Template talk:Deletion debates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

DRVU[edit]

A long time ago, DRV podded off a subpage for templates. I've taken the opportunity of a breather in userbox debates to bring them back to the main page, so I've removed it from this list. --Tony Sidaway 06:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy[edit]

Shouldn't speedy deletions be in the list? --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 21:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Resizing[edit]

Every time I click on a link inside this box, I have to click twice: the first time I click, the box resizes but I don't go anywhere. The second time I actually go to the linked page. Is this a bug, or a feature?? Her Pegship 21:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I came here to post that very problem, but I don't know what causes it. It only occurs on the pages on which it's transcluded, not on the template page itself. A bit of testing shows it's likely due to the nestedness of the tables; it doesn't occur if transcluded outside the table, but I couldn't find a way to get it to both be inside the larger table and not resize. Opabinia regalis 03:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleting a template[edit]

I put a {{subst:prod}} on Template:Please leave this line alone never (sandbox heading). It tells me I shouldn't use PROD on a template (why?) and then that I should "Use one of the processes listed here". Unfortunately, there are no processes listed here.-- Randall Bart 08:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

And now it's gone. That was a very efficient wrong process. I will be sure to use it again. -- Randall Bart 08:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I ran into the same problem —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.186.172.75 (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Related debates - proposed change[edit]

Deletion review is not actually an XfD Deletion debate. See WP:XFD. It might help to make that clear on the template. In addition to deletion review, should Wikipedia:Copyright problems and Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images be added to the template since they too are related debates like deletion review? -- Jreferee 22:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. You can use a horizontal rule to separate them. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 02:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleting / Fixing Categories ?[edit]

Something needs to be done about these categories:

  • ChitraguptVanshi
  • Chitranshi

It looks like the user think this is the place for articles. Are these necessary or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.186.172.75 (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Links to "All" discussions[edit]

Following a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal for minimising the number of relisted AfDs, I added links to "all" AfD/TfD/etc. discussions to accompany the links to "today" and "closing". The rationale for this was to make discussions more findable, so that they aren't just discussed on their first and last days. However, User:Ruslik0 reverted this, stating that it was "not very helpful". I've reverted back to my version. Discuss here if you still disagree. Bazonka (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Ruslik0 has reverted again, stating that the template is "completely unusable in this form". Whilst I agree that it's not perfect, it's certainly not unusable. We must also bear in mind that this template is not intended to be used in normal article space and so links to category pages should not be disallowed. When I have more time I'll see if I can create proper pages to replace these, but in the meantime I argue that they still serve a purpose and can be used to find AfDs etc. that are not on their first or last day. Some discussion would be appreciated rather than just comments in edit summaries. Bazonka (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately I haven't been able to identify a method by which I can list all open debates, other than just referencing CAT:AFD. I can list all debates, including closed ones [1], but that is obviously inappropriate. CAT:AFD will have to do; it's not the prettiest solution, but it works. Bazonka (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Holding cell[edit]

I think Holding cell should be linked to Templates row. It makes navigation much more easier an it's appropriate.--Rezonansowy (talkcontribs) 14:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've done it, as well as redesign, to bypass this code mess (see edit history). --Rezonansowy (talkcontribs) 13:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

A garbage bin image plastered across every deletion forum is needlessly inflammatory[edit]

As of a few months ago File:Keep tidy ask.svg was added to this template, which is prominently displayed at the top of XfD, TfD, MfD, AfD, FfD, PUF, GTD and PROD among others. We get a lot of trash, there's no doubt about it. And we all know even for the true trash, deleting it with as little drama as possible is a goal. We also have deletion discussions about all manner of things that may be inappropriate for Wikipedia (or which have become moot or deprecated) but are not trash. Simply put, headlining a garbage bin with trash about to be thrown away as the take away image when we are considering removal is inflammatory and tinges the way people on both sides of deletion may view either what is being considered in debates, or what occurred where a person learns of deletion after the fact. Characterizing people's contributions as rubbish is an offense magnet. I had removed it but was reverted here, with an edit summary stating that "the question mark in image implies uncertainty". I don't see the relevance. Whether some page's deletion is uncertain does not remove the characterization through this image that what we are to determine is whether the target is garbage, and if ultimately deleted, that it was indeed garbage.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The image is unnecessary and confrontational. It should be removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm neutral, although now leaning toward the opinions expressed above because I hadn't considered this point-of-view to a great degree, and it makes sense to keep the potential for unnecessary drama down as much as possible. N.b. I reverted the removal of the image prior to this discussion being initiated because it was in place for a significant amount of time (diff page). Thanks User:Fuhghettaboutit for initiating this discussion thread. NorthAmerica1000 04:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. It should be removed. It suggests that the item is trash before one has a chance to decide. It tries to say Is this garbage or not??? but rather more strongly says This item (identified as garbage using a picture) is headed for the trash. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed per Anna. It should be removed. JohnCD (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, but if the image showed a cute baby being tossed out, well then - of course that would be neutral. And what's with the trash bin? Haven't you people heard of recycling? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Unnecessarily inflammatory. Remove it. Suggested replacement:
Nuclear fireball white background.jpg
--Guy Macon (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Per this discussion and a message on my talk page from User:Fuhghettaboutit here, I have removed the image. NorthAmerica1000 00:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
What, no nuke? Are we going to let a little thing like there being absolutely no no consensus for it get in the way of my brilliant (literally!) suggestion? :) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Don't you know there's a deuterium shortage on? You could try asking at ANI (we all know they hoard it, selfish buggers). And good luck requesting that Arbcom tap our strategic tritium reserves.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)