Template talk:Db-meta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Db-a1)
Jump to: navigation, search

Do we need db-p1?[edit]

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Do we need db-p1?

Regarding Template:Db-r2[edit]

Could someone point out to me where the consensus was to add the following wording to the template:

"...or from the Book: namespace to any other namespace."

...as this note doesn't even appear in the speedy deletion criterion's wording itself. If there was never consensus established for this wording, it would be best to remove it from the template. Steel1943 (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Since you're the one who added this, can you answer? Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Headbomb added this with the edit summary "add book: --> anything per lack of objection" [1]. Trawling through the discussion pages that link to the template, I eventually found Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 38#Update db-r2 to cover books. It's true there wasn't any explicit rejection of Headbomb's suggestion, but Gavia immer was the only other person to comment and they said "... it probably needs more eyes on it before changing things". That was the last word on the topic afaict (although as this was in May 2010 and the edit to the template was made in July 2010 I may have failed to find something). While I cannot immediately think of a reason why pages in the Book namespace should redirect elsewhere, that was not consensus to expand CSD to cover that. Further, speedy deletion policy is defined by the list of criteria and the templates need to be in sync with that not the other way around. So I'd remove that wording from the template and propose an expansion of R2 at WT:CSD, although I don't know if will be successful on frequency grounds. I can't bring to mind a single RfD for a redirect in the Book namespace this year for example. Thryduulf (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedy revise (so to speak) to match Criteria for Speedy Deletion. This isn't in the CSD page so it has no business being on a template. The template needs to be change to match CSD right now. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

And I just did that. If someone things the book statement belongs, you need to discuss this and get it added at WP:Criteria for speedy deletion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
It was discussed, no one objected, it didn't cause any problem for 4+ years now. This reversion of an utterly uncontroversial update to the template is WP:BUREAUCRACY run amok. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Headbomb, being suggested and lacking any substantial subsequent discussion is not the same as it being discussed. If you had updated the CSD itself, this discussion wouldn't be happening, and I'm guessing that the reason you added it to the template was for one specific case. If you could remember what that use case was, then it could possibly be re-added after a short discussion at the appropriate venue. Lacking a use case, is there really a reason to have it in there? — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 15:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
There are plenty of cases, typically when people create a user book and saved it by mistake in the book namespace, and they move it to their userspace. There's a redirect left behind from Book:Foobar to User:USERNAME/Books/Foobar. It's the same thing as if someone moved Foobar to User:USERNAME/Foobar. We don't leave those redirects in. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • That's all fine and well, but I apparently didn't emphasize the correct keywords in my previous comment. after a short discussion at the appropriate venue, which is WT:Criteria for speedy deletion in this case, I believe. I apologize for the confusion I may have caused, and look forward to the discussion there. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 18:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
And that's why this is WP:BUREAUCRACY run amok. There was a discussion here. It's been in place for four years. There another discussion here. And there's no cogent arguments for why it should not be reinstated except meta discussions about process. Feel free to copy paste this at WT:CSD and go through the whole RfC thing, but it's really pointless to do so except for process's sake. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Headbomb: If you add the note about Book namespace to Criteria for Speedy Deletion itself and no one objects, we'll put it back in the template. However, the template absolutely must match the policy. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 October 2014[edit]

I've written only one general sentence about soft solutions. Please advise what should be removed or replaced in order to be objective? Do you consider a definition an advertising? AA5577 (talk) 07:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@AA5577: Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Db-meta}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

db-multiple url2= support for copyvio and other issues[edit]

When using {{db-g12}}, it's possible to specify several URLs with urlN= parameters.

When using {{db-multiple}} as recommended to avoid to request permission when other issues exist, it's not possible to specify such extra URLs. --Dereckson (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You can just leave several speedy templates, as in the time before {{db-multiple}} existed. It seems a fairly cosmetic issue to me. —Kusma (t·c) 10:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why you would need to list any URLs in most cases now that Db-g12 has a link to the comprehensive copyvios report using The Earwig's tool. This tool scans the page for any URLs that are already on the page (scans all the reference URLs) and does a Google search for other possible copyvios and then returns a report of the possibility of violation for each page and you can view each finding in specific detail or view the overall report with comparison. That said, Db-g12 only supports up to 3 URLs, and now Db-multiple does as well. Please, do not make the administrators have to work harder than needed and if the report is convincing enough, leave the URLs out... — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 13:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Expand A10 parameters?[edit]

Should we expand the parameters of the a10 template to accommodate specifications of multiple copied articles? The current template, as well as WP:CSD states that this criterion applies to "article[s]...that [do] not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s)". This wording implies that it will also apply to newly created articles that copy multiple other ones. In addition, there have been cases where this has actually occurred with new articles. I thought that this template was capable of referencing more than one article that was copied. However, upon further inspection, I found that this was not the case. It would be much more convenient to be able to reference all duplicated articles with a single notice, as this obviously takes up less space than a separate tag for each duplicated article. Would it be advantageous to edit the template so this is possible? Eventhorizon51 (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)