Template talk:Db-meta/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Proposal to make the template smaller

One thing I've noticed with the speedy deletion templates is that, especially when placed on pages where there is little content, they can seem rather menacing and, dare I say, scary for newcomers. If we wrap all of the content below a certain point with {{hidden top}} and {{hidden bottom}}, we will avoid removing any information from it, but it will appear smaller. If users need more information, they can click on the "show" link. The template, with {{db-person}} used as an example, would display like so:

This would run into some problems (lack of Javascript in browser; users not willing to click [show], et cetera), but I think with a little tweaking, it could be a good idea. Does anyone see usefulness in this? The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 00:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

On the one hand, I do kind of like it; on the other hand, though, some part of me thinks the template should be big and attention-grabbing (even if that is a bit intimidating) because speedy deletion is a big deal. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm all for keeping templates succinct where they may be in place for some time, but templates which indicate a problem which if not imminently fixed will result in deletion of the article should stand out. This is a more elegant solution to that problem than using gifs of flashing klaxons, or putting everything in bold caps and bright colours et cetera. It's also the most helpful - we explain exactly what is required to save the article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Definition of recent for db-r3

The text of {{db-r3}} says the template is to be used for "a recently created redirect." Is there any consensus on what qualifies as "recent?" One week? 30 days? ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 23:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're asking because of a particular example, to which advice I can give: Tag it, see what happens. In general, I tend not to delete a redirect via R3 if it's more than a day or so old, but I'm not sure what the usual is. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not a case, per se, but I saw something earlier that 50 days ago would have qualified, and while that was clearly well outside the proscribed limit, it got me thinking. Thanks for the response, though, that's helpful. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 02:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

{{db-g6|rationale=reason}}

I tried using the above template, which shows up in a box when you add the basic {{db-g6}} template to an article, but when I substituted an explanation for the word "reason", I saw the same box without the explanation added. Did I do it wrong or does this not work? Ecphora (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to work fine for me, see this diff. Btw, if you want to delete a redirect to make for a pagemove, you can use {{db-move|Article to be moved here}} instead. An admin will do the move as well then. Regards SoWhy 11:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding NOINDEX to db-meta?

I would like to propose that the noindex word be added to all pages tagged for speedy deletion. Google doesn't need to index nonsense, spam pages or otherwise. Triplestop x3 23:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Main space indexing can't be changed by __INDEX__/__NOINDEX__, per the current configuration settings (Search for wgExemptFromUserRobotsControl). Changing that would need to go through bugzilla:. Amalthea 06:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh, I copied that answer from the last time it was proposed, but it seems it was changed in the meantime? If so then sure, make it __NOINDEX__. Won't remove existing pages, but maybe it prevents indexing some. Amalthea 06:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh? "If set to null, default to $wgContentNamespaces." __NOINDEX__ doesn't work on articles. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, you're right of course, I was in a hurry and didn't look properly. It still won't have an effect then. Amalthea 10:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I may still be useful for non-mainspace. Triplestop x3 18:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

True, and it's not doing any harm being in there now—at the very worst, it's doing nothing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I tested it by putting it on a spam page along with the speedy tag and it did not show up on google even after an hour. Most pages are tagged immediately after creation but take a while for deletion. Triplestop x3 19:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Adding

<includeonly>__NOINDEX__</includeonly>

•  Done rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Switched to use {{noindex}} for tracking purposes. –xeno^talk 15:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

SD notice

I notice that some page creators are erroneously placing the SD author notification on the talk page of the article itself. Could we reword it so that it says something like "If you are nominating this for speedy deletion, place template on the talk page of the page creator" so it's more clear? Triplestop x3 01:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It already asks taggers to place the notification template "on the talk page of the author", so I don't know how much more clear we could get. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

We could write some coding that would display an error code when it was used outside user talk space. –xeno^talk 15:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

{{db-disambig}}

{{editsemiprotected}} Would someone please clarify the line (in the discussion about CSD D6) about {{db-disambig}} as it is very misleading. Speedy deletion should be used only in the direst of cases: one-line dab pages should be converted into redirects instead. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you want to be changed, as your request isn't specific enough and you mention a discussion but have not linked to it. Also your request is for an edit to a semi-protected page, but it isn't clear which page that is. Template:Db-meta is fully protected and requests should use {{editprotected}}, and Template:Db-disambig is not protected, so you can edit it if necessary. snigbrook (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the speedy deletion criteria or propose changes to them, WT:CSD is the place to go. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I had found the misleading wording on the page for {{db-g6}} template, which - contrary to CSD G6 - says "{{db-disambig}} – Disambiguation pages that only link to one article", which is not at all what the the {{db-disambig}} page actually says. I am not trying to propose a change in the CSD policy: I am making a request of having the documentation for the {{db-g6}} template reflect it. I apologize for using the wrong template the first time as the page that I had read was semiprotected and not fully protected. If you're still not sure what I'm trying to say, please compare the text of the {{disambig}} template with the bottom of the {{db-g6}} page and note the difference. Thank you. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

So are you asking for a change to Template:Db doc, or to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#D6? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

To the documentation, which does not represent the contents of the mentioned {{disamb}} template. They do not match... or even come that close together. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Does this help? lifebaka++ 00:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's more in line with the contents of the template. Thank you. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Timestamp issue with T3

I'm noticing a timestamp error "invalid time" on T3 when applied via Twinkle. Any thoughts on what might be causing this? See Template:Checkedpuppeteer for an example.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems to have been fixed by another user now. The problem was that the parameter for the new template isn't meant to include the parameter(s) which the new template uses. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Db for non-notable movies?

Is there a CSD template for non-notable movies as per WP:MOVIE? --Alastair Rae (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There is not currently one, so the answer is no. CSD A7 (which is for unimportant subjects) only applies to a small range of subjects, such as animals, people, companies, etc. It specifically does not apply to creative works, such as books, or movies :). If you want to discuss this, then the correct place to do so is at WT:CSD, rather than this page, so feel free to start a topic there if you want. Meanwhile you can use WP:PROD or WP:AfD for non-notable movies. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Automated blanking with {{db-g10}}

I noticed that with the copyright problem template, the page is automatically blanked. Could we put something like that on {{db-g10}}. That way, in case a tagger neglects to blank an attack page, it would not show disparaging or libellous content in the time between tagging and deletion. Intelligentsium 17:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the g10 template?

Up until yesterday, it said to blank any pages it was used on and now that part is gone. HalfShadow 17:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No one changed either db-g10 or db-meta that would explain something like this and it still works for fine for me. Regards SoWhy 17:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it has something to do with this bit of code:

{{#ifexpr:{{formatnum:{{PAGESIZE:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}|R}}>31
            | {{Ambox|type=delete|text=<big>{{red|Please [[Wikipedia:Courtesy blanking|blank this page]] so that it only contains the deletion template.}}</big>}}

Apparently the message only comes up if the page has more than 31 bytes (including the template). 31 bytes is probably the longest the template gets (ie, if it has all the paramaters filled, like |bot=ExampleBot), so that means it only displays the message if it can detect something other than the template still left on the page. In the edit that I assume you're asking about, you had removed the content at the same time you added the template, so it wouldn't have displayed the message. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Making the template more inviting

Born out of the on-going discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Newbie_treatment_at_CSD a few editors are concerned that the CSD process might be "bitey". As such I recommended that the community take a look at the templates and see if they can be softened up and be more inviting while still serving their core purpose in the CSD process. No one there has brought that here yet, so I'll get the ball rolling. Does anyone have any suggestions regarding things such as, icons, color, wording, links in the template, etc? Personally the wording doesn't seem bitey to me, but I've never been a big fan of the color. What about a softer color its pink with a red border and we know a bright red is usually associated with something bad (warning, stop, etc). So what about something else that would really make the text jump but be a little more inviting? Any ideas? --Crossmr (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, it seems to me that the problem people have criticized (and want to solve) is editors' behavior, not the style of the templates. Slapping a template on a page within minutes of creation is the same action, sending the same message, no matter what the template looks like. And if behavior like that is going to happen, I think there is some merit in having the db templates be attention-grabbing and serious-looking, as it is a serious thing and they need to be responded to/dealt with quickly. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that is that no one has demonstrated that that behaviour has a significant negative impact on new users. Random anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything. New Page Patrollers are so named because they patrol new pages. Many tags can be put on any article at any point during its life. New articles could have CSD templates they could have wikify templates, they could have original research templates, sources templates, advert templates, etc, etc ,etc. Appropriate templates are put on articles and nothing is going to change that. They can be attention grabbing and convey the seriousness of the issue (there is a proposal out now to make sure all new editors are notified when their articles are tagged for CSD), but there is possibly the potential to improve the template. In the end there is no better way to mark an article for CSD and ensure everyone is aware of it outside of a template at the top of the page. We have some unverified data to suggest that aroound 2% of articles are deleted inappropriately which isn't really significant and would suggest there isn't a problem with the process itself in regards to deletion. So the only suggestion I can make to appease those who think the entire process is "bitey" would be to soften the templates.--Crossmr (talk) 04:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not the impression I got out of reading the blog post that started WP:NEWT. The complaint seemed to be not that the CSD process itself is bad, but that people overuse it or are too quick to jump to it—i.e., that patrollers jump to delete new articles instead of pointing out how to clean them up. That is what I meant by behavior. It seems to me that the problem is when people put up CSD tags, not what the CSD tags look like, and that therefore the solution is to deal with editors' behavior rather than the appearance of the template. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That's why the process involves at least two sets of eyes. While they may be tagged quickly, it generally takes hours before they're deleted and with only a 2% failure rate, I can't see the big concern. I thought perhaps template softening might make it more newbie friendly.--Crossmr (talk) 05:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Search links for A7 templates

