Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< August 20 August 22 >

Contents

[edit] August 21

[edit] Template:Infobox British Royalty

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox British Royalty (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Superfluous and unused. All information that could be added using this template can be more than adequately added using the more ubiquitous Template:Infobox Monarch. Bob 23:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - Recently created by WikiProject British Royalty, but has not been implemented yet. Was previously nominated for deletion August 10. Gimmetrow 23:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep been through this before Brian | (Talk) 23:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep 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 {{Infobox Monarch}}, 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. Joe 02:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Monarchies of individual countries are important enough to get separate templates for each country. Puppy Mill 02:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - As this infobox will take up a great deal more space than the current one, I think this relates to my nomination below (Template:Normans, etc.). Having both would be excessive. Eixo 13:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, template is still in draft form and has yet to be used. --Terence Ong (T | C) 13:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A ridiculous nomination. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 14:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, 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? john k 15:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment This template is absolutely the ugliest one I have seen on Wikipedia 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 Template:Infobox British Royalty 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, Louise of Great Britain 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 Sophia Dorothea of Hanover. Russia or British? One simple box for all royalty is obviously cleaner, less complex and simpler. --Bob 16:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Reply 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 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? -- DBD 10:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This template is useful template because it's important that separating template for each country on monarchies of individual countries. Daniel's page ☎ 04:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Deb 16:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Template:Infobox Polish Lithuanian monarch

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Polish Lithuanian monarch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Superfluous and unused. All information that could be added using this template can be more than adequately added using the more ubiquitous Template:Infobox Monarch. Bob 23:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Monarchies of individual countries are important enough to get separate templates for each country. Puppy Mill 02:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Puppy Mill. Daniel's page ☎ 04:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, pointless as Template:Infobox Monarch does the job. Philip Stevens 06:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. Hera1187 08:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, if the British monarchy template is overwhelmingly supported to stay, then so should the POlish/Lithuanian one. Brisvegas 09:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Template:Belgian-king

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Belgian-king (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Superfluous and unused. All information that could be added using this template can be more than adequately added using the more ubiquitous Template:Infobox Monarch. Bob 23:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Monarchies of individual countries are important enough to get separate templates for each country. Puppy Mill 02:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
CommentThis template is totally, 100% redundant to the Monarch template. Indeed, there is nothing that Template:Belgian-king can bring than the other doesn't do 100% better.--Bob 16:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] English Dynastic houses

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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:

  • Historiographically, dynasties are not very useful categories. The start and end of the House of Stuart, for instance, has much less relevance to English history than the Civil War or the Glorious Revolution.
  • 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 Clovis II), 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.
  • The most pertinent information will be easily available somewhere else in the article anyway. In the case of Edward III, for instance, his most immediate family is in the infobox at top, while there's another infobox for monarchs of England at the bottom.
  • If the new Template:Infobox British Royalty is implemented, this will take up a lot more space than the current Template:Infobox Monarch, and then having also the dynasty box on the page would clutter it to a ridiculous degree.

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. Eixo 13:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - 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. Astrotrain 14:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I still say they ought to go, but if they could be reduced to nifty little fold-out templates like Template:English Monarchs they would be much easier to live with. Eixo 16:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Idiotic Stupid Ridiculous Farcical Ignorant Preposterous nomination. 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. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 14:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment WP:CIVIL, don't be a dick. --Bob 16:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
That was politer than these Idiotic Stupid Ridiculous Farcical Ignorant Preposterous nominations deserve. Regarding the nominator's justification for his bizarre nominations:
  1. "dynasties are not very useful categories"? - we are writing about dynasties. What else should be put them in templates on dynasties? Cars? Biscuits?
  2. "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.
  3. "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.
  4. "If the new Template:Infobox British Royalty is implemented, this will take up a lot more space than the current Template:Infobox Monarch." That project has not been implemented and you have tried to tried to shut down that one too.
  5. "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.
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 Wikipedia. They and numerous others were driven off by these sort of wrecking nominations. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 16:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • People are also driven off by verbal assaults as well. I strongly suggest you back off on the harsh breaches of WP:CIVIL. Standing by your comments, after being told they are uncivil, is highly improper. --Durin 16:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I will chose to ignore the silly rant and rather try to clarify my argument for you:
  1. 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 it on about fifty other pages, where it is redundant.
  2. 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.
  3. Absolutely, I am not arguing against the value of infoboxes. My question is how "pertinent" it is in an article on Anne of Gloucester to inform that Henry II had a daughter named Joan, who was queen of Sicily?
  4. 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.
  5. For this see my comment above.

I really cannot feel any guilt over people who decide to leave Wikipedia over a nomination (which – I realise now – will probably fail), in which case you would have to question their commitment to the project in the first place. Eixo 17:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, for now. This is an issue which oughtn't be dealt with in "templates for deletion," but in some less polarizing forum. john k 15:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see the need for deletion. The nominating reasons for deletion are not compelling. --Durin 16:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep No good reasons for deletion have been adduced. Grouse 18:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - but some of the points which Eixo 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 wiki-editors think that they must be used always and everywhere. Noel S McFerran 22:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep 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 gaged there would have forewarned the likely reception here. Alci12 14:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Some of the points in the nomination are valid, but a re-working after discuss in the WikiProject would be far preferable to deletion -- DBD 15:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep useful and sensible templates all-in-all. CharonX/talk 14:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment - 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.
As for this nomination, I consider the consensus overwhelming and the discussion closed.Eixo 00:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Template:Warn

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Warn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template is hardly used and is not mentioned on the pages with templates (Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. 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. Fram 13:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and add to template messages list. Neil916 (Talk) 17:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unnecessarily redundant to many of the WP:UTM templates and as insufficiently clear and instructive to the recipient. Joe 17:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant. --Terence Ong (T | C) 13:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It seems useful for none standard warnings. Perhaps it can be added to the template list. HighInBC 17:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Joe. This isn't particularly useful to give someone and use of it shouldn't be encouraged. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like a level-4 warning and reads like a level-3 warning, redundant to more specific templates (I think {{bv}} would work in most cases, and {{test3}} or {{test4}} in the others), and doesn't seem preferable to handcrafting a warning. If this is kept I'll split it into {{warn3}} and {{warn4}}. --ais523 12:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I've added links to WP:VAND and WP:BP on the template, and reworded it slightly, but still want it deleted. --ais523 12:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, seems unnecessary. Brisvegas 09:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Template:Announce

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 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 Wikipedia Signpost and Template:Announcements/Community bulletin board (which appears on the Community Portal) serve the same purpose and are in current use. Delete – Gurch 09:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, redundant. --Terence Ong (T | C) 13:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not in use in the last year and a half Fram 14:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redundant. Daniel's page ☎ 04:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Template:Drmspeedy

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Drmspeedy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Template:Drmspeedy1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

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. Ansell 02:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophysduckling (talk • contribs)
  • Keep 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.) Fan-1967 03:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is an established problem. If there's an issue with the wording, then reword it – Gurch 09:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment MarkGallagher raised this issue collaterally on the WikiEN-l mailing list here; it might be useful to consider the discussion that ensued (which discussion, IIRC, went towards the proposition that the {{Drmspeedy}} 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 to inform the tagger in order that AfD might be pursued. I imagine this is consistent with Gurch's rewording suggestion... Joe 17:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment 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, unless you use {{hangon}}. 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. Fan-1967 19:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment 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 warn 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 template is useful but that the wording might be tweaked, although I'm not at all sure what locution might be better... Joe 20:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: 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. Ansell 23:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. 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? Fan-1967 14:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment My concern is with the people who retag articles, particularly using {{db-bio}} 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 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. Ansell 23:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm confused as to what step you feel is unneeded. Tagging, retagging, or encouraging the user to use hangon 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 article, and maybe haven't fully considered the incredibly huge number of absolute garbage articles that get posted and speedied every day. Fan-1967 00:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 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 warning does not reflect something the community has decided on.
  • 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 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. Ansell 01:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 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 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. Fan-1967 01:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why have a warning template for a behavior that is not even inappropriate? Christopher Parham (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or reword drastically. Speedy tags can and are removed regularly for good faith reasons. -- nae'blis 15:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep upon rewording for clarification/further clarification of CSD. 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 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.
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 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 Wikipedia's policies).
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 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 "Wikipedia:What CSD does NOT cover"/"Wikipedia:What speedy deletion is not"/"Wikipedia: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.
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 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: "Thank you for experimenting with PAGENAME. However, please be aware that an editor has nominated it for speedy deletion because the editor is concerned that the article in its current state is about a non-notable subject or is an example of what Wikipedia articles should not be. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, rather than remove the speedy delete tag as you have done, please place {{hangon}} 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." Fabricationary 23:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • 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 in my mind, and as such the existence of the warning based on a lack of policy behind it is still vague to me. Ansell 00:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reword and keep. While WP:SD 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 one has created oneself. 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. VoiceOfReason 00:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • 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. Ansell 00:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I've reworded it to be in line with the current wording of {{db-meta}} ('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. --ais523 12:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 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. Ansell 22:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.