Template talk:Db-meta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Db-meta is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template.

Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.
Any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes, categories or interwiki links.

Contents

[edit] Older discussions

Discussions about an old very different state

[edit] Do not delete this template

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)

[edit] Why this page exists

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)

[edit] Original discussion

Moved from Template talk:Delete.

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:

User:Mike Storm/sandbox2

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)

Oddly enough, I came up with the exact same idea several days ago at Template:deletebecause. Example usages:
  • {{deletebecause|this page may qualify as patent nonsense}}
  • {{deletebecause|I no longer use this user subpage}}
The template has since been accidentally deleted unilaterally deleted for reasons unstated. I suppose the deleter thought it wasn't such a hot idea. That's okay; I have some reservations about it myself:
  1. m:Instruction creep: we don't want to create more work for anybody
  2. Some sysops may take the reason blurb at face value, not fully investigating it to make sure the deletion is valid
Still, it might be worth a trial run. • Benc • 22:08, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It won't be more work for anybody, since it'll be completely optional whether you use Template:Delete or Template:Deletebecause (I like that name). Also, I inserted the reason using {{User talk:Mike Storm/sandbox2|reason=Reason goes here.}}, and putting <nowiki>{{{reason}}} in the actual template. How did you do it without "reason="? [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 23:09, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You're right that its being optional pretty much negates the instruction creep issue. Some people are confused by having more than one option, though (<tangent>which is the only minor quibble I have with your substubs :-)</tangent>). Still, I think this is worth a try. Anyway, for unnamed parameters: use {{{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)

A good idea, (get rid of all those substubs) but e.g. template:del is a redirect. Can we shorten it to avoid typing "because"? Dunc_Harris|☺ 23:20, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like the idea, this type of idea makes me wish for m:Extended template syntax —siroχo 05:53, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Page creation

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)

[edit] Link

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 accidently, but apparently this was intentional. Seems quite counter-intuitive. anthony 警告 22:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lots of templates have that feature written in. It is a hidden link back to the template so it can be edited later. It may also be useful in case anyone does a Subst: on template on a page, because it will still show in the templates Whatlinkshere. -- Netoholic @ 02:37, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
It's not a link back to the template though, it's a link to a different template. Anyway, if there's precedent, whatever. anthony 警告 12:30, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The self-referential link was corrected on 22 Aug 05. Rossami (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] rename

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)

[edit] Transclusion

Several of the other speedy deletion tempaltes are currently implemented as a call to (transclusion of) this template, with the reason paramter filled in. IMO all the speedy deletion templates should be so implemented (with the excepotion 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 bne consistant, 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 tempalte (with the xeception of {{delete}} as mentioned above. DES (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates makes a point of saying they should be avoided on "pages that are at all popular". Speedyable pages, typically being very new and very poorly-linked, are only rarely viewed. Replication lag shouldn't be an issue either, since Category:Candidates for speedy deletion doesn't often grow past 200 articles, many of which will be tagged {{delete}} instead of one of the {{db-reason}} descendants anyway. —Cryptic (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Very well, I am easily swayed and I guess this makes more sense. Just following the standard procedure on templates within templates but since I don't really use these any more and it would be convinient ( I guess) I will undo my changes. =) Happy editing. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 20:40, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A little laugh

From a friend and myself to help relieve the wikistress. Agriculture 03:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Instead of risking reputation, you could have just done this on your userpage or Uncyclopedia. - Kookykman|(t)(c)

[edit] articles --> pages

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)

  • Done, and please whack that rules lawyer with a wet trout. Radiant_>|< 01:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tweaked template

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)

By the way, I'm glad to see a central discussion of these templates. It seems there have been too many ad-hoc changes to them by too many people. And I don't think everyone who's tried editing understands the templates and their dependencies completely, and the consequences of their code choices. Hopefully we can come up with a consistent and extenable scheme (so that any template can have sub-templates like db-band / db-club from db-bio).... and hopefully we can document it in a way that future editors who wish to make new templates or tweak the exisitng ones can do so without breaking anything. Jamie (talk/contribs) 13:14, 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)

