Template:Old XfD multi is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use ((edit template-protected)) to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

This template was nominated for deletion or considered for merging. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: merge, 9 June 2019, see merge proposal. Merge with Template:Multidel: no consensus, 24 July 2012, see merge proposal.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

This edit request to Module:Old XfD multi has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change collapsible collapsed to mw-collapsible mw-collapsed, which is loaded faster and not deprecated. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Module:Old XfD multi has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please copy Module:Old XfD multi/sandbox to Module:Old XfD multi. The changes add support for a |deletion= parameter, which replaces the word deletion in the top line of the box. Danski454 (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Module:Old XfD multi has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I believe that the template wiki link should be changed from "This template was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep." to "This template was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep." The phrase, 'nominated for deletion' refers closer to the process than simply 'deletion'. 'deletion' has ambiguity, because it could link to the XfD discussion or the actual process. This change wouldn't inhibit usability and would increase clarity. (See also MOS:LINKCLARITY, MOS:EASTEREGG) — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 12:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added edit request template, unsure if this change would be controversial. If it is, please feel free to remove the edit request and discuss. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 17:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the specific description: X to Y Line 368:

'This %s was nominated for [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion]] or considered for [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Merging|merging]].',

to

'This %s was [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|nominated for deletion]] or considered for [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Merging|merging]].',

Line 375, 380, 386 from

'This %s was previously nominated for deletion.',

to

'This %s was previously nominated for deletion.',

Happy Editing--IAmChaos 06:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect a link saying "nominated for deletion" to lead me to a deletion discussion, not to Wikipedia:Deletion policy. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. I'm with Tamzin here. If the link contained "nominated", I'd expect it to lead to the nomination, while I would expect just "deletion" to lead to a page on deletion in general. As such, I've declined the edit request. If you gain consensus for this change, you can open another one. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 01:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: I don't personally have that implication, but I certainly agree with you, and I've realized the proposed version is not clear enough. I still think the original is unclear, though, since "deletion" could be the policy or the discussion, so I'd like to try to change it. Any better ideas? — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 03:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am not an expert on Lua, but I would like to request adding the words "multiple times." after "This <type of page> was nominated for deletion". Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 11:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems redundant and unnecessary to me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]