Template talk:Db-meta/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Template:Db-c1

There seems to be a problem with this template. Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories are appearing on tagged pages but when you go to these two categories, the tagged pages aren't listed. And what really needs to happen is for the page to be tagged Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion and appear in that category for 7 days.

After 7 days, the tagged category pages are THEN suppose to move from Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories where they are then deleted by admins who patrol there. But, today (on Nov. 8th) I'm finding category pages that were tagged on Oct. 31st and they haven't been moved to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories. I was editing this template, then realized that I really didn't understand the coding so I'm posting this problem here and maybe an editor who works with templates can figure out what is not working. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Here is an example of what I'm talking about Category:Zhang Liangying albums. Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I did a WP:NULLEDIT on Category:Zhang Liangying albums and the category is now listed. Joe Decker, is this a normal duty for this is task 5 of Joe's Null Bot (talk · contribs)? If so, is the bot running? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I have found Category:2018 Invictus Games navigational boxes, Category:Indoor rowing at the Invictus Games, Category:Invictus Games by year navigational boxes and Category:Invictus Games events navigational boxes, applied a WP:NULLEDIT to each one, and these are now showing in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories which was previously empty. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
All four of those have now been deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs), so it's clear to me that it was the lack of a recent WP:NULLEDIT that had not moved the pages from Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories. Awaiting Joe's reply: they haven't edited for a couple of weeks, so I suspect that the bot is stopped. Will drop a note at WP:BON. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Seems like a straightforward task. If Joe doesn't restart his bot then I can have FastilyBot do this. -FASTILY 00:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

How to simulate Joe's Null Bot manually:

  1. Go to Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion.
  2. If there are no more category links under the "Subcategories" heading, stop.
  3. Click one of the category links under the "Subcategories" heading.
  4. Look at the last line of the pink box, beginning "This page was last edited by ...".
  5. Examine the timestamp on that line. If this is later than 13:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC), go back to step 2.
  6. Perform a WP:NULLEDIT.
  7. Check Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories to make sure the category is now listed there.
  8. Return to Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion and make sure the category is no longer listed there (if it is, reload the page).
  9. Go back to step 2.

--Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone who looked into this. When I checked random categories in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion two days ago, there were some categories listed which had been sitting there for 8 or 9 days and all of the categories were listed in alphabetical order.
But as of yesterday, all of the older empty categories had now been moved to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories (and been deleted) and the categories now listed in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion are ordered by how many days they have been sitting there...so, at the beginning of the listing are categories that were tagged 6 days ago, then ones that were tagged 5 days ago and so on which is very convenient. Well, it is convenient for admins but not so convenient for editors who patrol this list and look for categories that have been emptied out-of-process. I'm sure glad I didn't attempt to fix this myself because I see things could have gotten much messier than they were! Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Think the bot should be functional again, and should run at its regularly scheduled time sometime in the next 24 hours. --joe deckertalk 06:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I had reordered the category to make it easy to check if this gets resolved. I (or someone else) can revert the change if the previous order is desired. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

{{Db-g13}}

The CSD that this template relates to was changed, and therefore the template was changed to reflect that, but I find the new wording clunky and potentially confusing:

" This template may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as either a page in the draftspace, a rejected/unsubmitted userspace Articles for Creation page, or a draft in either namespace with no content except the placeholder article wizard text that has not been edited (excluding bot edits) in over six months. See CSD G13."

There's got to be a better way to word this, but in the interest of not making it worse I'm soliciting suggestions here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

For one thing, "either" at the start jangles since it's for two-item mentions only. In any event, why not just use the criterion's actual wording from WP:CSD#G13, with some minor changes to make it fit the use?
This [TYPE OF PAGE] may meet may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page that has not been edited by a human in six months, found in: 1) the draft namespace; or 2) the userspace with an {{AFC submission}} template; or 3) the userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text. Note that redirects are exempt from this criterion. See CSD G13.
--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Editintro parameter for contesting

Back in 2011, there was a suggestion to add an edit intro to the page that loads when you click "Contest this speedy deletion" but nothing ever came of it. I want to revitalize that idea because there are often empty contentions created by new users. I modified Template:Db-meta/sandbox to display Template:Hangon preload editintro when you click the button. Anyone mind if I added this to the live template? Regards SoWhy 08:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems a very good idea. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Note, Suffusion of Yellow has created 968 (hist · log) to track such uses (might be set to disallow or warn later). Regards SoWhy 10:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I have added it to the template. Regards SoWhy 19:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Use named parameters in more db templates

A few of the db templates only use unnamed parameters for meaningful switches, so I've added some to those sandboxes and would appreciate a review of the changes since nested curly braces make me go crazy:

There is some discrepancy between whether templates use {{{named|{{{1|}}}}}} and {{{1|{{{named|}}}}}}. I changed the order in a couple of the diffs above (move and t3) for the existing parameter out of habit, but it's not immediately clear to me that there's an advantage to one over the other? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

They all look good to me. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done, thanks. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
@JJMC89: I wonder if it might've been better for me to use rationale instead of reason for F9? From looking over {{db-multiple}}, it processes the former but not the latter. {{db-f7}} uses reason, as well as {{db-t2}} (which I had thought​ to merge into the unnamed 1 parameter), perhaps rationale would be better for them as well? {{db-move}} does as well, but since that's not compatible with {{db-multiple}} it wouldn't be an issue. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I would just make them synonymous; we're very inconsistent with parameter names, and it's hassle having to come to the template doc to see which it uses.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd make them all use the same parameter name. Adding an alias for the other is up to you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Db-f3

Please remove the statement that GFDL 1.2 files are accepted at Commons, as this is no longer the case per this discussion. funplussmart (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Db-unfree listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Db-unfree. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 April 2019

At:

please either remove <includeonly>--</includeonly>, or replace it with --. The preload should not contain hidden characters in this manner. If the "--" should be added before the signature, there is no reason to "includeonly" them, and if they should not be, they shouldn't be present at all. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

A3 is not in your list but has the same thing going on. Was that a deliberate omission? --Izno (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Izno: No, I just missed it. Its not template-protected (though maybe it should be) so I could implement this myself, but given that the scope affects multiple templates I'll wait until someone else opines about if the "--" should be kept at all. Thanks for catching that though. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
also applies to C1, F1, F2, and probably others, that I didn't list. I only listed the ones that I can't edit myself, and based on the edits to those I'll either remove the "includeonly" tags or the entire -- part. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 Done Please feel free to make amendments to the other templates. Izno (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Izno: thanks. Per your edits, I will remove the "includeonly" tags but leave the "--". Thank so much, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 April 2019

At Template:Hangon preload A7, please replace ~~<noinclude />~~<noinclude> with --~~<noinclude />~~<noinclude> (add "--") to match the other hangon preload templates. See also the discussion above. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 02:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Izno: wow that was fast --DannyS712 (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible fix for missing paragraph end tag and possibly incorrect closing of ifeq{self}

I have edited the sandbox with a proposed change to make use of a closing /p tag that is currently ignored. I think it is ignored because the expression ifeq{self} is not properly closed. I know that this template is used in many places, in many ways, however, and the test cases page doesn't have very many cases on it, so I am wary of putting this change into production without a check from other editors.

The current template's syntax problems can be seen by putting {{db-g7}} into Special:ExpandTemplates and observing that the closing /p tag that is in the template code is not rendered in the G7 template. Viewing the template code with the Syntax Highlighter gadget also shows the problem (the /p shows up in yellow, which is an indication that something is wrong). – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I am carefully but boldly implementing what should be a minor change. I welcome any and all trouts and reverts if I screwed something up. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: The only screw-up I see with this edit was that it moved the "Contest this speedy deletion" button and last editor message outside the deletion tag. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience, everyone. I have just implemented a slightly different attempt at a fix. This one keeps the "last edited" message inside the box. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Looks OK. The <p>...</p> element is peculiar (compared to other HTML elements) in that although it behaves as a block element, it cannot itself contain block elements such as <div>...</div> <table>...</table>, lists etc. When you attempt to place a block element "inside" a <p>...</p>, the opening tag of the block element implicitly forces a closing </p> immediately prior to the opening tag of the "enclosed" block element. In this case, the {{#tag: inputbox | ... }} creates a <div>...</div>. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I know that p tags have complex behavior, and they don't seem to make a difference most of the time, so I usually leave them alone when I am cleaning up Linter errors. This one was popping up in many db-* templates, however, and it was bugging me, so I wanted to get it off the list. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete because

If Db stands for "delete because" as I think I remember it does, then I would like to see the wording of the instructions contain that as a clue, or etymology if you like. --Rogerhc (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rogerhc: I'm not sure what you are asking, but the documentation at Template:Db confirms that it does stand for that: "This template (db = "delete because") is a generic speedy deletion template..." --DannyS712 (talk) 05:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Untitled suggestion

I would like to suggest the following wording change to improve clarity.

"If you created this page, please do not remove this notice. Otherwise, if this template does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice."

