Template talk:Db-meta/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Older discussions

Discussions about an old very different state

Do not delete this template

This template should not appear under Category:Candidates for speedy deletion -- this template itself is not a candidate for speedy deletion! Please do not speedily delete it. (If you really don't like it, list it at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion.) Thanks, • Benc • 01:35, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why this page exists

This template is an alternative (not a replacement!) to Template:Delete. It is parameterized, allowing users to add a brief reason as to why the target article is a candidate for speedy deletion. Sample usages:

• {{deletebecause|this page is patent nonsense}}
• {{db|unused user page}} (db is a shorthand redirect to this template)

Original discussion

Moved from Template talk:Delete.

I think that it would be a bit easier if we had an additional speedy delete template, for when the reason for an article's deletion might not be so blatantly obvious. I know that the talk page is there for that purpose, but it's rather time-wasting to first edit the page, insert the speedy delete message, save it, open the talk page, post the reason for deletion, and save it. It's more convenient if you only have to insert the message {{del reason|reason=Reason goes here.}}, which would produce:

This would not be a replacement for Template:Delete; it would simply be a convenience. Please note that "del reason" is just a temporary name; I haven't thought of a really good one yet. I'm just looking for some feedback. The test version is at User:Mike Storm/sandbox2. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 21:25, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I came up with the exact same idea several days ago at Template:deletebecause. Example usages:

• {{deletebecause|this page may qualify as patent nonsense}}
• {{deletebecause|I no longer use this user subpage}}

The template has since been accidentally deleted unilaterally deleted for reasons unstated. I suppose the deleter thought it wasn't such a hot idea. That's okay; I have some reservations about it myself:

1. m:Instruction creep: we don't want to create more work for anybody
2. Some sysops may take the reason blurb at face value, not fully investigating it to make sure the deletion is valid

Still, it might be worth a trial run. • Benc • 22:08, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It won't be more work for anybody, since it'll be completely optional whether you use Template:Delete or Template:Deletebecause (I like that name). Also, I inserted the reason using {{User talk:Mike Storm/sandbox2|reason=Reason goes here.}}, and putting <nowiki>{{{reason}}} in the actual template. How did you do it without "reason="? [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 23:09, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You're right that its being optional pretty much negates the instruction creep issue. Some people are confused by having more than one option, though (<tangent>which is the only minor quibble I have with your substubs :-)</tangent>). Still, I think this is worth a try. Anyway, for unnamed parameters: use {{{1}}}. See m:Help:Template#Parameters for more info. • Benc • 23:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a fantastic idea. -- SS 22:59, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A good idea, (get rid of all those substubs) but e.g. template:del is a redirect. Can we shorten it to avoid typing "because"? Dunc_Harris|☺ 23:20, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like the idea, this type of idea makes me wish for m:Extended template syntax —siroχo 05:53, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Page creation

As this idea has gained nothing but support (excepting several accidental deletions), I went ahead and re-implemented it in the Template namespace. I've also created Template:db as a redirect to this template for those fond of shorthand. • Benc • 01:52, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Link

Is there a reason we link to template:delete with a comma? ([[Template:Delete|,]]. I was about to remove the comma from the link, because I thought it was included in the link accidentally, but apparently this was intentional. Seems quite counter-intuitive. anthony 警告 22:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lots of templates have that feature written in. It is a hidden link back to the template so it can be edited later. It may also be useful in case anyone does a Subst: on template on a page, because it will still show in the templates Whatlinkshere. -- Netoholic @ 02:37, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

It's not a link back to the template though, it's a link to a different template. Anyway, if there's precedent, whatever. anthony 警告 12:30, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The self-referential link was corrected on 22 Aug 05. Rossami (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

rename

I moved this template to {{Db-reason}}, leaving {{deletebecause}} as a redirect, for consistancy in anming all the speedy deletion templates, and so they will all group together in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. DES ^(talk) 22:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Transclusion

Several of the other speedy deletion templates are currently implemented as a call to (transclusion of) this template, with the reason parameter filled in. IMO all the speedy deletion templates should be so implemented (with the exception of {{delete}} that has no reason specified). This would mean that any change in this template's wording would be automatically reflected in all the other speedy deletion templates, and thus the wording would been consistent, except for the specific reason.

The usual argument about server performance and possible widespread vandalism used to oppose meta-templates don't, IMO, apply here, since none of the speedy delete templates are (I should hope) likely to be on a large number of articles at once, nor are those articles likely to be frequently accessed. Therefore, i suggest that all speedy deletion templates be retained in the form of a call to this template (with the exception of {{delete}} as mentioned above. DES ^(talk) 17:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates makes a point of saying they should be avoided on "pages that are at all popular". Speedyable pages, typically being very new and very poorly-linked, are only rarely viewed. Replication lag shouldn't be an issue either, since Category:Candidates for speedy deletion doesn't often grow past 200 articles, many of which will be tagged {{delete}} instead of one of the {{db-reason}} descendants anyway. —Cryptic (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Very well, I am easily swayed and I guess this makes more sense. Just following the standard procedure on templates within templates but since I don't really use these any more and it would be convenient ( I guess) I will undo my changes. =) Happy editing. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 20:40, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

A little laugh

From a friend and myself to help relieve the wikistress. Agriculture 03:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Instead of risking reputation, you could have just done this on your userpage or Uncyclopedia. - Kookykman|(t)(c)

articles --> pages

Can someone please change "articles that you have created yourself" to "pages that you have created yourself"? I just applied this tag to a template (a recreation of a deleted one), and its author removed it. I'd like to eliminate any unintentional namespace loophole. Thanks! —Lifeisunfair 12:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Done, and please whack that rules lawyer with a wet trout. Radiant_>|< 01:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Tweaked template

Besides a few very minor changes (removed a double-space, for example), I surrounded the category tag with an optional parameter. This fixes the "technical limitation" that prevents it from being displayed on non-speedy-deletable pages by making the category default, but not mandatory. For example, {{db-reason|blah}} will transclude the category tag, but it can be omitted by using {{db-reason|blah| }} (space for second parameter). There is absolutely no difference in usage, merely a new hidden feature used on non-speedy-deletable pages. // Pathoschild 18:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The non-mandatory categorization was already implemented earlier this month using a named-parameter approach (parameter "displayonly") which worked for both this template and its dependent templates (from Category_talk:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion#Fixing_a_categorization_bug). Some feedback about the new edit: 1) The dependent templates and pages were not updated, so Wikipedia:Template messages/All and Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion reappeared under Category:Candidates for speedy deletion (this has been fixed) 2) Some templates have a different number of parameters, leading to different usage, eg. {{db-test}} become just {{db-test|}} ie. using the first as opposed to the second parameter to override 3) Template:Db-bio has adapted a "nocat" parameter which is basically the same as the old "displayonly" parameter, even though the named parameter approach has been abandoned by this template. So, should we use the named or unnamed approach? Personally I prefer named (as before) because it is more consistent. Shawnc 12:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I mildly prefer the named parameter approach, as long as it's only the override that needs to be named, and not all parameters. (End users rarely bother using named params even when they need to, like in {{db-copyvio}}...) Pathoschild did some good work on the templates, making them all consistent, allowing them all to display correctly on the template page, allowing inheritance (db-band -> db-bio -> db-reason), and generally cleaning up a hodge-podge of messy code and different template schemes. I just propagated his work to all of the dependent templates, and fixed some bugs. I would be inclined not to change things if they work... But if someone would like to re-do the templates using a consitent approach across the board I would not object. Just please make sure when we're done that the templates all work (with both named, unnamed, and missing end-user parameters) and put the articles (but not themselves) into CAT:CSD. I just spend a couple of hours fixing these templates and null-editing articles, and I'd hate to have to do it again... :) Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 12:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I'm glad to see a central discussion of these templates. It seems there have been too many ad-hoc changes to them by too many people. And I don't think everyone who's tried editing understands the templates and their dependencies completely, and the consequences of their code choices. Hopefully we can come up with a consistent and extenable scheme (so that any template can have sub-templates like db-band / db-club from db-bio).... and hopefully we can document it in a way that future editors who wish to make new templates or tweak the exisitng ones can do so without breaking anything. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 13:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

We can use the approach found in {{db-copyvio}}, where the named parameter "url" is an option, not a requirement. A named parameter in use can standarize usage and denote its functionality more explicitly than an unnamed empty parameter. The old edit fixed the limitation just as the new one does, but it's good to have standarized templates that work and are intuitive to use. If a parameter such as "displayonly"/"nocat" exists somewhere, it should be standarized across the related templates (as done previously), otherwise it becomes an ad hoc usage. Shawnc 23:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Support for "nocat" has been added for the templates. It is optional and does not have to be specified (the empty parameter will still work). To be consistent, I suggest that we also implement it here. Shawnc 02:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool. I agree that "nocat" support should be added here is well, for consistency. Tread carefully, though... Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 02:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

An interesting property of "nocat" is that it could be used to replace the category spec, instead of remove it. :) Of course that would be gross, counterituitive and a Bad Idea, when the caller can just categorize itself in the usual way. I think when we're done we need to document what's going on inside these templates, and write a "how to clone/modify" so that well-intentioned editors don't inadvertenly break them. At its worst, template programming feels like an evil cross between the Lambda Calculus and INTERCAL.  :) Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 02:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

(Ah yes, but such an evil scheme can be done even without "nocat", meh heh) :> Shawnc 03:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think that 'nocat' is a very bad idea. It's only reason for existence seems to be that it makes testing the templates easier (but anybody who doesn't know who templates work has no business working with speedy deletions); and if this parameter is used improperly it will mess up the category system, by listing speedy-deletable articles in the wrong category, or nowhere at all. Radiant_>|< 18:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• • User:Uncle G has expressed some worries on my talk page ("This creates the possibility of articles being tagged with a speedy deletion tag and remaining tagged indefinitely") as has User:Netoholic ("I worry that this implementation may break something unforeseen, either now or in the future."). Unless there's a very good reason for the added complexity, it should be dropped. Radiant_>|< 18:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand the concern. The focus, though, should not be on the "nocat" tag but the whole "no categorization" implementation (eg. by Pathoschild), which was built into {{db-reason}} itself; the "nocat" tag merely documents that modification. That is, even if the "nocat" tag was not used, {{db-reason|blah| }} can still be used to override categorization (which is even easier to type accidentally than {{db-reason|blah|nocat=}}) Actually, {{db-reason|blah|CATEGORY}} can be used, such that {{db-reason|this article is nonsense|[[Category:Wikipedia featured content]]}} will mark an article as featured content material as opposed to speedy deletion material.