Support for "nocat" has been added for the templates. It is optional and does not have to be specified (the empty parameter will still work). To be consistent, I suggest that we also implement it here. Shawnc 02:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Cool. I agree that "nocat" support should be added here is well, for consistency. Tread carefully, though... Jamie (talk/contribs) 02:41, 23 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)

(Ah yes, but such an evil scheme can be done even without "nocat", meh heh) :> Shawnc 03:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that 'nocat' is a very bad idea. It's only reason for existence seems to be that it makes testing the templates easier (but anybody who doesn't know who templates work has no business working with speedy deletions); and if this parameter is used improperly it will mess up the category system, by listing speedy-deletable articles in the wrong category, or nowhere at all. Radiant_>|< 18:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • User:Uncle G has expressed some worries on my talk page ("This creates the possibility of articles being tagged with a speedy deletion tag and remaining tagged indefinitely") as has User:Netoholic ("I worry that this implementation may break something unforeseen, either now or in the future."). Unless there's a very good reason for the added complexity, it should be dropped. Radiant_>|< 18:32, 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)

  • Okay, done. If necessary, people could fix Wikipedia:Template messages to link to the templates rather than including them, thus keeping it out of categories. But nobody in their right mind would speedily delete that anyway, so it's hardly that big a deal. Radiant_>|< 03:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
This not just an issue for Wikipedia:Template messages. Now all the dependant speedy deletion templates are included in CAT:CSD. To get around that without an category override would require subst'ing this template into all the dependent templates... and I emphatically don't want to see that done as it would make those templates unreadable and harder to edit. Like I said above, we really should have a centralized discussion before editing these templates, as the consequences of changing them are subtle and far-reaching.
Now how likely is it that someone will tag an article as {{nn-bio|nocat=}} by mistake? Jamie (talk/contribs) 03:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Hm, interesting. Shouldn't "includeonly" take care of that? Radiant_>|< 03:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • About shortcuts... I don't care too much about this issue, but the shortcut tag was there to document the other templates that redirect there. So in a sense, {{db}} is a shortcut to {{db-reason}}. However, I don't mind that the shortcut tag is removed not because it is incorrect, but because most people who use the template redirects do so because they have them memorized, and don't need to be reminded. Jamie (talk/contribs) 03:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Some remaining issues are:

1) The possibility of articles being tagged with a speedy deletion tag and remaining tagged indefinitely.
(The chance of this happening accidentally is decreased by requiring the use of a named parameter such as "nocat=")
2) The possibility of the category being replaced.
(This is always a possibility in the implementation so far)

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:

1) Yes, the use of a named parameter, especially an obscure one decreases the probability of this. But as someone actually posted that hack to WP:CSD, there is the possibility that someone might do it intentionally, though I can't fathom why.
Well it may be done as a cunning joke: create a horrible article, then tag it with a fake speedy-delete tag, hoping that casual editors won't notice that the categorization did not actually occur, and the article could remain on Wikipedia for a long time). Shawnc
2) Maybe I should have kept my nouth shut and not drawn attention to that side effect earlier in this discussion :)
Alas, the Pandora's Box was opened! Shawnc
3) Add the issue of the depedent templates, and "illustrative" pages like Wikipedia:Template messages being incorrectly categorized.
It was recently suggested that we should be "making MediaWiki feature requests rather than kludging" :) Shawnc
4) I would hate to see the issue resolved either by subst-ing or by not showing the template. Subst'ing decreases the editability and maintainability of the templates. Not showng the template content decreases the usability of the templates, as people expect WYSIWYG, and editors want to know what a template does before they attach it to an article.