If acceptable, it might be even better if the first sentence was: "If you created this page, please do not remove this notice under any circumstance." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADP85xzVcQD (talk • contribs) 17:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 August 2019

Change the word "target" in "[...]or a redirect that ends in '(disambiguation)' that target a page that is not a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function" to "targets", for correct grammar. Geolodus (talk) 09:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux Talk 11:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 August 2019

The page is created only for the information of the person who is involved in the dubbing industry more than 2 decades. The page is to display the works and the basic information of the dubbing films, which will be easy to the viewers who will try to know about the latest films in regional languages. This is not a promotional page or not used for any commercial purpose. Gowthamgda (talk) 07:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. This page is for changes to the speedy deletion template. If you want to contest the speedy deletion of a certain page, you need to state this on its talk page. Regards SoWhy 07:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Db-g11 white-space

I have created {{Db-g11/sandbox}} with a {{#tag:span|long prose|style=white-space:normal}} to fix the horizontal scroll problem. Any objections to pushing it live? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 21:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

What horizontal scroll problem? Why does it matter on a page that is about to be deleted in any case? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Do you object to a trivial change that fixes the display of an informational template or not? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 00:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Could you provide more detail on the issue? I'm not seeing it. --Bsherr (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The sentence that reads "However, the mere fact that a company, organization, or product is a page's subject does not, on its own, qualify that page for deletion under this criterion. Nor does this criterion apply where substantial encyclopedic content would remain after removing the promotional material as deletion is not cleanup; in this case please remove the promotional material yourself, or add the {{advert}} tag to alert others to do so" displays with white-space:nowrap, causing the template to stretch to vastly wider than most screens will show; that's a 2424px wide sentence (at font-size:13.3px) with an attempted 20% of the available page width dedicated to margin (10% either side) and some little extra padding. The result is a requirement to scroll sideways to read the information. Viewing {{Db-g11}} on anything but an uncommonly wide monitor or an uncommonly dramatic negative browser zoom will show the problem. Users unfamiliar with the content of the template should not be expected to scroll sideways to read it. By adding a <span>...</span> container to the sentence, with white-space:normal fixes the problem as can be seen clearly when viewing {{Db-g11/sandbox}}. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Apparently my own user CSS is applying the nowrap. No wonder you can't see the problem. Never mind *derp*. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Ah, very glad you've got it sorted out. I was just dragging my window wide to narrow and back, watching the text wrap, and wondering what I was missing! --Bsherr (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I don't even know why I have that rule (lesson to be learned: leave code comments). Something somewhere must have been annoying me at some point. I should probably take some time to review it all. Actually, I have 100% edit summaries so I might have said something useful at the time. Anyway, that's my problem now. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 03:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Timing after purging is off

I made an edit to a page to add the Template:Db-u1 template and when I purged the page, it said the page was made 40 seconds ago, when it was probably made nearly 10 seconds ago. Could this be fixed? Or is this a problem with Template:Purge instead? –apap04 talk | contributions 13:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

It's likely a lag between user and server. I would highly doubt there is anything anyone could do about it. Primefac (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

{{db-empty}} in portal space

When transcluded in the portal namespace, should Template:db-empty invoke Template:db-p1 (with the "|A3" parameter) or Template:db-p2? Both could equally apply and be referred to. (I don't think it should invoke Template:db-a3, which is only intended for articles.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geolodus (talk • contribs) 09:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Imho, db-p1 with A3 as a parameter makes more sense since it's the more specific criterion to P2. Regards SoWhy 09:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

There has been no discussion yet besides SoWhy's comment. Should the change (so it displays db-p1 with A3) be done? Geolodus (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I concur with SoWhy. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Can someone make the change then? I don't know template markup well enough to do it myself. Geolodus (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 Not done This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. — xaosflux Talk 17:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 October 2019

I fail to understand the deletion of News 9 Kenya article, I have conformed to all the wikipedia guidline. The article describes a news website that is currently running in Kenya. Kindly highlight on portions that makes the article promotional Caydee32 (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Db-meta}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Sceptre (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 October 2019

Change "him/herself" and "his/her" to singular "themselves" and "their" jaclar0529 (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

 Question: please explain your rationale for this change — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@MSGJ: This seems to mostly be a "cosmetic" change that doesn't appear to impact process/policy/readability - as such I'm inclined to process as WP:BRD baring any specific objections after a few days. — xaosflux Talk 14:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't immediately convinced it was an improvement to the wording, which is why I invited the OP to explain their reasoning — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm with MSGJ; why does the OP find this change necessary? Primefac (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Using "themselves" as the plural of the singular "they" is awkward. Also, the word "this" in the current wording is lacking an antecedent. I propose rewording entirely, to something like "Note that this criterion applies only to articles about people themselves, not about their books, albums, shows, software, etc." – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 Not done As there are objections above, this is to step 3 of WP:BRD (without actually performing the technical first 2 steps and potentially causing update issues on this highly visible template). Please continue to discuss and reactivate the request if needed. — xaosflux Talk 17:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 September 2019

This template seems to cause a stripped </b> tag wherever transcluded. It's way above my pay grade to understand why. Please fix it. — Anomalocaris (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Anomalocaris: I believe that I have fixed a couple of these cases (see this discussion, for example). Because this template is transcluded in many other templates, you'll have to be more specific about where you are seeing the Linter problem. For example, I am seeing this template used at Abu Nasir right now, where it is transcluded by {{db-disambig}}, a speedy deletion template. There are no Linter problems on that page, according to LintHint.
In my experience, only specific templates that transclude this meta template have errors. Can you let us know which specific template(s) cause Linter errors? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Jonesey95: I clicked the button on the edit page of {{Db-multiple}}, and didn't notice that I wasn't on its own talk page. I see now that I tried to fix this myself 21:25, 28 August 2019‎ and was reverted by User:Primefac, whose edit summary said "Template:db-meta has a <b> without a close". —Anomalocaris (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
{{db-multiple}} sends |1= for the following reasons:</b><ul>= to {{db-meta}}, which has the code <b><i>This ...</i>{{{1}}}{{#if:{{{2|}}}|.</b> <i>{{{2}}}</i>. <b>|. }}. Since the former does not send a |2= to the latter, it doesn't close the <b>, which is why the </b> is in the {{db-multiple}}. Primefac (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I've added the b tag after the list, so should be ok now. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Marking as resolved after checking transclusions of {{db-multiple}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

divblank

@Jonesey95: I am fairly certain the intent of the parameter is to blank any content following the template. By closing the div here you inhibit that entirely and so attack pages become visible to the general populace. Did you test your change? --Izno (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Out of an overabundance of caution I have reversed both of the edits mentioned above. Let's sandbox this first to make sure we get it right across all of the db- template family. Primefac (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
That makes sense. I have documented this odd exception with a comment so that other well-meaning gnomes do not have to know the oral history behind this oddity. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
WOSlinker, Jonesey95, Izno, Primefac: Thank you all for your work on this and I agree, let's make sure we get it right across all of the db- template family. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

db-g10

For the record, I made what should be a minor change to {{db-g10}} in order to fix some misnesting of italic and bold formatting. Trouts are welcome if I messed it up. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

G11-G12

WOSlinker, Jonesey95, Izno, Primefac: Draft:Rayyar Bungalow includes the line {{db-multiple|G11|G12|url=http://shakri.blogspot.com/2013/07/krishna-row-agraharam.html}}

which generates a stripped </b>. I report without any investigation. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

sigh I'll see about rewriting the backend of these templates to avoid the weird nesting of formatting between them all. Primefac (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that I may have fixed the problem while avoiding the nest of vipers that is Template:db-meta. I tested this change in my sandbox and at Special:ExpandTemplates, and it looks OK to me. Let me know if you see anything strange, aside from the new bolding of the "...valid" sentence. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 November 2019

When called with these parameters: {{db-attack|blanked=yes|help=off}} the result is an unclosed <div> tag, as Expand Templates reveals that it ends <div id="AttackPage" style="display:none">__NOINDEX____NOINDEX__[[Category:Candidates for speedy deletion]][[Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as attack pages]] ... so, please fix it. — Anomalocaris (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: This is by design, see #divblank above. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: Unless there is a way to blank an entire page without involving the use of an unclosed <div>, I think this will have to stay an "issue". Primefac (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If you put the above code in Special:ExpandTemplates and uncheck the "Remove comments" box, you will see a comment that says "do not close this div tag; it is there to ensure that any content remaining on the page does not display". – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Make db-person more gender-neutral?

Right now the {{db-person}} template says Note that this applies to an article about the person him/herself, not about his/her books, albums, shows, software, etc. (emphasis mine). The MoS says specifically to avoid using generic he or she, and since there are articles about non-binary people that use singular they, it would make sense to have that reflected here. I'm proposing the wording is changed to themselves and their, respectively. Nowhere in the A7 criteria does it say "him" or "her", which is why I'm proposing it here rather than on WT:CSD. I see that this was recently proposed but rejected, so an alternative could be "... about the individual, not about their books ..." – Frood (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Please see this discussion, where I proposed a complete rewording of the text to: "Note that this criterion applies only to articles about people themselves, not about their books, albums, shows, software, etc." There was no further discussion after my proposal. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I like that as well. That's definitely less awkward than "him/herself" imo. – Frood (talk) 03:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I have made this edit. If I made any mistakes, or if others have objections, feel free to correct them or note them here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 December 2019

Replace "as a category that is empty, is not currently in a deletion discussion (or was emptied outside of that process), and is not a category redirect, a disambiguation category, a featured topics category, or a project category that by its nature becomes empty on occasion." with "as a category that is empty, is not currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (or other such discussions), and is not a disambiguation category, category redirect, featured topics category, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion." Reason: to bring current wording into line with Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Categories. The current wording suggests that being in a "Categories for Renaming" discussion would not make a category ineligible for C1 deletion. TSventon (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC) TSventon (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

A note for clarity: the template in question is {{db-c1}}. This is the centralized talk page for many speedy deletion templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: The template at the beginning of my post does mention Db-c1 and I used the "Change x to y" format suggested in the template. TSventon (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Db-r2 no longer displays?

