new TfD is created which must be closed by an admin so the closure can't be refunded. This just doesn't make any sense -- this is surely a DRV issue. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 01:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
G6 should be uncontroversialis inapplicable since what is uncontroversial is deletion of a template that consensus has already established should be deleted, not the closure of the discussion. Second, the correct venue for this discussion is RfD, since this proposal is effectively challenging the existence of a redirect from Template:Tfd instructions to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions. Third, I see no reason that that redirect should not exist, so Redirect and put an end to this silliness. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
[The authors'] linked usernames can be included in the edit summary documenting the merge. [...] Though this method is legally acceptable, however, it is not preferred, since histories are used to track editor contributions in addition to attribution.– Uanfala (talk) 11:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac ( talk) 23:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Incorrectly titled navbox, and no navigable entries at all, rendering it useless. The artist has had a long and successful career in Germany, with number-one singles and albums, so it is conceivable that entries could be created in the future. However, the creator of this template has now been blocked for socking, so it's unlikely anything will be created soon – this template should be deleted for now, and if articles for the songs/albums are created in future, it can be recreated under its correct name. Richard3120 ( talk) 21:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Techie3 ( talk) 23:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
As the lists that were included in this navbox have been deleted, this no longer serves a purpose. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 18:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Techie3 ( talk) 23:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The main article has been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arlesdale Railway (2nd nomination). Now, this template is unused, and is pretty much fancruft out of scope for anything else. Of the remaining bluelinks, most are to articles currently up to deletion. Hog Farm Bacon 16:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was merge. Reasonable nomination, no opposition. Primefac ( talk) 23:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Propose merging volleyball/field hockey/basketball templates with
Template:National squad/
Template:National squad no numbers.
All these templates have the same general functionality and purpose, and with a few small adjustments can be handled by the broader templates {{
National squad}} and {{
National squad no numbers}}.
S.A. Julio (
talk) 10:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus. There are valid arguments on both sides of this discussion, and I was tempted to relist, but based on similar batch-discussions I have read and/or closed in the past I am concerned that the discussion with fracture into "this template is okay, but delete that template" and it will be nearly impossible to pick everything apart. There is NPASR for individual templates provided good rationale is given. If this action is undertaken, please consider staggering the nominations so there are not 19 nearly-identical nominations all on one day. Primefac ( talk) 23:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Based on recent deletions, there is concern about the verifiability of members of royal houses of abolished countries. There is no current legal basis that defines members of these royal families, so it seems difficult to source. 73.110.217.186 ( talk) 02:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. There is no consensus for a cross-namespace redirect, and attribution has been provided. Primefac ( talk) 23:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
This page was nominated for deletion through TfD at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 August 11#Template:Tfd instructions, and, pursuant to the unanimous consensus of the participants, I recently closed the discussion as "subst and delete". The page was then deleted pursuant to that consensus. It was restored pursuant to a request at WP:REFUND. For the the reasons underlying the unanimous consensus of the previous discussion, I recommend substitution and deletion. For procedural reasons, this discussion should only be closed by an admin. — Mdaniels5757 ( talk • contribs) 02:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Please note that this page is NOT for challenging the outcome of deletion discussions or to address the pending deletion of any page.It further clearly states,
Note that requests for undeletion are not a replacement for deletion review. If you feel an administrator has erred in closing a deletion discussion or in applying a speedy deletion criterion, please contact them directly. If you discuss but are unable to resolve the issue on their talk page, it should be raised at Wikipedia:Deletion review, rather than here.DRV clearly states its scope over this issue per points 2, 3 or 5 of WP:DRVPURPOSE. I'm not saying you're wrong re. attribution, I'm saying (a) the admin at REFUND should not have undeleted, and (b) in any case, any further discussion should be raised at WP:DRV, not a new TfD. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 16:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
To contest deletions that have have already been discussed (in particular, at Articles for deletion), or that are likely to be controversial, please make a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review instead.(both points were fulfilled: there was a TfD discussion, and the closer contested undeletion at WP:REFUND before you undeleted). Although the page does mention G6 as being refundable, I'm pretty sure the point of that is other uncontroversial maintenance deletion reasons, not TfD deletions; I don't think REFUND is meant to be controversial... I suppose the only reason TfDs can be included in G6 is because they can be closed by non-admins (though it begs the question, why use G6 for TfDs, incl for admin closes, when all other XfDs just link the deletion discussion?). If there's a talk discussion somewhere about this matter proving me wrong I'd appreciate a link, but I really don't think WP:REFUND is meant to be applied to TfD deletions. And certainly, even if it were, a REFUND shouldn't mean a new TfD is created which must be closed by an admin so the closure can't be refunded. This just doesn't make any sense -- this is surely a DRV issue. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 01:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
G6 should be uncontroversialis inapplicable since what is uncontroversial is deletion of a template that consensus has already established should be deleted, not the closure of the discussion. Second, the correct venue for this discussion is RfD, since this proposal is effectively challenging the existence of a redirect from Template:Tfd instructions to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions. Third, I see no reason that that redirect should not exist, so Redirect and put an end to this silliness. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
[The authors'] linked usernames can be included in the edit summary documenting the merge. [...] Though this method is legally acceptable, however, it is not preferred, since histories are used to track editor contributions in addition to attribution.– Uanfala (talk) 11:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)