Jamie (talk/contribs) 04:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that it's easy to keep these templates out of CAT:CSD without using the nocat trick, just by using <includeonly> appropriately. I'll go do that now ... dbenbenn | talk 04:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If that works, great. Let's see what the implmentation looks like. Jamie (talk/contribs) 04:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • But it looks to me like it also hides the template appearance from the end user. That is sub-optimal. Jamie (talk/contribs) 04:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • A new suggestion: can we use an "if" template to check the {{Namespace}} and don't categorize if we're in the Template namespace? This would allow dependent templates to be kept out of CAT:CSD without resorting to an abuseable category-override parameter. And these templates aren't usually used for deleting templates, as those usually go to TfD.
Unless it's a Wikimedia software-based "if", I suggest we don't mention that word. ;> Shawnc 05:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
You're right. But it would have been such an elegant kludge.  ;) Jamie (talk/contribs) 05:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I've been busy moving to a temporary new home over the last couple days and had no access to the Internet. Unfortunately, I ran out of time before I could finish troubleshooting the templates I had already modified. I apologize for the mess that resulted, and intend on addressing all the issues raised above.
Reading the discussion above, I agree that a named parameter is better, since it prevents accidental removal from the speedy-delete category. Intentional removal from a category is not a pressing issue; the user who placed the tag is likely to watch it for vandalism, and besides which the same could be done with previous implementations of speedy delete templates by subst'ing and editing. // Pathoschild 05:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
NOTE: These templates have alll been through five revisions this month to try to address the categorization vs. display vs. accidental non-categorization vs. maintainability issue...
  • December 9 User:Shawnc adding displayonly= to prevent miscategorization of the templates
  • December 21 Pathoschild adding un-named parameter to accompilsh the same thing, and also cleaning up templates to allow the content to appeat, un-subst'ed on the template page
  • December 21 User:Segv11 to fix error in above edit that prevented article categorization
  • December 22 User:Shawnc to standardize on "nocat=" in addiotion to the unnamed parameter
  • December 23 User:Radiant to remove the "notcat" and the un-named parameter, but as a side effect forcing the templates into CAT:CSD
  • December 23 User:Dbenbenn to prevent the templates going into CAT:CSD using <noinclude>, and as a side effect hiding the template appearance on the template page
Let's discuss proposed changes here, and try to reach consensus before doing another round of editing all the templates. That will save a lot of work. It will also allow all of us to understand what we're doing as well as the advantages, disadvantages and side-effects of each prposed implementation $mdsdh; before we foist the changes off on the rest of Wikipedia.  :) Jamie (talk/contribs) 05:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
(Wait, what? removed nonsensical own text. >_>) I propose we go with the 'nocat' parameter combined with the usual <includeonly> syntax. There should be no problem if the category tags are placed in the individual templates and not in the db-reason metatemplate. // Pathoschild 09:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll do that, then. If anyone can list some of the pages on which the templates need to be without the speedy-delete category, it would much simplify troubleshooting. // Pathoschild 19:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
To resolve the issues above, I'll move the speedy-delete category tag to the subsidiary templates. I'll also implement a 'category' parameter across all the templates to allow the optional modification of the category tag. Barring anything unexpected, the transition should be completed within an hour or two. Any changes afterwards should be much easier to implement without possible collateral damage. // Pathoschild 21:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
All the templates seem to be working as expected in my sandbox tests. I'll monitor the CSD category and correct the no-category usage on any non-CSD pages that show up. // Pathoschild 21:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
This doesn't work right, because if someone tags an article wih {{db-reason}} or {{db}}, the article does not wind up in CAT:CSD. I'm going to hold of on fixing it until we can discuss what to do about it. One possibility is to use "category=" everywhere, but that just puts us were we were a few days ago. Jamie (talk/contribs) 22:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
It really is a pity that if is considered harmul. Beucase the most elegant solution would be something like {{iff|{{Namespace}}|Template|then=[[Category:Speedy deletion templates]]|else=[[Category:Candidates for speedy deletion]]}} in {{db-reason}}, and no category tags in the dependent templates, and no hidden parameters needed. Jamie (talk/contribs) 22:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Move and Split

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)