While merging a few single-use templates into mainspace, I noticed Template:Db-r2 no longer shows up when I add it the cross-namespace redirect (such as Template:Green Bay Chill roster). I have just been using g6 for now, but does r2 still work even if the template does not show up? Yosemiter (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Neither R2 nor G6 applied in the case you mentioned here. Glades12 (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 December 2019

Smsanjudharanwiki (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

THE LINK paper belongs to M.S.MINU

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Db-meta}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Izno (talk) 15:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

G6: no need for "contest" button, creators can simply remove

The assumption appears to be that WP:G6 is one of those criteria where it's acceptable for the creator of the page to remove the speedy tag (see for example this discussion from 2011). This has implications for what text is displayed by the template: the text that says creators can't remove the tag and the button that gives the option to contest are absent (examples: {{db-g7}} and {{db-g8}} in contrast to {{db-g10}}). The same should be done for {{db-g6}} as well: if it's generally acceptable for creators to remove it then the template should not say that they can't. I propose that this text be removed. The result will be that the template will again look like it did between this edit in 2011 and this edit in 2015. The 2015 reinstatement was a result of this discussion, where the main concern was that G6 deletions are not always uncontroversial and that there ought to be a way for creators to object to the tag. However, this overlooked the possibility of objecting by simply removing the tag.

I have no opinion on whether the template should explicitly say that creators can indeed remove it. – Uanfala (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Ooh, interesting. Yes, I think I agree with the logic of the decision, and regardless, agree that, based on that consensus, the contest button should be removed. The problem is that Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion does not document this exception to a creator removing the tag. That should certainly be addressed. Once that's done, I see merits to both including or not that information in the template. On the one hand, it may be overly instructive, but on the other hand, this is an unusual and probably not widely known exception. --Bsherr (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I have thought this for a long time, but never worked up the courage to say it. Thank you. Glades12 (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I may actually have, but I can't seem to find it. Either way, I agree with Uanfala. Glades12 (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Fully protected request on 25 Jan 2020

Please make the article fully protected 223.25.63.70 (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

223, to request page protection of an article, please see WP:RFPP. Editing this page does nothing for that. — xaosflux Talk 05:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The wording of Template:Db-u2 is inconsistent with the policy

CSD criterion U2 lists as an exception to the rule redirects from "the previous name of a renamed user".

Template:Db-u2, on the other hand, lists the exception as redirects from "the previous name of a recently renamed user (which should normally be left as a redirect to the new name for a reasonable time)" (emphasis mine).

I propose that the template be changed to match the policy. --kingboyk (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

For the record, the wording in the template matched the one on the WP:CSD section until I simplified the wording in WP:CSD. (As discussed on WT:CSD, the word "recently" never accurately described the policy's implementation.) I have no objection to changing the template accordingly, but I do not have the privileges to do so myself. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I've found that discussion, now archived at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_60#"Reasonable_time"_in_U2.
Since it cannot be too controversial to edit the template to match policy (as opposed to the other way round) I will go ahead and edit the template.
To whom it may concern: if more discussion is necessary, feel free to revert my edit to the template and we can continue to discuss here. --kingboyk (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Understood; apologies for laziness in not locating the discussion myself. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 07:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I endorse the change. I never noticed that contradiction myself. Glades12 (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

T3 discrepancy?

I think I've found another discrepancy between policy and template. I have opened discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#T3_discrepancy?. --kingboyk (talk) 09:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Green on red

The issue was already noticed at the bottom of Template_talk:Db-meta/Archive_3, but ignored – we shouldn't use green text on a red background to indicate something more important than almost-black text on the same background. The lower contrast may have an opposite effect.

Proposal: Use the "strong" semantic HTML tag instead; that's what it is for.

Alternative proposal: Use white highlighting and explicitly use black text color to create a stronger contrast.

Alternative proposal: Use both.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

In {{db-g12}}, the text colour is given by the tag <span style="text-align:center; color:green"> and the background colour by the rule 
table.ombox-speedy {
    border: 2px solid #b32424;
    background-color: #fee7e6;
}
Given that green is interpreted by most browsers as the RGB value #008000 (Note to administrators), then according to Snook, the contrast ratio for this is 4.351 which does not meet WCAG 2 AA Compliance, which is our minimum standard. If we darken the green just slightly, to #007D00 (Note to administrators), we get a contrast ratio of 4.522 and so meet WCAG 2 AA Compliance. In order to meet WCAG 2 AAA Compliance we have to go all the way to #005C00 (Note to administrators) with a contrast ratio of 7.028. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The bigger issue for these colors is red-green color blindness IMO, not color contrast (though I generally find green on red a horrific combination :). I also prefer <strong> in this application. --Izno (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The WCAG guidelines (and thus Snooks tool also) doesn't just consider contrast in hue; it also considers contrast in saturation and value (see this diagram, also HSL and HSV). So a user with red/green colour blindness would still perceive a difference in lightness: dark text on light background. Note that the <strong>...</strong> element doesn't necessarily cause the text to be rendered as boldface (although it often does), and also that boldface doesn't affect the contrast calculation, although it does alter the threshold for meeting both WCAG 2 AA Compliance and WCAG 2 AAA Compliance - but only when the text is between 14 point and 18 point, and so is not relevant here.
You could ask the people at WT:WCAG for their opinion, alternatively WT:ACCESSIBILITY. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the research and feedback! Regarding the contrast seen by people with red-green color blindness, my point is that even if legible, the coloring probably has the opposite of the intended effect, raising attention. This can't be fixed even by using the proposed WCAG 2 AAA compliant green. It could be fixed by using a different background and/or font color than green on red. Making a color appear "green" requires a minimum amount of lightness, but the largest contrast could be achieved with a lightness of zero.
Regarding "strong" not necessarily bolding text, that's fine to me – the browser (or screen reader) is supposed to convey the information "This text is important" to the reader. Simply coloring it green, a color perhaps more associated with positive, non-warning messages, might not have this effect.
To maximize visual and semantic impact, on second thought, I now prefer the third of my examples. Count me in for any of them, though. I'll notify the wikiproject, thanks for the tip! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Just as an FYI, I already implemented the darker green as a trivial improvement.
I do mostly agree with use of either strong or black text or both. --Izno (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:Speedy deletion

Module:Speedy deletion has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

The request is premature, discussion is happening at WT:CSD#Hoaxes so I'm closing this to keep discussion in one place. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In Template:Db-hoax, please change the recommended user talk warning message from {{db-vandalism-notice}} to {{db-hoax-notice}}, as I have turned that template from a redirect into a separate warning message specific to hoaxes. Passengerpigeon (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Please link to the discussion that led to this change. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: WT:Criteria for speedy deletion#Hoaxes. Glades12 (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
There has not been discussion of the template there, so there is no established consensus for or against this change yet, please be patient and give it a few days to see what opinions are about it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I never said there had been. Did you mean to reply to Passengerpigeon? Glades12 (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, Glades12. There is no drama here, just template editors doing some due diligence to ensure that this change is supported by a consensus, since it seems like a significant change. The process is working. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template-protected edit request on 5 May 2020

This template contains the somewhat ambiguous text "Consider checking Google." I suppose it intends to encourage the user searching for the subject on the Internet. The link "www.google.com/search?q=" is a nice service, but since some search engines may withhold some results while the same results are listed by othe search engines, or rankings may be biased, it is probably a good idea to offer at least one more search engine (e.g. "duckduckgo.com/?q=") as an alternative. Suggestion: Change "Consider checking Google." to "Consider searching the Internet for the subject using a search engine like [Google] or [DDG]." (with adapted links to the respective engines). Bensin (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. While the "meat" of the request (not defaulting to Google) is reasonable, randomly chucking in a secondary search engine probably isn't the best way to go. Additionally, that part of the template is only seen by admins, who will likely already have their search engine of choice. I think removal of the link entirely would be preferred to linking to DDG, but in general this is being declined as potentially contentious and requiring more discussion. Primefac (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
That's fair. I think the rephrase suggesting "searching the Internet" is uncontroversial. The question may rather be if the Google link should be removed or if one or more alternatives should be added. Does anyone want to comment on this? --Bensin (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
All of the db-X templates' talk pages redirect here. Could you please advise to which template you refer? --Bsherr (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't know for sure, but I think all those templates using Template:Db-meta will contain this issue. Look in the html-source code and search for "www.google.com/search?q=" and you will find it. --Bensin (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone oppose rephrasing the message to "Consider searching the Internet for the subject." and leaving out any links to search engines? --Bensin (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding rationale field to Template:db-templatecat

I think we should add the rationale option to {{db-templatecat}}. This would be trivial since {{db-g8}} already has it but I thought I should notify here first. Will implement if no one objects tomorrow. --Trialpears (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Technically it has a rationale option, with that rationale being a category populated by a template, so you'll need to figure out a way to add in your rationale to that. Primefac (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
That text is in the first unnamed parameter which goes after "may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion". The rationale parameter put the text in red after "See CSD G8". You can see my sandbox version in action here. --Trialpears (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and implemented it. Courtesy ping to Primefac. --Trialpears (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding page and reason to db-move deletion summary

This came up at WT:Twinkle#CSD deletion - alternate reasons?, but would anyone be opposed to adding the page and reason parameters to the deletion summary of {{db-move}}? See the diff here. It'd mean the deletion rationale would prepopulate for sysops when clicking the deletion link. I've been meaning to go through the db templates in general to see which ones could use this sort of thing, but this is a start.​ ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Primefac (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I've gone and done this. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