Can we add search links for google news archives and google books? Some topics may get deleted (example) that would not if the admin could quickly check the google news archives results instead of just the web results. With modern tabbed browsers, it's easy enough to do the searches for those that take the initiative. If you add them, take note of the issue raised above.--chaser (talk) 04:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea but shouldn't the tagger do such a search before tagging? It would be better if we could have such links show up on every unpatrolled page for example imho. Regards SoWhy 12:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair point, but there's no way to do that before the article gets tagged, other than perhaps adding it to NPWatcher, but not everybody uses that.--Chaser (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"Consider checking Google"

Why is this included? Google is a for-profit corporation; promotion of Google over and above other search engines favors one commercial site and constitutes linkspam. If there were a free (free as in software, not as in beer) search engine or a search engine organized as a non-profit, then linking to that might be more in keeping with Wikipedia's mission, but Google? Seriously, why? 74.110.71.165 (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Name a more widely-used search engine. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Popularity isn't really relevant. Do we encourage Wikipedia users to view the site with Microsoft Internet Explorer because it is the most popular browser? Do we provide links to Amazon.com for books because they are the most popular bookseller? Then why all the free advertising for Google? 74.110.71.165 (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with rewording to something like "consider checking search engines". But as for the links, using Google is a matter of practicality; providing a link to every search engine possible would be ridiculous, whereas providing Google links provides a convenient way for reviewers to check things (and making it convenient is the best way to ensure people do it). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a silly objection. This is not Special:BookSources, which is intended for readers and linked from many thousands of articles. It is an administrative template and linked from a few hundred pages at a time. For administrative matters, we can choose the tool that best fits our needs, whether commercial or not. And consensus is firm that it is google. We should change nothing.--Chaser (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Google is what has the most clout in deletion-related matters (deciding notability, etc.) as well as naming disputes and other things. So Google is what is linked. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:db-t3 appears to be broken

It puts a CSD notice on the template, but the templates do not get added to a CSD category. They seem to languish for weeks and probably have quite a backlog. Miami33139 (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Change request

{{editprotected}} Can someone change the following line of code:

-->{{#if:{{{image|}}}|</td><td style="text-align:center;padding:0;font-size:x-small;">[[Image:{{{image}}}|150x175px]]<br/>''[[:Image:{{{image}}}|{{{image}}}]]''}}<!--

Into the following:

-->{{#if:{{{image|}}}|</td><td style="text-align:center;padding:0;font-size:x-small;">[[{{#if:{{{wiki|}}}|{{{wiki}}}:}}Image:{{{image}}}|150x175px]]<br/>''[[:{{#if:{{{wiki|}}}|{{{wiki}}}:}}Image:{{{image}}}|{{{image}}}]]''}}<!--

This change is requested to facilitate a change at {{db-nowcommons}} where the image should show up as a link to commons and not a link to the local file. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Note for clarification: This change should be applied to the {{db-meta}} template. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Done - reasonable change, sounds useful too. Done. :) Ale_Jrb^talk 18:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

New parameter?

I note that these templates include text like:

Please consider placing the template: {{subst:nn-warn|Wim Kapteyn|header=1}} ~~~~ on the talk page of the author.

This is redundant when the template is added via WP:Twinkle, which does the warning automatically. If the template had a suitable parameter, Twinkle could suppress the display of text which isn't relevant and can only add to the complexity of the situation from the point of view of newbies seeing the notice on the article. Rd232 ^talk 12:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

{{db-g4}} to handle non-article pages?

{{db-g4}} currently is only equipped to handle articles, despite the existence of various other namespaces with deletion discussions, all of which should be covered under "general". Should the template be made to detect the namespace in which it is placed and switch to the appropriate deletion discussion (i.e., TfD, CfD, etc.)? Intelligentsium 19:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Remove "because" from {{db-g6}}

Resolved

 – –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 14:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

When I fill out the rationale parameter, my reasoning never matches the "because" portion of the sentence in the template. Just thought I'd thow in a reason for it to be removed, not sure if it bothers anyone else. –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 14:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

But "db" stands for "delete because", so it just makes sense that "because" is in the template. Just remember to use it like this {{db-g6|rationale=it's not needed anymore}} instead. Regards SoWhy 14:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh! I'd forgotten what "db" meant, I should have made the connection. Thanks for the quick reply! –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 14:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've un-redirected a talk page that used to point here

I've just un-redirected Template talk:Db-g1, which used to point to this page, so I could link to the archive that I've recently unearthed at Template talk:Db-g1/Archive 1. I hope this is OK. Please disregard the message I just posted about that archive; I had written the message, then thought of another way to solve the problem. I tried to change the subject/headline so I could write a new message in its place, but accidentally clicked on the submit button. Graham87 05:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Add a couple of words to db-a3?

As it stands, db-a3 says, "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself." Does it make sense to change this to something like "... from pages that you have created yourself, unless you have added significant encyclopedic content to the article"? Often enough people will create a new article consisting of something like "New article name is", it'll be tagged for db-nocontent, and then they'll add the content they were planning. They always remove the speedy tag in the process, but I wonder it it wouldn't be more appropriate if the template explicitly stated this was okay.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's probably not a good idea to encourage new users to remove db tags. Experienced users already know they can apply WP:IAR if they find themselves in the situation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Category suppression

Hi - I know several people have worked on the cat suppression for the db templates, but the WP:Template messages/Deletion page keeps showing up in several different categories that it shouldn't, including Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion (see cats at bottom of WP:TDEL for more where it shouldn't be). Could someone let us know if there is a cat suppression parameter for any of the problematic templates used as examples on the WP:TDEL page? Thanks much! --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of the templates are slightly different, for historic reasons, and have different category suppression mechanisms, which are sometimes broken as well, so I'm afraid there is no one magic bullet to take them all out.
I've removed the page from Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion, but it's a bit of pain to figure out which category was transcluded through which template. Amalthea 17:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the help! I understand the complications. :) --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Y Alright, fixed six seven other deletion templates to do proper category suppression (those didn't care about it at all), and the page is clean now. Some templates are called with overzealous suppression parameters now like demospace=yes|categories=|nocat=yes, one of them is usually enough if you know which one, but they won't hurt either. :) Amalthea 18:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Error: reason for move missing

This error appears even though a reason is given: look here Regards lil2mas (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If your reason has an equals sign in it, the part before will actually be misinterpreted as a parameter name, with a value of the part afterwards. To work around this you can explicitly name the parameter, i.e. instead of

{{db-move|Åråsen stadion|capitalized per. http://www.lsk.no/?aid=9093814}}

write

{{db-move|Åråsen stadion|2 = capitalized per. http://www.lsk.no/?aid=9093814}}

or mask the equals sign with

{{db-move|Åråsen stadion|2 = capitalized per. http://www.lsk.no/?aid{{=}}9093814}}

Amalthea 22:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Aha, thanks a lot for a quick answer, Amalthea! =) lil2mas (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nowiki the URL in Db-g12

It has come to my attention that Twinkle will silently fail to tag a page as a copyvio if the URL entered is on the spam blacklist. This is a known issue that remains unfixed. To alleviate the problem, I would like to make two changes that would prevent the URL from acting as a link and therefore avoid the spam blacklist. Yes, the template is not fully protected (I can make the changes myself), but I am posting here first to see if anyone objects. PleaseStand ^(talk) 06:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• This makes it harder to verify the tag. Wouldn't it be better to fix Twinkle? –xeno^talk 11:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with xeno. The url parameter will currently take formatted text as a valid input, so Twinkle could submit a nowikied URL itself if saving fails due to the blacklist. More to the point, Twinkle could be fixed not to fail silently, and that alone would remove the need for this change. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
• I'm also in agreement with xeno and Gavia immer. Having the URL as an actual link makes it very easy to check the copyvio – you only need to click on it. But if the URL was nowikied, you would have to manually select the URL with your mouse, open a new browser window, then paste in the URL. I suppose that's not so bad, but if the current system is working fine (with the exclusion of Twinkle), I don't think it should be changed. Fix Twinkle first. — The Earwig ^(talk) 14:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
• Absolutely, somebody should just fix the broken tool, not make the tag less useful. Amalthea, whistling innocently. 19:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If any new users attempted to do such, this would result in the action tripping filter 278, which is meant to prevent this sort of abuse(blacklist avoidance). If such happens, 278 should not be altered.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Add some magic keywords about the last editor and the last revision

{{editprotected}} Since rev:48149 is live now, we can use {{REVISIONUSER}} to display the name of the person who edited the article in the latest revision. Example: Zinnober9.

