398:(except where there was consensus the topic is notable). That's as far as admins need go, while they are performing another administrative task. You can leave the rest to editors of that article. If they want to link it somewhere else or even redlink it, they can. If it happens to be a bluelinks only list, editors there are free to remove the entry. If they have questions, they can ask the admin. If they revert the admin, the admin can just ignore it. These controversies will arise, if infrequently, even when you take the time like Primefac advises. The solution is the same: answer queries, ignore reverts.
523:
84:
49:
1304:, where I noticed that turning a list into a category isn't a common outcome. I !voted with an ad hoc 'category-ify' option, and the other editor !voted in a similar way. I haven't found anything like this in the archives. Listify is used to turn categories into lists, but there isn't an option to do the opposite. Is 'categoryify' or 'catify' a common enough outcome to be included in the
21:
852:. Looking at today's AfD submissions almost all of them are listed in at least one deletion sorting list. So, other editors seem to disagree with your view that deletion sorting is superseded by Alerts and prefer to use both. Since that is the case, I think that the other venues should follow the example AfD sets and use deletion sorting more widely as well.
1279:
It's mostly done. I didn't add instructions to CfD because I didn't quite know where they would fit and I didn't touch FfD and DRV either because I've never edited there and I don't want my first edit to be telling the experienced editors how to do things. If someone else wants to, you can finish the
453:
As you say, there will always be someone who complains about certain edits, and we all make mistakes. I certainly don't expect an admin dealing with XFD closures to be right 100% of the time, nor do I think there is one "right way" to do it. I just think that if admins are taking the time to consider
1223:
and if it is, it displays the text "@subpage". Otherwise, it displays the links like normal. This worked before since no one transcluded RfD pages except for the transclusion zone in RfD itself. Since I've broken this assumption by transcluding the RfDs to the deletion sorting pages, the code has to
662:
Non-admin closures are permitted. Given some of the concerns that have been raised recently, I suggest starting with the most obvious/clear cases for closure for now. If you're not sure about a close, I highly recommend asking an admin for their opinion on the matter (though make sure it's an admin
944:
Hmm. I'm immediately noticing that, while there's a link to the RfD page on all three, it's not actually transcluded on the page the way the AfD discussions are. Is that simply a technical limitation, or something else at play? (And further-- the page notes that a bot will automatically remove AfD
259:
following the Nth discussion about what action should be taken by patrolling administrators as far as removing links when closing an AfD. It's a broader discussion than Liz or I (and I'm sure every admin who closes discussions has had their action queried or reverted) so bringing it somewhere more
639:
Sorry for posting here, but after CfD and RfD is backlogged since my last revisit, and to prevent any more controversies and former actions, am I fitted to perform the non admin closures. I've involuntarily opted out from XfD closures a week ago but regained my experience. I will abide with
457:
As far as the original question goes, I think there are general guidelines for removal, namely "is on a list of
Notable things" means removal, "this is a list of every thing ever" would not. Dabs fall into the former category, as do alumni (and likely most groups of individuals/people).
1201:
Huh. Odd. RfD shouldn't have too many issues with transclusion in and of itself-- after all, the RfD page itself is one giant transclusion zone for literally all active RfDs (which are actually hosted, as far as I can tell, on the daily log pages). Wonder what's going on
730:, or for specific countries. Since many people watch deletion sorting pages for subject areas that particularly interest them, including your recent fD listing on one of these pages helps attract people familiar with a particular topic area. Please see the
568:
Currently, it doesn't seem that disclosing one's non-admin status when relisting a deletion discussion is common practice, even though such a disclosure could be included within the relisting comment. I figure that if a non-admin parameter were added to
274:
Where the biggest confusion I've seen is if the person (generally) is mentioned in a list. If it's blue links only, they should be removed. But if it's comprehensive, they should remain? Is there clear guidance here? Is there a solution. Thoughts?
1182:
links that appear next to the nominated page are not disabled at deletion sorting. If someone attempts to use these links to close an RfD from the deletion sorting page, it not work correctly. I'll have to ask for a change at
1038:
the page after saving your edit to see the transclusion. That happens even if you use #section-h directly, it's not something my template causes.So, the instructions can look like (bolded part is my addition, the rest is from
1027:: (Let me know if I don't need to ping you) Yes, you're right. Turns out it's actually really complicated to get it working (mostly because every venue does things slightly differently). So, I made a template for it at {{
434:
XFDC makes it easy to make the choice, but not necessarily know what the correct one is. I'm not a high volume discussion closer so I run into it less, but I'd like to action it correctly and not run into it at all.
393:
I think "you should take the time" is the ideal case and can be said about almost any question, while not as often being exactly practical. So, to give an answer for the "general" case, I lean towards unlinking per
1085:
Replace "rfd" as appropriate. Obviously the template will have to be moved to
Template space first, which I will do as soon as someone comes up with a good name for it. I'd also really appreciate a code review.
484:
the list explicitly disallows redlinks. In these cases, remove the entry unless it can be adjusted/reworded to link to a relevant extant article without duplicating another entry (for disambiguation pages, see
1262:
and as a bonus, @subpage is gone. That means there should be no more things that need fixing (famous last words). I'll start editing the XfD pages later because it's 2am where I am and there's no rush anyway.
758:
MfD should instead copy AfD's instructions exactly, since transcluding individual nominations is possible for that venue. I see no reason not to do this, especially since this was clearly always intended.
1301:
513:
431:
I've run into this with athletes. Following the 2022? change, these athletes are no longer deemed notable but editors still want to preserve the lists and links out of a hope consensus will go back.
870:
I guess my question is... DOES this work on other XfD pages? I spend my time mostly on the RfD page, and unlike on AfD (where EVERY submission gets tagged for deletion sorting), I haven't seen
977:
727:
1028:
539:
492:
In all other cases, judgement needs to be used. Don't remove the entry unless that would be an unambiguous improvement, consider noting the matter on the article talk page.
700:. However, this is rarely done, mostly because editors don't know about it. So, we should add instructions to do it to the other venues. Here's potential wording, based on
719:
1381:. So, deleting a list only to create a category with the same parameters would almost certainly just be creating a category that's going to end up at CfD in short order.
828:
701:
480:
I think the only policy we could apply universally would be cases where the AfD closed as delete (not redirect or merge) for lack of notability (not copyright, TNT, etc)
974:
678:
971:
344:
There is no rush to get through as many deletion discussions as quickly as possible, so your first point is somewhat irrelevant. Second, if I remember correctly XFDC
1354:
characteristics, not mere intersection. It's often the case that CfD discussions result in an outcome of "Listify", because if a category is created that isn't a
248:
Hi! Not structuring this in any formal way as it's a discussion that may or may not lead to an RfC. If the format needs tweaking for ease of editing, feel free.
911:
for redirects, so it works. The other two don't at the moment but I don't think there is a technical reason for that. It's more that no one has added them yet.
1339:
831:" explains the modern system of Article Alerts, which are automated. Deletion sorting is an older mechanism which I view as largely superseded by Alerts. โ
908:
815:
772:
462:, there are always going to exceptions and local consensus for certain pages to keep redlinked entries; I don't really know if we would be able to get a
35:
760:
263:
As I said on Liz's page, it's because there doesn't appear to be community consensus on what is generally right. There are cases where there is:
303:
1051:
904:
731:
693:
879:
656:
550:
527:
515:
723:
309:
My knee-jerk reaction is to wonder why an admin cannot take a minute or two to evaluate whether these links should be delinked or removed.
945:
discussions from the lists once they're closed. I'm... guessing it won't do that for other XfD discussions, like this RfD discussion...)
803:
173:
168:
161:
156:
151:
634:
597:
144:
139:
134:
127:
122:
117:
110:
105:
100:
779:
475:
448:
318:
1335:
I don't think it is a common outcome at all, nor would I expect it to be because of the relationship between categories and lists.
861:
843:
795:
791:
243:
824:
I have changed the words category/categories in that paragraph at Afd to list/lists, as it was confusing to refer to categories.
787:
715:
672:
612:
407:
385:
371:
357:
339:
1358:
characteristic of the member articles, then that isn't an appropriate categorization, and the grouping should just be a list.
1325:
1056:
To transclude the discussion to the deletion sorting list use the following syntax {{User:Nickps/Xfd transcluder|rfd|2=|3=}}.
626:
501:
1390:
1031:}}. I don't really know how to write templates so it's really jank but it works. If you want to test it, you might need to
1247:
1233:
1214:
1172:
1134:
1109:
1095:
1081:
1018:
989:
954:
920:
894:
783:
1305:
1289:
1272:
1220:
1196:
1158:
939:
267:
Copyright / Ad, those particular articles are problematic but there could be an article on X topic, so leave it linked.
69:
1350:, the explanation of categories reveals that they have a narrower scope by definition: A category groups articles by
544:
1179:
So, there is a small problem with the template (more accurately, with section transclusion in general) for RfD. The
878:, then yes indeed instructions to do so SHOULD be added to RfD and other XfD pages-- I don't see why, for example,
617:
I wouldn't think so; relisting just moves the tiles around on the board, so it doesn't really matter who does it.
1125:
Gave it a test run, seems to work flawlessly at least for RfD. Not sure about its functionality on other venues.
848:
While you may view deletion sorting as superseded, that doesn't change the fact that it's still widely used in
799:
31:
345:
270:
AfD has closed as
Subject Y isn't notable/it's not a case of Too Soon and they're mentioned in text, un link.
65:
1204:
I will note that I have no clue how transclusion works under the hood so I'm partially talking out my ass x3
376:
Twinkle deletes first and then offers the option to unlink, so speed for those is also not really a factor.
1347:
362:
I think the question is relevant to CSD and PROD as well. Not sure if that would change the math somewhat.
330:
Two possible reasons: not enough admins doing deletion, automated tools that can't evaluate case by case.
256:
56:
1295:
206:
1369:
be a category. If something isn't important/notable enough to be a list, it's hard to see how it could
835:
442:
297:
61:
1149:. If no one objects, I'll start adding instructions to the XfD venue pages in, say, a week from now.
72:
for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
1143:
714:
Once listed, a link to the deletion discussion can, optionally, also be added to an appropriate
404:
368:
336:
227:
1258:
1047:
1005:...Maybe it's just me, but I'd still appreciate them? ...I've never sorted things on AfD and
926:
832:
686:
593:
437:
292:
234:
486:
1100:
Will give it a test run later on, will be doing a couple things IRL, but this looks good!
8:
1319:
698:
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to .
608:
580:
573:
497:
1243:
1210:
1184:
1168:
1130:
1105:
1040:
1014:
1006:
967:
950:
890:
745:
668:
622:
535:
471:
381:
353:
314:
219:
189:
1386:
649:
400:
364:
332:
285:
252:
27:
1285:
1268:
1229:
1192:
1154:
1091:
1077:
1061:
985:
935:
916:
857:
811:
768:
753:
645:
584:
395:
281:
1332:
1313:
1309:
641:
604:
493:
1312:
and add it to the table, but it felt a bit too bold to edit a guideline page.
885:
be sorted under the "Denmark", "Politics", and "Sexuality and Gender" topics.
185:
1239:
1219:
So, the code responsible for those links checks if the page name is equal to
1206:
1164:
1126:
1101:
1024:
1010:
961:
946:
900:
886:
849:
664:
618:
531:
467:
421:
377:
349:
310:
83:
1302:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of doctors working in the
British media
290:
who are in the current. I'm dropping the link on Liz's for her convenience.
1382:
558:
565:
In this sentence, does "closure" include relisting a deletion discussion?
1281:
1264:
1225:
1188:
1150:
1120:
1087:
1073:
981:
931:
912:
853:
807:
764:
749:
603:
Would disclosure of non-admin status when relisting convey any benefit?
191:
1068:
template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
187:
555:
Non-admin closers should indicate their non-admin status with the
530:
about potentially increasing the header size of XfD discussions.
583:, such disclosures would be much more common than they are now.
563:("non-admin closure") template in the comment for the closure.
192:
1373:
qualify to be a category. A list topic may become a category
874:
use it in RfD in my time as an editor. If it does, indeed,
528:
Knowledge:Village Pump (proposals) ยงย Bump XfD heading sizes
516:
Knowledge:Village Pump (proposals) ยงย Bump XfD heading sizes
880:
Knowledge:Redirects for discussion#LGBT rights in
Zealand
679:
Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues
1340:
Knowledge:Categories, lists, and navigation templates
346:
does provide the option between unlinking and removal
1240:๐๐ฒ๐ซ๐๐ช๐๐ซ๐ซ๐๐๐ ๐๐ฅ๐ข ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ซ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฐ๐ฑ
1207:๐๐ฒ๐ซ๐๐ช๐๐ซ๐ซ๐๐๐ ๐๐ฅ๐ข ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ซ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฐ๐ฑ
1165:๐๐ฒ๐ซ๐๐ช๐๐ซ๐ซ๐๐๐ ๐๐ฅ๐ข ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ซ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฐ๐ฑ
1127:๐๐ฒ๐ซ๐๐ช๐๐ซ๐ซ๐๐๐ ๐๐ฅ๐ข ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ซ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฐ๐ฑ
1102:๐๐ฒ๐ซ๐๐ช๐๐ซ๐ซ๐๐๐ ๐๐ฅ๐ข ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ซ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฐ๐ฑ
1046:
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant
1011:๐๐ฒ๐ซ๐๐ช๐๐ซ๐ซ๐๐๐ ๐๐ฅ๐ข ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ซ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฐ๐ฑ
947:๐๐ฒ๐ซ๐๐ช๐๐ซ๐ซ๐๐๐ ๐๐ฅ๐ข ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ซ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฐ๐ฑ
887:๐๐ฒ๐ซ๐๐ช๐๐ซ๐ซ๐๐๐ ๐๐ฅ๐ข ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ซ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฐ๐ฑ
454:
what they're doing, they will make fewer "mistakes".
424:. The broader issue I have run into is editors have
77:
1163:You definitely have my vote. Thank you so much!
1377:, but it's unlikely it would become a category
1346:inherently in conflict with each other. But at
980:. You're probably right about the bot though.
200:This page has archives. Sections older than
763:even have separate sections for each venue.
804:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting
526:You are invited to join the discussion at
47:
780:Knowledge talk:Categories for discussion
54:Text and/or other creative content from
1361:But it's hard to imagine the list that
905:WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Denmark
796:Knowledge talk:Templates for discussion
792:Knowledge talk:Redirects for discussion
648:. I wanted to grow my experience more.
428:that may differ from that of the admin.
1224:be updated to take that into account.
788:Knowledge talk:Miscellany for deletion
635:Am I fit to perform non admin closures
551:Non-administrators closing discussions
748:. No need for special instructions.
744:(you can transclude all venues with
244:Unlinking list items in AfD closures
43:
15:
784:Knowledge talk:Files for discussion
34:on 5 September 2011. The result of
13:
1221:Knowledge:Redirects for discussion
14:
1402:
663:that regularly works that area).
204:may be automatically archived by
1003:no need for special instructions
521:
82:
19:
1342:explains, lists and categories
1072:changed how the template works
718:category, such as the ones for
1365:appropriate to be a list, but
800:Knowledge talk:Deletion review
692:, which is transcluded by all
545:Non-admin relisting disclosure
57:Knowledge:Deletion discussions
32:Knowledge:Deletion discussions
1:
1348:Knowledge:Overcategorization
1139:So, I moved the template to
579:and used by scripts such as
540:06:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
502:15:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
476:17:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
449:17:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
408:16:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
386:15:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
372:15:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
358:15:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
340:15:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
319:15:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
304:15:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
26:This page was nominated for
7:
1391:15:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
1326:14:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
1029:User:Nickps/Xfd transcluder
756:) 21:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC))
732:complete list of categories
694:deletion sorting categories
10:
1407:
627:14:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
613:12:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
598:00:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
217:
62:Knowledge:Deletion process
326:Non-administrator comment
60:was copied or moved into
1296:Categoryify/Catify lists
1290:09:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
1273:23:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
1248:01:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
1234:20:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
1215:20:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
1197:18:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
1173:17:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
1159:15:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
1135:23:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
1110:22:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
1096:17:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
1082:20:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
1052:"deletion sorting lists"
1019:14:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
990:21:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
955:21:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
940:16:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
921:11:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
895:09:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
862:21:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
844:06:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
827:The paragraph below it "
816:21:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
773:21:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
673:11:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
657:22:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
1009:flies over my head lol
966:No, I just forgot that
390:Well, that's all I got.
1070:
829:Notifying WikiProjects
644:and prevent any other
466:passed on the matter.
207:Lowercase sigmabot III
1306:common outcomes table
1238:Ohhhh, now I get it.
1044:
1308:? I was going to be
1050:through one or more
420:That is 100% valid @
64:. The former page's
1065:|<signature: -->
348:, as does Twinkle.
70:provide attribution
1185:Template talk:rfd2
970:exists. All three
761:Some sorting pages
702:AfD's instructions
1205:
1181:
927:Here goes nothing
909:dedicated section
818:
329:
214:
213:
179:
178:
76:
75:
42:
41:
1398:
1322:
1316:
1261:
1203:
1180:
1148:
1142:
1124:
1067:
965:
929:
839:
777:
716:deletion sorting
711:Deletion sorting
691:
685:
654:
578:
572:
562:
525:
524:
447:
445:
440:
327:
323:
302:
300:
295:
289:
251:Coming here at @
237:
230:
209:
193:
97:
96:
86:
78:
59:
51:
50:
44:
23:
22:
16:
1406:
1405:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1320:
1314:
1298:
1257:
1146:
1140:
1118:
1084:
1064:|<topic: -->
1059:
1037:
1034:
959:
925:
837:
819:
757:
689:
683:
681:
650:
637:
576:
570:
556:
547:
522:
519:
443:
438:
436:
325:
298:
293:
291:
279:
246:
241:
240:
233:
226:
222:
205:
194:
188:
91:
55:
48:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1404:
1394:
1393:
1359:
1336:
1297:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1144:Transclude Xfd
1137:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1071:
1035:
1032:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
825:
776:
743:
736:
735:
712:
680:
677:
676:
675:
636:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
546:
543:
518:
514:Discussion at
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
490:
455:
432:
429:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
391:
272:
271:
268:
245:
242:
239:
238:
231:
223:
218:
212:
211:
199:
196:
195:
190:
186:
184:
181:
180:
177:
176:
171:
165:
164:
159:
154:
148:
147:
142:
137:
131:
130:
125:
120:
114:
113:
108:
103:
93:
92:
87:
81:
74:
73:
68:now serves to
52:
40:
39:
36:the discussion
24:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1403:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1334:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1323:
1317:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1260:
1256:This has now
1255:
1249:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1222:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1145:
1138:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1122:
1117:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1069:
1063:
1062:subst:delsort
1057:
1053:
1049:
1042:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1001:
991:
987:
983:
979:
976:
975:transclusions
973:
969:
963:
958:
957:
956:
952:
948:
943:
942:
941:
937:
933:
928:
924:
923:
922:
918:
914:
910:
906:
902:
898:
897:
896:
892:
888:
884:
881:
877:
873:
869:
863:
859:
855:
851:
847:
846:
845:
842:
840:
834:
830:
826:
823:
822:
821:
820:
817:
813:
809:
805:
801:
797:
793:
789:
785:
781:
775:
774:
770:
766:
762:
755:
751:
747:
742:
739:
737:
733:
729:
725:
721:
717:
713:
710:
709:
707:
706:
703:
699:
695:
688:
674:
670:
666:
661:
660:
659:
658:
655:
653:
647:
643:
628:
624:
620:
616:
615:
614:
610:
606:
602:
601:
600:
599:
595:
591:
590:
587:
582:
575:
566:
564:
560:
552:
549:The section "
542:
541:
537:
533:
529:
517:
503:
499:
495:
491:
488:
487:WP:DABMENTION
483:
479:
478:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
456:
452:
451:
450:
446:
441:
433:
430:
427:
423:
419:
409:
406:
403:
402:
397:
392:
389:
388:
387:
383:
379:
375:
374:
373:
370:
367:
366:
361:
360:
359:
355:
351:
347:
343:
342:
341:
338:
335:
334:
322:
321:
320:
316:
312:
308:
307:
306:
305:
301:
296:
287:
283:
276:
269:
266:
265:
264:
261:
258:
254:
249:
236:
232:
229:
225:
224:
221:
216:
208:
203:
198:
197:
183:
182:
175:
172:
170:
167:
166:
163:
160:
158:
155:
153:
150:
149:
146:
143:
141:
138:
136:
133:
132:
129:
126:
124:
121:
119:
116:
115:
112:
109:
107:
104:
102:
99:
98:
95:
94:
90:
85:
80:
79:
71:
67:
63:
58:
53:
46:
45:
37:
33:
29:
25:
18:
17:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1355:
1351:
1343:
1300:I come from
1299:
1055:
1048:WikiProjects
1045:
1002:
882:
875:
871:
836:
741:
740:
738:
708:
705:
697:
687:Deletionlist
682:
651:
638:
588:
585:
567:
554:
548:
520:
481:
463:
459:
425:
401:Usedtobecool
399:
365:Usedtobecool
363:
333:Usedtobecool
331:
286:Clarityfiend
277:
273:
262:
253:Usedtobecool
250:
247:
215:
201:
88:
1058:Then add a
1041:WP:AFDHOWTO
1007:WP:SELTRANS
968:WP:SELTRANS
746:WP:SELTRANS
444:Mississippi
299:Mississippi
1259:been fixed
778:Notified:
574:XfD relist
282:FkpCascais
260:central.
257:suggestion
174:Archive 14
169:Archive 13
162:Archive 12
157:Archive 11
152:Archive 10
38:was merge.
1333:Svampesky
1315:Svampesky
883:shouldn't
833:Fayenatic
728:academics
646:WP:BADNAC
605:Thryduulf
581:XFDcloser
494:Thryduulf
278:Courtesy
228:WT:DELPRO
220:Shortcuts
145:Archive 9
140:Archive 8
135:Archive 7
128:Archive 6
123:Archive 5
118:Archive 4
111:Archive 3
106:Archive 2
101:Archive 1
1371:possibly
1356:defining
1352:defining
1025:Lunamann
962:Lunamann
901:Lunamann
665:Primefac
652:Toadette
619:Primefac
553:" says:
532:Primefac
468:Primefac
426:opinions
422:Primefac
396:WP:REDNO
378:Primefac
350:Primefac
311:Primefac
202:180 days
89:Archives
1383:FeRDNYC
1379:instead
1344:are not
1202:here...
1187:first.
1036:refresh
642:WP:NACD
66:history
28:merging
1367:should
1282:Nickps
1265:Nickps
1226:Nickps
1189:Nickps
1151:Nickps
1121:Nickps
1088:Nickps
1074:Nickps
982:Nickps
932:Nickps
913:Nickps
907:has a
903:Well,
872:anyone
854:Nickps
808:Nickps
765:Nickps
750:Nickps
720:actors
586:Please
464:policy
235:WT:DPR
1363:isn't
1280:job.
1033:purge
841:ondon
724:music
696:says
589:Stand
30:with
1387:talk
1375:also
1321:talk
1310:bold
1286:talk
1269:talk
1244:talk
1230:talk
1211:talk
1193:talk
1169:talk
1155:talk
1131:talk
1106:talk
1092:talk
1078:talk
1015:talk
986:talk
951:talk
936:talk
917:talk
891:talk
876:work
858:talk
812:talk
769:talk
754:talk
669:talk
623:talk
609:talk
594:talk
536:talk
498:talk
472:talk
439:Star
382:talk
354:talk
315:talk
294:Star
284:and
1338:As
978:now
972:are
850:AfD
559:nac
482:and
460:But
255:'s
1389:)
1324:)
1288:)
1271:)
1246:)
1232:)
1213:)
1195:)
1171:)
1157:)
1147:}}
1141:{{
1133:)
1108:)
1094:)
1080:)
1066:}}
1060:{{
1054:.
1043:):
1017:)
988:)
953:)
938:)
930:.
919:)
893:)
860:)
814:)
806:.
802:,
798:,
794:,
790:,
786:,
782:,
771:)
726:,
722:,
704::
690:}}
684:{{
671:)
625:)
611:)
596:)
577:}}
571:{{
561:}}
557:{{
538:)
500:)
489:).
474:)
405:โ๏ธ
384:)
369:โ๏ธ
356:)
337:โ๏ธ
317:)
1385:(
1331:@
1318:(
1284:(
1267:(
1242:(
1228:(
1209:(
1191:(
1167:(
1153:(
1129:(
1123::
1119:@
1104:(
1090:(
1076:(
1023:@
1013:(
984:(
964::
960:@
949:(
934:(
915:(
899:@
889:(
856:(
838:L
810:(
767:(
752:(
734:.
667:(
621:(
607:(
592:(
534:(
496:(
470:(
380:(
352:(
328:)
324:(
313:(
288::
280:@
210:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