  • I am inclined to think that this is a bad idea, and in any case should not have been put into practice without additional discussion, particualrly during the holiday season when fewer people are looking at this issue. I willnot simply revernt these changes, although i am strongly tempted to do so, but please discuss this here first. one of the benefits of the previous scheme was the assurance of db-reason and the other CSD templates having very simialr language. I am not clear what problem this mov is tring to solve -- indeed IMO the tempaltes were workign fine earlier this month before the large amount of editing. I wish this had been discussed a bit more before implemtation. DES (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The primary benefits of the recent changes are much simplified code and the ability to display them on example and template pages. (These changes, and the split, do not in any way affect the wording; indeed, the wording is now even more standardised.) A problem arose with the fact that the metatemplate added any page it was included in to the CSD category; with the templates displayed, this added all the speedy delete templates and example pages to the category. By separating the commonly used {{db-reason}} from the meta-template, it was no longer necessary to add the category tag to both the templates and the meta-template. This resolved the problem while simultaneously allowing the unprotection of db-reason.

    I had invited discussion concerning the split, but an editor added the category tag to the meta-template. This fixed the non-categorisation issue with db-reason, but added all the templates to the CSD template. Due to the holiday season, as you point out, further discussion might have required several days. Since the split solves the problem, is non-disruptive, and is easily reversible, I did not see the need for extensive discussion before at least temporarily doing it. I apologize if I appeared to be acting too unilaterally; the problem is now fixed, with all the time in the world to discuss making the move permanent or using a different solution. // Pathoschild 22:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Why exactly does this need a meta-template in the first place? Other than the recent rush, those templates are rarely modified. It would be easier to simply copy/paste the same (simple) code into each CSD template, and this would also solve the "noinclude" problem mentioned above. Radiant_>|< 10:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There's no reason not to use a metatemplate in this case. None of the reasons against the use of meta-templates apply in this case, and being forced to copy and paste every single change across thirty pages is a significant incentive never to improve the templates. // Pathoschild 14:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a reason against using meta-templates here, as demonstrated by the discussion above. These templates are supposed to not be modified (indeed, they should be vprotected). And note that significant changes can be done in the CSS class. Radiant_>|< 22:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The Wikipedia stylesheets are inaccessible to the average user, and any changes are highly bureaucratic and would need to be applied to the seven different stylesheets. Not only do the usual reasons against metatemplates not apply, it's been in use for somewhat over a year; there's no reason to change that to a clumsy copy-and-paste method now. One way to get rid of the metatemplate, if you feel that it is absolutely necessary, would be to have a single template that displays a different message depending on the parameter; such that {{sd|G1}} or {{sd|nonsense}} would display the appropriate message for that criteria.

    I fail to see what relevance the discussion above has, however. You seem to be arguing that the templates should never be changed, or at least changed only with community consensus. I fully disagree with that; few parts of Wikipedia should ever be beyond initiative. Exceptions are made for policies and so forth, but these templates are simply tools to help enforce those policies. Further, changing from a meta-template to a copy-and-paste method would not make any difference to this editability. That would simply make them much less standardised. If I misinterpret your response, feel free to clarify. // Pathoschild 02:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with these templates

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)

I've used the {{switch}} template to correct this problem. Any problems, queries or suggestions, please report them to me; as I say, it should now work. haz (user talk)e 18:17, 10 March 2006

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)

[edit] Hangon

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)

[edit] Hangon, cont'd

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:

If you intend to explain why you disagree with the speedy deletion, you may add the text "hangon" with two brace brackets into the article, following the {{db-reason}} tag.

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)

Not possible, unless the calling template adds a parameter like called-by=db-author. But why do you need this, your proposed wording is fine, simply use it, if folks don't see db-author while looking for db-reason it's a hopeless case. Admittedly {{vandalism}} doesn't match any db-whatever. -- Omniplex 00:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! And it's been {{db-vandalism}} for awhile now. Should probably remove all/any old tags.
--William Allen Simpson 14:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usage broken w/links

This template breaks when a link is used in {{{1}}}:

{{db-meta|[http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Wikipedia%22 google hits]}}
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:

{{hangon}}

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.		 
{{db-meta|1=[http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Wikipedia%22 google hits]}}
This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletiongoogle hits. 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:

{{hangon}}

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.

