Template talk:Delete/Archive 1

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. &mdash; 66.245.89.140 16:45, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Trash is POV. &mdash; Eequor 18:11, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * So are &ldquo;patent nonsense&rdquo; and &ldquo;vandalism&rdquo;. Doesn't stop you from using them.    &mdash; i386 | Talk 18:15, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * No one puts or  on articles.  &mdash; 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.    &mdash; i386 | Talk 18:56, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * False, the name doesn't matter. &mdash; 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. &bull; Benc &bull; 23:47, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The word &ldquo;trash&rdquo; has two different meanings. The first meaning, obviously, is garbage.  But when used in a technology context, the word &ldquo;trash&rdquo;  means &ldquo;deleted items&rdquo; (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 &ldquo;Trash&rdquo;.   &mdash; 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  on an article says "this article is trash."  In some cases, this may be true, but it's still POV.  Putting  or  on an article doesn't make a value judgement about its content.  I endorese the latter two above the former.  &mdash; 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.    &mdash; 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, is a name that works just fine, I see no reason to change it, and thus no reason to have a vote. &mdash; 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&mdash;the "delete" function is called "Move to Trash"&mdash;but I support "Delete" myself. &mdash; 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 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 |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  19:21, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) squash 03:39, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4)   &mdash; 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|&#9786; 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 (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 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)

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. &bull; Benc &bull; 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|&#9786; 08:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I suppose that would make it easier than typing . But please, for the sake of WikiLove and all that is holy, let's ensure:
 * It's worded as diplomatically as possible.
 * It looks exactly like  except for the reason blurb.
 * It's only used for articles that are, in fact, patent nonsense according to the objective, narrow definition on Patent nonsense.
 * I'm the one who listed Template:Insane on VfD (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   &mdash; 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. &bull; Benc &bull; 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: .) 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. &bull; Benc &bull; 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)

Let's not deprecate it! use db if you want to specify a reason, use d or delete otherwise. --Mysidia 07:20, 16 July 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 as a shortcut for this delete template. Oven Fresh 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&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 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 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 and , respectively. Thanks a lot guys. Cheers, DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:48, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

(last edit)
The last edit link in the current revision,, 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. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 17:27, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * done. – ABCD 19:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * What's the point of the (last edit) link? It's almost always the edit of the person who placed the 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? &mdash; Asbestos |  Talk  12:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

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)
 * 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. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk  11:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * On second thought, it seems you are correct. BrokenSegue 17:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Latest edit of template: kablooey?
The latest edit of this template now causes 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.... &#8212; Bill 17:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

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)
 * Nope. And this shouldn't be too surprising -- lots and lots of people use the template, and hardly anybody has any interest in the template itself. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * this template is way over used and results in valid articles being speedily deleted. BeBop 15:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 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&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I think there are uninformed users who slap up delete because it so obvious. Delete should put a VfD to-do template up, and some deletionists can form a cleanup crew to make the VfD subpages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  64.62.161.12 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 30 May 2005  (UTC)
 * There are already around 100 articles a day on VfU. The whole point of speedy deletion is to reduce this load by not listing articles that meet a small number of speedy deletion criteria. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * And the other part, admins that delete without looking or considering whether it a proper speedy delete, thats behavioural, what would you suggest fixes?
 * Vigilance and VfU. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

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 reason 1 (Gen-1): Patent nonsense.
 * General reason 2 (Gen-2): Tests, Can I really create a page here?
 * General reason 3 (Gen-3): vandalism.
 * General reason 4 (Gen-4): Reposting previously deleted content, deletion policy.
 * General reason 5 (Gen-5): Content from a banned user.

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:   or    Gen-1:     or      or      or    Gen-2:         or          or      or    Gen-3:    or     or      or    Gen-4:       or        or      or    Gen-5:       or        or      or    Art-1:      or       or      or    Art-2:   or    or      or    Art-3:      or       or     or    Art-4:          or           or      or    (or "fanboy", hehe) Red-1: Img-1: Img-2: Cat-1: Cat-2:        or         or    or    Img-3:       or        or    or    Usr-1: Usr-2:         or          or      or    Usr-3:           or    For people who hate this proposal, because CSDs are "obvious":      or       or    or   

"But wait", you ask, "how could I possibly remember all of those". Well, you wouldn't have to. There is the catch-all   which would be exactly the same as the "deletebecause" and "db" tags, and there is the "obvious"    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 . 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.   &mdash; 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  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.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 7 July 2005 18:59 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. delete works well when the reason is very obvious. &mdash; Dan | Talk 20:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * So leave the reason parameter blank. Just use or even  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)
 * I would like to note that leaving the reason parameter blank seems to be rather broken at the moment... Ken 14:29, July 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not think there is a sane way to combine them available with the current software, should be left to have no reason field, I feel that it looks ugly and a nuisance for  to appear as the reason on pages where this tag is being used.   Also, strangely...  rather recently, when the delete tag is placed on a page, sometimes the boilerplate and category does not appear on the page at all! --Mysidia 18:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would like the tag to be left alone, with no blank for a reason. I do quite a bit of New Pages RC patrolling, and most instances are quite obvious. (and having  isn't too sightly!) Besides, we have the  tag for that already, in the occasions when the delete tag warrants a reason. I'm going to revert it back to the original version until this matter can be resolved. Any other opinions? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk  17:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If it is obvious, that it won't be hard to type A1 or G4, in the reson field, or used a specialized template like nonsense. I really think that no use of delete sithout some reason speciified should occur. In fact I had just revised WP:CSD to indicate providing a reason with the call to delete. DES 17:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If a reason is needed to be provided, the or  templates can always be used; it does not take that much time to add the "b" or "because" into the tag. Otherwise, it is much easier and time-saving to use the  tag or  template when doing New Pages patrol if the reason is blatantly obvious; this saves the time of thinking about it and typing reasons. After doing lots of New Pages RC patrol, I find that 9 out of 10 times only the  is required. While it is certainly good to list reasons, we must keep an alternate template  open for use. Thanks for listening to my opinion, Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk  19:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. Please also see my note giving some more opinions below.


 * A number of people had endorsed this change, and you seem to be the first strongly opposed to it, User:Flcelloguy. Please don't just undo this chnge as you have done. DES 17:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, but it seems like the discussion is still ongoing here. I see several people arguing on both sides, and I feel that the template should be in its original version until the discussion is concluded. Thank you for your understanding. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The discussion is still ongoing -- and redundant, I think. Seems to come up every month or so. I side with the cellist (or perhaps Mr Cellophane, I'm not sure). I've made the argument before that it's a wash; some lazy admins will be more likely to delete inappropriately, just because someone has put a reason that seems acceptable -- without reading the article -- and this is as likely to happen if it's simply not allowed to not include a reason. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * He he- I'm a cellist. :-) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Please also note the discussion at Template talk:Deletebecause. These quotes were from the time the template was created.

"This template is an alternative (not a replacement!) to Template:Delete." "This would not be a replacement for Template:Delete; it would simply be a convenience." "It won't be more work for anybody, since it'll be completely optional whether you use Template:Delete or Template:Deletebecause (I like that name)."


 * As you can see, the creators of the template deletebecause also created it as an alternative to template delete, not as a replacement. I feel the same way about this; there is simply no need to "get rid" of the original delete template, as it simply offers more choices to the numerous new pages RC patrollers out there. Respectfully, Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

"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. &mdash; Dan | Talk 23:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Your version is not centered on screen, uses "em" measurement for padding when it should use px, plus the 95% text size is indistinguishable from 100%, making it pointless.  There are other minor difference in appearance between Mozilla and IE.  I'll come back later and fix these things, but in all honesty you are just nit-picking. -- Netoholic @ 23:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems we have platform problems. For me, 95% is certainly distinguishable from 100% and the template is quite centered. When you say it "should" use pixels, you express a personal preference about an exceedingly minor issue which I don't care about (though em's scale with text size, while pixels do not - I think that's the general argument in their favor), so your accusation two sentences later of "nitpicking" seems patently ridiculous, as you're clearly doing the same. &mdash; Dan | Talk 03:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed, upon checking in both IE 6.0 and FF 1.0.4, 100% and 95% text are clearly different. I guarantee that this is the case for the vast majority of Wikipedians, as 95% is a very common specification, especially in tables and templates. I've fixed the centering by using . Please feel free to switch to the pixel equivalent of .5em if you like, though I'm truly interested to hear why you think pixels are preferable, as it always seemed a meaningless distinction to me. &mdash; Dan | Talk 03:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Rename request
I have been renaming all the othe speedy deletion tempaltes to ahve the common prefix "Db-" as discussed durign the recent TfD for nn-bio, now Db-bio. All the previous names are being left as redirects, and all double-redirs fixed. I would like to rename this tempalte to match, of course leaving delete as a workign redir. I hope that there are no objections to this. having all the names with a common prfix will mean that they all group together in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion from which admins work, and will avoid confusion for those on speedy patrol. Redirects don't show up in the category listing. DES (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Just leave it alone. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I request that its name remain Template:Delete also, and see Requests_for_page_protection --Mysidia (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Edit request
The template would look much better without the arrows. Here is how to do it:

Administrators - Please look at linkage and [ history] ([ last change]) before [ deletion].

This is much better; could any admin change this? --Googlpl 15:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, could you add pl:Szablon:Ekspresowe kasowanko to the interwiki list?


 * Done. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 15:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I have made a mistake - it should be Administrators instead of WP:A. Sorry once again. Also, there are many more interwikis to add; see de:Vorlage:Löschen:

ar:Template:للحذف el:Πρότυπο:Delete es:Plantilla:Destruir fa:Template:کاندید حذف hi:Template:जल्द हटायें it:Template:Cancella pt:Predefinição:Lixo ru:Шаблон:Delete sv:Mall:Radera tr:Şablon:Sil

Thanks for patience, Googlpl 16:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. No problem. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 16:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

TfD debate
This template survived a debate at TfD. The discussion can be found here. -Splash talk 23:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit request (2)
The shortcut on the page doesn't display correctly because of mismatching parentheses; please correct. --Googlpl 16:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks. DES (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

There's still somehow three brackets displayed on one side of the shortcut, }, due to a stray unicode bracket that crept in. &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742;  08:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think I've fixed it. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 22:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion to use DB instead
I have added the following wording to the template: "Please consider supplying a reason for deletion using db or one of the other speedy deletion templates, instead of using this template." in hopes of encouraging people to use one of the templates that supply a reason, and as an attempt to further deprecate this template, as per various previous discussions.


 * The template isn't deprecated, it's fine, and the notice is clumsy meta information about the template, which has nothing to do with the speedy deletion reason -- so the request can stay on Template talk:Delete, but should be removed from the template text. --Mysidia (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

TfD debate again
This template survived another TfD debate, which discussion can be found here. -Splash talk 00:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Unprotect, please?
Should be standardised like Afd, Db-nonsense and undefined, really... --Chaosfeary 11:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, if I remember correctly, it's been unprotected several times recently, only to be hit with a spew of vandalism (mainly inserting profane images). However, if no-one objects, I'll gladly unprotect it. Thoughts? Flcelloguy (A note? ) 00:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Might as well. Every second a vandal spends here instead of in an article is a net gain for us (particularly since articles tagged with this will be going away anyway), and it'll be spotted more quickly here besides. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, unprotecting. Let's see how it goes. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 00:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. It's protected against moves. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 00:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I propose...
...that only registered Wikipedians are allowed to put this template on articles. Any opinions?? Georgia guy 14:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * How would you do that, technically? Also, what's wrong with IPs tagging nonsense when they see nonsense? An administrator will have to review the deletion eventually. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 16:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Deprecation
It's been a year since this was last discussed. The instructions on most of our pages have since been changed to discourage the use of this template in favor of one of the reason-specific speedy-deletion templates. In my own review, I can't find this template in active use anymore. I definitely think the page should be kept because so many policy discussions reference it but I think it's time that the template itself was marked as historical. Rossami (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would have to disagree; delete, in my view, still plays an important, albeit diminishing, role in Wikipedia. To mark it as historical is to imply that the tag can no longer be used, or that it is not accepted by the community, both of which are not true. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 00:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This tag hss seriously been supersceded by a number of far better tags. This template appears to be like Fairuse or PD - too vague and replaced by far better tags.  I think the communtiy needs to depreciate this tag and encourage usage of the number of db templates, even if it's just db-reason to explain the reasoning. Hbdragon88 21:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

TfD results
As per the results of a TfD debate, this template was depreciated and deleted, and has become a redirect to. I have modified to work with 0 parameters; this redirect now allows  to work with 1 parameter, specifying the reason. Use 1= before the parameter if it contains an = sign. --ais523 14:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)