This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Discussions about an old very different state
This template should not appear under Category:Candidates for speedy deletion -- this template itself is not a candidate for speedy deletion! Please do not speedily delete it. (If you really don't like it, list it at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion.) Thanks, • Benc • 01:35, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This template is an alternative (not a replacement!) to Template:Delete. It is parameterized, allowing users to add a brief reason as to why the target article is a candidate for speedy deletion. Sample usages:
{{deletebecause|this page is patent nonsense}}
{{db|unused user page}}
(db is a shorthand redirect to this template)I think that it would be a bit easier if we had an additional speedy delete template, for when the reason for an article's deletion might not be so blatantly obvious. I know that the talk page is there for that purpose, but it's rather time-wasting to first edit the page, insert the speedy delete message, save it, open the talk page, post the reason for deletion, and save it. It's more convenient if you only have to insert the message {{del reason|reason=Reason goes here.}}, which would produce:
This would not be a replacement for Template:Delete; it would simply be a convenience. Please note that "del reason" is just a temporary name; I haven't thought of a really good one yet. I'm just looking for some feedback. The test version is at User:Mike Storm/sandbox2. [[User:Mike Storm| Mike ∞ Storm]] 21:25, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
{{deletebecause|this page may qualify as patent nonsense}}
{{deletebecause|I no longer use this user subpage}}
{{{1}}}
. See
m:Help:Template#Parameters for more info.
• Benc
• 23:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)I think this is a fantastic idea. -- SS 22:59, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I like the idea, this type of idea makes me wish for m:Extended template syntax — siro χ o 05:53, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
As this idea has gained nothing but support (excepting several accidental deletions), I went ahead and re-implemented it in the Template namespace. I've also created Template:db as a redirect to this template for those fond of shorthand. • Benc • 01:52, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Is there a reason we link to template:delete with a comma? ([[Template:Delete|,]]. I was about to remove the comma from the link, because I thought it was included in the link accidentally, but apparently this was intentional. Seems quite counter-intuitive. anthony 警告 22:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I moved this template to {{ Db-reason}}, leaving {{ deletebecause}} as a redirect, for consistancy in anming all the speedy deletion templates, and so they will all group together in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. DES (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Several of the other speedy deletion templates are currently implemented as a call to (transclusion of) this template, with the reason parameter filled in. IMO all the speedy deletion templates should be so implemented (with the exception of {{ delete}} that has no reason specified). This would mean that any change in this template's wording would be automatically reflected in all the other speedy deletion templates, and thus the wording would been consistent, except for the specific reason.
The usual argument about server performance and possible widespread vandalism used to oppose meta-templates don't, IMO, apply here, since none of the speedy delete templates are (I should hope) likely to be on a large number of articles at once, nor are those articles likely to be frequently accessed. Therefore, i suggest that all speedy deletion templates be retained in the form of a call to this template (with the exception of {{ delete}} as mentioned above. DES (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
From a friend and myself to help relieve the wikistress. Agriculture 03:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Can someone please change "articles that you have created yourself" to "pages that you have created yourself"? I just applied this tag to a template (a recreation of a deleted one), and its author removed it. I'd like to eliminate any unintentional namespace loophole. Thanks! — Lifeisunfair 12:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Besides a few very minor changes (removed a double-space, for example), I surrounded the category tag with an optional parameter. This fixes the "technical limitation" that prevents it from being displayed on non-speedy-deletable pages by making the category default, but not mandatory. For example, {{db-reason|blah}} will transclude the category tag, but it can be omitted by using {{db-reason|blah| }} (space for second parameter). There is absolutely no difference in usage, merely a new hidden feature used on non-speedy-deletable pages. // Pathoschild 18:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The non-mandatory categorization was already implemented earlier this month using a named-parameter approach (parameter "displayonly") which worked for both this template and its dependent templates (from Category_talk:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion#Fixing_a_categorization_bug). Some feedback about the new edit: 1) The dependent templates and pages were not updated, so Wikipedia:Template messages/All and Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion reappeared under Category:Candidates for speedy deletion (this has been fixed) 2) Some templates have a different number of parameters, leading to different usage, eg. {{db-test}} become just {{db-test|}} ie. using the first as opposed to the second parameter to override 3) Template:Db-bio has adapted a "nocat" parameter which is basically the same as the old "displayonly" parameter, even though the named parameter approach has been abandoned by this template. So, should we use the named or unnamed approach? Personally I prefer named (as before) because it is more consistent. Shawnc 12:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I mildly prefer the named parameter approach, as long as it's only the override that needs to be named, and not all parameters. (End users rarely bother using named params even when they need to, like in {{ db-copyvio}}...) Pathoschild did some good work on the templates, making them all consistent, allowing them all to display correctly on the template page, allowing inheritance (db-band -> db-bio -> db-reason), and generally cleaning up a hodge-podge of messy code and different template schemes. I just propagated his work to all of the dependent templates, and fixed some bugs. I would be inclined not to change things if they work... But if someone would like to re-do the templates using a consitent approach across the board I would not object. Just please make sure when we're done that the templates all work (with both named, unnamed, and missing end-user parameters) and put the articles (but not themselves) into CAT:CSD. I just spend a couple of hours fixing these templates and null-editing articles, and I'd hate to have to do it again... :) Jamie ( talk/ contribs) 12:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
We can use the approach found in {{ db-copyvio}}, where the named parameter "url" is an option, not a requirement. A named parameter in use can standarize usage and denote its functionality more explicitly than an unnamed empty parameter. The old edit fixed the limitation just as the new one does, but it's good to have standarized templates that work and are intuitive to use. If a parameter such as "displayonly"/"nocat" exists somewhere, it should be standarized across the related templates (as done previously), otherwise it becomes an ad hoc usage. Shawnc 23:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
An interesting property of "nocat" is that it could be used to replace the category spec, instead of remove it. :) Of course that would be gross, counterituitive and a Bad Idea, when the caller can just categorize itself in the usual way. I think when we're done we need to document what's going on inside these templates, and write a "how to clone/modify" so that well-intentioned editors don't inadvertenly break them. At its worst, template programming feels like an evil cross between the Lambda Calculus and INTERCAL. :) Jamie ( talk/ contribs) 02:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I understand the concern. The focus, though, should not be on the "nocat" tag but the whole "no categorization" implementation (eg. by Pathoschild), which was built into {{db-reason}} itself; the "nocat" tag merely documents that modification. That is, even if the "nocat" tag was not used, {{db-reason|blah| }} can still be used to override categorization (which is even easier to type accidentally than {{db-reason|blah|nocat=}}) Actually, {{db-reason|blah|CATEGORY}} can be used, such that {{db-reason|this article is nonsense|[[Category:Wikipedia featured content]]}} will mark an article as featured content material as opposed to speedy deletion material.
The unwanted appearance of Wikipedia:Template messages articles under CAT:CSD is a minor nuisance, so feel free to revert all these changes. Shawnc 22:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Some remaining issues are:
These issues would not exist if we choose not to display the templates inside themselves, but instead point out what the template does. Shawnc 04:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
My comments:
Jamie ( talk/ contribs) 04:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
An easy solution would be to move it to {{ db-meta}} and make {{ db-reason}} another dependant template. This would fit very well into the standard scheme that's now in use on the 28 other speedy-delete templates, and allow users to edit this one. For obvious reasons, allowing users to edit the metatemplate is a rather bad idea. I'm willing to makes the changes myself if everyone else agrees. // Pathoschild 23:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
A small problem with the way these templates appear has just been brought to my attention. If someone places a deletion template on a talk page (as they should do under, for example, CSD G8), anyone who tries to contest/comment on the deletion by clicking on the words "its talk page", as instructed by the template, will be sent to a new article. For example, if I placed {{ db-meta}} on this page and then followed the link, I would be sent to Template talk talk:Db-meta which, not being a recognised namespace, would just appear as a normal article. A relatively inexperienced user, or one in a hurry, may not notice the fact that they are creating a new page in the wrong place. This is especially likely since articles tagged with speedy delete templates don't usually have talk pages, so the link usually takes you to a new page (in the Talk namespace) anyway. The only clue is the extra "talk" in the title, which is easy to miss.
I don't have sufficient experience with templates to know whether there is any way of avoiding this; I just thought it would be best to mention it here -- Gurch 09:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Along that line I've replaced NAMESPACE:PAGENAME by SUBJECTPAGENAME for the admin links (see above for the effect). Clearly this and your modification (incl. a later #ifeq: replacing your switch) won't work as expected for the speedy deletion of a talk page. At least it's consistent. -- Omniplex 00:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Please do not use {{ tl}} to link to {{ hangon}}. Extreme newbies invariably click the link and edit the template directly to provide their reason for not having the page speedy deleted. There's also no reason for someone to go and view or edit the template directly, so a link here is unnecessary. — Locke Cole • t • c 06:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of {{ hangon}}, does anyone have any suggestions on how it can be made clear that the editor shouldn't remove the original db tag while adding hangon? I've noticed that a lot of new editors will remove the original speedy tag and replace it with {{hangon}}, which may potentially derail the deletion process.
I'm considering:
This, however, would require the template to refer to the name of the template which included it. This is probably possible; I just don't know how offhand. Any better ideas on the wording? Zetawoof( ζ) 23:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
{{
vandalism}}
doesn't match any db-whatever. --
Omniplex 00:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)This template breaks when a link is used in {{{1}}}:
{{db-meta|[http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Wikipedia%22 google hits]}}
This talk page may meet Wikipedia's
criteria for speedy deletion{{{1}}}. See [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#{{{CRITERION}}}|CSD {{{CRITERION}}}]].
If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can check back later to see if you have received a response to your message. Note that this talk page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation added below this notice is found to be insufficient. Administrators: check links, talk, history ( last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google.This page was last edited by Zinnober9 ( contribs | logs) at 07:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC) ( 19 months ago) |
{{db-meta|1=[http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Wikipedia%22 google hits]}}
This talk page may meet Wikipedia's
criteria for speedy deletion
google hits. See [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#{{{CRITERION}}}|CSD {{{CRITERION}}}]].
If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can check back later to see if you have received a response to your message. Note that this talk page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation added below this notice is found to be insufficient. Administrators: check links, talk, history ( last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google.This page was last edited by Zinnober9 ( contribs | logs) at 07:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC) ( 19 months ago) |
Weird. -- Chris (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone else tagged an article with the db-meta tag directly, and for whatever reason the template was hidden unless I created a standard db tag below it. It also didn't add the article to the speedy deletion category.
It was simply: {{db-meta|1=Don't believe they're notable per [[WP:MUSIC]].}} -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#CAT:CSD. Dragons flight 22:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The tag currently says: "If this page obviously does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself."
This suggests that (for someone who isn't the author) simply removing the speedy tag while "intending" to fix it is enough to keep the article from being deleted. In practice, however, if the article really does meet some CSD, then there really has to be some reason given to not speedy it, right? Should the wording of this tag reflect that fact? - GTBacchus( talk) 20:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. Gene Nygaard reverted me with the summary: "there's good reason for treating others than original authors differently". I'm confused because my edit didn't do that. The instructions already direct the author to explain themselves, so I was trying to treat other editors the same, not differently. Furthermore, no reason was given for restoring the word "obviously", which I removed as incorrect - a page not meeting the criteria should not be speedied whether or not it's obvious. I'm going to re-delete that word, and seek Gene's input regarding the other part. - GTBacchus( talk) 22:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I just realized I misunderstood the edit summary. Somehow I mentally inserted the word 'no'. My bad. Now my question is - what is the good reason for not asking people removing the speedy tag to either fix the article, or at least explain what's going on if "if necessary"? What on earth is the harm in that? The wording that Gene restored is mysteriously silent on what to do if you disagree with the tag for non-obvious reasons, but aren't the author. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
{{
db-author}}
is currently equivalent to {{
db-meta|This page was mistakenly created, no one other than its original author has made substantial edits, and he or she requests its deletion (
CSD G7).}}
The problem is, db-meta includes a statement telling the article's original author not to remove the tag, which is clearly inappropriate for db-author. Discussion is getting underway on how to fix this problem; if you're interested, please visit Template_talk:Db-author to read existing discussion and put your two cents in.
Thanks!
Ruakh 04:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
{{db-meta|Deletion tag text|self=yes}}
I'd like to change:
to
Obviously, the link doesn't work correctly here, but I believe I've got the variables right. It can be said that we already have a link to the talk page at the top of each article, but adding the link in line with the rest (we also have direct links to page history and Whatlinkshere in monobook) couldn't hurt. And avoiding acronyms never hurts. -- nae' blis 19:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I edited the wrong window's wiki. I'm sorry about that. -- AOL Alex 01:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I have changed [1] the order of the instructions for adding Template:Hangon so that it more explicitly informs you to add hangon to the article page, then explain on the talk page. I've seen far too many people add the hangon tag to the talk page, so the deleting admin never sees it. If possible, could we also add a note saying admins should check the talk page before deleting the page? -- tjstrf Now on editor review! 22:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi.
What's the point of this: "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself." if you replace the article. Why? If the page just said "test", but then I decided to replace it with brilliant prose, what's the point??? 170.215.83.83 21:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
I'm concerned about this particular line in the template:
Sometimes non-articles qualify for CSD, and this template is transcluded to the appropriate deletion templates that we would use for them. (ex. images) {{ isd}} is the speedy deletion template for redundant images, yet it mentions the word "article".-- Ed ¿Cómo estás? 02:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Right now,
having any spaces or punctuation is breaking the automatic deletion summary. Unless we're going to require people to use ugly URL code when they want a space, automatic deletion summary is going to have to go. -
Amarkov
moo! 05:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
Db-meta suggests putting {{ hangon}} if a person contests the page deletion. This won't work with talk pages, as the hangon template is coded not to work unless you use the tp=1 parameter. Can we update the instructions?
Not done. The only sensible place to contest a talkpage deletion is on the talkpage itself, so it seems unlikely that the deleting admin won't notice the hangon reason, even if the template doesn't appear. -- ais523 13:52, 24 April 2007 ( U T C)
It seems a lot of people contesting the speedy tags think the proper course of action is to place the {{hangon}} tag in place of the speedy tag rather than with it. Why not add "below this tag" after "the top of the page" in the template text? Goodnight mush Talk 19:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
I've added some code (after several tries) that will require users wishing to have their user talk pages deleted to provide a rationale. I've seen a lot of cases where people simply want to delete a history of warnings, so the template has been modified to either provide a rationale or the request is not categorized. Cheers. -- MZMcBride 22:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Please replace the following line:
with
This makes it clearer when speedying user pages. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
I've nominated this template for deletion, however, it's protected, so I can't add the {{ tfd}} template to it. Could this be added, please? GrooveDog ( talk) 19:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Please revert the template to the previous style. The discussions leading to the
template standardisation didn't really touch on templates like this, and I don't think there was support for changing something that wasn't a typical "banner" message. This needs to be discussed further. --
Ned Scott 08:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the current template jumps out enough... to new users or veterans (I'm not sure I'd notice this over the layers of nagging templates people like to add to articles). The fact that an article has been nominated for CSD should be very, very prominent. -- W.marsh 05:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Done by User:Y. Fun Pika 15:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there any way we can change the colour back to pink? Had a quick look at {{ ambox}} but they all look white to me. It needs to stand out more than it does so people recognise that the page will most likely be deleted soon. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Violetriga's latest red-and-pink ambox-based compromise looks good to me, but I started to wonder about the {{{bgcolor}}} parameter to this template. If we could get rid of it, we could move the background color entirely to Common.css where it belongs. As far as I can tell, the only template that uses it is {{ db-histmerge}}, where it was used to make it look like an old-style non-speedy deletion template, and which now frankly looks awful with the red bar and blue background.
I'd therefore like to make the following suggestions:
ambox-speedy
" class with a red bar and pink background, and changing the ambox type of this template from "serious" to "speedy". This would have the added advantage of simplifying the styling of the few non-{{
db-meta}}-based
speedy deletion templates such as
User:ProtectionBot/Delete.— Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 21:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and changed {{
db-histmerge}} to use bgcolor=#f8fcff
; this makes it look like a standard "serious"-level {{
ambox}}. I'm wondering whether that template really ought to use {{
db-meta}} at all; it's a pretty different case from the other speedy templates. —
Ilmari Karonen (
talk) 00:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
As of a few minutes ago, {{ db-histmerge}} no longer uses {{ db-meta}}. See Template talk:Db-histmerge for details. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 22:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Titoxd recently edited the template to wrap the text in a <div style="font-size: 92%;">
, with the edit summary "returning previous font size, as the reasoning look really ugly in bold at the current font size". I don't personally find the 100% version any uglier than the 92% version, and I rather suspect that any significant difference in their appearance is due to peculiarities in Titoxd's browser and font choice. Therefore I've set up a comparison below. Please indicate which of these two lines looks better to you, or whether they look just about equally good or bad:
(Ps. Titoxd: I'm somewhat curious as to how these look to you? Is there any chance you could provide a screenshot? Here's mine.) — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 13:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
MZMcBride just changed the font size to 95%, so I've added it to the comparison above. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 20:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Something I'm starting to see a lot of on Special:Newpages is authors blanking pages after a speedy-deletion tag has been placed on them. Can we have some sort of verbiage added to this template explaining that this isn't what's meant by "deletion"? Zetawoof( ζ) 03:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This template is used in {{ Db-userreq}} with the parameter self=yes. Currently, the logic disregards this parameter for the to do actions. This results in the full list "Administrators: check links, history (last), and logs before deletion" being displayed, which is inappropriate in the case of CSD U1. The only thing that needs to be checked is that it was really the user with whom it is associated. (See also Template talk:Db-userreq#does this really need to be checked?.) — Sebastian 02:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
In order to assist new users who experience speedy deletion of their first article, there is a suggestion by Jayron32 to put a link from this template to WP:FIRST. I suggest discussing this at Wikipedia talk:CSD#Speed of speedies which is where the suggestion is made (somewhere in that long thread). -- Coppertwig ( talk) 00:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
A modification to this template is being discussed here. Thank you, -- Coppertwig ( talk) 01:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Add km:Template:Db-meta to the bottom. -- 123Pie ( talk) 17:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
{{db-copyvio|url=http://wikipedia.org}} gives {{subst:sd-copyvio|Db-meta|header=1http://wikipedia.org}} ~~~~ instead of {{subst:sd-copyvio|Db-meta|url=http://wikipedia.org}} ~~~~
The url does not appear in the user notification. The user notification then looks like this: ...
without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, Db-meta appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Db-meta has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.
...
instead of like this:
...
without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://wikipedia.org. As a copyright violation, Db-meta appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Db-meta has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.
...
{{
editprotected}}
I propose to change the wording because, when you use the "wording" paramater (parameter 1) on {{ Db-g6}} template, the first word is right next to "deletion". Same problem appears on g-5, g-4, etc. The default wording for first parameter on all those templates has the string ". " at the start to address this, which is lame, to be fucking honest.
"This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion because {{{1}}}. See [[Wikipedia:Criteria".
Db-g6 and similars than can be reworded as "deletion because it needs" instead of "deletion. It needs". I can do that myself once db-meta is changed (yeah, I know that it's 400+ templates, but many don't allow for custom reason so the only change needed is touching the start of one sentence, and it's the sort of task I enjoy). I also noticed that {{ Db-g3}} addresses this on a different manner.
The change would leave some templates with an akward wording until they were edited. Note, maybe there is a way to tweak db-g6 so that it doesn't do this -- Enric Naval ( talk) 15:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
P.D.:notice that adding a space to the start of my reason for deletion won't work. You actually have to use ". " because the template eats the space at the start of the string. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 15:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
db-g1}}
), "deletion. It was..." ({{
db-g4}}
) and "deletion, as it..." ({{
db-g10}}
). Neither of the second two would be possible with your proposed 'improvement'. Have you considered the possibility of just using an HTML space or non-breaking space rather than complaining that the template code "eats" a normal space? That system is used on about twenty of the templates. All in all, this is a "solution" to a "problem" which does not, in fact, exist. It is, however, true that the |wording=
parameter in {{
db-g6}}
often appears awkwardly. However, why is a modification to the entire template system required when a fix like
this will do the job much more easily and without breaking 42 other templates?
Happy‑
melon 14:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC){{
editprotected}}
Please do a null edit with edit summary giving attribution to conform to GFDL and as courtesy. Suggested wording "Contributors to new version of March 24 were Happy-melon, Coppertwig and Od Mishehu." --
Coppertwig (
talk) 15:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if any admin is using the «deletion» link in the template, they seem obsolete now that MediaWiki:Sysop.js can guess most reasons, but I wonder why the wording is different from MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown. For example, « G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page» vs «Author requested deletion or blanked the page ( CSD G7)». It's inconsistent and makes it more difficult to read deletion logs. — AlexSm 16:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Please remove the link from text "on the talk page of the author" in the template and change it to "on the talk page of the author". The link is misleading readers who constantly clutter the Wikipedia:User talk page, mistaking it for an actual user talk page. Are you aware for any other templates with the same issue? -- Kubanczyk ( talk) 16:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
This should be undone because {{
mbox}} documentation says "This template is NOT ready for use yet. Thus don't use this meta-template for real message boxes yet, but feel free to use it for testing."
Gary King (
talk) 07:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I can see the wording has been changed a thousand times and people are getting sick of it, but how would you feel about something like this?
This page is being considered for
speedy deletion.
It is a very short article lacking sufficient context to identify its subject. According to Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, such articles are eligible to be removed immediately (see CSD A1).
|
Right now the template's pretty disorienting, which is a problem since new users are usually the focus of it. I think something like the above would be an improvement because it says exactly who should do what. It also puts the reasoning on its own line, which makes it fit the other message box templates better, and is much easier to read. I think having each sub-template contain half a sentence is kind of a weird hack and makes things unnecessarily difficult. — Werson ( talk) 17:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
A discussion has been ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems as well as being posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) for putting in a function to automatically hide copyvio content when the either the {{ Db-g12}} or {{ copyvio}} are posted to an article. Please join us for the central discussion there. "Template Experts" are encouraged to join as the main conversation is between process an policy editors. Jeepday ( talk) 20:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I've notice recently that quite a few pages are being tagged with {{ db-g3}} or {{ db-vandalism}}, which is fine - and usually fits, as the G3 criteria handles hoaxes and blatant misinformation as well - no problem. However, the template {{ db-g3}} actually places the page under "Nonsense pages for speedy deletion", which is problematic since that's not actually the criteria we're looking at under that category. Given that we lack a "Vandalism pages for speedy deletion" category, I'm not sure how to remedy the problem, or even if it is a problem at all - but I thought I'd bring it up for discussion. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I propose to change {{ db-i9}} to make the URL parameter mandatory. This is because I regularly come upon images tagged with this template and no URL, and also no other comment explaining why the image is a copyvio. An example of what it might look like is at User:Stifle/Db-i9. Comments, please. Stifle ( talk) 19:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
For categories that are misnamed by accident, can a reason or new name parameter be added to {{ Db-c2}} so people know where the category is being moved/renamed? Thanks, -- Jh12 ( talk) 23:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Anyone think it would be a good idea to merge the categories Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user & Category:Empty pages for speedy deletion , adding pages tagged with db-move or db-g6 into a single category called Candidates for non-controversial speedy deletion (or something of the sorts) ? – xeno ( talk) 15:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I think the db-g3 template should have a rationale parameter to help admins when the vandalism isn't immediately obvious. My point is probably best illistrated by two exampes:
In both cases a rationalle parameter would a) allow an admin not knowledgable in the subject area to see it as vandalism and b) even if an admin still wasn't happy deleting it would at least make it less likely they'd remove the tag as inappropiate. I delt with both of the above by just using the plain db template but I'm not sure everyone else does and most would probably just tag it as vandalism (I regularly look at speedy requests to make sure none are inappropiate). If this parameter was avaliable on the db-vandalism (db-g3) template I'd imagine it might lead to some better reasons and so make it easier for admins and anyone else that reviews speedys. I could probably make the change myself but wanted to make sure that I hadn't missed a prior consensus not to have such a parameter and also that there were no disagreements first. Dpmuk ( talk) 10:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Do we honestly really need the main {{ db}} template? In all my time on Wikipedia, I've never seen someone actually use the free-form speedy template with a valid reason. We have specific speedy templates for all the criteria, and so this one seems redundant and prone to misuse (i.e. unintentional wrong use, not abuse). So why keep it? I'd be one to support deleting the free-form template. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 16:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I realize there're good reasons for leaving all the speedy templates open to editing (though likely semi-ing them wouldn't hurt too much), but is there any reason any of them would be moved? That sort of thing could kinda' screw things up with the creation of a lot of double redirects. Anyway, just throwing the thought out there. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 15:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Hello, sir. I would like to add a live search link to the page at live search just where google is listed, giving live seach hits, please.
Someone recently used Template:Db-g3 for a suspected hoax (Men's White League), whereas Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Non-criteria says that a hoax that's even remotely plausible (which this one was) shouldn't be speedied. Should advice against speedying suspected hoaxes be added to the template, like with Template:Db-g1? Andjam ( talk) 10:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The wording on the template does not match the wording at WP:G12. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G12 wording again. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The reason I9 requires a URL parameter is because if a source image cannot be indicated, there is no evidence that an image is in use in violation of a copyright. Images that may be copyright violations should go to WP:PUI. Stifle ( talk) 11:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Lifebaka suggested, I should ask here. So, to copy from what I posted to WT:CSD: This is something only other admins will care about, but usually when a certain tag is on a page and you click "delete", the dropdown selects the relevant reason automatically and the summary is blanked. I have no idea how that works but if someone does, could we get the same functionality for {{ db-album}}? Regards So Why 09:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that we should create a redirect of db-g3 at Template:db-sandbox as it seems pretty ideal for this speedy deletion criteria. Just a way to ease the memorization of all these db's. :) - LelandRB ( Chat · contribs) 00:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The template {{ db-i2}} still has the warning about not deleting a missing image due to a server issue and being able to recover them... has this issue not yet been resolved? I'm not an admin but I have tagged a number of pages with it over the last while and wonder when the issue will be resolved and the template returned to normal operations. Thanks. -- Jordan 1972 ( talk) 23:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to mention that I was on a public computer the other day (logged out) and tagged a page for CSD. Due to the external link (to Google, I assume is the issue) it requires you to enter a captcha to save your edit. This really should be removed, you shouldn't need to enter a captcha when tagging pages for speedy. VegaDark ( talk) 04:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I reverted a change at Db-g4 [2]. The new location of the AfD link was way too small. See rejection of speedy because admin didn't spot the AfD link. Please make the AfD/MfD/TfD links more visible before making that sort of change, thanks (at that font size, does any admin ever look at them? :D ).
Also, it always display the link under the AfD name even if it's a link to a MfD or TfD discussion, and AfD gets blue automatically anyways if the article had the same name, in which case you don't need to add a custom link on the first place. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 21:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I have begun archiving old discussions under Db-meta [3]. Obviously some of these are going to have nothing of value, but some do, and this will save people digging through histories to find that out. I won't get very far today, but I don't think it's very pressing. Cheers. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 21:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
{{ db-c1}} was only putting categories into CAT:CSD, but I tweaked it so that it's also putting them into Category:Empty pages for speedy deletion. This will make them faster and easier to clear out, as non-controversial cleanup. -- El on ka 05:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
|category=
, so that non-deletion uses of the template (such as at
Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion) can be made not to include into the category. Cheers.
lifebaka
++ 06:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. Following the repeal of CSD T1 following discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, the template Template:Db-t1 will be deleted as a misrepresentation of policy, unless there is disagreement here. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion if you disagree with this repeal. Dcoetzee 01:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The reasons offered by the db templates should be changed to the heavily discussed and agreed upon Deletereason-dropdown reasons. Maybe a more prominent delete link would also be useful, because the script automatically selecting the delete reason is broken since the 'content was:...' has been removed. Cenarium (Talk) 19:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I've just tagged a couple of articles with db-g12, both of which infringe copyright from multiple URLs -- one from two different web sites, the other from multiple pages on the same site. For both articles, I gave the most obvious example as the url parameter of the template. It might be a good idea for someone to modify the template to allow multiple sources to be listed for cases like these. Adam McMaster ( talk) 00:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
{{ Db-a1}} was recently changed to put articles in Category:Empty pages for speedy deletion. I don't think this is appropriate, because these articles lack context, but often do not lack content. Gnome de plume ( talk) 15:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
When one uses this template, is there some way to state the reasons why the article ought to be deleted? Merely saying it's created by a banned user in violation of the ban is not enough. WP:CSD does not REQUIRE deletion in such cases; rather, it only says an administrator MAY speedily delete in such a circumstance if there are reasons. Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to change {{ db-g12}} so instead of "url" it takes any of the following: "url=", "source=", or "sources=". URL would be kept but depricated. Is this okay with everyone? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 21:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
|sources=
, |source=
, or |url=
works (checked in that order). Cheers.
lifebaka
++ 15:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Since WP:CSD#R1 has been deprecated and the preferred rationale for deleting bad obsolete redirects is WP:CSD#G8, should {{ db-g8}} be updated to reflect this. It currently reads "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion, as talk page of a page which does not exist, has been deleted, or is itself currently tagged for speedy deletion." It should probably read "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion, as a page dependent on a page which does not exist, has been deleted, or is itself currently tagged for speedy deletion." WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 15:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to suggest adding the following words at the end of the author's db-copyvio warning template, just before the final "Thank you":
I often add this myself by hand, in bold, out of concern that an inexperienced author will follow the copyright release steps only to have his text rejected. JohnCD ( talk) 22:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Could we put an automatic 4-day time delay on {{ db-c1}} in a similar way to the 7-day delay of {{ db-t3}}? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 14:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there a template for user talk pages that says "If you came here to tell me an article will not be deleted, don't bother telling me"? I patrol the new pages a lot and when I speedy them, there are some that will not be deleted because they meet the criteria for being here. So when they do stay, I get messages on my talk page telling me that, but I really couldn't care less, so I'd rather not get messages. -- Whip it! Now whip it good! 02:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Would it be legitimate to use {{ Db-talk}} to nominate a long-abandoned 'proposed rewrite' of an existing article for deletion? Such pages are generally subpages of the article's talk page, so are impermissible for WP:PROD (and cause a very large error message when a prod is attempted on them), but they are (at least technically) "talk page[s] of a page which does not exist". This would appear to be using a technicality-for-inclusion to overcome a technicality-for-exclusion, but might be considered wikilawyering by some.
If this isn't legitimate, is there (should there be) any means of having such pages deleted, short of MfD? Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
This part of the template should be wrapped by <includeonly>
tags as the last editor of the template itself e.g. "Happy-melon (contribs | logs) 1 months ago" is not terribly interesting. —
CharlotteWebb 14:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Deletion under {{
db-c1}} requires that a category have been empty for four days, but it is virtually impossible for an administrator patrolling CSD to determine whether this condition has been met. I suggest adding a conditional expression ({{ #ifexpr:{{#time:U}} >= {{#time:U|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} + 4 days }}|
etc.) to the template so that the category links to
Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and to
Category:Empty pages for speedy deletion will not appear until the template has been in place for the required four days. If there are no objections, I will make this change in a few days. --
R'n'B (
call me Russ) 15:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
{{#switch:{{age switch|d={{{1}}}}}|0=[[Category:Wikipedia pages in need of frequent null edits]]|1={{{category|[[Category:Candidates for speedy deletion]][[Category:Templates for speedy deletion]]}}}|-1={{{category|[[Category:Templates for speedy deletion with incorrect formatting]]}}}}}
(outdent) I was just reviewing this discussion and wondering how this was working now. Is there a bot making regular null edits to these pages? (Obviously we can't tell if this is happening or not as their is no entry in the history!) Is this documented anywhere? Was there a BRFA that I missed? Just curious ... — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I made a BOLD change to {{ db-a5}} that allows for an optional (unnamed) parameter to supply the location of the transwikied text. The idea is to make it a little easier for the admin handling the request to find the transwikied article.
I would like to update the documentation to explain the parameter, but the documentation file is pretty complex and I'm not quite source how to do it, so some help would be appreciated.
Thanks -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 00:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I think this part needs to be removed/replaced from {{ db-f9}}: "... and there is no assertion that the file is public domain, fair-use, or available under a free license" because most of the time there are assertions that the file is free. However those claims are simply bogus. Rocket000 ( talk) 04:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
When using Template:db or any of its redirects, the link in the template suggests notifying users with the Template:nn-warn-reason template. The notification template only refers to articles (and it looks like it was only intended for CSD A7), but the deletion template can be used on any page, so the notification template should probably be rewritten. snigbrook ( talk) 23:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
|wording=
or |rationale=
{{
db-g6}} has |wording=
, while {{
db-g8}} has |rationale=
. (I haven't looked at the rest.) These parameters should be rationalised so that they are consistent. Each template should allow either, but the Usage statements should emphasize (the same) one parameter.
HairyWombat (
talk) 22:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Also {{
db-g7}} and {{
db-t3}}. (I have now looked at the lot.) The former uses |rationale=
and the latter |reason=
. As two of the four templates use |rationale=
, I suggest we standardize on that. If that is the plan then only {{
db-g6}} and {{
db-t3}} need to be changed.
HairyWombat (
talk) 06:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
|rationale=
and changed the documentation accordingly. The old parameters still work, though I suppose we could phase them out in a few months if necessary. Cheers.
lifebaka
++ 15:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Things like this are a fantastic way to break user scripts.... -- MZMcBride ( talk) 19:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} {{ db-xfd}} reads This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion because a consensus has been reached at Templates for deletion or Stub types for deletion to delete, but this page has not yet been deleted.See Templates for deletion. I noticed that their should simply be a space after the period between "deleted" and "See". GrooveDog ( talk) ( Review) 01:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
People often add {{ hangon}} without ever leaving a hangon rationale, thinking the hangon template alone will save the article. Could we add text like
Adding a
{{hangon}}
without posting a rationale at the talk page will not keep the article from being deleted.
or something, making the template look like this:
This page may meet Wikipedia’s
criteria for speedy deletion{{{1}}}. See [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#{{{CRITERION}}}|CSD {{{CRITERION}}}]].
If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with its proposed speedy deletion, please add:
directly below this tag, and then explain why you believe this template talk page should not be deleted on this talk page. This will alert administrators to permit you the time to write your explanation. Adding a This page was last edited by Also-Happy-melon ( contribs | logs) 0 seconds' time |
Or is that too off-putting? Feel free to tweak the wording. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 22:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Adding a
{{hangon}}
without explaining why the article should be kept will not keep the article from being deleted.
{{#ifexist:Talk:{{PAGENAME}}}}
to check and see if the talk page is created (granted, there are other ways to post a hangon rationale than by posting to the talk page, and the talk page could already be created with banners or whatnot even if there's no hangon rationale...but still I bet this would cover 90% of cases); if the talk page isn't created, the {{hangon}} template would display some big ugly red text saying something like "you have not edited the article talk page yet, please
leave a message at the talkpage explaining why you think the article should not be deleted. If you have left a message at the talkpage but this message is still showing up, try
purging this page.". Or something like that.
rʨanaɢ
talk/
contribs 03:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
No one has really objected, so I implemented both of the changes (to this and to {{ hangon}}). rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 04:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Discussions about an old very different state
This template should not appear under Category:Candidates for speedy deletion -- this template itself is not a candidate for speedy deletion! Please do not speedily delete it. (If you really don't like it, list it at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion.) Thanks, • Benc • 01:35, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This template is an alternative (not a replacement!) to Template:Delete. It is parameterized, allowing users to add a brief reason as to why the target article is a candidate for speedy deletion. Sample usages:
{{deletebecause|this page is patent nonsense}}
{{db|unused user page}}
(db is a shorthand redirect to this template)I think that it would be a bit easier if we had an additional speedy delete template, for when the reason for an article's deletion might not be so blatantly obvious. I know that the talk page is there for that purpose, but it's rather time-wasting to first edit the page, insert the speedy delete message, save it, open the talk page, post the reason for deletion, and save it. It's more convenient if you only have to insert the message {{del reason|reason=Reason goes here.}}, which would produce:
This would not be a replacement for Template:Delete; it would simply be a convenience. Please note that "del reason" is just a temporary name; I haven't thought of a really good one yet. I'm just looking for some feedback. The test version is at User:Mike Storm/sandbox2. [[User:Mike Storm| Mike ∞ Storm]] 21:25, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
{{deletebecause|this page may qualify as patent nonsense}}
{{deletebecause|I no longer use this user subpage}}
{{{1}}}
. See
m:Help:Template#Parameters for more info.
• Benc
• 23:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)I think this is a fantastic idea. -- SS 22:59, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I like the idea, this type of idea makes me wish for m:Extended template syntax — siro χ o 05:53, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
As this idea has gained nothing but support (excepting several accidental deletions), I went ahead and re-implemented it in the Template namespace. I've also created Template:db as a redirect to this template for those fond of shorthand. • Benc • 01:52, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Is there a reason we link to template:delete with a comma? ([[Template:Delete|,]]. I was about to remove the comma from the link, because I thought it was included in the link accidentally, but apparently this was intentional. Seems quite counter-intuitive. anthony 警告 22:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I moved this template to {{ Db-reason}}, leaving {{ deletebecause}} as a redirect, for consistancy in anming all the speedy deletion templates, and so they will all group together in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. DES (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Several of the other speedy deletion templates are currently implemented as a call to (transclusion of) this template, with the reason parameter filled in. IMO all the speedy deletion templates should be so implemented (with the exception of {{ delete}} that has no reason specified). This would mean that any change in this template's wording would be automatically reflected in all the other speedy deletion templates, and thus the wording would been consistent, except for the specific reason.
The usual argument about server performance and possible widespread vandalism used to oppose meta-templates don't, IMO, apply here, since none of the speedy delete templates are (I should hope) likely to be on a large number of articles at once, nor are those articles likely to be frequently accessed. Therefore, i suggest that all speedy deletion templates be retained in the form of a call to this template (with the exception of {{ delete}} as mentioned above. DES (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
From a friend and myself to help relieve the wikistress. Agriculture 03:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Can someone please change "articles that you have created yourself" to "pages that you have created yourself"? I just applied this tag to a template (a recreation of a deleted one), and its author removed it. I'd like to eliminate any unintentional namespace loophole. Thanks! — Lifeisunfair 12:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Besides a few very minor changes (removed a double-space, for example), I surrounded the category tag with an optional parameter. This fixes the "technical limitation" that prevents it from being displayed on non-speedy-deletable pages by making the category default, but not mandatory. For example, {{db-reason|blah}} will transclude the category tag, but it can be omitted by using {{db-reason|blah| }} (space for second parameter). There is absolutely no difference in usage, merely a new hidden feature used on non-speedy-deletable pages. // Pathoschild 18:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The non-mandatory categorization was already implemented earlier this month using a named-parameter approach (parameter "displayonly") which worked for both this template and its dependent templates (from Category_talk:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion#Fixing_a_categorization_bug). Some feedback about the new edit: 1) The dependent templates and pages were not updated, so Wikipedia:Template messages/All and Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion reappeared under Category:Candidates for speedy deletion (this has been fixed) 2) Some templates have a different number of parameters, leading to different usage, eg. {{db-test}} become just {{db-test|}} ie. using the first as opposed to the second parameter to override 3) Template:Db-bio has adapted a "nocat" parameter which is basically the same as the old "displayonly" parameter, even though the named parameter approach has been abandoned by this template. So, should we use the named or unnamed approach? Personally I prefer named (as before) because it is more consistent. Shawnc 12:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I mildly prefer the named parameter approach, as long as it's only the override that needs to be named, and not all parameters. (End users rarely bother using named params even when they need to, like in {{ db-copyvio}}...) Pathoschild did some good work on the templates, making them all consistent, allowing them all to display correctly on the template page, allowing inheritance (db-band -> db-bio -> db-reason), and generally cleaning up a hodge-podge of messy code and different template schemes. I just propagated his work to all of the dependent templates, and fixed some bugs. I would be inclined not to change things if they work... But if someone would like to re-do the templates using a consitent approach across the board I would not object. Just please make sure when we're done that the templates all work (with both named, unnamed, and missing end-user parameters) and put the articles (but not themselves) into CAT:CSD. I just spend a couple of hours fixing these templates and null-editing articles, and I'd hate to have to do it again... :) Jamie ( talk/ contribs) 12:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
We can use the approach found in {{ db-copyvio}}, where the named parameter "url" is an option, not a requirement. A named parameter in use can standarize usage and denote its functionality more explicitly than an unnamed empty parameter. The old edit fixed the limitation just as the new one does, but it's good to have standarized templates that work and are intuitive to use. If a parameter such as "displayonly"/"nocat" exists somewhere, it should be standarized across the related templates (as done previously), otherwise it becomes an ad hoc usage. Shawnc 23:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
An interesting property of "nocat" is that it could be used to replace the category spec, instead of remove it. :) Of course that would be gross, counterituitive and a Bad Idea, when the caller can just categorize itself in the usual way. I think when we're done we need to document what's going on inside these templates, and write a "how to clone/modify" so that well-intentioned editors don't inadvertenly break them. At its worst, template programming feels like an evil cross between the Lambda Calculus and INTERCAL. :) Jamie ( talk/ contribs) 02:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I understand the concern. The focus, though, should not be on the "nocat" tag but the whole "no categorization" implementation (eg. by Pathoschild), which was built into {{db-reason}} itself; the "nocat" tag merely documents that modification. That is, even if the "nocat" tag was not used, {{db-reason|blah| }} can still be used to override categorization (which is even easier to type accidentally than {{db-reason|blah|nocat=}}) Actually, {{db-reason|blah|CATEGORY}} can be used, such that {{db-reason|this article is nonsense|[[Category:Wikipedia featured content]]}} will mark an article as featured content material as opposed to speedy deletion material.
The unwanted appearance of Wikipedia:Template messages articles under CAT:CSD is a minor nuisance, so feel free to revert all these changes. Shawnc 22:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Some remaining issues are:
These issues would not exist if we choose not to display the templates inside themselves, but instead point out what the template does. Shawnc 04:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
My comments:
Jamie ( talk/ contribs) 04:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
An easy solution would be to move it to {{ db-meta}} and make {{ db-reason}} another dependant template. This would fit very well into the standard scheme that's now in use on the 28 other speedy-delete templates, and allow users to edit this one. For obvious reasons, allowing users to edit the metatemplate is a rather bad idea. I'm willing to makes the changes myself if everyone else agrees. // Pathoschild 23:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
A small problem with the way these templates appear has just been brought to my attention. If someone places a deletion template on a talk page (as they should do under, for example, CSD G8), anyone who tries to contest/comment on the deletion by clicking on the words "its talk page", as instructed by the template, will be sent to a new article. For example, if I placed {{ db-meta}} on this page and then followed the link, I would be sent to Template talk talk:Db-meta which, not being a recognised namespace, would just appear as a normal article. A relatively inexperienced user, or one in a hurry, may not notice the fact that they are creating a new page in the wrong place. This is especially likely since articles tagged with speedy delete templates don't usually have talk pages, so the link usually takes you to a new page (in the Talk namespace) anyway. The only clue is the extra "talk" in the title, which is easy to miss.
I don't have sufficient experience with templates to know whether there is any way of avoiding this; I just thought it would be best to mention it here -- Gurch 09:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Along that line I've replaced NAMESPACE:PAGENAME by SUBJECTPAGENAME for the admin links (see above for the effect). Clearly this and your modification (incl. a later #ifeq: replacing your switch) won't work as expected for the speedy deletion of a talk page. At least it's consistent. -- Omniplex 00:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Please do not use {{ tl}} to link to {{ hangon}}. Extreme newbies invariably click the link and edit the template directly to provide their reason for not having the page speedy deleted. There's also no reason for someone to go and view or edit the template directly, so a link here is unnecessary. — Locke Cole • t • c 06:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of {{ hangon}}, does anyone have any suggestions on how it can be made clear that the editor shouldn't remove the original db tag while adding hangon? I've noticed that a lot of new editors will remove the original speedy tag and replace it with {{hangon}}, which may potentially derail the deletion process.
I'm considering:
This, however, would require the template to refer to the name of the template which included it. This is probably possible; I just don't know how offhand. Any better ideas on the wording? Zetawoof( ζ) 23:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
{{
vandalism}}
doesn't match any db-whatever. --
Omniplex 00:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)This template breaks when a link is used in {{{1}}}:
{{db-meta|[http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Wikipedia%22 google hits]}}
This talk page may meet Wikipedia's
criteria for speedy deletion{{{1}}}. See [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#{{{CRITERION}}}|CSD {{{CRITERION}}}]].
If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can check back later to see if you have received a response to your message. Note that this talk page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation added below this notice is found to be insufficient. Administrators: check links, talk, history ( last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google.This page was last edited by Zinnober9 ( contribs | logs) at 07:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC) ( 19 months ago) |
{{db-meta|1=[http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Wikipedia%22 google hits]}}
This talk page may meet Wikipedia's
criteria for speedy deletion
google hits. See [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#{{{CRITERION}}}|CSD {{{CRITERION}}}]].
If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can check back later to see if you have received a response to your message. Note that this talk page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation added below this notice is found to be insufficient. Administrators: check links, talk, history ( last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google.This page was last edited by Zinnober9 ( contribs | logs) at 07:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC) ( 19 months ago) |
Weird. -- Chris (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone else tagged an article with the db-meta tag directly, and for whatever reason the template was hidden unless I created a standard db tag below it. It also didn't add the article to the speedy deletion category.
It was simply: {{db-meta|1=Don't believe they're notable per [[WP:MUSIC]].}} -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#CAT:CSD. Dragons flight 22:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The tag currently says: "If this page obviously does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself."
This suggests that (for someone who isn't the author) simply removing the speedy tag while "intending" to fix it is enough to keep the article from being deleted. In practice, however, if the article really does meet some CSD, then there really has to be some reason given to not speedy it, right? Should the wording of this tag reflect that fact? - GTBacchus( talk) 20:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. Gene Nygaard reverted me with the summary: "there's good reason for treating others than original authors differently". I'm confused because my edit didn't do that. The instructions already direct the author to explain themselves, so I was trying to treat other editors the same, not differently. Furthermore, no reason was given for restoring the word "obviously", which I removed as incorrect - a page not meeting the criteria should not be speedied whether or not it's obvious. I'm going to re-delete that word, and seek Gene's input regarding the other part. - GTBacchus( talk) 22:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I just realized I misunderstood the edit summary. Somehow I mentally inserted the word 'no'. My bad. Now my question is - what is the good reason for not asking people removing the speedy tag to either fix the article, or at least explain what's going on if "if necessary"? What on earth is the harm in that? The wording that Gene restored is mysteriously silent on what to do if you disagree with the tag for non-obvious reasons, but aren't the author. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
{{
db-author}}
is currently equivalent to {{
db-meta|This page was mistakenly created, no one other than its original author has made substantial edits, and he or she requests its deletion (
CSD G7).}}
The problem is, db-meta includes a statement telling the article's original author not to remove the tag, which is clearly inappropriate for db-author. Discussion is getting underway on how to fix this problem; if you're interested, please visit Template_talk:Db-author to read existing discussion and put your two cents in.
Thanks!
Ruakh 04:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
{{db-meta|Deletion tag text|self=yes}}
I'd like to change:
to
Obviously, the link doesn't work correctly here, but I believe I've got the variables right. It can be said that we already have a link to the talk page at the top of each article, but adding the link in line with the rest (we also have direct links to page history and Whatlinkshere in monobook) couldn't hurt. And avoiding acronyms never hurts. -- nae' blis 19:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I edited the wrong window's wiki. I'm sorry about that. -- AOL Alex 01:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I have changed [1] the order of the instructions for adding Template:Hangon so that it more explicitly informs you to add hangon to the article page, then explain on the talk page. I've seen far too many people add the hangon tag to the talk page, so the deleting admin never sees it. If possible, could we also add a note saying admins should check the talk page before deleting the page? -- tjstrf Now on editor review! 22:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi.
What's the point of this: "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself." if you replace the article. Why? If the page just said "test", but then I decided to replace it with brilliant prose, what's the point??? 170.215.83.83 21:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
I'm concerned about this particular line in the template:
Sometimes non-articles qualify for CSD, and this template is transcluded to the appropriate deletion templates that we would use for them. (ex. images) {{ isd}} is the speedy deletion template for redundant images, yet it mentions the word "article".-- Ed ¿Cómo estás? 02:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Right now,
having any spaces or punctuation is breaking the automatic deletion summary. Unless we're going to require people to use ugly URL code when they want a space, automatic deletion summary is going to have to go. -
Amarkov
moo! 05:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
Db-meta suggests putting {{ hangon}} if a person contests the page deletion. This won't work with talk pages, as the hangon template is coded not to work unless you use the tp=1 parameter. Can we update the instructions?
Not done. The only sensible place to contest a talkpage deletion is on the talkpage itself, so it seems unlikely that the deleting admin won't notice the hangon reason, even if the template doesn't appear. -- ais523 13:52, 24 April 2007 ( U T C)
It seems a lot of people contesting the speedy tags think the proper course of action is to place the {{hangon}} tag in place of the speedy tag rather than with it. Why not add "below this tag" after "the top of the page" in the template text? Goodnight mush Talk 19:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
I've added some code (after several tries) that will require users wishing to have their user talk pages deleted to provide a rationale. I've seen a lot of cases where people simply want to delete a history of warnings, so the template has been modified to either provide a rationale or the request is not categorized. Cheers. -- MZMcBride 22:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Please replace the following line:
with
This makes it clearer when speedying user pages. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
I've nominated this template for deletion, however, it's protected, so I can't add the {{ tfd}} template to it. Could this be added, please? GrooveDog ( talk) 19:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Please revert the template to the previous style. The discussions leading to the
template standardisation didn't really touch on templates like this, and I don't think there was support for changing something that wasn't a typical "banner" message. This needs to be discussed further. --
Ned Scott 08:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the current template jumps out enough... to new users or veterans (I'm not sure I'd notice this over the layers of nagging templates people like to add to articles). The fact that an article has been nominated for CSD should be very, very prominent. -- W.marsh 05:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Done by User:Y. Fun Pika 15:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there any way we can change the colour back to pink? Had a quick look at {{ ambox}} but they all look white to me. It needs to stand out more than it does so people recognise that the page will most likely be deleted soon. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Violetriga's latest red-and-pink ambox-based compromise looks good to me, but I started to wonder about the {{{bgcolor}}} parameter to this template. If we could get rid of it, we could move the background color entirely to Common.css where it belongs. As far as I can tell, the only template that uses it is {{ db-histmerge}}, where it was used to make it look like an old-style non-speedy deletion template, and which now frankly looks awful with the red bar and blue background.
I'd therefore like to make the following suggestions:
ambox-speedy
" class with a red bar and pink background, and changing the ambox type of this template from "serious" to "speedy". This would have the added advantage of simplifying the styling of the few non-{{
db-meta}}-based
speedy deletion templates such as
User:ProtectionBot/Delete.— Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 21:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and changed {{
db-histmerge}} to use bgcolor=#f8fcff
; this makes it look like a standard "serious"-level {{
ambox}}. I'm wondering whether that template really ought to use {{
db-meta}} at all; it's a pretty different case from the other speedy templates. —
Ilmari Karonen (
talk) 00:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
As of a few minutes ago, {{ db-histmerge}} no longer uses {{ db-meta}}. See Template talk:Db-histmerge for details. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 22:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Titoxd recently edited the template to wrap the text in a <div style="font-size: 92%;">
, with the edit summary "returning previous font size, as the reasoning look really ugly in bold at the current font size". I don't personally find the 100% version any uglier than the 92% version, and I rather suspect that any significant difference in their appearance is due to peculiarities in Titoxd's browser and font choice. Therefore I've set up a comparison below. Please indicate which of these two lines looks better to you, or whether they look just about equally good or bad:
(Ps. Titoxd: I'm somewhat curious as to how these look to you? Is there any chance you could provide a screenshot? Here's mine.) — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 13:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
MZMcBride just changed the font size to 95%, so I've added it to the comparison above. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 20:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Something I'm starting to see a lot of on Special:Newpages is authors blanking pages after a speedy-deletion tag has been placed on them. Can we have some sort of verbiage added to this template explaining that this isn't what's meant by "deletion"? Zetawoof( ζ) 03:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This template is used in {{ Db-userreq}} with the parameter self=yes. Currently, the logic disregards this parameter for the to do actions. This results in the full list "Administrators: check links, history (last), and logs before deletion" being displayed, which is inappropriate in the case of CSD U1. The only thing that needs to be checked is that it was really the user with whom it is associated. (See also Template talk:Db-userreq#does this really need to be checked?.) — Sebastian 02:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
In order to assist new users who experience speedy deletion of their first article, there is a suggestion by Jayron32 to put a link from this template to WP:FIRST. I suggest discussing this at Wikipedia talk:CSD#Speed of speedies which is where the suggestion is made (somewhere in that long thread). -- Coppertwig ( talk) 00:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
A modification to this template is being discussed here. Thank you, -- Coppertwig ( talk) 01:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Add km:Template:Db-meta to the bottom. -- 123Pie ( talk) 17:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
{{db-copyvio|url=http://wikipedia.org}} gives {{subst:sd-copyvio|Db-meta|header=1http://wikipedia.org}} ~~~~ instead of {{subst:sd-copyvio|Db-meta|url=http://wikipedia.org}} ~~~~
The url does not appear in the user notification. The user notification then looks like this: ...
without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, Db-meta appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Db-meta has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.
...
instead of like this:
...
without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://wikipedia.org. As a copyright violation, Db-meta appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Db-meta has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.
...
{{
editprotected}}
I propose to change the wording because, when you use the "wording" paramater (parameter 1) on {{ Db-g6}} template, the first word is right next to "deletion". Same problem appears on g-5, g-4, etc. The default wording for first parameter on all those templates has the string ". " at the start to address this, which is lame, to be fucking honest.
"This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion because {{{1}}}. See [[Wikipedia:Criteria".
Db-g6 and similars than can be reworded as "deletion because it needs" instead of "deletion. It needs". I can do that myself once db-meta is changed (yeah, I know that it's 400+ templates, but many don't allow for custom reason so the only change needed is touching the start of one sentence, and it's the sort of task I enjoy). I also noticed that {{ Db-g3}} addresses this on a different manner.
The change would leave some templates with an akward wording until they were edited. Note, maybe there is a way to tweak db-g6 so that it doesn't do this -- Enric Naval ( talk) 15:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
P.D.:notice that adding a space to the start of my reason for deletion won't work. You actually have to use ". " because the template eats the space at the start of the string. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 15:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
db-g1}}
), "deletion. It was..." ({{
db-g4}}
) and "deletion, as it..." ({{
db-g10}}
). Neither of the second two would be possible with your proposed 'improvement'. Have you considered the possibility of just using an HTML space or non-breaking space rather than complaining that the template code "eats" a normal space? That system is used on about twenty of the templates. All in all, this is a "solution" to a "problem" which does not, in fact, exist. It is, however, true that the |wording=
parameter in {{
db-g6}}
often appears awkwardly. However, why is a modification to the entire template system required when a fix like
this will do the job much more easily and without breaking 42 other templates?
Happy‑
melon 14:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC){{
editprotected}}
Please do a null edit with edit summary giving attribution to conform to GFDL and as courtesy. Suggested wording "Contributors to new version of March 24 were Happy-melon, Coppertwig and Od Mishehu." --
Coppertwig (
talk) 15:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if any admin is using the «deletion» link in the template, they seem obsolete now that MediaWiki:Sysop.js can guess most reasons, but I wonder why the wording is different from MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown. For example, « G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page» vs «Author requested deletion or blanked the page ( CSD G7)». It's inconsistent and makes it more difficult to read deletion logs. — AlexSm 16:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Please remove the link from text "on the talk page of the author" in the template and change it to "on the talk page of the author". The link is misleading readers who constantly clutter the Wikipedia:User talk page, mistaking it for an actual user talk page. Are you aware for any other templates with the same issue? -- Kubanczyk ( talk) 16:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
This should be undone because {{
mbox}} documentation says "This template is NOT ready for use yet. Thus don't use this meta-template for real message boxes yet, but feel free to use it for testing."
Gary King (
talk) 07:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I can see the wording has been changed a thousand times and people are getting sick of it, but how would you feel about something like this?
This page is being considered for
speedy deletion.
It is a very short article lacking sufficient context to identify its subject. According to Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, such articles are eligible to be removed immediately (see CSD A1).
|
Right now the template's pretty disorienting, which is a problem since new users are usually the focus of it. I think something like the above would be an improvement because it says exactly who should do what. It also puts the reasoning on its own line, which makes it fit the other message box templates better, and is much easier to read. I think having each sub-template contain half a sentence is kind of a weird hack and makes things unnecessarily difficult. — Werson ( talk) 17:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
A discussion has been ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems as well as being posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) for putting in a function to automatically hide copyvio content when the either the {{ Db-g12}} or {{ copyvio}} are posted to an article. Please join us for the central discussion there. "Template Experts" are encouraged to join as the main conversation is between process an policy editors. Jeepday ( talk) 20:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I've notice recently that quite a few pages are being tagged with {{ db-g3}} or {{ db-vandalism}}, which is fine - and usually fits, as the G3 criteria handles hoaxes and blatant misinformation as well - no problem. However, the template {{ db-g3}} actually places the page under "Nonsense pages for speedy deletion", which is problematic since that's not actually the criteria we're looking at under that category. Given that we lack a "Vandalism pages for speedy deletion" category, I'm not sure how to remedy the problem, or even if it is a problem at all - but I thought I'd bring it up for discussion. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I propose to change {{ db-i9}} to make the URL parameter mandatory. This is because I regularly come upon images tagged with this template and no URL, and also no other comment explaining why the image is a copyvio. An example of what it might look like is at User:Stifle/Db-i9. Comments, please. Stifle ( talk) 19:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
For categories that are misnamed by accident, can a reason or new name parameter be added to {{ Db-c2}} so people know where the category is being moved/renamed? Thanks, -- Jh12 ( talk) 23:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Anyone think it would be a good idea to merge the categories Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user & Category:Empty pages for speedy deletion , adding pages tagged with db-move or db-g6 into a single category called Candidates for non-controversial speedy deletion (or something of the sorts) ? – xeno ( talk) 15:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I think the db-g3 template should have a rationale parameter to help admins when the vandalism isn't immediately obvious. My point is probably best illistrated by two exampes:
In both cases a rationalle parameter would a) allow an admin not knowledgable in the subject area to see it as vandalism and b) even if an admin still wasn't happy deleting it would at least make it less likely they'd remove the tag as inappropiate. I delt with both of the above by just using the plain db template but I'm not sure everyone else does and most would probably just tag it as vandalism (I regularly look at speedy requests to make sure none are inappropiate). If this parameter was avaliable on the db-vandalism (db-g3) template I'd imagine it might lead to some better reasons and so make it easier for admins and anyone else that reviews speedys. I could probably make the change myself but wanted to make sure that I hadn't missed a prior consensus not to have such a parameter and also that there were no disagreements first. Dpmuk ( talk) 10:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Do we honestly really need the main {{ db}} template? In all my time on Wikipedia, I've never seen someone actually use the free-form speedy template with a valid reason. We have specific speedy templates for all the criteria, and so this one seems redundant and prone to misuse (i.e. unintentional wrong use, not abuse). So why keep it? I'd be one to support deleting the free-form template. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 16:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I realize there're good reasons for leaving all the speedy templates open to editing (though likely semi-ing them wouldn't hurt too much), but is there any reason any of them would be moved? That sort of thing could kinda' screw things up with the creation of a lot of double redirects. Anyway, just throwing the thought out there. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 15:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Hello, sir. I would like to add a live search link to the page at live search just where google is listed, giving live seach hits, please.
Someone recently used Template:Db-g3 for a suspected hoax (Men's White League), whereas Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Non-criteria says that a hoax that's even remotely plausible (which this one was) shouldn't be speedied. Should advice against speedying suspected hoaxes be added to the template, like with Template:Db-g1? Andjam ( talk) 10:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The wording on the template does not match the wording at WP:G12. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G12 wording again. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The reason I9 requires a URL parameter is because if a source image cannot be indicated, there is no evidence that an image is in use in violation of a copyright. Images that may be copyright violations should go to WP:PUI. Stifle ( talk) 11:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Lifebaka suggested, I should ask here. So, to copy from what I posted to WT:CSD: This is something only other admins will care about, but usually when a certain tag is on a page and you click "delete", the dropdown selects the relevant reason automatically and the summary is blanked. I have no idea how that works but if someone does, could we get the same functionality for {{ db-album}}? Regards So Why 09:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that we should create a redirect of db-g3 at Template:db-sandbox as it seems pretty ideal for this speedy deletion criteria. Just a way to ease the memorization of all these db's. :) - LelandRB ( Chat · contribs) 00:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The template {{ db-i2}} still has the warning about not deleting a missing image due to a server issue and being able to recover them... has this issue not yet been resolved? I'm not an admin but I have tagged a number of pages with it over the last while and wonder when the issue will be resolved and the template returned to normal operations. Thanks. -- Jordan 1972 ( talk) 23:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to mention that I was on a public computer the other day (logged out) and tagged a page for CSD. Due to the external link (to Google, I assume is the issue) it requires you to enter a captcha to save your edit. This really should be removed, you shouldn't need to enter a captcha when tagging pages for speedy. VegaDark ( talk) 04:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I reverted a change at Db-g4 [2]. The new location of the AfD link was way too small. See rejection of speedy because admin didn't spot the AfD link. Please make the AfD/MfD/TfD links more visible before making that sort of change, thanks (at that font size, does any admin ever look at them? :D ).
Also, it always display the link under the AfD name even if it's a link to a MfD or TfD discussion, and AfD gets blue automatically anyways if the article had the same name, in which case you don't need to add a custom link on the first place. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 21:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I have begun archiving old discussions under Db-meta [3]. Obviously some of these are going to have nothing of value, but some do, and this will save people digging through histories to find that out. I won't get very far today, but I don't think it's very pressing. Cheers. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 21:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
{{ db-c1}} was only putting categories into CAT:CSD, but I tweaked it so that it's also putting them into Category:Empty pages for speedy deletion. This will make them faster and easier to clear out, as non-controversial cleanup. -- El on ka 05:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
|category=
, so that non-deletion uses of the template (such as at
Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion) can be made not to include into the category. Cheers.
lifebaka
++ 06:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. Following the repeal of CSD T1 following discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, the template Template:Db-t1 will be deleted as a misrepresentation of policy, unless there is disagreement here. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion if you disagree with this repeal. Dcoetzee 01:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The reasons offered by the db templates should be changed to the heavily discussed and agreed upon Deletereason-dropdown reasons. Maybe a more prominent delete link would also be useful, because the script automatically selecting the delete reason is broken since the 'content was:...' has been removed. Cenarium (Talk) 19:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I've just tagged a couple of articles with db-g12, both of which infringe copyright from multiple URLs -- one from two different web sites, the other from multiple pages on the same site. For both articles, I gave the most obvious example as the url parameter of the template. It might be a good idea for someone to modify the template to allow multiple sources to be listed for cases like these. Adam McMaster ( talk) 00:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
{{ Db-a1}} was recently changed to put articles in Category:Empty pages for speedy deletion. I don't think this is appropriate, because these articles lack context, but often do not lack content. Gnome de plume ( talk) 15:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
When one uses this template, is there some way to state the reasons why the article ought to be deleted? Merely saying it's created by a banned user in violation of the ban is not enough. WP:CSD does not REQUIRE deletion in such cases; rather, it only says an administrator MAY speedily delete in such a circumstance if there are reasons. Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to change {{ db-g12}} so instead of "url" it takes any of the following: "url=", "source=", or "sources=". URL would be kept but depricated. Is this okay with everyone? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 21:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
|sources=
, |source=
, or |url=
works (checked in that order). Cheers.
lifebaka
++ 15:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Since WP:CSD#R1 has been deprecated and the preferred rationale for deleting bad obsolete redirects is WP:CSD#G8, should {{ db-g8}} be updated to reflect this. It currently reads "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion, as talk page of a page which does not exist, has been deleted, or is itself currently tagged for speedy deletion." It should probably read "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion, as a page dependent on a page which does not exist, has been deleted, or is itself currently tagged for speedy deletion." WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 15:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to suggest adding the following words at the end of the author's db-copyvio warning template, just before the final "Thank you":
I often add this myself by hand, in bold, out of concern that an inexperienced author will follow the copyright release steps only to have his text rejected. JohnCD ( talk) 22:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Could we put an automatic 4-day time delay on {{ db-c1}} in a similar way to the 7-day delay of {{ db-t3}}? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 14:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there a template for user talk pages that says "If you came here to tell me an article will not be deleted, don't bother telling me"? I patrol the new pages a lot and when I speedy them, there are some that will not be deleted because they meet the criteria for being here. So when they do stay, I get messages on my talk page telling me that, but I really couldn't care less, so I'd rather not get messages. -- Whip it! Now whip it good! 02:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Would it be legitimate to use {{ Db-talk}} to nominate a long-abandoned 'proposed rewrite' of an existing article for deletion? Such pages are generally subpages of the article's talk page, so are impermissible for WP:PROD (and cause a very large error message when a prod is attempted on them), but they are (at least technically) "talk page[s] of a page which does not exist". This would appear to be using a technicality-for-inclusion to overcome a technicality-for-exclusion, but might be considered wikilawyering by some.
If this isn't legitimate, is there (should there be) any means of having such pages deleted, short of MfD? Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
This part of the template should be wrapped by <includeonly>
tags as the last editor of the template itself e.g. "Happy-melon (contribs | logs) 1 months ago" is not terribly interesting. —
CharlotteWebb 14:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Deletion under {{
db-c1}} requires that a category have been empty for four days, but it is virtually impossible for an administrator patrolling CSD to determine whether this condition has been met. I suggest adding a conditional expression ({{ #ifexpr:{{#time:U}} >= {{#time:U|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} + 4 days }}|
etc.) to the template so that the category links to
Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and to
Category:Empty pages for speedy deletion will not appear until the template has been in place for the required four days. If there are no objections, I will make this change in a few days. --
R'n'B (
call me Russ) 15:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
{{#switch:{{age switch|d={{{1}}}}}|0=[[Category:Wikipedia pages in need of frequent null edits]]|1={{{category|[[Category:Candidates for speedy deletion]][[Category:Templates for speedy deletion]]}}}|-1={{{category|[[Category:Templates for speedy deletion with incorrect formatting]]}}}}}
(outdent) I was just reviewing this discussion and wondering how this was working now. Is there a bot making regular null edits to these pages? (Obviously we can't tell if this is happening or not as their is no entry in the history!) Is this documented anywhere? Was there a BRFA that I missed? Just curious ... — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I made a BOLD change to {{ db-a5}} that allows for an optional (unnamed) parameter to supply the location of the transwikied text. The idea is to make it a little easier for the admin handling the request to find the transwikied article.
I would like to update the documentation to explain the parameter, but the documentation file is pretty complex and I'm not quite source how to do it, so some help would be appreciated.
Thanks -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 00:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I think this part needs to be removed/replaced from {{ db-f9}}: "... and there is no assertion that the file is public domain, fair-use, or available under a free license" because most of the time there are assertions that the file is free. However those claims are simply bogus. Rocket000 ( talk) 04:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
When using Template:db or any of its redirects, the link in the template suggests notifying users with the Template:nn-warn-reason template. The notification template only refers to articles (and it looks like it was only intended for CSD A7), but the deletion template can be used on any page, so the notification template should probably be rewritten. snigbrook ( talk) 23:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
|wording=
or |rationale=
{{
db-g6}} has |wording=
, while {{
db-g8}} has |rationale=
. (I haven't looked at the rest.) These parameters should be rationalised so that they are consistent. Each template should allow either, but the Usage statements should emphasize (the same) one parameter.
HairyWombat (
talk) 22:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Also {{
db-g7}} and {{
db-t3}}. (I have now looked at the lot.) The former uses |rationale=
and the latter |reason=
. As two of the four templates use |rationale=
, I suggest we standardize on that. If that is the plan then only {{
db-g6}} and {{
db-t3}} need to be changed.
HairyWombat (
talk) 06:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
|rationale=
and changed the documentation accordingly. The old parameters still work, though I suppose we could phase them out in a few months if necessary. Cheers.
lifebaka
++ 15:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Things like this are a fantastic way to break user scripts.... -- MZMcBride ( talk) 19:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} {{ db-xfd}} reads This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion because a consensus has been reached at Templates for deletion or Stub types for deletion to delete, but this page has not yet been deleted.See Templates for deletion. I noticed that their should simply be a space after the period between "deleted" and "See". GrooveDog ( talk) ( Review) 01:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
People often add {{ hangon}} without ever leaving a hangon rationale, thinking the hangon template alone will save the article. Could we add text like
Adding a
{{hangon}}
without posting a rationale at the talk page will not keep the article from being deleted.
or something, making the template look like this:
This page may meet Wikipedia’s
criteria for speedy deletion{{{1}}}. See [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#{{{CRITERION}}}|CSD {{{CRITERION}}}]].
If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with its proposed speedy deletion, please add:
directly below this tag, and then explain why you believe this template talk page should not be deleted on this talk page. This will alert administrators to permit you the time to write your explanation. Adding a This page was last edited by Also-Happy-melon ( contribs | logs) 0 seconds' time |
Or is that too off-putting? Feel free to tweak the wording. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 22:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Adding a
{{hangon}}
without explaining why the article should be kept will not keep the article from being deleted.
{{#ifexist:Talk:{{PAGENAME}}}}
to check and see if the talk page is created (granted, there are other ways to post a hangon rationale than by posting to the talk page, and the talk page could already be created with banners or whatnot even if there's no hangon rationale...but still I bet this would cover 90% of cases); if the talk page isn't created, the {{hangon}} template would display some big ugly red text saying something like "you have not edited the article talk page yet, please
leave a message at the talkpage explaining why you think the article should not be deleted. If you have left a message at the talkpage but this message is still showing up, try
purging this page.". Or something like that.
rʨanaɢ
talk/
contribs 03:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
No one has really objected, so I implemented both of the changes (to this and to {{ hangon}}). rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 04:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)