Knowledge (XXG):Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 21

2536:

be deleted using a prod/listing at AfD/not deleted at all. I feel that CSD, especially for editors who are just starting to work on Newpage Patrol, can be misunderstood or misused, even if the editor has the best intentions. When I started, I did not realize that web sites and web forums do not explicitly meet CSD, and many editors do not realize that "db-repost" applies to pages that have been deleted after an XfD, not due to CSD. I think a helpful page that could be added to the site would be a "Knowledge (XXG):What CSD does NOT cover"/"Knowledge (XXG):What speedy deletion is not"/"Knowledge (XXG):When to use CSD, PROD, and AfD" FAQ, which could explain through common examples that web forums don't meet speedy criteria so try PROD/AfD, if notability is asserted, use PROD/AfD if you feel the article should be deleted, etc. This way, well-meaning editors who might incorrectly tag articles that don't meet speedy criteria/use drmspeedy on talk pages of editors who correctly removed tags can be directed to this page with a friendly note.

1596:- I take the more reasonable arguments to heart, and admit that deletion might have been a somewhat extreme measure, but it was born out of frustration. At one point I created real infoboxes for all medieval (post-Conquest) English kings. In the process I though it was sensible to remove the dynasty boxes, to avoid cluttering the page, but they just popped back up like so much weed. That’s why I figured deletion was the only resort. I am considering trying to FA-revise some of these articles, but it’s discouraging to know that my efforts will be marred by clumpy and redundant infoboxes. I am, however, encouraged to see that others feel the same way, and I will bring the discussion on to other fora. 2526:

CSD. Most removals of speedy delete tags in the latter cases are done by the editors who have created the nominated page, unregistered users (who may be the same people as those who created the pages and forgot that they have logged out), or newish users, all of whom might need clarification on the CSD in a way that also assumes good faith on their part. The drmspeedy template is a good way to call to the user's attention (as a bright orange box at the top of the screen is more likely to catch the user's attention than a message in an edit summary), that removing the template does not make the fact that it likely meets CSD go away. Thus, this template is useful.

2358:: No matter what the templates wording, I feel that it will encourage people who have the tag put on their page, to use it on other editors talk pages without knowing the reason. It also does not sound justifiable to put a ban on an articles creator removing tags, especially when they are putting it on for "non-speedy" reasons, as were the tags that I removed and was warned for, though not with this template. Altogether it gives the tags too much weight IMO. I get people on AfD discussions crying "Speedy Delete!!!" when there is clearly no matching criteria and the issue just looks obvious to them. 2448:

tag there for an admin to delete, however, there is nothing that says they cannot, or in any way, should not, remove the tag with a simple reason in the edit summary why they did it. If this discussion is more appropriate in another place I will accept that, however, I left a message on the talk page of the template for three weeks and noone responded to it so I thought this was the next alternative.

1371:"The infobox could possibly be saved if it was made into a less intrusive horizontal box at the bottom of the page, but the way it is now we're better off without it." (a) Side boxes and horizontal boxes carry different sorts of information. This sort of information is conveyed all over WP by side boxes. (b) In no way whatsoever would we be better off without this box. 2321:. Yes, people db-tag articles that shouldn't be tagged. Considering how many garbage articles we get per hour, it's inevitable that the occasional legit one gets misread. When that happens, just removing the tag is not usually going to help. I don't see that getting rid of drmspeedy is going to address the issue. If someone can come up with a better wording, great. 1392: 1296: 294: 2466:

tag. Redlinked authors is the first thing that triggers someone in RCP to look at an article, which leads to the speedy tag. I have no idea how often the tag is used for established editors, but I suspect it's a tiny fraction of the total, and it's really needed for all the garbage articles from the teenagers who seem to think this is myspace.

