Template talk:Hasty

Feedback
I understand the issues that are leading to the creation of this template. This seems like a reasonable way to balance those issues. My only concern with this template is that it currently appears to be very wordy. I suspect that with some effort, the same thing can be said in a third the text. Rossami (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don';t see why an admin would use this "An administrator or other editor has reviewed the speedy deletion tag below...It is therefore requested, though by no means mandatory, that any reviewing administrators," If I came across something that needed it, I would remove the tag, as being myself the reviewing administrator.  Very good idea, but  we need to discuss the wording.DGG (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean. This is not for articles that don't meet CSD critera, but for articles that meet them but are tagged so quickly that some time should be provided to see whether the creator is going to add more content. Why would you be removing the tag? Maybe an example would illustrate what this is intended to address better. You're at CAT:CSD and click on an article tagged with db-bio. It was tagged 30 seconds after creation and you've landed on it 3 minutes later. You don't want to delete it just yet because the creator may be in the process of adding content—this is the "hasty" tagging issue in a nutshell. If you don't add the template, it may very well be deleted in that nascent state by another. By adding it you are flagging the issue, and providing a time for when you are suggesting the all clear is sounded. You may or may not come back to 57 minutes later but it doesn't matter once tagged who later reviews it, and you relieve yourself from babysitting the article until later. There is no contradiction between being the first who landed on the article as "reviewing administrator" and adding the tag as an administrator, and administrators are the most likely people to review others' speedy tags.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean. This is not for articles that don't meet CSD critera, but for articles that meet them but are tagged so quickly that some time should be provided to see whether the creator is going to add more content. Why would you be removing the tag? Maybe an example would illustrate what this is intended to address better. You're at CAT:CSD and click on an article tagged with db-bio. It was tagged 30 seconds after creation and you've landed on it 3 minutes later. You don't want to delete it just yet because the creator may be in the process of adding content—this is the "hasty" tagging issue in a nutshell. If you don't add the template, it may very well be deleted in that nascent state by another. By adding it you are flagging the issue, and providing a time for when you are suggesting the all clear is sounded. You may or may not come back to 57 minutes later but it doesn't matter once tagged who later reviews it, and you relieve yourself from babysitting the article until later. There is no contradiction between being the first who landed on the article as "reviewing administrator" and adding the tag as an administrator, and administrators are the most likely people to review others' speedy tags.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What if it's worded "An administrator or other editor has reviewed the speedy deletion tag below and believes the tagging was too hasty. A grace period of one hour is requsted for the article creator to add content." instead? It's the same thing, but shorter. If neccessary, someone can write an essay about why hasty tagging is bad and the word "hasty" can wikilink to it. Was brought up over here, but no one mentioned it here yet. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, just looked in the history and it was way longer before. I still favor the more concise wording I suggested above, but the current wording ain't bad.  --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I should have dropped a note here on this. I have severely cut back on the text based on comments above and at WT:CSD.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, does anyone know if there is a way to include the current time in the #if parser, such that each time a tagged page with the template was opened the current time would be shown? I was thinking of something like (changes from current boldfaced) but I think this would only show the "current time" as of the placement of the template, rather than being a live read.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * myself, if it looks promising at all, I allow 5 days, as for a prod, not one hour. DGG (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, this is not for things that are "promising", it's for things patently within the ambit of the speedy deletion tag placed but which were done moments after creation. You would never use this for something you would decline deletion on. In all such cases you would remove the speedy and not use this template.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

-- Hello ... I think that it meets a need, i.e, it is a way to keep CSDs from occurring Too Quickly ... I'll try to work it into the Flag templates and WP:FLAG-PROTOCOLs. :-) Happy Editing! &mdash;  00:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction?

 * I understand the purpose of this tag, but it seems to contradict all of WP:CSD. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The "speedy" in speedy deletion refers to the fact that only one user and one admin make the decision, not the actual speed of deletion. It is absolutely possible to speedy delete an article too quickly.  lifebaka++ 20:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)