Template talk:Speedy

Is this a joke? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:11, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Oh I'm confident it's in good faith, it's just not how we do things round here, what with the gazillions of sysops here. Sorry Ipatrol, this isn't needed at RW. Totnesmartin 16:24, 16 February 2009 (EST)

IPs? New users?, there is an 8% sysop percentage according to the statistics, and yes, it is serious.--Ipatrol 16:26, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Those stats are misleading because a large number of the accounts created have been short-lived sockpuppets. Unfortunately we've had a few regular vandals with multiple accounts. In terms of regular, active, contributing editors, probably about 90% are sysops, or close to that, & I've just made you one. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:20, 16 February 2009 (EST)

yes but the sysops are here all the time - when I looked at recent changes just now less than half the edits were by non-sysops - most regular editors here are sysops because we trust them. Totnesmartin 16:31, 16 February 2009 (EST)

The people who aren't sysops are either vandals (quite a lot with Fred and FD's socks) or people who edit once and never again. --"CUR^talk 16:49, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Or newbies who'll probably be sysops in a month. Totnesmartin 17:13, 16 February 2009 (EST)

(EC) That isn't true, but I don't really see the need for this template. If something is deleted on sight, it will be deleted on sight. If any non-sysop wants to nominate it for deletion, they can use the regular {{delete}} & a sysop will delete it. A nice thought, but I can't forsee this being used much. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:14, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Did I say "month"? Ha! Happy sysoppery, IPatrol! Totnesmartin 17:28, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Deletion?

Template has been nominated for deletion. Personally, as I've said above, I can't forsee it being used much, but I don't think we need to delete it now that it's been made. We don't very often delete templates, unless they're broken or completely useless. I reckon we should keep it around & add it to the templates page. If it doesn't get used at all, maybe we can look at deleting it in a few weeks or months time. It might need to be simplified or have clearer instructions first though (see below). Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:39, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I've said above that we don't need it because of how we work here (people work here?), but that won't necessarily hold forever. This template might be useful at some future time, perhaps when Recent Changes goes too fast to keep up with. So, keep. Totnesmartin 17:44, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I like it the way it is, with my quickdelete template at the top! --"CUR^talk 17:50, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I say delete. User:Mei 17:51, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Because? Totnesmartin 17:53, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I think this has a use, there are BONs who edit here. This is something for them to grab a sysop's attention. I say keep, but if it truly must go, save the sorce code somewhere if the site grows and/or our demotion policy becomes more restrictive.--Ipatrol 21:41, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Well, a few hours before I became sysop, I needed to have a duplicate image I uploaded deleted (although simply asking on WIGO:CP in the relevant thread worked for me), so why not have it. I'd suggest renaming it to speedy though. -- Nx ^talk 07:01, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Speedy deletion is the term used on wikipedia to describe this. If you want it relocated to something along the lines of that, that's fine.

Do we have to do it simply because Wikipedia does? I know we use Wikipedia jargon/shorthand here out of habit/convention but it doesn't need to be policy. Totnesmartin 09:16, 17 February 2009 (EST)

No, I wasn't suggesting that we make a CSD policy, just a rename to speedy because it requires less typing. -- Nx ^talk 09:59, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Deleting it doesn't lose the source code, it can always be resurrected. ħuman 19:20, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Who said we would lose the code? --  Nx/talk  19:27, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Ipatrol: "...but if it truly must go, save the sorce code somewhere..." above. ħuman 19:39, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

My only defense is that Ipatrol misspelled source. :) --  Nx/talk  19:42, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

How does it work?

It looks like it's set up to only work with a handful of preset reasons. It would be simpler & probably more useful if it could display any reason. Instead of {{{reason}}} just use "this should be deleted because {{{1}}}". That would make the template easier to use as people would just write {{quickdelete|the reason for deletion}}. Can you either add instructions on how it should be used, or preferably simplify it. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:33, 16 February 2009 (EST)

{{{reason}}} is a named parameter, use it as {{Quickdelete|reason=stuff}} -- Nx ^talk 17:39, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Is there any advantage in that setup, given that there's only one parameter? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:40, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Simplicity mainly. You enter a reason, if it is one of a set, a preset reason for that is displayed. Otherwise whatever reason you enter is displayed--Ipatrol 21:26, 16 February 2009 (EST)

He meant, is there any advantage to using a named parameter instead of an unnamed one, i.e. {{{1}}}, so you don't have to type in reason= -- Nx ^talk 06:58, 17 February 2009 (EST)

To allow for hidden reasons as djmmy paramaters.

I fixed it to accept both named and numbered parameters (e.g. {{speedy|copyvio|of=source}}) and to show a warning if the parameter is missing. -- Nx ^talk 19:48, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Bump discussion

I don't think we need this, and we don't need the category it feeds. It's not how we do things here anyway. ħuman 19:19, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

I say burn it, if something needs deleting quickly a sysop will be along soon enough. There are enough of the things. - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 00:46, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

I have found a use for this. - π 09:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Like what? We don't have the turnover of edits of wikipedia so the difference between deletion and speedy-deletion is non-existent. If someone really does think something warrants deletion without discussion, then just go ahead and delete it. It shows in recent changes anyway. I also doubt anyone would subscribe and keep an eye on categories anyway. ^gnostic 09:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The bot that checks for broken redirects wants to put a template on the page, so I set it to this one. - π 09:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That can be changed easily enough, can't it? How about a "broken redirect" template? Or a category? ħuman 23:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete

Nominated again. I don't think this has been used, & what with everybody who know their way around the site being a sysop, there's no need for it. The odds of a user not being a sysop, & yet knowing where to find this template, are pretty slim. & It does nothing they couldn't do more effectively by just writing "somebody please delete this crap" in an edit comment. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this thing still here? ħuman 23:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)