Template talk:Delete

Imprvement
I took a look at the current Delete template, and it is very plain jane. I wrote an extra line to link the user to the talk page (to discuss deletion), which could be added underneath the current message, so that users can discuss deletions. I haven't implimented it yet, as I wanted some input beforehand. The code is: To debate the deletion of this article, visit the |talk page. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Xrodak (talk • contribs) at 01:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC). Please sign your posts with
 * I agree the situation should be better explained. Good idea linking to the talk page, but I suggest this wording:

This page has been tagged for deletion by a user for the following reason:

To contest this deletion, create a topic on the |talk page and change this template to
 * Then a different template called Template:Contestdelete should be made so that if a user does contest the deletion, the admin (and other editors) will know to check for backing up arguments before making a final decision. Is this a good idea or should it just be kept to one template? --Gnu32 02:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Eh, I don't think you really need to have a contested (even a parameter). The admin should check if there is discussion or the delete reason is valid. --JonTheMon 04:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Change of color?
I think it'd be appropriate to change the color of the delete template to the same color as the disclaimer template, so it stands out from the other message-boxes and shows its importance. Does anyone agree?--Quatroking -  MCWiki Administrator  15:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Disable notice template cat on template pages
Can the arg "nocat=1" be added as includeonly so that templates tagged with this do not add to the categroy "notice templates"? – KnightMiner  (t·c) 22:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Author request
I think author requests should have there own template. It would be as follows: 71.212.10.80 01:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Another template really isn't necessary. Just use . -- Orthotopetalk 01:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The thing about doing it that way is that if it is an author request, the discuss part is irrelevant. The other possibility is to add a parameter that reformats the template if defined.71.212.10.80 15:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion link ends up being irrelevant in the majority of deletion taggings (and not just here, but across most wikis, even including Wikipedia). In such cases, there is zero harm in having the link anyways and it just being ignored. On the other hand, there are valid cases where a page tagged for deletion by author request should be discussed before being deleted, so not only would adding code to automatically detect author requested deletions and hide the discussion link just be unnecessary extra complexity, but there would have to be still more complexity added to allow said hiding to be overridden when needed. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 18:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

&lt;i&gt; HTML tag
Why use ? Just use  – Dentedharp90041tce 16:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Because you can't add HTML classes to wikitext. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 02:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

What icon to use?
A little earlier today, Chungui23 changed the icon to, I started a brief discussion on their talk page about it as I dislike that as icon because it is not a Minecraft object.

I instead suggested a cauldron or composter  as they kinda look like trash cans.

What do all of you think? Trash can, cauldron, composter or (currently) BE structure void? Dhranios (talk) (Join the wiki videos project!) 19:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The structure void is fine but I feel that it should resemble not like a warning or something red (like what the structure void does) but a trash can in minecraft (suggested by ) I would support a composter (Composter (compost level 5).png} that has 5 layers of compost. Maybe even an open jungle trapdoor on top?Humiebee (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)