2539:

I still find a use for the drmspeedy template. If CSD is further clarified so that Newpage patrollers develop a better understanding of the criteria, drmspeedy is still helpful in such cases as: 1) the creator of the article removes speedy tags without giving a reason; 2) an anonymous editor removes

2535:

I think I understand part of the reason that Ansell has nominated this template for deletion - it can be mis-used by an editor who uses it to post on the talk page of any editor who removes the tag, even if the latter editor correctly asserts that a particular page does not meet CSD but rather should

2525:

While it is true that articles that may not meet speedy criteria are occasionally tagged, and therefore removal of the tag is warranted, I would say that the tagging of the majority of articles for speedy deletion is done correctly by editors who are developing or have a good working knowledge of the

2341:

the tag remover; I tend to think such occurrences to be very infrequent (I adduce the mailing list only in order that the views of others who don't happen upon this might be considered, even as I don't find all of those views to be particularly persuasive). I surely agree with Fan, though, that this

2296:

tag ought to be used where an article's creator summarily and laconically removes a tag, the existence of such tag should not be understood to limit non-admin editors who think a speedy tag to have been altogether improperly applied, with the provision that a user removing a speedy tag ought probably

2251:

New users (most likely to remove tags) do not tend to actually read the notice before removing it. This is an easy way to let them know (again) about the hangon tag. Contesting should be done through hangon, not through removing the tag. (I'll admit I don't know what purpose is served by drmspeedy1.)

1378:

The justifications have no validity. I stand over my description of this nomination. It is one of the silliest I have ever seen (and there have been some monumentally silly). No wonder one of those involved in the royalty pages only today quit Knowledge (XXG). They and numerous others were driven off

2577:

I disagree with your reference to Notability in the warning, however, the scope is a little easier to handle as it does not imply an official warning based on consensus policies. The usefullness of the hangon tag, for anyone except the case of authors removing the tags themselves, is still not clear

2443:

Okay, I am a little confused now myself. I may be basing my statements on the use of this template to warn established editors about removing tags. The discussion on the WikiEN-l mailing list got down to this point. To put it simply I disagree that we should have templates for warning users when the

1427:

The point is that these infoboxes are posted on hundred of pages that are not about dynasties, but about their members. Absurdly enough, if you type in "Plantagenets" in the search field, the relevant page (the somewhat broader "Angevin", admittedly) doesn't even have the infobox, while you can find

2429:

rather than removing the tag? Or do you feel that the tagger should compose their own notes, which might well be a lot less polite than anything in the tag. I also get the impression that you're basing your opinions on the experiences of editors who have had a speedy tag wrongly put on a legitimate

2531:

In my experience, out of the users that have received drmspeedy from me, the vast majority are understanding and cooperative once they receive clarification. I think that the majority of users do take the time to read the tag, or look at the original speedy tag a bit closer, as they do not remove

2465:

I would say that 90% of the time I have used this template, it involved creating the user talk page for a new editor, and the other 10% there was nothing there except a welcome and, often, other warnings. If I go to the talk page and find an established editor, I'll think twice about re-adding the

2447:

The use of the hangon tag for any but the newest editors is not how I see it being used. The CSD criteria are made up so that any established editor can decide whether the tag fits or not. Of course in the case where the tag does fit reviewers of the page without sysop powers will simply leave the

350:

Opinions and zealous overstatements aside, this infobox was created for use in British Royalty articles as part of the WikiProject regardless of whether they are also in another category or whatever - if there were to be a clash, there would be cross-project discussions, and an agreements would be

2404:

or related templates. Not having an official warning for people removing SD templates is not doing away with the process by any means. The people who initially tag articles may just have to think carefully before each time they tag an article. Remember, the aim of the process is not to do it "as

1526:

The answer Exio, is that it often takes many people to make, agree and implement these templates but only one or two people to (sometimes repeatedly) nominate them for deletion. Much of the points I read above could have been discusssed on the project page(s) rather than brought here and feeling

1513:

makes are valid. Just because there is a template, doesn't mean that it should be used everywhere. The boxes on biographical pages for princes are multiplying like rabbits. Often they don't present the most important or useful information. But because they exist and are available, some

