2220:. If the template is tagged for a WikiProject then it's almost twice as likely for the TfD to receive participation. I had a look yesterday at the TfDs from 16 and 18 August and there were 38 open ones. In 21 cases the template concerned (or at least one of the templates, if it was a multi-nomination), had a WikiProject tag on its talk page. The remaning 17 templates didn't have a project tag. Of the discussions for the tagged ones, 75% saw participation from editors other than the nominator. The corresponding percentage for untagged templates was almost half of that at 40%. That's a big difference. And although there are certainly other factors involved (for example, more widely used templates have higher chances of getting tagged and, independently of that, are also more likely to have more watchers and hence a larger pool of potential TfD participants.), I think we have a strong correlation. And given that a little over half of the templates I surveyed were tagged, there's something to be done on this front. Should we somehow incorporate tagging into the workflow?
31:
1345:
878:
310:, but that template seems to have been blanked (although a TfD a while back found that it was still useful?). If there's a category that you could file, I recommend filing that at CFD (CFD is good at deleting categories) and mentioning that you also want to delete the template populating it. If not, we'll probably have to wait for someone else to explain what happened process-wise when
2298:. It might be just me, but maybe TfD's participation problem wouldn't be so bad if the discussion culture was a bit more like that of most other parts of wikipedia, where participants do a bit more in terms of engaging with any issues raised or questions posed, and do a bit less in the way of circuitous restatement of initial assertions.
2730:, I think it could also have to do with a potential reluctance to close as delete when it is "close". I've found myself often in the past few weeks !voting instead of closing because I completely agreed with the deletion rationale, found the keep rationale wishy-washy, but didn't want to get a load of flack thrown my way for making a
936:. TfD closers should pay extra attention to the code in the templates to identify such category inclusions and prevent "dangling" categories. This is not an easy burden since it is non-obvious what the previous code does unless one slows down to think about it. There was also a container category for those categories:
2806:
I'd agree, except that all of those are perfectly valid reasons for deletion and are reflected by consensus since I started closing at TfD, and likely much earlier. There are maintenance costs to keeping unused templates. Indeed, I'd quite like a speedy deletion criteria targeted at them which allows
2756:
I close based on strength of arguments (given the policies), not on vote count. I've closed in favor of deletion when the numbers favored keeping in the past, and I'll do it again in the future. I'll do the same for keeping. In the specific discussion quoted above, the arguments for deletion (which I
221:
I'm not convinced. There's a TfD I have my eyes on that's massively overdue for closing, and that I'm uninvolved in, and feel should be closed like that. If I did the close, though, I suspect I'd be facing down a DRV. (Partly that's because I'm not currently an admin, but TfD has reached the stage at
148:
The contrast would be with the current situation, some people are jumping straight from "some of these templates are redundant" to proposing the deletion of all the redundant templates and their names, all in one go. Perhaps that's actually going to be correct for some, or even all, of the templates.
2201:
One recurring theme throughout previous discussions is the problem of low participation at TfD. There are probably several underlying causes for this state of affairs so there isn't going to be a one-shot solution, but I think one indication that we could see is that the current system for notifying
2866:
There isn't a single policy based argument for keeping the template; and the single argument that is not "I like it" (i.e. that it points to a policy telling people not to bite newbies) is rendered null by the fact that the template duplicates another which does the job, does it better, and does so
2571:
to everyone, by breaking all pages using them. It causes unnecessary load on the server as well and in fact if it should be used somewhere, it should even be in the doc pages or of templates proposed to deletion, or probably just in their tlak page (just to keep an history of discussions). Putting
2448:
to be used is summarily solved only by looking at the number of already existing links to that site. Is that the case? I don't think I would agree with that, especially if the resources on the site (like the resources of other major national archives) seem likely to be relevant for a high number of
1077:
Personally, I object to the article content outside in templates because newbies likely don't know how to navigate to the template namespace. Not only does it confuse them, but it makes the content entirely inaccessible. I'd rather they be able to access the content and be confused with a chance to
645:
This is interesting. Here is my question then: does tidying up a template result in more 'space' in WP's presumably huge servers? It seems to me that leaving an unused template 'un-discussed' and undeleted takes up less space and time than the discussions that accompany such a deletion and then the
470:
Stub templates that do not have their own category should be nominated at Tfd like al other templates. The reason is simple: the rule is that all templates should be nominated at Tfd, with the exception of those templates that exist mostly to add a category (simply put), like stub templates. In the
114:
The result is that the TfDs are basically impossible to close satisfactorily. There are likely going to be some solutions that have consensus, but the form of the TfD doesn't make it possible to determine what they are. As a result, the TfD sometimes gets closed as "no consensus" (which has lead to
1055:
To be honest I think this "article content in templates" idea is more of a religious belief than a well-thought-out piece of practical guidance. The usual argument seems to be that it confuses newbies, but so do great big globs of indigestible wikicode. It's like claiming that all of the code for
631:. Basically, if a template does not meet the guidelines or is completely unused (and will never be) then it should be deleted. It's like getting rid of the DVDs from the back of the stack that never get watched (or were terrible). There is no "need" to do so other than making Knowledge more tidy.
258:
This section is somewhat unneeded. There is a simpler solution to the issue. I think such nominations should be closed summarily, and the nominating editor advised, that they should relist the templates individually. Unless, of course, there is a clear connection between the templates (apart from
110:
Recently, there have been some cases where editors have listed a large number of templates in a single nomination, on the grounds that they're all redundant. When this has happened, normally some users have opined "delete all", some have opined "keep all" due to believing that they're all useful,
2425:
almost two weeks prior to you asking the question. Thus, a broken system, where one guy with a beef and a random user can stall what should be a policy- and consensus-driven discussion about the usage (in the here and now) of a template. Now, I won't say that people with biases towards a subject
1099:
but too incompetent to find the template namespace. And in some of these cases, "less accessible" is part of the point, because the high data density means any given change is very likely to be a negative one. I think we're overall doing new editors a favor by abstracting away the fiddly bits of
2566:
I approve also this last statement. In my opinion that Tfd template just causes more harm in an attempt to solve another unrelated problem: participation. We have other tools widely used to inform authors plus project pages for other people that may be intererested. But we should not break any
140:
This would mean that there'd be an option for closing the nominations in question, to help to find a consensus where one exists. (There may well be a consensus to keep a particular template, keep a particular template name, merge two templates, delete one of the templates, or delete one of the
1628:
Userfication is something anyone can do so long as they're autoconfirmed, but you really shouldn't do it outside of a XfD outcome. It's more-or-less equivalent to deleting something from one of the "outward-facing" namespaces, which should have consensus. I wound up not userfying this due to
239:
I presume the closing admin can always delete whichever templates received a consensus to delete, as keep those they see fit to keep, or merge, or no consensus, or whatever, as appropriate. That is "KEEP these because-of-this, DELETE those because-of-that, , NO CONSENSUS for the remaining".
660:
No space is released: when an admin "deletes" a page, what they are actually doing is flipping a switch that make it appear that the page no longer exists (any links to it will show in red instead of blue, for example). It's still there, demonstrated by the fact that an admin can
589:
the advantage of blanking/moving is that it reduces the amount of transcluded text, which can help with expansion size limits. I, personally, like the method where the heading is left, but the discussion content is moved, just in case there are links to the old discussion page.
299:
I'm a little confused too. As I understood it, the intended process is to file the template, and any categories that it (and no other template) populates, at CfD, but CfD doesn't seem to have filing instructions for that. The template that you'd use for the purpose used to be
111:
some have opined "merge" (sometimes but not always listing the sets of templates they want merged), and some have opined "keep" generically, "keep" for one template, or "keep all", because they think that one particular template from the set is not redundant to the others.
395:
The way this is done is by nominating the category, and mention that there is a template connected to it. The admin will delete both the category and the template, if the discussion is closed as a delete. This has been the instruction and procedure for as long as I know.
2276:
That's probably far-fetched, but I'm wondering if there isn't a way of tracking down the editors who have used a given template, and then posting on the talk pages of a sample of them using some sort of RfC-style notification process. I imagine that tools like the
573:
this would appear to be the policy, but given that it's only one editor I guess I'm wondering if a) everyone else is just doing it wrong/being lazy/etc, or b) TfD can be considered an exception to that policy? Should I be blanking the old discussion when I relist?
2524:
If there were several links to the Amicus website, in various articles, not using the template, then there would be potential for its use, by converting them (and I would have tagged it as such, rather than nominating it for deletion). As I pointed out, there are
646:
eternal storage of such deletion discussions. Deleting templates seems like a waste of time. If they are never used then their storage space is much smaller than all the discussions and storage of discussions. Maybe I am looking at this wrong...Best
Regards,
1738:
is working on one, but it's been stalled for a while, so Doug's script is about as good as it gets at the moment. I try not to bug 'em too much about it, but I know what you mean with potential backlogs (closed 30 identical TFDs the other day... not fun).
2395:
Well, if all the (three) participants in this discussion weren't convinced by the nominator's argument that a template should necessarily be deleted if it meets these two criteria, then I don't think I'm able to see any fault with TfD on account of that.
105:
1539:
On the bright side, it appears we recently doubled our TfD staff with the return of another editor who closed TfDs in the past and has returned to doing so every once in a while. On the not-so-bright side, that was doubling from one to two. We're
2589:, your comment has seemingly nothing to do with this particular discussion (and you broke the section header). If it's in the wrong section, feel free to move it to the correct one (and remove my comments here). Otherwise... what's your point?
1013:
I know this must exist, but I'm struggling to find it. I was under the impression there was consensus in the past that addressed how article content should not be stored in single-use transclusion templates. This has come up in discussions at
1257:
No, obviously. All discussion should be kept in one place. If an editor wants a TfD publicized, just place a neutral notification on relevant project pages. As a side note, that template is borderline eligible for speedy deletion as per
2842:, I completely agree with you on the "unused" bit. T3 speedies sit for a week before they're deleted, so some sort of "unused" CSD tag could be similar (like a PROD) - use the template and the CSD is invalidated. It would also save the
222:
which pretty much all the admins who work on closing it end up involved in the discussions and so can't close.) Getting consensus that this sort of close is sometimes/often appropriate (in general) first would help, thus this post. --
826:) has changed, and can no longer be relied on. So, until they restore the previous behaviour, other methods need to be found; and these other methods must continue working if and when the previous behaviour is restored. Fortunately,
240:
Certainly any that fell under a no consensus can be nomitaed soon after, and if bundling them didn't work the first time, the average nominator will consider trying something different, that is, to nominate in smaller groups -
283:
deleted? TfD says not to list stub templates or candidates for speedy deletion there, so I went to CfD which says to tag it for speedy deletion per CSD C1, but an admin reverted me when I tried to do that. What am I missing?
946:
Quick question: do closers at TfD usually just delete such "template-attached" categories when deleting a template without going through the CfD process? These categories don't meet the speedy deletion criteria (not even
191:
1284:
1236:
1052:. There's been a few experiments with synchronizing articles by transcluding bits of text, and those generally haven't taken off, but there's more flexibility with tables and infoboxes and other data-dense things.
940:
2202:
possible participants is probably not working completely as intended. Can we use the current thread to brainstorm ideas about possible ways of improvement? Please feel free to add subthreads of your own.
907:
1480:
2867:
with far more widespread community uptake. however, if you read my first post in this section, you'll see that it's not my point to re-litigate the close; if it were, we'd be at deletion review.
2738:
make similar actions. On the whole, though, I agree with the issue - I'm not convinced a template should be kept due to rationale of "charming" and "harmless", which in my book is comparable to "
1226:
420:
280:
1024:
1008:
2669:
1568:
533:
618:
1031:
902:
2698:
912:
2430:
comment on a discussion (it's their prerogative), but that they should stick around to refute any statements made by the nominator/other users. Drive-by !voting isn't a great idea...
2502:
Oh, I see. But then that's worse: that's deleting a template simply because so far it hasn't been used. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm new to TfD), but aren't we meant to look at the
1594:
Thanks, Rob. I hope I didn't come across as too impatient. Sure, please delete and userfy (the right way). (Is "userfication" something a non-admin can do properly on their own?)
2572:
it in the main code just causes troubles (and this may explain why this method has in fact not been used since years: we have better ways to inform and discuss these proposals).
895:
2333:
I concur. There's a fine line between "I think I can persuade you to change your mind" and "You're an idiot for thinking like that" (and there is no sarcasm in that statement).
1629:
attribution requirements; see my close for an explanation of how the template should be handled given the requirements for attribution. Let me know if you have any questions. ~
145:
template, and people rarely say what they mean at that level of detail in this sort of TfD. So we need a process that helps people to distinguish which of the cases they mean.)
2757:
favor very slightly, on a personal level) were not very well-made and had no clear connection with policy that would allow me to close on the basis of strength of arguments. ~
605:
2358:
1464:
1434:
1389:
1365:
1109:
1084:
1065:
2823:
for my own content creation. But we'd need to start with consensus to remove that speedy deletion criteria before actively discouraging people from nominating for it. ~
1515:
960:
677:
2887:
2778:
2751:
761:
655:
640:
216:
2581:
2561:
2405:
513:
495:
129:
merges and redirections of the templates in question, so long as those merges/redirections have only a minor impact on pages currently transcluding the template; and
2628:
1980:
Prompts for optional relist comment; relists discussion on current day's TFD subpage; closes original discussion as "Relist" and collapses that discussion; updates
1479:
Hi there. Not sure if it's entirely appropriate to post this kind of comment here, but would someone with the ability to close down a TfD be able to take a look at
480:
465:
249:
2342:
1688:
1640:
1616:
1534:
1299:
1268:
1204:
1187:
268:
2855:
2768:
2519:
2490:
2328:
2290:
1582:
1555:
1000:
986:
951:) but it seems kind of silly to go through the CfD process in this case. I'm tempted to just delete them myself but I want to know what the standard practice is.
862:
848:
599:
569:
In the last few days I've seen a few discussions be closed as "relisted", where the closing editor blanks the entire discussion and moves it to the new date. Per
532:
I have a list of templates (99.9% of them are infoboxes), that has small number of transclusions, that maybe are worth of taking to discussion here. For example,
405:
388:
259:
that they are all perceived as redundant by the nominator), in which case they are likely to be treated as a group of templates rather than individual templates.
2834:
2794:
2624:
2612:
2598:
2458:
2439:
2307:
2246:
2229:
2843:
2533:
of existence. No evidence of any likelihood of the template being used in the future was presented. As I recently pointed out to you elsewhere, point 3 of the
2264:
1748:
1505:
1195:, many thanks for the perfect(ly simple) solution. From what I learned about template format, I created parallel ones for Japanese dictionaries. Best wishes,
356:
says to tag it for speedy deletion (C1 or otherwise). But if you consider that it warrants speedy deletion (as opposed to discussed deletion), are any of the
1336:
2084:
665:, and perhaps restore it later on. To truly expunge a page from the database (something normally only done for legal reasons), special rights are needed. --
118:
I think we need a new type of TfD resolution for this sort of TfD. In particular, the fix I'd recommend would be to close the TfD with no result, but that:
2774:
1015:
889:
2156:
1862:
Prompts for result & rationale; closes discussion using that result & rationale; prompts for which holding cell section to use, or "delete now";
583:
2211:
2620:
2191:
2033:
Prompts for result & rationale; closes discussion using that result/rationale; opens each template so that further manual action can be undertaken.
1972:
Same as , but instead of prompting, just uses "Delete" as the result/rationale. Will still prompt for a holding cell section or (if admin) "delete now"
559:
97:
89:
84:
72:
67:
59:
2654:
Do you think this will increase participation? I don't think I'm the only one who gives up watching XfD pages or delsorts that see a lot of activity.
1571:? There are attribution issues with such a copy-paste move. I can userfy the template if the consensus is to delete it (which I'm still assessing). ~
810:
746:
136:, if the change appears to have consensus (either on the templates' talk pages or, passively due to no objections within a reasonable time limit).
2721:
2692:
2389:
1251:
2019:
Same as for single template discussion, iterating through each template (but only makes a single edit to the holding cell for all the templates)
1125:
797:
that it it is a general problem being worked on. Anyway, none of the other WP:XFD search boxes has a search hint such as this and looking back
780:
773:
1178:, so I have simply made it into a redirect. This way either title can be used, and it will show the same template. Thanks for your hard work!
2369:
to the target site, have to be closed (through no fault of the closer) as "no consensus", then there is something seriously wrong with TfD.
2120:
2070:
1149:
870:
2663:
1725:
2027:
Closes which require different actions for one or more of the templates listed at the discussion (e.g. Merge, Delete some but keep others)
798:
777:
501:
486:
293:
2235:
1137:
832:
2251:
You'll get more participation if what you write is legible. Feel free to admonish me for re-factoring your comment, but please read
2166:
I am posting here to notify you of a requested move I made regarding a bunch of deletion discussion templates. The discussion it at
1518:
waiting to be closed, and (I'm guessing) since it's summer time we're a little short on TFD staff. It will be looked at in due time.
149:
But in the case where consensus is less drastic than that, our current process makes it really hard to find where the consensus is.
2167:
1100:
table code and long lists of data, links to outside databases, etc. so they have a chance to look at the actual article content.
47:
17:
1984:
1931:
1880:
1818:
471:
case that stub templates don't have a category, there is no reason for the exception, and we stay with the general rule: Tfd.
1231:
1018:. If anyone is aware of past large-scale discussions along these lines, would you mind linking one of them for me? Thanks. ~
376:), so nominate as if it was an existing stub category, but don't name a category on the nom, just name the stub template. --
182:
could be used more often in no consensus situations, but that's less of a policy and more of a decision made by the closer.
1474:
2076:
Yes! Thank you! The regulars will see your post and respond, but the better the tools ā the more time spent on other jobs
2883:
2717:
2688:
2557:
2385:
2125:
1717:(which only works when editing a single section?) The backlog's not too bad right now, but having such a tool would help
1483:? There's a pretty clear consensus (IMHO) and non-closure is holding up improvements to an article. Thanks either way.
1039:
537:
212:
196:
There is no need at all for "a new type of TfD resolution"; it is already possible for a closer to reach such a finding.
2316:
too confrontational; some serial nominators feel the need to shoot down anybody who dares !vote "Oppose" or "Keep". --
2281:
could be harnessed to help with that, but I don't really know if ultimately this is going to be technically feasible.
737:
1322:(not by me), so how to change name of eponymous template?? {{AndrƩ de Toth}} for consistency's sake (see discussion
1285:
Template talk:Government misconduct accusations#RfC: Is this template about
Government misconduct accusations legit?
1237:
Template talk:Government misconduct accusations#RfC: Is this template about
Government misconduct accusations legit?
794:
2196:
2161:
1525:
point, having a two-week old TFD is relatively minor, compared to the months-old discussions we had a while ago...
1323:
1172:
1133:
564:
554:
426:
369:
2131:
1684:
1612:
1501:
2846:
ridiculousness of having a thousand templates nominated for deletion and really hammering load times. RfC time?
2444:
My comment was answered by Andy? I take that to mean that the question of whether an external links template is
1078:
learn via trial and error than not be able to access the content whatsoever and have no learning opportunity. ~
767:
2106:
1162:
1129:
430:
373:
1035:
662:
527:
329:
233:
163:
1056:
every piece of software should be in a single ginormous file, because how else will anyone find anything?
2603:
No, the section header is appropriate and my comment was about what Andy just wrote, that I approve too.
827:
444:
433:. If those were to be nominated for deletion, that would imply that twelve other stub templates (such as
2619:
TfD needs to be merged into MfD. That way, there will be more !voters, which means less "no consensus".
