Template talk:Db-meta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Db-a1)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Deletion
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of the WikiProject Deletion, a collaborative effort dedicated to improving Wikipedia in toto in the area of deletion. We advocate the responsible use of deletion policy, not the deletion of articles. If you would like to help, consider participating at WikiProject Deletion.
 

Do we need db-p1?[edit]

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

Image[edit]

In the sandbox page, I added an image of a trash can, which is marked as speedy deletion emblem.svg. How do I remove the label and the link? UpsandDowns1234 (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@UpsandDowns1234: I don't think that you can; it would need a change to Template:Db-meta. However, the parameter is not intended to be used for an icon. The code for |image= was added almost ten years ago, and it is used for the wrapper template {{db-f1}}, where (if the first positional parameter is used) it displays the alternative image for the image which WP:CSD#F1 is to be applied. So if you felt that File:Example.jpg was redundant to File:Example.png, and that the jpg should be deleted and the png kept, you would put {{db-f1|Example:png}} on the file description page of File:Example.jpg. That would enable the admin to see the two images together, in order to effect a comparison. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 March 2017[edit]

Please add the speedy deletion emblem, since it looks nicer and gives an understanding to everyone that the article may be deleted without having to remove the text. UpsandDowns1234 21:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

What is "the speedy deletion emblem"? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
File:Commons-emblem-speedy.svg UpsandDowns1234 21:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
In which case, Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Where can I propose it? UpsandDowns1234 00:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't see why it shouldn't be discussed here. But I would recommend leaving notes (linking back here) at pages like Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion; Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy; and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64: I have seen this icon be used on other wikis, both English and non-English, so it does not make sense to me why you did not include it. You can check the sandbox and mirror it if other administrators are okay with it. UpsandDowns1234 00:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@UpsandDowns1234: What other wikis? When making claims like that you should give examples. Also, see WP:OTHERCONTENT: you need to demonstrate why it is a good idea for English Wikipedia to do this - it might be that those other wikis are in the process of removing this image.
It makes sense to me why I did not include it: put simply, there is no consensus for your change. Unilateral requests for a substantial change to a widely-used template rarely go through on a rubber stamp. Consensus needs to be established first and although we have a discussion (of sorts) going on here, nobody else has commented in it: a discussion involving just two people is nowhere near enough to make a change like this especially when only one of them has stated that they in favour of the idea.
I asked you to leave notes linking back here in order to bring in other people, and suggested three places for those notes; you did leave a note at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Speedy Deletion Emblem on Template:Db-meta, but it doesn't link back here - in fact, you didn't even mention that you had already requested the change. The result of this is that Beeblebrox, SoWhy, Nyttend, Tazerdadog, and Only in death (all of whom commented there) are probably unaware of this thread, and so are discussing as if it is a new idea. This is not just against WP:MULTI, it is against WP:OTHERPARENT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64: thanks for letting me know. You can move this discussion to template talk:db or wherever it is. UpsandDowns1234 02:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2017[edit]

I propose that a user change the name of parameter 1 to "image" ({{db-f1|image=Image}}) to make it compatible with {{db-multiple}}. 2605:6000:101C:813B:451:87D9:907:6826 (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: {{db-multiple}} does not pass 'image' - it passes category,url,source,rationale,blanked,filename,article,url2,url3,user,and nocat. "Filename" is the same parameter as in {{db-f1}}, so {{db-multiple|F1|filename=Example.png}} works. — Train2104 (t • c) 04:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Adding help=off to Template:Db-multiple[edit]

Hello there! On some templates I have seen an option to turn off the 'help' (i.e. telling you to notify the author etc.). I was wondering if it could be added to Template:Db-multiple? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It already works on {{db-multiple}}. Just pass help=off. – Train2104 (t • c) 16:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Train2014: Thanks! Don't know why I didn't notice it. Sorry! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

DeletionDiscussionLink did not work[edit]

The template {{db-g4|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Supranational (2nd nomination)}} did not work correctly in Miss Supranational (World Beauty Association). ("previously deleted" wikilink was wrong, but "previous discussion" is OK) I had to subst and edit manually.

Please fix. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

"Previously deleted" goes to the page's deletion log by design. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I think Staszek Lem's point is that it doesn't go to the deletion log for the page from the provided discussion – wants Miss Supranational instead of Miss Supranational (World Beauty Association). An additional parameter would need to be added, since the XFD subpage is not guaranteed to match the title of the deleted page. (e.g. Page was moved after the XFD started, and the XFD was not likewise moved.) In cases such as this, where the deleted page title is not the current title, admins can find the relevant deletion log without the link in the template. — JJMC89(T·C) 19:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

If it goes by design then the design is imperfect. There are many cases when a page was recreated many times under slightly different titles, to circumvent salting. "db-"templates must provide the way to list them. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. While you might have a point that the template should be fixed (I'm not entirely sure it should be), there already appears to me to be some disagreement as to the correct change. Izno (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
If there was a technical way to do this, this seems obvious and utterly uncontroversial; can't even imagine a basis anyone would object to making a non-functioning, confusing link to a blank entry, work properly. The problem seems all on the technical end. I at least see no easy way to have the template recognize and then link to the correct name of the prior, previously deleted page whee it does not match the one currently proposed for deletion. My guess is that the only "solution" would be to add a parameter that allows a human to supply the name, but that would not provide much more of a facility than your manual changes did--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
It should be possible to strip the "(nth nomination)" off the AFD link and present that, if the page title is different. Anything else would require a parameter. – Train2104 (t • c) 22:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Double link[edit]

Please remove the double "copyvio report" in db-g12 template, I would do it myself but i am not sure how this works. Lil Johnny (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lil Johnny: Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Which link is duplicated? —Kusma (t·c) 12:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
yesterday i placed a g12 tag on an article and it says: this article... ...copyright infridgement (copyvio report) of http:(some link) (copyvio report). There is a double "copyvio report" in that template. Lil Johnny (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Can't find one from yesterday, but an example from 11:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC), a little under half a day ago, was at AK-17 where the template {{db-copyvio|url=http://www.is.fi/kotimaa/art-2000000599473.html|help=off}} produced
This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a copyright infringement(Copyvios report) of http://www.is.fi/kotimaa/art-2000000599473.html (Duplication Detector report · Copyvios report).
There are definitely two "Copyvios report" links. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the superscripted one. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The two links are not duplicates. The first report is based on search results, and the second is based on comparison to the specified URL. — JJMC89(T·C) 00:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Is the first one necessary? Oh and btw, Redrose64 it was "yesterday" where I live, not in GMT (well, not exactly, it was 5 AM but here it is still considered as "yesterday"). Lil Johnny (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 May 2017[edit]

Please help me by editing my page "Tufanganj Dot Com Centre" Srejaulhoque (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Srejaulhoque: This page is not for contesting speedy deletions. Go to the deleted page. It will say which user performed the deletion with a link to their talk page. Use this if you have questions regarding the deleted page. Regards SoWhy 10:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 May 2017[edit]

please make it extended Gearbox162 (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. – Train2104 (t • c) 13:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:G12 courtesy blanking[edit]

Should we make {{Db-g12}} courtesy blank the page like {{Db-g10}} does? It should be noted that {{subst:copyvio}} already does this for possible copyright violations. G12 is used for definite copyright violations. Gestrid (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Moving this to a more populated talk page, WT:CSD. Gestrid (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Making {{Db-g13}} display the time frame of the second to last edit[edit]

I don't know if this is technically easy/feasible. If it is, it would probably double or more the reviewing speed of Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned AfC submissions. The template states at the bottom line "This page was last edited by NAME (contribs | logs) at 15:28 UTC (2 hours ago)" – that is (except in rare cases where's there's post db-G13 tagging edits), it shows us when the edit was made adding the G13 template. One of the main things we are looking for when reviewing G13s, however, is that the edit before the tagging was at least six months ago (bot edits not included). So if the template listed underneath this something like—

  • "The second to last edit to this page was by NAME (contribs | logs) at 15:28 UTC (237 days ago)"

—it would be a much quicker process to determine that the six-months-ago condition was met. I might as well shoot for the moon: if that line for the second edit could be coded to post an easily noticeable symbol in addition to the listing, recognizing and placing one symbol versus another where that second to last was more than six months ago (maybe, respectively, Yes check.svg and X mark.svg), that would would make it super easy to scan for the six-months-go condition. Can either part of this be done? Anyone willing to code it?

Note that the AfC template already has coding to display "This draft has not been edited in over six months and qualifies to be deleted per CSD G13." This helps taggers determine which AfC drafts to tag, but is no help to CSD reviewers once tagged, because as soon as the tagger makes an edit to the draft to add {{db-g13}}, the AfC template's notice goes away because it calculates from the last edit to the draft.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: I'll let the LUA experts comment on this. I don't think it is possible with plain old Wikitext. But, if you have popups enabled, you can see the date of the second-to-last edit by hovering over the "last edit" link. If the diff shows you someone adding a deletion template, the "Old revision" date is the one that should be more than six months old. Maybe you've spotted that already, though. -- John of Reading (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip John. I tried it out and it would speed up this work (though not as much as being able to see at a glance). But then I deactivated popups again because when I had tried it in the past I found it made the interface feel a bit too busy (and it doesn't place nice with mw:Reference Tooltips which I like a lot).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
There's no way that I know of for a template or module to access the API and get full revision history data, so the only way to get revision info is through Magic words, which can only show the last edit. The only way to make this work would to add something like {{#if:{{{lastrevdate|}}}|The last edit to this page when it was nominated for deletion was {{#if:{{{lastrevuser|}}}|by {{{lastrevuser}}}}} at {{{lastrevdate}}}.}}, and have Twinkle retrieve that info and fill in that parameter when it applies {{Db-g13}}. There's no way to make it work automatically without an additional tool or gadget. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 14:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for looking Ahecht. So with that, it seems there is no easy technical way to do this. That clarity is what I was looking for. I'll just do it the slower way – and we're not talking about a huge burden here (though small fixes in lots of places add up of course). Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Fully protected edit request on 22 June 2017[edit]

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

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

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R related}}
{{R for convenience}}
}}
  • WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

The {{Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  14:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done However @Paine Ellsworth: I lowered the protection level to TE, you can make the changes as needed. — xaosflux Talk 14:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
All done and thank you very much, xaosflux!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  14:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)