Please add this code:

---

<span class="plainlinks">This page was [{{SERVER}}{{LOCALURL:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|diff=cur}} last edited] {{#if: {{REVISIONUSER}} | by [[{{ns:2}}:{{REVISIONUSER}}|{{REVISIONUSER}}]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/{{REVISIONUSER}}|Contribs]] • [[Special:Log/{{REVISIONUSER}}|Log]])</small> }} [{{SERVER}}{{LOCALURL:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=purge}} {{#ifexpr: {{LOCALTIMESTAMP}} < {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} | ? | {{#ifexpr: {{LOCALTIMESTAMP}} - {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} > 1000 | '''<span style="font-size:110%;"> }} {{#expr: ({{#time: U | {{LOCALTIMESTAMP}} }} - {{#time: U | {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} }}) / 60 round 0 }} }} {{PLURAL:{{#expr: ({{#time: U | {{LOCALTIMESTAMP}} }} - {{#time: U | {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} }}) / 60 round 0 }}|minute|minutes}}] {{#ifexpr: {{LOCALTIMESTAMP}} - {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} > 1000 | </span>''' }} ago.</span>

---

which is in this case: This page was last edited by Zinnober9 (Contribs • Log) 1024281 minutes ago.

Features of this code:

• Displays link to the last diff
• Displays link to the user page / contribs / log of the user who edited the page
• Counts the minutes since the last revision and adds a action=purge link
• If the last revision is older than 10 minutes, the "x minutes" is marked as bold, as this may be important to know for the administrator.

Thanks, --Church of emacs (Talk) 14:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done I added it below the last line in small font and with <includeonly> so it does not show changes here. Regards SoWhy 14:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the fast implementation --Church of emacs (Talk) 15:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Glad I could help, sort of! :D – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What you see is a demonstration of {{REVISIONUSER}}: you name wasn't really there, and now my name isn't really there either. :) Amalthea 07:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Replace db-f8 with nowcommons

What do people think about replacing {{db-f8}} with {{nowcommons}}, redirecting the former to the latter? It seems redundant to have the two templates, and also overcategorizes images on Commons awaiting local deletion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If I understand correction, db-f8 is intended to replace nowcommons after the user has checked that it satisfied the conditions... –xeno^talk 19:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Banned or blocked {{db-g5}}

WP:G5 states that pages may be tagged for speedy delivery if they were "created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block"... So two things:

1. The tag actually uses the term "banned", which doesn't apply to temporarily blocked users, and
2. Does "in violation of their...block" mean the page had to be created after their block?

In my case, I tagged Can't Be Tamed Tour because the user was making vandalism-type edits, misinformation edits, and unsourced (but otherwise not very controversial) edits. In this case, the article was obviously WP:CRYSTAL, and already prod tagged by another editor. The article was created before the user was blocked. Am I incorrect in tagging it for speedy deletion? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

See WT:CSD#About_G5. Amalthea 08:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That link just leads to a talk page. Why does the template say "banned" when the CSD criteria says "banned or blocked"?Prezbo (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Archive link. I actually made my way here to question just this. The template should include blocked users (as well as the summary, which is admin-related). The template current reads: "...as a page that was created by a banned user in violation of his or her ban, with no substantial edits by others." I suggest amending the template to read: "...as a page that was created by a banned or blocked user in violation of his or her ban or block, with no substantial edits by others." The summary should naturally reflect the amendment, which currently reads "Creation by a banned user in violation of ban", which should read "Creation by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block". — ξ^xplicit 07:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you think you could go ahead and change this? Doesn't seem like anyone else is going to comment.Prezbo (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Please could you discuss changes to the speedy deletion criteria at WT:CSD not here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a change to the criteria, it's a change to this template to bring it in line with the criteria.Prezbo (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry. How's this looking? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I wanted.Prezbo (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Db-f1

I think the wording on this one needs to be changed a little. It states you can use this when you are replacing an image with another, but in the blurb at the top it says "..in the same file format..". Surely this could be used when replacing an image with a file of a different format, such as File:Example.jpg replaced with File:Example.png? --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 16:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think so - WP:CSD#F1 is clear on this. It would often be desirable to have multiple formats of the same image I think. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

selection

How can I nominate just a part of an article for speedy deletion with "db-spam" ? "db-spam|selection" ? Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Just delete that section from the article. You can do this yourself. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Replacement of Template:nn-warn-reason in Template:db

{{editprotected}} Need to turn off Template:nn-warn-reason in this template right away, temporarily, until a resolution is determined at Template talk:Nn-warn#Proposed merge of Template:nn-warn-reason to this template. Template:nn-warn-reason was designed to be used on A7 speedy deletions only. For a fuller explanation, see Template talk:Nn-warn#Proposed merge of Template:nn-warn-reason to this template.

The method proposed to temporarily turn it off is to "comment it out." This way, the code is preserved in place so it can be easily reinstated. If the template is substituted, the commented-out code will not substitute (though this template is not intended to be substituted in normal use anyway). This code has been checked in sandbox. Please replace the entirety of the code with this new code:

(Code removed to improve readability.)

Thank you for your assistance. Bsherr (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: I think you're right that the current warning message is not ideal, but I think giving a prompt for a slightly unsuitable notice is better than not prompting at all. So it would be better to edit the warning template to improve its wording or to create a new template and then update Template:Db I think. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Ok, I've done the latter of the two solutions you offered. Please replace the entirety of the code with this new code:

(Code removed to improve readability.)

Bsherr (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Please let me know if there are any problems. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

T3 cat problem

Speaking of categories, T3 doesn't seem to be placing date-mature tags into the templates for speedy deletion category. I'm not comfortable enough with the code there to tinker with it. Could someone look into it? --Bsherr (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Category?

Why doesn't this template put pages into a category, or am I missing something? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It certainly should, although it might possibly be a hidden category. Perhaps you could tell us which particular template you are referring to because a lot of different talk pages redirect here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry... I mean the db, speedy delete template itself. When you add speedy to an article, the article doesn't seem to be in a category of speedy delete-proposed articles. That sucks, I really wanted that category. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Is Category:Candidates for speedy deletion what you're looking for? --Bsherr (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Should this template also include Category:Wikipedia suspected hoax articles? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to a particular db template? This talk page is for all of them. --Bsherr (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I meant db-hoax, thanks! Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

A distinction is that {{db-hoax}} tagged pages are blatant hoaxes, not just suspected. The category identifies articles that need maintenance or investigation but not necessarily deletion. Mixing in articles to be deleted may make it difficult to identify for the purpose of rehabilitation or deletion those that are merely suspected. --Bsherr (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I see the point, but one editor's blatant is another's suspected. Putting db-hoax pages into the category might help rescue pages which have been tagged in too much haste. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That's true. If consensus supports it, I'd go along with it. But notice of this discussion should be put on the talk pages of {{hoax}} and the category. --Bsherr (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Summary preload for deletion

As stated in the documentation, the summary field is preloaded in the deletion. Where in the mediawiki software is this encoded? I'd love to add that functionality to {{Now Commons}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's in the site js for administrators, in the MediaWiki: space somewhere. I can't find it just now :/. But I expect you'd need a consensus to add what you propose to it, and unless it's going to help a lot of admins, you may have difficulty getting it added, since it's going to slow down all administrators (not much, but we can be pedantic about these things ;D). Still, I might be wrong, and it looks like this template is used quite a lot, so maybe it'd be okay. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Images available

I have made some rapid delete icons that are used on other Wikipedia projects, perhaps we want to add them to this template. Cheers --Svgalbertian (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Would an image improve the template? I've put an example on /testcases to help people decide. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it looks good with the red background color but we should have a wider discussion. I'll add it to WT:CSD. Regards SoWhy 14:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Referring to the test case, I think it looks great. The icon is descriptive and aids recognition. Asthetically, I can't imagine any color scheme but red, personally; another color would clash. Bsherr (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the first image the best. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Other projects use a white background instead of red, see de:Vorlage:Löschen for example, which I think would look better with speedy. I updated the testcase with a different style (permalink). MSGJ's example can be seen here. Regards SoWhy 18:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, mustn't do that. WP:AMBOX requires red. I've reverted to the original. --Bsherr (talk) 07:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ambox can be changed! There is no particular reason why speedy delete templates should have a different format to other deletion templates (which have a white background). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The images are pretty, but don't really add anything substantive. The red template, on the other hand, communicates a greater sense of urgency than the workaday white, I think. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ambox can be changed, but the question of whether Ambox should be changed is another matter entirely. I think introducing design inconsistency among the speedy deletion templates is undesirable. --Bsherr (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Not having been aware of this thread, I opened a related discussion at Template talk:AfD-notice#CENTRALIZED DISCUSSION - Replacing icon (File:Ambox warning pn.svg). I like the icons shown at the top of this section a lot better that the current triangle-wow icon. Let's do this! I'm not sure if Template talk:AfD-notice#CENTRALIZED DISCUSSION - Replacing icon (File:Ambox warning pn.svg) or this thread is the best place for discussion, but let's keep both in mind. Herostratus (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion was related specifically having images on the CSD templates and, as you can see, did not receive overwhelming support. I suggest you carry on over there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