The unwanted appearance of Wikipedia:Template messages articles under CAT:CSD is a minor nuisance, so feel free to revert all these changes. Shawnc 22:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, done. If necessary, people could fix Wikipedia:Template messages to link to the templates rather than including them, thus keeping it out of categories. But nobody in their right mind would speedily delete that anyway, so it's hardly that big a deal. Radiant_>|< 03:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

This not just an issue for Wikipedia:Template messages. Now all the dependant speedy deletion templates are included in CAT:CSD. To get around that without an category override would require subst'ing this template into all the dependent templates... and I emphatically don't want to see that done as it would make those templates unreadable and harder to edit. Like I said above, we really should have a centralized discussion before editing these templates, as the consequences of changing them are subtle and far-reaching.

Now how likely is it that someone will tag an article as {{nn-bio|nocat=}} by mistake? Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 03:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Hm, interesting. Shouldn't "includeonly" take care of that? Radiant_>|< 03:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • No, because (for example) {{db-vand}} includes {{db-reason}} in exactly the same way as a candidate article would include {{db-reason}}. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 03:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• About shortcuts... I don't care too much about this issue, but the shortcut tag was there to document the other templates that redirect there. So in a sense, {{db}} is a shortcut to {{db-reason}}. However, I don't mind that the shortcut tag is removed not because it is incorrect, but because most people who use the template redirects do so because they have them memorized, and don't need to be reminded. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 03:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Some remaining issues are:

1) The possibility of articles being tagged with a speedy deletion tag and remaining tagged indefinitely.

(The chance of this happening accidentally is decreased by requiring the use of a named parameter such as "nocat=")

2) The possibility of the category being replaced.

(This is always a possibility in the implementation so far)

These issues would not exist if we choose not to display the templates inside themselves, but instead point out what the template does. Shawnc 04:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

My comments:

1) Yes, the use of a named parameter, especially an obscure one decreases the probability of this. But as someone actually posted that hack to WP:CSD, there is the possibility that someone might do it intentionally, though I can't fathom why.

Well it may be done as a cunning joke: create a horrible article, then tag it with a fake speedy-delete tag, hoping that casual editors won't notice that the categorization did not actually occur, and the article could remain on Wikipedia for a long time). Shawnc

2) Maybe I should have kept my nouth shut and not drawn attention to that side effect earlier in this discussion :)

Alas, the Pandora's Box was opened! Shawnc

3) Add the issue of the depedent templates, and "illustrative" pages like Wikipedia:Template messages being incorrectly categorized.

It was recently suggested that we should be "making MediaWiki feature requests rather than kludging" :) Shawnc

4) I would hate to see the issue resolved either by subst-ing or by not showing the template. Subst'ing decreases the editability and maintainability of the templates. Not showng the template content decreases the usability of the templates, as people expect WYSIWYG, and editors want to know what a template does before they attach it to an article.

Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 04:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that it's easy to keep these templates out of CAT:CSD without using the nocat trick, just by using <includeonly> appropriately. I'll go do that now ... dbenbenn | talk 04:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• If that works, great. Let's see what the implmentation looks like. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 04:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • But it looks to me like it also hides the template appearance from the end user. That is sub-optimal. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 04:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• A new suggestion: can we use an "if" template to check the {{Namespace}} and don't categorize if we're in the Template namespace? This would allow dependent templates to be kept out of CAT:CSD without resorting to an abuseable category-override parameter. And these templates aren't usually used for deleting templates, as those usually go to TfD.

Unless it's a Wikimedia software-based "if", I suggest we don't mention that word. ;> Shawnc 05:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right. But it would have been such an elegant kludge.  ;) Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been busy moving to a temporary new home over the last couple days and had no access to the Internet. Unfortunately, I ran out of time before I could finish troubleshooting the templates I had already modified. I apologize for the mess that resulted, and intend on addressing all the issues raised above.

Reading the discussion above, I agree that a named parameter is better, since it prevents accidental removal from the speedy-delete category. Intentional removal from a category is not a pressing issue; the user who placed the tag is likely to watch it for vandalism, and besides which the same could be done with previous implementations of speedy delete templates by subst'ing and editing. // Pathoschild 05:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: These templates have alll been through five revisions this month to try to address the categorization vs. display vs. accidental non-categorization vs. maintainability issue...

• December 9 User:Shawnc adding displayonly= to prevent miscategorization of the templates
• December 21 Pathoschild adding un-named parameter to accompilsh the same thing, and also cleaning up templates to allow the content to appeat, un-subst'ed on the template page
• December 21 User:Segv11 to fix error in above edit that prevented article categorization
• December 22 User:Shawnc to standardize on "nocat=" in addiotion to the unnamed parameter
• December 23 User:Radiant to remove the "notcat" and the un-named parameter, but as a side effect forcing the templates into CAT:CSD
• December 23 User:Dbenbenn to prevent the templates going into CAT:CSD using <noinclude>, and as a side effect hiding the template appearance on the template page

Let's discuss proposed changes here, and try to reach consensus before doing another round of editing all the templates. That will save a lot of work. It will also allow all of us to understand what we're doing as well as the advantages, disadvantages and side-effects of each prposed implementation $mdsdh; before we foist the changes off on the rest of Wikipedia.  :) Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

(Wait, what? removed nonsensical own text. >_>) I propose we go with the 'nocat' parameter combined with the usual <includeonly> syntax. There should be no problem if the category tags are placed in the individual templates and not in the db-reason metatemplate. // Pathoschild 09:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll do that, then. If anyone can list some of the pages on which the templates need to be without the speedy-delete category, it would much simplify troubleshooting. // Pathoschild 19:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

To resolve the issues above, I'll move the speedy-delete category tag to the subsidiary templates. I'll also implement a 'category' parameter across all the templates to allow the optional modification of the category tag. Barring anything unexpected, the transition should be completed within an hour or two. Any changes afterwards should be much easier to implement without possible collateral damage. // Pathoschild 21:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

All the templates seem to be working as expected in my sandbox tests. I'll monitor the CSD category and correct the no-category usage on any non-CSD pages that show up. // Pathoschild 21:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't work right, because if someone tags an article wih {{db-reason}} or {{db}}, the article does not wind up in CAT:CSD. I'm going to hold of on fixing it until we can discuss what to do about it. One possibility is to use "category=" everywhere, but that just puts us were we were a few days ago. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 22:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It really is a pity that if is considered harmul. Beucase the most elegant solution would be something like {{iff|{{Namespace}}|Template|then=[[Category:Speedy deletion templates]]|else=[[Category:Candidates for speedy deletion]]}} in {{db-reason}}, and no category tags in the dependent templates, and no hidden parameters needed. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 22:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Move and Split

An easy solution would be to move it to {{db-meta}} and make {{db-reason}} another dependant template. This would fit very well into the standard scheme that's now in use on the 28 other speedy-delete templates, and allow users to edit this one. For obvious reasons, allowing users to edit the metatemplate is a rather bad idea. I'm willing to makes the changes myself if everyone else agrees. // Pathoschild 23:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• I am inclined to think that this is a bad idea, and in any case should not have been put into practice without additional discussion, particualrly during the holiday season when fewer people are looking at this issue. I willnot simply revernt these changes, although i am strongly tempted to do so, but please discuss this here first. one of the benefits of the previous scheme was the assurance of db-reason and the other CSD templates having very simialr language. I am not clear what problem this mov is tring to solve -- indeed IMO the tempaltes were workign fine earlier this month before the large amount of editing. I wish this had been discussed a bit more before implemtation. DES ^(talk) 21:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• The primary benefits of the recent changes are much simplified code and the ability to display them on example and template pages. (These changes, and the split, do not in any way affect the wording; indeed, the wording is now even more standardised.) A problem arose with the fact that the metatemplate added any page it was included in to the CSD category; with the templates displayed, this added all the speedy delete templates and example pages to the category. By separating the commonly used {{db-reason}} from the meta-template, it was no longer necessary to add the category tag to both the templates and the meta-template. This resolved the problem while simultaneously allowing the unprotection of db-reason.
  
  I had invited discussion concerning the split, but an editor added the category tag to the meta-template. This fixed the non-categorisation issue with db-reason, but added all the templates to the CSD template. Due to the holiday season, as you point out, further discussion might have required several days. Since the split solves the problem, is non-disruptive, and is easily reversible, I did not see the need for extensive discussion before at least temporarily doing it. I apologize if I appeared to be acting too unilaterally; the problem is now fixed, with all the time in the world to discuss making the move permanent or using a different solution. // Pathoschild 22:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Why exactly does this need a meta-template in the first place? Other than the recent rush, those templates are rarely modified. It would be easier to simply copy/paste the same (simple) code into each CSD template, and this would also solve the "noinclude" problem mentioned above. Radiant_>|< 10:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• There's no reason not to use a metatemplate in this case. None of the reasons against the use of meta-templates apply in this case, and being forced to copy and paste every single change across thirty pages is a significant incentive never to improve the templates. // Pathoschild 14:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• There is a reason against using meta-templates here, as demonstrated by the discussion above. These templates are supposed to not be modified (indeed, they should be vprotected). And note that significant changes can be done in the CSS class. Radiant_>|< 22:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia stylesheets are inaccessible to the average user, and any changes are highly bureaucratic and would need to be applied to the seven different stylesheets. Not only do the usual reasons against metatemplates not apply, it's been in use for somewhat over a year; there's no reason to change that to a clumsy copy-and-paste method now. One way to get rid of the metatemplate, if you feel that it is absolutely necessary, would be to have a single template that displays a different message depending on the parameter; such that {{sd|G1}} or {{sd|nonsense}} would display the appropriate message for that criteria.
  
  I fail to see what relevance the discussion above has, however. You seem to be arguing that the templates should never be changed, or at least changed only with community consensus. I fully disagree with that; few parts of Wikipedia should ever be beyond initiative. Exceptions are made for policies and so forth, but these templates are simply tools to help enforce those policies. Further, changing from a meta-template to a copy-and-paste method would not make any difference to this editability. That would simply make them much less standardised. If I misinterpret your response, feel free to clarify. // Pathoschild 02:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Problem with these templates

A small problem with the way these templates appear has just been brought to my attention. If someone places a deletion template on a talk page (as they should do under, for example, CSD G8), anyone who tries to contest/comment on the deletion by clicking on the words "its talk page", as instructed by the template, will be sent to a new article. For example, if I placed {{db-meta}} on this page and then followed the link, I would be sent to Template talk talk:Db-meta which, not being a recognised namespace, would just appear as a normal article. A relatively inexperienced user, or one in a hurry, may not notice the fact that they are creating a new page in the wrong place. This is especially likely since articles tagged with speedy delete templates don't usually have talk pages, so the link usually takes you to a new page (in the Talk namespace) anyway. The only clue is the extra "talk" in the title, which is easy to miss.

