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. Primefac (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete: per nom. → Timbaaatalk 12:35, 27 August 2020 (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).
Template:U.S. On-Demand Songs Chart
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).
As the lists that were included in this navbox have been deleted, this no longer serves a purpose. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: only one entry survives, and that's up for AfD as well... even it it survives, it's still the only entry left in this navbox, making it redundant. Richard3120 (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too few links, and the one remaining is likely to be nixed, too. Hog FarmBacon 20:31, 25 August 2020 (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).
Template:Arlesdale Railway RDT
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).
Delete per nom. Now the page is deleted, its routemap is unused, with no likelyhood of reuse (unless the page is recreated, in which case this would be as well). WT79(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing) 12:32, 21 August 2020 (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. Reasonable nomination, no opposition. Primefac (talk) 23:27, 27 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]
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).
Abolished Royal Families
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 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)[reply]
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]
Keep I think the scrutiny should go to the pages before their navboxes. Altanner1991 (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also proposed it for similar reasons as this last batch, namely limited numbers of linked entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 05:02, 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]
Many of the articles are already being discussed in the deletion templates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 05:27, 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.23.249.111 (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They're easily verifiable. Claims that there are no sources for Gyanendra's, Simeon II's or Constantine II's families are simply foolish. DrKay (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The question about verification seems to be more about whether or not the people in question, especially the unlinked entries, actually claim or actively pursue the titles, since most are private individuals with no public roles. Plus, while I probably should have mentioned this in the original reason, the previous discussion also brought up questions about being potentially misleading, since unlike Soviet Union templates, these templates seem to treat them as if there actually are ruling royal families in the countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"private individuals with no public roles". No. The king of Egypt, king of Greece, tsar of Bulgaria, crown prince of Iran, the entire Nepalese royal family: these are real people who really were royals and who really were heads of state. This intense desire to eliminate all mention of former royals is becoming ridiculous. It's like trying to delete Barack Obama's article because he's no longer president. DrKay (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While some may have once been reigning royalty, others like the descendants of the French and Russian monarchs were never reigning royalty. The concern seems to be that they're treating them as if they were still ruling. None of the articles about Barack Obama pretend that he's still president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 05:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are still the d'Orleans and Romanoff families. Just rename the templates. The Obama family doesn't stop existing when they are no longer the presidential family. DrKay (talk) 08:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. The surviving members of these royal families are notable, and that's why we have articles. Navboxes help readers navigate between them, and when reading these articles I do find them useful. However, I do agree they are wrongly titled. I think it would be better to rename them to Descendants of... to make it clear the family is no longer an active royal household. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Technically the people listed in the template aren't the only descendants of those Royal families. For example, the British Royal Family are descendants of the Greek Royal Family through Prince Philip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of them are WP:OR. Also, Georgian Mukhrani family is not even a royal house. They belong to Georgian nobility. An emperor /// Ave 00:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Especially Template:Greek Royal Family - all members of the Greek Royal Family are also members of the oldest reigning royal family in Europe, the Danish royal family. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Should have mentioned this in argument, but serval of the templates, namely Template:Portuguese Royal Family, Template:Lao Royal Family, Template:Burmese Royal Family, and Template:Libyan Royal Family have less than five articles linked, which can be seen as having limited utility. In addition, the templates are potentially incomplete as unlinked entries were removed by others, so they may not be fully accurate. The same issues that applied to the the deleted template Template:Prussian Royal Family as discussed here seem present— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - these families still exist (and are still notable) and are largely referred to by their titles. These templates are fulfilling their purpose exactly by being informative and linking their articles together. —МандичкаYO 😜 12:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many are original research and some information may be hoaxes. Take this for example, do really "Princess Dahlia" and "Princess Solvène" even exist? Pahlevun (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2020 (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).
Template:Tfd instructions
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. There is no consensus for a cross-namespace redirect, and attribution has been provided. Primefac (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
I will add that the close was correct based on the arguments in the TFD, the delete was correct at the time, but once contested at WP:REFUND a G6 delete is reversed. I will add my opinion that just because one of the creators of the page allows a merge without attribution, does not mean that the legal rights of other editors can be ignored during a merge, and it is not so clear if a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license has been honoured, so redirect after a merge sounds good to me. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think that's correct, per the two quotes I made above and also 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)[reply]
This should be a talk page discussion, not a new TfD, but anyway: I was recently told this as a solution for preserving attribution. An alternative would be to move the (old template, now a) redirect to a subpage of the target for long-term storage, then add Template:Copied to the base page talk page. --Bsherr (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This entire thing is a mess. First, the template should never have been undeleted at REFUND, and the argument used to undelete it, that G6 should be uncontroversial is 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)[reply]
We try very hard to avoid cross-namespace redirects. --Bsherr (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We try very hard to avoid cross-namespace redirects from mainspace. I've never seen cross-namespace redirects from one non-article namespace to another considered a problem. * Pppery *it has begun... 17:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
imo: This should be closed promptly by an uninvolved template admin with experience in the relevant area (Primefac, probably), with a prescription on what to do next (whether that be DRV, restoring a redirect, or something else), since this TfD is a waste of time. To prevent future confusion, the closing instructions should also be updated to include information on what to do about attribution in subst+delete cases. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
subst and delete as original Tfd was closed. A cross-namespace redirect is fine in this case if it's really necessary to preserve the attribution. (I question the practical necessity to preserve attribution outside of article space, but that is a debate for another forum and time, especially since it would probably require changing the license.) Aervanath (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The attribution can easily be achieved by a dummy edit with noting the 5 editors who edited the page prior to the TfD. --Gonnym (talk) 09:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Merge and delete#Record authorship and delete history: [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)[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).