So, for db-meta, any objections to adopting the image as it appears visually (ignoring present coding) in the sandbox? --Bsherr (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the template at the sandbox to catch it up to current revisions and prepare it for implementation. I've made one last advert at WT:CSD. Any comments? --Bsherr (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by the need to add an icon; I agree with Moonriddengirl that it doesn't add anything substantive to the template. If we are to have one, my criticism of the current proposal is that it doesn't stand out too well on the background of the template, and that it's perhaps a bit obscure. File:Ambox warning pn.svg would be more recognisable while conveying an appropriate sense of urgency, IMO. While I respect people's creativity, it's neither necessary nor even beneficial to create distinct icons for every purpose. PC78 (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi PC78. Just to provide some counterpoints in favor of the idea of specific icons, the idea is to create a symbol that users will instantly recognize as associated with a particular kind of issue in Wikipedia. Symbols are also effectivey multilingual, and permit conciseness as people become familiar with their meanings. A glance at WP:TEMP reveals the multitude of template symbols currently in use beyond the default ambox icons. (If you look at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, you'll also see there that of all the templates listed, only one doesn't have a symbol.) I don't criticize ambox warning as an icon in its own right, but it does nothing to actually communicate the nature of this particular issue. My view of proposing that no symbol be used but that if one is to be used it should be ambox, is that it's arguing that symbols are superfluous, but if one is to be used, use one that's more superfluous than the one proposed. If nothing else is truly satisfactory to the consensus, we can use ambox, but would you consider instead offering suggestions as to how the specific symbol might be improved? --Bsherr (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There are perhaps a few flaws in your above arguments. First, doesn't most speedied content come from new users? Even if a new icon became recognisable within the community, it's never going to be instantly recognisable to those most likely to be on the receiving end of a speedy tag. Second, while symbols may be "effectivey multilingual", how relevant is that to a single language wiki? Don't get me wrong, I don't have any problem with using a wide variety of icons, I just think that for the most serious, the most urgent of problems, those that we want people to really look at and not just skim over like the rest, then we should fall back on something simple, something that anyone will recognise and associate with the gravity of the issue that is being highlighted. In this case, the seriousness of the issue is more important than the type of issue. What I'm saying is that "if one is to be used, use one that's less superfluous than the one proposed". Regarding the proposed icon, in addition to my earlier critique I would say that the most important component (i.e. the exclamation mark) is the least prominent. It may be more appropriate for {{Proposed deletion/dated}}, if you were looking to use an icon there (not that I want to give you ideas! :-D). PC78 (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable suggestion, to use ambox for speedy and incorporate the icon for the others. I'd go along with that. Thanks PC78. --Bsherr (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

{{edit protected}}

It looks like Herostratus has other ideas at the centralized discussion. --Bsherr (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here we go. Please change the line | image = none from the mbox transclusion to | image =[[File:Icon delete.svg|50px]]. --Bsherr (talk) 05:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that was agreed on above. PC78 (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Herostratus correctly points out that this was within the scope fo the centralized discussion, and they're ahead of us there. So I'm not sure what to do other than implement per the centralized discussion. --Bsherr (talk) 04:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What centralised discussion? PC78 (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The one linked to above. --Bsherr (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'll have a proper read of that later, but having skimmed over the discussion I see no concensus there either. I'm therefore disabling this edit request. PC78 (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This issue is that it creates an inconsistency. The db-notice templates have already been changed. What will you do about that? --Bsherr (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly change them back? As I said, I need to have a proper read of that discussion, but again, I don't see much of a concensus there. PC78 (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Redirect correction

{{edit protected}} Could the redirect to {{Hangon}} be replaced with {{Hang on}}. This would allow the links to be changed with just one edit in many templates where it's used like that. Thanks, --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

On Redirect-page: every sequence kills one effect

When used on a Redirect-page, this T is either before or after thr Redirect-line. If before, the Redirect does not function anymore (for as long as the T is waiting for an admin). If used after, Redirect still works but template doesn't show at all. -DePiep (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that deletion templates break redirects is intended behavior, since they would get missed otherwise just as you say. The link underneath the template still works, and the {{rfd}} template even tells readers how to use it, although speedy templates don't call out this information. Bear in mind, if the speedy tagging is actually correct (that is, the redirect should be immediately deleted), the fact that a nonfunctional redirect exists briefly is not a big issue. It's only a problem for bad taggings. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow that last part. Here is what typically happens.

1. I need to move A (disambiguation) to A, but first I have to move the existing article at A to A (blurb).
2. Now, if either A (blurb) is non-existent, or it is a redirect to A with no edit history , I can do the first part, A → A (blurb), no problem. Otherwise I have to mark A (blurb) with db-move and wait. Anyway, once A (blurb) is no longer an issue, I move A → A (blurb).
3. Of course moving A → A (blurb) creates a new A... as a redirect to A (blurb). And since A is not a redirect to A (disambiguation), I cannot just move A (disambiguation) over A. I need to db-move the newly created redirect to A (blurb) at A. I do that, but in the mean time people might be arriving at A via link or Search, so in addition to marking it with db-move, I change the redirect at A to be to A (disambiguation) instead of to A (blurb). But because of the db-move tag, it's a bad redirect, and because "briefly" can be hours, I suggest it is an issue.
4. Eventually A is "speedy" deleted and I can finally complete the A (disambiguation) → A move. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, that's what happens. It's smart that you actually chaneg the redirect to point to the right destination. A de facto soft redirect is created while the page is tagged, in that users arriving there have to click the link in the broken redirect to get to the destination. I guess the alternateve would be for us here to decide that the broken redirect should be removed, and something done in the template itself to advise people to click through? --Bsherr (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

db-move on redirects

Should db-move be placed above or below the #redirect line in a redirect? If placed above, then it breaks the redirect (readers end up looking at the technical template instead of being properly redirected). If placed below, then it the template does not seem to "expand" when viewed. Does it still work? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

See Template talk:Db-meta#On Redirect-page: every sequence kills one effect on this page. --Bsherr (talk) 05:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I posted a follow-up question there. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This would do better elsewhere...

Currently, this is on the template:

"Please use a more specific template - {{db-person}}, {{db-animal}}, {{db-band}}, {{db-club}}, {{db-inc}} or {{db-web}} where possible."

I believe that this line should be removed for the following reasons:

1. This information is better off included in the template's documentation. Those placing it are unlikely to inspect it.
2. It makes an already large template even larger.
3. This piece of information is not relevant to the template or to those who are being informed that their article may be deleted.
4. This is the miscellaneous catch-all template for articles that do not have more specific templates assigned to them. Most RC patrollers already know this, and therefore only use it when a more specific template isn't avalible.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Redlock (talk • contribs)

I assume that you are referring specifically to {{db-a7}}, whose talk page redirects here? Happy‑melon 23:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

invisible template?

Why is the template not visible on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Member_of_parliament&redirect=no after i added it? --Espoo (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed it for you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks --Espoo (talk) 07:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

incorrect template text

How can i correct the template's text? It incorrectly says "template" instead of "page" twice: This template may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion because it is holding up a page move... and If this template does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion... --Espoo (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that changes dynamically based on which namespace it is used in. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. We should add an explanation on the template itself so that time is not regularly wasted being confused and asking and explaining. --Espoo (talk) 07:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it should show both how the template would appear on a normal page and how it would look on a template page. 97.115.133.7 (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Db-g2

For Template:Db-g2, is there a way for the template text "on the talk page of the author." to link to the author? that would make it much easier than using the page history to find the author's link. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. There is no automated way to obtain the author of the first revision of an article. The only relevant magic word is REVISIONUSER which gives the author of the most recent revision. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Db-hoax & welcome template

Hello folks. Why does the db-hoax (and PROD for that matter) apply the {{welcome}} template but none of the other speedy tags do? This gets confusing when I am manually tagging and applying the {{welcome}} template to a users page only to have it applied twice. Can we standardize this or remove it?--v/r - TP 00:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I support removing it from db-hoax. Doesn't seem appropriate for a user engaging in a contravening edit. --Bsherr (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Db-g2 has the welcome template. I keep double posting the welcome template. The welcome template is a separate communication and should be removed from Template:Db-g2 to provide more flexibility over how to communicate to users receiving the Db-g2 template. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to chime in/pile on to say that it's silly and inappropriate to "welcome" people whose first entry is a hoax article. Hairhorn (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Template wording

   This following wording is nonsense:

... an orphaned disambiguation page which either

* disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or

* disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

It is probably not worth discussing why a Dab page can sort of disambiguate (between or among) several pages, but can never succeed or fail at "disambiguating" one pg, no pg, zero pages, nor "fewer than 2 pages". What's to the point is that -- unless its incoherence tripped up those who've edited it -- it must be trying to say that it's an "orphaned" disambiguation page, bcz of either

1. having a "(disambiguation)"-suffixed title but not linking to both an extant primary-topic article and another extant article covering a different topic that is well described by the base title, or
2. lacking a link to any extant article well described by the base title.

Those are plausible criteria bcz condition 1 means the Dab page is at best "harmless", and bcz condition 2 refuses CSD only when Dab'n is still needed, or where a single-entry "Dab'n" pg should be converted to an Rdr (obviating the page's deletion).
   (I would argue that CSD of harmless Dab pages does not constitute "non-controversial maintenance", in the absence of a claim that a future valid "secondary" topic is implausible; an advantage of requiring that claim is that Dab-entry counts fluctuate routinely in response to Dab maintenance and article deletions, and retention of a harmless Dab saves effort when the number of extant-page links rises back to 2. But i'm much more interested in relieving editors of the effort of decoding a brain twister when they want to be sure they're requesting a proper Dab CSD.)
--Jerzy•t 07:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: this was copied from Template talk:Db-disambig, as I recently redirected it to Template talk:Db-meta to centralize discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 17:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

sandbox page

Is showing up at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user for some reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume it's related to the deletion of Template talk:Db-meta/sandbox/Hang on and just not made it all the way up the job list yet. Though admins shouldn't really need it, I added a box at the top to avoid mishaps, and because some testing will probably put it in C:SD anyways. Cheers. lifebaka++ 12:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion - include the past AFD check in the A7 Template

I have made a suggestion that an AFD check be included in the A7 templates (and perhaps more), discussion is at the CSD talk page. Posting here as it would effect the DB templates if the idea goes anywhere. Monty₈₄₅ 22:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request to semi-protected Template:Db-g6

Please do not change this request template to {{edit protect}}. The template in question is not fully protected, it is only semi-protected, but its talk page redirects here, so it only appears to be fully protected, but Template:Db-g6 is only semi-protected.

