Template talk:Delete

When would we use this instead of mission doubt? {{mission}} "Mission" has the advantage of telling the author what needs to be fixed. It's was created by us and is specific to us. Consequently I have put the mission doubt template on the delete template page. --Bob^{bing up} 06:48, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Wouldn't it be better to use the delete template? Or is that too self-referential? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 09:16, 21 December 2007 (EST)

This would go on vainty pages and pure trash. 204.11.191.49 10:59, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Which is why it's a perfect fit for RW. PFoster 11:00, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Every wiki has a delete template. No good wiki would be without one. --204.11.191.49 11:01, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Come now, don't be as barmy as Conservapedia. You may be an unconventional wiki, but you're not *that* unconventional as to not need a delete notice :P This would probably get more/faster attention from admins as well, no? Kirkburn 13:52, 21 December 2007 (EST)

I just made this epic phail template better - it now allows one argument {{delete|like this}} which substitutes in the reason for deletion. I think it's good - some stuff people put on here is so far from the mark it doesn't deserve to even have our mission on it. By the way, the pholks at LP need to learnt o close frickin' tags. human 22:23, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Cool thing I said gettin' saved here

"I'll probably put this article on a scaffold and yank the trapdoor release after I put my hood on later tonight." OK, I may be the only one impressed, but it was the talk page of a doomed article and I wanted to save it from the memory hole. human 18:32, 2 February 2008 (EST)

New cool namespacey thing

Does {{lc:{{SUBJECTSPACE}}}} return "article" in the mainspace? Also, isn't it going to look weird if it's in the CP space? ħuman 00:01, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Hello? ħuman 17:15, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, it looks weird in Funspace for example. I can code up an if for the essays, templates and recipes (anything else?), and label everything else as page. -- Nx ^talk 17:18, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Main: "This has been nominated for deletion."

CP: "This conservapedia has been nominated for deletion"

I really don't think this was an improvement, the only place it really works is in the template (and essay) space.

RW: "This RationalWiki has been nomm...."? "This Mediawiki has been..."?

I think we should change it back. ħuman 17:22, 21 February 2009 (EST)

There, how do you like it now? -- Nx ^talk 17:33, 21 February 2009 (EST)

That ought to work. Perhaps we should even specify the "word" for all namespaces? Then "main" can be "article", fun could be "silliness" perhaps, CP could be "useless drivel"... ok, maybe not that one ;) ħuman 17:38, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Sure, just add new cases to the switch statement, e.g. | Conservapedia = useless drivel , just make sure the "| page" line remains last -- Nx ^talk 17:46, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Cool, yeah, that's what I thought. How about a second parameter that can override it, as well? ħuman 20:03, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Done -- Nx ^talk 03:30, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Cool! That works nicely. ħuman 19:25, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Suggestion for codefreaks

Could the creator of the article be automagically notified on their talk page when the {{delete}} template is added? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 16:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. ħuman 04:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Image

For the record, I'm definitely not a fan of the delete key. ^bomination 03:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This one? The red fits. ^bomination 03:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the key either. I liked the shredder icon. Blue (is useful) 03:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the shredder as well. Тиранес^{An contagious, yet redeem pencil?} 03:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Shredder is nice, but shredders don't vaporize things. Yeah, yeah, I know, foolish consistency, hobgoblin, small minds, yaddata yadda ya... Maybe an eraser icon? Or is that too horse-and-buggy era? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear explosion mushroom cloud? At least that's with what I associate the "vaporize" link.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that image leapt up when I was ruminating, but to me it seems overly dramatic, for what amounts to changing a few bits on a mass storage device sitting in some safe warm room. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I this would look most stylistically appropriate: Blue (pester) 22:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That is readable, but just says "WARNING!" to me, without announcing possible deletion.

This may be graphically less clean-cut but says "erasure": Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

What about ? Blue (pester) 01:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Shredder or the big red X. Тиранес^{An transparent, yet crackle xanthochroi?} 01:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

New Image

Because there has been discussion before about the icon I thought I'd better ask what people think of this one before I change anything. BunchO'Numbers (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

For reference, this is the proposed one:

An editor believes that this template should be deleted but has given no reason. Please discuss this assassination attempt on the talk page.

And this is the current one:

An editor believes that this template should be deleted but has given no reason. Please discuss this assassination attempt on the talk page.

I'm not so sure about it actually. Blue (pester) 00:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

(EC)I looked at it in preview and it doesn't really fit the colours—should only take a few tweaks though, and I like your other images! Peter ^mqzp 00:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you could make the background of the svg black and the X red? Blue (pester) 00:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

(EC)Actually, I was thinking about using a different design for the template if people liked the image. You can't see the shadow of the icon on a black background. I can also play around with the colors of the icon if people like the idea. BunchO'Numbers (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that at this size it might be better to drop te outlines altogether, but perhaps not with a different background. To change that part of the template you'll need to have a play with the css class. Peter ^mqzp 00:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

(EC)Like this? BunchO'Numbers (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

(EC)Which would be difficult considering only techs can edit the necessary pages to make CSS changes to these kinds of high-use templates. But feel free to poke around in a sandbox, BON! Blue (pester) 00:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

He can still practise in his own though. Peter ^mqzp 00:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I like the old one. It feels like someone furiously attacking a repellently awful article with a couple of violent slashes of lipstick (a gesture the world needs more of) - David Gerard (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The new one looks more like it belongs on a vintage porno video tape cover. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep the original. The main mechanical trouble with the design of the new one is the fine white line around the X. It's rendering badly when you drop the resolution so appears as an anti-aliasing error; It looks like it's been badly cut out of the wrong colour background and pasted in with MS Paint at that scale. ^theist 11:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion page?

Shouldn't using this template put information on a page so we can easily see what's being suggested for deletion in a central location? It seems unnecessarily clunky to have to go to the template page to see what links there. --Kels (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion may be a kluge, but it seems to work. Now, where to put it for appropriate visibility? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Not the Main Page, that's for sure. A section mentioning it on the Saloon Bar would be good. Maybe put a link on the To Do List page and...is there an admins page? If so then there. --Kels (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much what I was thinking, but I don't know anything about any page for admins. I'll go do it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Best place to put it would be on the Recent Changes page, at the top, where the links to "To do list • New pages • Articles requiring attention • Stubs • Lonely pages • Dead ends • Entry points • High priority articles" are listed, but I don't know how to edit that template. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 02:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Good thought. I don't know either, but someone reading this should. --Kels (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You're thinking of Template:Useful Links. Peter ^mqzp 02:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

This template puts pages in category:articles for deletion which is already listed within "Articles requiring attention". If you want to see all the deletion candidates in one place, just view the category page. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Deprecated

New centralized system exists, so do we want to delete this or try to redirect it? Zero (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

No. The centralised system is badly thought out & poorly executed. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't a fan at first, but I like it now - David Gerard (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I still have a lot of reservations about it. Making a deletion nomination under that system isn't a user-friendly process, and the system seems (at least in practice so far) to favour yes/no voting without any preliminary discussion of the merits of the article or reason for nomination. I also think it's bad practice to take the deletion discussion away from the relevant article & talk page. Even if we assume people do look at the article & its talk page before voting (which I'm really not convinved of), the outcome could be deletion or some other action like moving to essay space or making major changes to the article - yet no trace of why this has happened is left on the article's own talk page, instead being buried in a central archive which nobody is ever going to look at. Wouldn't it be better for the deletion discussion to be a subpage of the article itself rather than of the AfD page (e.g. The Pet Goat/deletion instead of RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/The Pet Goat)? Transcluding this subpage onto the article's talk page would also seem more useful than in some central page. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The system is about as user friendly as I could make it without resorting to bots or plugins or whatever. Discussion happens, perhaps not as much as you would like. Sophie and I mark the talk page with whatever the choice is that causes the article to go somewhere else (if it's kept I say nothing). Having the deletion piece be a sub of the article isn't really relevant anyway since the link to deletion is the first thing on the deletion template. The central page is for one purpose: To have as many editors as possible looking over deletion suggestions. As David said before, he didn't know how backlogged deletions were until it was centralized. Now you need to watch one page for each suggested deletion, not hunt in Recent Pages or whatever it is you do. Zero (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Having seen it operate, I consider it a vast improvement over the previous system, wherein stuff got quietly deleted by a couple of people without notice - David Gerard (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirected

After User:Zero replaced the template text with an inclusion of Template:Afd, I've changed it to a redirect, removing the link to the documentation (Template:Delete/doc) and some other stuff - a category and an interwiki link.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Aaand Weaseloid undid both changes.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Weasel seems to be the only one against this system from what I've read. Barring anybody else throwing that particular opinion around, I think it should be vaporized. Zero (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

And yet here you are proposing that on the template's own talk page instead of some other part of the site. Isn't that like the old fashioned way of doing things? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Count me against several aspects of the system's implementation, including the yes/no voting thing mentioned by Weaseloid above. Even on the often derided as bureaucratic Wikipedia deletion is supposed to rely on consensus/exchange of arguments.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Im pretty sure yes/no/goat is how we've always done it--Miekal 18:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It pretty much has been. I save us all the work so everybody knows they have options. Zero (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Not really. People discuss the merits of the article & what they suggest doing with it. A numerical vote is sometimes used if consensus is unclear. Jumping straight to a closed delete/keep vote short circuits that process & prejudices the outcome. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@ZooGuard, re: Wikipedia.

We are not Wikipedia, nor do we aspire to be. If we are to emulate them in specific policies, it's best to ask if they're a proper fit for us first. I prefer a keep/delete vote because it's simple, quick, and minimizes the onerous task of building "consensus" by a community that's terrible at it. This community isn't robust enough to pump out a conga-line of consensuses for every proposed deletion.

(And for the record, if you want an example of another wiki that uses a straight vote-up/vote-down system for deletion, look at Uncyclopedia.) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)