Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Templates (other)

Reasons for changing speedy-delete template wording: Implementation:
 * Correspond more closely with the criteria for speedy deletion (CSD)
 * Brevity/clarity
 * Avoid using italics in a way that might imply a direct quote of the CSD
 * Often saying "(See CSDXX)" rather than just "(CSDXX)" to avoid implying a direct quote
 * To delete "The reason given is:", for brevity, transclude new template Template:speedybase instead of Template:db-meta.

It's suggested that discussion take place at: (Moonriddengirl and Coppertwig.)
 * Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Templates (general)
 * Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Templates (articles)
 * Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Templates (images)
 * Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Templates (other) (redirects, categories, userpages, templates, portals) (i.e. this page)
 * General discussion: WT:CSD
 * Links to previous discussion can be found here.

People may edit the tables and change the suggested wordings.

Comments
Thanks for your contribution, Od Mishehu (i.e. changing "nonexistent" to "nonexistent/deleted" in both the current template db-r1 and its representation here.) Since you haven't changed the "suggested" wording, I assume it's still OK with you. I think the "suggested" wording is marginally better, since it has the word "or" rather than a slash, making the logic clearer (i.e. that it doesn't mean "deleted and nonexistent".) --Coppertwig (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments
I disagree with the alteration to T3 - the criteria for that CSD are carefully worded enough to warrant separation into bullets. Happy‑melon 19:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your feedback, which ties in with the main purpose of this exercise: to make the templates conform more closely to the CSD. In many cases, the templates are slightly abbreviated in comparison to the CSD.  In this case, it's the opposite: the template is actually wordier. However, perhaps the wording currently suggested in the table goes too far in attempting to achieve brevity.  I suggest the following, which is an attempt to convey all nuances of the CSD while both  complying with your request for bullets and attempting to keep the overall length to the minimum required:
 * "This page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a template that is not being employed in any useful fashion and has been tagged for deletion for 7 days under one of the following conditions:
 * "It is a substantial duplication of the template Template\, or
 * "It is a hardcoded instance of template Template\, where the same functionality could be provided by that other template."
 * It seems to me that the CSD only justifies two bullet points. People who are enamoured of the third bullet point might want to update the CSD. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an excellent point, as discussion to this effect has been ongoing on WT:CSD. I would accept removing the third bullet point.  However, the mechanism which adjusts the categorisation based on time elapsed since the template was added makes the first sentence difficult to manage.  I recommend ... as a template that is not being employed in any useful fashion which satisfies one of the following conditions:..., followed by the two bullet points, then either "templates tagged under this criterion may be deleted after seven days", or "this template has been tagged for seven days and may be deleted", depending on time.  This is, of course, essentially what is currently present at the template, but I can't see any easy way of reducing it in length without making it more difficult to understand, and as it is not particularly lengthy, I'm not sure I see the need to do so.  Happy‑melon 18:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * On another point, the article obviously will not have been tagged for seven days at the time the template is first added to it. This should probably read, "This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, after it has been tagged for seven days, as...." --Russ (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Re T2: It has a comma joining two sentences. I suggest making it into a period and also un-bolding the 2nd sentence. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)