Template talk:tobedeleted

From Homestar Runner Wiki

When are you guys gonna delete this again? - T.C.

This is the template used to mark things for deletion, not an article that's going to be deleted. Aurora the Homestar Coder 06:41, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, like this is what shows up when you type in {{tobedeleted}}. --Darklinkskywalker 03:21, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't delete it

Please don't delete this place. It can be used for much more then for me. Please Please don't delete it.--H*bad 23:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it can't be used for more. This is completely and utterly useless. This doesn't even qualify as a subpage. Also, the content of this page is entirely vandalism. Seriously ^(Talk)

Seriously, please stop labelling every questionable edit as vandalism. It is only vandalism if it is done with malicious intent, which this edit clearly was not. Heimstern Läufer 23:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I'm having a problem with the many possible interpretations of vandalism, I guess. Well, now it's deleted anyway. Seriously ^(Talk)

[edit] Colors

I think it would help if this template got a brighter background - like red or orange, something that would be more visible in the page. Alexander →talk 04:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

First, the template is always at the top of the page, so one knows it will be noticed by anyone who cares to look. Second, its gray color keeps it less conspicuous to non-editors, who normally don't take an interest in the workings behind a wiki. Thanks for the idea, though. — Lapper (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reword?

I think the wording of this template could use a tweak or two. First of all, "This article is currently pending deletion" doesn't seem to accurately describe our deletion process; it's more like, "This article is currently being considered for deletion" (wording borrowed from 'Kipedia). Secondly "If you do not feel that this article should be deleted, please say so and give your reasons why on its talk page" is equally problematic, as it suggests that those who don't want the article deleted need to say why, or else it will be deleted, when in fact articles are only deleted if consensus is reached to delete them. It also doesn't properly note that users who favor deleting the article should also comment on the talk page. I think a reword suggesting that any user who is interested in the possible deletion should comment on the talk page would be in order. Heimstern Läufer 00:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"This article is currently being considered for deletion. If you wish to offer an opinion on whether this article should be deleted, please do so on its talk page." How's that, quick and dirty? (BTW I like the bolding on "deletion" as that's what people need to be aware of, no?) - Qermaq - (^T/C)  00:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I also support the boldface. Maybe "If you have an opinion.." would be more engaging than "If you wish to offer an opinion", and would make editors feel more like they're part of the discussion. Loafing 00:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and be bold and make these changes. Heimstern Läufer 22:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Another wording issue: when used for proposing deletion of templates, userspace pages, etc. the term "article" is a misnomer. Though I do not know the code, I do know it's possible to make it so if the namespace is Template, the word "template" is used; if the namespace is User, the word "user page" is used; and if in the main namespace, the word "article" is used. A similar if-then could be used if we were proposing deletion of a talk page but not its companion article/template/userspace page. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  04:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea'd! Loafing 04:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it could be reworded even more and combined with other templates. I have therefore proposed a new version. — It's dot com 22:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss the proposed new version on its talk page.