Template talk:Db-meta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Db-f9)
Jump to: navigation, search

Do we need db-p1?[edit]

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

U1 and G7 - A softer description?[edit]

Like every other speedy deletion template I see, u1 and g7 is when the author or user requests deletion to his/her page. But there is one abnormality, they do not have to be such a legal or if I can say it phrase. I want the presentation of the templates to be softer. That is, they do not use 'speedy deletion' in a hard and fast style. I have a live preview here. That is how I want them to look like, both templates should be nice to everyone, not organised in a way that only administrators can really get the personality of those strict templates. Thanks! DSCrowned (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

If you like this idea, please ask me about it on my talk page so I can change the template pages if requested. Thanks! DSCrowned (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose If it ain't broke, don't fix it. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 12:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
DSCrowned (talk) - What do you mean by that? 08:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see no reason to go against the standard that all of our other speedy deletion tags use. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The only reason I have is that the standard form kind of distracts the user that requested to delete the page. As the author requests deletion, there is no need for anyone except for admins to be notified. So there should not be a harsh message to the author, unlike other speedy deletion tags. It shouldn't be this legal way or otherwise such harsh db-u1 templates may end up distracting rather than telling others to delete. DSCrowned (talk) 07:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes a {{db-u1}} or {{db-g7}} will be improperly used. For example, user A creates a template. User A later realises that it is not needed after all, and blanks the page: this can legitimately be tagged G7 by user B. However, if User C decides that this template is not needed and blanks the page, it cannot be tagged G7 by either user B or user C. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the edit that conditionally adds, This page was last edited by a user other than the owner of the userspace in which it was used. Please make sure the page was tagged by the correct user before deleting. to the template and identifies that user. I see no argument above that contests that this is an improvement. --{{U|Elvey}} (tc) 16:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
@Elvey: That's a feature I added to the sandbox a while back, and is completely independent of the change he's proposing. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, OK. Would an admin kindly just make Jack's feature live?--{{U|Elvey}} (tc) 12:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@Elvey: {{db-u1}} is only semi-protected, so you should be able to do this if you want. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I just brought https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Db-u1/sandbox&action=edit&oldid=574271933 live (less the redirect-causing addition of an s) per above. Thanks, User:Mr. Stradivarius, Jackmcbarn
BTW, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Db-u1/testcases doesn't work.
As for DSCrowned's changes, I mildly Support those too; I prefer the proposed version to the current version. {{U|Elvey}} (tc) 17:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 August 2014[edit]

<text of article in another language removed> (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC) (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

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) 12:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) Hello person editing from, You seem to have mistaken the talk page of an article you wish to edit with the talk page of the speedy deletion template that was placed on it (or some other confusion brought you here). IN any event, you are not in the right place. If my first guess is at all correct, go back to the article, click "Talk" at the top, and place any request on that articles talk page, if not already deleted. However, Wikipedia is written in English, and a request should start with a description of what you want done. In no event is anyone going to place a swath of foreign language content into an English article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

add {{Find sources}} to {{db-a7}}[edit]

The {{Find sources}} template is used as part of an AfD nomination to make it easier to look up sources for an article at AfD. I would like to suggest that {{Find sources}} be included in {{db-a7}} to allow editors to check for sources in an article tagged for {{db-a7}} with a single click. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 03:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea, and I've tried to implement this in Template:Db-a7/sandbox. I keep getting a big gap between the find sources line and the administrators' advice line, though. Can anyone see what's going on there? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Mr. Stradivarius, the problem is in {{Db-meta}}. I really have no ambition to fix it right now, but that is where to look. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 14:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
    The problem seems to be a stray </small><br> in db-meta, right after that parameter. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

rationale = reason[edit]

Please edit this template so that we can use reason instead of rationale on all versions of these templates. For example, {{db-g6|reason=This page is junk}} and {{db-g6|rationale=This page is junk}} would both work and have the same result. Thank you, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. I see no reason to add extra code to the template, which will make it slower for everyone, forever. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

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)