Jump to content

Template talk:Db-meta

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Template talk:Db-a11)

Template-protected edit request on 27 February 2025

[edit]

add "unless you created this page yourself" after "please remove this notice...". Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: if I read this correctly, you want to deny the page creator the right to remove the speedy deletion notice; however, template {{Db-disambig-notice}}, which is placed on the creator's talk page, explicitly states, "If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by [[:{{{1}}}|visiting the page]] and removing the speedy deletion tag." P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but it's against the rules to remove a speedy deletion tag from pages you created yourself. Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a little ditty from the policy: "The creator of a page may remove a speedy deletion tag only if the criterion in question is G6, G7, G8, G13, G14, C1, C4, T5, or U1." As we can see, G14 is included among the criteria that allow the creator to remove the notice. G14 was added to the other criteria in October, 2020. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 21:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But a page I created several months ago was deleted under G14 and the message said NOT to remove the tag myself Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that happened to you. Perhaps an incorrect notice was used? Can you show me in the history of your talk page when you were notified? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 22:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went to your talk page and found at least three instances where editors used a custom message that may have been against policy. If it were me, I'd ask the editors who left those messages why I was told that I couldn't remove the speedy deletion tag when policy allows me to do so, and I would be sure to cite the policy I linked above, WP:CSD. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 23:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, editor CyberTheTiger, I want to thank you very much for your creative improvements to this reference work, to Wikipedia – you've helped out a great deal! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 7 May 2025

[edit]

For Template:Db-a7:

Description of suggested change:

Diff:

−
|summary=Article about {{{1|[[WP:CSD#A7|an eligible subject]]}}}, which does not [[WP:CCS|credibly indicate the importance or significance]] of the subject
+
|summary=Article about {{{1|[[WP:CSD#A7|an eligible subject]]}}} which does not [[WP:CCS|credibly indicate the importance or significance]] of the subject

Per Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion#A7 wording. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per that discussion, it should also be "that", not "which", right? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 08:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on that. While some Americans seem to insist that that must be used for defining relative clauses, that is not supported by any of the established English grammars I have consulted, and in British English is considered more informal. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Completed. I also have no opinion on "which" to use. I have seen that these can sometimes be interchangeable as long as "which" is always preceded by a comma and "that" is not. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request for db-c1 on 20 May 2025

[edit]

Description of suggested change: Double-bolding (bolding text inside already bolded content, resulting in 900 weight text) is discouraged, and replacing it with another emphasis marker (such as italics) will help with readability.

Diff:

−
This category may be deleted <em style="font-style:normal;text-decoration:underline;">if it has remained empty for at least seven days</em>, specifically on or after '''{{#time:H:i, j F Y (T)|{{{date|{{{1|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}}}}} +7 days}}'''
+
This category may be deleted <em style="font-style:normal;text-decoration:underline;">if it has remained empty for at least seven days</em>, specifically on or after ''{{#time:H:i, j F Y (T)|{{{date|{{{1|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}}}}} +7 days}}''

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Primefac (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Getting rid of db-move

[edit]

I've had to clean up far, far too many cases of an admin deleting a page to make way for a move and then that move not being done when they appeared at WP:Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions#G6. I think it's time we abandon {{db-move}} entirely and direct all moves that need technical assistance to WP:RMTR instead. {{db-afc-move}} is a necessary evil since random CSD admins or RMTR responders can't be expected to also be AfC reviewers, but here there's no excuse for keeping the sloppy, trap-laden process. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Deletions that are required solely to enable a move should never be done independently of the move -if the page to be deleted is actively problematic in some way other than the move then it will either meet a different speedy deletion criterion or it needs dealing with independently of the move. RMTR handles things appropriately and doesn't leave things broken if a move request turns out to be controversial. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's just me, but won't people just use {{db-g6}} directly? {{db-move}} simply customises the rationale to be specific, so removing the template won't necessarily remove the underlying "issue" here. Education might be the better route here, or making the "perform this move" link more obvious, because there is little-to-no reason for an admin not to do the move themselves, other than being lazy and/or just d-batching the category because, well, they're being lazy. But returning to the original issue, I don't think just deleting db-move is going to fix things. Primefac (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Off the top of my head, one way to resolve those issues might be to move "deletions to make way for a move out" of G6 and into a new criterion (G15) that carried explicit requirements to carry out the move at the same time? G6 is an overly complex mishmash of only loosely related things that is one of (maybe the?) most misunderstood and misused criteria, so splitting things out is generally a good thing imo. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can't argue with that; it's definitely one of the more "popular" G6 reasons that I see. Primefac (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also agree. Everything that is currently a clear, delimited use of G6 (especially to the point of using a separate template) should be made explicit as a separate criterion (probably G15 or G16). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like {{db-move}} because it has the nice "link to perform this move" that does what we need in most times (and I typically use that link to do the deletion together with the move instead of doing them separately). Perhaps we just need to rewrite the template and make it not look like the other {{db-meta}} derived CSD templates? We need to emphasise the move over the deletion. —Kusma (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update db-gs for South Asia EC-restricted topics

