Template talk:Db-meta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Db-a2)
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?

Rename to "rsd" - "request for speedy deletion"?[edit]

"Rsd" seems a little more intuitive than "db" ("delete because"). The template comes up with "This template may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion...". I already created {{rsd}} as a redirect to here. What does everyone think? Facts707 (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about {{db}}. The most intuitive redirect to {{db}} is in my opinion {{delete}}. I am not convinced we need more. —Kusma (t·c) 08:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Here is the list of redirects to {{db}}. —Kusma (t·c) 12:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Why go through an external site when you don't need to? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Good point. Should we remove that unnecessary link from the WhatLinksHere page or at least mention that it does not do more than the engine can do already? —Kusma (t·c) 09:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Some redirects (incorrectly) have multiple links, and Special:WhatLinksHere won't find them. There are other advantages too, I think, not sure exactly MusikAnimal talk 05:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean by "some redirects have multiple links", and why would that be incorrect? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Rsd as a redirect seems fine. A rename I would strongly oppose. Db as the beginning of the names of speedy deletion templates (195 of them – though that includes doc subpages and the like]), is ingrained in the culture here and everyday working knowledge of vast numbers of users, and is linked or referred to in thousands of other places.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Also, the {{db}} template isn't really intended for general use - if you can't find a suitably-specific template among the dozens listed at WP:CSD, the chances are that the page doesn't qualify for speedy deletion anyway. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I see {{delete|some reason}} being sometimes used by experienced editors from other wikis who see something that needs deleting but do not bother to find out what process they should use for it here (and local admins here can then use the appropriate process), so I think it is very useful to have a freeform deletion template. —Kusma (t·c) 09:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Commons does have c:Template:Delete but it's a parallel of our {{ffd}}. Every time that I've come across {{delete}} being used on English Wikipedia, it's on a file description page - and none of the WP:CSD#Files criteria were applicable. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The Commons version of our {{delete}} is called c:Template:Speedydelete. {{Delete}} works on almost all Wikimedia projects except Commons. The pages in c:Category:Incomplete deletion requests - missing subpage may have been tagged with {{delete}} by a user from another project who expects this to be a speedy deletion template. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Blanking warning with G10[edit]

When applying {{db-attack}} with Twinkle, the code {{db-attack|blanked=yes|help=off}} is inserted and the rest of the page blanked. However, the page still displays a warning to blank the content. This doesn't happen if the code inserted is {{db-attack|blanked=yes}}. clpo13(talk) 23:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Clpo13: This should have fixed it. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 December 2015[edit]

I want to discuss the template, can the page be lowered to semi-protection? Krett12 (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss it here. Discussion of all speedy deletion templates is centralised on this page. —Kusma (t·c) 06:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay. I don't think "G5" should be a speedy delete criteria, because pages don't need to be deleted just because they were made in violation of a block (obviously a helpful mainspace page can be left), I think it should be merged with G3 maybe. Krett12 (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
This is a fairly common suggestion, see the archives of WT:CSD, where this discussion belongs. In short, banned means banned. Do you know the difference between a banned and a non-banned editor? When a non-banned editor makes an edit or creates a page, the edit is checked and only reverted / deleted if it is bad. When a banned editor makes an edit or creates a page, the edit is reverted or the page deleted no matter if it is bad or not. Merging G5 and G3 makes no sense: vandalism is deleted no matter who has created it, while the edits of banned editors are deleted no matter what their content is. You think this isn't a very productive way to deal with decent content produced by banned editors? That may be true, but it seems to be worth it to make it clear to banned editors that they and their edits are not welcome here. —Kusma (t·c) 19:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I think this must be one of the most frequently discussed issues regarding Wikipedia policy. Time and again, someone comes up with the idea that it is unreasonable to delete a page just because it was created in defiance of a block, if in other respects it is OK. I have seen it discussed on many pages, not just this one. However, no discussion about this that I have ever seen has ever resulted in consensus to change the policy, and in most cases there is a clear consensus not to do so. If the only effect of the deletion were to get rid of that page, then it would be difficult to see any reasonable grounds for deleting the page merely because it was created in defiance of a block, but that is not necessarily the only possible effect. There are disruptive editors who keep creating new sockpuppet accounts one after another as each one is blocked, and as long as they know that a significant proportion of the edits they make with their sockpuppets will stay, there is nothing to discourage them from doing so, but if they know that it is virtually certain that all or almost all of their work will be lost, they are more likely to give up. Of course, there is no guarantee that this will work, but there is no guarantee that anything will work, and experience indicates this is one of the tools are most effective. I have seen sockpuppeteers who have ignored and defied blocks repeatedly, until eventually an administrator has started watching them, and reverting/deleting everything that each new sockpuppet does, and after a while of that treatment, the sockpuppeteer has given up. If the net effect is stopping a huge amount of disruption from a persistent sockpuppeteer over a long period, at the cost of losing a small number of articles which might have been OK, then it is far from unreasonable to take thee view that it is a price worth paying. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Last edit time?[edit]

I think we should remove the "This page was last edited" line. This line almost never gives useful information, unless yo have just purged the page, which I doubt most of the admins do. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It is useful for me, as it gives some information immediately without going to the page history. For example in WP:CSD#C1 deletions, knowing that the tagging was done four days ago (and by whom) is useful to guess whether C1 actually applies. I can also see no advantages in removing this line. —Kusma (t·c) 06:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The C1 tag only categorizes in CAT:CSD after 4 days; and to see that a page was tagged seconds ago when, in fact it was tagged 4 hours ago makes a big difference - in bad way. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Now I think I understand your point -- you are saying that the "last edited X hours ago" is often wrong. I don't have numbers how often it is how wrong, but I have sometimes found it to be helpful, and never found it to be a problem. If you want to ensure that what is displayed is correct, we could just display the time of the last edit, without saying how long ago this was (although people in some timezones might not be happy about that change). We could also change the "X hours ago" to "at least X hours ago", which should always be correct. —Kusma (t·c) 12:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
All you need do is WP:PURGE the page. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
And I can just as easily click on the "history" link, which will give me all the information I need about the times related to the article. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

{{db-web}}[edit]

Can we add things like applications and video games to this? There are currently (AFAIK) no templates which include this, so I end up using this one for those types of articles. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The {{db-web}} template should not mention anything that is not covered by the relevant CSD criterion, WP:CSD#A7. The CSD criteria drive the db- templates, not the other way around. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)