Jump to content

Template talk:Delete

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rdsmith4 (talk | contribs) at 23:27, 15 July 2005 (→"Important formatting"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Speedy delete category

I'm just curious why a category was added to this template. It seems like the Special:Whatlinkshere method to find speedy delete pages works just fine as is.  – Jrdioko (Talk) 16:06, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I removed it from the category--it makes it seem like a vandal has put it in the category to try and trick sysops into deleting it.--naryathegreat 20:01, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

I now know why. This causes it to add the category to the bottom of the page and place it on the CAT:CSD page. Otherwise this amounts to nothing. I have almost single handedly destroyed this functionality. OH well, back to basics I guess.--naryathegreat 22:29, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

"Trash" vs. "Delete"

True or false: we need a voting poll on whether this template's name should be delete or trash. — 66.245.89.140 16:45, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Trash is POV. — Eequor 18:11, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
So are “patent nonsense” and “vandalism”. Doesn't stop you from using them. — i386 | Talk 18:15, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No one puts {{patentnonsense}} or {{vandalism}} on articles. — Ardonik.talk() 18:39, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
Edit histories: Revert vandalism. Deletion log User:Sysop deleted jfad;ofh (patent nonsense) IMO you shouldn't endorse some potentially POV terms but not others. — i386 | Talk 18:56, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
False, the name doesn't matter. — SS 01:16, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Moot question, now that a vote has already occurred. The strong consensus on VfD is to keep this template named "delete" instead of the potentially offensive "trash". See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Template:Trash. • Benc • 23:47, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The word “trash” has two different meanings. The first meaning, obviously, is garbage. But when used in a technology context, the word “trash” means “deleted items” (e.g. The Macintosh trash can, the Windows recycle bin. Since Template:Trash redirects here, though, you can use whichever word you want. Personally, I strongly support “Trash”. — i386 | Talk 18:15, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"Trash" as a metaphor for the recycle bin? That's really stretching it. As I see it, putting {{trash}} on an article says "this article is trash." In some cases, this may be true, but it's still POV. Putting {{speedy}} or {{delete}} on an article doesn't make a value judgement about its content. I endorese the latter two above the former. — Ardonik.talk() 18:39, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
Stretching it? How? The Macintosh's "Recycle bin" has always been called trash, and that's how I interpret this template name. Though, like I said, it doesn't matter, becuase anyone can use whatever they want. — i386 | Talk 18:56, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
33451 is correct, the name for the Mac deletion facility has always been the Trash can (in the US versions of the OS, in the British edition it used to be called the Wastebasket IIRC). Delete == "Move to Trash", "Empty the Trash", etc. That said, {{delete}} is a name that works just fine, I see no reason to change it, and thus no reason to have a vote. — David Remahl 10:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, trash is potentially offensive, but I suppose the Mac crowd could use it if that's what they're used to—the "delete" function is called "Move to Trash"—but I support "Delete" myself. — El Chico 12:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I usually endorse all POV terms (provided they're all included, otherwise I'd list more of these terms where needed) where necessary, so I think we should have a {{trash}} template for our Macintosh users. I don't have a Mac myself, but I think they have as much of a right to representation as our Windows users. 210.55.81.121 07:47, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Me too, 210.55.81.121. I have a goal of being a very unbiased Wikipedian myself. Scott Gall 07:51, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image poll

It has been suggested that the speedy deletions template should include an image, to improve its appearance. Please indicate your preference in the following poll. This poll will last two weeks (until August 20, 2004 at 00:00:00 UTC). Its results shall be binding; if there is majority support for an image, one shall be included in the template; if there is majority opposition, the template shall remain free of images.

The proposed templates are
 Those found at User:Squash/Templates, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Template:Delete&oldid=5020419and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Template:Delete&oldid=4959212.

Support

The speedy deletions template would look better with an image.

  1. Eequor
  2. blankfaze | (беседа!) 19:21, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. squash 03:39, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
  4. — Tasty Sandwich | Talk 14:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. The poll has closed, but I didn't know about the existence of this page. (That's no excuse; I'm fully aware that my vote doesn't count.) That said, I thought the "X" icon that was briefly on Template:Delete looked pretty nice, and that includiung the image would harm no one. It's not like it will be placed on articles seen by thousands of people. --Ardonik.talk() 04:25, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

The speedy deletions template would look better without an image.

