Template talk:Delete

style

I kinda liked the old template styles better :( -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 01:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting#Maintenance templates for that. poke | talk 01:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why put in a time stamp? What point does it serve?--§ Eloc § 07:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The timestamp is needed to auto categorize them into Category:Pending deletion after 3 days. This is because the Deletion policy says that admins can delete pages after waiting 3 days. By using this category it's much more easier to identify them. When you leave the timestamp out, it will be added to Category:Improperly tagged for deletion instead. poke | talk 08:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

It's currently broken :-( No way to make a page appear in the "Candidates for speedy deletion" category. Chriskang 13:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed! - anja 13:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Anja. Chriskang 14:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

When did this change?

Before I rememnber it being {{delete|reason|~~~~~}}. When was that removed? — ク Eloc 貢 05:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Long time ago :P We don't need this any longer because of our "new" deletion list. poke | talk 19:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, lol. This entire time I've been using a timestamp when I delete things, lol. — ク Eloc 貢 22:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, gwwt still uses a timestamp too, but there is no problem with using a timestamp :P poke | talk 22:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ya, just kinda habit here. — ク Eloc 貢 22:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

transclusion

Given how it's a template, noinclude is not such a good idea, however, is there anyway to exclude this if the target page is itself transcluded? Backsword 20:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Got an example?--Fighterdoken 20:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume he's meaning a {{delete}} tag on a template that would be transcluded. — Rappy 21:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There is nothing bad about tagging pages with <noinclude>{{delete}}</noinclude>. poke | talk 21:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Blanking

IMO this template's documentation should include something along the lines of "pages should not be blanked when adding deletion tags". -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This depends on the content of the page.  If the page contains links to other pages, or includes other pages, that may also need to be deleted, the 'what links here' report is useless unless the page is blanked.  Further, the history of the page is also to be checked before deletion, so blanking the page should not be a problem.      mtew 05:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we don't really need to add that to the template; most people don't blank the pages anyway and I doubt anybody will notice a change of the description of the deletion template. Most people are used to how they use it and if not they get its usage via the deletion policy.

"If the page contains links to other pages [...] that may also need to be deleted", then those pages should be tagged as well. Just because a page is included or linked from a deleted page that doesn't make it qualify for deletion as well. poke | talk 11:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Then we agree.  I meant what I said literally.  As you probably know, the pages I make often contain links to themselves as part of a tab bar.  In cleaning up a page before or shortly after tagging it for deletion, I clean up those links.  Blanking the page, especially if it is the page that specifies tab bar contents, breaks the link cycles and makes finding other links to the page to be deleted easier.  Not being allowed to blank a page when flagging it for deletion would make the cleanup much harder given the way I construct pages.  Others are likely to do things differently and being allowed to blank pages before deletion will not matter to them.      mtew 12:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

U1 deletions are special anyway.. poke | talk 13:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

mtew is right that the history needs to be chencked in any case. That goes even for U1, as you need to know that it in fact the user who placed the rewuest. Backsword 20:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The deletion policy states that deletion should be proposed by adding a deletion tag to a page, not by blanking the page and replacing its' contents with a deletion tag. The main problem I have with blanking is that it makes it needlessly inconvenient for people to check the page which is actually being proposed for deletion. IMO blanking without a good reason (such as the removal of personal attacks or spam) is a from of vandalism, and I don't think that someone wanting a page to be deleted should be considered a good reason to blank a page. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say mainspace pages shouldn't be blanked, but there is no reason to prevent people from blanking user space pages when tagging them for deletion. In any case, is this even a big enough problem to warrant doing anything? I don't think I've ever seen an actual content page blanked and tagged for deletion. Misery 08:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, there may be technical reasons for blanking a page in addition to marking it for deletion.  I object strongly to having that kind of thing unquestionably called vandalism.  Any mention of not blanking a page marked for deletion should be a recommendation, not a policy and must not be grounds for sanctions per se.  (On the other hand, vandals should not be able to get around sanctions for their activities simply by including a deletion tag.  That is, blanking a page as part of deleting it should not be considered prima facia evidence of vandalism.  The corruption of game information or destruction of un-duplicated game information is vandalism.) --mtew 14:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)