Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Templates (general)

message: In the table above it said "It is a talk page...".  In the draft template it said "as it is a talk page...".  I just changed the draft template to say "as a talk page..." which I think eliminates unnecessary words. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: G8 "as it is"

message: Note that I've added another column at the righthand side of the table, for the wpReason parameter, which specifies what will appear in the edit summary of the deletion log.  The one I just put there for g1 is just about precisely the length of what will fit in an ordinary edit summary. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: wpReason

message: I'm changing "blatant copyright infringement" in g12 to "apparent copyright infringement".  More accurate and less bitey. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If I had read this note, I wouldn't have changed it back. :) The CSD criterion says "blatant". I think if we want to change it to "apparent", we should start there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  I think this is one place where the CSD and the template should say two different things. (Gasp! Going against the whole spirit and purpose of this whole lengthy exercise!)  The CSD is talking in general and is read by people who are about to tag an article or by admins about to delete an article.  The template, on the other hand, is making an assertion about one specific page, and is read by the creator of the page as well as by the person tagging the page.  If it says "blatant," it's rather insulting.  Also, if it says "blatant copyright infringement" or even "copyright infringement", it's accusing the page creator of breaking the law.  That's almost, though not quite, a violation of the Wikipedia:No legal threats policy;  also, in many cases it's just plain false.  Wikipedia policy requires deleting things which are apparent copyright violations.  maybe it doesn't? They may actually not be copyright violations at all;  they may be being posted by the author and that just hasn't been proven yet.  It's OK for the CSD to say "blatant" because it's not saying it about any one particular page.  Saying it there discourages people from over-using the tag in unclear cases.  But once an article is tagged, it should have wording with a loophole to cover such cases where it isn't actually a copyright violation even if it does have to get deleted anyway.  OK, how about just "copyright violation infringement 11:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as I interpret the word, apparent copyright infringements should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems for investigation. Only blatant copyright infringements are to be listed for deletion. But, then, there's some latitude in interpreting the word "apparent". What about if we just eliminate the words "apparent" or "blatant" from the speedy tag altogether and let it flatly announce its purpose as "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as a copyright infringement of"? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: G12 blatant

message: I inserted "or other entity" in the draft template for G10 as suggested by Moonriddengirl. The extra curly brackets in G11 had already been deleted in the draft template. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  etc. 

message: Currently, if the user supplies the name of a previous deletion discussion I think it's mentioned in regular-sized font near the top, and also other possible deletion discussions are mentioned in small print lower down.  Possibly the behaviour should be different although I'm not sure exactly what.  (Mention the user-supplied discussion again when listing possible discussions?  Not list the other possible discussions if the user supplied one?) --Coppertwig (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  G4 previous deletion discussion 

message: Would it be possible for this tag to say "...this includes, but is not limited to..."? 
I usually tag pages that consist of "poop" or "When can I leave school" and the like under G3, but I am not 100% sure if that is what I should be doing. If we added the caveat I suggested, I think that G3 would be much more useful, as we could use it as a catch-all for obvious crap that isn't directly attacking someone/something. J.delanoygabsadds 16:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  G3--Pure vandalism