Template talk:Welcome-delete

Welcome-delete variant for "with an explanation, just without sufficient reason"?
The template usage documentation says "Used to warn new editors that they have blanked a page or removed content without stating a reason and/or gaining consensus". However, the message delivered to end users when the template is left on their talk page just says "We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions have removed content without an explanation", linking "an explanation" to the edit summary help page. This doesn't seem to me to really cover the case in which a reason has been stated, but it does not follow consensus - for instance, "removing content that's wrong" as an edit summary when removing content that's controversial but well referenced. Having a template use case to deal with this would be really helpful - maybe it could be a parameter included at the point of transclusion of this template?

The idea would be to replace the "without an explanation" bit with something like "without a good reason to do so. If information is verifiable and its inclusion follows Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it should stay part of the encyclopedia, even if you disagree with it. Instead of removing such information, you should consider expanding the article with notable and verifiable information of your own, citing reliable sources when you do so."

Thoughts? All best, Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 21:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've made a version of the template which would accept an extra parameter, either ordered 2 or  (bad reason), which would produce this sort of message. You can see examples of its use in the testcases. I'd appreciate any thoughts, feedback or refinements people have. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 20:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This template has fallen severely out of sync with the standard welcome template, so the first order of business is turning it into a wrapper to update it and keep it synced in the future. I'm going to go ahead and do that. Beyond that, I have no objection to adding a parameter like that; just be sure to update the documentation. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 07:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: done. I'd also note that this template has a pretty limited use case — in most circumstances where someone is deleting content, I'd initially give them a low-level warning rather than a welcome. A welcome is often a little too much attention, and we don't want to feed any trolls. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 07:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there consensus to use the standard welcome template in all other welcome templates? To me, the content of the template here was much more like the content of Template:Welcomelaws - quite understandably, because it's a problem user welcome template, so you'd think it'd focus on policy.
 * I tend to use welcomes for all but the most clear-cut and persistent vandalism, because there's a possibility that it's someone having a laugh with their mates who might later see the template and think "okay, maybe I can contribute something positively". Maybe I'm just a dreamer though Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 08:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All of these templates started out as variations of the standard welcome template (you can find lots of old references to "same as the standard welcome but with..." for templates that are no longer actually the same), but they just drifted out of sync over time, so yeah, I think it can be assumed that the consensus ideal practice is to keep them synced, and converting to a wrapper will help with that in the future (it should have been done when these were created, but either people didn't know how or the functionality didn't exist back then). And I have no objection to changing some wordings here so long as it's kept as a wrapper; it could definitely use some improvements). &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 08:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheers . Would you mind checking out the sandbox as it is now and making sure it looks OK? The reason I'm asking is because I changed around some of the template markup you used for including the template wrapper - I think you used includeonly where it should have been a safesubst with noinclude following it. You can see the problem with your markup on the testcases page - it's not transcluding correctly over there. I'm not 100% sure I've done it right either though, so I'd like to get someone else's eyes on it before I put it onto the main template page :) Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 09:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, your edits look good to me. In practice, this template will never be transcluded (AnomieBOT is told to fix any accidental transclusion), so the testcases issue won't appear, but using safesubst is a little better just in case, so your code is an improvement there. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 10:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * brilliant, thanks! I've brought those changes into the main template :) Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 10:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)