Weird. --Chris (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you're not supposed to call this directly, and all the callers use the form 1=, it doesn't seem to be a problem....
--William Allen Simpson 05:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I've only fixed it in Template:Db-reason (edit talk links history), no idea what all the other db-whatever do. The 1= is documented here below the example for some days now. -- Omniplex 07:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] oddness

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)

[edit] Need for stronger request for reasons

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#CAT:CSD. Dragons flight 22:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing a speedy tag

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)

[edit] Reversion

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)

I don't have any big problem with merely asking those other than the author to make some explanation, and it probably had as much do do with your edit summary on the other page as the one here. Reverting is often a "hangon" procedure in editing, saying let's go back to what was there because the change wasn't really an improvement, even if parts of it might be headed in the right direction.
One problem is the vagueness of the "that may be necessary" part. I'm not sure that your removal of "obviously" was necessary in any case, but what added in the other part suffers from the same kind of interpretation problems. The biggest problem isn't so much that it will mislead those intending to object to the speedy process; the biggest problem is that it gives reviewers something misinterpret as they latch onto it say that the tag was improperly removed, and it will still be speedied, but it really isn't worded clearly enough so that various editors will interpret it in anything remotely resembling a consistent way.
The mere fact that it is someone other than the original author making the removal is a pretty good indication that the speedy process should be foregone or at least suspended temporarily.
And it wouldn't hurt to reword it so that that "hangon" rather than removing the notice is available, even if you weren't the original author. Nor would it hurt to have that template include an optional parameter to specify whether the objection is based on not meeting the criteria for speedy deletion or on plans to add to the article so that it no longer meets those criteria.
But also, once an objection is raised, I think that should impose at least a little burden on the nominator to go forward; even if the objector hasn't made it clear what the objection is based on, then the nominator should more precisely specify what the nomination was based on. Maybe not as an necessary part of the process, and maybe not something that needs any great detail in the template, but as a suggestion that could reduce the wrangling. Gene Nygaard 13:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I think I understand your argument, Gene, but maybe I don't, because I don't see how the above amounts to my edit being a bad one. In the version before I edited it, the instructions were vague and subjective by using the word "obviously"; after I edited it, they were vague and subjective because of the phrase "that may be necessary". Why was the earlier version better?
I was just trying to distinguish two cases: someone speedy tagging United States on one hand, where the tag can simply be removed, as the article is clearly not a speedy candidate; and on the other hand, an article about Joe Q. Average, which looks like a speedy candidate, but wouldn't be if we knew about Joe's renown in the Nascar community. Anyone removing a speedy tag from the United States article doesn't need to do anything to "fix" the article vis-a-vis the CSD. Joe Average, on the other hand, should have that Nascar information added to his article, so future editors will know. That's really all I was trying to do, because the wording that's been there doesn't say anything about what to do with the Joe Average article. In your last paragraph there, you're arguing that any tag removal should impose an additional burden on the nominator, which I don't disagree with, but that's not what this particular edit was about. If you want to modify the instructions to allow for that, then be bold, but I don't understand what's wrong with saying that someone who sees that the article needs improvements should improve it! That seems like an independent issue.
Regarding: "it probably had as much do do with your edit summary on the other page as the one here," what are you talking about? Which other page? Which edit summary?
I understand that "may be necessary" requires interpretation, but ultimately, we have to assume that well meaning editors who disagree with each other will talk with one another and work this out. We don't need a piece of red tape to cover every conceivable situation; but it's a good idea to phrase our instructions to provide a procedure, but then leave huge holes in it.
I remain confused why you reverted me. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] db-author

{{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)

I've gone ahead and added the "self" parameter as discussed at Template talk:Db-author#Poor_wording; using this template like so:

{{db-meta|Deletion tag text|self=yes}}

will cause the text at the bottom to be trimmed down. Currently this means it will say simply, "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please remove this notice." I have also made the corresponding changes to the templates also mentioned at the talk page linked above that should undoubtedly have this different wording. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! :-) Ruakh 13:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] last line edits

I'd like to change:

Administrators, remember to check what links here, the page history (last edit), the page log, and any revisions of CSD before deletion.

to

Administrators, please remember to check what links here, the page history (last edit), the page log, the talk page, and any revisions of the speedy deletion criteria before deletion.

