Template talk:rfd

Discussion

This page has been listed on Wiktionary:Requests for deletion.
Please see that page for justifications and discussion. Please do not remove this notice or blank this page while the question is being considered. However, you are welcome to make improvements to it. [[Category:Requests for deletion]]

---

I'd like to make the changes above. (Jump directly to section, make period the "add new section" link.) Any objections? --Connel MacKenzie 03:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

• Not from me. Give it a try. I'm not sure that the jump-to-section will work, though. Uncle G 11:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems to work fine for main-namespace articles.  :-) Done. --Connel MacKenzie 03:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I just noticed that the full stop / period at the end of the description is a hyperlink. I think this is a bit of a hack honestly. A more professional solution would be to have a small "non-hidden" link or if you don't want bad guys finding it, just keep the link in your favourites instead. — Hippietrail 7 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)

It does seem kind of useless. Eclecticology July 7, 2005 02:46 (UTC)

Why is this protected? That's aggravating. 24 7 July 2005 02:51 (UTC)

lurl

I've replaced the "lurl" template by its contents to prevent the link to the template from appearing on every edit page with an rfd. It seems to be only recently that the edit pages started to pick up this link. Eclecticology 17:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I've replaced lurl with the "correct" magic word fullurle: (slightly different syntax.) While here, I added lots of template comments and made the special link less obscure. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Not that it happens a lot, but citations should be RFDO as they are not mainspace articles. Also, RFD is often about 500kb, while RFDO is more like 150-175kb. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's best to keep them on RFD, they are still content pages. davillla agrees. Conrad.Irwin 19:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[[:Category:English terms needing attention]]

This and some other templates clutter [[:Category:English terms needing attention]]. Whatever the value for other languages, we have little need in English for that category except for {{attention}} and other less-used tags. Can this one not categorize for English? DCDuring TALK 22:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree — and have gone ahead with the change, since this isn't transcluded widely enough to kill the job queue. If anyone objects, please revert. —Ruakh_TALK 23:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. If reverted, please explain. DCDuring TALK 23:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

αρbε̰ρ / arbër

The arbërisht / αρbε̰ρίσ̈τ (called "Arvanitika") speaking ppl used the greek Alphabet, bc they live in Greece. I don't quite understand why the entry for "αρbε̰ρ"(arbër) is has been nominated for deletion? IMIPER (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@IMIPER: Please go to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English § αρbε̰ρ to discuss this. — Eru·tuon 20:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

The wording should be changed for |fail=1. Currently it is:

A user has marked this entry as failed requests for deletion

Better wording would be

A user has marked this entry as having failed a request for deletion

Hmm? Pinging @Svartava2 as they added this text, @Benwing as they gave the go-ahead for it. --Rishabhbhat (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rishabhbhat I agree, the second one seems better. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 15:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

For the sake of posterity, this change was made by User:Benwing2. --Rishabhbhat (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)