I don't have sufficient experience with templates to know whether there is any way of avoiding this; I just thought it would be best to mention it here -- Gurch 09:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I've used the {{switch}} template to correct this problem. Any problems, queries or suggestions, please report them to me; as I say, it should now work. haz _(user talk)^e 18:17, 10 March 2006

Along that line I've replaced NAMESPACE:PAGENAME by SUBJECTPAGENAME for the admin links (see above for the effect). Clearly this and your modification (incl. a later #ifeq: replacing your switch) won't work as expected for the speedy deletion of a talk page. At least it's consistent. -- Omniplex 00:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hangon

Please do not use {{tl}} to link to {{hangon}}. Extreme newbies invariably click the link and edit the template directly to provide their reason for not having the page speedy deleted. There's also no reason for someone to go and view or edit the template directly, so a link here is unnecessary. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hangon, cont'd

Speaking of {{hangon}}, does anyone have any suggestions on how it can be made clear that the editor shouldn't remove the original db tag while adding hangon? I've noticed that a lot of new editors will remove the original speedy tag and replace it with {{hangon}}, which may potentially derail the deletion process.

I'm considering:

If you intend to explain why you disagree with the speedy deletion, you may add the text "hangon" with two brace brackets into the article, following the {{db-reason}} tag.

This, however, would require the template to refer to the name of the template which included it. This is probably possible; I just don't know how offhand. Any better ideas on the wording? Zetawoof^(ζ) 23:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Not possible, unless the calling template adds a parameter like called-by=db-author. But why do you need this, your proposed wording is fine, simply use it, if folks don't see db-author while looking for db-reason it's a hopeless case. Admittedly {{vandalism}} doesn't match any db-whatever. -- Omniplex 00:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! And it's been {{db-vandalism}} for awhile now. Should probably remove all/any old tags.

--William Allen Simpson 14:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Usage broken w/links

This template breaks when a link is used in {{{1}}}:

{{db-meta|[http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Wikipedia%22 google hits]}}

{{db-meta|1=[http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Wikipedia%22 google hits]}}

Weird. --Chris (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you're not supposed to call this directly, and all the callers use the form 1=, it doesn't seem to be a problem....

--William Allen Simpson 05:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've only fixed it in Template:Db-reason(edit talk links history), no idea what all the other db-whatever do. The 1= is documented here below the example for some days now. -- Omniplex 07:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

oddness

Someone else tagged an article with the db-meta tag directly, and for whatever reason the template was hidden unless I created a standard db tag below it. It also didn't add the article to the speedy deletion category.

It was simply: {{db-meta|1=Don't believe they're notable per [[WP:MUSIC]].}} -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Need for stronger request for reasons

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#CAT:CSD. Dragons flight 22:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing a speedy tag

The tag currently says: "If this page obviously does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself."

This suggests that (for someone who isn't the author) simply removing the speedy tag while "intending" to fix it is enough to keep the article from being deleted. In practice, however, if the article really does meet some CSD, then there really has to be some reason given to not speedy it, right? Should the wording of this tag reflect that fact? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Reversion

Hmmm. Gene Nygaard reverted me with the summary: "there's good reason for treating others than original authors differently". I'm confused because my edit didn't do that. The instructions already direct the author to explain themselves, so I was trying to treat other editors the same, not differently. Furthermore, no reason was given for restoring the word "obviously", which I removed as incorrect - a page not meeting the criteria should not be speedied whether or not it's obvious. I'm going to re-delete that word, and seek Gene's input regarding the other part. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I just realized I misunderstood the edit summary. Somehow I mentally inserted the word 'no'. My bad. Now my question is - what is the good reason for not asking people removing the speedy tag to either fix the article, or at least explain what's going on if "if necessary"? What on earth is the harm in that? The wording that Gene restored is mysteriously silent on what to do if you disagree with the tag for non-obvious reasons, but aren't the author. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any big problem with merely asking those other than the author to make some explanation, and it probably had as much do do with your edit summary on the other page as the one here. Reverting is often a "hangon" procedure in editing, saying let's go back to what was there because the change wasn't really an improvement, even if parts of it might be headed in the right direction.

One problem is the vagueness of the "that may be necessary" part. I'm not sure that your removal of "obviously" was necessary in any case, but what added in the other part suffers from the same kind of interpretation problems. The biggest problem isn't so much that it will mislead those intending to object to the speedy process; the biggest problem is that it gives reviewers something misinterpret as they latch onto it say that the tag was improperly removed, and it will still be speedied, but it really isn't worded clearly enough so that various editors will interpret it in anything remotely resembling a consistent way.

The mere fact that it is someone other than the original author making the removal is a pretty good indication that the speedy process should be foregone or at least suspended temporarily.

And it wouldn't hurt to reword it so that that "hangon" rather than removing the notice is available, even if you weren't the original author. Nor would it hurt to have that template include an optional parameter to specify whether the objection is based on not meeting the criteria for speedy deletion or on plans to add to the article so that it no longer meets those criteria.

But also, once an objection is raised, I think that should impose at least a little burden on the nominator to go forward; even if the objector hasn't made it clear what the objection is based on, then the nominator should more precisely specify what the nomination was based on. Maybe not as an necessary part of the process, and maybe not something that needs any great detail in the template, but as a suggestion that could reduce the wrangling. Gene Nygaard 13:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand your argument, Gene, but maybe I don't, because I don't see how the above amounts to my edit being a bad one. In the version before I edited it, the instructions were vague and subjective by using the word "obviously"; after I edited it, they were vague and subjective because of the phrase "that may be necessary". Why was the earlier version better?

I was just trying to distinguish two cases: someone speedy tagging United States on one hand, where the tag can simply be removed, as the article is clearly not a speedy candidate; and on the other hand, an article about Joe Q. Average, which looks like a speedy candidate, but wouldn't be if we knew about Joe's renown in the Nascar community. Anyone removing a speedy tag from the United States article doesn't need to do anything to "fix" the article vis-a-vis the CSD. Joe Average, on the other hand, should have that Nascar information added to his article, so future editors will know. That's really all I was trying to do, because the wording that's been there doesn't say anything about what to do with the Joe Average article. In your last paragraph there, you're arguing that any tag removal should impose an additional burden on the nominator, which I don't disagree with, but that's not what this particular edit was about. If you want to modify the instructions to allow for that, then be bold, but I don't understand what's wrong with saying that someone who sees that the article needs improvements should improve it! That seems like an independent issue.

Regarding: "it probably had as much do do with your edit summary on the other page as the one here," what are you talking about? Which other page? Which edit summary?

I understand that "may be necessary" requires interpretation, but ultimately, we have to assume that well meaning editors who disagree with each other will talk with one another and work this out. We don't need a piece of red tape to cover every conceivable situation; but it's a good idea to phrase our instructions to provide a procedure, but then leave huge holes in it.

I remain confused why you reverted me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

db-author

{{db-author}} is currently equivalent to {{db-meta|This page was mistakenly created, no one other than its original author has made substantial edits, and he or she requests its deletion (CSD G7).}}

The problem is, db-meta includes a statement telling the article's original author not to remove the tag, which is clearly inappropriate for db-author. Discussion is getting underway on how to fix this problem; if you're interested, please visit Template_talk:Db-author to read existing discussion and put your two cents in.

Thanks!

Ruakh 04:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added the "self" parameter as discussed at Template talk:Db-author#Poor_wording; using this template like so:

{{db-meta|Deletion tag text|self=yes}}

will cause the text at the bottom to be trimmed down. Currently this means it will say simply, "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please remove this notice." I have also made the corresponding changes to the templates also mentioned at the talk page linked above that should undoubtedly have this different wording. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) Ruakh 13:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

last line edits

I'd like to change:

Administrators, remember to check what links here, the page history (last edit), the page log, and any revisions of CSD before deletion.

to

Administrators, please remember to check what links here, the page history (last edit), the page log, the talk page, and any revisions of the speedy deletion criteria before deletion.

Obviously, the link doesn't work correctly here, but I believe I've got the variables right. It can be said that we already have a link to the talk page at the top of each article, but adding the link in line with the rest (we also have direct links to page history and Whatlinkshere in monobook) couldn't hurt. And avoiding acronyms never hurts. -- nae'blis 19:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

My bad

I edited the wrong window's wiki. I'm sorry about that. --AOL Alex 01:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem :-) —Mets501 (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Minor wording tweak

I have changed [1] the order of the instructions for adding Template:Hangon so that it more explicitly informs you to add hangon to the article page, then explain on the talk page. I've seen far too many people add the hangon tag to the talk page, so the deleting admin never sees it. If possible, could we also add a note saying admins should check the talk page before deleting the page? --tjstrf Now on editor review! 22:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Why does it say this?

Hi.

What's the point of this: "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself." if you replace the article. Why? If the page just said "test", but then I decided to replace it with brilliant prose, what's the point??? 170.215.83.83 21:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Change wording

{{editprotected}}

I'm concerned about this particular line in the template:

"and then explain why you believe the article should not be deleted on its talk page."

Sometimes non-articles qualify for CSD, and this template is transcluded to the appropriate deletion templates that we would use for them. (ex. images) {{isd}} is the speedy deletion template for redundant images, yet it mentions the word "article".--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps change "article" to {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}||article|{{lc:{{NAMESPACE}}}} page}}? This sounds good to me. Gracenotes^T § 02:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, also changed the "the" to a "this". Neil (not Proto ►) 12:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please remove the reasonlink stuff

Right now, having any spaces or punctuation is breaking the automatic deletion summary. Unless we're going to require people to use ugly URL code when they want a space, automatic deletion summary is going to have to go. -Amarkov moo! 05:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• I second that. Sadly, there's not a magic word to convert "t h is" into "t_h_is", otherwise we'd be fine. Gracenotes^T § 06:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, I just found one. {{urlencode:whatever}}. So could an admin add that instead? -Amarkov moo! 17:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Oops, I just checked the formatting section, not the URL section. That sounds fine with me. Gracenotes^T § 18:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Wait, wouldn't {{anchorencode:stuff}} be better? Gracenotes^T § 18:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Nevermind, after testing it, the magic word that Amarkov suggested was correct. Gracenotes^T § 19:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
      • That's good. Now why won't an admin come and do it? >.< -Amarkov moo! 23:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Where should it go? -- Avi 05:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Actually, it seems done already. -- Avi 05:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thankfully, Picaroon was able to help me make the edit (with his uber-admin powers) over IRC. In the process I totally obliterated the need for the "reasonlink" parameter, which is still passed along from all of the templates with preset messages. (The parameter {{{reasonlink}}} was replaced with {{{1|}}}{{{reason|}}}, which is wrapped in urlencode. So that's one deprecated parameter, but who will miss it? Gracenotes^T § 19:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hangon and talk pages

{{editprotected}}

Db-meta suggests putting {{hangon}} if a person contests the page deletion. This won't work with talk pages, as the hangon template is coded not to work unless you use the tp=1 parameter. Can we update the instructions?

Just one editprotected tag, beside your request, is plenty. The only circumstance I can think of where this might happen is if the article was already deleted and the talk page was not. Is that what you were thinking of?

It seems to me that the name of this template is not very descriptive about how to use it, so I would like to add a usage section here. Is there a table somewhere that tells what all these speedy deletion templates are for? CMummert · talk 13:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It isn't meant to be used, particularly. It's part of the magic that makes all the other speedy templates. Splash - tk 21:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I am not sure that the need to speedy delete a talk page is large enough to need an explanation on all the other db-* templates. The need to speedy delete talk pages for nonexistent articles can't be that large, right? CMummert · talk 03:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

N Not done. The only sensible place to contest a talkpage deletion is on the talkpage itself, so it seems unlikely that the deleting admin won't notice the hangon reason, even if the template doesn't appear. --ais523 13:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems worth fixing, particularly in the context of {{db-talk}}. The current instructions produce an error, and sends people looking for help. Is it possible to have {{db-meta}} show {{hangon|tp=1}} when the {{db}} template in question is used on a talk page? This would solve all occurances of this problem. ∴ here…♠ 00:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. Thanks to MZMcBride's mods to {{hangon}} allowing usage on talk pages without warnings or parameters, diff. ∴ here…♠ 07:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Hangon"

It seems a lot of people contesting the speedy tags think the proper course of action is to place the {{hangon}} tag in place of the speedy tag rather than with it. Why not add "below this tag" after "the top of the page" in the template text? Goodnightmush^Talk 19:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Or add "without removing the existing template". Or make it a parameter. Anything to make it as clear as possible that the speedy deletion tag is to stay in place. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I'd do it, but I can't edit fully protected pages...yet. Goodnightmush^Talk 02:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Db-userreq

I've added some code (after several tries) that will require users wishing to have their user talk pages deleted to provide a rationale. I've seen a lot of cases where people simply want to delete a history of warnings, so the template has been modified to either provide a rationale or the request is not categorized. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

After the Sev Snape incident, I decided that the rationale for {{db-pagemove}} is obvious - assuming this is the correct template to use. Od Mishehu 15:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{editprotected}}
Please replace the following line:

|[[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|its talk page]]

with

|[[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|User|the users talk page|its talk page}}]]

This makes it clearer when speedying user pages. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Done - Nihiltres^(t.l) 20:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Editprotected request

{{editprotected}}

I've nominated this template for deletion, however, it's protected, so I can't add the {{tfd}} template to it. Could this be added, please? GrooveDog (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I've speedy closed the nom as invalid: all those templates transclude this one as a general template, so this one cannot be deleted. —METS501 (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

format change

{{editprotected}} Please revert the template to the previous style. The discussions leading to the template standardisation didn't really touch on templates like this, and I don't think there was support for changing something that wasn't a typical "banner" message. This needs to be discussed further. -- Ned Scott 08:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No one disputed the change, which was explicitly mentioned at least one section. Seems like the definition of (wiki-)consensus to me. We could always do some revert-discuss, though. :) Gracenotes^T § 13:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the only way you're going to have Template standardisation is by standardising templates. : - ) --MZMcBride 15:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've disabled the editprotected request while discussion continues. --MZMcBride 16:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the current template jumps out enough... to new users or veterans (I'm not sure I'd notice this over the layers of nagging templates people like to add to articles). The fact that an article has been nominated for CSD should be very, very prominent. --W.marsh 05:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done by User:Y. FunPika 15:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Colour

Is there any way we can change the colour back to pink? Had a quick look at {{ambox}} but they all look white to me. It needs to stand out more than it does so people recognise that the page will most likely be deleted soon. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The background color should not be white, it should be a light blueish tint. If it is white, you need to bypass your cache. Regarding a color change, you'll have to take it up on Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting a bit annoyed at this point, considering having been apart of the TS discussion. The change to this template wasn't sufficiently discussed, and it should be undone and then discussed. The template needs to stand out more, and is not in the same group as most other kinds of templates, like AfD or citations. -- Ned Scott 23:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Ryan above, fades in the background on non-article pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Template standardization#Speedy templates, it looks like they're on it. -- Ned Scott 05:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

{{{bgcolor}}}

Violetriga's latest red-and-pink ambox-based compromise looks good to me, but I started to wonder about the {{{bgcolor}}} parameter to this template. If we could get rid of it, we could move the background color entirely to Common.css where it belongs. As far as I can tell, the only template that uses it is {{db-histmerge}}, where it was used to make it look like an old-style non-speedy deletion template, and which now frankly looks awful with the red bar and blue background.

I'd therefore like to make the following suggestions:

1. In any case, something needs to be done to {{db-histmerge}}; either the bgcolor parameter should be removed, or it should be changed to match the default {{ambox}} background.
2. Second, the background color of speedy deletion templates should be specified in Common.css. I'd suggest creating a new "ambox-speedy" class with a red bar and pink background, and changing the ambox type of this template from "serious" to "speedy". This would have the added advantage of simplifying the styling of the few non-{{db-meta}}-based speedy deletion templates such as User:ProtectionBot/Delete.
3. Third, and I suspect this will be the controversial part, I'd suggest getting rid of the {{{bgcolor}}} parameter entirely. The alternative would be to retain it as an optional override. I just don't see any particular need for it that would justify the added complexity.

—Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Pushing more and more of this in to the css makes it harder for it to be updated in the future, why make an entire class that will be effectively used by just this one template? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not just one template: there are dozens of speedy deletion templates that use this metatemplate, plus a couple that don't. In fact, having an ambox type for the "speedy" color scheme might encourage people to change more of the less typical speedy templates to use ambox directly rather than via this template, which might not be a bad thing at all. (Just consider how much more cluttered User:ProtectionBot/Delete would look if it was built on db-meta.) Also, a CSS class would allow people to customize the background color via their user CSS. (Who knows, maybe some speedy patrollers hate pink...) Anyway, there seems to be some related discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes#Alerts to external discussions; it might be better to wait and see what comes out of that first. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed {{db-histmerge}} to use bgcolor=#f8fcff; this makes it look like a standard "serious"-level {{ambox}}. I'm wondering whether that template really ought to use {{db-meta}} at all; it's a pretty different case from the other speedy templates. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've now proposed a complete redesign of {{db-histmerge}} that doesn't use {{db-meta}}, neatly sidestepping the issue. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

An important thing to remember about these templates is that they are Project Specific, not simply Article Messages, anything with a pale blue background is going to fade in to the background on all non-article pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose the histmerge tag does mostly get used on articles, though it probably sees some use elsewhere as well. In any case, the big difference between history merge and ordinary speedy deletion notices is that the former aren't supposed to jump up and scream at your face (since, if all goes well, nothing serious is actually going to happen to the article). That's why I felt it would be best to redesign it not to look like an ordinary speedy tag at all. But we're going rather off on a tangent here... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my indefinite article, by these I meant speedy-templates as a whole, not just history merge ones. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, then I really don't understand what you're saying. :/ Could you at least try to clarify which of the three numbered suggestions I made above you support and/or oppose? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As of a few minutes ago, {{db-histmerge}} no longer uses {{db-meta}}. See Template talk:Db-histmerge for details. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

font-size: 92%

Titoxd recently edited the template to wrap the text in a <div style="font-size: 92%;">, with the edit summary "returning previous font size, as the reasoning look really ugly in bold at the current font size". I don't personally find the 100% version any uglier than the 92% version, and I rather suspect that any significant difference in their appearance is due to peculiarities in Titoxd's browser and font choice. Therefore I've set up a comparison below. Please indicate which of these two lines looks better to you, or whether they look just about equally good or bad:

This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: font-size: 92%;

This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: font-size: 95%;

This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: font-size: 100%;

(Ps. Titoxd: I'm somewhat curious as to how these look to you? Is there any chance you could provide a screenshot? Here's mine.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks ok on Firefox for Mac, but it looks really ugly in Firefox for WinXP. I'll provide a screenshot when I get back home. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 15:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a guess, but have you enabled font smoothing on your XP box? Unlike IE, Firefox on Windows won't smooth fonts unless this is enabled by default in the control panel. (I might be wrong, I'm just guessing since this is a common source of "some fonts look ugly on Firefox/Win" problems.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Here's the screenshot. 92% and 95% look identical to me. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing the upper box is 100% and the lower 92%? That's interesting, since I don't see much difference between the two font sizes in your screenshot, and if anything, the bold-italic text in the upper (100%) box feels a little bit more readable to me. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

MZMcBride just changed the font size to 95%, so I've added it to the comparison above. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Authors blanking pages

Something I'm starting to see a lot of on Special:Newpages is authors blanking pages after a speedy-deletion tag has been placed on them. Can we have some sort of verbiage added to this template explaining that this isn't what's meant by "deletion"? Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please adjust the logic for self=yes

Resolved

This template is used in {{Db-userreq}} with the parameter self=yes. Currently, the logic disregards this parameter for the to do actions. This results in the full list "Administrators: check links, history (last), and logs before deletion" being displayed, which is inappropriate in the case of CSD U1. The only thing that needs to be checked is that it was really the user with whom it is associated. (See also Template talk:Db-userreq#does this really need to be checked?.) — Sebastian 02:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not necessarily true. In any speedy deletion, it's wise to take a moment and look around, even for a user page. -- Ned Scott 02:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

How is that wise? Even in the rare worst case that a user absentmindedly writes that request on the wrong page, it still can be restored quickly. By checking each of the items for each request, we're spending hours in order to save minutes. That doesn't seem wise to me. — Sebastian 03:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody gave any reason for this to remain, I reworded it for the self=yes case to "Administrators: check history (last) before deletion (See also links and logs).". I kept the links and logs since some people may want to check them. My point was merely that we shouldn't command people to check them; that would be instruction creep. — Sebastian 04:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)    (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)

You have to check the history with every deletion request. This helps guard against someone moving articles (or user talk pages) to their userspace and have them deleted. Nobody WP:OWNs pages in their own userspace anyway. I have reverted your edit. Kusma (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Link to WP:FIRST

In order to assist new users who experience speedy deletion of their first article, there is a suggestion by Jayron32 to put a link from this template to WP:FIRST. I suggest discussing this at Wikipedia talk:CSD#Speed of speedies which is where the suggestion is made (somewhere in that long thread). --Coppertwig (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You've had no further feedback on it, here or there. It may be time for WP:BRD. Would you like me to go ahead with it? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please! I was just about to ask you if you would!  :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to update db-meta

A modification to this template is being discussed here. Thank you, --Coppertwig (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

km

Add km:Template:Db-meta to the bottom. --123Pie (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong parameter on user message

{{db-copyvio|url=http://wikipedia.org}} gives {{subst:sd-copyvio|Db-meta|header=1http://wikipedia.org}} ~~~~ instead of {{subst:sd-copyvio|Db-meta|url=http://wikipedia.org}} ~~~~

The url does not appear in the user notification. The user notification then looks like this: ...

without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, Db-meta appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Db-meta has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

...

instead of like this:

...

without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://wikipedia.org. As a copyright violation, Db-meta appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Db-meta has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

...

reword

{{editprotected}}

I propose to change the wording because, when you use the "wording" paramater (parameter 1) on {{Db-g6}} template, the first word is right next to "deletion". Same problem appears on g-5, g-4, etc. The default wording for first parameter on all those templates has the string ". " at the start to address this, which is lame, to be fucking honest.

"This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion because {{{1}}}. See [[Wikipedia:Criteria".

Db-g6 and similars than can be reworded as "deletion because it needs" instead of "deletion. It needs". I can do that myself once db-meta is changed (yeah, I know that it's 400+ templates, but many don't allow for custom reason so the only change needed is touching the start of one sentence, and it's the sort of task I enjoy). I also noticed that {{Db-g3}} addresses this on a different manner.

The change would leave some templates with an akward wording until they were edited. Note, maybe there is a way to tweak db-g6 so that it doesn't do this --Enric Naval (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

P.D.:notice that adding a space to the start of my reason for deletion won't work. You actually have to use ". " because the template eats the space at the start of the string. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

 Not done The CSD templates have literally only just been completely overhauled, during which exhaustive discussion settled on this formatting as the most flexible and useful system. There is in fact absolutely no "problem". The wordings were selected on their own merits, and technical methods were used to ensure that they could be implemented on the templates. We have examples of a variety of junctions in the db- series, including "deletion as an article..." ({{db-g1}}), "deletion. It was..." ({{db-g4}}) and "deletion, as it..." ({{db-g10}}). Neither of the second two would be possible with your proposed 'improvement'. Have you considered the possibility of just using an HTML space or non-breaking space rather than complaining that the template code "eats" a normal space? That system is used on about twenty of the templates. All in all, this is a "solution" to a "problem" which does not, in fact, exist. It is, however, true that the |wording= parameter in {{db-g6}} often appears awkwardly. However, why is a modification to the entire template system required when a fix like this will do the job much more easily and without breaking 42 other templates? Happy‑melon 14:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Damn, you are right, I have been a fool, I should have noticed that I could do this with a simple fix, and I didn't investigate the matter enough before proposing the change, or I would have found this. I'll take your exhaustive advice into account when I see problems into other templates. (note: I wasn't aware of that overhauling). --Enric Naval (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed Db-g6, same wording as db-reason. I noticed I was a bigger fool that I thought, because most "db-" templates don't have a "reason=" parameter, so they didn't need my proposed fix. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry - we all jump to conclusions at times, and go for the first apparent solution rather than trying to find a more elegant one. You haven't been blocked for it :D! This is at least partly what permanent protection for templates is for - to force people to think twice before committing a change which might be suboptimal. Happy‑melon 16:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(Looking at the linked discussion, I noticed that a similar change was summarily shot down on db-meta/new a month ago). The permanent protection is really good for this sort of stuff. Don't worry, melon, I'm sure that I'll find some spectacular way to get myself blocked for something worse than making a good faith change to a template that breaks lots of stuff :D --Enric Naval (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Summarily shot down"?! I guess I have further to go than I thought in learning to be diplomatic! (Note smiley-->) :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please do a null edit with edit summary giving attribution to conform to GFDL and as courtesy. Suggested wording "Contributors to new version of March 24 were Happy-melon, Coppertwig and Od Mishehu." --Coppertwig (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 15:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Prefilled wpReason

I don't know if any admin is using the «deletion» link in the template, they seem obsolete now that MediaWiki:Sysop.js can guess most reasons, but I wonder why the wording is different from MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown. For example, «G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page» vs «Author requested deletion or blanked the page (CSD G7)». It's inconsistent and makes it more difficult to read deletion logs. —AlexSm 16:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, standardising these was on our (long) list of things to do after overhauling the CSD templates a few months ago. Very few of the items on the list ever got done :S. I do agree that they should be standardised, but I can't decide which style is better. Thoughts? Happy‑melon 20:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I would simply make all the reasons in db-... templates (summary parameter) the same as the reasons in MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown, because they've been discussed a lot more, and they are used much more often anyway. —AlexSm 20:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The choice of reasons offered by the drop-down menu is somewhat limited (necessarily, since the menu is already long enough as it is) compared to the full selection of db-* templates, though. But yes, for those templates that exactly match an entry in the menu, the wording should be identical, and the rest should at least have a similar style. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

unlink WP:User talk page

{{editprotected}} Please remove the link from text "on the talk page of the author" in the template and change it to "on the talk page of the author". The link is misleading readers who constantly clutter the Wikipedia:User talk page, mistaking it for an actual user talk page. Are you aware for any other templates with the same issue? --Kubanczyk (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Seems reasonable. I would think that anybody using this template would know what a talk page is. In any case, Wikipedia:User talk page isn't too helpful. --- RockMFR 16:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Undo

{{editprotected}} This should be undone because {{mbox}} documentation says "This template is NOT ready for use yet. Thus don't use this meta-template for real message boxes yet, but feel free to use it for testing." Gary King (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Clearer wording

I can see the wording has been changed a thousand times and people are getting sick of it, but how would you feel about something like this?

Right now the template's pretty disorienting, which is a problem since new users are usually the focus of it. I think something like the above would be an improvement because it says exactly who should do what. It also puts the reasoning on its own line, which makes it fit the other message box templates better, and is much easier to read. I think having each sub-template contain half a sentence is kind of a weird hack and makes things unnecessarily difficult. —Werson (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The justification for putting only what is different in each instance in the subtemplates is just that: it minimises duplication. I can see some advantages to your proposal, but also some disadvantages. First of all, it substantially increases the length of most of the templates, and bullet points sometimes screw up when bits of the final product are located in different sub-templates. I think the layout draws attention away from the reason the page is up for CSD and towards the 'actions-on', which is not really a good idea: we want newbies to see clearly why the page is unacceptable so they can take productive steps to fix it. With some reformatting, however, it might be possible to minimise that effect. Happy‑melon 18:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Auto hide text on post of template

A discussion has been ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems as well as being posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) for putting in a function to automatically hide copyvio content when the either the {{Db-g12}} or {{copyvio}} are posted to an article. Please join us for the central discussion there. "Template Experts" are encouraged to join as the main conversation is between process an policy editors. Jeepday (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense Vs. Vandalism

I've notice recently that quite a few pages are being tagged with {{db-g3}} or {{db-vandalism}}, which is fine - and usually fits, as the G3 criteria handles hoaxes and blatant misinformation as well - no problem. However, the template {{db-g3}} actually places the page under "Nonsense pages for speedy deletion", which is problematic since that's not actually the criteria we're looking at under that category. Given that we lack a "Vandalism pages for speedy deletion" category, I'm not sure how to remedy the problem, or even if it is a problem at all - but I thought I'd bring it up for discussion. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. It was added back in February 2007 and stuck around since. Perhaps adding it to just {{db-hoax}} would be a good way to handle it? It'd take a little work, though... --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I could've sworn there was still a {{db-hoax}}... Must be very-early-onset Alzheimer's. But since it's not generally designed to handle hoaxes since April, might just be better to leave it out, then. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Change to I9

I propose to change {{db-i9}} to make the URL parameter mandatory. This is because I regularly come upon images tagged with this template and no URL, and also no other comment explaining why the image is a copyvio. An example of what it might look like is at User:Stifle/Db-i9. Comments, please. Stifle (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As there are no objections I have made this change. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have an objection. What if the copyright violation doesn't come from a web site. How do I use this template if, for example, someone scanned a page from a magazine? Asher196 (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Asher196, and reverted the change. Please feel free to revert again if it really does hamper the CSD work so much, but this is the second time I've had to save and then re-save because this template expects a parameter that is not strictly needed. HiDrNick! 03:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Addition to {{Db-c2}}

For categories that are misnamed by accident, can a reason or new name parameter be added to {{Db-c2}} so people know where the category is being moved/renamed? Thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done I added |name= Happy‑melon 13:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Jh12 (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Re-jig db-u1, db-empty, db-g7 and db-g6 into category: Candidates for non-controversial speedy deletion

Anyone think it would be a good idea to merge the categories Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user & Category:Empty pages for speedy deletion , adding pages tagged with db-move or db-g6 into a single category called Candidates for non-controversial speedy deletion (or something of the sorts) ? –xeno (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. If these are applied correctly, there should is no practical difference between them from the standpoint of how they are handled. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit of two minds about this. In theory, all speedy deletions should be non-controversial, but it's true that, in practice, they aren't always so. It's also true that, controversial or not, some speedy deletions are more obvious than others, though often there's as much variation on this within individual criteria as between them. I guess, all in all, that such a combined category for the more straightforward criteria might be useful, though maybe the title could be better: how about Category:Candidates for simple speedy deletion? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't think all subtypes of G6 belong in this category: in particular, handling a {{db-histmerge}} is often anything by simple, and indeed that template deliberately doesn't put pages tagged with it into CAT:CSD at all but only into its own Category:History merge for speedy deletion. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, so I don't think "simple" works either... "Candidates for speedy deletion asserted to be non-controversial" ? The wording is difficult to pin down. –xeno (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yuck!! Less is always more: how about Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion?? Happy‑melon 21:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure... though I don't think that uncontroversial is significantly different than non-controversial ;> –xeno (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

My point was that, whatever the name, things like history merges should not go into this combined category. Indeed, they should stay about as far away from "ordinary" speedy deletions as possible. The few admins that regularly handle history merges and know how to do them properly already know where to find them, while those who don't really shouldn't ever need to stumble across them. Yes, that's probably a special and extreme case, but I'm not sure offhand if there might not be other such not-so-simple cases also lumped under G6. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving history merges with their own special category that already exists. Db-g6 is a bit of a strange bird, it does require some analysis. It's not a "delete-on-sight" like U1 is, but when used appropriately and in good faith it's something that can usually be done without a lot of deliberation. i.e. UBX migration> check transclusions>if none>delete. db-move also fairly non/uncontroversial when used appropriately. –xeno (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it matters much as long as histmerges and "delete to make way for move" (which can be quite controversial) aren't lumped in with the rest. As the speedy deletion category is rarely backlogged these days (haven't seen more than 200 items in quite a long time), not much categorization beyond the separate treatment of attack pages (the only ones that are truly urgent) is necessary. Kusma (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Should db-g3 have a rationale parameter?

I think the db-g3 template should have a rationale parameter to help admins when the vandalism isn't immediately obvious. My point is probably best illistrated by two exampes:

• There are many cases where an already existing page is copied (rather than moved) in it's an entirity to a new (and obviously incorrect) name, often changing all instances of the name in the text as well, and this is obviously vandalism. A rationale parameter would allow the nominator to explain this and link to the relevant page.
• There are often pages which at first glance may not be vandalism. For example the other day I speedy requested a page on an apparent cricketer. This was obviously a hoax as it stated he'd played in some games that it was very easy to prove he didn't with a link or two. Additionally there were some obvious mistakes (test playing cricketer at a stupidly yound age, age and date of birth not matching). At first glance this page seemed OK but a closer look made it obvious it was vandalism.

In both cases a rationalle parameter would a) allow an admin not knowledgable in the subject area to see it as vandalism and b) even if an admin still wasn't happy deleting it would at least make it less likely they'd remove the tag as inappropiate. I delt with both of the above by just using the plain db template but I'm not sure everyone else does and most would probably just tag it as vandalism (I regularly look at speedy requests to make sure none are inappropiate). If this parameter was avaliable on the db-vandalism (db-g3) template I'd imagine it might lead to some better reasons and so make it easier for admins and anyone else that reviews speedys. I could probably make the change myself but wanted to make sure that I hadn't missed a prior consensus not to have such a parameter and also that there were no disagreements first. Dpmuk (talk) 10:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This could be done — it's already implemented with the wording paramater on {{db-g6}}. Stifle (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The main "db" template - do we really need it?

Do we honestly really need the main {{db}} template? In all my time on Wikipedia, I've never seen someone actually use the free-form speedy template with a valid reason. We have specific speedy templates for all the criteria, and so this one seems redundant and prone to misuse (i.e. unintentional wrong use, not abuse). So why keep it? I'd be one to support deleting the free-form template. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

While it probably is prone to misuse, I'd argue that it's really no more prone to it than the numbered ones. Off the top of my head, when I'm doing speedy deletions, I'd estimate I pick the same criterion as the original tagger maybe 60% of the time. Most of the time, as you say, the confusion is well-intentioned and mostly harmless: tagging an attack page as a non-notable biography, a page blanked by its author as lacking content or a test page as vandalism or nonsense. But still, I'd actually kind of prefer if people who found a page they believe to be speediable but were not sure of the exact criterion would just use {{db}} and write out the reason rather than picking a numbered db-* tag at random. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconding the above. I'd also like to note that there are things which unquestionably should be speedily deleted but aren't covered by the existing CSD (can't think of one off the top of my head, I'll come back after I find/think of one). Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Move-protect the templates?

I realize there're good reasons for leaving all the speedy templates open to editing (though likely semi-ing them wouldn't hurt too much), but is there any reason any of them would be moved? That sort of thing could kinda' screw things up with the creation of a lot of double redirects. Anyway, just throwing the thought out there. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In general we only protect pages in response to actual unwanted activity, so there's no justification for implementing this sort of protection pre-emptively. I did once try to fully-protect the whole series, but was overruled. (also)Happy‑melon 07:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion at WP:AN, I believe, since all the templates are currently fully protected, so this is sorta' pointless right now. You can find it here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit protected request

{{editprotected}} Hello, sir. I would like to add a live search link to the page at live search just where google is listed, giving live seach hits, please.

Not done: I don't see how this is necessary or useful. I'm open to be convinced, however. lifebaka++ 18:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please remove Google or add other searchengines as well. 87.78.21.135 (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Why? Stifle (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Content of G3 template

Someone recently used Template:Db-g3 for a suspected hoax (Men's White League), whereas Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Non-criteria says that a hoax that's even remotely plausible (which this one was) shouldn't be speedied. Should advice against speedying suspected hoaxes be added to the template, like with Template:Db-g1? Andjam (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} can an admin please add to Db-g3 content similar to Db-g1? Andjam (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

 Not done. Mistaggings happen frequently, that's why admins review before deleting. There is no need for any change in the {{db-g3}} template as it already says that it only covers "blatant and obvious misinformation" (which applies to blatant hoaxes as well, but only those). SoWhy 08:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

{{g12}}

The wording on the template does not match the wording at WP:G12. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G12 wording again. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I9 requiring a URL

The reason I9 requires a URL parameter is because if a source image cannot be indicated, there is no evidence that an image is in use in violation of a copyright. Images that may be copyright violations should go to WP:PUI. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've changed this to a half-way compromise — it puts in a big red warning if the URL parameter is omitted, requesting its inclusion or an explanation why it is not included, while still tagging the image for deletion. Stifle (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is much better than before, thanks. It no longer breaks Twinkle, for one thing. HiDrNick! 15:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Link db-album to A9 in the dropdown?

Lifebaka suggested, I should ask here. So, to copy from what I posted to WT:CSD: This is something only other admins will care about, but usually when a certain tag is on a page and you click "delete", the dropdown selects the relevant reason automatically and the summary is blanked. I have no idea how that works but if someone does, could we get the same functionality for {{db-album}}? Regards SoWhy 09:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how to do this, but think it would be worthwhile. Stifle (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think I know how to do this. I don't know what you mean by dropdown and I don't understand why you say the summary is blanked. (I'm not an admin.) But I'm guessing what you want is to have the summary in the block log filled in automatically for you. That's the "summary" parameter which must be passed to db-meta. Maybe I'll just be bold and go ahead and do that, and you can see if it does what you want. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I edited template:db-a9 and was going to edit template:db-album, but realized I didn't understand what you were talking about, so I reverted my edit. I think that currently, when you try to delete a page by clicking delete on the db-album template, it will put in the block log summary "Article about an an album, which does not indicate importance". Is that what it does? Other than apparently duplicating the word "an", is that not what you want it to do? Are you talking about something else? ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig: I have corrected the "an an album" to instead say "an album" in the edit reason.

SoWhy: I see what you mean, you mean when clicking the [delete] tab on top of the page, not when clicking the "delete" link inside the {{db-album}} template. The drop down list of delete reasons on the page that we admins see when deleting a page is handled by MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown and by MediaWiki:Sysop.js. As I understand it the addition you want would be added in MediaWiki:Sysop.js. Thus you should ask for it over at MediaWiki talk:Sysop.js. The guys watching that page probably know how to code it. I myself don't know enough javascript to code the thing you want.

--David Göthberg (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks David, that's the place I was looking for. I'll head over and see what can be done (maybe I can do it myself with copy+paste scripting^^). Thanks again :-) SoWhy 15:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

G3G2: Db-sandbox

I think that we should create a redirect of db-g3 at Template:db-sandbox as it seems pretty ideal for this speedy deletion criteria. Just a way to ease the memorization of all these db's. :) -LelandRB (Chat · contribs) 00:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't you mean the G2 criterion? See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#General.

--David Göthberg (talk) 04:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

G2 does fit better, yes. If you want to do it, have a go. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to say this. I agree with Lifebaka, if you (LelandRB or anyone else) want to make a redirect from Template:Db-sandbox to Template:Db-g2, then feel free to do so.

By the way, {{db-experiment}} and {{db-test}} already redirects to {{db-g2}}, but that doesn't hinder a redirect from {{db-sandbox}}.

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

DB-i2

The template {{db-i2}} still has the warning about not deleting a missing image due to a server issue and being able to recover them... has this issue not yet been resolved? I'm not an admin but I have tagged a number of pages with it over the last while and wonder when the issue will be resolved and the template returned to normal operations. Thanks. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you rather ask this at WP:VPT or WP:AN. Regards SoWhy 23:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

IIRC this issue is now largely resolved: all the images that were corrupted have been tagged as such, which should preclude deletion. The majority have now been fixed. I've removed the notice; feel free to readd it if the I am mistaken and it is still needed. Happy‑melon 23:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

External link in template

I just wanted to mention that I was on a public computer the other day (logged out) and tagged a page for CSD. Due to the external link (to Google, I assume is the issue) it requires you to enter a captcha to save your edit. This really should be removed, you shouldn't need to enter a captcha when tagging pages for speedy. VegaDark (talk) 04:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I converted it to use an interwiki prefix, so it shouldn't now trigger the captcha. Can you confirm if this is the case? Happy‑melon 08:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it no longer triggers the captcha. Thanks! VegaDark (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be changed back, or fixed somehow, now, when you use it to check any article more than one word, it adds _ between them, which fuggs up the results--Jac16888 (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I added a "urlencode", which should turn the underscores into plus signs. Does that work better? Kusma (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Much better, cheers--Jac16888 (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

new position for AfD link at Db-g4 was not visiblel

I reverted a change at Db-g4 [2]. The new location of the AfD link was way too small. See rejection of speedy because admin didn't spot the AfD link. Please make the AfD/MfD/TfD links more visible before making that sort of change, thanks (at that font size, does any admin ever look at them? :D ).

Also, it always display the link under the AfD name even if it's a link to a MfD or TfD discussion, and AfD gets blue automatically anyways if the article had the same name, in which case you don't need to add a custom link on the first place. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The template really needs re-thought. I'll see if I can come up with an alternate layout which satisfies this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Archiving old template discussions

I have begun archiving old discussions under Db-meta [3]. Obviously some of these are going to have nothing of value, but some do, and this will save people digging through histories to find that out. I won't get very far today, but I don't think it's very pressing. Cheers. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 21:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you working from a list somewhere? If so, could you link it, so that I (and others) can check over it to make sure it's got everything? Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Categorization

{{db-c1}} was only putting categories into CAT:CSD, but I tweaked it so that it's also putting them into Category:Empty pages for speedy deletion. This will make them faster and easier to clear out, as non-controversial cleanup. --Elonka 05:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I stuck it inside of |category=, so that non-deletion uses of the template (such as at Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion) can be made not to include into the category. Cheers. lifebaka++ 06:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that, I was wondering what that extra syntax meant! Also, can you figure out how to change the documentation page at {{db-c1}}, so it indicates the "This template places the page in..." extra category? I tried to look at the docs page, but again, it uses very complex syntax so I'm reluctant to touch it. --Elonka 16:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done, and also for A1 and A3. It should show the next time you view one of the templates, but if it doesn't try purging the page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of db-t1

Hi all. Following the repeal of CSD T1 following discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, the template Template:Db-t1 will be deleted as a misrepresentation of policy, unless there is disagreement here. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion if you disagree with this repeal. Dcoetzee 01:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Why delete? Why not just redirect it to Template:Db-g10? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Because not all former T1 deletions are valid G10 deletions, as in the pedophile userbox example - it requires human judgement to determine the appropriate course of action. Dcoetzee 05:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Harmonization with MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown

The reasons offered by the db templates should be changed to the heavily discussed and agreed upon Deletereason-dropdown reasons. Maybe a more prominent delete link would also be useful, because the script automatically selecting the delete reason is broken since the 'content was:...' has been removed. Cenarium (Talk) 19:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean the criteria preloaded into the deletion summary? Yes, those should indeed be harmonised. I think the best solution to the autofill issue is new javascript that works with the new settings, but as an interim measure making the delete link more prominent wouldn't go amiss. Happy‑melon 19:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. We could use a more prominent link in the templates as a temporary fix. I created a sandbox to preview the changes. In Deletereason-dropdown, the criterion number is prior to the reason, this can be handled by db-meta. Then the summary of each template will have to be changed. Cenarium (Talk) 21:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

db-g12 and multiple URLs

I've just tagged a couple of articles with db-g12, both of which infringe copyright from multiple URLs -- one from two different web sites, the other from multiple pages on the same site. For both articles, I gave the most obvious example as the url parameter of the template. It might be a good idea for someone to modify the template to allow multiple sources to be listed for cases like these. Adam McMaster (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have had success using {{db-g12|url=sourceurl1 and sourceurl2}}. The end result provides links to both urls. Perhaps this should be explained in the usage documentation for this template. Steamroller Assault (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Db-a1

{{Db-a1}} was recently changed to put articles in Category:Empty pages for speedy deletion. I don't think this is appropriate, because these articles lack context, but often do not lack content. Gnome de plume (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Reasons?

When one uses this template, is there some way to state the reasons why the article ought to be deleted? Merely saying it's created by a banned user in violation of the ban is not enough. WP:CSD does not REQUIRE deletion in such cases; rather, it only says an administrator MAY speedily delete in such a circumstance if there are reasons. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting question. The documentation at Template:Db-g5 and Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion does not even point out that the name of the banned user can be included as a parameter in the template (as in {{db-banned|Jvolkblum}}). I don't remember how I learned that, but I learned it after an admin asked which banned user I was concerned about when I tagged an article without including that parameter. When I tagged Rochelle-Park-Rochelle-Heights Historic District‎ for speedy deletion earlier today (the tagging that apparently precipitated this note), I did check to see if the template would let me enter more information about the reason, but I couldn't find a way to do so. I used the edit summary to indicate that checkuser had confirmed this particular sock, but neither an edit summary nor a template provides enough space to tell the whole story of why this banned user was banned and why his/her contributions should be deleted on sight.

There clearly is much divergence of opinion about the treatment of banned users. I have been following Jvolkblum sockpuppets for almost a year. I have been repeatedly advised that this user is so notorious by now that it is unnecessary to expend my time going through standard procedure to get new sockpuppets blocked, but I have also repeatedly had to explain this banned user's history to other Wikipedians (including admins) who appear to distrust my motives and who need to be individually convinced that the ban was justified and that the articles and edits created by new sockpuppets truly deserve to be reverted on sight. As it happens, I don't propose deletion for every new Jvolkblum article I see (just two days ago, I rewrote WVOX, the original of which was a total copyvio, instead of requesting deletion), but life is too short to do that kind of thing real often.

Bottom line: this template is not particularly effective as a communication tool, and experiences like mine are likely to inspire contributors to say "Scr*w it; let Wikipedia find someone else to combat this vandalism." --Orlady (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits " If the banned editor is the only contributor to the page or its talk page, speedy deletion is invariably correct. If other editors have unwittingly made good-faith contributions to the page or its talk page, it is courteous to inform them that the page was created by a banned user, and then decide on a case-by-case basis what to do." --Enric Naval (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggested change of url parameter for db-g12

I'd like to change {{db-g12}} so instead of "url" it takes any of the following: "url=", "source=", or "sources=". URL would be kept but depricated. Is this okay with everyone? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) What's the rationale? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If something is a copyright violation from a book, you can put the book's name and the page in the URL field but it's just awkward. By changing to "source" it makes the template match what I think is its intended use. "Sources" would be used if there were multiple sources. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that sounds reasonable enough, I'd imagine, although if it's not an online source it might be hard to verify it for speedy (unless it's a really, really blatant offline copyvio). So I'm not entirely sure what you mean when you say URL would be deprecated, you aren't talking about disabling the URL function, but adding alternatives. Am I right? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Deprecated means its use is discouraged. The only reason it can't be removed is it would break articles whose edit histories included copyvio-tags but where the article was not deleted or where it was restored on review, such as where it was on the web in a GFDL-compatible license. Deprecated means either references to it would be removed from the documentation or it would be explicitly marked as deprecated in the documentation with a recommendation to use "source" instead. If this had been a subst'd template I'd just say remove URL altogether. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well, in that case I don't see a good reason to mandate a change. Expanded functionality is one thing. But URL is what's used on {{copyvio}}, people are familiar with it, consistency is good, and it seems functional as is. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

So, something like this? Any one of |sources=, |source=, or |url= works (checked in that order). Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If url works and source works and people can use what's appropriate/comfortable, that sounds ideal. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, something like that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Update to db-g8

Since WP:CSD#R1 has been deprecated and the preferred rationale for deleting bad obsolete redirects is WP:CSD#G8, should {{db-g8}} be updated to reflect this. It currently reads "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion, as talk page of a page which does not exist, has been deleted, or is itself currently tagged for speedy deletion." It should probably read "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion, as a page dependent on a page which does not exist, has been deleted, or is itself currently tagged for speedy deletion." WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Er, that's pretty much exactly what it does say... :D Happy‑melon 20:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Addition for author's warning template

I would like to suggest adding the following words at the end of the author's db-copyvio warning template, just before the final "Thank you":

Please note that even if the copyright issue were resolved, the promotional tone of a company or personal website may well be unsuitable for an encyclopedia article, which requires a neutral point of view.

I often add this myself by hand, in bold, out of concern that an inexperienced author will follow the copyright release steps only to have his text rejected. JohnCD (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for C1

Could we put an automatic 4-day time delay on {{db-c1}} in a similar way to the 7-day delay of {{db-t3}}? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Notification template

Is there a template for user talk pages that says "If you came here to tell me an article will not be deleted, don't bother telling me"? I patrol the new pages a lot and when I speedy them, there are some that will not be deleted because they meet the criteria for being here. So when they do stay, I get messages on my talk page telling me that, but I really couldn't care less, so I'd rather not get messages. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 02:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Never mind that, I found a solution to the problem. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 03:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Would this be a legitimate usage of Db-talk?

Would it be legitimate to use {{Db-talk}} to nominate a long-abandoned 'proposed rewrite' of an existing article for deletion? Such pages are generally subpages of the article's talk page, so are impermissible for WP:PROD (and cause a very large error message when a prod is attempted on them), but they are (at least technically) "talk page[s] of a page which does not exist". This would appear to be using a technicality-for-inclusion to overcome a technicality-for-exclusion, but might be considered wikilawyering by some.

If this isn't legitimate, is there (should there be) any means of having such pages deleted, short of MfD? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If the page the rewrite is for does not exist anymore, then G8 can be applied ("...dependent on a page that was deleted or does not exist..."). If it might be useful though, one should consider whether the abandoned rewrite-attempt can serve as a draft for a new article instead. If the article exists, G8 cannot be applied because then the page it depends on exists. One might want to ask the author whether they want to keep it (so it can be userfied) or deleted (then use G7). If the author cannot be contacted/does not respond, go for MFD instead. Regards SoWhy 16:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This page was last edited by…

{{editprotected}} This part of the template should be wrapped by <includeonly> tags as the last editor of the template itself e.g. "Happy-melon (contribs | logs) 1 months ago" is not terribly interesting. — CharlotteWebb 14:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

But it demonstrates how the template will function on real pages. The "check links, history, etc" links are "not terribly interesting[/useful]" either. Content should only be includeonly'd when it's actually disruptive to have it display, like categories or code that explodes without parameters. Besides, wrapping it in includeonly tags here will only hide it on db-meta, not on all the other db- template pages. Happy‑melon 15:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, can you please come up with something that does hide it on all of the db templates? — CharlotteWebb 10:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? It's not doing any harm. Happy‑melon 15:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for Db-c1