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)

[edit] My bad

I edited the wrong window's wiki. I'm sorry about that. --AOL Alex 01:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem :-) —Mets501 (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor wording tweak

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)

[edit] Why does it say this?

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)

[edit] Change wording

{{editprotected}}

I'm concerned about this particular line in the template:

"and then explain why you believe the article should not be deleted on its talk page."

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)

Then perhaps change "article" to {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}||article|{{lc:{{NAMESPACE}}}} page}}? This sounds good to me. GracenotesT § 02:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Done, also changed the "the" to a "this". Neil (not Proto ►) 12:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please remove the reasonlink stuff

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)

  • I second that. Sadly, there's not a magic word to convert "t h is" into "t_h_is", otherwise we'd be fine. GracenotesT § 06:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, I just found one. {{urlencode:whatever}}. So could an admin add that instead? -Amarkov moo! 17:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Oops, I just checked the formatting section, not the URL section. That sounds fine with me. GracenotesT § 18:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Wait, wouldn't {{anchorencode:stuff}} be better? GracenotesT § 18:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Nevermind, after testing it, the magic word that Amarkov suggested was correct. GracenotesT § 19:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
        • That's good. Now why won't an admin come and do it? >.< -Amarkov moo! 23:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Where should it go? -- Avi 05:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, it seems done already. -- Avi 05:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thankfully, Picaroon was able to help me make the edit (with his uber-admin powers) over IRC. In the process I totally obliterated the need for the "reasonlink" parameter, which is still passed along from all of the templates with preset messages. (The parameter {{{reasonlink}}} was replaced with {{{1|}}}{{{reason|}}}, which is wrapped in urlencode. So that's one deprecated parameter, but who will miss it? GracenotesT § 19:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hangon and talk pages

{{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?

Just one editprotected tag, beside your request, is plenty. The only circumstance I can think of where this might happen is if the article was already deleted and the talk page was not. Is that what you were thinking of?
It seems to me that the name of this template is not very descriptive about how to use it, so I would like to add a usage section here. Is there a table somewhere that tells what all these speedy deletion templates are for? CMummert · talk 13:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
It isn't meant to be used, particularly. It's part of the magic that makes all the other speedy templates. Splash - tk 21:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I am not sure that the need to speedy delete a talk page is large enough to need an explanation on all the other db-* templates. The need to speedy delete talk pages for nonexistent articles can't be that large, right? CMummert · talk 03:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

N 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 (UTC)

This seems worth fixing, particularly in the context of {{db-talk}}. The current instructions produce an error, and sends people looking for help. Is it possible to have {{db-meta}} show {{hangon|tp=1}} when the {{db}} template in question is used on a talk page? This would solve all occurances of this problem. ∴ here…♠ 00:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Resolved. Thanks to MZMcBride's mods to {{hangon}} allowing usage on talk pages without warnings or parameters, diff. ∴ here…♠ 07:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding "Hangon"

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? GoodnightmushTalk 19:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Or add "without removing the existing template". Or make it a parameter. Anything to make it as clear as possible that the speedy deletion tag is to stay in place. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Well I'd do it, but I can't edit fully protected pages...yet. GoodnightmushTalk 02:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Db-userreq

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)

After the Sev Snape incident, I decided that the rationale for {{db-pagemove}} is obvious - assuming this is the correct template to use. Od Mishehu 15:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Request

{{editprotected}}
Please replace the following line:

|[[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|its talk page]]

with

|[[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|User|the users talk page|its talk page}}]]

