Template talk:Deletion tools

message: I've reinstated the old formatting, as class="infobox" doesn't seem to............hang on - is class infobox what's just changed? dammit. Hold your fire, investigating. sjorford #£@%&$?! 14:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'm done mucking about. la lala lala... sjorford #£@%&$?! 14:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: I think we should link the deletion debates to a "deletiondebates" template instead, because that's the main thing I use this template for anyway. What say you? Ashibaka tock 05:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing? Uh... okay. Let's go. Ashibaka tock 01:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which links would you propose moving to the alternate template? Would there be reducdance links or links to the other template? -- Ec5618 02:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It's shorter than I had imagined. I like it, atleast for a number of pages. It could be a great template for use of User pages too. -- Ec5618 02:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This template is very long

message: Should this template be semiprotected, protected or unprotected in your opinion?  I'm good with whatever, but it is a somewhat popular template that is not often subst:'ed. ATM I have it semiprotected since an anon vandal just changed it. --Syrthiss 17:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotected 

message: Now that it's been accepted as policy, shouldn't WP:PROD be added to this template?  I'd do it myself, but I'm not really certain where it would go... --CComMack 11:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prod?

message: This was crossposted and has little to do with the specific workings of this page. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Informing the creators is being ignored. The comments have already been moved. Please do not spam such complaints across multiple pages. Rossami (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informing the creators is being ignored 

message: I've drafted what I consider a somewhat improved variant of Chris's parametrization scheme, based on the current compromise version, in my user space.  My version avoids the duplication of the table markup, as well as allowing users to select any subset of sections to include or exclude, as shown on the right (with the AfD and speedy sections visible).  I've also made some other minor cleanup changes, such as using  for the edit links to allow them to work over  the secure server as well.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no real objection to this.  Needing to include the all=0 parameter is a bit inelegant, but I don't see an easy way around it without resorting to subtemplates. —Cryptic 18:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellence. As for the fullurl links, though: I'd question whether these are all useful. In particular, the copyvios link goes to a page which specifically warns against directly editing it. Would it be worth changing these into regular wikilinks, with a slight accuracy hit? Chris Cunningham 18:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, the point of having direct edit links (and links to the daily pages at all) was to avoid the need for an extra pageload if you already know what you're doing.  Whether the copyvio link should go to a normal pageview, or be split into edit links for /Articles and /Images, is a tossup.  My kneejerk preference is for the latter, though if no one's noticed it yet (and the split on the target page has been in place for some time now), it kind of speaks of underuse. —Cryptic 19:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, thanks.  I've copied my draft over to the template now.  I agree that the copyvio entry ought to be fixed to match the new procedures at WP:CV (including the  template), but that's (fortunately) an entirely separate issue.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improved(?) version

message: I've added thre relatively newly created to this template.  It is used when 2 or more speedy deletion reasons apply to the same page.  DES (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  db-multiple