  1. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:25, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC) (what's the point?)
  2. Goobergunch 22:48, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Unneccessary, and it would probably just increase server lag.)
  3. Angela. An image is completely over the top for articles which are often only a few words long.
  4. Adam Bishop 07:41, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC) (these articles shouldn't be around long enough for anyone to enjoy looking at an image)
  5. Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 00:02, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC) (It's not that it'd look better, it's just that there's no point in it looking good)
  6. Twinxor 07:32, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) (would just clutter things up for no reason)
  7. User: Mia State 16:05. 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) (I strongly agree with Fennec)
  8. BrokenSegue 01:25, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Considering that speedy deletions pages could make up only a tiny fraction of the millions of requests per day, I doubt there would be any measurable effect on Wikipedia's speed. Between browser and server caching, the amount of extra data transferred would also be marginal. The site seems to do okay with a Wikipedia logo on every page. --Eequor 00:03, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Alternative (not replacement!) speedy delete template

Idea implemented at Template:Deletebecause. Original discussion moved to Template talk:Deletebecause. • Benc • 01:40, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Template:Nonsense

there are various other shortcuts to the delete template, e.g.

e.g. template:speedy, template:del, it might be possible to have template:nonsense? Dunc_Harris|☺ 08:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose that would make it easier than typing {{deletebecause|this page likely qualifies as patent nonsense}}. But please, for the sake of WikiLove and all that is holy, let's ensure:
  1. It's worded as diplomatically as possible.
  2. It looks exactly like {{delete}} except for the reason blurb.
  3. It's only used for articles that are, in fact, patent nonsense according to the objective, narrow definition on Wikipedia:Patent nonsense.
I'm the one who listed Template:Insane on VfD [1] (it was deleted). I listed it because failed on all three of the above concerns: (1) the wording left a lot to be desired ("The sanity of this article is disputed"); (2) no one suggested making it look like {{delete}} — if someone had, I would've withdrawn my vote; and (3) it was used as a subjective (and offensive) comment on articles that were not candidates for speedy deletion.
Anyway, let's work out a wording that will not inspire authors of patent nonsense to embark on a crusade of vengeance. Please make any edits to the wording at Template:Nonsense you see fit. • Benc • 22:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Deletebecause

Based on a long conversation on this page, User:Benc created Template:Deletebecause which encourages users to document their reason for nominating the article as a speedy. I am going to mark this template as deprecated and reference people to the other template. Rossami 20:27, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The template is still catching on; it might be a couple weeks premature to deprecate this tag. Also, if we do plan on making the "because" parameter mandatory, we can just merge/redirect from Template:Deletebecause. (Usage: {{delete|reason goes here}}.)

Side note, giving credit where due: User:Mike Storm and I came up with this idea simultaneously and independently, within a couple days of each other. • Benc • 21:11, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • I note that, although this template is not marked deprecated, some admins appear now to deprecate users for using it, because it "causes work". May I suggest that, if there is a template that the Cabal disapprove of, they either kill it, or at least let us poor peons on the ground know we're not supposed to be using it. --Simon Cursitor 12:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Restricting the right to give articles this candidate

I think we need a rule that only registered Wikipedians should give articles this tag, meaning that it should be an option rather than a template. Any way to do this?? 66.245.1.246 22:37, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Template:d

You can now use {{d}} as a shortcut for this delete template. OvenFresh 17:30, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"deletebecause" version

I've backed off the "unification" change. The message "It meets one or more of the criteria" or whatever it was is downright annoying. db should be used when the editor marking the page for delete wants to express his reason why it's being deleted; if you're going to be lazy and not say why, don't say something vague that still requires the admin considering deleting the article to determine which of the criteria the editor has in mind. When I see the the expansion of "db", I believe the editor intends to provide me with useful information. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Overused

Hi there- I'm an admin who monitors the CAT:CSD pretty regularly and I just wanted to make a comment here. The "delete" template is overused. A lot of the times its used as an alternative to vfd, cfd, ifd, tfd, etc. I'm wondering if this is because the word "delete" is easier to remember than one of the TLAs corresponding to the type of article. In any case, please make sure you are only tagging an article with delete if it meets one of the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Also, please note that unless they meet any of the general criteria (such as recreations of previously deleted articles), images only qualify for speedy deletion if the image is corrupt or if the image is redundant. In both of these cases, there are more specific templates that can and should be used to make our admin jobs easier when going through this category; they are {{missing image}} and {{isd}}, respectively. Thanks a lot guys. Cheers, DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:48, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

--agreed! BeBop 03:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(last edit)

The last edit link in the current revision, ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title={{PAGENAME}}&diff=0 last edit]), only renders properly if the page does not have any spaces in its title and if it is in the main namespace. These can both be fixed by replacing it with ([{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}|diff=0}} last edit]). —Korath (Talk) 17:27, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

done. – ABCD 19:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of the (last edit) link? It's almost always the edit of the person who placed the {{del}} tag, and since one is generally expected to keep the article in place when adding the tag, I don't see how it gives you any more information. Why do we need a diff link along with the history link? — Asbestos | Talk 12:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

talk page?

