GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.



Why would u delete this? I happen to use it and like it and i think others should use it too The preceding unsigned comment was added by (contribs) .

I find it hilarious when ppl try to wipe a page thinking it'll be deleted. Any and all data files don't work like that, .doc, html, .txt, jpg. -.- --8765 13:38, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Lol - was the original comment from someone thinking the {{delete}} template was going to be deleted because er, it had a {{delete}} template on it? :D --Snograt talk here 14:36, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
Yes. Though I would say it was intentional if it wasn't a anon edit. --8765 18:24, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

how do you put this on images? it doesnt seem to show properly. — ~Soqed Hozi~ 17:02, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

The same way you add it to all other articles. The tag appears below the picture if that's what you mean --Gimmethegepgun 17:36, 24 September 2007 (CDT)
hmm...nvm i posted (( instead of {{...silly me. — ~Soqed Hozi~ 18:41, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

auto-date stamp[]

The auto-date stamp doesn't work. There are two problems here; first, the template should use variable "2" for the manually keyed date ... the second being that it should be set to not show anything if no date is manually keyed, as the code will not automatically insert it if not manually done. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 17:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It works now. --Warwick sig.JPG Warwick (Talk)/(Contr.) 17:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
No, the default date is hard coded now (will never change). --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 17:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Nope, look: (Removed to remove from cat) --Warwick sig.JPG Warwick (Talk)/(Contr.) 17:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You manually keyed the date code in that example. If the user doesn't manually key it, the template now defaults to a static date that never changes. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 17:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I didnt, barek. Type in {{Delete|Hi|~~~~~ and it'll work. --Warwick sig.JPG Warwick (Talk)/(Contr.) 17:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you did, by your own admission - you manually inserted the code "~~~~~". Now try it without that. If the user fails to provide that data, it defaults to "17:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)" ever time. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 17:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh! I thought you meant I'd manually added the date.. Thats admittedly troublesome. Hmm.. --Warwick sig.JPG Warwick (Talk)/(Contr.) 17:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I **Think** I know how to fix it: Nowiki with noinclude , but I cant figure out how to close the noinclude tags.. --Warwick sig.JPG Warwick (Talk)/(Contr.) 18:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that the "nowiki" tag causes all subsequent code to be ignored, so you can't nest it that way. I think the best we can do is use the code {{#if: {{{2|}}} | as of {{{2|}}} }} so that if a date is not provided, then the "as of" section is omitted entirely. I'll insert it now so we can test. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, thats a better idea, I suppose. --Warwick sig.JPG Warwick (Talk)/(Contr.) 18:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, that works. One additional option could be to add code so that if the second variable is omitted, then the page is added to a category for "delete tags without a date stamp" (or something shorter might be better). I'll leave that for others to decide, I need to go now - real world calls. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't really consider the date when I view the delete tags. I log in and check Category:Candidates for deletion regularly enough that I know how long things have been there. Sometimes I don't get to them right away because I haven't decided or wanted to wait for objections and stuff which is why they sit there, but I at least, always see them. —JediRogue 18:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong opinions either way on it - I was just trying to avoid having broken code. But, to be honest, when I was an admin here I used the history tab rather than date stamps (we used to have them on some of the templates used in the builds section when it was here). Manually inserted date stamps can be gamed to attempt to trick a speedier deletion from admins who aren't paying enough attention, while the history tab is more reliable. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 19:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Autofill summary[]

I've been fiddling with some code, and we can use a mediawiki parim to automatically create a delete link with the summary filled in (code's at User:Randomtime/Delete) - any objections with me using this on the delete template? -- RandomTime 17:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)