T3 and C1 categories

Out of curiosity, is there a reason why T3 doesn't have some sort of "holding pen" for nominated templates, much in the same way that C1 has Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion? I patrol T3 and I feel like the majority of the time templates pop into the category "ready for deletion" but still have 3-6 days left before they're truly eligible. Unless there's a good reason for this (or other opposition) I think I'm going to set that up, just to make patrolling the category a little easier. Primefac (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I suggested this in October last year at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 75#New category for T3 nominations during the holding period with no replies. I don't think it would be a controversial change and I would definitely support it. --Trialpears (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
This would be a recreation of Category:Duplicate or hardcoded templates awaiting deletion, which was merged per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 28#Category:Duplicate or hardcoded templates awaiting deletion * Pppery * it has begun... 00:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
So maybe BrownHairedGirl (who is much more involved in the category space than me, and happened to close that CFD) can explain why it makes sense to have a "holding pen" for empty categories but not templates? And if it does make sense, would there be any issue with recreating it (or some variant), using code more similar to that of {{db-c1}}? Primefac (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@Primefac, looking back at the CFD closure, it looks like a fairly mechanical close: non-bonkers proposal, properly listed, no opposes, so close as nominated. AFAICR, that was part of clearing a huge CFD backlog, so I didn't sweat them too much.
Now that you raise it, I think that you make a good case for a holding pen approach to unused templates, and I would support doing that.
Procedurally, I am unsure what to do about that Dec 2017 CFD. It was certainly a weak consensus, but should we simply ignore it? Or re-list it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Afterthought: the obvious solution is to ask the participants at the CFD. There is only one participants: the nominator, User:LaundryPizza03.
LaundryPizza03: it seems to me that with a process category such as this, the main issue is whether those working the process find the category helpful. Here we have one of the main workers on this process (Primefac) telling us that they would find that category helpful. So unless the category has some other adverse effect, I think that it should re-created.
I am sure that your 2017 CFD nomination was made in good faith, but in hindsight it seems to have been mistaken. Would you be OK to have the category recreated without further process?
If that's not Ok with you, then of course we can re-open the formal CFD process. But if we agree, then we can avoid bureaucracy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Why does CSD T3 require us to wait for 7 days? It should be pretty straightforward like CSD A10. If it's redundant, there's no reason to wait. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I too would like to see that change (having misused it uh, a few times), but I think that might be better off in its own thread. --Izno (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The full discussion of the original creation of T3 is at this archive, but the general gist that I'm reading is that it gives users more time to see, contest, and/or update the nomination because the template space is not as heavily watched as others. I'm sure there are other clarification discussions for T3 in the archives, but that was the original one and to be honest follows pretty much exactly with what I would use to describe why there's a wait. (edit conflict) Answering Izno, there never was a change, it's always been that way. Primefac (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
No no, I would support a change to make it so I don't have to wait 7 days. (Without review, I can guess what that earlier conversation holds too; I think our refunding mechanisms are sufficient these days.) As I said though, it's a discussion for a separate thread; I don't think the general results I've seen at XFD bear out the "but mah ol' revisions sad/sad/sad" version of things.) --Izno (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I hear you; a duplicate today will be a duplicate a week from now. However, that's the structure we currently have, and if a template shouldn't technically be deleted until after seven days, then we should say "it's ready!" if it's only two days old.
Basically, I see two ways forward - recreate the deleted category and do what {{db-c1}} does (keep 'em separate), OR do what {{Prod blp/dated}} does and say when it will be eligible for deletion (rather than the current metric which is "count seven days from <date>"). Primefac (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
This is the wrong place to discuss the details of the CSD criteria, we have WT:CSD for a good reason. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, we got a little off-track, but that's not the point of this post (and I did try to bring it back on-track with my latest reply). Primefac (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixup grammar on Db-f5

Template:Db-f5's first paragraph currently seems to be missing a conjunction. May I suggest updating it to:

This file may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a non-free file that is not used in any articles or was only used in a now deleted article and is very unlikely to have any use on any other valid article. See CSD F5.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Motevets (talk • contribs) 20:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Reasonable. Done. Primefac (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

What Links Here and redirects to speedy deleted pages?

Would it be reasonable for admins to start checking What Links Here on pages tagged for speedy deletion in the future? I've noticed that when a page gets deleted, any redirects that pointed to that page broke, assuming those redirects were not already deleted at the same time. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

"Also delete redirects" is checked by default on Twinkle, so any admin using that shouldn't have this issue. Where are you seeing these problems occurring? One thing I've noticed is that well-meaning but "wrong" editors will pre-tag a redirect to a CSD target with G8 or other db- template, which breaks the redirect and doesn't allow TW to catch it. Primefac (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I've mostly noticed this with redirects from draftspace, but I don't know what other namespaces are missed with this check. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Interesting; as I said, I've only noticed it when there's either a double-redirect that hasn't yet been caught or someone prematurely tagging the redir for individual deletion. Can't say as I've noticed it from the draft space. Do you have examples? Might be worth talking to the deleting admins to see what their workflow looks like. Primefac (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Primefac, For now, the only recent example relates to my recent tag of Draft:Sahnil for G8. Other than that, all other examples I could think of have already been deleted. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Looks like that was deleted by GB fan following the deletion of Draft:Sahnil Bhatnagar. Primefac (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
@JalenFolf: Admins are already advised to do this, the db-meta template includes a message to that effect that is only displayed to admins; assuming that {{db-test}} is used on Wikipedia:Sandbox, the message would show as: Administrators: check links, history (last), and logs before deletion. . I've removed class="sysop-show" so that everyone may see it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 October 2020

[Draft:U/U] needs to be deleted 82.16.194.23 (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done that page is already nominated for deletion. — xaosflux Talk 12:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 December 2020

Remove 'or removing a disambiguation page that only points to a single link.' That is covered by G14 now, not G6. Techie3 (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

pls edit to allow "reason=" as alternative to "1="

Currently editors are expected to know and remember that "1=" is meant to be understood as "reason=" (a sensible field name used in some other templates.)

I can't/won't remember that. Right at this moment there is Draft:News 4 San Antonio where I used {{db|reason=(my reasoning...)}} instead. The page then weirdly displays the incorrect statement that: "This draft may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, but no reason has been given for why it qualifies. Please ensure that your reason is based on one of the speedy deletion criteria. Replace this tag with {{db|1=some reason}}." And others are encouraged to place the template {subst:db-reason-notice|Draft:News 4 San Antonio|header=1|no reason given}} on the talk page of the author.

Please help end the madness. Please edit this template to allow "reason=" as alternative to "1=".--Doncram (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Also, weirdly, my usage of "edit-request" in this Talk page section is identified with label "The user below has a request that an edit be made to this article for which that user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest." Because I make a request for a change to a template, I must be attacked, sort of??? --Doncram (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to enter 1=. 1 just means unnamed argument #1. As in: {{db|some reason}} rather than {{db|1=some reason}} ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
BTW, @Doncram: {{edit-request}} is meant for an article's talk page, not for a template talk page. Use {{edit template-protected}} instead. Techie3 (talk) 05:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay, but {{db|some reason}} is not explained as an option in documentation, and creating {{db|reason=}} would be a help, would be easier for editors to remember and easier for template editors here to explain than to change the documentation to introduce the concept that one or more unnamed options are possible in template calls. That is totally news to me (or at least I think it is), and I have been an editor for about 12 years. So thanks for response, but I still want to make the request to end the madness in the simplest, most obvious way. (And thank you to ProcrastinatingReader, who doesn't disagree explicitly with the request; they seem to just provide an informative comment.) --Doncram (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Honestly I dunno how I feel about aliases, as they can trip up bots, but since they're so widespread anyway I guess it does no harm to add another one. I'm happy to implement this request after leaving it open for a few days to allow for further comments, given that this template is widely used. I certainly agree that the documentation should be improved - the concept of unnamed parameters is not obvious, I agree. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm hard pressed to see a problem here. One just types something like {{db|there is a duplicate page at [[Example]]}} and your done. Seems like a bit more of a chore to type "reason=", which is seven additional keystrokes that are not required. It's a simple "unnamed" parameter, and one is only required to type |1= if the reason contains an equal sign. I say keep it short and simple! I could be wrong. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
As a general maxim, we should avoid making changes (pretty much everywhere) if addressed to rarities/are predicated on one-off misunderstandings. Since this request is based on a misunderstanding (that 1= is needed to post your reason); and the documentation provides exactly that no parameter is needed to provide a reason by affirmatively explaining how to do so; and it seems highly unlikely that a person will, both: i) repeat the same misunderstanding; and, at the same time, ii) will be sophisticated enough about templates to think they need to enter a reason= parameter that the template's documentation is silent about, I believe this is a one-off, and so see no reason to make any change.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

To editor Doncram:  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 15:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

help end the madness 2

Please help end the madness. Please change the salient upfront documentation asserting to editors that they must use format "db|1=reason". My last request to actually change the template (discussion section above), or equivalently have an alias created, was rejected on basis:

1) that there was not wide consensus established before I placed the edit-request, and there are assertions that this is a "one-off" type of thing, as if I am the only arriving editor being misdirected by the apparently long-existing misdirection. But I HIGHLY DOUBT THIS IS JUST ME. I THINK, RATHER, I am the rare editor both capable/understanding enough and willing to take the time to point out the madness.

2) that (it was asserted) the usage "db|reason" is explained to be the usage, to be okay to use instead of db|1=reason". THAT IS EFFECTIVELY FALSE. The specific statement "the documentation provides exactly that no parameter is needed to provide a reason by affirmatively explaining how to do so" is literally true, I can eventually see, if the arriving editor ignores bolded, multi-colored, dramatic statements "This template may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, but no reason has been given for why it qualifies. Please ensure that your reason is based on one of the speedy deletion criteria. Replace this tag with {{db|1=some reason}}.", that much further below there is contradictory information provided.

The contradictory statement further below is that "Using {{db|reason}} will produce the speedy deletion template shown above, except that in the place of "no reason has been given", your reason will be placed. If no reason is given, however, the text 'no reason has been given"' will be displayed."

However this is effectively inadequate,

  • partly because it does not convey/acknowledge this is an alternative different than what is stated to be required at the top,
  • partly because its location is simply way further below,
  • partly because, IMO, it is not clear. In context on this page, does "|reason" here mean that you must write out "|1=This should be deleted because it is bad" or whatever? That is how I understood it. It is a bit of a leap to understand, given the other instructions, that this means omitting the "1=" is okay.