This template says, "please explain why on its talk page". I don't thnik I have ever seen someone do that (actually I think I saw someone do it once). Most CSD candidates should be self evident anyways. Does anyone else think we should remove that part? BrokenSegue 01:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "please explain" part is directed at whomever disagrees with the CSD, not the person who posted the template. I think it's a perfectly good way of signalling a disagreement without removing the template, and sysops are supposed to read the talk page before deleting. — Asbestos | Talk 11:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, it seems you are correct. BrokenSegue 17:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Latest edit of template: kablooey?

The latest edit of this template now causes {{delete}} either to be ignored altog on the pages tagged, or to display strangely. I hope it wasn't a malevolent edit; at any rate, it needs to be fixed.... — Bill 17:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TFD?

I'm tempted to deprecate this template in favor of Template:Deletebecause, on grounds that people should provide their reasoning for wanting something speedily deleted. However, since it's rather widespread in usage, I'd like to hear some comments here first. Radiant_* 11:48, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Very well. Now on TFD. Radiant_* 13:10, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • And now kept since it gets a lot of keep votes. Apparently nobody reads this talk page. Radiant_* 10:38, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • this template is way over used and results in valid articles being speedily deleted. BeBop 15:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps, but it's not because of the template. Admins have the responsibility to actually look at the articles before deleting them; admins who don't do this will behave the same way if they see the "delete because" template -- perhaps even more, since they'll more likely just look at the reason without validating whether the reason is correct. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A new thought

Um, er...well, basically, I was sitting around with way too much time on my hands, so my thoughts naturally turned to CSD tag-slapping reform. Please feel free to discuss...or ignore...the following:

It took me a while to find it, but here is the TFD that this template went through. I respect what many of the editors had to say, but my feeling is that reasons tags are useful...not because of any abuse problems with admin or long standing Wikipedian actions, but rather with newbies and anons who gleefully throw "delete" tags on any article they don't like.

First, I would like to suggest that "deletebecause" and "db" be replaced by "candidate" and "csd" respectfully, the primary reason being to emphisize that these are indeed candidates for deletion, and that the final call is on the admin. "speedy" and "delete" are misleading, and too many anons throw them around. Besides, anyone who is using the tag should already be familiar with the shortcut link to WP:CSD, ie: it reinforces that one must be clear on CSD policy.

Secondly... sigh, I'm tired of writing this already. Here's what I propose for discussion:

A review of CSD policy:

General reasons 6, 7, and 8 don't come up as much, and when they do, a catch-all tag with a reason parameter should be used so that the editor can explain why the speedy is appropriate.

  • Article reason 1 (Art-1): Little or no context.
  • Article reason 2 (Art-2): Foreign language.
  • Article reason 3 (Art-3): Only content is an external link, "See also", etc.
  • Article reason 4 (Art-4): Silly attempt to contact the subject of the article.
  • Redirects reason 1 (Red-1): Points to non-existent article.

The other three redirect reasons don't come up as much, and in those cases, it is just as easy to wait and ask for an admin to perform the speedy, (or to use a "catch all" tag with a "reasons" parameter).

  • Image/Media reason 1 (Img-1): Redundant image, (same, scaled differently, etc.).
  • Image/Media reason 2 (Img-2): Empty or corrupt image.
  • Image/Media reason 3 (Img-3): "non-commercial use only", "used with permission", etc.
  • Category reason 1 (Cat-1): Never had anything but links to parent cats.
  • Category reason 2 (Cat-2): 24 hours after has nothing but links to parent cats
  • User pages reason 1 (Usr-1): Subpage deletion request by user
  • User pages reason 2 (Usr-1): Main user or talk page, with "no significant abuse"
  • User pages reason 3 (Usr-3): IP address talk pages

CSD tags, one for each major valid CSD policy point: 

Catch all: {{candidate | REASON }} or {{csd | REASON }}

Gen-1: {{candidate-nonsense}}   or {{csd-nonsense}}   or {{csd-n}}   or {{nonsense}}
Gen-2: {{candidate-test}}       or {{csd-test}}       or {{csd-t}}   or {{anontest}}
Gen-3: {{candidate-vandalism}}  or {{csd-vandalism}}  or {{csd-v}}   or {{vandalpage}}
Gen-4: {{candidate-repost}}     or {{csd-repost}}     or {{csd-r}}   or {{validvfd}}
Gen-5: {{candidate-banned}}     or {{csd-banned}}     or {{csd-b}}   or {{bannedpage}}