This makes it clearer when speedying user pages. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Done - Nihiltres(t.l) 20:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editprotected request

{{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)

I've speedy closed the nom as invalid: all those templates transclude this one as a general template, so this one cannot be deleted. —METS501 (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] format change

{{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)

No one disputed the change, which was explicitly mentioned at least one section. Seems like the definition of (wiki-)consensus to me. We could always do some revert-discuss, though. :) GracenotesT § 13:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that the only way you're going to have Template standardisation is by standardising templates. : - ) --MZMcBride 15:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I've disabled the editprotected request while discussion continues. --MZMcBride 16:24, 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)

Y Done by User:Y. FunPika 15:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colour

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)

The background color should not be white, it should be a light blueish tint. If it is white, you need to bypass your cache. Regarding a color change, you'll have to take it up on Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting a bit annoyed at this point, considering having been apart of the TS discussion. The change to this template wasn't sufficiently discussed, and it should be undone and then discussed. The template needs to stand out more, and is not in the same group as most other kinds of templates, like AfD or citations. -- Ned Scott 23:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Ryan above, fades in the background on non-article pages. — xaosflux Talk 03:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Template standardization#Speedy templates, it looks like they're on it. -- Ned Scott 05:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{{bgcolor}}}

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:

  1. In any case, something needs to be done to {{db-histmerge}}; either the bgcolor parameter should be removed, or it should be changed to match the default {{ambox}} background.
  2. Second, the background color of speedy deletion templates should be specified in Common.css. I'd suggest creating a new "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.
  3. Third, and I suspect this will be the controversial part, I'd suggest getting rid of the {{{bgcolor}}} parameter entirely. The alternative would be to retain it as an optional override. I just don't see any particular need for it that would justify the added complexity.

—Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Pushing more and more of this in to the css makes it harder for it to be updated in the future, why make an entire class that will be effectively used by just this one template? — xaosflux Talk 22:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not just one template: there are dozens of speedy deletion templates that use this metatemplate, plus a couple that don't. In fact, having an ambox type for the "speedy" color scheme might encourage people to change more of the less typical speedy templates to use ambox directly rather than via this template, which might not be a bad thing at all. (Just consider how much more cluttered User:ProtectionBot/Delete would look if it was built on db-meta.) Also, a CSS class would allow people to customize the background color via their user CSS. (Who knows, maybe some speedy patrollers hate pink...) Anyway, there seems to be some related discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes#Alerts to external discussions; it might be better to wait and see what comes out of that first. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:36, 17 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)

I've now proposed a complete redesign of {{db-histmerge}} that doesn't use {{db-meta}}, neatly sidestepping the issue. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
An important thing to remember about these templates is that they are Project Specific, not simply Article Messages, anything with a pale blue background is going to fade in to the background on all non-article pages. — xaosflux Talk 03:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I suppose the histmerge tag does mostly get used on articles, though it probably sees some use elsewhere as well. In any case, the big difference between history merge and ordinary speedy deletion notices is that the former aren't supposed to jump up and scream at your face (since, if all goes well, nothing serious is actually going to happen to the article). That's why I felt it would be best to redesign it not to look like an ordinary speedy tag at all. But we're going rather off on a tangent here... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for my indefinite article, by these I meant speedy-templates as a whole, not just history merge ones. — xaosflux Talk 00:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, sorry, then I really don't understand what you're saying. :/ Could you at least try to clarify which of the three numbered suggestions I made above you support and/or oppose? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:18, 18 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)

[edit] font-size: 92%

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:

This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: font-size: 92%;
This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: font-size: 95%;
This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: font-size: 100%;

(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)

It looks ok on Firefox for Mac, but it looks really ugly in Firefox for WinXP. I'll provide a screenshot when I get back home. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 15:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a guess, but have you enabled font smoothing on your XP box? Unlike IE, Firefox on Windows won't smooth fonts unless this is enabled by default in the control panel. (I might be wrong, I'm just guessing since this is a common source of "some fonts look ugly on Firefox/Win" problems.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. Here's the screenshot. 92% and 95% look identical to me. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing the upper box is 100% and the lower 92%? That's interesting, since I don't see much difference between the two font sizes in your screenshot, and if anything, the bold-italic text in the upper (100%) box feels a little bit more readable to me. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:58, 20 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)

[edit] Authors blanking pages

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)

[edit] Please adjust the logic for self=yes

Resolved.