Please change the language from "...to be deleted to merge histories, reverse a redirect, or perform other non-controversial technical tasks." to "...to be deleted to reverse a redirect or perform other non-controversial technical tasks." Reason: This template should not be used to merge histories. There are 2 specific templates for merging histories, {{Db-copypaste}} and {{histmerge}}, both listed in the documentation on {{Db-g6}}. --64.85.215.156 (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Please use {{edit protected}} instead of {{edit semi-protected}} for fully protected pages. I changed the template for you. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^(Shout!) 16:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where any change was made. Template:Db-g6 is only semi'd, not full. The talk page redirects here, as do most all "db" templates based on this template, so as to create a centralized discussion; this template is fully protected, but the request is not for this template. This request remains unfulfilled. --64.85.215.156 (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, but the IP is correct. The template which is sought to be edited is semi-protected. Regarding the request, I don't think this should be done. The overarching template by the CSD number typically describes the tasks that can be carried out through it, including ones that there are more specific templates addressed to, .e.g., db-a7 describes all of the topics within its ambit, that more specific templates exist for, such as db-person. People sometimes make specific requests under the more general template using a tailored explanation, such as is possible here using {{db-g6|rationale=reasoning}}.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Understood. But with that being said, I wanted to elaborate and get your feedback on this. Look at the recent evolution at Template talk:Histmerge, the argument that history merges should not technically be classified as speedy deletions. See also Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Remove_db-histmerge_from_CSD. Db-g6 is too "urgent" for a histmerge housecleaning deletion since it in no way removes the content from Wikipedia, and therefore there is no real reason for anyone to use a {{hangon}} and/or cause needless stress to an author. Thoughts? --64.85.215.156 (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I was not aware of that discussion which places your request in a different light. The thing is that this is rather recent and not a widely discussed matter. I'd give it a bit of time to see if it "takes".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This template should not be speedy deleted because...

...I wanted to be the first to try pressing the button! I suggest adding "includeonly" around the "link=" parameter so that a click on the button here takes you to the file description page instead. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... This is a good idea, but its implementation isn't that great. Not only are we using an image of a Mac Aqua button when we should be using a browser-native button (or a bold wikilink, if MediaWiki won't let us have our button), but the wording of the notice could do with some work. For instance, look at all the nested relative clauses with no punctuation in sight:

If you created this page and you disagree with its proposed speedy deletion, click the button below which will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe this template should not be deleted.

How about:

If you created this page, and you disagree with its proposed speedy deletion, click the button below, which will take you to the talk page. You will find a pre-formatted place to explain why you believe this template should not be deleted.

And could we possibly clear up the next sentence?

You can also [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|visit the talk page]] directly and tailor your own message, or to seecheck if you have received a response to your message and continue that discussion.

I agree that it is an improvement over {{hang on}}. But it needs refinement. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I included some of your suggestions. I tweaked the middle part slightly but I don't think it flows well broken out into two sentences. It now reads "If you created this page, and you disagree with its proposed speedy deletion, clicking the button below will take you to the talk page where will find a pre-formatted place to explain why you believe this template should not be deleted."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean about the "mac aqua button"? The button takes its form from what is provided by mediawiki's <inputbox> extension. What exactly is it the problem with its use? Why would a link be an improvement?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no. The button is rendered from an image located at File:Speedy delete contest button.png. Since the Wiki software does offer ways to generate buttons that are rendered according to the user's browser styles, this seems to be a very odd choice (and possibly a copyright issue). On another note, the new template pops up a load of red text until someone actually does post at the talk page, which I personally find to distract from the actual message of the template. (I.e. my eye is drawn to the red text before I ever get around to reading why the page has been tagged.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

About the button, replacing the image with

<inputbox> type=commenttitle default=This article should not be speedy deleted because... preload=Template:Hangon preload hidden=yes page={{TALKPAGENAME}} buttonlabel=Click here to contest this speedy deletion break=no </inputbox>

might work better. It'd look like this:

Functionally, it's identical, and should deal with This, that, and the other's concern. But the aesthetics are only a minor point. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Actually yes, I said it "takes its form from" inputbox, and I was the one who made the file, so I would know. I don't believe there is any copyright issue implicated but I will post to WP:MCQ to make sure. Why would we need to take an image that is static, that everyone can view, and make it render by people's browsers? I am actually asking. Why is that superior (and not possibly problematic in that some browsers may fail to render it)? And can you provide an example of the button capability the software has so we have an idea what you envisage as the alternative? As for the red text, I'm glad it's drawing your eye. That is a very good result since it is critical; what we hope will be seen by the people to whom template is actually intended to give notice. I haven't had the eye drawing problem and I don't know that others will, but knowing that the CSD basis is set forth at the top of the template, I'm sure you can get used to it. Afternote: Having edit conflicted with Lifebaka, I donlt see any reason not to use the inputbox directly (I initially wanted to but did not come up with the solution you've just provided).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think the red text is not a very good result as red text is universally used throughout Wikipedia to indicate that an error has occured; either a link to a non-existent page or a template with missing parameters, or a <ref> tag without a </references> tag, or some other such problem. In short, red is bad. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, things move fast. I agree with Wikidan that the red text is indeed a bit overwhelming as it is shown on every speedy deletion now. Yoenit (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Just wanted to say this is a huge improvement on the old "hang on". Thanks for implementing this. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks much:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

@WikiDan61 I don't follow your logic. You're saying that red draws the eye and that red indicates a problem—exactly. The "problem" flagged is that the page will likely be deleted in the absence of action. First and foremost, the purpose of the db-templates is to inform those creators. It is from their perspective and it is their best interests that should be at the forefront when analyzing positives and negatives of this template's features. There's a line somewhere that we wouldn't cross because it would be too much of a burden on the community. Giant, bold flashing Christmas light text would probably be a bit much. We aren't discussing anything like that. So, I don't disagree with you that it's an attention grabber by the form it's in, but that's a good thing. Note that the text, its size and its color mimic the message that hang on tags place when the talk page is not yet edited. Obviously, if we get a groundswell of users commenting that they're developing CSD-blindness then we should modify but I don't see any reason to act when your grounds for removal seem to be a reaffirmation for the opposite action. @Yoenit That it is shown on every speedy deletion tag seems to be very much a concern from the perspective of reviewers. Newbie creators only see the tag once. Do you think that it is overwhelming from the vantage point of the creators? Yes, we shouldn't inconvenience reviewing admins too much, but I can't see this as much of a burden or one that outweighs the benefits of its effectiveness to funnel the creators to the talk page. Please do request other users to comment on this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk) 22:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Accessibility

With images turned off in my browser, the new template makes no sense at all. If Lifebaka's suggestion is not taken, the image should at least have some alt text wherever it is used. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk page

This new template system is excellent, but I have just two comments:

• It seems that because of the default message on the talk page, that the template now always says there is a rebuttal on the talk page when actually none has been made.
• The talk page default message includes four tildes which are obviously intended to automatically sign the editor's rebuttal statement. However, editors are not using this and are leaving their messages unsigned. Let's not forget that many, if not most, creators of new articles are unaware of some of the most basic functions of the software.

Hope this helps. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for carrying out the suggestion, Fugettaboutit. Perhaps you can also change the talk page message to:

Replace this text with your reason for contesting the speedy deletion, sign it with four tildes (~~~~), or press the 'signature' button in the edit window tool bar, and then click "save page" below.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

• Regarding the first, I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that it appears to say there is always a rebuttal because the template says "Note to administrators: this template has content on its talk page which should be checked prior to deletion"? If so I can only tell you that that if you parse that text it doesn't say there is a protest, only that the talk page should be checked, which is something that has always been true of what administrators should do before deletion. Or did I miss what you meant entirely? Sorry.
• Regarding the second, the preload originally had two features it does not now. First the instructions were in comment out tags so that if the person did not not replace the text, the instructions would not show on the talk page. Second, it advised them to leave the tildes in place. This is the prior form:

  <!-- REPLACE ALL THIS TEXT → with your reason for contesting the speedy deletion but leave the four tildes (~'s) at the end of this text in place which will automatically format to your signature once you click "save page" below. ← REPLACE THIS TEXT --> ~~~~

  The commented notes came out because people were not removing the comment out notes but only replacing the text so when they saved the page, their text would be hidden. The reason the instructions about signing came out was because a number of different users commented at the village pump discussion that the instructions were too complicated with them included; basically, that if they failed to sign, it's no bid deal for us because we can easily see who wrote the message, whereas leaving it in might present a comprehension barrier to them. However, the preload has now changed again, per the village pump dicsussion. I think it will work better now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, although I have used the old template at least 1,000 times, I can't remember now how it was worded! We get a warning anyway if we delete a page that has a talk page with content, but I'm pretty sure that admins look at the talk page first if there is a populated one. I'll do another check, and if something's not working right I'll let you know. Thanks for looking into it already. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit intro

