I've bought this up before, but I'm not sure if I've only mentioned it in offhand comments about how the Delete template shouldn't be put on pages that are not for speedy deletion. I've also had arguments with people when removing it from pages.

Bottom line is that the Category:Articles for Deletion category is a category which admins go through and delete everything from... unless they decide to overrule the Delete template with a valid reason. (at least, I hope admins check for reason validity and the duplicate files, I have seen mistakes happen when admins "just delete everything")

So if there is an ongoing discussion about how worthwhile an article is, it would never be okay to but the current Delete template on it. We have a number of administrative staff and one of them will eventually just delete it.

So we need two templates. Our current one is a speedy delete template, so we need a regular Delete template. Said template would be shorter in height to be less intrusive, and blue, to be less dark and more consistent with other Delete templates. It will also categorise files into a different category. Rather than our Articles for Deletion category, this category will be monitored by admins who will view the talk pages of these articles to see if a consensus has been met, rather than to clear out. It may also be a good idea to force a timestamp parameter, and if a number of articles are suggested for deletion via a forum topic, we may also want to add an option to change the talk link from the regular talk page to the forum where things are being discussed.

It is pretty clear we need a Delete template. I'll admit that deletion discussions don't often last long because the wiki's rules often cover them, however they happen. Super Mario RPG is an example where we could have done with a Delete template. Someone added the VFD template before consensus was found. I took it down on the grounds that it would be treated as speedy deletion but I was reverted. Eventually, one of the admins did delete it while discussion clearly hadn't ended, and procedures to take if the article was deleted were never followed, simply because it was deleted because it had a template on it, not as the result of the discussion on its talk page.

I didn't know whether to write this forum asking whether we need two distinguished delete templates, or telling you we need them. I think I went a bit more for the latter.

However, if we have two delete templates we will need two names. IMO, the speedy delete should have a short name. One suggestion would be "VFD" for speedy, and "Delete" for the regular delete template. I have no problems with this. However, it will mean that users will have to get used to typing something new.

But users rather quickly got used to using "Delete" over "VFD".

But yeah, that's my input on the discussion. JBed 23:29, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

At the moment we have three delete templates: the Generic "Delete", or "VFD" template, the Dup template (for duplicate files) and the None selected template for unlicensed files, and just today I've already suggested a fourth "Unused" template (as currently seen in my Sandbox, which could automatically be added by a bot if one can be created.

I think a speedy delete (or SD) template, along with a speedy delete category would be more convenient for the admins as it avoids having to sift through all the VFD's which hasn't been settled, but even with a SD template, admins would still have to decide that the page should be deleted, instead of blindingly nuking them.

I would suggest SD and Dup have the Speedy Delete category, and Delete (VFD) and None Selected (and Unused, if it gets created) go into the normal Articles for Deletion category. Jeppo (Talk | contribs) 23:58, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Jonny actually brought up a little problem we often run into that I had put out of my mind: that indeed sometimes I cannot easily tell whether a page or file should be deleted or it warrants further discussion. I fully support the creation of a SD template. We could then do without the Dup template and limit ourselves to using either the SD or the VFD templates. Fëasindë ^Peth 03:01, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

I've created a draft of what the normal delete template could look like. Since Kefka is universally used for our delete templates I thought it would be apt to use his less powerful human version, instead of his omnipotent god version:-

	Kefka: There's a reason "oppose" rhymes with "dispose".
	This article has been nominated for deletion, subject to further discussion, for the following reason(s):-
	{{{reason}}}
	All editors are encouraged to voice their opinions on its talk page. You may continue to edit this page, but this article should not be deleted or this notice removed until the discussion is closed.

And the Speedy Delete could look like this:-

	"Where did these things come from? And where are they going? These things, I am going to destroy!!"
	This article has been nominated for deletion as soon as possible for the following reason(s):-
	{{{reason}}}
	If you want to object to this deletion, you may replace this notice with the code {{Delete|{{{reason}}}}}, and voice your opinion on its talk page.
	You may continue to edit this page, however, do not remove the deletion application.

What do you think? Jeppo (Talk | contribs) 11:46, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest:

	Kefka: There's a reason "oppose" rhymes with "dispose".
	This article has been nominated for deletion, subject to further discussion, for the following reasons: {{{reason}}}.
	Editors are encouraged to voice their opinions on its talk page. You may continue to edit this page, but this notice should not be removed until the discussion is closed.

Lesser height. I removed the point about the article not being deleted until the discussion is over because we assume that the staff know how to deal with it.

I would also suggest a mandatory timestamp for normal Delete. So if something has been nominated for Deletion for a longer time then coming to a conclusion there is more important.

I also don't necessarily see why Dup should go. The dup template is specially designed, and the only thing you need to insert is a link to the other file. It forces people to link to the image it is a duplicate of instead of just saying "we already have this image". 79.69.201.173 13:12, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

It's good to get a forced timestamp. So many instances of the delete template placed without a reason and admins had to figure out for themselves why an item needs to be deleted. ^BLUER一番 13:31, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Bump because I want this done already. JBed 18:31, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

So do I. Any objections from anyone?(Cat + meow)(RC + Sbox) = FFW 23:34, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

I would like this to happen as well.Keltainentoukokuu 00:35, July 5, 2012 (UTC)

Catuse, using the template names "VFD" and "Delete" is ridiculous. One needs to be called "SD" otherwise their name's are completely arbitrary. JBed 22:56, July 6, 2012 (UTC)

Bah. I'll be movin' Delete to SD then, I guess, and VFD to Delete.(Cat + meow)(RC + Sbox) = FFW 22:57, July 6, 2012 (UTC)

OK, so now Category:Articles for Deletion will temporarily serve as the speedy-delete category, until an admin mops up all the files, etc., that have Delete on them. (Cat + meow)(RC + Sbox) = FFW 23:01, July 6, 2012 (UTC)