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)

That's not necessarily true. In any speedy deletion, it's wise to take a moment and look around, even for a user page. -- Ned Scott 02:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
How is that wise? Even in the rare worst case that a user absentmindedly writes that request on the wrong page, it still can be restored quickly. By checking each of the items for each request, we're spending hours in order to save minutes. That doesn't seem wise to me. — Sebastian 03:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Since nobody gave any reason for this to remain, I reworded it for the self=yes case to "Administrators: check history (last) before deletion (See also links and logs).". I kept the links and logs since some people may want to check them. My point was merely that we shouldn't command people to check them; that would be instruction creep. — Sebastian 04:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)    (I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and let me know.)
You have to check the history with every deletion request. This helps guard against someone moving articles (or user talk pages) to their userspace and have them deleted. Nobody WP:OWNs pages in their own userspace anyway. I have reverted your edit. Kusma (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link to WP:FIRST

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)

You've had no further feedback on it, here or there. It may be time for WP:BRD. Would you like me to go ahead with it? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please! I was just about to ask you if you would!  :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to update db-meta

A modification to this template is being discussed here. Thank you, --Coppertwig (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] km

Add km:Template:Db-meta to the bottom. --123Pie (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong parameter on user message

{{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.

...

[edit] reword

{{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)

N Not done The CSD templates have literally only just been completely overhauled, during which exhaustive discussion settled on this formatting as the most flexible and useful system. There is in fact absolutely no "problem". The wordings were selected on their own merits, and technical methods were used to ensure that they could be implemented on the templates. We have examples of a variety of junctions in the db- series, including "deletion as an article..." ({{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)
Oh, I see. Damn, you are right, I have been a fool, I should have noticed that I could do this with a simple fix, and I didn't investigate the matter enough before proposing the change, or I would have found this. I'll take your exhaustive advice into account when I see problems into other templates. (note: I wasn't aware of that overhauling). --Enric Naval (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Fixed Db-g6, same wording as db-reason. I noticed I was a bigger fool that I thought, because most "db-" templates don't have a "reason=" parameter, so they didn't need my proposed fix. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Not to worry - we all jump to conclusions at times, and go for the first apparent solution rather than trying to find a more elegant one. You haven't been blocked for it :D! This is at least partly what permanent protection for templates is for - to force people to think twice before committing a change which might be suboptimal. Happy‑melon 16:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
(Looking at the linked discussion, I noticed that a similar change was summarily shot down on db-meta/new a month ago). The permanent protection is really good for this sort of stuff. Don't worry, melon, I'm sure that I'll find some spectacular way to get myself blocked for something worse than making a good faith change to a template that breaks lots of stuff :D --Enric Naval (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
"Summarily shot down"?! I guess I have further to go than I thought in learning to be diplomatic! (Note smiley-->) :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 15:08, 6 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)

Y Done Happy‑melon 15:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prefilled wpReason

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)

IIRC, standardising these was on our (long) list of things to do after overhauling the CSD templates a few months ago. Very few of the items on the list ever got done :S. I do agree that they should be standardised, but I can't decide which style is better. Thoughts? Happy‑melon 20:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I would simply make all the reasons in db-... templates (summary parameter) the same as the reasons in MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown, because they've been discussed a lot more, and they are used much more often anyway. —AlexSm 20:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The choice of reasons offered by the drop-down menu is somewhat limited (necessarily, since the menu is already long enough as it is) compared to the full selection of db-* templates, though. But yes, for those templates that exactly match an entry in the menu, the wording should be identical, and the rest should at least have a similar style. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)