Template talk:Deletion tools

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Deletion
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of the WikiProject Deletion, a collaborative effort dedicated to improving Wikipedia in toto in the area of deletion. We advocate the responsible use of deletion policy, not the deletion of articles. If you would like to help, consider participating at WikiProject Deletion.
 

New template: Deletion Utility Belt[edit]

I created the "Deletion Utility Belt" as a useful resource. Feel free to put it on your userpages/talkpages. Also, if you want to create a version with the Editor's Barnstar and give it as an award, go ahead. The template is {{Template:Deletiontools}}. Neutralitytalk 02:45, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I made the text a bit shorter and changed the formatting a bit. How is that: Template:Deletiontools -- Chris 73 Talk 05:15, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
Is there a list of these tools anywhere? Yours is very useful b.t.w. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:09, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)
Love it! I almost want to change the text to "For Deletionists," but that would be mean. :-) Geogre 19:15, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Neutrality, do you mind if I add copyvio on there too? I think people working to get things deleted (KILL KILL KILL!!!) also check for copyright lots of times... - Vina 21:42, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead. Neutralitytalk 02:46, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Very nice! May I suggest replacing {{Resources for collaboration}} (which is rather bulky) on WP:VFD with this one? VFD is huge enough. Actually, this could go on *FD as a navigational template. • Benc • 05:41, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Given that it was originally designed as a "tool belt," why not add WP:VFU? Any objections? - RedWordSmith 20:36, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Humor?[edit]

Does this section really need to be in the template? -Sean Curtin 16:38, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Formatting[edit]

I've reinstated the old formatting, as class="infobox" doesn't seem to............hang on - is class infobox what's just changed? dammit. Hold your fire, investigating. sjorford #£@%&$?! 14:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'm done mucking about. la lala lala... sjorford #£@%&$?! 14:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Addition[edit]

Categories for Merge was missing, so I added it.JD 01:46, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

This template is very long[edit]

I think we should link the deletion debates to a "deletiondebates" template instead, because that's the main thing I use this template for anyway. What say you? Ashibaka tock 05:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Nothing? Uh... okay. Let's go. Ashibaka tock 01:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Which links would you propose moving to the alternate template? Would there be reducdance links or links to the other template? -- Ec5618 02:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I made it, and you can now see it on some deletion debate pages:

It was reverted on RFD, but none of the other pages seemed to care really (or they like the new one better). Ashibaka tock 02:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It's shorter than I had imagined. I like it, atleast for a number of pages. It could be a great template for use of User pages too. -- Ec5618 02:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotected[edit]

Should this template be semiprotected, protected or unprotected in your opinion? I'm good with whatever, but it is a somewhat popular template that is not often subst:'ed. ATM I have it semiprotected since an anon vandal just changed it. --Syrthiss 17:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Prod?[edit]

Now that it's been accepted as policy, shouldn't WP:PROD be added to this template? I'd do it myself, but I'm not really certain where it would go... --CComMack 11:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Informing the creators is being ignored[edit]

This was crossposted and has little to do with the specific workings of this page. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Informing the creators is being ignored. The comments have already been moved. Please do not spam such complaints across multiple pages. Rossami (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Section-hiding via parameters?[edit]

In an effort to keep this short and relevant on articles it's included on, is there any way this could be modified to accept an optional section parameter which only shows the relevant section? for instance, {{deletiontools|transwiki}} would only show the TransWiki section. Chris Cunningham 13:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh I rock so hard. You can now specify a subset of the template from the following:
  • afd
  • tfd
  • cfd
  • user
  • stub
  • merge
  • move
  • speedy
  • unfree
  • transwiki
to get a subset of the complete table. Chris Cunningham 15:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted. For the shorter version you're in need of, see {{deletiondebates}}. Most of the pages where this is used, it's used precisely because of the links to the other processes. In addition, the complete version of the "subsettable" revision is nearly twice as large and looks exceedingly ugly. —Cryptic 17:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Janitors who need huge lists-o-links to pages can maintain them themselves. I don't personally think page-long templates are a good idea, and even going back to the version just before the class changes means the params are there if needed but the template remains identical. I'll just ignore the "exceedingly ugly" comment, what with not being four years old. Chris Cunningham 17:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
So you take a page-long, 10%-screen-width template with clearly-visible section headers, and turn it into two and a half pages and 25% width, with nothing to offset different sections but whitespace? How is this not objectively uglier? —Cryptic 17:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Because your unique conbination of aesthetics and screen resolution isn't normative? Regardless, I could live without the class changes were the params to go back in. The rest was just icing to reduce the number of navboxes on WP which look like they came from 1996. Chris Cunningham 17:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't get it. You complain that the template isn't short enough, fix it by making it much longer, are already edit-warring to keep this version in place even before I can finish my initial talk post, and then blame an objective size increase on my screen resolution? Maybe you're using monobook-specific classes, I dunno. In any case, I've reverted to the version with the old formatting and new parameters; this tempest in a teapot could've been avoided entirely if you'd pointed at it in a way a human could read. —Cryptic 17:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
It could have been avoided in any number of manners. Let's not bother apportioning blame and just get on with it. Sorry for the kerfuffle. Chris Cunningham 18:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Improved(?) version[edit]

I've drafted what I consider a somewhat improved variant of Chris's parametrization scheme, based on the current compromise version, in my user space. My version avoids the duplication of the table markup, as well as allowing users to select any subset of sections to include or exclude, as shown on the right (with the AfD and speedy sections visible). I've also made some other minor cleanup changes, such as using {{fullurl:}} for the edit links to allow them to work over the secure server as well. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no real objection to this. Needing to include the all=0 parameter is a bit inelegant, but I don't see an easy way around it without resorting to subtemplates. —Cryptic 18:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Excellence. As for the fullurl links, though: I'd question whether these are all useful. In particular, the copyvios link goes to a page which specifically warns against directly editing it. Would it be worth changing these into regular wikilinks, with a slight accuracy hit? Chris Cunningham 18:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
IIRC, the point of having direct edit links (and links to the daily pages at all) was to avoid the need for an extra pageload if you already know what you're doing. Whether the copyvio link should go to a normal pageview, or be split into edit links for /Articles and /Images, is a tossup. My kneejerk preference is for the latter, though if no one's noticed it yet (and the split on the target page has been in place for some time now), it kind of speaks of underuse. —Cryptic 19:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I've copied my draft over to the template now. I agree that the copyvio entry ought to be fixed to match the new procedures at WP:CV (including the {{imagevio}} template), but that's (fortunately) an entirely separate issue. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

db-multiple[edit]

I've added thre relatively newly created {{db-multiple}}to this template. It is used when 2 or more speedy deletion reasons apply to the same page. DES (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)



Template:DeletiontoolsTemplate:Deletion tools — Per common convention to use spaces where spaces there should be. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Move. Natural language is better. --Bsherr (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.