And, is there some reason why following the instructions to use "db|reason" fails? In tests I've now done in Userspace, Draftspace, and Mainspace, literally following the instructions leads to error message "Template loop detected". See, and test for yourself, at User:Doncram/testdb, Draft:News 4 San Antonio, and Glerbo. I am pretty sure that I have myself tested the instructions more than once, only to encounter error messages and/or more directions that I must use syntax "1=". Try it, yourself: paste {{db|reason}} onto a page, and see what it says.

3) that it is believed (I can't explain it) something really bad or horrible will happen if an alias is created so that "db|reason=" syntax will be interpreted as "db|1=". I don't know what to say. I doubt anything bad would happen. It seems to me that if "reason=" is not a valid field, then it should be considered to be an "unnamed argument". I and probably 99 percent of occasional users of template:db did not know that "unnamed arguments" are allowed, anyhow. But if you are going to allow them, then if one does put in something like:

{{db|reason=The reason this is bad is that it is bad.}}

then shouldn't that generate: "reason=The reason this is bad is that it is bad". BUT NO, instead it generates: This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, but no reason has been given for why it qualifies. Please ensure that your reason is based on one of the speedy deletion criteria. Replace this tag with {{db|1=some reason}}.

Please help end the madness. --Doncram (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

 Madness ended. The reason for the template loop is because the {{db}} template is designed to call other db templates in its first unnamed parameter. So if you type {{db|person}}, the {{db-person}} template is called and inserted into this template as the reason to delete. Add to that the fact that the template {{db-reason}} was moved (and redirected) to {{db}} back in 2008, which means that when "reason" is placed alone in the first parameter, a template loop was caused. You, Doncram, must be the first editor in all those years to notice this, so I call that not just a "good catch", I call it an awesome catch! The template loop was defeated by an ifeq function that tells the template to do nothing if "reason" is placed alone in the first parameter, so  Fixed. (And sorry, I still don't think a "reason=" parameter is needed. I could be wrong.) Best wishes for the holidays to you and yours! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 18:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Should also note that there are three other redirects in this list that will cause template loops (the ones that begin with "Db-"), and they'll probably never be used this way. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 18:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
@Doncram and Paine Ellsworth: Why is {{db|reason}} being used at all? We don't permit speedy deletion for made-up reasons, only for the criteria explicitly described at WP:CSD; and for every single one of those, there exist one or more dedicated templates, such as {{db-g1}}, {{db-nonsense}} etc. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
To editor Redrose64: and once again (what is this? the gazillionth time?) you are right and I am wrong! The student has not yet surpassed the teacher! There really is no need to make an exception just because an editor found one of four redirects to the {{Db}} template that would cause a template loop. So my gifts to all are the removal of the template loops from Doncram's example pages and self-reversion of that silly exception. Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 11:59.99, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Er, your edit here was 12:00 noon (UTC), not midnight (UTC). So 25 December is incorrect. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Of course, you're assuming that the Wikipedia clock always yields the perfect time on the "cusps"? Since you are sharp enough to have caught that, you are also sharp enough to know why I did it. And the vast majority of editors probably wouldn't have even seen the difference. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 15:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
@Redrose64:. There are numerous times when the db template comes in handy. First and foremost is for when further information/an explanation is needed or would likely be of assistance to the reviewing admin. For example, for {{db-G5}}/{{db-banned}}, it is often incredibly helpful if instead of using {{Db-g5|name of banned user}}, a reviewing admin finds {{db|CSD G5 – created after user X was banned [https://www.diffUrl at this ANI discussion]}}. Many G6s are helped as well. A rather common one is G7s, where the sole author has posted somewhere else that they request deletion. Situations also come up where you need to explain why an existing criterion actually applies, where it either might at first blush appear inapplicable, or some ambiguity for applicability needs clarification, and you've already done the investigative legwork. For example, a G12, where you need to provide additional useful info on the source(s) of infringement (actually you can put any text explanation you'd like in db-g12's "url" parameter, but that's not known or obvious); or, an A7 where it's not on-its-face clear what the article is about solely from its text, but you've confirmed what the subject is, and (for X, Y and Z reasons), it is indeed within the limited ambit of A7-elegible topics.) And, of course (au contraire), a facility for the rare, valid, IAR deletion target is absolutely needed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps the criterion-specific templates should be enhanced to allow such explanations; although in some of the situations that you describe above, the facility already exists - for example {{db-g7|rationale=DeletionRationale}}. However, speedy deletion is for uncontroversial cases, and if you need to explain why a criterion applies, that does imply that it could be controversial. Please give examples of a "rare, valid, IAR deletion" which was "absolutely needed". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't the template db-spamuser also place place the page into the db-u5 category?

Shouldn't the template db-spamuser also place place the page into the db-u5 category? Db-spamuser also fits into db-u5, so shouldn't pages with this template should go to the relavant category. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

To editor 4thfile4thrank: hmm – well, they do have their own categories as shown in their template documentation. And while {{db-u5}} is specifically for user pages that are treated by their user like their own web page for self-promotion, {{db-spamuser}} is a more general template used when someone promotes/advertises a company of some kind. So I would say that it would not serve us to dilute the u5 category with spamuser pages. Just my take, I could be wrong. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 31 December 2020

Change "sandboxes" to "the Wikipedia Sandbox" or change WP:CSD.

G2 on WP:CSD says that it applies to subpages of the Wikipedia Sandbox created as tests, but does not apply to the Sandbox itself. The db template, however, implies that G2 does not apply to any sandbox, not only the Wikipedia sandbox. Change either one. Techie3 (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

To editor Techie3:  Not done: "sandboxes" already links to the Wikipedia Sandbox as an example, just as the Wikipedia Sandbox is used as an example of sandboxes at WP:CSD, sandboxes that are available in other namespaces. So I think that a change like this would probably require a consensus to implement, don't you? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 02:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal - change "[permanently]Watch source page and target page" to "Temporarily watch source page and target page"

This template has an option to: 
Watch source page and target page
Which is checked by default.

When I process one of these requests, I routinely uncheck that box. I feel a little guilty doing this because on rare occasions, some issue arises and it might have been better to have it in my watchlist. However, my watchlist is a bit out of control, and I don't need to add thousands of entries where I don't particularly care about edits to the article, other than edits that might relate to this particular move. Any such edits are almost certain to happen within days of the move. I trust you can guess where I'm going with this. If the default were changed to "temporarily watch source page and target page for one month" I wouldn't mind living it checked as almost anything I care about will show up in my watchlist within a few days, and then the entry will drop out of my watchlist at the end of the month. Now that developers have created the temporary watchlist option, I propose that the default be changed to one of the temporary options. I don't have strong feelings about the length of time but a week would be fine, and I picked a month just to be on the safe side. if most editors want these entries permanently in their watchlist so be it, but my guess is that would be rare in those editors could manually change the temporary option to permanent.S Philbrick(Talk) 15:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, you sure you have the right template? This sounds more like Twinkle options. Primefac (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)
Very possible, while I glanced at the template, I didn't follow it enough to know whether it is part of the template or somewhere else. I'll check in at Twinkle.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Not only was I am the wrong place but it turns out I had control over it which I did not realize.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
No worries, glad you figured it out! Primefac (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The red link in db-g4

Redirect|Template:Db-repost|the deletion template for duplicates of existing articles|Template:Db-a10|the deletion template for duplicates of existing templates|Template:Db-t3 should be changed to Redirect|Template:Db-repost|the deletion template for duplicates of existing articles|Template:Db-a10 because Db-t3 deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmetlii (talk • contribs) 13:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Now Commons which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

G8 and redirects that can plausibly be retargeted

Sometimes an article will get deleted, and all the incoming redirects will more or less automatically be swept away using WP:G8. The trouble is, sometimes these redirects can plausibly be retargeted elsewhere (for example Lone Islands was presumably a redirect to the now deleted List of places in The Chronicles of Narnia, but instead of getting deleted, it could have been retargeted to Narnia (world), which has a fair amount of content about the islands). The template {{db-g8}} lists a number of circumstances where G8 shouldn't apply, so I'm thinking of adding this as well. What do others think? – Uanfala (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, the text of WP:G8 already mentions this case, so I went ahead and added that to the template [1]. On an unrelated note, I see that the the main text of the template message starts with a statement that says G8 applies if the tagged page is dependent on page which has never existed, has been deleted, or is itself currently tagged for speedy deletion. Non-existent or deleted pages – fine, but why also pages currently tagged for deletion? If the target page is deleted, then the G8 tag would at best be unnecessary (see the previous section), and if it's declined, then the G8-deleted page should not have been deleted. – Uanfala (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer/example: if a non-admin finishes up orphaning a template following a TFD, they would tag the template with G6 and, if they're not thinking about the fact that Twinkle already handles the deletion of redirects, tags the redirects to that template with G8. The target will be deleted at some point in time, so the edge case where the target doesn't eventually get deleted doesn't hold. It's a non-trivial situation that I have seen and had to deal with at least four times a week (though it doesn't always involve templates). Primefac (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Should I take this as an endorsement of the opinion that there's no need for people to G8-tag redirects to targets that are tagged for deletion? – Uanfala (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
No, never said that. You asked when it happens, and I answered. This talk page is not the place to change the wording and rules laid out at WP:G8. Primefac (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, WP:G8 (quite understandably :) ) does not say that it applies to redirects to pages that have not been deleted. I would like to change the text at {{db-g8}} to match the policy, though I'm asking here if there are any legitimate uses for G8-tagging when the target has not yet been deleted. – Uanfala (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Sure. If there's a template that is 100% dependent on another template (e.g. a subtemplate or some sort of data-only template that is called by only by one template), if the main template being tagged for deletion, the other template could be legitimately tagged as G8. Primefac (talk) 01:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
But we're now back where we started. For as long as the other, G6-tagged, page still exists, the dependent page will not be G8-eligible. Different CSDs are typically handled by different admins, at different times. By the time someone gets to the G8-tagged page, the target may have already been deleted (then fine), or it may still exist, in which case the admin will have to either check the target and see if they can delete it (assuming it's a criterion they're familiar with), or don't check and just delete the G8-tagged page anyway, which will be fine if the target's CSD tag is actioned, but if it's declined then the result will be a mess. Anyway, I'm going to remove this bit of text from the template, and if editors feel like invoking IAR and G8-tagging the way you describe, that's fine. It's just that we shouldn't be encouraging that. And in this particular situation – dependent templates after a TfD – wouldn't it be more helpful if the editor used the same criterion they had used for the other template, so the deletion log will link to the TfD discussion (which is after all why the (sub)template is being deleted)? – Uanfala (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure there’s a consensus here for the change made to {{db-g8}}? Fairly notable change to G8 tagging, didn’t even realise this change was made. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 January 2021