Why not use an editintro which contains instructions such as signing the message, etc.? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Already in the works. See {{Hangon preload editintro}}.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There are a couple of typos but I guess this is your first draft. On the other hand, the rest seems to be heading for instruction creep. Most of this is on the deletion warning template on the user's talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Just putting down some thoughts. I'm really not sure what it should say. I often write expansively and then cut it drastically down in a final draft. Any suggestions for content?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean - I do the same thing. I didn't want to edit the tpl directly because I know you're doing a grand job. I'll have another look at it and perhaps make some edits for you to consider. Apart form that, I'm no good at template mark up. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, I've made a suggested version of your text. What we have to bear in mind is that a huge number of articles are created by very young people, and others who are far less skilled at Internet stuff than we are. Most of them never read the instructions first anyway. Templates are best worded in a language that addresses them all, and with little or no tech-talk - not something we always achieve too well, although there are currently great efforts being made to change this. See what you think. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Editprotected

{{editprotected}} In the red text, there is "leave a leave a" (the second one is in the edit link). — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. As a note, the text notices are available at Template:Hang on/notice2 and Template:Hang on/notice3, though they are both also protected. Cheers. lifebaka++ 05:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit Protected Template:Db-meta

{{editprotected}} Requesting the addition of an AfD/MfD check to the meta template. The idea has been discussed at CSD Talk and the Village Pump (proposals), and received a positive response. I have already added the code to the sandbox template {{Db-meta/sandbox}}, you can view the result when a XfD exists by previewing that template on a page with a XfD discussion (the talk page button in the sandbox is not the most recent version, but that is unrelated to the change). The change is almost the same as the check already present in a prod, with the added language directing the viewer to check for relevance, and the addition of the MfD check.

The following should be inserted after the deletion criteria/rationale, and before the general instructions on responding to the CSD, as illustrated by the sandbox version:

{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}| {{error|message=This article may have been previously nominated for deletion: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}]] exists.}} Please check the deletion discussion to see if it is relevant. <br><br>}} {{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/{{FULLPAGENAME}}| {{error|message=This page may have been previously nominated for deletion: [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/{{FULLPAGENAME}}]] exists.}} Please check the deletion discussion to see if it is relevant. <br><br>}}

There should be no visible change unless there is an XfD that triggers the error message. (I don't think it is technically possible to check for past XfD nominations for XfDs that do not have individual subpages) Monty₈₄₅ 17:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done. We need to talk about this a bit first. Big red text isn't necessary for this. If we take out the {{error}}s, it'd look far better to add something like

{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}|This article may have been previously nominated for deletion: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}]] exists. Please check the deletion discussion to see if it is relevant.}}{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|This page may have been previously nominated for deletion: [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/{{FULLPAGENAME}}]] exists. Please check the deletion discussion to see if it is relevant.}}

, which we could put right after the hangon notices.

It's still a bit wordy when it does trigger, though; I'd prefer we use something more concise. Using the text as "Please check previous deletion discussions to see if they are relevant: [[link]] might work better. Anyway, cheers. lifebaka++ 14:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm amenable to changes to the language, concise is always good, and it doesn't have to be as big as the error tag makes it, however I think it should be positioned right after the deletion rationale as the existence of a previous AfD is likely to directly impact the applicability of the deletion rationale. What about:

Please check the previous deletion discussions to see if they are relevant: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Db-meta/Archive 2

Please check the <span style="color: red">previous deletion discussions</span> to see if they are relevant: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}]]

more concise, smaller, but also more likely to catch someone's attention. Monty₈₄₅ 17:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I've switched over the sandbox to the current version of the meta template with my addition as suggested on my talk page. Monty₈₄₅ 18:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The red still looks kinda' funky in the template, especially with only the middle of the sentence being red. I'd prefer that we not color the text at all, and no matter what we need to have the whole sentence, minus the link, the same color. It's very hard to read, otherwise.

I'm not terribly fond the placement, either. It breaks the flow between the criterion and the beginning of the hangon notes (starting with "If this page/template/article/etc. does not meet"). I don't know that anywhere else would be better with the current wording, however.

Instead, I'm starting to wonder if the links to past XfDs wouldn't go better in the notes to admins down at the bottom of the template. Changing

<small>''[[Wikipedia:Administrators|Administrators]]: check [[Special:Whatlinkshere/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|links]], [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=history}} history] ([{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|diff=0}} last]), and [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}}} logs] before [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|wpReason={{urlencode:{{{summary|}}} {{#ifeq:{{{criterion}}}|NA||([[WP:CSD#{{uc:{{{criterion}}}}}|CSD {{uc:{{{criterion}}}}}]])}}}}&action=delete}} deletion]

to

<small>''[[Wikipedia:Administrators|Administrators]]: check [[Special:Whatlinkshere/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|links]], [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=history}} history] ([{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|diff=0}} last]), {{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}|[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}|previous AfD]], }}{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|[[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|previous MfD]], }}and [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}}} logs] before [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|wpReason={{urlencode:{{{summary|}}} {{#ifeq:{{{criterion}}}|NA||([[WP:CSD#{{uc:{{{criterion}}}}}|CSD {{uc:{{{criterion}}}}}]])}}}}&action=delete}} deletion] (addition in green)

might be a better solution overall. A previous XfD shouldn't matter unless it ended in something other than delete, and then it only matters to prevent speedying. So except to stop admins from deleting a tagged page, I'm not sure the notice is strictly relevant; makes sense to put it in the admin notes, then. lifebaka++ 03:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The form of listings of past AfDs in {{Afd2}} would distinguish it clearly from the rest of the template but not be so glaring and I think looks good placed at the very bottom of the template. Code:

{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}|<div class="infobox" style="width:100%">AfDs for this article: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}</div>}}{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]|<div class="infobox" style="width:100%">MfDs for this page: [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</div>}}, which would appear as something like:

AfDs for this article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OSBetaArchive

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hangon note

I noticed that speedy deletion templates such as {{db-web}} now leave the red "note to authors" (below) even when no {{hangon}} has been placed:

Note to page author: you have not edited the article talk page yet. If you wish to contest this speedy deletion, clicking the button above will allow you to leave a talk page message explaining why you think this page should not be deleted.

This notice was originally created as part of the {hangon} template (see [1],[2]) to inform page authors that simply placing a hangon template without leaving any rationale was not sufficient to keep their page from being deleted. I'm not sure if it makes sense to have this message show up automatically all the time, regardless of whether {hangon} has been used or not (since the message doesn't make sense to someone who isn't trying to contest the speedy deletion). rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The {{hangon}} template is no longer being used, so contesting speedy deletion consists just of creating the talk page with some content. This was discussed above and at the village pump. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I see, makes sense. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible to remove the "click here to contest" button from db-talk?

Apologies if this has been discussed somewhere else and I didn't find it. Would it be possible to remove the "Click here to contest" button from the {{db-talk}} template, which is placed on talk pages that have no corresponding article? It's not a huge issue in any way, but currently, if the template is placed on a talk page and people come along who want to contest the deletion of an already-deleted page, they are likely to just click the button on the talk page and think that they are still able to contest the deletion of the real article. The button on db-talk creates a new section on that same talk page.

The way I see it, there can't be many valid rationales to keep an orhpaned talk page, and if somebody is already on the talk page it's just as simple for them to edit the page normally to add their reasoning.

As I say, it's a minor issue but if it can be done reasonably easily I think it would be worth doing. --bonadea contributions talk 09:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It'd be fairlysimple to add a |contest= parameter to switch the "click here to contest" button off. I'm not sure it's necessary, but it wouldn't be at all hard. lifebaka++ 17:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Can't the template detect for itself when it is being used on some kind of talk page? -- John of Reading (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but adding a parameter has the bonus of also allowing us to remove the contest button from others that shouldn't need to be contested, such as most applications of G6 or any application of G7 or U1. lifebaka++ 19:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Rcsprinter123, 4 June 2011

Please can I put a full-stop at the end of the button which says "Click here to contest this speedy deletion"?

Rcsprinter (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. I don't think a button caption should have a full-stop at the end of it; no other buttons do. Regards SoWhy 17:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

punct mark

Can someone adjust the apostrophe in "Wikipedia’s" to "Wikipedia's", kinda silly that such high class template would not comply with WP:PUNCT itself. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- DQ (t) (e) 20:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

IESEG School of Management

Please the delete this page as it is not updated and is too promotional, we are currently working on a new version, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hernaty (talk • contribs) 06:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

What happens now

Discussion moved to Talk:ENSCO, Inc. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

DB Realty

There is a speedy deletion tag added to DB Realty page. Request you to review it and remove the tag as the necessary changes have been made. Thanks.202.179.91.46 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC).

Multiple URL's

Note: I am referring to G12

I don't know if anyone else has had this, but recently I nominated an article for a speedy where it had been copied and pasted from 3 different URL's. What am I supposed to do in this case? What I did was put the three URLs all under the one URL= switch, but this rendered the Duplication Detector link useless. Should I just have used one URL? I was concerned an administrator would think it had free content on it from other sources, when really it was all copy and pasted. --Thompson.matthew (talk) 08:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a reasonable request to add support for multiple URLs. In the meantime, my suggestion would be to use just one URL in the tag, but place the additional URLs on the talk page. The responding admin ought to look at the talk page prior to taking any action. --RL0919 (talk) 05:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, will do that from now on. --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 10:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"TranswikiLocation"

I've just used this template for the first time, and either there's a problem with it or with the documentation. It says you can use "{{db-a5|TranswikiLocation}}" where "TranswikiLocation is a link to the page to which the article has been transwiki'd". I've just added the template to this page and set "TranswikiLocation" to "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/India_States_Reorganisation_Commission_Report_Telangana_Andhra". But the link comes up red, and even though it displays correctly the destination URL shows as "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/India_States_Reorganisation_Commission_Report_Telangana_Andhra&action=edit&redlink=1" when you move the mouse pointer over it?? I've presumably done something wrong, but it's not at all clear what! Cheers, Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC).

Well, we don't have an article titled [[3]], which is why the link was red. {{db-a5}} should be using an external link, rather than an internal one, to function properly. I've gone ahead and fixed it. Going to update the documentation now to reflect that it should be linked to via URL. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you. Slight quibble: the second sentence of the template warning now reads: "The transwikied text can be found at [1]." Would it be possible to have it display the URL instead of just saying "[1]"? Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC).

Yeah, if you removed the "[" and "]" from around the {{{1}}}. Then it'd display like http://www.this.com instead of like this. The template's only semi-protected, so feel free to make the change yourself. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've now done that! Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC).

Edit request from User:Σ, 25 July 2011

{{edit protected}} When tagging a talk page with {{db-talk}}, it is unnecessary to have the "Note:The talk page has content that should be checked before deleting" message. I suggest it be removed, using something similar to ifeq: {{NAMESPACE}} | talk | (talk page has content message) | }} --Σ ^talk_contribs 20:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable request, but given the sensitivities about speedy deletion, any change should be tested in a sandbox before deploying it live. I'll try to do that in the next few days. If a non-amdin gets to it first, feel free to drop me a note with a pointer to the sandbox version and I'll make the change if it all checks out. --RL0919 (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I added an ifeq to suppress that line if the namespace of the page the template is on is a talkspace (not just Talk, but User talk, Category talk, etc.). It's in Template:Db-meta/sandbox right now and seems to work fine. I'll leave it there for a couple of days before implementing it, in case anyone has concerns. Please comment here if you have any objections. --RL0919 (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Done Implemented. --RL0919 (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... All information posted is factual, and can be referenced via the sites at the bottom of the page

--81.156.0.7 (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh? This page isn't up for deletion. --Σ ^talk_contribs 23:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The IP is probably contesting a different speedy deletion, but ended up at the template first. This happens fairly often to all the commonly used CSD templates. I've been thinking that we could really use a short edit notice to let people know that this is not the place to contest page deletions, and that they should go back until they see the page/article they're trying to contest the deletion of. It might help stop misplaced contests. lifebaka++ 23:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Σ, 10 August 2011

{{edit protected}}

Could someone change {{Hangon preload}} to have (your reason here) in front of the ~~~~? The result:

This page should not be deleted because... (your reason here) ~~~~

I have seen many contested deletions where the reason goes after the tildes, and hopefully, a shining pointer to the place where the reason should go should reduce the number of such hangons. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 21:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Done --RL0919 (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Date tagging error for this db-t3

I get an when using this one template. Currently visible at Template:ISO 15924/wp-4cols. It also shows at this overview. -DePiep (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

{{db-t3}} wants to be used like so: {{db-t3|~~~~~|<duplicate template>}}. You put the duplicate template name as the first parameter, and the template couldn't parse it as a date. I've fixed it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm, somewhere I expected that to happen automated. But thanks anyway. -DePiep (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Σ, 21 August 2011

Wrap includeonlys around the inputbox tag. It should prevent the contested speedies on this page. I tested it in the sandbox. Thanks, --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 05:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Now the only problem is that it'll come from a db-g11 or something... --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 05:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain that last comment? I'm not sure what you're referring to. Ucucha (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The contested deletions. I'll do some sandboxing to make sure that the "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" doesn't appear on a db template. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 00:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: Unfortunately, the method I wish to use (which will take up very little code) requires that all Db templates (that are not redirects) be moved to become subpages of Template:Db. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 01:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There are other methods: you can use {{{str left|{{PAGENAME}}|2}} or so (which is evil), or you can make db-meta accept a parameter |donotshowbutton= and have all the specific templates set <noinclude>|donotshowbutton=true</noinclude>. Ucucha (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

But then transcluding the template will not show the "Contest CSD" button. What I had in mind was using a number of magic words. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 02:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It will, because {{PAGENAME}} is different or <noinclude> is used. Ucucha (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The button's code is wrapped in a parser function. I have learned that this is unneeded, from the below. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 22:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

{{movereq}}

• Template:Db-a1 → Template:Db/a1
• Template:Db-a2 → Template:Db/a2
• Template:Db-a3 → Template:Db/a3
• So on. Maybe excluding G6, G7?

– I need to use the #titleparts parser function in order to prevent "==Contested deletion=="s from appearing on the template's talk page. I have sandboxed it in Template:Db-meta/sandbox and Template:Db-meta/testcases, which shows that my code has worked. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 07:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe G7 or G6 and its branches need to be moved, as they do not have a "Contest this CSD" button. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 07:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. My template knowledge is pretty limited, but Ucucha's comments in the section above seem to be suggesting that this rename will not be necessary. Jenks24 (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is using a grenade to kill a fly. Out of the thousands of speedy deletion contests we've seen since the contest button was implemented only a handful of people have somehow navigated to the underlying speedy template and posted a contest on its talk page. Lifebaka already addressed this by creating {{Db editnotice}} and a tailored one for each of the db-templates, which are already implemented for all of the talk pages. I have enhanced by protecting all of the talk pages so that anytime anyone navigates to a db-template itself and clicks the button, they will not only see the editnotice but will be prohibited from editing it. These templates in this form are known by heart to thousands of users, are displayed in thousands of links, and should not be changed without a very good reason even if redirects will keep them functioning and blue. Between the editnotices and protection the issue appears moot.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• I was unaware that you protected the talk pages. This request is withdrawn. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 22:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --158.230.100.102 (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This page is helpful and informative.

This page isn't really up for deletion. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 11:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a template page. I see no need for deletion.--megamanfan3 (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Altering the "This page should not be deleted because"

I believe it should be broken up by the CSD criteria. An A7 could show "This person is notable enough to be in an encyclopedia which is not Facebook because", and G11 could show "This page is not promotional because", and so on. I'm sure that some administrators don't bother reading the talk page, because most of the reasons are generic reasons that aren't reasons: "But it's all true!!!", "I work for Company XYZ and they told me to set up a page" or not a reason at all, "This page should not be speedily deleted because... Example (talk)". Some criteria like G10, G3, and G2 don't need a new set (the first one doesn't even need a "Contest this CSD" button at all, in my opinion), and then could keep with the current one. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 23:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Having tailored pre-load messages is an intriguing idea (though I would not be the one to code that). We would need to look at feasibility of the coding first I think, but note that A7 would never say anything about notability. Mixing apples with oranges there. I imagine something like This page does not qualify for speedy deletion under CSD A7 because it asserts importance as follows... ( (your reason here) Actually, that's a bit presumptuous because the reason might be that the topic isn't any of the qualified topics (people, animal, organizations, web content) but we can tackle the specifics if we first learn we can do this at all. Not sure why you say G10 etc. don't need a tailored pre-load, and certainly G10 needs a contest button. Most contests reasons miss the mark, but legitimate ones come up for all of the criteria. Valid contests for G10, for example, might be: "this page does not qualify for speedy deletion because while it is negative, it's also reliably sourced" / "this page does not qualify for speedy deletion because if you look in the page history you'll see a neutral version exists and the attack was a later revision that the tagger obviously did not notice" etc. Same thing with G3: this is not a blatant hoax, see SOURCE.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Technically, this wouldn't be difficult. We'd have to create a page related to or subpage of {{hangon preload}} for each of the criteria, but then we could just feed an existing parameter into the preload= part of the URL to use the right preload instead of the current default and redirect all the ones we don't want to change back to the default. Likewise, we could adjust the editintro= for each of the criteria without much difficulty. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I have moved the existing preload to {{Hangon preload generic}}. I have created preload templates for all of the criteria I think need them, with the following preload text:

CSD preload templates

{{Hangon preload G3}}
This page should not be speedy deleted under CSD G3 as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{Hangon preload G10}}
This page should not be speedy deleted under CSD G10 as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{Hangon preload G11}}
This page should not be speedy deleted under CSD G11 as unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{Hangon preload G12}}
This page should not be speedy deleted under CSD G12 as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{Hangon preload A1}}
This page should not be speedy deleted under CSD A1 as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{Hangon preload A2}}
This page should not be speedy deleted under CSD A2 as a foreign language article that exists on another Wikimedia project, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{Hangon preload A3}}
This page should not be speedy deleted under CSD A3 as having no substantive content, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{Hangon preload A7}}
This page should not be speedy deleted under CSD A7 as about a person, animal, organization or web content but which fails to assert importance of the topic, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{Hangon preload A9}}
This page should not be speedy deleted under CSD A9 as about a musical recording that does not indicate importance and where the artist's article does not exist, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{Hangon preload A10}}
This page should not be speedy deleted under CSD A10 as recently created, with no relevant page history and that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{Hangon preload R3}}
This redirect should not be speedy deleted under CSD R3 as an implausible typo or misnomer, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{Hangon preload F1}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F1 as redundant, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{Hangon preload F2}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F2 as corrupt or empty, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{Hangon preload F3}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F3 as bearing an improper license, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{Hangon preload F4}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F4 as lacking necessary licensing information, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{Hangon preload F5}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F5 as not under a free license or in the public domain that is not used in any article, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{Hangon preload F6}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F6 as non-free but claiming fair use and without a fair use rationale, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{Hangon preload F7}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F7 as having an invalid fair-use claim, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{Hangon preload F8}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F8 as available as an identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{Hangon preload F9}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F9 as obviously non-free but which is not claimed by the uploader to be fair use, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{Hangon preload F10}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F11 as neither image, sound, nor video file, not used in any article, and which has no foreseeable encyclopedic use, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{Hangon preload F11}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F11 as bearing no evidence of permission, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{Hangon preload C1}}
This category should not be speedy deleted under CSD C1 as unpopulated, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{Hangon preload T2}}
This template should not be speedy deleted under CSD T2 as an unambiguous misrepresentation of policy, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{Hangon preload T3}}
This template should not be speedy deleted under CSD T3 as not usefully employed and either a substantial duplicate or hardcoded instance of another template, because... (your reason here)

