Template talk:Deletion request

Inappropriate reverts of people's edits

User:Adambro correctly noticed that the title bar text of the template did not fit with the content and was grammatically unsuitable. User:JWSchmidt reverted User:Adambro rather than solving the underlying problem that perhaps this template needs a parameter where a page specific reason can be given. I'm resolving this conflict in favour of User:Adambro. I will then think further about the wording and parameters. --McCormack 11:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There appears to have been a minor misunderstanding here. If the consensus is that the reason for deletion should be part of the template on the page nominated for deletion then it would be perfectly straightforward to do so but the previous wording didn't fit the situation where this wasn't the case and looking back through the history it doesn't appear to ever have been. My own opinion is that including the reason for deletion in this template isn't neccesery since it should be explained at WV:RFD and if it isn't, or isn't within a reasonable time period after being added to the page, then the tag should be removed. Adambro 12:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Adambro. --McCormack 14:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

JWSchmidt's recent edits

The recent edits by JWSchmidt to this template seem to have turned it into something completely different to what it should be, a simple tag that a page has been nominated for deletion and a explanation as to where this can be discussed. Instead we have an extremely lenghty template which appears to serve to partronise users who have a background at Wikipedia as well as to distort the whole deletion request process itself. It says that "page deletion is for purposes such as removing vandalism and copyright violations" however this isn't true, that is what speedy deletion is for. The deletion request process is for discussing pages which aren't simply blatent candidates to be deleted and this includes all pages, whether or not they were created in good faith, despite the statement that "Page deletion is not for removing the good faith efforts of editors who contribute to Wikiversity". If this is true then where do we go to discuss the deletion of such pages? I would strongly suggest that this template should be reverted back to the revision as of 12:00, 31 August 2008. If any more detailed explanation of the deletion process is required then this should be at WV:D, WV:RFD or similar. Adambro 14:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

It is very rare that we have an edit war on Wikiversity, but this has turned out to be one of them. It is a very straight-forward war between User:Adambro and User:McCormack on the one side, and User:JWSchmidt on the other. I find it difficult to believe that User:JWSchmidt's vast encyclopedic additions to this template are helpful, but others may like to comment. --McCormack 14:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I would thank Darklama for working to try to resolve this issue but I'm afraid that I remain unhappy with the current version. My main concern is that it still implies that to delete a page, or to suggest a page is to deleted, is to fail to assume good faith. I would strongly disagree. Assuming good faith doesn't mean that we should keep any content which doesn't have malicious intent, it simply means that we shouldn't assume that contributors are acting maliciously. Just like other projects, content should only be kept if it is within the scope of the project. I'd also reiterate my comments above that it is unnecessary to have a reason for deletion as part of this template since this should be explained at WV:RFD. Adambro 16:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree. We have a long history of people being too quick to delete pages from Wikiversity. In order to try to correct this problem, the template needs to make users think about what they are doing. Think first, delete second. We do not need to make the template easy to use, we need to make it hard to use so that people have time to think about what they are doing. The template only needs to be easy for people to respond to. This means that people should not be forced to go hunting on another page for the reason behind the proposed deletion. The reason should be right there where the template is used. --JWSchmidt 17:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any problems with informing people that they need to be prepared to argue there case and what they might be facing in proposing a page be deleted? I agree with you that the previous attempts to do so were too long, which is why I tried to provide a brief synopsis. Wikiversity has a broader scope than other projects, people are more reluctant to delete content even if some might find it malicious, and people feel stronger about assuming good faith here than say even Wikimedia Commons. I believe JWSchmidt just wants people to be aware of this, in the same way that people are expected to provide a source when they use the copyvio template or how on Meta people should be prepared to defend there arguments or reasons for some requests. I don't think its about the person who proposed it or about trying to imply anything, but about Wikiversity's history with deletion requests and what its stance on deletion tends to be.

Is there any problems with allowing people to provide an explanation both with the template if they choose (its optional), and on the RFD page? It may be unnecessary to do, but why shouldn't people be allowed to do it if they want to? --darklama 18:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

So, here another opinion: as I wrote earlier once: how would the wiki-verse be when there is no delete button anymore (then also this template is not needed anymore) ? More happy or unhappy people ?

This "within the scope of the project" is viewed different by many of us participating here (e.g. second green chapter here). I prefer that someone who wants to delete a learning resource should also provide more data in the template (there are still users out there who might not click on the link) - people might get influenced already by just viewing a deletion template. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 17:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

reason...

{{{1}}}? Emesee 20:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If you do {{deletion request|outside project scope}} for instance you would get:

Link to any subpages this page might have

--darklama 17:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Template

I think in my view the template should stay as this I had a look at the previous versions one which was described in Section 2, and this one is far better than this and this - the current version is far more organized than the previous one which showed only a very small text which some people would find it hard to read. DarkMage 17:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

rename

let's rename this to Template:deletion or undeletion requests... or else undelete Template:Undelete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikademia (talk • contribs) 13:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Please sign your comments, that ideally means using four tildes (~~~~) so that appropriate links and a timestamp are included. If you don't wish to or aren't able to easily type these characters you can click the signature above the edit window.

It makes no sense to have an undelete template. The only apparent location to put such a template would be on the deleted page and that just complicates matters with no apparent benefit. The process for requesting a page is undeleted is at Wikiversity:Deletion requests. Adambro 13:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)