Please replace the hyphen following Please use a more specific template with a dash.--Hildeoc (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC) Hildeoc (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: You submitted this twice. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 23:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 January 2021 (2)

Please replace the hyphen following Please use a more specific template with a dash.--Hildeoc (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC) Hildeoc (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 23:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't mark this as complete after doing it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 January 2021

Add this after the redirect link (this should be done for all db talk page redirects) 

{{Rcat shell|
{{R from remote talk page}}
}}

JsfasdF252 (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
To wit, the specific page was done. I'm not going to hunt down all the others. Please be specific about the desired pages and reactivate the edit request. --Izno (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this the correct template to use if I want to delete a draft I created?

I'm still confused after reading the deletion guides (though I believe this is the right one) so if someone could just say yay or nay it would be appreciated. If the answer is no, please direct me to the appropriate template. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: You shouldn't use {{db-meta}} for anything, you should use one of the templates that are specific to the speedy deletion criterion that applies. If your draft is in User: space, U1 would apply, so you can use either {{db-u1}} or {{db-user}}. But if your draft is in Draft: namespace, you cannot use the U criteria - in this case, the best criterion is most likely to be G7, which only applies if the only substantial content of the page was added by yourself. If that is the case, you can use either {{db-g7}} or {{db-author}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
@Redrose64: thank you for replying but I must apologise because I have no idea how I managed to leave this comment on this particular page last night. I think it was around 3 or 4am here at the time I posted, I was running on no sleep w a godawful headache, and my brain thought I was on the db-g7 template page. I saw your reply notif when I woke up a few mins ago and wondered what page this was and how on earth I got here. Please kindly pretend you did not see me 🤦🏽‍♀️. Do have a nice day! -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
You almost certainly were at Template:db-g7, that talk page just redirects here =) --Trialpears (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Redirects to nonexistent/deleted sections within pages

I've just found a number of redirects tagged with {{db-redirnone}} which are not to nonexistent pages, but to nonexistent sections within a page. Of course, such redirects still function, though they go to the page as a whole rather than any particular section thereof.

Of course, if the target article still covers the topic indicated by the redirecting title, it would be sensible to keep the redirect, and maybe update or remove the section name in the target. But if the article doesn't cover the topic and no other suitable target can be found, should it be tagged as G8?

G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page

  • Redirects to targets that never existed or were deleted

"non-existent or deleted page" implies no, but "targets", as opposed to something more specific like "articles" or "pages", implies yes. Failing that, what's the most appropriate course of action for dealing with such redirects? — Smjg (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

If the target exists, it should not be deleted via {{db-redirnone}}. Full stop, end of story. If the redir is not mentioned in the target article, then RFD is the way to go. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
By "the target" do you mean the target page, or the target section within the page? — Smjg (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Target page. Primefac (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 May 2021

In the markup of Template:Db-g4, ''Requester's additional rationale:''</b>, </b> is a stripped tag and should be removed. This markup was inserted in the revision of 22:00, 13 December 2020 by SMcCandlish. — Anomalocaris (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Anomalocaris, as near as I can tell this is to make the rationale (provided by |reason=) not be in bold, as line 7 of {{db-meta}} includes a <b>. This whole template family is full of stuff like that, so it might be worth exploring alternate "bolding" options for such cases as this. I've also turned off the TPER until this can get sorted Primefac (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 Done The <b> and </b> in db-meta form balanced pairs; the </b> in db-g4 was unbalanced. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Redrose64, as I said the purpose was to make it so the |reason= is no longer bolded, which doesn't happen with your change.
Also, it's apparently already in {{db-g11}}, so why is that not triggering the same issue? Primefac (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
It might be best to create a testcases page for {{db-g4}} and other templates in this family to explore various implementations of the template. I attempted to fix a few Linter errors in this template family a while ago, and they were a major pain to diagnose and track down without breaking some other member of the template family. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, this might give me the impetus to rewrite some of the code for this group, it's been a fractured mess of different formats and prose for far too long. We don't need to be splitting bold tags between the individual and meta templates. Primefac (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Smarter code needs to be used in the meta-template; we already talked about this. Removing the workaround, as is proposed here, doesn't fix the problem, it just rips the bandage off the wound and reopens it, with a rationale that amounts to "the Band-Aid is unsightly". The very fact that the parser strips this code when it is not actually needed means that it does not need to be removed. So keep it in place until the meta-template is improved to stop boldfacing more than it needs to.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Or just use {{nobold}} on the wrapper templates, which should accomplish what you are trying to without Lint errors. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Or, as I'm wont to do when I get around to the rewrite, we could not have the bold split across templates and instead include the bold only on the individual templates that call db-meta (i.e. the meta template would only control spacing, not text formatting). Primefac (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request 19 June 2021

In {{db-f7}}, Associated Press and Getty Images should be linked to their respective articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done (for now). We want to minimize the number of links in db templates, due to people's tendency to click on the first link they see and type "Please do not delete this page!!!!" (see, for instance, this talk page's history, even though it's not even linked from the template). Knowing what the AP and Getty are isn't really integral enough to understanding F7 to justify linking them without discussion, IMO. But I welcome others to comment on your suggestion. If a consensus emerges, you can reënable the request.
I'll note also that the template does of course link to WP:F7, which also mentions AP and Getty without linking them. That might be a better place to link them. That way, someone confused as to what those are will still have access to that knowledge in two clicks. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 09:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Non-breaking space in Db-g4

The first unnamed parameter in {{Db-g4}} begins with a non-breaking space character &nbsp; instead of the standard space &#32; used in other speedy deletion templates. The non-breaking space is visible when {{Db-g4}} is wrapped inside {{Db-multiple}}, which is somewhat annoying. Kleinpecan (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done firefly ( t · c ) 10:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Db-g5, multiple different banned users

Db-g5 currently supports only a single banned user. However, I have run into cases in which the only substantial editors were banned users from separate SPIs (sometimes this is a sign SPIs should be joined, but sometimes it is two separate people so they shouldn't). For example Survivor (Tamil season 1) was almost 50% authored by a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Giriprasad Damodar 02 sockpuppet while being created by a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Srinesh.saravanan sockpuppet. Should this template many support a 2nd and possibly even 3rd account?--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 07:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 November 2021

On Template:Db-u2, please change:

From To
|raw={{{raw|}}} |raw={{{raw|}}}
|criterion=U2 |criterion=U2
|1= as a user page, subpage, or talk page of a user that does not exist ([{{fullurl:Special:Listusers|username={{BASEPAGENAMEE}}&limit=1}} check]) |1= as a user page, subpage, or talk page of a user that does not exist ([[Special:CentralAuth/{{BASEPAGENAMEE}}|check]])
|2=This excludes userpages for anonymous users who have edited, redirects from misspellings of an established user's userpage, and the previous name of a [[WP:Changing username|renamed user]] |2=This excludes userpages for anonymous users who have edited, redirects from misspellings of an established user's userpage, and the previous name of a [[WP:Changing username|renamed user]]
|self=yes |self=yes

This uses Special:CentralAuth instead of Special:ListUsers because the former makes more sense, and will display "There is no global account for [username]" instead of just listing the user that would alphabetically follow the checked username. Thanks, Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

To editor Tol:  done. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 10:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, @Paine Ellsworth! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 14:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
It's my pleasure! Paine  17:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
To editor Tol: eraser undone with [this edit]. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: Thanks for letting me know; I see the reason for this. (Also, thanks for your work in getting Template:R with Wikidata item up and running; I've just noticed it!) Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
my pleasure! Paine  22:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Add tracking category to {{db-c1}}

Is there any reason why {{db-c1}} doesn't have a tracking category for non-empty categories? ― Qwerfjkltalk 22:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 December 2021

Please add CSD A6 and put {Db-band} in it. 98.22.242.247 (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: {{db-band}} already exists as a subset of {{db-a7}}. Also, A6 is obsolete and was used for attack pages. Primefac (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Bug with db- ?

