![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 |
One thing I've noticed with the speedy deletion templates is that, especially when placed on pages where there is little content, they can seem rather menacing and, dare I say, scary for newcomers. If we wrap all of the content below a certain point with {{ hidden top}} and {{ hidden bottom}}, we will avoid removing any information from it, but it will appear smaller. If users need more information, they can click on the "show" link. The template, with {{ db-person}} used as an example, would display like so:
This page may meet Wikipedia’s
criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a real person that does not indicate the
importance or significance of the subject. Note that this applies to an article about the person him/herself, not about his/her books, albums, software etc. See
CSD#A7.
For more information, including how to remove this notice, please click on the [show] button to the right. 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. See help writing your first article.
Administrators: check
links,
history (
last), and
logs before
deletion. Consider checking
Google.
|
This would run into some problems (lack of Javascript in browser; users not willing to click [show], et cetera), but I think with a little tweaking, it could be a good idea. Does anyone see usefulness in this? The Earwig ( Talk | Contribs) 00:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The text of {{db-r3}} says the template is to be used for "a recently created redirect." Is there any consensus on what qualifies as "recent?" One week? 30 days? ~ Amory ( user • talk • contribs) 23:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I tried using the above template, which shows up in a box when you add the basic {{db-g6}} template to an article, but when I substituted an explanation for the word "reason", I saw the same box without the explanation added. Did I do it wrong or does this not work? Ecphora ( talk) 11:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
db-move|Article to be moved here}}
instead. An admin will do the move as well then. Regards
So
Why
11:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)I would like to propose that the noindex word be added to all pages tagged for speedy deletion. Google doesn't need to index nonsense, spam pages or otherwise. Triplestop x3 23:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Adding
<includeonly>__NOINDEX__</includeonly>
I notice that some page creators are erroneously placing the SD author notification on the talk page of the article itself. Could we reword it so that it says something like "If you are nominating this for speedy deletion, place template on the talk page of the page creator" so it's more clear? Triplestop x3 01:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} Would someone please clarify the line (in the discussion about CSD D6) about {{ db-disambig}} as it is very misleading. Speedy deletion should be used only in the direst of cases: one-line dab pages should be converted into redirects instead. 147.70.242.54 ( talk) 20:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm noticing a timestamp error "invalid time" on T3 when applied via Twinkle. Any thoughts on what might be causing this? See Template:Checkedpuppeteer for an example.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 06:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there a CSD template for non-notable movies as per WP:MOVIE? -- Alastair Rae ( talk) 19:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that with the copyright problem template, the page is automatically blanked. Could we put something like that on {{ db-g10}}. That way, in case a tagger neglects to blank an attack page, it would not show disparaging or libellous content in the time between tagging and deletion. Intelligent sium 17:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Up until yesterday, it said to blank any pages it was used on and now that part is gone. Half Shadow 17:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
{{#ifexpr:{{formatnum:{{PAGESIZE:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}|R}}>31 | {{Ambox|type=delete|text=<big>{{red|Please [[Wikipedia:Courtesy blanking|blank this page]] so that it only contains the deletion template.}}</big>}}
|bot=ExampleBot
), so that means it only displays the message if it can detect something other than the template still left on the page. In
the edit that I assume you're asking about, you had removed the content at the same time you added the template, so it wouldn't have displayed the message.
rʨanaɢ
talk/
contribs
17:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Born out of the on-going discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Newbie_treatment_at_CSD a few editors are concerned that the CSD process might be "bitey". As such I recommended that the community take a look at the templates and see if they can be softened up and be more inviting while still serving their core purpose in the CSD process. No one there has brought that here yet, so I'll get the ball rolling. Does anyone have any suggestions regarding things such as, icons, color, wording, links in the template, etc? Personally the wording doesn't seem bitey to me, but I've never been a big fan of the color. What about a softer color its pink with a red border and we know a bright red is usually associated with something bad (warning, stop, etc). So what about something else that would really make the text jump but be a little more inviting? Any ideas? -- Crossmr ( talk) 03:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Can we add search links for google news archives and google books? Some topics may get deleted ( example) that would not if the admin could quickly check the google news archives results instead of just the web results. With modern tabbed browsers, it's easy enough to do the searches for those that take the initiative. If you add them, take note of the issue raised above.-- chaser ( talk) 04:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Why is this included? Google is a for-profit corporation; promotion of Google over and above other search engines favors one commercial site and constitutes linkspam. If there were a free (free as in software, not as in beer) search engine or a search engine organized as a non-profit, then linking to that might be more in keeping with Wikipedia's mission, but Google? Seriously, why? 74.110.71.165 ( talk) 12:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
It puts a CSD notice on the template, but the templates do not get added to a CSD category. They seem to languish for weeks and probably have quite a backlog. Miami33139 ( talk) 23:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Can someone change the following line of code:
-->{{#if:{{{image|}}}|</td><td style="text-align:center;padding:0;font-size:x-small;">[[Image:{{{image}}}|150x175px]]<br/>''[[:Image:{{{image}}}|{{{image}}}]]''}}<!--
Into the following:
-->{{#if:{{{image|}}}|</td><td style="text-align:center;padding:0;font-size:x-small;">[[{{#if:{{{wiki|}}}|{{{wiki}}}:}}Image:{{{image}}}|150x175px]]<br/>''[[:{{#if:{{{wiki|}}}|{{{wiki}}}:}}Image:{{{image}}}|{{{image}}}]]''}}<!--
This change is requested to facilitate a change at {{ db-nowcommons}} where the image should show up as a link to commons and not a link to the local file. -- Shirik ( Questions or Comments?) 17:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I note that these templates include text like:
Please consider placing the template: {{subst:nn-warn|Wim Kapteyn|header=1}} ~~~~ on the talk page of the author.
This is redundant when the template is added via WP:Twinkle, which does the warning automatically. If the template had a suitable parameter, Twinkle could suppress the display of text which isn't relevant and can only add to the complexity of the situation from the point of view of newbies seeing the notice on the article. Rd232 talk 12:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
{{ db-g4}} currently is only equipped to handle articles, despite the existence of various other namespaces with deletion discussions, all of which should be covered under "general". Should the template be made to detect the namespace in which it is placed and switch to the appropriate deletion discussion (i.e., TfD, CfD, etc.)? Intelligent sium 19:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
When I fill out the rationale parameter, my reasoning never matches the "because" portion of the sentence in the template. Just thought I'd thow in a reason for it to be removed, not sure if it bothers anyone else. –Kerαunoςcopia◁ galaxies 14:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
db-g6|rationale=it's not needed anymore}}
instead. Regards
So
Why
14:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)I've just un-redirected Template talk:Db-g1, which used to point to this page, so I could link to the archive that I've recently unearthed at Template talk:Db-g1/Archive 1. I hope this is OK. Please disregard the message I just posted about that archive; I had written the message, then thought of another way to solve the problem. I tried to change the subject/headline so I could write a new message in its place, but accidentally clicked on the submit button. Graham 87 05:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
As it stands, db-a3 says, "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." Does it make sense to change this to something like "... from pages that you have created yourself, unless you have added significant encyclopedic content to the article"? Often enough people will create a new article consisting of something like "New article name is", it'll be tagged for db-nocontent, and then they'll add the content they were planning. They always remove the speedy tag in the process, but I wonder it it wouldn't be more appropriate if the template explicitly stated this was okay. Glenfarclas ( talk) 21:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi - I know several people have worked on the cat suppression for the db templates, but the WP:Template messages/Deletion page keeps showing up in several different categories that it shouldn't, including Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion (see cats at bottom of WP:TDEL for more where it shouldn't be). Could someone let us know if there is a cat suppression parameter for any of the problematic templates used as examples on the WP:TDEL page? Thanks much! -- Funandtrvl ( talk) 17:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
demospace=yes|categories=|nocat=yes
, one of them is usually enough if you know which one, but they won't hurt either. :)
Amalthea
18:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)This error appears even though a reason is given: look here Regards lil2mas ( talk) 22:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
{{db-move|Åråsen stadion|capitalized per. http://www.lsk.no/?aid=9093814}}
{{db-move|Åråsen stadion|2 = capitalized per. http://www.lsk.no/?aid=9093814}}
{{db-move|Åråsen stadion|2 = capitalized per. http://www.lsk.no/?aid{{=}}9093814}}
It has come to my attention that Twinkle will silently fail to tag a page as a copyvio if the URL entered is on the spam blacklist. This is a known issue that remains unfixed. To alleviate the problem, I would like to make two changes that would prevent the URL from acting as a link and therefore avoid the spam blacklist. Yes, the template is not fully protected (I can make the changes myself), but I am posting here first to see if anyone objects. PleaseStand (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
{{editprotected}} Since rev:48149 is live now, we can use {{REVISIONUSER}} to display the name of the person who edited the article in the latest revision. Example: Zinnober9.
Please add this code:
<span class="plainlinks">This page was [{{SERVER}}{{LOCALURL:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|diff=cur}} last edited] {{#if: {{REVISIONUSER}} | by [[{{ns:2}}:{{REVISIONUSER}}|{{REVISIONUSER}}]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/{{REVISIONUSER}}|Contribs]] • [[Special:Log/{{REVISIONUSER}}|Log]])</small> }} [{{SERVER}}{{LOCALURL:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=purge}} {{#ifexpr: {{LOCALTIMESTAMP}} < {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} | ? |
{{#ifexpr: {{LOCALTIMESTAMP}} - {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} > 1000 | '''<span style="font-size:110%;"> }} {{#expr: ({{#time: U | {{LOCALTIMESTAMP}} }} - {{#time: U | {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} }}) / 60 round 0 }} }} {{PLURAL:{{#expr: ({{#time: U | {{LOCALTIMESTAMP}} }} - {{#time: U | {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} }}) / 60 round 0 }}|minute|minutes}}] {{#ifexpr: {{LOCALTIMESTAMP}} - {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} > 1000 | </span>''' }} ago.</span>
which is in this case: This page was last edited by Zinnober9 ( Contribs • Log) 775523 minutes ago.
Features of this code:
Thanks, -- Church of emacs ( Talk) 14:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
What do people think about replacing {{ db-f8}} with {{ nowcommons}}, redirecting the former to the latter? It seems redundant to have the two templates, and also overcategorizes images on Commons awaiting local deletion. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 19:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:G5 states that pages may be tagged for speedy delivery if they were "created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block"... So two things:
In my case, I tagged Can't Be Tamed Tour because the user was making vandalism-type edits, misinformation edits, and unsourced (but otherwise not very controversial) edits. In this case, the article was obviously WP:CRYSTAL, and already prod tagged by another editor. The article was created before the user was blocked. Am I incorrect in tagging it for speedy deletion? – Kerαunoςcopia◁ galaxies 06:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the wording on this one needs to be changed a little. It states you can use this when you are replacing an image with another, but in the blurb at the top it says "..in the same file format..". Surely this could be used when replacing an image with a file of a different format, such as File:Example.jpg replaced with File:Example.png? -- SteelersFanUK06 HereWeGo2010! 16:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
How can I nominate just a part of an article for speedy deletion with "db-spam" ? "db-spam|selection" ? Spada II ♪♫ ( talk) 07:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Need to turn off
Template:nn-warn-reason in this template right away, temporarily, until a resolution is determined at
Template talk:Nn-warn#Proposed merge of Template:nn-warn-reason to this template.
Template:nn-warn-reason was designed to be used on A7 speedy deletions only. For a fuller explanation, see
Template talk:Nn-warn#Proposed merge of Template:nn-warn-reason to this template.
The method proposed to temporarily turn it off is to "comment it out." This way, the code is preserved in place so it can be easily reinstated. If the template is substituted, the commented-out code will not substitute (though this template is not intended to be substituted in normal use anyway). This code has been checked in sandbox. Please replace the entirety of the code with this new code:
Thank you for your assistance. Bsherr ( talk) 13:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Speaking of categories, T3 doesn't seem to be placing date-mature tags into the templates for speedy deletion category. I'm not comfortable enough with the code there to tinker with it. Could someone look into it? -- Bsherr ( talk) 03:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Why doesn't this template put pages into a category, or am I missing something? BE——Critical__ Talk 04:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
As stated in the documentation, the summary field is preloaded in the deletion. Where in the mediawiki software is this encoded? I'd love to add that functionality to {{ Now Commons}}. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 19:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I have made some rapid delete icons that are used on other Wikipedia projects, perhaps we want to add them to this template. Cheers -- Svgalbertian ( talk) 04:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Not having been aware of this thread, I opened a related discussion at Template talk:AfD-notice#CENTRALIZED DISCUSSION - Replacing icon (File:Ambox warning pn.svg). I like the icons shown at the top of this section a lot better that the current triangle-wow icon. Let's do this! I'm not sure if Template talk:AfD-notice#CENTRALIZED DISCUSSION - Replacing icon (File:Ambox warning pn.svg) or this thread is the best place for discussion, but let's keep both in mind. Herostratus ( talk) 05:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
So, for db-meta, any objections to adopting the image as it appears visually (ignoring present coding) in the sandbox? -- Bsherr ( talk) 20:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
| image = none
from the mbox transclusion to | image =[[File:Icon delete.svg|50px]]
. --
Bsherr (
talk)
05:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
Could the redirect to {{
Hangon}} be replaced with {{
Hang on}}. This would allow the links to be changed with just one edit in many templates where it's used like that. Thanks, --
The Evil IP address (
talk)
14:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
When used on a Redirect-page, this T is either before or after thr Redirect-line. If before, the Redirect does not function anymore (for as long as the T is waiting for an admin). If used after, Redirect still works but template doesn't show at all. - DePiep ( talk) 13:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Should db-move be placed above or below the #redirect line in a redirect? If placed above, then it breaks the redirect (readers end up looking at the technical template instead of being properly redirected). If placed below, then it the template does not seem to "expand" when viewed. Does it still work? Thanks. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 05:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Currently, this is on the template:
"Please use a more specific template - {{db-person}}, {{db-animal}}, {{db-band}}, {{db-club}}, {{db-inc}} or {{db-web}} where possible."
I believe that this line should be removed for the following reasons:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Redlock ( talk • contribs)
{{
db-a7}}
, whose talk page redirects here?
Happy‑
melon
23:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Why is the template not visible on http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Member_of_parliament&redirect=no after i added it? -- Espoo ( talk) 15:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
How can i correct the template's text? It incorrectly says "template" instead of "page" twice: This template may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion because it is holding up a page move... and If this template does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion... -- Espoo ( talk) 14:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
For Template:Db-g2, is there a way for the template text "on the talk page of the author." to link to the author? that would make it much easier than using the page history to find the author's link. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 17:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello folks. Why does the db-hoax (and PROD for that matter) apply the {{ welcome}} template but none of the other speedy tags do? This gets confusing when I am manually tagging and applying the {{ welcome}} template to a users page only to have it applied twice. Can we standardize this or remove it?--v/r - T P 00:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
This following wording is nonsense:
It is probably not worth discussing why a Dab page can sort of disambiguate (between or among) several pages, but can never succeed or fail at "disambiguating" one pg, no pg, zero pages, nor "fewer than 2 pages". What's to the point is that -- unless its incoherence tripped up those who've edited it -- it must be trying to say that it's an "orphaned" disambiguation page, bcz of either
Those are plausible criteria bcz condition 1 means the Dab page is at best
"harmless", and bcz condition 2 refuses CSD only when Dab'n is still needed, or where a single-entry "Dab'n" pg should be converted to an Rdr (obviating the page's deletion).
(I would argue that CSD of harmless Dab pages does not constitute "non-controversial maintenance", in the absence of a claim that a future valid "secondary" topic is implausible; an advantage of requiring that claim is that Dab-entry counts fluctuate routinely in response to Dab maintenance and article deletions, and retention of a harmless Dab saves effort when the number of extant-page links rises back to 2. But i'm much more interested in relieving editors of the effort of decoding a brain twister when they want to be sure they're requesting a proper Dab CSD.)
--
Jerzy•
t
07:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Is showing up at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user for some reason. Beeblebrox ( talk) 07:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I have made a suggestion that an AFD check be included in the A7 templates (and perhaps more), discussion is at the CSD talk page. Posting here as it would effect the DB templates if the idea goes anywhere. Monty 845 22:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the language from "...to be deleted to merge histories, reverse a redirect, or perform other non-controversial technical tasks." to "...to be deleted to reverse a redirect or perform other non-controversial technical tasks." Reason: This template should not be used to merge histories. There are 2 specific templates for merging histories, {{
Db-copypaste}}
and {{
histmerge}}
, both listed in the documentation on {{
Db-g6}}
. --
64.85.215.156 (
talk)
15:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Please use {{
edit protected}}
instead of {{
edit semi-protected}}
for fully protected pages. I changed the template for you.
Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) (
Shout!)
16:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
...I wanted to be the first to try pressing the button! I suggest adding "includeonly" around the "link=" parameter so that a click on the button here takes you to the file description page instead. -- John of Reading ( talk) 06:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
might work better. It'd look like this:
<inputbox> type=commenttitle default=This article should not be speedy deleted because... preload=Template:Hangon preload hidden=yes page={{TALKPAGENAME}} buttonlabel=Click here to contest this speedy deletion break=no </inputbox>
Hmm, things move fast. I agree with Wikidan that the red text is indeed a bit overwhelming as it is shown on every speedy deletion now. Yoenit ( talk) 19:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
( talk) 22:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
With images turned off in my browser, the new template makes no sense at all. If Lifebaka's suggestion is not taken, the image should at least have some alt text wherever it is used. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 23:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
This new template system is excellent, but I have just two comments:
Hope this helps. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for carrying out the suggestion, Fugettaboutit. Perhaps you can also change the talk page message to:
Replace this text with your reason for contesting the speedy deletion, sign it with four tildes (~~~~), or press the 'signature' button in the edit window tool bar, and then click "save page" below.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
<!-- REPLACE ALL THIS TEXT → with your reason for contesting the speedy deletion but leave the four tildes (~'s) at the end of this text in place which will automatically format to your signature once you click "save page" below. ← REPLACE THIS TEXT --> ~~~~
The commented notes came out because people were not removing the comment out notes but only replacing the text so when they saved the page, their text would be hidden. The reason the instructions about signing came out was because a number of different users commented at the village pump discussion that the instructions were too complicated with them included; basically, that if they failed to sign, it's no bid deal for us because we can easily see who wrote the message, whereas leaving it in might present a comprehension barrier to them. However, the preload has now changed again, per the village pump dicsussion. I think it will work better now.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 11:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Why not use an editintro which contains instructions such as signing the message, etc.? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 17:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} In the red text, there is "leave a leave a" (the second one is in the edit link). — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Requesting the addition of an AfD/MfD check to the meta template. The idea has been discussed at CSD Talk and the Village Pump (proposals), and received a positive response. I have already added the code to the sandbox template {{ Db-meta/sandbox}}, you can view the result when a XfD exists by previewing that template on a page with a XfD discussion (the talk page button in the sandbox is not the most recent version, but that is unrelated to the change). The change is almost the same as the check already present in a prod, with the added language directing the viewer to check for relevance, and the addition of the MfD check.
{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}| {{error|message=This article may have been previously nominated for deletion: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}]] exists.}} Please check the deletion discussion to see if it is relevant. <br><br>}} {{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/{{FULLPAGENAME}}| {{error|message=This page may have been previously nominated for deletion: [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/{{FULLPAGENAME}}]] exists.}} Please check the deletion discussion to see if it is relevant. <br><br>}}
, which we could put right after the hangon notices.
{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}|This article may have been previously nominated for deletion: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}]] exists. Please check the deletion discussion to see if it is relevant.}}{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|This page may have been previously nominated for deletion: [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/{{FULLPAGENAME}}]] exists. Please check the deletion discussion to see if it is relevant.}}
to
<small>''[[Wikipedia:Administrators|Administrators]]: check [[Special:Whatlinkshere/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|links]], [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=history}} history] ([{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|diff=0}} last]), and [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}}} logs] before [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|wpReason={{urlencode:{{{summary|}}} {{#ifeq:{{{criterion}}}|NA||([[WP:CSD#{{uc:{{{criterion}}}}}|CSD {{uc:{{{criterion}}}}}]])}}}}&action=delete}} deletion]
might be a better solution overall. A previous XfD shouldn't matter unless it ended in something other than delete, and then it only matters to prevent speedying. So except to stop admins from deleting a tagged page, I'm not sure the notice is strictly relevant; makes sense to put it in the admin notes, then. lifebaka ++ 03:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
<small>''[[Wikipedia:Administrators|Administrators]]: check [[Special:Whatlinkshere/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|links]], [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=history}} history] ([{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|diff=0}} last]), {{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}|[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}|previous AfD]], }}{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|[[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|previous MfD]], }}and [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}}} logs] before [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|wpReason={{urlencode:{{{summary|}}} {{#ifeq:{{{criterion}}}|NA||([[WP:CSD#{{uc:{{{criterion}}}}}|CSD {{uc:{{{criterion}}}}}]])}}}}&action=delete}} deletion]
(addition in green)
{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}|<div class="infobox" style="width:100%">AfDs for this article: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}</div>}}{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]|<div class="infobox" style="width:100%">MfDs for this page: [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</div>}}
, which would appear as something like:
I noticed that speedy deletion templates such as {{
db-web}}
now leave the red "note to authors" (below) even when no {{
hangon}}
has been placed:
Note to page author: you have not edited the article talk page yet. If you wish to contest this speedy deletion, clicking the button above will allow you to leave a talk page message explaining why you think this page should not be deleted.
This notice was originally created as part of the {hangon} template (see [1], [2]) to inform page authors that simply placing a hangon template without leaving any rationale was not sufficient to keep their page from being deleted. I'm not sure if it makes sense to have this message show up automatically all the time, regardless of whether {hangon} has been used or not (since the message doesn't make sense to someone who isn't trying to contest the speedy deletion). rʨanaɢ ( talk) 22:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been discussed somewhere else and I didn't find it. Would it be possible to remove the "Click here to contest" button from the {{db-talk}} template, which is placed on talk pages that have no corresponding article? It's not a huge issue in any way, but currently, if the template is placed on a talk page and people come along who want to contest the deletion of an already-deleted page, they are likely to just click the button on the talk page and think that they are still able to contest the deletion of the real article. The button on db-talk creates a new section on that same talk page.
The way I see it, there can't be many valid rationales to keep an orhpaned talk page, and if somebody is already on the talk page it's just as simple for them to edit the page normally to add their reasoning.
As I say, it's a minor issue but if it can be done reasonably easily I think it would be worth doing. -- bonadea contributions talk 09:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
|contest=
parameter to switch the "click here to contest" button off. I'm not sure it's necessary, but it wouldn't be at all hard.
lifebaka
++
17:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please can I put a full-stop at the end of the button which says "Click here to contest this speedy deletion"?
Rcsprinter (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can someone adjust the apostrophe in "Wikipedia’s" to "Wikipedia's", kinda silly that such high class template would not comply with WP:PUNCT itself. Xeworlebi ( talk) 18:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Please the delete this page as it is not updated and is too promotional, we are currently working on a new version, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hernaty ( talk • contribs) 06:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
There is a speedy deletion tag added to DB Realty page. Request you to review it and remove the tag as the necessary changes have been made. Thanks. 202.179.91.46 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC).
Note: I am referring to G12
I don't know if anyone else has had this, but recently I nominated an article for a speedy where it had been copied and pasted from 3 different URL's. What am I supposed to do in this case? What I did was put the three URLs all under the one URL= switch, but this rendered the Duplication Detector link useless. Should I just have used one URL? I was concerned an administrator would think it had free content on it from other sources, when really it was all copy and pasted. -- Thompson.matthew ( talk) 08:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I've just used this template for the first time, and either there's a problem with it or with the documentation. It says you can use "{{db-a5|TranswikiLocation}}" where "TranswikiLocation is a link to the page to which the article has been transwiki'd". I've just added the template to this page and set "TranswikiLocation" to "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/India_States_Reorganisation_Commission_Report_Telangana_Andhra". But the link comes up red, and even though it displays correctly the destination URL shows as "http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/India_States_Reorganisation_Commission_Report_Telangana_Andhra&action=edit&redlink=1" when you move the mouse pointer over it?? I've presumably done something wrong, but it's not at all clear what! Cheers, Andrew Gwilliam ( talk) 22:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC).
{{
edit protected}}
When tagging a talk page with {{
db-talk}}, it is unnecessary to have the "Note:The talk page has content that should be checked before deleting" message. I suggest it be removed, using something similar to ifeq: {{NAMESPACE}} | talk | (talk page has content message) | }}
--
Σ
talk
contribs
20:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
This page should not be speedy deleted because... All information posted is factual, and can be referenced via the sites at the bottom of the page
-- 81.156.0.7 ( talk) 22:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
Could someone change {{ Hangon preload}} to have (your reason here) in front of the ~~~~? The result:
This page should not be deleted because... (your reason here) ~~~~
I have seen many contested deletions where the reason goes after the tildes, and hopefully, a shining pointer to the place where the reason should go should reduce the number of such hangons. -- Σ talk contribs 21:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I get an Error: invalid time when using this one template. Currently visible at Template:ISO 15924/wp-4cols. It also shows at this overview. - DePiep ( talk) 21:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
{{db-t3|~~~~~|<duplicate template>}}
. You put the duplicate template name as the first parameter, and the template couldn't parse it as a date. I've fixed it. Cheers.
lifebaka
++
22:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Wrap includeonlys around the inputbox tag. It should prevent the contested speedies on this page. I tested it in the sandbox. Thanks, -- Σ talk contribs 05:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
movereq}}
– I need to use the #titleparts parser function in order to prevent "==Contested deletion=="s from appearing on the template's talk page. I have sandboxed it in
Template:Db-meta/sandbox and
Template:Db-meta/testcases, which shows that my code has worked. --
Σ
talk
contribs
07:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
This page should not be speedy deleted because... -- 158.230.100.102 ( talk) 14:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
This page is helpful and informative.
I believe it should be broken up by the CSD criteria. An A7 could show "This person is notable enough to be in an encyclopedia which is not Facebook because", and G11 could show "This page is not promotional because", and so on. I'm sure that some administrators don't bother reading the talk page, because most of the reasons are generic reasons that aren't reasons: "But it's all true!!!", "I work for Company XYZ and they told me to set up a page" or not a reason at all, "This page should not be speedily deleted because... Example ( talk)". Some criteria like G10, G3, and G2 don't need a new set (the first one doesn't even need a "Contest this CSD" button at all, in my opinion), and then could keep with the current one. -- Σ talk contribs 23:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
This page does not qualify for speedy deletion under CSD A7 because it asserts importance as follows... ( (your reason here)
Actually, that's a bit presumptuous because the reason might be that the topic isn't any of the qualified topics (people, animal, organizations, web content) but we can tackle the specifics if we first learn we can do this at all. Not sure why you say G10 etc. don't need a tailored pre-load, and certainly G10 needs a contest button. Most contests reasons miss the mark, but legitimate ones come up for all of the criteria. Valid contests for G10, for example, might be: "this page does not qualify for speedy deletion because while it is negative, it's also reliably sourced" / "this page does not qualify for speedy deletion because if you look in the page history you'll see a neutral version exists and the attack was a later revision that the tagger obviously did not notice" etc. Same thing with G3: this is not a blatant hoax, see SOURCE.--
Fuhghettaboutit (
talk)
00:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
Hangon preload G3}}
This page should not be speedy deleted under CSD G3 as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload G10}}
This page should not be speedy deleted under CSD G10 as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload G11}}
This page should not be speedy deleted under CSD G11 as unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload G12}}
This page should not be speedy deleted under CSD G12 as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload A1}}
This page should not be speedy deleted under CSD A1 as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload A2}}
This page should not be speedy deleted under CSD A2 as a foreign language article that exists on another Wikimedia project, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload A3}}
This page should not be speedy deleted under CSD A3 as having no substantive content, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload A7}}
This page should not be speedy deleted under CSD A7 as about a person, animal, organization or web content but which fails to assert importance of the topic, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload A9}}
This page should not be speedy deleted under CSD A9 as about a musical recording that does not indicate importance and where the artist's article does not exist, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload A10}}
This page should not be speedy deleted under CSD A10 as recently created, with no relevant page history and that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload R3}}
This redirect should not be speedy deleted under CSD R3 as an implausible typo or misnomer, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload F1}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F1 as redundant, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload F2}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F2 as corrupt or empty, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload F3}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F3 as bearing an improper license, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload F4}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F4 as lacking necessary licensing information, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload F5}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F5 as not under a free license or in the public domain that is not used in any article, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload F6}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F6 as non-free but claiming fair use and without a fair use rationale, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload F7}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F7 as having an invalid fair-use claim, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload F8}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F8 as available as an identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload F9}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F9 as obviously non-free but which is not claimed by the uploader to be fair use, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload F10}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F11 as neither image, sound, nor video file, not used in any article, and which has no foreseeable encyclopedic use, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload F11}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F11 as bearing no evidence of permission, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload C1}}
This category should not be speedy deleted under CSD C1 as unpopulated, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload T2}}
This template should not be speedy deleted under CSD T2 as an unambiguous misrepresentation of policy, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload T3}}
This template should not be speedy deleted under CSD T3 as not usefully employed and either a substantial duplicate or hardcoded instance of another template, because... (your reason here)
Okay, searched. Some of the following DRVs are right on target, some are not quite a perfect fit, but in sum, I think you'll get the drift: there are many instances shown here where G10 was used and others later said it was not valid for various reasons; every person's opinion in these DRVs as to why G10 was not a good fit shows an instance of a possibly valid button-pushing situation: 1 ·◌· 2 ·◌· 3 ·◌· 4 ·◌· 5 ·◌· 6 ·◌· 7 ·◌· 8 ·◌· 9 ·◌· 10 ·◌· 11 ·◌· 12.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 22:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
This template says: "by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion"."; however, the speedy delete Template:Db-t3 does not have a phrase to "click here". I don't know how many more templates similar to this one are like that, but I believe they may need to be updated. -- Funandtrvl ( talk) 17:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A quick link to delete the tagged page is generated by db-meta:
[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|wpReason={{urlencode:{{{summary|}}} {{#ifeq:{{{criterion}}}|NA||([[WP:CSD#{{uc:{{{criterion}}}}}|CSD {{uc:{{{criterion}}}}}]])}}}}&action=delete}} deletion]
This link uses the format "Reason (
CSD G6)". But both
MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown and the hidden "delete-reason" span use the format "
G6: Reason". For consistency, could this link (located in the long para towards the end that starts with <small>...</small>
) please be changed to
[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|wpReason={{urlencode:{{#ifeq:{{{criterion}}}|NA||[[WP:CSD#{{uc:{{{criterion}}}}}|{{uc:{{{criterion}}}}}]]: }} {{{summary|}}}}}&action=delete}} deletion]
— This, that, and the other (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Have a minor modification for {{ Db-move}}. Could someone please make it where, when executing the requested move through the link on the template, "Requested move:" is prepended to the move reason in the move box? Thus instead of it saying "[whatever]" in the move box before executing the move, I'd like it be to where it says, "Requested move: [whatever]". I've had a few instances where people have challenged a requested move after it was executed, and questioned me on the autofilled reason from the nominator. Generally, if the move looks reasonable enough and seems uncontroversial, I'll do it. Adding "Requested move:" to the front of it is just a little something to clue others in to the fact that the person who executed the move may not be the best person to discuss on the substance of a move after the fact (but the admin who completed the move should always do the right thing and refer the questioner to the proper talk page to have that discussion).
Thoughts? Could someone make this happen? I realized I have no idea how to do it when I tried to do it in a sandbox and screwed my sandbox up. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 02:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Db has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Currently lines 5 and 6 read:
| because {{{1}}} |, but {{red|no reason has been given}} for why it qualifies
I think it's best to have the whole first sentence italizied, like this:
| ''because {{{1}}}'' |'', but {{red|no reason has been given}} for why it qualifies''
Thank you -- Jab7842 ( talk) 05:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi!
Could someone use class="sysop-show"
in an element containing all admin-specific messages? (For more info, see
MediaWiki_talk:Common.css#Non-inline_sysop-show).
Helder
13:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
This page was
last edited...
? →
Σ
τ
c.
08:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The {{ Db-t3}} template is written "[...]any useful fashion, and which satisfies one of the following conditions: It is a substantial duplication[...], or It is a hardcoded instance[...]" (italics added). However, the CSD criteria states "Templates that are not employed in any useful fashion, i.e., orphaned, deprecated, substantial duplications of another template, or hardcoded instances" (italics added). The current template increases the threshold for speedy deletion by stating that substantial duplication and/or being a hardcoded instance is also necessary for speedy deletion. To use a test case, an orphaned template that does not have substantial duplication to and is not a hardcoded instance of another template can be deleted speedily according to the CSD criteria. However, the same orphaned template can't be deleted speedily according to the template because it neither has substantial duplication, nor is it a hardcoded instance.
I believe the template should be rewritten thus:
This template may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a template that is not being employed in any useful fashion, and which satisfies one of the following conditions:
- It is orphaned, or
- It is deprecated, or
- It is a substantial duplication of the template {{[[Template:|]]}}, or
- It is a hardcoded instance of template {{[[Template:|]]}}, where the same functionality could be provided by that other template.
– Temporal User ( Talk) 12:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC) (Edited: 10:41, 7 December 2011 (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 4 | Archive 5 |
One thing I've noticed with the speedy deletion templates is that, especially when placed on pages where there is little content, they can seem rather menacing and, dare I say, scary for newcomers. If we wrap all of the content below a certain point with {{ hidden top}} and {{ hidden bottom}}, we will avoid removing any information from it, but it will appear smaller. If users need more information, they can click on the "show" link. The template, with {{ db-person}} used as an example, would display like so:
This page may meet Wikipedia’s
criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a real person that does not indicate the
importance or significance of the subject. Note that this applies to an article about the person him/herself, not about his/her books, albums, software etc. See
CSD#A7.
For more information, including how to remove this notice, please click on the [show] button to the right. 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. See help writing your first article.
Administrators: check
links,
history (
last), and
logs before
deletion. Consider checking
Google.
|
This would run into some problems (lack of Javascript in browser; users not willing to click [show], et cetera), but I think with a little tweaking, it could be a good idea. Does anyone see usefulness in this? The Earwig ( Talk | Contribs) 00:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The text of {{db-r3}} says the template is to be used for "a recently created redirect." Is there any consensus on what qualifies as "recent?" One week? 30 days? ~ Amory ( user • talk • contribs) 23:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I tried using the above template, which shows up in a box when you add the basic {{db-g6}} template to an article, but when I substituted an explanation for the word "reason", I saw the same box without the explanation added. Did I do it wrong or does this not work? Ecphora ( talk) 11:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
db-move|Article to be moved here}}
instead. An admin will do the move as well then. Regards
So
Why
11:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)I would like to propose that the noindex word be added to all pages tagged for speedy deletion. Google doesn't need to index nonsense, spam pages or otherwise. Triplestop x3 23:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Adding
<includeonly>__NOINDEX__</includeonly>
I notice that some page creators are erroneously placing the SD author notification on the talk page of the article itself. Could we reword it so that it says something like "If you are nominating this for speedy deletion, place template on the talk page of the page creator" so it's more clear? Triplestop x3 01:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} Would someone please clarify the line (in the discussion about CSD D6) about {{ db-disambig}} as it is very misleading. Speedy deletion should be used only in the direst of cases: one-line dab pages should be converted into redirects instead. 147.70.242.54 ( talk) 20:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm noticing a timestamp error "invalid time" on T3 when applied via Twinkle. Any thoughts on what might be causing this? See Template:Checkedpuppeteer for an example.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 06:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there a CSD template for non-notable movies as per WP:MOVIE? -- Alastair Rae ( talk) 19:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that with the copyright problem template, the page is automatically blanked. Could we put something like that on {{ db-g10}}. That way, in case a tagger neglects to blank an attack page, it would not show disparaging or libellous content in the time between tagging and deletion. Intelligent sium 17:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Up until yesterday, it said to blank any pages it was used on and now that part is gone. Half Shadow 17:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
{{#ifexpr:{{formatnum:{{PAGESIZE:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}|R}}>31 | {{Ambox|type=delete|text=<big>{{red|Please [[Wikipedia:Courtesy blanking|blank this page]] so that it only contains the deletion template.}}</big>}}
|bot=ExampleBot
), so that means it only displays the message if it can detect something other than the template still left on the page. In
the edit that I assume you're asking about, you had removed the content at the same time you added the template, so it wouldn't have displayed the message.
rʨanaɢ
talk/
contribs
17:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Born out of the on-going discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Newbie_treatment_at_CSD a few editors are concerned that the CSD process might be "bitey". As such I recommended that the community take a look at the templates and see if they can be softened up and be more inviting while still serving their core purpose in the CSD process. No one there has brought that here yet, so I'll get the ball rolling. Does anyone have any suggestions regarding things such as, icons, color, wording, links in the template, etc? Personally the wording doesn't seem bitey to me, but I've never been a big fan of the color. What about a softer color its pink with a red border and we know a bright red is usually associated with something bad (warning, stop, etc). So what about something else that would really make the text jump but be a little more inviting? Any ideas? -- Crossmr ( talk) 03:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Can we add search links for google news archives and google books? Some topics may get deleted ( example) that would not if the admin could quickly check the google news archives results instead of just the web results. With modern tabbed browsers, it's easy enough to do the searches for those that take the initiative. If you add them, take note of the issue raised above.-- chaser ( talk) 04:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Why is this included? Google is a for-profit corporation; promotion of Google over and above other search engines favors one commercial site and constitutes linkspam. If there were a free (free as in software, not as in beer) search engine or a search engine organized as a non-profit, then linking to that might be more in keeping with Wikipedia's mission, but Google? Seriously, why? 74.110.71.165 ( talk) 12:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
It puts a CSD notice on the template, but the templates do not get added to a CSD category. They seem to languish for weeks and probably have quite a backlog. Miami33139 ( talk) 23:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Can someone change the following line of code:
-->{{#if:{{{image|}}}|</td><td style="text-align:center;padding:0;font-size:x-small;">[[Image:{{{image}}}|150x175px]]<br/>''[[:Image:{{{image}}}|{{{image}}}]]''}}<!--
Into the following:
-->{{#if:{{{image|}}}|</td><td style="text-align:center;padding:0;font-size:x-small;">[[{{#if:{{{wiki|}}}|{{{wiki}}}:}}Image:{{{image}}}|150x175px]]<br/>''[[:{{#if:{{{wiki|}}}|{{{wiki}}}:}}Image:{{{image}}}|{{{image}}}]]''}}<!--
This change is requested to facilitate a change at {{ db-nowcommons}} where the image should show up as a link to commons and not a link to the local file. -- Shirik ( Questions or Comments?) 17:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I note that these templates include text like:
Please consider placing the template: {{subst:nn-warn|Wim Kapteyn|header=1}} ~~~~ on the talk page of the author.
This is redundant when the template is added via WP:Twinkle, which does the warning automatically. If the template had a suitable parameter, Twinkle could suppress the display of text which isn't relevant and can only add to the complexity of the situation from the point of view of newbies seeing the notice on the article. Rd232 talk 12:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
{{ db-g4}} currently is only equipped to handle articles, despite the existence of various other namespaces with deletion discussions, all of which should be covered under "general". Should the template be made to detect the namespace in which it is placed and switch to the appropriate deletion discussion (i.e., TfD, CfD, etc.)? Intelligent sium 19:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
When I fill out the rationale parameter, my reasoning never matches the "because" portion of the sentence in the template. Just thought I'd thow in a reason for it to be removed, not sure if it bothers anyone else. –Kerαunoςcopia◁ galaxies 14:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
db-g6|rationale=it's not needed anymore}}
instead. Regards
So
Why
14:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)I've just un-redirected Template talk:Db-g1, which used to point to this page, so I could link to the archive that I've recently unearthed at Template talk:Db-g1/Archive 1. I hope this is OK. Please disregard the message I just posted about that archive; I had written the message, then thought of another way to solve the problem. I tried to change the subject/headline so I could write a new message in its place, but accidentally clicked on the submit button. Graham 87 05:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
As it stands, db-a3 says, "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." Does it make sense to change this to something like "... from pages that you have created yourself, unless you have added significant encyclopedic content to the article"? Often enough people will create a new article consisting of something like "New article name is", it'll be tagged for db-nocontent, and then they'll add the content they were planning. They always remove the speedy tag in the process, but I wonder it it wouldn't be more appropriate if the template explicitly stated this was okay. Glenfarclas ( talk) 21:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi - I know several people have worked on the cat suppression for the db templates, but the WP:Template messages/Deletion page keeps showing up in several different categories that it shouldn't, including Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion (see cats at bottom of WP:TDEL for more where it shouldn't be). Could someone let us know if there is a cat suppression parameter for any of the problematic templates used as examples on the WP:TDEL page? Thanks much! -- Funandtrvl ( talk) 17:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
demospace=yes|categories=|nocat=yes
, one of them is usually enough if you know which one, but they won't hurt either. :)
Amalthea
18:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)This error appears even though a reason is given: look here Regards lil2mas ( talk) 22:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
{{db-move|Åråsen stadion|capitalized per. http://www.lsk.no/?aid=9093814}}
{{db-move|Åråsen stadion|2 = capitalized per. http://www.lsk.no/?aid=9093814}}
{{db-move|Åråsen stadion|2 = capitalized per. http://www.lsk.no/?aid{{=}}9093814}}
It has come to my attention that Twinkle will silently fail to tag a page as a copyvio if the URL entered is on the spam blacklist. This is a known issue that remains unfixed. To alleviate the problem, I would like to make two changes that would prevent the URL from acting as a link and therefore avoid the spam blacklist. Yes, the template is not fully protected (I can make the changes myself), but I am posting here first to see if anyone objects. PleaseStand (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
{{editprotected}} Since rev:48149 is live now, we can use {{REVISIONUSER}} to display the name of the person who edited the article in the latest revision. Example: Zinnober9.
Please add this code:
<span class="plainlinks">This page was [{{SERVER}}{{LOCALURL:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|diff=cur}} last edited] {{#if: {{REVISIONUSER}} | by [[{{ns:2}}:{{REVISIONUSER}}|{{REVISIONUSER}}]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/{{REVISIONUSER}}|Contribs]] • [[Special:Log/{{REVISIONUSER}}|Log]])</small> }} [{{SERVER}}{{LOCALURL:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=purge}} {{#ifexpr: {{LOCALTIMESTAMP}} < {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} | ? |
{{#ifexpr: {{LOCALTIMESTAMP}} - {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} > 1000 | '''<span style="font-size:110%;"> }} {{#expr: ({{#time: U | {{LOCALTIMESTAMP}} }} - {{#time: U | {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} }}) / 60 round 0 }} }} {{PLURAL:{{#expr: ({{#time: U | {{LOCALTIMESTAMP}} }} - {{#time: U | {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} }}) / 60 round 0 }}|minute|minutes}}] {{#ifexpr: {{LOCALTIMESTAMP}} - {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} > 1000 | </span>''' }} ago.</span>
which is in this case: This page was last edited by Zinnober9 ( Contribs • Log) 775523 minutes ago.
Features of this code:
Thanks, -- Church of emacs ( Talk) 14:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
What do people think about replacing {{ db-f8}} with {{ nowcommons}}, redirecting the former to the latter? It seems redundant to have the two templates, and also overcategorizes images on Commons awaiting local deletion. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 19:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:G5 states that pages may be tagged for speedy delivery if they were "created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block"... So two things:
In my case, I tagged Can't Be Tamed Tour because the user was making vandalism-type edits, misinformation edits, and unsourced (but otherwise not very controversial) edits. In this case, the article was obviously WP:CRYSTAL, and already prod tagged by another editor. The article was created before the user was blocked. Am I incorrect in tagging it for speedy deletion? – Kerαunoςcopia◁ galaxies 06:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the wording on this one needs to be changed a little. It states you can use this when you are replacing an image with another, but in the blurb at the top it says "..in the same file format..". Surely this could be used when replacing an image with a file of a different format, such as File:Example.jpg replaced with File:Example.png? -- SteelersFanUK06 HereWeGo2010! 16:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
How can I nominate just a part of an article for speedy deletion with "db-spam" ? "db-spam|selection" ? Spada II ♪♫ ( talk) 07:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Need to turn off
Template:nn-warn-reason in this template right away, temporarily, until a resolution is determined at
Template talk:Nn-warn#Proposed merge of Template:nn-warn-reason to this template.
Template:nn-warn-reason was designed to be used on A7 speedy deletions only. For a fuller explanation, see
Template talk:Nn-warn#Proposed merge of Template:nn-warn-reason to this template.
The method proposed to temporarily turn it off is to "comment it out." This way, the code is preserved in place so it can be easily reinstated. If the template is substituted, the commented-out code will not substitute (though this template is not intended to be substituted in normal use anyway). This code has been checked in sandbox. Please replace the entirety of the code with this new code:
Thank you for your assistance. Bsherr ( talk) 13:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Speaking of categories, T3 doesn't seem to be placing date-mature tags into the templates for speedy deletion category. I'm not comfortable enough with the code there to tinker with it. Could someone look into it? -- Bsherr ( talk) 03:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Why doesn't this template put pages into a category, or am I missing something? BE——Critical__ Talk 04:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
As stated in the documentation, the summary field is preloaded in the deletion. Where in the mediawiki software is this encoded? I'd love to add that functionality to {{ Now Commons}}. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 19:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I have made some rapid delete icons that are used on other Wikipedia projects, perhaps we want to add them to this template. Cheers -- Svgalbertian ( talk) 04:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Not having been aware of this thread, I opened a related discussion at Template talk:AfD-notice#CENTRALIZED DISCUSSION - Replacing icon (File:Ambox warning pn.svg). I like the icons shown at the top of this section a lot better that the current triangle-wow icon. Let's do this! I'm not sure if Template talk:AfD-notice#CENTRALIZED DISCUSSION - Replacing icon (File:Ambox warning pn.svg) or this thread is the best place for discussion, but let's keep both in mind. Herostratus ( talk) 05:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
So, for db-meta, any objections to adopting the image as it appears visually (ignoring present coding) in the sandbox? -- Bsherr ( talk) 20:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
| image = none
from the mbox transclusion to | image =[[File:Icon delete.svg|50px]]
. --
Bsherr (
talk)
05:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
Could the redirect to {{
Hangon}} be replaced with {{
Hang on}}. This would allow the links to be changed with just one edit in many templates where it's used like that. Thanks, --
The Evil IP address (
talk)
14:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
When used on a Redirect-page, this T is either before or after thr Redirect-line. If before, the Redirect does not function anymore (for as long as the T is waiting for an admin). If used after, Redirect still works but template doesn't show at all. - DePiep ( talk) 13:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Should db-move be placed above or below the #redirect line in a redirect? If placed above, then it breaks the redirect (readers end up looking at the technical template instead of being properly redirected). If placed below, then it the template does not seem to "expand" when viewed. Does it still work? Thanks. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 05:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Currently, this is on the template:
"Please use a more specific template - {{db-person}}, {{db-animal}}, {{db-band}}, {{db-club}}, {{db-inc}} or {{db-web}} where possible."
I believe that this line should be removed for the following reasons:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Redlock ( talk • contribs)
{{
db-a7}}
, whose talk page redirects here?
Happy‑
melon
23:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Why is the template not visible on http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Member_of_parliament&redirect=no after i added it? -- Espoo ( talk) 15:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
How can i correct the template's text? It incorrectly says "template" instead of "page" twice: This template may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion because it is holding up a page move... and If this template does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion... -- Espoo ( talk) 14:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
For Template:Db-g2, is there a way for the template text "on the talk page of the author." to link to the author? that would make it much easier than using the page history to find the author's link. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 17:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello folks. Why does the db-hoax (and PROD for that matter) apply the {{ welcome}} template but none of the other speedy tags do? This gets confusing when I am manually tagging and applying the {{ welcome}} template to a users page only to have it applied twice. Can we standardize this or remove it?--v/r - T P 00:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
This following wording is nonsense:
It is probably not worth discussing why a Dab page can sort of disambiguate (between or among) several pages, but can never succeed or fail at "disambiguating" one pg, no pg, zero pages, nor "fewer than 2 pages". What's to the point is that -- unless its incoherence tripped up those who've edited it -- it must be trying to say that it's an "orphaned" disambiguation page, bcz of either
Those are plausible criteria bcz condition 1 means the Dab page is at best
"harmless", and bcz condition 2 refuses CSD only when Dab'n is still needed, or where a single-entry "Dab'n" pg should be converted to an Rdr (obviating the page's deletion).
(I would argue that CSD of harmless Dab pages does not constitute "non-controversial maintenance", in the absence of a claim that a future valid "secondary" topic is implausible; an advantage of requiring that claim is that Dab-entry counts fluctuate routinely in response to Dab maintenance and article deletions, and retention of a harmless Dab saves effort when the number of extant-page links rises back to 2. But i'm much more interested in relieving editors of the effort of decoding a brain twister when they want to be sure they're requesting a proper Dab CSD.)
--
Jerzy•
t
07:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Is showing up at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user for some reason. Beeblebrox ( talk) 07:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I have made a suggestion that an AFD check be included in the A7 templates (and perhaps more), discussion is at the CSD talk page. Posting here as it would effect the DB templates if the idea goes anywhere. Monty 845 22:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the language from "...to be deleted to merge histories, reverse a redirect, or perform other non-controversial technical tasks." to "...to be deleted to reverse a redirect or perform other non-controversial technical tasks." Reason: This template should not be used to merge histories. There are 2 specific templates for merging histories, {{
Db-copypaste}}
and {{
histmerge}}
, both listed in the documentation on {{
Db-g6}}
. --
64.85.215.156 (
talk)
15:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Please use {{
edit protected}}
instead of {{
edit semi-protected}}
for fully protected pages. I changed the template for you.
Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) (
Shout!)
16:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
...I wanted to be the first to try pressing the button! I suggest adding "includeonly" around the "link=" parameter so that a click on the button here takes you to the file description page instead. -- John of Reading ( talk) 06:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
might work better. It'd look like this:
<inputbox> type=commenttitle default=This article should not be speedy deleted because... preload=Template:Hangon preload hidden=yes page={{TALKPAGENAME}} buttonlabel=Click here to contest this speedy deletion break=no </inputbox>
Hmm, things move fast. I agree with Wikidan that the red text is indeed a bit overwhelming as it is shown on every speedy deletion now. Yoenit ( talk) 19:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
( talk) 22:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
With images turned off in my browser, the new template makes no sense at all. If Lifebaka's suggestion is not taken, the image should at least have some alt text wherever it is used. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 23:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
This new template system is excellent, but I have just two comments:
Hope this helps. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for carrying out the suggestion, Fugettaboutit. Perhaps you can also change the talk page message to:
Replace this text with your reason for contesting the speedy deletion, sign it with four tildes (~~~~), or press the 'signature' button in the edit window tool bar, and then click "save page" below.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
<!-- REPLACE ALL THIS TEXT → with your reason for contesting the speedy deletion but leave the four tildes (~'s) at the end of this text in place which will automatically format to your signature once you click "save page" below. ← REPLACE THIS TEXT --> ~~~~
The commented notes came out because people were not removing the comment out notes but only replacing the text so when they saved the page, their text would be hidden. The reason the instructions about signing came out was because a number of different users commented at the village pump discussion that the instructions were too complicated with them included; basically, that if they failed to sign, it's no bid deal for us because we can easily see who wrote the message, whereas leaving it in might present a comprehension barrier to them. However, the preload has now changed again, per the village pump dicsussion. I think it will work better now.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 11:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Why not use an editintro which contains instructions such as signing the message, etc.? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 17:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} In the red text, there is "leave a leave a" (the second one is in the edit link). — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Requesting the addition of an AfD/MfD check to the meta template. The idea has been discussed at CSD Talk and the Village Pump (proposals), and received a positive response. I have already added the code to the sandbox template {{ Db-meta/sandbox}}, you can view the result when a XfD exists by previewing that template on a page with a XfD discussion (the talk page button in the sandbox is not the most recent version, but that is unrelated to the change). The change is almost the same as the check already present in a prod, with the added language directing the viewer to check for relevance, and the addition of the MfD check.
{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}| {{error|message=This article may have been previously nominated for deletion: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}]] exists.}} Please check the deletion discussion to see if it is relevant. <br><br>}} {{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/{{FULLPAGENAME}}| {{error|message=This page may have been previously nominated for deletion: [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/{{FULLPAGENAME}}]] exists.}} Please check the deletion discussion to see if it is relevant. <br><br>}}
, which we could put right after the hangon notices.
{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}|This article may have been previously nominated for deletion: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}]] exists. Please check the deletion discussion to see if it is relevant.}}{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|This page may have been previously nominated for deletion: [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/{{FULLPAGENAME}}]] exists. Please check the deletion discussion to see if it is relevant.}}
to
<small>''[[Wikipedia:Administrators|Administrators]]: check [[Special:Whatlinkshere/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|links]], [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=history}} history] ([{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|diff=0}} last]), and [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}}} logs] before [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|wpReason={{urlencode:{{{summary|}}} {{#ifeq:{{{criterion}}}|NA||([[WP:CSD#{{uc:{{{criterion}}}}}|CSD {{uc:{{{criterion}}}}}]])}}}}&action=delete}} deletion]
might be a better solution overall. A previous XfD shouldn't matter unless it ended in something other than delete, and then it only matters to prevent speedying. So except to stop admins from deleting a tagged page, I'm not sure the notice is strictly relevant; makes sense to put it in the admin notes, then. lifebaka ++ 03:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
<small>''[[Wikipedia:Administrators|Administrators]]: check [[Special:Whatlinkshere/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|links]], [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=history}} history] ([{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|diff=0}} last]), {{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}|[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}|previous AfD]], }}{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|[[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|previous MfD]], }}and [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}}} logs] before [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|wpReason={{urlencode:{{{summary|}}} {{#ifeq:{{{criterion}}}|NA||([[WP:CSD#{{uc:{{{criterion}}}}}|CSD {{uc:{{{criterion}}}}}]])}}}}&action=delete}} deletion]
(addition in green)
{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}|<div class="infobox" style="width:100%">AfDs for this article: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}</div>}}{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]|<div class="infobox" style="width:100%">MfDs for this page: [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]</div>}}
, which would appear as something like:
I noticed that speedy deletion templates such as {{
db-web}}
now leave the red "note to authors" (below) even when no {{
hangon}}
has been placed:
Note to page author: you have not edited the article talk page yet. If you wish to contest this speedy deletion, clicking the button above will allow you to leave a talk page message explaining why you think this page should not be deleted.
This notice was originally created as part of the {hangon} template (see [1], [2]) to inform page authors that simply placing a hangon template without leaving any rationale was not sufficient to keep their page from being deleted. I'm not sure if it makes sense to have this message show up automatically all the time, regardless of whether {hangon} has been used or not (since the message doesn't make sense to someone who isn't trying to contest the speedy deletion). rʨanaɢ ( talk) 22:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been discussed somewhere else and I didn't find it. Would it be possible to remove the "Click here to contest" button from the {{db-talk}} template, which is placed on talk pages that have no corresponding article? It's not a huge issue in any way, but currently, if the template is placed on a talk page and people come along who want to contest the deletion of an already-deleted page, they are likely to just click the button on the talk page and think that they are still able to contest the deletion of the real article. The button on db-talk creates a new section on that same talk page.
The way I see it, there can't be many valid rationales to keep an orhpaned talk page, and if somebody is already on the talk page it's just as simple for them to edit the page normally to add their reasoning.
As I say, it's a minor issue but if it can be done reasonably easily I think it would be worth doing. -- bonadea contributions talk 09:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
|contest=
parameter to switch the "click here to contest" button off. I'm not sure it's necessary, but it wouldn't be at all hard.
lifebaka
++
17:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please can I put a full-stop at the end of the button which says "Click here to contest this speedy deletion"?
Rcsprinter (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can someone adjust the apostrophe in "Wikipedia’s" to "Wikipedia's", kinda silly that such high class template would not comply with WP:PUNCT itself. Xeworlebi ( talk) 18:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Please the delete this page as it is not updated and is too promotional, we are currently working on a new version, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hernaty ( talk • contribs) 06:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
There is a speedy deletion tag added to DB Realty page. Request you to review it and remove the tag as the necessary changes have been made. Thanks. 202.179.91.46 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC).
Note: I am referring to G12
I don't know if anyone else has had this, but recently I nominated an article for a speedy where it had been copied and pasted from 3 different URL's. What am I supposed to do in this case? What I did was put the three URLs all under the one URL= switch, but this rendered the Duplication Detector link useless. Should I just have used one URL? I was concerned an administrator would think it had free content on it from other sources, when really it was all copy and pasted. -- Thompson.matthew ( talk) 08:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I've just used this template for the first time, and either there's a problem with it or with the documentation. It says you can use "{{db-a5|TranswikiLocation}}" where "TranswikiLocation is a link to the page to which the article has been transwiki'd". I've just added the template to this page and set "TranswikiLocation" to "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/India_States_Reorganisation_Commission_Report_Telangana_Andhra". But the link comes up red, and even though it displays correctly the destination URL shows as "http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/India_States_Reorganisation_Commission_Report_Telangana_Andhra&action=edit&redlink=1" when you move the mouse pointer over it?? I've presumably done something wrong, but it's not at all clear what! Cheers, Andrew Gwilliam ( talk) 22:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC).
{{
edit protected}}
When tagging a talk page with {{
db-talk}}, it is unnecessary to have the "Note:The talk page has content that should be checked before deleting" message. I suggest it be removed, using something similar to ifeq: {{NAMESPACE}} | talk | (talk page has content message) | }}
--
Σ
talk
contribs
20:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
This page should not be speedy deleted because... All information posted is factual, and can be referenced via the sites at the bottom of the page
-- 81.156.0.7 ( talk) 22:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
Could someone change {{ Hangon preload}} to have (your reason here) in front of the ~~~~? The result:
This page should not be deleted because... (your reason here) ~~~~
I have seen many contested deletions where the reason goes after the tildes, and hopefully, a shining pointer to the place where the reason should go should reduce the number of such hangons. -- Σ talk contribs 21:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I get an Error: invalid time when using this one template. Currently visible at Template:ISO 15924/wp-4cols. It also shows at this overview. - DePiep ( talk) 21:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
{{db-t3|~~~~~|<duplicate template>}}
. You put the duplicate template name as the first parameter, and the template couldn't parse it as a date. I've fixed it. Cheers.
lifebaka
++
22:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Wrap includeonlys around the inputbox tag. It should prevent the contested speedies on this page. I tested it in the sandbox. Thanks, -- Σ talk contribs 05:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
movereq}}
– I need to use the #titleparts parser function in order to prevent "==Contested deletion=="s from appearing on the template's talk page. I have sandboxed it in
Template:Db-meta/sandbox and
Template:Db-meta/testcases, which shows that my code has worked. --
Σ
talk
contribs
07:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
This page should not be speedy deleted because... -- 158.230.100.102 ( talk) 14:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
This page is helpful and informative.
I believe it should be broken up by the CSD criteria. An A7 could show "This person is notable enough to be in an encyclopedia which is not Facebook because", and G11 could show "This page is not promotional because", and so on. I'm sure that some administrators don't bother reading the talk page, because most of the reasons are generic reasons that aren't reasons: "But it's all true!!!", "I work for Company XYZ and they told me to set up a page" or not a reason at all, "This page should not be speedily deleted because... Example ( talk)". Some criteria like G10, G3, and G2 don't need a new set (the first one doesn't even need a "Contest this CSD" button at all, in my opinion), and then could keep with the current one. -- Σ talk contribs 23:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
This page does not qualify for speedy deletion under CSD A7 because it asserts importance as follows... ( (your reason here)
Actually, that's a bit presumptuous because the reason might be that the topic isn't any of the qualified topics (people, animal, organizations, web content) but we can tackle the specifics if we first learn we can do this at all. Not sure why you say G10 etc. don't need a tailored pre-load, and certainly G10 needs a contest button. Most contests reasons miss the mark, but legitimate ones come up for all of the criteria. Valid contests for G10, for example, might be: "this page does not qualify for speedy deletion because while it is negative, it's also reliably sourced" / "this page does not qualify for speedy deletion because if you look in the page history you'll see a neutral version exists and the attack was a later revision that the tagger obviously did not notice" etc. Same thing with G3: this is not a blatant hoax, see SOURCE.--
Fuhghettaboutit (
talk)
00:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
Hangon preload G3}}
This page should not be speedy deleted under CSD G3 as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload G10}}
This page should not be speedy deleted under CSD G10 as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload G11}}
This page should not be speedy deleted under CSD G11 as unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload G12}}
This page should not be speedy deleted under CSD G12 as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload A1}}
This page should not be speedy deleted under CSD A1 as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload A2}}
This page should not be speedy deleted under CSD A2 as a foreign language article that exists on another Wikimedia project, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload A3}}
This page should not be speedy deleted under CSD A3 as having no substantive content, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload A7}}
This page should not be speedy deleted under CSD A7 as about a person, animal, organization or web content but which fails to assert importance of the topic, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload A9}}
This page should not be speedy deleted under CSD A9 as about a musical recording that does not indicate importance and where the artist's article does not exist, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload A10}}
This page should not be speedy deleted under CSD A10 as recently created, with no relevant page history and that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload R3}}
This redirect should not be speedy deleted under CSD R3 as an implausible typo or misnomer, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload F1}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F1 as redundant, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload F2}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F2 as corrupt or empty, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload F3}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F3 as bearing an improper license, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload F4}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F4 as lacking necessary licensing information, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload F5}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F5 as not under a free license or in the public domain that is not used in any article, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload F6}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F6 as non-free but claiming fair use and without a fair use rationale, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload F7}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F7 as having an invalid fair-use claim, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload F8}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F8 as available as an identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload F9}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F9 as obviously non-free but which is not claimed by the uploader to be fair use, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload F10}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F11 as neither image, sound, nor video file, not used in any article, and which has no foreseeable encyclopedic use, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload F11}}
This file should not be speedy deleted under CSD F11 as bearing no evidence of permission, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload C1}}
This category should not be speedy deleted under CSD C1 as unpopulated, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload T2}}
This template should not be speedy deleted under CSD T2 as an unambiguous misrepresentation of policy, because... (your reason here) ~~~~
{{
Hangon preload T3}}
This template should not be speedy deleted under CSD T3 as not usefully employed and either a substantial duplicate or hardcoded instance of another template, because... (your reason here)
Okay, searched. Some of the following DRVs are right on target, some are not quite a perfect fit, but in sum, I think you'll get the drift: there are many instances shown here where G10 was used and others later said it was not valid for various reasons; every person's opinion in these DRVs as to why G10 was not a good fit shows an instance of a possibly valid button-pushing situation: 1 ·◌· 2 ·◌· 3 ·◌· 4 ·◌· 5 ·◌· 6 ·◌· 7 ·◌· 8 ·◌· 9 ·◌· 10 ·◌· 11 ·◌· 12.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 22:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
This template says: "by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion"."; however, the speedy delete Template:Db-t3 does not have a phrase to "click here". I don't know how many more templates similar to this one are like that, but I believe they may need to be updated. -- Funandtrvl ( talk) 17:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A quick link to delete the tagged page is generated by db-meta:
[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|wpReason={{urlencode:{{{summary|}}} {{#ifeq:{{{criterion}}}|NA||([[WP:CSD#{{uc:{{{criterion}}}}}|CSD {{uc:{{{criterion}}}}}]])}}}}&action=delete}} deletion]
This link uses the format "Reason (
CSD G6)". But both
MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown and the hidden "delete-reason" span use the format "
G6: Reason". For consistency, could this link (located in the long para towards the end that starts with <small>...</small>
) please be changed to
[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|wpReason={{urlencode:{{#ifeq:{{{criterion}}}|NA||[[WP:CSD#{{uc:{{{criterion}}}}}|{{uc:{{{criterion}}}}}]]: }} {{{summary|}}}}}&action=delete}} deletion]
— This, that, and the other (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Have a minor modification for {{ Db-move}}. Could someone please make it where, when executing the requested move through the link on the template, "Requested move:" is prepended to the move reason in the move box? Thus instead of it saying "[whatever]" in the move box before executing the move, I'd like it be to where it says, "Requested move: [whatever]". I've had a few instances where people have challenged a requested move after it was executed, and questioned me on the autofilled reason from the nominator. Generally, if the move looks reasonable enough and seems uncontroversial, I'll do it. Adding "Requested move:" to the front of it is just a little something to clue others in to the fact that the person who executed the move may not be the best person to discuss on the substance of a move after the fact (but the admin who completed the move should always do the right thing and refer the questioner to the proper talk page to have that discussion).
Thoughts? Could someone make this happen? I realized I have no idea how to do it when I tried to do it in a sandbox and screwed my sandbox up. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 02:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Db has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Currently lines 5 and 6 read:
| because {{{1}}} |, but {{red|no reason has been given}} for why it qualifies
I think it's best to have the whole first sentence italizied, like this:
| ''because {{{1}}}'' |'', but {{red|no reason has been given}} for why it qualifies''
Thank you -- Jab7842 ( talk) 05:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi!
Could someone use class="sysop-show"
in an element containing all admin-specific messages? (For more info, see
MediaWiki_talk:Common.css#Non-inline_sysop-show).
Helder
13:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
This page was
last edited...
? →
Σ
τ
c.
08:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The {{ Db-t3}} template is written "[...]any useful fashion, and which satisfies one of the following conditions: It is a substantial duplication[...], or It is a hardcoded instance[...]" (italics added). However, the CSD criteria states "Templates that are not employed in any useful fashion, i.e., orphaned, deprecated, substantial duplications of another template, or hardcoded instances" (italics added). The current template increases the threshold for speedy deletion by stating that substantial duplication and/or being a hardcoded instance is also necessary for speedy deletion. To use a test case, an orphaned template that does not have substantial duplication to and is not a hardcoded instance of another template can be deleted speedily according to the CSD criteria. However, the same orphaned template can't be deleted speedily according to the template because it neither has substantial duplication, nor is it a hardcoded instance.
I believe the template should be rewritten thus:
This template may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a template that is not being employed in any useful fashion, and which satisfies one of the following conditions:
- It is orphaned, or
- It is deprecated, or
- It is a substantial duplication of the template {{[[Template:|]]}}, or
- It is a hardcoded instance of template {{[[Template:|]]}}, where the same functionality could be provided by that other template.
– Temporal User ( Talk) 12:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC) (Edited: 10:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC))