Template talk:Db-meta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Db-u3)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Deletion    (defunct)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Deletion, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.
 

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)

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (important template) --72.73.112.126 (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

You are not the first to try this. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Db-g6: Syntax error[edit]

Hey, guys. I just caught wind of a dispute in {{Db-g6}}, whose talk page redirects here. I am trying to piece the bits and pieces of the puzzle together, but there is what I have discovered so far:

  • On 12 November 2017, Codename Lisa made these two edits: [1] The edit summary reads: (1) Resolved a syntax error preventing "Asserted to be non-controversial maintenance" from being displayed. (2) Moved the rationale from |1= to |2= to avoid a large chunk of boldfaced text. Flash-tested: Template:Latest stable software release/Spaces. So, my understanding is two things has happened here: A repair and a bold change.
  • On 14 November 2017, ToThAc reverted said change: [2] The edit summary reads: "It actually messed up template syntax and made each case have an awkward italic sentence (with no capital) to them." Can't say I understand it, but the first sentence seems to hint at a coding error on Codename Lisa's part, one that I cannot find myself. Surprisingly, this ironclad reason is absent from ToThAc's warning for vandalism he posted in Codename Lisa's user page: [3] "the reason I reverted is because the revision actually messes up the rationale parameter when it is used. It displays as "This template may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason. because it does". Funny, I could not reproduce this in the sandbox either.Update:{{db-g6|reason=because it does}} seems to reproduce the problem. But then again, "because it does" is ToThAc's own bad form of writing. If someone wants to write something meaningful, like "This template was once used in the Internet Explorer article to enable rapid updating of beta status and will never again be needed, because of product discontinuation", the result would look simply gruesome.
  • Almost one hours later, Codename Lisa counters the reversion with this explanation: "The code you are reverting to is broken. Not liking my change is one thing; restoring broken code is another." If what she says is true, i.e. the code is broken (previously she wrote: Resolved a syntax error preventing "Asserted to be non-controversial maintenance" from being displayed.), then yes, this counter-reversion is valid. Editing in the template namespace demands a lot of responsibility and accountability.
  • Half an hour later. ToThAc reverts again, with an edit summary that reads: "That's not what I meant." This is simply the most irresponsible reversion in the template namespace that I have seen in my life.

From where I am standing, ToThAc has no case for a full reversion whatsoever: His prefered version is broken code and what he asserts as the reason for reversion, I could not reproduce. must be accomplished through ordinary editing. But I welcome his comment and code sample to demonstrate his case.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 20:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@FleetCommand and Codename Lisa: Sorry I didn't make it clear enough; Codename Lisa's preferred version breaks the sentence flow, messing up templates such as {{db-move}}, {{db-disambig}}, and {{db-copypaste}}. See this page as an example. ToThAc (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello. :)
I see the problem: There is a small "i" that must be a capital "I".
But it could be corrected via ordinary editing, or at least a partial reversion.
I'll get to work on it now.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello again, ToThAc
I have an update: I have effected a partial reversion, undoing my flow change from 12 November 2017, without restoring the damaged code. I have also flash-tested the template on the Phil Murphy page. Looks good from here.
Always remember: You have the right to contest edits to templates, but you must do it with utmost consideration for the effect and responsibility.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh, somehow I didn't notice the other broken code... Thanks, the issue is cleared! ToThAc (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)