Wikipedia talk:Deletion process

Extensive copyedits and reorganisation, small updates
Jc37 has made a large number of changes to the policy page (and I've made one small one) in the past ~12 hours that are a mix of copyedits, reorganisation of content and small updates reflecting current practice. While I do not have any issue with any of the changes, as this is a key policy I encourage others to do their own review. Thryduulf (talk) 08:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. – Novem Linguae (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Where did Pages may also be deleted if they have been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems for over 7 days. come from? I can't find that text on Copyright problems. No other clear issues but need to run changes side by side instead of using diffs at this point. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikiblame shows that was added by @Pppery with this edit in March 2022. The edit summary cites Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 13, the titular question remained unresponded to for almost three months. Thryduulf (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The point of that edit was to reflect reality - pages are in fact being deleted through that process, with the most recent example being Copyright problems/2023 July 29. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not because of any seven day rule, though, is it? Anything at CP could be deleted at any time. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Per Copyright problems, there is a de-facto 7 day rule. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've updated the paragraph to be more precise. Articles are only deleted after 7 days if they qualify for presumptive deletion. I was confused since merely being listed there doesn't qualify an article for deletion... SportingFlyer  T · C  21:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Clarifying NOQUORUM Soft Deletes
I've seen it brought up here a few times, but the section at WP:NOQUORUM about whether articles with a previous PROD should be eligible for soft deletion contradicts itself. The first sentence reads If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD, meaning that a previous PROD (Note: does this also include WP:BLPPROD?) should prevent soft deletion as an outcome. However, that section also says later that If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to [snip] soft deleting the article which indicates that soft deletion is still available at the closing admin's discretion.

This was discussed at the previous 2016-2017 RFC that formalized Soft Deletion as a process, and support for allowing at admin discretion was unanimous but had very little participation and no formal close. The original implementation of soft deletion from 2011 until it was removed in 2013 allowed it at admin discretion, with no requirement that there not be a previous PROD.

I'd like to try to come up with an actual consensus on the issue, so we can give clear advice to closers. With that in mind, I'm presenting a few options below for discussion and feedback. Please note that this is not an RFC, just an attempt to hash out options and wordings that could be presented in an RFC per WP:RFCBEFORE. Pinging participants of the original RFC section on this issue plus the thread on my talk page that led me to start this discussion  The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is well thought out and very neutrally worded. Excellent work by those involved. Jclemens (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Option 1: Revert to 2011 process
"If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD and follow the instructions listed at Proposed deletion. Generally, this will result in soft deletion (see below), but administrators should evaluate the nominating statement as they would a PROD rationale. Closing an unopposed XfD nomination under this procedure does not require the discussion to have been relisted any particular number of times.

If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past besides the nominator, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to:
 * relisting the discussion.
 * closing as "no consensus" with "no prejudice against speedy renomination" (NPASR);
 * closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal;
 * soft deleting the article.

Soft deletion is a special kind of deletion which may be used after an article's deletion discussion. If a deletion discussion receives minimal participation, the article may be deleted. However, in this case, the article can be restored for any reason on request. If your article was soft-deleted, you can request it be restored at Requests for undeletion. This achieves an effect similar to WP:PROD, but is a function of WP:AFD and not inhibited by previous PRODs. The closer should make it clear the deletion is a soft delete as part of the close, ideally with a link to this guideline."

Discussion (NOQUORUM Soft Deletes Option 1)
Simplest option to allow soft deletion for any NOQUORUM. Has the advantage of streamlining the process by decoupling soft deletion from PROD and removing the requirement to check for previous PRODs. Not the most elegant solution, but it gives the most freedom to the closing admin. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Option 2: Disallow soft deletion for previous PROD
"If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD and follow the instructions listed at Proposed deletion. Generally, this will result in soft deletion (see below), but administrators should evaluate the nominating statement as they would a PROD rationale. Closing an unopposed XfD nomination under this procedure does not require the discussion to have been relisted any particular number of times.

If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to:
 * relisting the discussion.
 * closing as "no consensus" with "no prejudice against speedy renomination" (NPASR);
 * closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal;
 * soft deleting the article.

Soft deletion is a special kind of deletion which may be used after an article's deletion discussion. If a deletion discussion receives minimal participation, the article may be deleted. However, in this case, the article can be restored for any reason on request. If your article was soft-deleted, you can request it be restored at Requests for undeletion. The closer should make it clear the deletion is a soft delete as part of the close, ideally with a link to this guideline."