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed all the mentions of "CSD Xy". --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 05:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think they belong, but maybe in quotes, i.e. "under "CSD G11" as..." The reason I think we should keep them in is because the person has seen the db-template which says in the most prominent, boldfaced text on the page See CSD G11 and they have also (probably) just seen a warning ntoice on their talk page which says "Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

After seeing many contested deletions particularly on A7s I tag, I believe the only thing the page creator reads is "Speedy deletion" and "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Overloading their minds with such jargon such as "CSD" and "A7", and then directing them to a thick wall of text would intimidate the newcomers, who have reduced motivation from seeing a deletion tag slapped onto their creations within 10 minutes. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 06:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I've seen a few thousand myself. Many times people even refer to the criterion the page was tagged under in contests. Many people are able to interpret information provided more than you think. Not sure what wall of text you're referring to—in the templates? Certainly there's no wall by including this in the preloads. I think more information is good. By stating the criterion grounds in the preload we are arming them to dispute on valid grounds as best we can; telling them the criterion name that information comes from may help them find the actual, more expansive criterion at CSD; if not, it's easily ignored the way it is placed. But I'm not married to it and I don't wish to make this a sticking point. It can always be revisited later. Let's implement.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I've drawn up a working version in the sandbox. It's fairly simple to add new cases that deviate from the default or remove ones that currently do by just adding/removing the criterion's name in the #switch statement.
Before we implement, however, we should go over the preloads themselves and make sure they're all ready. A7's at least, has a grammatical mistake currently, which I'm about to go fix. After we're all happy with them, and someone else has double checked that the sandboxed version doesn't have any bugs, we'll be good to go. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I just checked using {{a7-test}}. Working great!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm satisfied and ready to add the code in. I'm going to go look at all of the preloads for a last pass. Lifebaka, you should do the honors.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It is working brilliantly, thanks! Now all that is to be done is to wait, and hope that hangons are more convincing. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 01:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, without a hitch. Brilliant idea Σ, and masterful coding Lifebaka.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, G10 doesn't need a button. Anyone who tags something as G10 should know that it applies to unsourced pages that do nothing other than attacking a subject, and nothing more. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 03:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I assume you are posting that talk page because you think it has some evidentiary value in support of your position on this? It has none. It's not even negative evidence, as dubious in value that would be. It shows that someone used the button for a bullshit reason, as you could find people doing every day for every criterion. It says nothing at all about people using it for a valid reason. Admins are not infallible. I actually made the mistake of deleting a page as an attack because I failed to look at the earliest revision of a page that had multiple different edits—I realized my mistake but I would not have deleted that page even for one minute if someone had contested on the talk page on this basis. Right there you can see the need. Meanwhile, if you want some actual evidence other than anecdote and hypotheticals, I'll see if I can drum up some examples from G10s that were either declined or deleted and then overturned at DRV, but I do not have time right now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, searched. Some of the following DRVs are right on target, some are not quite a perfect fit, but in sum, I think you'll get the drift: there are many instances shown here where G10 was used and others later said it was not valid for various reasons; every person's opinion in these DRVs as to why G10 was not a good fit shows an instance of a possibly valid button-pushing situation: 1 ·◌· 2 ·◌· 3 ·◌· 4 ·◌· 5 ·◌· 6 ·◌· 7 ·◌· 8 ·◌· 9 ·◌· 10 ·◌· 11 ·◌· 12.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Db-t3-notice

This template says: "by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion"."; however, the speedy delete Template:Db-t3 does not have a phrase to "click here". I don't know how many more templates similar to this one are like that, but I believe they may need to be updated. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Editprotected (deletion link)

A quick link to delete the tagged page is generated by db-meta:

[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|wpReason={{urlencode:{{{summary|}}} {{#ifeq:{{{criterion}}}|NA||([[WP:CSD#{{uc:{{{criterion}}}}}|CSD {{uc:{{{criterion}}}}}]])}}}}&action=delete}} deletion]

This link uses the format "Reason (CSD G6)". But both MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown and the hidden "delete-reason" span use the format "G6: Reason". For consistency, could this link (located in the long para towards the end that starts with <small>...</small>) please be changed to

[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|wpReason={{urlencode:{{#ifeq:{{{criterion}}}|NA||[[WP:CSD#{{uc:{{{criterion}}}}}|{{uc:{{{criterion}}}}}]]: }} {{{summary|}}}}}&action=delete}} deletion]

— This, that, and the other (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Seems sensible. Anomie⚔ 11:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Db-move modification request

Have a minor modification for {{Db-move}}. Could someone please make it where, when executing the requested move through the link on the template, "Requested move:" is prepended to the move reason in the move box? Thus instead of it saying "[whatever]" in the move box before executing the move, I'd like it be to where it says, "Requested move: [whatever]". I've had a few instances where people have challenged a requested move after it was executed, and questioned me on the autofilled reason from the nominator. Generally, if the move looks reasonable enough and seems uncontroversial, I'll do it. Adding "Requested move:" to the front of it is just a little something to clue others in to the fact that the person who executed the move may not be the best person to discuss on the substance of a move after the fact (but the admin who completed the move should always do the right thing and refer the questioner to the proper talk page to have that discussion).

Thoughts? Could someone make this happen? I realized I have no idea how to do it when I tried to do it in a sandbox and screwed my sandbox up. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

One problem with using the phrase "requested move" is that it could imply that it has gone through the requested moves process and attained consensus, when that's obviously not the case. Jenks24 (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

"Proxy move", then? I don't care what the term is - just something to indicate that the move is being completed by a third party. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We could be right on the nose and have it say "Implementing db-move request" or "Implementing {{db-move}} request"--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it's a good idea to show this. Either of your suggestions, SchuminWeb and Fuhghettaboutit, seem fine to me. Jenks24 (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

First sentence should be italicized completely

Currently lines 5 and 6 read:

| because {{{1}}}
|, but {{red|no reason has been given}} for why it qualifies

I think it's best to have the whole first sentence italizied, like this:

| ''because {{{1}}}''
|'', but {{red|no reason has been given}} for why it qualifies''

Thank you -- Jab7842 (talk) 05:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems like that change could be made globally by italicizing the text display here, at {{db-meta}}; if we're going to make that change, we might as well keep a consistent style. I'm guessing there's a reason why that text isn't italicized (perhaps so that it stands out), but I'm not sure. In the interest of getting some more comments, I've cross-posted this to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposed change to CSD template text display. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There have been no comments so I am disabling this request for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk)

Text for administrators

Hi!

Could someone use class="sysop-show" in an element containing all admin-specific messages? (For more info, see MediaWiki_talk:Common.css#Non-inline_sysop-show). Helder 13:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Like this? Anomie⚔ 13:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep! I think that is it. Helder 14:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Done Anomie⚔ 18:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I find the removal of "last edited by Example" for non-admins very inconvenient, as I use it constantly to see if SDPatrolBot readded a tag, or whether the page creator is still working on the page or not. Could someone move the ending < /span> from the end to right before This page was last edited...? →Στc. 08:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Done Anomie⚔ 11:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction/ambiguity with {{Db-t3}} criteria

The {{Db-t3}} template is written "[...]any useful fashion, and which satisfies one of the following conditions: It is a substantial duplication[...], or It is a hardcoded instance[...]" (italics added). However, the CSD criteria states "Templates that are not employed in any useful fashion, i.e., orphaned, deprecated, substantial duplications of another template, or hardcoded instances" (italics added). The current template increases the threshold for speedy deletion by stating that substantial duplication and/or being a hardcoded instance is also necessary for speedy deletion. To use a test case, an orphaned template that does not have substantial duplication to and is not a hardcoded instance of another template can be deleted speedily according to the CSD criteria. However, the same orphaned template can't be deleted speedily according to the template because it neither has substantial duplication, nor is it a hardcoded instance.

I believe the template should be rewritten thus:

This template may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a template that is not being employed in any useful fashion, and which satisfies one of the following conditions:

• It is orphaned, or
• It is deprecated, or
• It is a substantial duplication of the template {{[[Template:|]]}}, or
• It is a hardcoded instance of template {{[[Template:|]]}}, where the same functionality could be provided by that other template.

–Temporal User (Talk) 12:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC) (Edited: 10:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC))