Template talk:Db-meta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Do we need db-p1?[edit]

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

Instructions don't match behavior for G6[edit]

WP:CSD says there will be a button saying Contest this speedy deletion to allow someone to object to a deletion request. However, for G6, there is no such button. It was just pointed out to me that this is because the presence of the button was removed four years ago. Either the button should be put back in, or the instructions should be changed so they don't tell people to look for a non-existing button. If there is no button provided, the instructions should provide some alternative way that people can express an objection. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I think its because since the G6 criteria is for technical cases, there is no reason to contest the speedy deletion. --TL22 (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Unless the nominator is wrong about the applicability of G6, of course. Then the person who studies the situation and wants to object is told to look for a button that does not exist, and is also told "The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so." Then they are stuck in a Catch 22, and foreclosed from doing anything.
The bottom line is that there is a very valid reason to contest a G6 speedy deletion: cases where the G6 claim is wrong.
BarrelProof (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I can see the button being used occasionally. More importantly, from a costs-benefit analysis I don't see any reason not to add the button back, so I think we should do so rather than changing the instructions. Even if the majority (or even almost all) G6's are entirely technical and uncontroversial and not likely to be contested, I see no problem – no potential for harm and extra bureaucracy – created by having the button in, regardless of whether we expect it to mostly lie fallow.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Since it seems obvious that the notion that G6 could never be asserted incorrectly is flawed, and also that the instructions ought to match the behavior, I am proceeding to restore the button. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 April 2015[edit]

HΛIAS-AYΓEPINOS (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done Malformed request. — xaosflux Talk 17:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Please investigate cv multiple sources[edit]

I have often used Twinkle to populate this template. I have noticed that adding multiple CV sources populates the template, but that it does not display. An example is


I placed this on User:Zhonghao HK/sandbox, which will have been deleted already. Only one of the urls displays. I am entirely unable to work out how to correct this, and hope an expert will take a look. Fiddle Faddle 08:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent: It appears that this edit by Technical 13 (talk · contribs) was incomplete; I've finished it off. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
For which act, much thanks. Fiddle Faddle 15:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

F2 issue: template and policy disagree[edit]

  • I noticed this after File:Lion waiting in Namibia.jpg was tagged for CSD. The policy page for the F2 criterion reads "Files that are corrupt, empty, or that contain superfluous and blatant non-metadata information. This also includes image description pages for Commons images, except pages containing information not relevant to any other project (like {{FeaturedPicture}}).", whereas the criterion specified in the template is "This template may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a corrupt or empty file, or a file description page for a file on Commons." (i.e. it omits the exception "except pages containing information not relevant to any other project (like {{FeaturedPicture}}).)
I've seen FPs and DYK files (two main categories of pages affected by the exception on the policy page) tagged for CSD several times. To prevent misunderstandings, shouldn't we bring the policy and template in-line? There are too many such files for one person to keep track of them all, and (for FPs) the loss of the description page means the loss of a viable means to both count them and categorize them. I'll make the change myself if there's a consensus. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • And now the file page has been deleted by RHaworth. This means there's no chance to easily organize this FP (for example, with categories), or keep a record of it (and its main page appearance) in file space. If the policy is correct and not the template, this must be fixed. Otherwise all of our FP file pages are at risk of deletion. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

In my view the policy is correct and the template changed to match it. There is a need, in some cases (such as FPs) for local file description pages for images hosted on Commons. I would even support a change to the policy to remove from speedy any description page that contains any information not on the Commons description page (excluding nonsense, vandalism, copyright or attack page issues). Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

  • That sounds reasonable to me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that the template must match the policy, or the significant exception may be missed by taggers and admins. I also tend to agree with Thryduulf about the small policy change, but that probably should be discussed on WT:CSD DES (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't it be a better solution to abolish local templates for DYK pictures, featured pictures and other pictures on Commons and move the information to Commons instead? The current situation also creates problems when a file is moved on Commons: there are a few hundred local file information pages with such templates which are no longer shown as the file has been moved on Commons without moving the local file information page on Wikipedia. By storing everything on Commons, we would avoid this problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
    • No, it wouldn't, because the information in those templates is not used by any other projects. Keep local needs local, rather than try and push them on another community that may take issue with them (and cause further drama). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
      • If a picture is featured on a Wikipedia project, then a template is added to the file information page to Commons. If the picture is featured on the English-language Wikipedia project, then an additional template is added to the local project, so that you see two separate statements that the picture is featured on the English-language Wikipedia project if you view the file information page on the English-language Wikipedia project. In addition to being redundant, this is confusing to new editors who are not aware of how featured pictures are indicated. Additionally, the tagging is out of sync: Commons thinks that English Wikipedia has 5,162 featured pictures, but only English Wikipedia is only aware of 5,149 pictures which are featured on English Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Neither of those are reasons for deletion. The first is a safeguard, and the second just means someone needs to check the tags; it's quite possible that well meaning editors tagged FP pages on the English Wikipedia for deletion, and the deleting admin didn't realize that it was an invalid tagging (as happened above). Since you are proposing a fundamental change to the criterion itself (which already gives an explicit exception for FP templates, and implies that other similar templates are excepted) this is the wrong venue for your proposal. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)