Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 August 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 209.23.249.111 (talk) at 17:16, 20 August 2020 (→‎Abolished Royal Families). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< August 19 August 21 >

August 20

Template:Arlesdale Railway RDT

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)[reply]

Template:Volleyball national squad

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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abolished Royal Families

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)[reply]

Do any policies say limited numbers cause deletion? Pretender is a major article and we usually have templates as navboxes. Altanner1991 (talk) 05:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the other editors rationales for deletion were based on being potentially misleading as the the legality of the titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That answers my question thank you. Altanner1991 (talk) 05:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Invalid deletion rationale: There is no current legal basis that defines members of the British royal family either, but I see no reason to delete the articles and templates relating to that family. DrKay (talk) 06:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference is that the British Royal Family is an extant monarchy, while the others are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.23.249.111 (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Soviet Union does not exist. I don't see anyone going around trying to delete every template to do with the Soviets. Deposition from power is not a valid deletion rationale. DrKay (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Based on the previous deletion, it seems people’s concern was lack of verifiability.

Template:Tfd instructions

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)[reply]

  • Almost forgot to ping prior participants and the undeletion requestor: @Bsherr, Aervanath, Gonnym, and Uanfala. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the deletion had already been enacted! The template got substed, and after the G6 back-and-forth was eventually converted into a redirect. I really don't see why the nom should have then restored the template and sent it back here again. Mdaniels5757, the rationale for keeping the history under the redirect is explained at WP:Merge and delete. The template contained non-trivial amounts of text, keeping its history is not only helpful for preserving a record of how it came to be, but is also necessary for preserving attribution. This is an issue that has legal ramifications, so we can't just delete the history of merged text at will. If there are any concerns at all about the existence of a redirect with a title Template:Tfd instructions, then something else can be done, like moving the page to a redirect with a different title, or to a subpage of the target. – Uanfala (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? I don't think we just renominate for deletion like this... And WP:REFUND is not the correct venue anyway... Pinging deleting and restoring admins: Fastily and Graeme Bartlett. Can you explain your reasoning for the restore? It seems like, per your reasoning at REFUND, if the TfD discussion itself was controversial then G6 could never be used to delete a template. In this case, the TfD wasn't controversial, and that logic doesn't seem right anyway. If WP:HISTMERGE is desired, there's WP:RFHM, which accommodates for requests relating to deleted pages. That would've been the correct venue, I believe. If, however, the user disagrees with the deletion, there's WP:DRV to challenge it. I don't see any scenario where WP:REFUND should get involved. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just noting that a histmerge wouldn't work because of the concurrent page histories. And again, could people commenting here please read WP:Merge and delete? No-one disagrees with the result of the previous discussion, the issue is about the technicality of how it is to be implemented, and that – sorry if I'm going into IAR here – is what G6 and REFUND are about. – Uanfala (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Then WP:DRV would be the correct venue to challenge the action. REFUND clearly states 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)[reply]
      Well, as I explained when requesting undeletion, the deleting admin specifically directs people with G6 queries to REFUND (via their talk page editnoce). For me, it's either REFUND or DRV, and DRV would have been a bit of an overshoot, especially for a case that I had hoped, apparently in vain, would be dead obvious. – Uanfala (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_August_20&oldid=974024725"