ConfirmEdit

I've highlighted the word confirm. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:16, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Important noticeEdit

  • I added an important reminder to the page since I notice that a number of admins seem to forget it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed

It is your responsibility to do the deletion cleanly and not leave broken links, broken redirects, or red boxes in articles.

Although it's nice to clean articles, it is not required. I rarely do it: only admins can delete images, whereas anyone can clean redlinks from articles. dbenbenn | talk 18:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

There's no reason why you shouldn't do it: deleted images usually only a few (if not one) page(s) linking to them, and unless you're on a mass-deletion spree, it's very helpful. Perhaps a suggestion that "It is greatly recommended that you clean up after the deletion and not leave broken links, broken redirects, or red boxes in articles." — Ambush Commander(Talk) 03:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I am always on a mass-deletion spree. Check out Category:Images with unknown source, Category:Images with unknown copyright status, and their sub-categories. Admins are barely able to keep up with deleting images; I truly don't have the time to also worry about removing links from articles. dbenbenn | talk 22:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

...along with all of its history.Edit

Do we really need "history" to be a link to the page's history? If the page has a history a reminder always comes up anyway. -- Francs2000   03:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That is very true. But this could be for the newbies. However, I too feel that this is a bit redundent. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it useful, especially with popups. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Link to page logEdit

After having read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war, I boldly added a link to the page log [1]. I hope this is useful. --Ligulem 10:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've narrowed the link to deletes and restores [2]. --Ligulem 14:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate?Edit

What does "inappropriate content" mean? Staecker 19:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Outdated code for image namespaceEdit

In the current code of this message the part

{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|Image='''Also check the file links ...

is wrong, since a completely different message is shown when you delete a file. This part should be replaced with something like

{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:Image}}=
{{#ifexist:Media:{{PAGENAME}}
|This is a local page of [[commons:image:{{PAGENAME}}|Commons image]]
|This is a page of non-existent image
}}

And the #switch should be merged with the following #ifeq. —AlexSm 04:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

 Y Done - Seems some one has added your text suggestion. And I have just updated the switch-case logic due to the rename of the namespace "Image:" to "File:", and I did the merge of the switch logic you correctly pointed out.
--David Göthberg (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussionEdit

We discussed at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Deletion_reason of the importance to link to the discussion when a deletion is based on a deletion discussion, I propose to add this:

  • If you intend to delete as a result of a deletion debate, link the discussion in the deletion log.

Cenarium Talk 17:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

 Y Done - Seems someone has added it. --David Göthberg (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"Inappropriate content"Edit

I'm certain that this relates to the "content was... and only contributor was..." that was the deletion autofill before we disabled it (there was a VPT discussion somewhere, we needed a MediaWiki patch to be able to blank it). The summaries in the deletion dropdown are carefully worded to be universally acceptable. Happymelon 15:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but since there is still a deletion summary box, the suggestion for caution still would seem to apply. Perhaps reworded? - jc37 15:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The point is that it's no longer going to be filled with anything other than what the admin chooses to put into it. What are we cautioning against?? Happymelon 16:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
"Ensure that the deletion summary does not contain inappropriate content, as log entries are publicly visible."
There were several issues with incivil summaries (among other things - potential oversight issues, for example) in the past. (Including talk pages, AN/I, and even arbcom, as I recall.) So this is a caution to admins to be conscious of what they place in the edit summary. This in particular since, unlike how edit summaries currently work, you can't "preview" the deletion summary.
And as for the second half: "Note: The reason selected from the dropdown box will be shown in addition to the deletion summary in the text box."
This is a helpful note for anyone who might not know that this is true. - jc37 16:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Though I don't think it's a "text box" now... - jc37 16:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at. I think it makes most sense to combine it with the bullet above, in that case: how about this:

Thoughts? Happymelon 16:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we should probably stick to the words "inappropriate content", as it seems more inclusive of all the various issues that could occur?
How about:
Provide an informative summary that explains clearly why you are deleting the page. You may use one of the common reasons from the dropdown menu, a handwritten summary, or both, as appropriate. Ensure that the deletion summary does not contain inappropriate content, as log entries are publicly visible. If you are closing a deletion discussion, please link to that discussion in the summary.
We may want to re-arrange the sentence order. Also, I don't know if we want to cram it all into a single bullet. (Unless there is a particular reason you wish to?) - jc37 17:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It makes sense to my mind to have it in one bullet because it covers one topic: the edit summary. The second bullet is about the mechanics of the form itself - the fact that it used to get filled up with potentially-dangerous content, and that the two appear together. Those issues are now less relevant: it's all about the admin's own actions. The "publically visible" clause is particularly unnecessary, we hopefully all know that nearly everything is publically visible here. What about:
Does that cover everything? Happymelon 17:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe. Though I think we risk tl-dr with it...
I'm going to try to re-arrange a bit, and we can always see from there... - jc37 18:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I made it a bit more readable, yet while retaining everything from the past and still implementing what we've discussed here.
What do you think? - jc37 19:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
You managed to make it even longer, without changing anything :P I like some of the new wording, but it's still teaching old grannies to suck eggs in many cases. I've made a couple of cuts; what do you think? Happymelon 20:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I can see why you merged the two sentences to the same bullet. I'm just concerned that having anything too long at a single bullet may lead to unconscious disregard in "scanning".
Also, I don't know the reason for the NS syantax, but I saw it in one place on the page, so I used it for the other link as well. Whichever we use, it should be the same in both locations.
And yes, the whole idea is to make this clear for any admin of any experience curve. I'm rather tempted to add something with a link to CSD as well... - jc37 23:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I can certainly see an argument for linking to WP:CSD, maybe in the first bullet. However, as you note, less is more, and we should be avoiding making the instructions too long or risk admins simply glazing over them. I have no idea what the ns: syntax is for, it seems useless to me since this message can't be ported to other wikis. Happymelon 15:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad this is being discussed- see my question above from Nov 2007. IMO any use of the phrase "inappropriate content" is asking for trouble, since it's so vague. What about something like:

