Template talk:Delete
Candidates for Deletion
I don't think a page reserved for deletion candidates and the discussion surrounding them is really necessary in a wiki this small. There's just not enough articles to warrant dealing with them on anything but an individual basis. It's just a lot of administrative overhead that most people aren't even aware of and I don't see why the discussion can't just take place on the talk page. Agree, disagree? (Ironically, this discussion could result in the potential deletion of SmashWiki:Candidates for deletion!) --RJM Talk 21:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea. It's confusing having to look at both the talk page for an article and at the other page to determine what should or shouldn't be deleted. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 22:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. However, there does need to be a page somewhere (I'm not sure if there is) listing what makes an article of deletion quality. It could be as specific or as non-specific as wanted. --Sky (t · c · w) 22:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Reason for deletion
I move to remove the "reason for deletion" in this template (and, eventually, all others). Reasons for deletion (or cleanup, etc.) provided through the template are often terse and sometimes unsightly, with editors exhibiting poor spelling/grammar or writing something that for some reason would be better off on a talk page rather than an article's main page. Since deletion tags are not supposed to be removed until consensus is reached and the discussion is closed, such text must remain for the duration of the discussion (yes, someone could potentially edit it, but that might be considered improper). In addition, the one reason that may be cited in the template may or may not be a valid or prominent reason to delete an article, regardless of whether or not the suggested action is reasonable.
The other major problem is that when editors add a delete tag with their reason within the template, it puts the burden on everyone else to start the talk page discussion, since (in my experience) nominators frequently do not argue their case in any greater detail on the talk page (or at all). This seems silly, as the onus of starting the discussion should be on the person proposing deletion, and it makes the ensuing talk page discussion more difficult to follow after the tag has been removed. I think anyone who adds a deletion/merge/cleanup/similar tag should be required to post their reasoning on the talk page (or as otherwise directed), or else any other user may simply remove the tag without comment. You can't argue against a case that isn't made, and it's unreasonable to expect people to actively defeat deletion proposals when the person proposing deletion won't even enter the discussion.
This is a pretty wordy way of making my point, and I could probably name some other reasons, but in short: adding deletion reasons to the delete tag is a bad idea. --Kirby King 05:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds fair to me. Even I'm guillty of not telling the complete story when tagging things for deletion, but to put the onus of starting a discussion on the "tagger" is probably a good idea. I still feel that there's obviously some room for discretion (i.e. we don't need to open a discussion and reach consensus to delete an article on MuppetSmasher's Infinite Team Super Sudden Death Falcon Punch Combo) but I suppose that's what "speedy deletion" is for. --RJM Talk 14:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Legitimate reasons — it's unfortunate that template:d doesn't get a fair bit more use, as that's usually how most of the deletions can be handled on a wiki of this size. --Sky (t · c · w) 17:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Reasoning
When did having to think become depreciated and need to be removed? --Shadowcrest 23:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- When people used the delete tag to explain their "reason" (e.g. "this article sucks. FAIL") in lieu of posting an actual rationale on a talk page and not thinking became grounds for removing an unjustified delete tag rather than an inconvenience for anyone who wanted to oppose an unjustified nomination. Or, when I posted the above section noting as much and no one disagreed. --Kirby King 01:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Am I the only one who thinks that the "To the nominator" and "To all users" notes don't really reflect the way things are generally done around here? Most of the time, it is possible to present a legitimate reason in a sufficiently concise matter that posting a separate rationale on the talk page isn't really necessary unless someone comes along and challenges the tag. Besides which, I don't think I've ever seen a tag that at least had a semi-legitimate reason removed simply because the nominator hadn't posted on the talk page. So does someone wanna tell me why those addendum are necessary? – Defiant Elements +talk 04:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Those addenda (it's a neuter 2nd declension noun in Latin: don't judge me for knowing that!) are necessary. The idea of the tag is to highlight a page as possibly being unnecessary, whereas the Talkpage is for discussion of the article, not only of its content but of its merit in the first place. The current system makes it too easy for people to add delete tags to pages, then justify the delete in one word on the tag. Instead, a talk page should be used to put forward arguments for and against the deletion, followed by a voting process.
- The same does not apply to speedy delete tags, as most of the pages that are nominated for speedy deletion don't have a talkpage and aren't the sort of pages that it's worth creating one for, and the reason for deletion is so obvious that no discussion is required. That is, unless a user believes the page has some merit, in which case they can replace the speedy delete tag with a normal delete tag, start a discussion page and argue the article's case.
- Last time I answered one of you questions I ended up writing reams... I fear this is fast becoming a habit... PenguinofDeath 06:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- You don't have to explain the purpose of (speedy) deletion tags; I know the underlying theories. Here's the point: those addenda don't reflect the way things actually work around here. Generally speaking, the best policy arises organically as a reflection of wikiculture for the purpose of informing new users about the standards set by the wikiculture and for reference. For example, if, when a wiki is founded, the founders all agree that it would be best if people didn't have too many personal images and, as a result, sans policy, that becomes the accepted standard, then by all means, when the wiki grows to a point where it becomes too big not to have concrete, written policies, somebody should write up a policy about personal images that reflects the accepted standard. By the same token, if a policy no longer reflects the accepted standard, it should probably be revised. That's my problem with the addenda in question: they don't reflect SOP around here. I don't know when the last time I saw a tagger post a rationale on the talk page was, nor do I recall seeing a tag removed because the tagger had failed to so do. I don't accept your claim that the addenda reflect the way things should work; however, if were that the case, if no one acts according to the addenda, and no one enforces the addenda, it's inane to include the addenda. All that serves to do is to confuse anybody that doesn't know that the way things actually work around here is slightly different.
- And to say that they are "necessary" is an overstatement by a mile and a half. I've been editing wikis for years, and this is the first that required that the tagger post a rationale on the talk page. Most wikis as far as I'm aware, including Wikipedia, Guildwiki, Guild Wars Wiki, etc., place the onus on people that disagree with the tag. And you know what? That makes a whole lot of sense. If the basic argument in favor of deletion does not support a speedy deletion tag, but can still be expressed fairly succinctly, all you really need is the tag. Pages about glitches that fail to substantiate their claims and smasher pages that do not appear to be sufficiently notable constitute a great deal of the deletions on this wiki, excluding vandalism. All that's really required is a normal deletion tag with the reasons: "proof?" or "notability?", respectively. Then, if someone happens to have proof or think that the article is notable, they can come along and disagree with the tag. However, if no one disagrees for, say, two weeks, then it can probably be deleted without a lot of fuss. It may well be that, as it turns out, no discussion is required, but you can't know that beforehand, so a regular old deletion tag is more appropriate than a speedy deletion tag.
- Finally, by placing an additional burden on the tagger, you effectively encourage people to be lazy and just use speedy deletion tags when they should be using normal deletion tags (and yes, that's something of a problem around here). So with the above in mind... I still conclude that we shouldn't have those addenda.
- I should note, by the way, that it is not a voting process that determines the fate of an article, it's a discussion for the purposes of reaching consensus, which, by tradition, happens to include bolded text to signify on which side each editor falls. Oh, and while I'm noting things, your answer hardly constitutes a ream by wiki discussion standards. – Defiant Elements +talk 16:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