1856:
Delete, or other close that will result in the template being deleted (e.g. Review, Convert, Substitute)
364:
applicable? If not, then a discussion is necessary, and being a stub template, that would take place at
1710:
1105:
1061:
918:
which are now permanently empty I suppose. These categories were populated in the template by the code
38:
1307:
1093:
1046:
436:
345:
1401:
922:{{#if:{{{id|{{{1|}}}}}}|{{WikidataCheck|property=P1733|value={{{id|{{{1|}}}}}}|category=Steam ID}}}}
752:
Just to be clear, the idea here is to only execute the change on talk pages, and not in articles. --
132:
has no prejudice against nominating the names of templates that were boldly merged or redirected at
122:
permits speedy renomination of smaller sets of the templates (as "redirect", "merge", "delete"); and
2785:
be a start. Given that so far it reflects my own personal view, you're all invited to add to it. ā
1455:
1394:
1380:
1327:
687:
2510:
simply restates the fact that the template is unused and that brings us back to where we started.
1481:
Knowledge:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_July_8#Excess_Gospel_of_John.E2.80.93related_templates
2879:
2713:
2684:
2553:
2381:
1660:
1212:
651:
614:
208:
2815:). I'm much more sympathetic to your arguments there, and I frequently encourage application of
178:; maybe we should consider adding it to the main TFD page. Otherwise, I agree that some sort of
1951:
1704:
930:
779:(well, that is putting it more politely than the request itself) to come here (redirected from
1788:
Keep, or other close that will result in the template being kept (e.g. Redirect, No
Consensus)
2102:
2013:
Same as for single template discussion, iterating through each template and template talkpage
1794:
Prompts for result & rationale; closes discussion using that result & rationale (and
1755:
1714:
1411:
1101:
1072:
1057:
996:
956:
734:
2811:, of course!). Hardcoded instances of a template are already eligible for speedy deletion (
2734:. I know the actual admins are likely to be a bit less reluctant, but then again I've seen
1522:
757:
706:
550:
2234:
I've changed the listing instructions to make the relevance of project tags a bit clearer
8:
2731:
2486:
2352:
2324:
1680:
1608:
1497:
1295:
1247:
1200:
1145:
1119:
844:
673:
509:
476:
461:
401:
384:
264:
1907:
Prompts for result & rationale; closes discussion using that result, rationale, and
1666:
tag. If you see any issues with the way I did this, please let me know. Thanks again.
2870:
2851:
2747:
2727:
2704:
2675:
2594:
2544:
2435:
2422:
2372:
2338:
1994:
1941:
1890:
1828:
1762:
instructions, I think it will be possible to code the following options into a script:
1744:
1530:
1430:
1361:
1353:
1183:
696:
647:
636:
624:
610:
595:
579:
199:
187:
106:
TfDs which list a large number of "redundant" templates, when some are and some aren't
2820:
2790:
2739:
2659:
2608:
2577:
2534:
2515:
2454:
2418:
2413:, I would argue that the first !vote was from someone who has a bias towards keeping
2401:
2303:
2286:
2242:
2225:
2207:
858:
806:
628:
289:
170:
I certainly agree that such things can get convoluted. TFD doesn't explicitly have a
970:, whose examples include "categories populated by deleted or retargeted templates".
2808:
2186:
2151:
1808:
992:
952:
728:
570:
326:
274:
230:
171:
160:
2670:
Knowledge:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 September 21#Template:Infobox academic
2101:, and other TFD closers: My new script is ready for testing! See documentation at
1418:
1315:
1089:
I dunno, I've never seen a newbie who was competent enough to edit something like
425:
which does not have a single category, it is upmerged to two separate categories,
2260:
1759:
1735:
1280:
1124:
I've never worked with merging templates and need some help. After trying to get
980:
753:
715:
542:
490:
245:
179:
349:
152:
Do people think this sort of TfD close is appropriate? Should it have a name? --
141:
template names after merging its functionality. That's five different cases for
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
2699:
Knowledge:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 September 20#Template:Newbie-biting
2497:
2479:
2317:
2078:
1719:
1667:
1653:
1623:
1595:
1562:
1511:
1484:
1288:
1240:
1196:
1155:
1141:
837:
666:
505:
472:
454:
412:
397:
377:
361:
357:
304:
260:
126:
2847:
2839:
2824:
2816:
2758:
2743:
2735:
2590:
2471:
2431:
2334:
2096:
2054:
1921:
1870:
1740:
1647:
1630:
1589:
1572:
1545:
1526:
1451:
1426:
1376:
1357:
1319:
1309:
1275:
1264:
1222:
1218:
1192:
1179:
1080:
1020:
790:
632:
591:
575:
365:
353:
339:
315:
311:
183:
175:
133:
1848:
Same as , but instead of prompting, just uses "Keep" as the result/rationale
1379:: Thanks but shouldn't template ({{AndrƩ de Toth}}) match page name? Yours,
2812:
2801:
2786:
2655:
2604:
2586:
2573:
2511:
2465:
2450:
2410:
2397:
2299:
2282:
2252:
2238:
2221:
2203:
1911:
1798:
1422:
1259:
1140:. Did I make a mistake? Do I need to request deleting the former template?
967:
948:
854:
802:
285:
1901:: performs delete action, using a link to the TFD discussion as the reason
1758:, so I thought I'd take a look at making one for TFD. After reviewing the
2170:
2135:
2112:
2062:
1675:
1603:
1492:
323:
319:
227:
223:
157:
153:
2807:
them to be deleted without the administrative costs of TfD (subject to
2256:
2038:
Same as for single-template discussion, iterating through each template
971:
241:
898:
on 2016 January 27. That template populated the following categories:
712:
where it occurs on talk pages and is not inside certain elements like
2092:
2050:
1731:
352:
is only for category pages, not templates. I don't see what part of
2478:
possibility for reuse" (my emphasis) has not been realised ...'. --
1038:. There's probably also some related discussion in the archives of
335:
2773:
I'm wondering if it isn't time for a TfD-specific text similar to
2109:
to report any unexpected occurrences or provide other feedback. -
2539:"The template is not used... and has no likelihood of being used"
1709:
Are there any scripts to semi-automate the closure process? Like
1652:
I've made a preliminary merge of the template's content into the
115:
rows over at DRV recently), and often doesn't get closed at all.
2508:
This supposed "high possibility for reuse" has not been realised
1009:
Past consensus on single use transclusions of article content?
2470:
By "your comment was pretty handily answered" I believe that
627:, there are a few reasons to delete templates, as listed at
2567:
template (notably widely used ones) just to advertize such
2278:
2779:
User:Uanfala/Arguments to watch out for in TfD discussions
816:
Yes, it's the same problem. In essence, the behaviour of
1656:
article, and redirected the template to the page with a
692:
Is there a bot that can do template cleanup like change
453:
want to keep) should be deleted with those two cats. --
2168:
Template_talk:Cfd-notify#Requested move 21 August 2016
1917:; prompts for which holding cell section to use; adds
606:
What is the reason behind the need to delete templates
536:, which only transclusion is in the template itself.
368:. It doesn't have its own stub cat (it's upmerged to
2775:
Knowledge:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
2417:
of these sorts of templates. The second !vote is an
1016:
Knowledge:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 20
485:
I think this makes a fair bit of sense, so I boldly
786:Enter '"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000001-QINU`"' to find a d
2421:, and your comment was pretty handily answered by
2529:such links. And the template has found no use in
1544:short-staffed. In any event, I'll take a look. ~
1281:all discussion should indeed be kept in one place
504:a few words to your edit by way of explanation.
2474:refers to the bullet beginning 'This supposed "
941:Category:Steam ID Wikidata tracking categories
781:Knowledge talk:Templates for discussion/Header
774:Knowledge talk:Templates for discussion/Header
1966:Delete, when no further rationale is required
795:WP:VPT#Strip marker problems with nowiki tags
1136:and deleted the transclusions, as described
2821:use a hardcoded instance of a cite template
1876:to that holding cell section, and replaces
1842:Keep, when no further rationale is required
821:inside MediaWiki extensions (in this case,
2134:about expading the name of that template.
2130:There is a move discussion in progress on
1425:. I'm not sure what else you're wanting.
908:Category:Steam ID different from Wikidata
1896:with {Being deleted} (<noinclude: -->
1283:, that is why I asked you to respond at
2274:Notifying editors who use the template.
1927:to that holding cell section; replaces
1042:, because the project uses things like
981:
966:They meet the general speedy criterion
18:Knowledge talk:Templates for discussion
14:
1864:If a holding cell section is selected:
1217:Is it acceptable practice to start an
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
1454:: OK, got it. Sorry, my bad. Thanks.
871:Categories associated with a template
281:Template:OuedEdDahabLagouira-geo-stub
25:
2777:. Some time ago I started drafting
2255:first - it's there for a reason. --
1569:User:Jujutsuan/Content of John COPY
1040:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Elements
23:
972:
903:Category:Steam ID same as Wikidata
24:
2901:
1168:is a plausible alternate name to
913:Category:Steam ID not in Wikidata
1343:
1134:Template:Dictionaries of Chinese
876:
427:Category:Morocco geography stubs
370:Category:Morocco geography stubs
29:
1756:script to close FFD discussions
1514:, please be patient. There are
1417:, in exactly the same way that
279:What do I do to get the unused
2664:14:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
2629:14:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
2613:22:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
2599:18:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
2582:18:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
2562:10:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
2520:09:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
2491:09:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
2459:06:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
2440:02:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
2343:23:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
2329:23:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
2308:20:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
2047:How does that sound? (Pinging
2005:Multiple template discussions:
1814:to template talkpage; removes
830:meet those requirements, so I
801:the hint looked wrong anyway.
13:
1:
2406:13:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
2390:11:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
2365:external link template, with
2265:19:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
2247:12:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
2107:User talk:Evad37/TFDcloser.js
1985:Template for discussion/dated
1932:Template for discussion/dated
1881:Template for discussion/dated
1819:Template for discussion/dated
1130:Template:Chinese dictionaries
789:in the archive search box at
600:14:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
584:05:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
560:08:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
489:the main TfD instructions. ā
431:Category:Western Sahara stubs
374:Category:Western Sahara stubs
2888:17:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
2856:17:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
2835:16:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
2795:22:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
2781:. It's badly written but it
2769:22:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
2752:21:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
2722:20:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
2506:for use? And something like
2367:no other article-space links
1778:Single template discussions:
1475:Old TfD waiting to be closed
1036:Knowledge:Template namespace
828:numeric character references
762:23:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
747:23:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
678:11:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
656:11:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
641:01:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
619:12:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
514:11:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
496:20:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
481:19:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
466:11:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
421:OuedEdDahabLagouira-geo-stub
406:09:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
389:08:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
294:04:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
269:09:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
7:
2819:in that area. Hell, I even
2693:15:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
2291:12:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
2230:12:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
2212:12:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
2192:23:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
2126:Crosspost of requested move
250:23:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
217:17:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
192:17:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
10:
2906:
2296:Improve discussion culture
2157:13:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
1711:User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD2.js
1205:22:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
1188:03:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
1110:00:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
1085:14:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
1066:06:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
1025:23:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
1001:12:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
987:09:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
961:09:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
874:
863:15:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
849:14:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
811:12:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
2218:Project tags on templates
2121:03:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
2085:06:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
2071:04:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
1749:19:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
1726:19:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
1689:01:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
1641:00:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
1617:23:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
1583:23:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
1556:23:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
1535:22:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
1506:19:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
1465:02:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
1435:02:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
1390:02:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
1150:22:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
853:Thank you for your help.
783:). Is it just me seeing:
776:was reverted, I was asked
2197:Increasing participation
2162:Requested move crosspost
1899:If "delete now" selected
1567:Do you mind if I delete
1366:03:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
1337:23:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
1300:15:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
1269:15:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
1252:14:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
565:Question about relisting
322:05:04, 13 October 2015 (
1173:Dictionaries of Chinese
663:view the "deleted" page
226:18:27, 9 October 2015 (
156:17:00, 9 October 2015 (
793:? It seems to me from
2535:criteria for deletion
2103:User:Evad37/TFDcloser
1905:Details (non-admins):
1754:I've recently made a
1715:User:Doug/closetfd.js
1674:Please notify with {{
1602:Please notify with {{
1491:Please notify with {{
1034:about the wording of
824:...</inputbox: -->
42:of past discussions.
1804:if non-admin); adds
1163:Chinese dictionaries
528:Source for some work
1957:(<noinclude: -->
1734:, in one word, no.
1395:Rms125a@hotmail.com
819:...</nowiki: -->
449:that we definitely
445:WesternSahara-stub
417:No, this concerns
2832:
2766:
2357:When nominations
2132:Template talk:Tfm
2044:
2043:
1860:Details (admins):
1679:
1638:
1607:
1580:
1553:
1516:a lot of old TFDs
1496:
1421:is a redirect to
1407:is a redirect to
1235:, and respond at
1221:about an ongoing
823:<inputbox: -->
558:
103:
102:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
2897:
2886:
2877:
2873:
2828:
2805:
2762:
2720:
2711:
2707:
2691:
2682:
2678:
2560:
2551:
2547:
2501:
2482:
2469:
2388:
2379:
2375:
2320:
2177:
2173:
2142:
2138:
2100:
2083:
2081:
2058:
1999:
1993:
1989:
1983:
1956:
1950:
1946:
1940:
1936:
1930:
1926:
1920:
1916:
1910:
1895:
1889:
1885:
1879:
1875:
1869:
1833:
1827:
1823:
1817:
1813:
1807:
1803:
1797:
1770:Extended content
1766:
1765:
1724:
1722:
1673:
1670:
1665:
1659:
1651:
1634:
1627:
1601:
1598:
1593:
1576:
1566:
1549:
1490:
1487:
1462:
1416:
1410:
1406:
1400:
1387:
1351:
1347:
1346:
1334:
1291:
1279:
1243:
1234:
1177:
1171:
1167:
1161:
1102:Opabinia regalis
1098:
1094:Infobox hydrogen
1092:
1076:
1073:Opabinia regalis
1058:Opabinia regalis
1051:
1047:Infobox hydrogen
1045:
983:
977:
935:
929:
894:
888:
880:
879:
840:
835:
825:
820:
772:When my edit at
745:
724:
723:...</pre: -->
719:
711:
705:
701:
695:
688:Bot cleanup help
669:
548:
545:
493:
457:
448:
440:
437:Morocco-geo-stub
424:
416:
380:
314:was merged into
309:
303:
215:
206:
202:
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
2905:
2904:
2900:
2899:
2898:
2896:
2895:
2894:
2875:
2869:
2868:
2844:30 October 2016
2831:
2799:
2765:
2709:
2703:
2702:
2680:
2674:
2673:
2549:
2543:
2542:
2495:
2480:
2463:
2377:
2371:
2370:
2355:
2318:
2199:
2190:
2181:
2175:
2171:
2164:
2155:
2146:
2140:
2136:
2128:
2090:
2079:
2077:
2048:
2045:
1997:
1991:
1987:
1981:
1954:
1948:
1944:
1938:
1934:
1928:
1924:
1918:
1914:
1908:
1893:
1887:
1883:
1877:
1873:
1867:
1831:
1825:
1821:
1815:
1811:
1805:
1801:
1795:
1771:
1720:
1718:
1707:
1668:
1663:
1657:
1645:
1637:
1621:
1596:
1587:
1579:
1560:
1552:
1485:
1477:
1459:Quis separabit?
1456:
1414:
1408:
1404:
1398:
1384:Quis separabit?
1381:
1344:
1342:
1331:Quis separabit?
1328:
1313:
1289:
1273:
1241:
1230:
1215:
1213:RFCs about TFDs
1175:
1169:
1165:
1159:
1122:
1096:
1090:
1070:
1049:
1043:
1011:
976:
933:
927:
892:
886:
883:
882:
877:
873:
838:
831:
822:
818:<nowiki: -->
817:
770:
743:
726:
721:
713:
709:
703:
699:
693:
690:
667:
608:
567:
543:
530:
491:
455:
442:
434:
418:
410:
378:
307:
301:
277:
204:
198:
197:
174:clause like at
108:
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2903:
2893:
2892:
2891:
2890:
2864:
2863:
2862:
2861:
2860:
2859:
2858:
2829:
2763:
2652:
2651:
2650:
2649:
2648:
2647:
2646:
2645:
2644:
2643:
2642:
2641:
2640:
2639:
2638:
2637:
2636:
2635:
2634:
2633:
2632:
2631:
2354:
2351:
2350:
2349:
2348:
2347:
2346:
2345:
2293:
2279:article blamer
2271:
2270:
2269:
2268:
2267:
2198:
2195:
2184:
2179:
2163:
2160:
2149:
2144:
2127:
2124:
2088:
2087:
2042:
2041:
2040:
2039:
2036:
2034:
2028:
2022:
2020:
2017:
2014:
2011:
2007:
2006:
2002:
2001:
1975:
1973:
1967:
1961:
1959:
1902:
1857:
1851:
1849:
1843:
1837:
1835:
1789:
1783:
1780:
1779:
1773:
1772:
1769:
1764:
1752:
1751:
1706:
1705:Closure script
1703:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1661:r with history
1654:Gospel of John
1635:
1577:
1550:
1521:As a slightly
1519:
1476:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1369:
1368:
1312:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1214:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1121:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1053:
1032:this short RfC
1010:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
974:
944:
943:
924:
923:
916:
915:
910:
905:
875:
872:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
769:
766:
765:
764:
741:
689:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
629:WP:TFD#REASONS
607:
604:
603:
602:
566:
563:
529:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
393:
392:
391:
276:
273:
272:
271:
256:
255:
254:
253:
252:
194:
138:
137:
130:
123:
107:
104:
101:
100:
95:
92:
87:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2902:
2889:
2885:
2881:
2876:Pigsonthewing
2872:
2865:
2857:
2853:
2849:
2845:
2841:
2838:
2837:
2836:
2833:
2827:
2822:
2818:
2814:
2810:
2803:
2798:
2797:
2796:
2792:
2788:
2784:
2780:
2776:
2772:
2771:
2770:
2767:
2761:
2755:
2754:
2753:
2749:
2745:
2741:
2737:
2733:
2729:
2726:
2725:
2724:
2723:
2719:
2715:
2710:Pigsonthewing
2706:
2700:
2695:
2694:
2690:
2686:
2681:Pigsonthewing
2677:
2671:
2668:And again at
2666:
2665:
2661:
2657:
2630:
2626:
2622:
2618:
2617:
2616:
2615:
2614:
2610:
2606:
2602:
2601:
2600:
2596:
2592:
2588:
2585:
2584:
2583:
2579:
2575:
2570:
2565:
2564:
2563:
2559:
2555:
2550:Pigsonthewing
2546:
2540:
2536:
2532:
2528:
2523:
2522:
2521:
2517:
2513:
2509:
2505:
2499:
2494:
2493:
2492:
2488:
2484:
2477:
2473:
2467:
2462:
2461:
2460:
2456:
2452:
2447:
2443:
2442:
2441:
2437:
2433:
2429:
2424:
2420:
2416:
2412:
2409:
2408:
2407:
2403:
2399:
2394:
2393:
2392:
2391:
2387:
2383:
2378:Pigsonthewing
2374:
2368:
2364:
2360:
2344:
2340:
2336:
2332:
2331:
2330:
2326:
2322:
2315:
2311:
2310:
2309:
2305:
2301:
2297:
2294:
2292:
2288:
2284:
2280:
2275:
2272:
2266:
2262:
2258:
2254:
2250:
2249:
2248:
2244:
2240:
2236:
2233:
2232:
2231:
2227:
2223:
2219:
2216:
2215:
2214:
2213:
2209:
2205:
2194:
2193:
2188:
2183:
2169:
2159:
2158:
2153:
2148:
2133:
2123:
2122:
2119:
2118:
2117:
2114:
2108:
2104:
2098:
2094:
2086:
2082:
2075:
2074:
2073:
2072:
2069:
2068:
2067:
2064:
2056:
2052:
2037:
2035:
2032:
2029:
2026:
2023:
2021:
2018:
2015:
2012:
2009:
2008:
2004:
2003:
1996:
1986:
1979:
1976:
1974:
1971:
1968:
1965:
1962:
1960:
1953:
1952:Being deleted
1943:
1933:
1923:
1913:
1906:
1903:
1900:
1892:
1882:
1872:
1865:
1861:
1858:
1855:
1852:
1850:
1847:
1844:
1841:
1838:
1836:
1834:from template
1830:
1820:
1810:
1800:
1793:
1790:
1787:
1784:
1782:
1781:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1774:
1768:
1767:
1763:
1761:
1757:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1737:
1733:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1723:
1716:
1712:
1690:
1686:
1682:
1677:
1671:
1662:
1655:
1649:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1639:
1633:
1625:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1605:
1599:
1591:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1581:
1575:
1570:
1564:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1554:
1548:
1543:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1524:
1520:
1517:
1513:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1503:
1499:
1494:
1488:
1482:
1466:
1463:
1461:
1460:
1453:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1419:AndrƩ de Toth
1413:
1403:
1402:AndrƩ de Toth
1396:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1388:
1386:
1385:
1378:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1354:Roman Spinner
1350:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1335:
1333:
1332:
1325:
1321:
1320:Andre de Toth
1317:
1316:AndrƩ de Toth
1311:
1310:Andre de Toth
1301:
1297:
1293:
1286:
1282:
1277:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1267:
1266:
1261:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1238:
1233:
1228:
1225:? Please see
1224:
1220:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1174:
1164:
1157:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1095:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1083:
1082:
1074:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1054:
1048:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1023:
1022:
1017:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
989:
988:
984:
978:
969:
965:
964:
963:
962:
958:
954:
950:
942:
939:
938:
937:
932:
931:WikidataCheck
921:
920:
919:
914:
911:
909:
906:
904:
901:
900:
899:
897:
891:
885:The template
864:
860:
856:
852:
851:
850:
846:
842:
834:
829:
815:
814:
813:
812:
808:
804:
800:
796:
792:
787:
784:
782:
778:
775:
763:
759:
755:
751:
750:
749:
748:
739:
736:
733:
731:
717:
708:
698:
679:
675:
671:
664:
659:
658:
657:
653:
649:
648:Barbara (WVS)
644:
643:
642:
638:
634:
630:
626:
625:Barbara (WVS)
623:
622:
621:
620:
616:
612:
611:Barbara (WVS)
601:
597:
593:
588:
587:
586:
585:
581:
577:
572:
562:
561:
556:
552:
547:
546:
539:
535:
515:
511:
507:
503:
499:
498:
497:
494:
488:
484:
483:
482:
478:
474:
469:
468:
467:
463:
459:
452:
446:
438:
432:
428:
422:
414:
409:
408:
407:
403:
399:
394:
390:
386:
382:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
355:
351:
347:
344:
341:
337:
334:
333:
331:
328:
325:
321:
317:
313:
306:
298:
297:
296:
295:
291:
287:
282:
270:
266:
262:
257:
251:
247:
243:
238:
237:
235:
232:
229:
225:
220:
219:
218:
214:
210:
205:Pigsonthewing
201:
195:
193:
189:
185:
181:
177:
173:
169:
168:
167:
165:
162:
159:
155:
150:
146:
144:
135:
131:
128:
124:
121:
120:
119:
116:
112:
99:
96:
93:
91:
88:
86:
83:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
2884:Andy's edits
2880:Talk to Andy
2871:Andy Mabbett
2825:
2782:
2759:
2718:Andy's edits
2714:Talk to Andy
2705:Andy Mabbett
2696:
2689:Andy's edits
2685:Talk to Andy
2676:Andy Mabbett
2667:
2653:
2568:
2558:Andy's edits
2554:Talk to Andy
2545:Andy Mabbett
2538:
2537:at Tfd says
2530:
2526:
2507:
2503:
2475:
2445:
2427:
2414:
2386:Andy's edits
2382:Talk to Andy
2373:Andy Mabbett
2366:
2362:
2356:
2313:
2312:Yep. TfD is
2295:
2273:
2253:MOS:FONTSIZE
2217:
2200:
2165:
2129:
2115:
2111:
2110:
2089:
2065:
2061:
2060:
2046:
2030:
2024:
1977:
1969:
1963:
1904:
1898:
1863:
1859:
1853:
1845:
1839:
1791:
1785:
1753:
1708:
1631:
1573:
1546:
1541:
1478:
1458:
1457:
1423:Andre DeToth
1412:Andre DeToth
1383:
1382:
1348:
1330:
1329:
1314:
1263:
1216:
1123:
1079:
1019:
1012:
945:
925:
917:
884:
788:
785:
771:
768:"Weird text"
729:
722:<pre: -->
691:
609:
568:
541:
531:
450:
348:) is right:
342:
278:
213:Andy's edits
209:Talk to Andy
200:Andy Mabbett
151:
147:
142:
139:
117:
113:
109:
78:
43:
37:
2621:KATMAKROFAN
2531:seven years
2353:TfD failure
2000:on template
1713:instead of
1326:). Thanks,
1128:, I merged
1120:Please help
993:Jason Quinn
991:Thank you.
953:Jason Quinn
896:was deleted
730:SMcCandlish
707:Quote frame
36:This is an
2449:articles.
2363:single-use
2105:, and use
1736:The Earwig
1523:OTHERSTUFF
1126:discussion
754:Tryptofish
544:Edgars2007
500:Thanks. I
362:T criteria
358:G criteria
98:ArchiveĀ 25
90:ArchiveĀ 23
85:ArchiveĀ 22
79:ArchiveĀ 21
73:ArchiveĀ 20
68:ArchiveĀ 19
60:ArchiveĀ 15
2809:WP:REFUND
2732:supervote
2569:proposals
2504:potential
2498:Redrose64
2428:shouldn't
2359:like this
1995:Tfm/dated
1942:Tfm/dated
1891:Tfm/dated
1829:Tfm/dated
1669:Jujutsuan
1624:Jujutsuan
1597:Jujutsuan
1563:Jujutsuan
1512:Jujutsuan
1486:Jujutsuan
1452:@Primefac
1377:@Primefac
1197:Keahapana
1156:Keahapana
1142:Keahapana
890:Steam app
725:, etc.?