1243:- They are useful templates for navigation. The move to create infoboxes was not actually discussed to a great extent and no consensus was agreed. Even if there was consensus to implement the infobox, the templates could be reworked to a more suitable presentation. Therefore keep for now. 324:

This template is absolutely the ugliest one I have seen on Knowledge (XXG) and is totally, 100% redundant to the Monarch template. Just because the other template states "Monarch" in its title, this does not mean that it can't be used for other purposes. Indeed, there is nothing that

2653:

I would be happy for this discussion to be closed in light of the changes to the template wording. Unless someone is still concerned about the wording. If someone wants to bring this up on the CSD talk page to determine the consensus for the wording more fully it would be great.

329:

can bring than the other doesn't do 100% better. This one is hard to read, (purple background with black lettering!) and cannot be enforced due to the crossbreeding that has occurred between the Russian, Danish, French, etc etc royal families. For instance,

2378:. People speedy tags articles they shouldn't, true. Some people don't understand speedy criteria, true. What's your alternative to this template? Having people retag the article without notifying the author? Doing away with speedy deletion entirely? 1717:. It is very unclear when such a generic warning should be used, and to me is only confusing. I would propose it to be deleted, or otherwise to be included in the template messages list with a clear explanation when to use and when not to use it. 1353:"The most pertinent information will be easily available somewhere else in the article anyway" - wrong. In most cases it isn't. It is standard to use a graphic to summarise the information as most people visiting most pages do not read everything. 2540:

peedy tags without giving a reason, 3) a newish editor removes speedy tags without giving a reason. However, if the template is to be kept, I can see how the wording might be up for improvement. The changes I would make are in bold: "

2313:

Use of this template goes hand-in-hand with re-adding the db tag on the page in question. Realistically, once an article's been tagged, if you remove the tag, someone (the original tagger or someone else) is likely to re-tag it,

2613:

I would support a proposal about that particular issue, and if taken up it would follow onto having a template with a similar function to this one. However, in its current form this template seems like Instruction creep.

2206:

The template does not convey the correct message to users about the removal of Speedy deletion tags. It implies that there is a ban on non-sysop users removing deletion tags, where there is no such ban.

351:

reached. The design is not final, members of the project are encouraged to discuss and 'play with' designs. And it's not "Infobox Royalty" because that would have been a bit presumptuous wouldn't it? --

2604:. This probably can/should be formalized into policy, but for now I don't see any reason why the template shouldn't simply caution against removing speedy tags from an editor's own created articles. 2636:}} ('do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself'). There doesn't seem to be a policy-compatibility problem now, and I often find cause to use this one on newpage patrol. -- 334:

was a member of the British Royal family, but she was also consort to the king of Denmark. The issue arises as to whether we use the British royal family box, or the Danish one? Another example is

1449:

This is where it goes from silly to absurd. I don't know quite how to respond to this, as I didn't even vote on that nomination, I simply pointed out that the two must be seen in conjunction.

210:, and inasmuch as, in any case, we would do well, I think, to accord those involved in the creation of the template time to promulgate it, consistent with the disposition of the recent TfD. 2532:

the speedy tag again but instead make a case for the page through "hangon" (or do nothing at all, realizing their article should probably be deleted according to Knowledge (XXG)'s policies).

2517: 1975:

00:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Seems to be a template for general announcements. Only changed twice, 18 months ago, so out of date. Not currently used on any pages. Obsolete since the

167: 42: 37: 1204:

The infobox is horribly intrusive to the page. In the best case it will simply squash a great section of the text on the page to about 3/4 of its width. In the worst case (see

2337:

The concern that developed on the mailing list was that editors, upon seeing a speedy tag removed from an unspeediable article, do not re-add the speedy tag but nevertheless

1714: 1230:

The infobox could possibly be saved if it was made into a less intrusive horizontal box at the bottom of the page, but the way it is now we're better off without it.

1980: 1185:

I know this is a bold move, and I'm not out to get anyone, but, starting with England, I think all dynastic templates should be deleted, for the following reasons:

2564:}} on the page and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you." 200:

inasmuch as those involved in the BR WikiProject surely know better than I what template ought to be used, inasmuch as this doesn't seem altogether redundant to

1283:

Easily the single stupidest nomination I have seen in four years here. Delete the user responsible for this nomination (a joke, that!) not excellent templates.

163: 2405:

quick as possible," just to do it without the full deletion process. I do not have an alternative to the template as I do not think the step is needed.

1208:), you will have a little bit of text on top, an infobox that goes on forever, and then the remaining information waay down at the bottom of the page. 1350:"The infobox is horribly intrusive to the page". That is that user's POV. Users have been using these boxes for months and no-one else has said that. 1126: 308:, for now at least. It seems rather unfair to delete a template as being "unused" before its creators have chance to use it. Why such a hurry? 21: 1431:

Yes, that is POV. As you may know that is permitted on discussion pages, hence the word "discussion". And silence is not the same as consent.

1058: 120: 2430:

article, and maybe haven't fully considered the incredibly huge number of absolute garbage articles that get posted and speedied every day.

732:

Superfluous and unused. All information that could be added using this template can be more than adequately added using the more ubiquitous

520:

Superfluous and unused. All information that could be added using this template can be more than adequately added using the more ubiquitous

145:

Superfluous and unused. All information that could be added using this template can be more than adequately added using the more ubiquitous

2240: 1539:- Some of the points in the nomination are valid, but a re-working after discuss in the WikiProject would be far preferable to deletion -- 1460:(which – I realise now – will probably fail), in which case you would have to question their commitment to the project in the first place. 2600:

is unclear on when/if a speedy tag should be removed, consensus seems to be that one should not remove speedy deletion tags from articles

383:

This template is useful template because it's important that separating template for each country on monarchies of individual countries.

1215:, for instance, his most immediate family is in the infobox at top, while there's another infobox for monarchs of England at the bottom. 1117: 17: 495: 2022: 1976: 1781: 268: 503: 1443: 1357: 1219: 1190: 1049: 956: 326: 111: 60: 486: 435: 1160: 1092: 2297:

to inform the tagger in order that AfD might be pursued. I imagine this is consistent with Gurch's rewording suggestion...

2286:; it might be useful to consider the discussion that ensued (which discussion, IIRC, went towards the proposition that the 1473:, for now. This is an issue which oughtn't be dealt with in "templates for deletion," but in some less polarizing forum. 1134: 234:- As this infobox will take up a great deal more space than the current one, I think this relates to my nomination below ( 2543: 1984: 2647: 2496: 2342:

template is useful but that the wording might be tweaked, although I'm not at all sure what locution might be better...

1877: 1852: 1810: 1024: 2677: 2103: 2077: 1947: 1921: 1644: 1618: 844: 820: 663: 637: 451: 425: 76: 1066: 990: 947: 128: 1434:

Absolutely, I am not arguing against the value of infoboxes. My question is how "pertinent" it is in an article on

922: 335: 2608: 2568: 2499: 2470: 2434: 2382: 2346: 2325: 2301: 2268: 2256: 2131: 2062: 2039: 2027: 1995: 1906: 1813: 1798: 1786: 1755: 1739: 1721: 1672: 1605: 1586: 1557: 1531: 1518: 1501: 1489: 1477: 1464: 1411: 1398: 1325: 1302: 1267: 1247: 1234: 872: 805: 793: 773: 753: 740: 691: 622: 604:, if the British monarchy template is overwhelmingly supported to stay, then so should the POlish/Lithuanian one. 596: 584: 568: 541: 528: 479: 410: 398: 369: 342: 312: 300: 273: 242: 226: 214: 192: 176: 153: 104: 2118: 1962: 1659: 1260: 1151: 1083: 859: 678: 466: 189: 91: 2676: