Template talk:Db-meta

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Db-meta template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 90 days

Template:Db-meta is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, all speedy deletion template talk pages redirect here. If you are here to discuss one of the db-* (delete because) templates, please be sure to identify which one. For discussions on each individual template prior to July 2008, see the histories of each talk page. For discussions about the template for criterion G1 from March 2004, see Template talk:Db-g1/Archive 1.

Edit request 12 May 2023[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

To the hatnote:

Diff:

Sincerely, --AugustusAudax (talk|contribs) P.S: Aliens exist 00:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: {{edit template-protected}} is usually not required for edits to the documentation or categories of templates using a documentation subpage. Use the 'edit' link at the top of the green "Template documentation" box to edit the documentation subpage. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: parameter "demo"[edit]

Page Wikipedia:Template index/Speedy deletion has an issue. It consists of several demos of speedy deletion templates, which sometimes users unknowingly click and save the page Wikipedia talk:Template index/Speedy deletion, which so far hasn't attracted any useful discussion, only misplaced requests and errant "Contested deletion" sections. All demos on the page Wikipedia:Template index/Speedy deletion pass |demo=yes to the templates, but they don't support parameter demo.

This talk page is also sometimes affected by this issue, as do talk pages of other {{db-*}} templates. Template talk:Db-g1 was even protected to prevent this issue.

What if demos of the {{db-*}} templates linked the button "Contest this speedy deletion" to Wikipedia:Sandbox to avoid users editing talk pages of affected pages by mistake? Possible implementation is in the sandbox: Special:Diff/1142289156/1155146250, which you can try out in a new testcase and on the page Template:Db-meta/sandbox, which is affected by value yes in {{{demo|<noinclude>yes</noinclude>}}}.

Usages of {{db-meta}} would be updated like so: Special:Diff/996406127/1155147227. This can be tested on the page Template:Db/sandbox. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier to just protect Wikipedia talk:Template index/Speedy deletion, right? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What level of protection would you suggest? Should the page Template talk:Db-meta be also protected? —⁠andrybak (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection should suffice since the people doing this are almost always non-autoconfirmed, and this page does not appear to need protection because there is no disruption in its history. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection should suffice since the people doing this are almost always non-autoconfirmed,

Agreed. I checked the last dozen of "Contested deletion: new section" edits of Wikipedia talk:Template index/Speedy deletion and only one was by an autoconfirmed user.

and this page does not appear to need protection because there is no disruption in its history.

Here are examples of people clicking the button "Contest this speedy deletion" on Template:Db-meta that cause undesirable edits to this page: Special:Diff/1113562554, Special:Diff/1026594224, Special:Diff/1026122075, Special:Diff/937680486, Special:Diff/922642432.

I might be misunderstanding the meaning of the word "disruption" in your message. Guideline Wikipedia:Disruptive editing is formulated in terms of behavior of a single editor, but here we have multiple editors clicking on the same button. Perhaps you mean that there isn't enough such problematic edits to this page to warrant protection or other actions? —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, you misunderstood nothing: I just didn't look that far back. I suspect that the rate is low enough that it may still not be worth doing anything, but that decision will ultimately have to be made by an admin at RFPP, not by me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mismatch between Template:db-catempty and its Twinkle notice[edit]

A category I created was recently tagged for speedy deletion using {{db-catempty}}. A message was left on my talk page, using Twinkle, that contained the following instructions: you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". I was unable to find a button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion" anywhere on the category page.

Can someone who knows this set of templates and messages better than I do please take a look and either fix this mismatch or let me know what I am missing? – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed here. Not actually a Twinkle issue, and has apparently been a problem since October. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Template:Delete" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Template:Delete has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 19 § Template:Delete until a consensus is reached. Vitaium (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 5 December 2023[edit]

This edit request to Template:db-c1 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change

<u>if it has remained empty for at least {{{days|seven}}} days</u>

to

<em style="font-style:normal;text-decoration:underline;">if it has remained empty for at least {{{days|seven}}} days</em>

. <u>...</u> is meant (semantically) for offsetting text (e.g. underlining a miseplled word); <em>...</em> is meant for emphasis. CSS is used to make it appear the same way with the correct semantic meaning. Best, House Blaster^talk 13:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Minor point but please note the syntax in the {{TPER}} was incorrect. Primefac (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noted; thanks! Sincere apologies for any confusion. House Blaster^talk 13:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Days parameter in db-c1[edit]

Apparently, {{db-c1}} has a |days= parameter. It is only used in one place: if it has remained empty for at least {{{days|seven}}} days (nowiki added). It does not change the behavior of the template, and there is nothing in WP:C1 that permits deleting an empty category after fewer than seven days. The only possible use I can think of would be to delete an empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past, but in that case an editor should use {{db-g6}} (if it has not be automatically tagged). I think it should be removed. Thoughts? House Blaster^talk 19:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adminbox Suggestion[edit]

I noticed that this template has a section with tools for administrators, which has the sysop-show class applied. However, it seems like this would be useful for non-administrators who are reviewing CSDs that should be taken to XfD instead. Perhaps it would be better to set this to display for logged in users? I understand that there's CSS code that editors can put to get around this, but not everyone knows about that. Sagflaps (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 12 February 2024[edit]

This edit request to Template:Db-c1 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please sync with Template:Db-c1/sandbox, which removes support for |days= (see discussion above). It also reflects the fact that interwikis should be at Wikidata. Thanks! House Blaster (talk · he/him) 06:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 18 February 2024[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change: I believe we should remove the ellipsis from {{Hangon preload generic}} because if someone does follow the instructions directly and replaces (your reason here) with their reason, they'll be left with something like This page should not be speedily deleted because... the page is notable. I have seen this unnecessary ellipsis make it into editors' messages more than once, and I don't think the ellipsis currently adds any clarity.

Diff:

popodameron ⁠talk 21:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change db-g7 to the following:

Reason: lots of non-admins following this and removing CSD templates. Feel free to make this change on all templates that have this issue. Thanks --- thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/ $ 19:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: G7 can be declined by anyone, as it is "user requested". There is no mandate for an administrator to be the only one that can decline this nomination type. Primefac (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]