Is there a bug with the {{db}} templates where it takes up the name of the last editor and makes them the nominator? db-afc was added by Celestina007 to Draft:Michelson Philanthropies on September 25. The page was then deleted and I restored it. I made a dummy edit to avoid G13. But it automatically added my name as the nominator: This draft was nominated by Jay on November 8, 2021. So the page was deleted by another admin Materialscientist within an hour's time, and had to be re-restored. Jay (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jay: {{db-afd}} is merely a redirect to {{db-g13}}, which contains the following code: 
This draft was nominated by {{U|{{REVISIONUSER}}}} on {{#time:F j, Y|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}.
That use of magic words indicates that it is the person who made the most recent edit to the page, who is not necessarily the person who added the {{db-afd}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
So is this a bug with {{db-g13}}? All I did was add a dummy edit to the page. Jay (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
This is how it has worked for more than eight years, ever since this edit by Technical 13 (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Who will be able to fix this, since Technical 13 is an indefinitely blocked user? Jay (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Anyone with the technical know-how and interest in fixing the issue? T13 isn't the only template editor we have. Primefac (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
As noted above, the code makes use of the variables {{REVISIONUSER}} and {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}. These return information about the most recently saved version, there is no means to obtain retrospective similar information for older revisions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Fair point. For some reason I was thinking this was a substed template (so the magic words could be substed to avoid this). I do wonder, though, if this is that big an issue - technically speaking the G13 should be removed anyway when the subsequent edit is made, so whether or not it happens to show the wrong nominator is kind of irrelevant. Primefac (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
It was my ignorance that I did not remove the db (in the example given above). I only edited the page and reset the G13. It's just that, to have my name shown as the nominator for delete, when in fact I am the restorer, will be both surprising and wrong when a deleting admin is looking at it. Jay (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I'll be honest, I don't think "who nominated this page" has really ever come into play for me, whether it's G13 or A7 (unless for some reason it was a since-blocked user, but my username scripts would pick that up); it's not like it's stored in the deletion log or anything. Primefac (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators can delete pages

I know that administrators can delete pages, so I want a button which administrators can use to delete a page quicker (make this button the first parameter of the {{if administrator}}): Delete this page Faster than Thunder (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Given that there are at least three ways that already exist, one of which actually goes to the target of the button you indicate and two of which are easier than that, I don't think this is wanted or necessary. Primefac (talk) 12:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
@Faster than Thunder: You are not an administrator, so you could not use this; therefore, even if you want this, you do not need it at all. Any proposal for a change must first establish that there is a need for that change - and a need is clearly absent here.
As an admin, I can tell you that a page bearing a db tag will provide me with a link which will delete the page in two clicks. For example, if I were to tag User:Redrose64 with {{db-u1}}, an admin visiting that page would be served this HTML: 
<small><span class="sysop-show"><i>Administrators: check <a href="/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Redrose64" title="Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Redrose64">links</a>, <a class="external text" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Redrose64&amp;action=history">history</a> (<a class="external text" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Redrose64&amp;diff=0">last</a>), and <a class="external text" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&amp;page=User:Redrose64">logs</a> before <a class="external text" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Redrose64&amp;wpReason=%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23U1%7CU1%5D%5D%3A+User+request+to+delete+page+in+own+userspace+%E2%80%93+If+you+wish+to+retrieve+it%2C+please+see+%5B%5BWP%3AREFUND%5D%5D&amp;action=delete">deletion</a>. </i><br /></span>
If that last link is clicked, there is then a confirmation step, containing the warning "You are about to delete User:Redrose64 along with all of its history." some more text, a few form entry items (which are pre-filled) finishing with a button Delete page. It is necessary to click that button to actually perform the deletion. Since this is part of the MediaWiki deletion code and not a feature of "speedy deletion", it cannot be bypassed by a speedy deletion tag template. I cannot imagine any circumstances where it would be beneficial to reduce these two clicks to a single one. I for one do not wish to lose the confirmation step, let alone have it removed from other admins. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
This button is to only be shown to administrators. Faster than Thunder (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
What benefit would it be to you then? What problems would it solve for admins? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:db-catempty resets counter on each edit

A category tagged with Template:db-catempty will reset its timer every time someone edits the category, even if that edit had nothing to do with the nomination itself. I see why it happens in the code, but my question is if there is a rational behind this? Gonnym (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

It clearly states This page was last edited by name (contribs | logs) at time ..., not This page was tagged for speedy deletion by name (contribs | logs) at time .... --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
@Redrose64 Category:Greenland political party shading templates was tagged by me on 30 December 2021, after the edit by Johnj1995 it now appears at Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion near the recently added categories. The code uses the "REVISIONTIMESTAMP" (last time the page was edited) to check if the category has been tagged for 7 days. Template:Db-c1 says seven days after they are tagged not seven days after they are last edited. Gonnym (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
There is no means for a template to look back through the page history to work out when any given type of edit occurred, let alone find out when it was itself added to an article. All it can do is find out when the last edit occurred: this is yielded by the {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} variable. We would need to rewrite Template:Db-c1 on the lines of Template:Proposed deletion, which when used correctly as {{subst:Proposed deletion}} leaves behind a {{Proposed deletion/dated|timestamp=CCYYMMDDHHMMSS}} where CCYYMMDDHHMMSS is a timestamp obtained at the moment of save. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 January 2022

I was on View source for Template:Db-g11, and I didn't see a link for an edit request there, so I dummied up this one.

When there is a |reason= parameter, this template spits out an extra stripped closing </b> tag after the reason. See Draft:K3NOX version of 06:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC). —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I hate this family of templates. I know I keep saying it, but one of these days I really am going to rewrite the entire thing so this nonsense doesn't happen...
The issue is that when |reason= is given a value, db-g11 adds an extra </b> because that reason is not supposed to be bold (according to whichever editor BOLDly decided that). However, if there is no |reason=, the bold is never closed and thus db-meta closes it. In the interest of "this is stupid but I guess it will work for now" I've added in an extra <b> in db-g11 so that it can be closed by the </b> in db-meta. Let me know if that didn't fix things. Primefac (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion for {{db-hoax}}

The help message for this template says to substitute {{db-vandalism-notice}} rather than {{db-hoax-notice}}. Changing this would be helpful for users who manually tag pages for deletion rather than using a tool like Twinkle, because it gives a customized message to not create hoax pages instead of a more general message to not create vandalistic pages. EDM fan 2 (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 January 2022

Add __EXPECTUNUSEDCATEGORY__: pages tagged for speedy deletion as empty should obviously be expected to be empty. ― Qwerfjkltalk 17:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Except when they are emptied unintentionally or out of process — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm so sorry, I don't quite understand what you're trying to say. Categories emptied unintentionally or out of process are still expected to be empty, and so should not be shown on Special:UnusedCategories. ― Qwerfjkltalk 07:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Categories emptied out of process (or otherwise erroneously) should be repopulated and taken to CFD if deletion is desired, not left empty. That's the point of the waiting period for C1. Hiding them from the list of unused categories doesn't help. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Those can be seen at Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion. ― Qwerfjkltalk 17:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

G4

In the |notes= parameter of Template:Db-g4, can we change 

Check the [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=delete&page={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}}} deletion log] for prior deletion rationales.</small>

to 

Check the [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=delete&page={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}}} deletion log] for prior deletion rationales.

This criterion does not apply to pages whose deleted versions qualified under [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G5|G5]], unless they also qualified under other criteria or the recreation was also created in violation of a ban/block.</small>

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Faster than Thunder (talk • contribs) 20:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

No, as that exemption isn't in CSD G4. To change that, go to WT:CSD. The wording of the template follows the policy, not the other way around. —Kusma (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Faster than Thunder, can you please either remove the "template" and/or indicate more clearly (with some sort of <ins>...</ins> indication) of what you actually are proposing here? On the surface there doesn't seem to be any major difference between this and the live version of {{db-g4}}. Primefac (talk) 10:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
@Primefac: With no response from Faster than Thunder, I've compared the code that they pasted above with the code that is presently in the template, and rewritten the request. It's one extra paragraph, no change to existing text or action. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh, duh, didn't think to check the tiny text. Agreed with Kusma, this isn't a valid exception to G4 (mainly because it wouldn't be a valid G4 if it were G5'd originally anyway). Primefac (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:Db-move without parameters doesn't put the page in any sort of category

2021 nine-pin bowling World Team Championships was marked with {{db-move}}, but the user who did that omitted the parameters. As a result, the page is left uncategorized and cannot be found through maintenance reports (except Special:Shortpages, but only because the page was blanked). The documentation states that the page the template is used on should be categorized in Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion, but that doesn't happen either. —Mainframe98 talk 16:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of that. —Mainframe98 talk 18:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Would it not make more sense to just remove the conditional/#if statements around the categorisation? From an admin perspective, if I were to see a db-move with no page given I would just decline with that rationale, as opposed to needing to keep track of yet another tracking category. Primefac (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
It should just appear in CAT:CSD or CAT:JUSTDB like pages that are tagged with {{delete}}. Sometimes, the reason is given in an edit summary, which would be enough to tell the admin working through CAT:CSD what to do, or to decline. Given that CAT:CSD hasn't had major backlogs for years now, correct fine categorisation (except for attack pages) isn't all that important right now. —Kusma (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
I've just gone ahead and removed those #if statements as a semi-bold move based on this discussion. Primefac (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Hey, @Primefac: Template:Db-movedab is now appearing in Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion. Could that be related to your edit? - Eureka Lott 04:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, which is problematic on a number of levels. I'm headed out the door but as soon as I have time to sit down (next hour or so) I will sort that out. I am going to assume that any patrolling admins will be smart enough to not delete it in the meantime. Primefac (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Additional parameter to db-g3

Hi all, I recently tagged a template as G3-vandalism on basis of the creator's cross-wiki activity, although solely based on the behaviour on that template, it looked more like a G2-test edit creation. Although, the said template was deleted, it was so done, on a criteria that was a bit misleading. Maybe we can have an additional parameter on db-g3, which mentions that vandalism is proved due to other edits acroos the wiki and/or cross-wiki activity? Thanks! ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 22:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

While not in the documentation, {{db-g3}} has two parameters for information, though arguably the second is more useful for saying "vandalism and {{{2}}}". See below.
db-g3 examples
{{db-g3|This is an example of the first parameter, or the "reason for nomination"|This is an example of the second parameter, likely where you would describe how and why it's vandalism|nocat=yes}} →
Primefac (talk) 06:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 April 2022

I notice that when an IP address puts a speedy deletion template, clicking on the IP address after "last edited by" on the template bottom redirects to the userpage of the IP address, as opposed to the edit history. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Yleventa2/sandbox&oldid=1081322283 for an example.

The proposed deletion template had a similar issue, but it has been fixed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Proposed_deletion&oldid=1081308902#Template-protected_edit_request_on_5_April_2022

I believe that this similar issue should also be fixed on the Db templates. Yleventa2 (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: That's exactly how it should be. If you notice, the "last edited" text is a link to the diff. Primefac (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I understand the difference, thanks Yleventa2 (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

G10 contest deletion button

Continued at Wikipedia_talk:Attack_page#Clarification. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If you click on the button, you are taken to an pre-filled form that says 

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... (your reason here) --~~~~

This should be tweaked to reflect that G10 apparently also covers non people entities, and non-BLPs. Pinging @Cullen328 and Girth Summit: for ideas on improved wordings. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

It's never struck me as ambiguous, but looking at it again, I think the missing word is 'page' after the word 'attack'. The 'or' is important - G10 applies either to attack pages or to negative unsourced biographies. 'Attack page' could be linked to WP:ATTACK. Girth Summit (blether) 19:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, likewise, I think the living part could be omitted. Or clarify when it covers dead people, if it only applies to unsourced BLPs, but not unsourced BDPs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I've added in the word "page" as a no-brainer. Given that this is a message someone is leaving, I do not think it needs to link anywhere. Primefac (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree that adding "page" helps, but the current wording of WP:ATTACK focuses too much on biographies, which is admittedly the major problem. But attack pages on businesses and organizations are also problematic. Cullen328 (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
So right now it covers
  • attack page (unlinked)
  • negative unsourced BLP
I think it should be linked, not to WP:ATTACKPAGE, but rather to WP:CSD#G10. And then G10 clarified because right now it's highly focused on biographies, and apparently non-biographies are also covered by it, and nothing is said about them other than a vague 'entity' in the head (not the description). It could also link to WP:ATTACKPAGE if that's where the clarification is made though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
We are talking about someone clicking the blue button and writing "I do not think this should be deleted.... because..." - it does not need links. Primefac (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm fine with it being unlinked. If other pages need tweaks, that can be discussed elsewhere - we could reconvene over at WT:ATTACK? Girth Summit (blether) 19:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Sure. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Db-u1 wording

Hey! I noticed that in db-u1, there is text shown just to administrators, saying be sure they are not deleting a user talk page that has been moved, however, db-u1 itself says that this action is not normally done for talk pages, and reserved primarily for user(sub)pages. Would it not be better to say be sure they are not deleting a user page that has been moved, as its a more realistic example? Aidan9382 (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how often someone moves their talk page to something other than the user talk space. I'm not saying that we can't change the wording, just that it's something I've seen happen in the past. Primefac (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Hadn't realised that interpretation of what it said (only just hit me its suggesting to check to make sure its not a talk page they are trying to disguise and delete), my fault. Considering that interpretation, the wording actually makes a lot more sense, and is probably fine. Thanks for the clarification. Aidan9382 (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Application warning

I just used this template via Twinkle to tag an article on an organization for speedy deletion. I read over the resulting template, which appears to warn me-- the editor placing it-- that this tag is not appropriate for educational institutions. What the heck? The page I tagged was a corporation, not a school. A deletion templated message should have information in it for the author or others working on the article, not the person placing the template! I'd like to request that we strike the sentence regarding educational institutions. People placing this template should know by now that this template cannot be used for that purpose, and having the sentence in there when it is contextually irrelevant is just confusing for the page author. A loose necktie (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

"The page I tagged was a corporation, not a school." It's indeed a warning/reminder to you that this CSD template isn't appropriate for educational organizations. If what you tagged isn't an education organization, there was no issue with the tagging, and you can continue editing as normal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. You might be surprised at how many times {{Db-corp}}/{{Db-inc}} was applied incorrectly to schools before that warning was included. Maybe it's no longer needed; however, a consensus should be garnered before removing it. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 00:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Fully protected edit request on 10 August 2022

A protected redirect, Template talk:Db-inc, needs a redirect category (rcat) template added. Please modify it as follows:

  • from this:
#REDIRECT[[Template talk:Db-meta]]
  • to this:
#REDIRECT [[Template talk:Db-meta]]

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from remote talk page}}
}}
  • WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

The {{Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 00:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: I've just gone ahead and downgraded every FPP'd redirect to this talkpage to TPROT. All but 2 of them predated the TPE era, and their role seems sufficiently template-adjacent that I felt it a reasonable off-brand use of that protection lvel. So now you can go make this edit yourself, and to a few dozen other pages too. :) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Awesome! Thank you so very much, Tamzin! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 03:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Fully protected edit request on 21 August 2022

A protected redirect, Template:Hangon preload, needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:

  • from this:
#REDIRECT [[Template:Hangon preload generic]]
  • to this:
#REDIRECT [[Template:Hangon preload generic]]

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from move}}
{{R from template shortcut}}
}}
  • WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

The {{Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 04:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much, JJMC89! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 01:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 October 2022

Per discussion, please add the |self= parameter to {{db-c1}}. HouseBlastertalk 18:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 19:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Request

Would it be possible to have this template edited so that it also adds pages to Category:Temporary maintenance holdings?

Redirects with this tag on them end up getting detected as uncategorized articles if they're still undeleted when the automated tools that detect and list uncategorized articles run their daily updates, so it does result in unhelpful clutter when an editor is trying to do a tagging run on the list -- even though the template transcludes hidden maintenance categories, the Untagged Uncategorized Articles toolserver does not have the ability to detect transcluded categories that aren't directly declared on the page, so hidden categories don't make a page "categorized" for the purposes of avoiding detection and listing there -- so many maintenance templates for redirects already add the Temporary maintenance holdings category as a crapcatcher so that pages with those templates on them don't clutter up the uncategorized articles list. The problem being that because the template goes above the #REDIRECT code, the page suddenly functions as an "article" since the redirect code isn't the first thing on the page anymore, and is thus vulnerable to being wrongly detected as an uncategorized article even though it should be none of the categorization project's concern — and given the now-common phenomenon of improperly sourced articles being immediately sequestered in draftspace instead of being listed for deletion, this is becoming an increasingly common issue because the editors who move the pages sometimes forget to uncheck the box for retention of a redirect, and thus they have to be subsequently tagged for deletion as cross-namespace redirects.

While this isn't a massive problem, because the page will obviously drop from the list if and when it does get deleted, it would still help if the pages just weren't getting detected as uncategorized "articles" in the first place. So since they're not really pages that the categorization tools should actually concern themselves with, could the template please also add Category:Temporary maintenance holdings so that the toolserver will just skip over them? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The template doesn't need to go above the #REDIRECT code, it can go anywhere on the page. It's typically placed at the top so that it's visible without scrolling; it could just as easily be placed one line down. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Moving the template below the #REDIR line would reduce false positives in multiple reports and categories. Maybe we need to persuade Twinkle to put CSD and RFD templates on the second line; that tool is probably responsible for most of the tagging. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Whatever solution is pursued, it needs to actually be pursued, because the problem is still happening a month after I asked for a solution. One way or another, Db-r2 redirects need to stop landing on the uncategorized articles list. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Please don't. Breaking the redirect by having the speedy tag on top makes it easier to process the page while doing speedy patrol. —Kusma (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 November 2022

Per User_talk:Gryllida#Duplication_Detector, the Duplication Detector tool has been offline since February 2022, with the link in the {{db-g12}} template serving only a 503 error page.

Since the link doesn't work, remove the code that generates it from the {{db-g12}} template:

{{Dupdet|1={{canonicalurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{#if:{{{oldid|}}}|oldid={{{oldid|}}}|}}}}|2={{{1|{{{url}}}}}}|minwords=3}}{{Dot}}

Belbury (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for the moment; {{Dupdet}} is called in a fair number of places and if it can be restored, I'd rather not have to go back and re-add it everywhere. I've (essentially) commented it out for the moment and asked Gryllida for an update on the fixing progress. Once I get a reply I'll update here. Primefac (talk) 11:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Tol, just as a quick note, I've pinged Gryllida again; if I don't hear anything back I will be nominating {{dupdet}} for deletion. Primefac (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good; thanks! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Make G4 Template less menacing?

Based on recent conversations at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Onel5969, I want to suggest adding language to the G4 template stating something like 

If this article isn't a resubmission of previously deleted content, do not worry! An administrator will review your article.

Marking a page as reviewed and tagging it with a big red notice that the article can be deleted at any time seems like a non-intuitive way to, in essence, ask for admin review on a article with a recent AfD. I was unsure if the tag meant anyone would swoop in and delete the article. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 20:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done, as Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion § G4 tweak. is still fresh and ongoing. You might want to raise your concerns there, but I do not plan on updating anything until some semblance of a consensus about what needs updating is reached. Primefac (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

The documentation on this page should not be part of the template's source code. The {{Documentation}} template should, instead, be supplied without parameters so that it can call from Template:Db-copypaste/doc. jp×g 03:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 08:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: Thanks! This is good. jp×g 17:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
my pleasure! Paine  17:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

For Template:Db-g4, please remove the hyphen: "speedily-deleted articles" to "speedily deleted articles"; per MOS:HYPHEN 73.93.5.246 (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 07:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 12 May 2023

To the hatnote:

"Template:SD" redirects here. For for the template for short descriptions, see Template:Short description.

Diff:

−
+
{{redirect|Template:SD|for the template for [[Wikipedia:Short description|short descriptions]]|Template:Short description}}

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

 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)

Suggestion: parameter "demo"

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)

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

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)
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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Db-meta/Archive_5&oldid=1222192429"