Discussion (NOQUORUM Soft Deletes Option 2)
Simplest solution to clearly disallow soft deletion when there has been a previous PROD at any point. It removes some admin discretion, but eliminates vagueness if this option is not desired by the community. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Option 3: Allow at admin discretion (clarify wording)
"Soft deletion is a special kind of deletion which may be used after an article's deletion discussion. If a deletion discussion receives minimal participation, the article may be deleted. However, in this case, the article can be restored for any reason on request. If your article was soft-deleted, you can request it be restored at Requests for undeletion. The closer should make it clear the deletion is a soft delete as part of the close, ideally with a link to this guideline. If the article hasn't been proposed for deletion in the past, soft deletion is typically the default closure. If there has been a previous proposed deletion, WP:BLPPROD, or declined speedy deletion request, soft deletion is still a valid option at the discretion of the closing administrator. If there was a previous discussion at Articles for deletion that generated substantive participation and resulted in a closure that wasn't speedy or procedural, soft deletion should not be used."

Discussion (NOQUORUM Soft Deletes Option 3)
This still allows soft deletion at admin discretion, but clarifies that it is the default for no-prod and an option for has-prod. Also clarifies how soft deletion applies when there was a previous deletion processes. I believe this most closely matches the discussion at the 2017 RfC. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

General discussion (NOQUORUM Soft Deletes)
My first thought is that a declined PROD should prevent soft deletion unless all of the following are true: Now I realise this is not simple (please don't write it off because of that, it can likely be simplified), and I'm not sure where it fits in your options, but the intent is to avoid double jeopardy and give a reasonable chance for the people most likely to have an interest in the article to be aware it has been nominated for deletion. The final bullet is so it is alert casual viewers of the discussion that there is something that probably needs looking at. Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The following people/places were notified of the discussion at least 7 days ago:
 * The editors placing, endorsing (if applicable) and removing the PROD template
 * Editors (excluding bots, blocked editors and IP editors) who have commented on the talk page in the last ~year
 * Any relevant WikiProjects (presence on an article alerts list counts as a notification for this purpose)
 * The nomination has been added to relevant deletion sorting list(s).
 * The nomination was made for reasons that are unambiguously different and/or additional to the reasons for the PROD.
 * The previously declined PROD has been noted on the discussion page for at least 5 days


 * That's great input, thanks. To be clear, anyone here can propose new options. I'm just trying to finesse some wordings for a future RFC, and I can definitely see an interest in preventing abuse of process though this suggestion is fairly complex. As far as preventing "double jeapordy", one idea I mulled over but didn't write up here was adding a statute of limitations for how old a PROD could be to block soft deletion. The article that prompted this, Miss American Beauty 1963, was PRODded and deprodded within an hour of its creation in 2009, and has been entirely unsourced for the entire 15-year article history. I think allowing soft deletion on articles that haven't been PRODded within the last 1, 2, or 5 years might be a different path that could filter out articles that are likely to have anyone interested in them. The Wordsmith Talk to me 23:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I am in favor of Option 2. I have always had a close interpretation of soft deletion, i.e. we should literally pretend that the nominator, instead of starting an AfD, had instead tagged the article for PROD. In response to 's third point, there is no exception that allows an article to be PROOed a second time just because the reason is different from the first. Personally I think it is easier to just keep the procedure as simple as possible. And since soft deletion allows anyone to request a REFUND for any reason whatsoever, the PROD removal can be assumed to be a standing REFUND request regardless of the reason. Now if we want to expand soft deletion based on some criteria as states, I'm not inherently opposed as long as we do the same for PROD - basically, for me, the rules should be exactly the same for the two. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @King of Hearts That's a good point and removing that bullet does simplify matters (especially as it's the most subjective one). I think option 2 is closest to what I think should be happening in the absence of consensus to expand - and I'm not opposed to tying that in to expansion of PROD. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Unlinking list items in AfD closures
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.

Coming here at @Usedtobecool's suggestion 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 central.

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:
 * Copyright / Ad, those particular articles are problematic but there could be an article on X topic, so leave it linked.
 * 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.

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?