Deletion under {{db-c1}} requires that a category have been empty for four days, but it is virtually impossible for an administrator patrolling CSD to determine whether this condition has been met. I suggest adding a conditional expression ({{ #ifexpr:{{#time:U}} >= {{#time:U|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} + 4 days }}| etc.) to the template so that the category links to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and to Category:Empty pages for speedy deletion will not appear until the template has been in place for the required four days. If there are no objections, I will make this change in a few days. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind, but this will have the same problem {{db-t3}} has, meaning that they will not be placed in CAT:CSD automatically, but that it needs a null edit. I'm looking through those pages from time to time, and just performed a number of null edits on all templates in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:db-t3 which is why there are suddenly a couple of templates in CAT:CSD, and it's OK for those CSD categories that have only a moderate number of pages, but automatic categorization won't happen. Amalthea 16:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is inconvenient. Well done for fixing these manually. I wonder if a bot could be employed to run weekly? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I can have SDPatrolBot do this, although it may require a request for approval. If I understand correctly, it just has to run maybe once every three or four days, and dummy edit (?) all the non-redirect (there's a few redirects which are used) template pages nominated under T3. I'm afraid I don't understand why it needs to do the dummy edit? Should it only do it if the page has been nominated for more then a week? Let me know if I'm wrong about what you want the bot to do, it's likely that I'd be able to get it to do something else to do with CSD. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like that, all pages that transclude the {{db-t3}} template (or one of its redirects). It's theoretically enough to do so eight days or so after the template was placed, and a WP:NULL edit is enough, it doesn't need a WP:DUMMY edit. You could even check first if the page is already in CAT:CSD. FWIW, from what I can tell it's enough to use an empty appendtext parameter, you don't have to fetch the text and timestamp first; but you're the bot builder, you'll probably know better.
The reason it needs a dummy edit is a bit complicated. Categorization of a page is only written to the database in two cases: If a page is edited directly, or if a page which is transcluded onto other pages is changed then jobs are spawned to reparse all those pages (immediately or queued) and update the link tables.
A simple visit is not enough, since typically, no information is written to the DB on a visit, not even with a WP:PURGE. A page might display that it is in a category, but isn't really. Performing a null edit however does trigger a complete reparsing, with updates to the link tables, even if the page was unchanged and no entry to the history is made.
Now, we were thinking once that other pages could profit from periodic null edits as well. {{Adminbacklog}} for example is placed on some pages that aren't edited regularly, like on Category:Requests for unblock. Those pages would benefit from regular null edits as well. An idea would then be to place all pages that need regular updates into a new category, and your bot could then perform a null edit on each page every couple days (possibly skipping those where the last revision is younger then one or two days).
Amalthea 11:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone has been around doing null edits, but I've deleted several categories which were tagged 4 days ago, so the new code seems to be working well. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Stupid null edits don't leave an audit trail. From everything I can tell though, they don't just recategorize themselves. At least no one in the know (and I don't know the intrinsics of the job queue myself) ever told of a mechanism that would help with this problem. For example, Template:BAB-A-NL should currently be in CAT:CSD, and it claims that it is, but it isn't really. Purging it doesn't help. If someone were to perform a null edit, it would show up. Amalthea 17:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh... you're trying to confuse me now ;)... Seems very complex, shame that it can't just categorise first time. Anyway, one thing I don't get is; you sugest a category of pages which the bot runs through and does a null edits on every few days, but if the reason for this is because the pages aren't getting added to a category properly, then how do they get added to that one properly? And a null edit to a page which is supposedly in the category (but does't yet show) is enough to update the category page? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Imagine a stupid categorization like [[Category:{{NUMBEROFEDITS}}]]. With the MediaWiki system, it's very very hard to keep this categorized correctly all the time. The underlying problem is that pages that are shown as part of a category are explicit entries in a database table. Database write actions are expensive since there is only one master database, so it's impossible with huge MediaWikis like Wikipedia to attempt recategorization with every page view.
A category like Category:Wikipedia pages in need of frequent null edits could be simply added to the includeonly area of {{adminbacklog}}, to place every page using it into the category. The {{db-t3}} template could do something like:{{#switch:{{age switch|d={{{1}}}}}|0=[[Category:Wikipedia pages in need of frequent null edits]]|1={{{category|[[Category:Candidates for speedy deletion]][[Category:Templates for speedy deletion]]}}}|-1={{{category|[[Category:Templates for speedy deletion with incorrect formatting]]}}}}}
This would immediately stick it into the bot category since, when the tag is added, the age switch template evaluates to 0. Once the seven days have passed, the template would evaluate to 1, so it only takes a (null) edit to actually place it in the category by triggering the update to the link tables.
Amalthea 17:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm being really slow. If I understand, the proposal is to create a new category which every 1/3/5/7 day(s) the bot goes through and does a null edit. By doing this null edit the bot forces Wikipedia to update the categories for that page. As well as all the admin backlogs, the Db-t3 template will add pages which are tagged more recently then seven days to the category. Right?
So, this means that the bot will have to edit just once after the T3 pages have been tagged for more then a week, yeah? And the admin backlogs maybe once every few days. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, ones which have tagged less than 4 days ago are in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

So is the current template changing the categories as Amalthea suggested? If they are/were made to it would be a simple task to go through that category and null edit all the pages which have been nommed for longer then 4 days - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, except that it's not adding it to Category:Wikipedia pages in need of frequent null edits just yet.
It really depends on what you want to do: Just take care of the SD tagged pages, or build some general-purpose null-edit mechanism for all kinds of problems. If the former, then I guess you won't need a category since you're already tracking SD tags and can easily find all pages where a C1 or T3 tag was added eight days ago. If you want to tackle the larger problem, then I think a category is best to track those pages for the bot. The next question would then be whether it's necessary to categorize pages by the desired frequency of null edits. Amalthea 13:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That seems like an okay idea. Here's my thoughts: we have the categories, with different ones for different frequency (as you suggest), so something like Category:Page requiring null edits every 1 days, Category:Page requiring null edits every 2 days, etc. And then every now and then (mebbes twice a day) the bot runs through all the pages in each category, and if the last edit to the page was longer ago then the frequency, then the bot performs a null edit. Wadda you think? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds OK. But I'd really suggest calling them something like "Wikipedia pages ...", I think that's the standard naming convention for self-referential maintainance categories. All should be {{Hiddencat}}s, and they should be placed in a parent category of the same name. Amalthea 14:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and if you add a category to one of the categories (e.g. you added Category:Wikipedia behavioral guidelines to Category:Page requiring null edits every 2 days) I could make the bot edit all the pages in the category, rather then the category page itself - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

How then do I register the actual category page Category:Requests for unblock for null edits? {{adminbacklog}} and {{backlog}} are sitting on a number of category pages.
I don't think that extra logic is necessary, almost all of the pages will have a template causing the need for the frequent null edits anyway, so the categorization of all of them can be rather easily done there, without a real need to register them all through a preexisting category. Amalthea 14:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool with me... also, are you sure null edits work? I just did one in the sandbox... nothing happens. I know it's not meant to but still ;). Anyway, what pages should be included in this? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. You can currently try it with {{WP:NAMCON}}, which is supposed to be in CAT:CSD and claims to be per the page rendering, but isn't. Make a null edit, and it will be listed in the category. Pages ... I can currently only think of the four templates mentioned in this section. Amalthea 16:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand this now. So I'll do another BRFA in a while (I've got a bit on my plate in regards to the 'pedia just now, so it'll be about five days). I also have a few other ideas for the bot, and other task have been suggested by other users. If you have any more a ideas rearding this one, please do let me know. Thanks for your help Amalthea :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I was just reviewing this discussion and wondering how this was working now. Is there a bot making regular null edits to these pages? (Obviously we can't tell if this is happening or not as their is no entry in the history!) Is this documented anywhere? Was there a BRFA that I missed? Just curious ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

updating documentation

Hello,

I made a BOLD change to {{db-a5}} that allows for an optional (unnamed) parameter to supply the location of the transwikied text. The idea is to make it a little easier for the admin handling the request to find the transwikied article.

I would like to update the documentation to explain the parameter, but the documentation file is pretty complex and I'm not quite source how to do it, so some help would be appreciated.

Thanks --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the documentation is a bit of a bitch; it probably needs its own documentation! I've added the new syntax. Happy‑melon 10:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Db-f9 wording

I think this part needs to be removed/replaced from {{db-f9}}: "... and there is no assertion that the file is public domain, fair-use, or available under a free license" because most of the time there are assertions that the file is free. However those claims are simply bogus. Rocket000 (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "... and there is no plausible assertion that the file is ..."? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added "credible" since that it also the qualifier used in WP:CSD#F9. Anything beyond that will probably need discussion at WT:CSD.
Thanks, Amalthea 12:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I endorse that change, and don't think anything beyond that need be done - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That works for me. Rocket000 (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Nn-warn-reason

When using Template:db or any of its redirects, the link in the template suggests notifying users with the Template:nn-warn-reason template. The notification template only refers to articles (and it looks like it was only intended for CSD A7), but the deletion template can be used on any page, so the notification template should probably be rewritten. snigbrook (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

|wording= or |rationale=

{{db-g6}} has |wording=, while {{db-g8}} has |rationale=. (I haven't looked at the rest.) These parameters should be rationalised so that they are consistent. Each template should allow either, but the Usage statements should emphasize (the same) one parameter. HairyWombat (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me. Unless anyone objects, I'll make the relevant changes to {{db-g6}} and {{db-g8}} in a day or two. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Also {{db-g7}} and {{db-t3}}. (I have now looked at the lot.) The former uses |rationale= and the latter |reason=. As two of the four templates use |rationale=, I suggest we standardize on that. If that is the plan then only {{db-g6}} and {{db-t3}} need to be changed. HairyWombat (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

|rationale= sounds good to me. Happy‑melon 11:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, all of them sound just as good as each other, but we should try and be consistent I guess - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Since there's been no objections, I've added code to {{db-g6}} and {{db-t3}} to allow them to use |rationale= and changed the documentation accordingly. The old parameters still work, though I suppose we could phase them out in a few months if necessary. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Things like this are a fantastic way to break user scripts.... --MZMcBride (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, the old parameter should still work, unless I screwed up. If I have, my edits should be reverted back to a working version. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Editprotected request

{{editprotected}} {{db-xfd}} reads This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion because a consensus has been reached at Templates for deletion or Stub types for deletion to delete, but this page has not yet been deleted.See Templates for deletion. I noticed that their should simply be a space after the period between "deleted" and "See". GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 01:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. --- RockMFR 03:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Addition?

People often add {{hangon}} without ever leaving a hangon rationale, thinking the hangon template alone will save the article. Could we add text like

Adding a {{hangon}} without posting a rationale at the talk page will not keep the article from being deleted.

or something, making the template look like this:

Or is that too off-putting? Feel free to tweak the wording. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. (also)Happy‑melon 13:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

s/posting a rationale/explaining it/ or some such. Omit unnecessary words and use simpler ones in place of jargon. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 04:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (iPod edit)

As an alternative, some tweaks to {{hangon}} itself might make that text more noticeable. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

@Nihiltres: that's a good point; how about something like this (change marked in italics):

Adding a {{hangon}} without explaining why the article should be kept will not keep the article from being deleted.

@Luna Santin: Another good idea; why not do both? One thing that would be easy would be to add an {{#ifexist:Talk:{{PAGENAME}}}} to check and see if the talk page is created (granted, there are other ways to post a hangon rationale than by posting to the talk page, and the talk page could already be created with banners or whatnot even if there's no hangon rationale...but still I bet this would cover 90% of cases); if the talk page isn't created, the {{hangon}} template would display some big ugly red text saying something like "you have not edited the article talk page yet, please leave a message at the talkpage explaining why you think the article should not be deleted. If you have left a message at the talkpage but this message is still showing up, try purging this page.". Or something like that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Just noting, but {{hangon}} also takes a parameter for the reason. Using that parameter should also prevent the display of the red text. Cheers. lifebaka++ 05:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see... so the code would have to be something like

{{#ifexist:Talk:{{PAGENAME}}| |{{#if:{{{1|}}}| |RED TEXT}}}}

 ? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No one has really objected, so I implemented both of the changes (to this and to {{hangon}}). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)