Art-1: {{candidate-context}}    or {{csd-context}}    or {{csd-c}}   or {{littlecontext}}
Art-2: {{candidate-notenglish}} or {{csd-notenglish}} or {{csd-e}}   or {{notenglish}}
Art-3: {{candidate-refonly}}    or {{csd-refonly}}    or {{csd-ro}}  or {{refonly}}
Art-4: {{candidate-fan}}        or {{csd-fan}}        or {{csd-f}}   or {{fan}} (or "fanboy", hehe)

Red-1:
Img-1:
Img-2:
Cat-1:
Cat-2: {{candidate-empty}}      or {{csd-empty}}      or {{csd-nil}} or {{nil}}

Img-3: {{candidate-notgnu}}     or {{csd-notgnu}}     or {{csd-gnu}} or {{notgnu}}

Usr-1:
Usr-2: {{candidate-user}}       or {{csd-user}}       or {{csd-u}}   or {{userdelete}}

Usr-3: {{candidate-ip}}         or {{csd-ip}}

For people who hate this proposal, because CSDs are "obvious":
       {{candidate-obvious}}    or {{csd-obvious}}    or {{csd-duh}} or {{duh}}

"But wait", you ask, "how could I possibly remember all of those". Well, you wouldn't have to. There is the catch-all {{csd | REASON}} which would be exactly the same as the "deletebecause" and "db" tags, and there is the "obvious" {{duh}} tag. The others could be learned and accumulated as you went along.

OK, this was all just a thought, I'm off to bed...I'll probably realise how dumb this all was when I wake up tomorrow. :)

And remember: No Gnus is Good Gnews. ;-) func(talk) 2 July 2005 01:23 (UTC)

I like this proposal, except for {{duh}}. It'd just get overused by lazy taggers, just like {{d}} is now. If the reason is obvious, the tagger should be able to identify it. Also, I don't think the fully spelled out "candidate" ones would be that useful ("candidate" doesn't necessarily imply speedy deletion); the csd-word and csd-abbrev ones would be sufficient.
Additionally, I think csd-repost should automatically link to the appropriate vfd subpage so admins can quickly verify that it's a repost of a validly deleted article. — Gwalla | Talk 3 July 2005 04:08 (UTC)
This is just instruction creep. Admins don't seem to have any significant problems with processing CSD's, and honestly, the reason should be as obvious to them as the tagger. If there is any confusion, the admin can remove the tag and contact the tagger. This is done already. -- Netoholic @ 7 July 2005 07:03 (UTC)

Combining Deletebecause/db function here

I took a look and saw that very few people actually tag articles with {(delete}}. Far more use deletebecause or db. I'd like to request that the current text of Template:Deletebecause be copied to Template:Delete, and all the others be redirected here. We've been using a similar single-tag system at Simple: (simple:Template:delete) for a while, and it works well. The reason portion can be considered optional, but this encourages editors to give one more often. -- Netoholic @ 7 July 2005 07:14 (UTC)

I think that's is a good idea that should have been implemented months ago. Why would you want to use the barebones {{delete}} tag and leave the poor sysops guessing? --Ardonik.talk()* July 7, 2005 08:25 (UTC)
I don't think that using a snapshot of "what links here" will give an accurate picture of usage in this case, given that most articles that use this template get, well, deleted. And some articles are tagged wrongly and reverted; those also won't show up. Watching "what links here" over a period of time will probably give a clearer picture. But yes, replacing the plain delete with delete because seems perfectly reasonable. — Gwalla | Talk 7 July 2005 18:59 (UTC)
I don't agree. {{delete}} works well when the reason is very obvious. — Dan | Talk 20:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So leave the reason parameter blank. Just use {{delete}} or even {{d}} like you always have. I think many people prefer that explicit reasons be given, so that they are also posted in the deletion log. This encourages that, but by no means requires it. -- Netoholic @ 21:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Important formatting"

Netoholic, would you deign to tell me and my fellow editors which parts of this template's style are "important" (and presumably untouchable), and which I am permitted to edit? I'm afraid I don't have sufficient insight on the subject to judge for myself.

In all seriousness, please don't assume that I only dislike the "two-line version" (in fact I didn't even notice that change). The aspects in which I am interested are the larger text size (95%), the 85% width, and the .5em margins. — Dan | Talk 23:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Delete&oldid=18924097"