I disagree with Happy Melon that everybody should assume everything is publicly visible- an unexperienced admin will delete something with the expectation that the entirety of the deleted page will cease to be public. They would be correct, except for any portion of the page which may appear in the summary. Isn't that the whole point of this little notice? Staecker (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I fully agree with you, Staecker, and this was indeed the reason for the notice. However, the situation where bits of the page text are randomly loaded into the deletion summary is no longer the case, thus nullifying, IMO, the need for the warning. Fortunately, in the rare instance where an error is made, we now have RevDelete to oversight logs. But since the only content that now goes into logs is what the admin chooses to put there, it's a completely different ballgame to the simple mistakes that were previously common. Happymelon 15:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Heh- now having read the above discussion I agree tis a different situation. Are you now saying that the warning is unnecessary? It certainly seems that way to me. WP admins who presumably are aware of NPA, etc. should at the very least be able to refrain from libel and other miscellaneous nonsense in deletion summaries. Staecker (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
This was my contention; Jc37 disagrees, however. If we drop the "inappropriate content" bullet, we can easily justify merging the "deletion debate" bullet into the main one, to get back to just one bullet for "what to put in the deletion summary". Does that sound like a good idea? Happymelon 17:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor grammatical issuesEdit

{{editprotected}}

This is really (really) nitpicky (apologies) but technically the second sentence of the last parent bullet point doesn't have complete parallelism. It currently reads "You may select one of the common reasons from the dropdown menu, use a handwritten summary, or both" but should be either "...handwritten summary, or use/do both" OR "You may select use one of the common reasons from the dropdown menu, use a handwritten summary, or both." I'd also like to propose that the WhatLinksHere link be separated to What links here, to match the actual text in the toolbox (Alternatively, it could be Special:WhatLinksHere to match the url). ~ Amory (utc) 21:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

  Done Thanks for the detail. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 23:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Warn when deleting protected pagesEdit

Nowadays we can detect in template code if a page is protected, so I am planning to update MediaWiki:Filedelete-intro so it shows a warning message when an admin tries to delete a protected image. I will also update MediaWiki:Confirmdeletetext in the same way so admins get a warning when deleting other protected pages. Read more about this and discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items#High-risk images.

--David Göthberg (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

 Y Done - Unfortunately we have no way of detecting if a page is cascade protected, but at least we now warn when any other kind of protection.
--David Göthberg (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Add link to delete an associated talk pageEdit

I suggest adding a link to delete an associated talk page by adding this code at the end of the bulleted list:

{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}} |{{TALKSPACE}}=<!--Don't display on talk pages--> |{{ns:User}}=<!--Don't suggest to delete user talk page--> |#default={{#ifexist:{{TALKPAGENAME}}|* In most cases, <span class=plainlinks>[{{fullurl:{{TALKPAGENAMEE}}|wpReason={{urlencode:[[WP:CSD#G8|G8]]: [[Help:Talk page|Talk page]] of a page being deleted}}&action=delete}} delete]</span> the associated talk page [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}]].}} }}

It only displays if you are deleting a non-talk page which has a talk page. It doesn't display on user pages since we rarely delete user talk pages. On MediaWiki:Confirmdeletetext it would display:

The talk link is replaced with bold text here since it's a selflink. I came here after seing Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Reward for a task! about Wikipedia:Reward board#Add a "delete associated talk page checkbox" to the delete form (contact Doc James). My suggestion is local and leads to a separate deletion form so it doesn't qualify for the award. If phab:T27471 (Add "Delete associated talk page" option to action=delete) is implemented then it may not have a suitable prefilled deletion reason. My suggestion says "G8: Talk page of a page being deleted". PrimeHunter (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

User:MER-C thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
There are three reasons why I've gone for the MediaWiki improvement - (1) there are hundreds of other Wikimedia projects that can benefit from this, (2) the proposed solution requires exactly one click and (3) it has more visibility than a another bullet point in this list. I suppose adding the item has no drawbacks and may have some benefit. I expect as part of the solution to the bug, a new system message would be created as the reason for deleting the talk page, just like MediaWiki:Delete and move reason does when you need to delete a page to make room for a move.
There was also a comment on the Phabricator ticket about the decrepit state of the delete form code. Sigh. I don't expect the taker to perform the necessary refactoring, but I'm not WMF code review. MER-C 19:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Confirmdeletetext" page.