Wiktionary talk:Requests for deletion/Others

=Documentation= This page is for requests for deletion of pages in other namespaces than the main namespace, including the deletion of templates ("Template:"), categories ("Category:"), and project pages ("Wiktionary:").

A deletion nomination made on this page should be left open at least seven days after the nomination.

Archiving: This page is not archived: past nominations are still found in the revision history. However, there is the archive Requests_for_deletion/Others/Archives/2007_no_consensus.

=Discussion=

Untitled
Should non-redundant transwiki's be mentioned here, or should they be moved into the main namespace, cleaned up a little and then nominated? (No, not all of them; I'm just talking about the ones that obviously don't meet CFI.) Seems like a pretty silly amount of effort for entries we know won't survive.

Or, should they continue to be listed here, as a good reminder to all sysops about the giant backlog of them? Or perhaps have their own WT:RFDT page? --Connel MacKenzie 21:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Since they're essentially nascent content pages, shouldn't they be nominated to the same page as those in the main namespace? // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 23:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

from section zero
 Note to admins:  Please remember to let all entries linger here at least one week for the update scripts to have a chance at finding residual links, before deleting.


 * Why? If the job queue is 0, all Whatlinkshere should be updated. — Vildricianus 20:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's only for NS:0, I think. --Connel MacKenzie 06:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, job queue is for all. — Vildricianus 09:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * For what lies beyond the database, perhaps, to make sure that it isn't being actively used by a contributor. DAVilla 15:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking for an entry
Template:ref has been tagged with, however I am unable to find its entry on this page. __meco 17:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You should be able to find it now. DAVilla 16:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Archiving?
Archiving would be a good idea to make the page more usable and make unanswered requests more obvious. I'm not sure how archiving works on WT, though. Circeus 04:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Archving 2007
I took out the whole of the 2007 section - most of the discussions in there hadn't been touched for about a year, so I moved them all to Requests for deletion/Archives/2007 no consensus - I'm sure it isn't the best place to put them, but this page needed a spring clean, IMHO. --Jackofclubs 16:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm.....this is highly irregular, but it may also be what we need. A number of these discussions aren't taking into account the present state of things and thus might be more easily resolved.  I'll see what I can hack through.  If someone else could be my conscience (I'm a deletionist, remember), that might be a good idea.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I've gone through and deleted those that are clearly not needed anymore (and are now abandoned), which admittedly wasn't that many. If someone else wants to go through and work on these, feel free.  Otherwise, I imagine that the deletion of these items will have to remain for another day.  The tags will remain up, so hopefully someone will restart the discussions sometime.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Now at Requests for deletion/Others/Archives/2007 no consensus. —Ruakh TALK 21:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've orphaned the obsolete script templates, , , ,. They've been redirected some time, to the updated, , , ,. The first five can be deleted, and #Language-specific script templates archived. —Michael Z. 2009-03-26 06:43 z 

Minimum time
I think we should have a minimum time before entries are closed/acted on (doesn't RFV have that?). Would a week seem fine? This would not affect speedy deletions of course. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 19:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * RFD says "Entries and senses should not be deleted in less than seven days, except for speedy deletion candidates. When there is no consensus, add the template to the bottom of the discussion. If there is no consensus for more than a month, the entry maybe kept as a 'no consensus'." This page is a spinoff of that. &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 19:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me (one week). Mglovesfun (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on templates and categories
As pointed out in a debate once "Wikimedia projects always speedy delete empty categories". If I list an empty category or an unused templated on here, it's more because I think there might be some way to use it. There's no need to debate empty categories that can't be used immediately as people will click on the category to see its contents and find it empty. In general, categories with a lot of link can use to avoid red links. End of my two cents. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for removal of quotation
regarding this edit, is this request not worth discussing? If alternative quotations can be located, I see no harm in removing that particular one. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You may discuss this in the other location that the IP has put this request. DTLHS (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * do you mean the entry talk page? In that case, perhaps you should put a note at WT:RFDO to direct discussion to that page rather than just deleting the request (and mention that this isn't the right forum for the discussion). — SGconlaw (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You can see the IP's contributions just as well as I can. Do whatever you want. DTLHS (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, then. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)