Courtesy who are in the current. I'm dropping the link on Liz's for her convenience. Star  Mississippi  15:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. Primefac (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Two possible reasons: not enough admins doing deletion, automated tools that can't evaluate case by case. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 does provide the option between unlinking and removal, as does Twinkle. Primefac (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the question is relevant to CSD and PROD as well. Not sure if that would change the math somewhat. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Twinkle deletes first and then offers the option to unlink, so speed for those is also not really a factor. Primefac (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, that's all I got.
 * 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 WP:REDNO (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. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That is 100% valid @Primefac. The broader issue I have run into is editors have opinions that may differ from that of the admin.
 * 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.
 * 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. Star   Mississippi  17:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 what they're doing, they will make fewer "mistakes".
 * 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). But, 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 policy passed on the matter. Primefac (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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) and 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 WP:DABMENTION).
 * 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. Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals) § Bump XfD heading sizes
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals) § Bump XfD heading sizes about potentially increasing the header size of XfD discussions. Primefac (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Non-admin relisting disclosure
The section "Non-administrators closing discussions" says: Non-admin closers should indicate their non-admin status with the ("non-admin closure") template in the comment for the closure. In this sentence, does "closure" include relisting a deletion discussion?

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 XfD relist and used by scripts such as XFDcloser, such disclosures would be much more common than they are now. PleaseStand (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Would disclosure of non-admin status when relisting convey any benefit? Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't think so; relisting just moves the tiles around on the board, so it doesn't really matter who does it. Primefac (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Am I fit to perform non admin closures
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 WP:NACD and prevent any other WP:BADNAC. I wanted to grow my experience more. Toadette Edit! 22:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 that regularly works that area). Primefac (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion sorting should be advertised on all XFD venues
Deletionlist, which is transcluded by all deletion sorting categories says You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to [topic].. 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 AfD's instructions:
 * Deletion sorting
 * Once listed, a link to the deletion discussion can, optionally, also be added to an appropriate deletion sorting category, such as the ones for actors, music, academics, or for specific countries. Since many people watch deletion sorting pages for subject areas that particularly interest them, including your recent [X]fD listing on one of these pages helps attract people familiar with a particular topic area. Please see the complete list of categories.

(you can transclude all venues with WP:SELTRANS. No need for special instructions. Nickps (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)) 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. Some sorting pages even have separate sections for each venue. Nickps (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion, Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion, Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion, Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion, Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion, Wikipedia talk:Deletion review, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting. Nickps (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I have changed the words category/categories in that paragraph at Afd to list/lists, as it was confusing to refer to categories.
 * The paragraph below it "Notifying WikiProjects" explains the modern system of Article Alerts, which are automated. Deletion sorting is an older mechanism which I view as largely superseded by Alerts. – Fayenatic  L ondon 06:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * While you may view deletion sorting as superseded, that doesn't change the fact that it's still widely used in AfD. 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. Nickps (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 anyone use it in RfD in my time as an editor. If it does, indeed, work, then yes indeed instructions to do so SHOULD be added to RfD and other XfD pages-- I don't see why, for example, Redirects for discussion shouldn't be sorted under the "Denmark", "Politics", and "Sexuality and Gender" topics. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Lunamann Well, WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Denmark has a dedicated section 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. Nickps (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * . Nickps (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 discussions from the lists once they're closed. I'm... guessing it won't do that for other XfD discussions, like this RfD discussion...) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I just forgot that WP:SELTRANS exists. All three are transclusions now. You're probably right about the bot though. Nickps (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * no need for special instructions...Maybe it's just me, but I'd still appreciate them? ...I've never sorted things on AfD and WP:SELTRANS flies over my head lol 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Lunamann: (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 User:Nickps/Xfd transcluder. 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 purge refresh 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 WP:AFDHOWTO):"If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more 'deletion sorting lists'. To transclude the discussion to the deletion sorting list use the following syntax {{User:Nickps/Xfd transcluder|rfd|2=[page name]|3=[date of nomination]}}. Then add a  template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done." changed how the template works Nickps (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC) 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. Nickps (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Will give it a test run later on, will be doing a couple things IRL, but this looks good! 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Gave it a test run, seems to work flawlessly at least for RfD. Not sure about its functionality on other venues. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So, I moved the template to Transclude Xfd. If no one objects, I'll start adding instructions to the XfD venue pages in, say, a week from now. Nickps (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You definitely have my vote. Thank you so much! 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So, there is a small problem with the template (more accurately, with section transclusion in general) for RfD. The [ Closure: keep/retarget ] 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 Template talk:rfd2 first. Nickps (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 here... I will note that I have no clue how transclusion works under the hood so I'm partially talking out my ass x3 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So, the code responsible for those links checks if the page name is equal to Redirects for discussion 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 be updated to take that into account. Nickps (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ohhhh, now I get it. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This has now 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. Nickps (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 job. Nickps (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)