697:Quotation
571:WP:RELIST
506:Debresser
473:Debresser
413:Debresser
398:Debresser
350:WP:CSD#C1
261:Debresser
2848:Primefac
2840:BU Rob13
2744:Primefac
2736:BU Rob13
2697:And now
2591:Primefac
2472:Primefac
2432:Primefac
2361:, for a
2335:Primefac
2097:Primefac
2055:Primefac
2031:Details:
2025:Use for:
1978:Details:
1970:Details:
1964:Use for:
1854:Use for:
1846:Details:
1840:Use for:
1792:Details:
1786:Use for:
1760:WP:TFDAI
1741:Primefac
1685:contribs
1648:BU Rob13
1613:contribs
1590:BU Rob13
1527:Primefac
1502:contribs
1427:Primefac
1358:Primefac
1276:BU Rob13
1232:this RfC
1227:this TfD
1193:Primefac
1180:Primefac
1030:There's
881:Resolved
833:did this
633:Primefac
592:Frietjes
576:Primefac
555:contribs
538:The list
534:this one
346:contribs
275:Confused
184:Primefac
125:permits
2802:Uanfala
2787:Uanfala
2740:ILIKEIT
2656:Uanfala
2605:verdy_p
2587:Verdy p
2574:verdy_p
2512:Uanfala
2466:Uanfala
2451:Uanfala
2419:ILIKEIT
2411:Uanfala
2398:Uanfala
2300:Uanfala
2283:Uanfala
2239:Uanfala
2222:Uanfala
2204:Uanfala
1809:Old TfD
855:Thincat
803:Thincat
487:updated
286:Cobblet
39:archive
2817:WP:IAR
2483:rose64
2446:likely
2321:rose64
1542:always
1292:rose64
1244:rose64
1223:WP:TFD
1219:WP:RFC
841:rose64
791:WP:TFD
716:source
670:rose64
492:Earwig
458:rose64
381:rose64
366:WP:CSD
354:WP:CSD
320:ais523
316:WP:CFD
312:WP:SFD
224:ais523
172:BUNDLE
154:ais523
2813:WP:T3
2314:waaay
2257:RexxS
1947:with
1897:'d);
1866:adds
1260:WP:T2
1229:also
1132:into
968:WP:G8
949:WP:C1
502:added
305:sfd-t
242:Nabla
180:NPASR
16:<
2852:talk
2791:talk
2748:talk
2728:Andy
2660:talk
2625:talk
2609:talk
2595:talk
2578:talk
2527:zero
2516:talk
2487:talk
2476:high
2455:talk
2436:talk
2423:Andy
2402:talk
2339:talk
2325:talk
2304:talk
2287:talk
2261:talk
2243:talk
2226:talk
2208:talk
2187:talk
2152:talk
2113:Evad
2095:and
2093:Czar
2080:czar
2063:Evad
2059:) -
2053:and
2051:Czar
1922:tfdl
1871:tfdl
1745:talk
1732:Czar
1721:czar
1681:talk
1609:talk
1531:talk
1498:talk
1431:talk
1362:talk
1349:Done
1324:here
1308:RE:
1296:talk
1262:. ~
1248:talk
1201:talk
1184:talk
1146:talk
1138:here
1106:talk
1062:talk
997:talk
982:talk
973:SiBr
957:talk
926:See
859:talk
845:talk
836:. --
807:talk
799:here
758:talk
674:talk
652:talk
637:talk
615:talk
596:talk
580:talk
551:talk
540:. --
510:talk
477:talk
462:talk
441:and
429:and
402:talk
385:talk
372:and
340:talk
318:. --
290:talk
265:talk
246:talk
188:talk
143:each
127:bold
2878:);
2826:Rob
2783:can
2760:Rob
2742:".
2712:);
2683:);
2552:);
2481:Red
2415:all
2380:);
2319:Red
1990:or
1958:'d)
1937:or
1912:NAC
1886:or
1824:or
1799:NAC
1632:Rob
1574:Rob
1547:Rob
1352:by
1290:Red
1265:Rob
1242:Red
1081:Rob
1021:Rob
839:Red
744:ā±·ā¼
740:ā½ā±·Ņ
702:to
668:Red
456:Red
379:Red
360:or
336:Liz
207:);
176:AFD
134:RfD
2882:;
2854:)
2830:13
2793:)
2764:13
2750:)
2716:;
2701:.
2687:;
2672:.
2662:)
2627:)
2611:)
2597:)
2580:)
2556:;
2541:.
2518:)
2489:)
2457:)
2438:)
2404:)
2384:;
2341:)
2327:)
2306:)
2289:)
2263:)
2245:)
2237:.
2228:)
2210:)
2116:37
2066:37
2016:,
2010:,
1998:}}
1992:{{
1988:}}
1982:{{
1955:}}
1949:{{
1945:}}
1939:{{
1935:}}
1929:{{
1925:}}
1919:{{
1915:}}
1909:{{
1894:}}
1888:{{
1884:}}
1878:{{
1874:}}
1868:{{
1832:}}
1826:{{
1822:}}
1816:{{
1812:}}
1806:{{
1802:}}
1796:{{
1747:)
1687:)
1683:|
1678:}}
1676:re
1664:}}
1658:{{
1636:13
1615:)
1611:|
1606:}}
1604:re
1578:13
1551:13
1533:)
1504:)
1500:|
1495:}}
1493:re
1433:)
1415:}}
1409:{{
1405:}}
1399:{{
1397:,
1364:)
1356:.
1318:ā
1298:)
1287:--
1250:)
1239:--
1203:)
1186:)
1176:}}
1170:{{
1166:}}
1160:{{
1158:,
1148:)
1108:)
1097:}}
1091:{{
1064:)
1050:}}
1044:{{
999:)
985:)
959:)
934:}}
928:{{
893:}}
887:{{
861:)
847:)
809:)
760:)
727:ā
720:,
718:}}
714:{{
710:}}
704:{{
700:}}
694:{{
676:)
654:)
639:)
617:)
598:)
582:)
512:)
479:)
464:)
451:do
447:}}
443:{{
439:}}
435:{{
423:}}
419:{{
404:)
387:)
332:)
308:}}
302:{{
292:)
267:)
248:)
236:)
211:;
190:)
166:)
94:ā
64:ā
2874:(
2850:(
2804::
2800:@
2789:(
2746:(
2708:(
2679:(
2658:(
2623:(
2607:(
2593:(
2576:(
2548:(
2514:(
2500::
2496:@
2485:(
2468::
2464:@
2453:(
2434:(
2400:(
2376:(
2337:(
2323:(
2302:(
2285:(
2259:(
2241:(
2224:(
2206:(
2189:)
2185:(
2182:y
2180:r
2178:e
2176:p
2174:p
2172:P
2154:)
2150:(
2147:y
2145:r
2143:e
2141:p
2139:p
2137:P
2099::
2091:@
2057::
2049:@
1743:(
1672:(
1650::
1646:@
1626::
1622:@
1600:(
1592::
1588:@
1565::
1561:@
1529:(
1489:(
1429:(
1360:(
1294:(
1278::
1274:@
1246:(
1199:(
1182:(
1144:(
1104:(
1075::
1071:@
1060:(
995:(
979:(
975:4
955:(
857:(
843:(
805:(
756:(
742:į“„
738:Ā¢
735:ā
732:āŗ
672:(
650:(
635:(
613:(
594:(
578:(
557:)
553:/
549:(
508:(
475:(
460:(
415::
411:@
400:(
383:(
343:Ā·
338:(
330:C
327:T
324:U
288:(
263:(
244:(
234:C
231:T
228:U
203:(
186:(
164:C
161:T
158:U
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.