[edit]

While Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia isn't EC-restricted as a whole, two subtopics (Indian military history, and social groups including castes) are, and they should be added to {{db-gs}} (which currently doesn't recognize them as valid codes). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done by HouseBlaster. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Small detail, Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia still uses "GSCASTE" as the code for South Asian social groups, would it be useful to have it work as an alternate code? That would mostly be for people adding the templates manually, as the Twinkle update will use the "SASG" code. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 3 August 2025

[edit]

Description of suggested change:

  1. Change "fair use" to "non-free use" in the first sentence of Template:db-f9; the link to WP:NFC is fine, but "fair use" and "non-free content use" aren't one and the same per WP:NFC#Background, and it's the latter that matters when it comes to WP:NFCCP.
  2. Do the same as 1 above for the "has no credible claim of fair use" in Template:db-imgcopyvio-notice, the notification template that corresponds to "db-f9"; the wording of the two templates should the same to avoid any confusion.
  3. Add a link to Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for "credible claim of permission" in template "db-f9". The way "permission" is used in the context of WP:COPY is a bit more specific than perhaps the way many use it daily, and it might be a good idea make this clearer to the users/readers of this template. There is, after all, a link to Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission in Template:db-imgcopyvio-notice.

Diff 1:

−
which does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia, and the uploader does not assert [[:Wikipedia:Non-free content|fair use]] or make a credible claim of permission.
+
which does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia, and the uploader does not assert [[:Wikipedia:Non-free content|non-free use]] or make a credible claim of permission.

Diff 2:

−
and has no credible claim of [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|fair use]] or permission.
+
and has no credible claim of [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|non-free use]] or permission.

Diff 3:

−
or make a credible claim of permission.
+
or make a credible claim of [[:Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission|permission]].

-- Marchjuly (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done 1 and 3. Template:db-imgcopyvio-notice isn't protected so you can edit it yourself. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Pppery. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 13 August 2025

[edit]

On the {{Db-g4}} and {{Db-xfd}} templates (only these two have this problem), the discussion link should include the "a". So instead of the link just being "a deletion discussion", it should be changed to "a deletion discussion". This is already the stardard for templates linking to a discussion.

This helps the reader understand they're not just being sent to some article about deletion discussions, but the specific discussion for the article in question. FaviFake (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The link is to Wikipedia:Deletion discussions which makes sense to link as "deletion discussion" without the a. Primefac (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I was confused then. Thank you. Maybe there's a better way to make it clear, but I have no ideas in mind. FaviFake (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Modify Db-meta template to hide "Contest this speedy deletion" button to non-extended-confirmed users on pages with ARBECR restriction.

[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#User Intarface encourages actions that are against rules and can have unintended consquences for new users, the {{Db-meta}} template will sometimes encourage non-extended-confirmed users to start topics on talk pages where they technically able to but are prohibited from doing so by a WP:ARBECR restriction. I have modified the sandbox version at Special:Diff/1304550237/1313339641 to check the talk page for the Wikipedia pages subject to the extended confirmed restriction category and, if it is present, hide the "Contest this speedy deletion" button and related instructions from non-extended-confirmed users. Any objections to including it in the main template? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ARBECR allows non-EC editors to make edit requests. Contesting a speedy deletion is essentially an edit request to remove the deletion tag. I do not see why this would need changing. Primefac (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac Interesting, and I suppose it makes sense since you are essentially requesting an edit to remove the speedy-delete tag, but that wasn't how people interpreted it at VPT. Are you saying this on behalf of ArbCom? If so, should this be clarified somewhere in the templates or documentation? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not necessarily know if ArbCom is aware of this thread or the VPT, I am just replying based on the language and meaning behind the restriction (i.e. I am not wearing any hats). Primefac (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I commented earlier about this, but Primefac raised an angle I didn't consider and they flagged it for the clerks. I don't have an Official Position (and this is certainly not a "For ArbCom, HB" message). I'm of two minds for this request. One is that it is not exactly an edit request and the spirit of WP:BMB applies, and do we really think that a non-XC contester is going to be successful? But maybe we take this idea and run with it, and say that all non-XC editors should only use the contest button (currently non-XC editors other than the initial creator are instructed to remove the tag). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseBlaster and Primefac: Thanks, I submitted a clarification request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:33, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 15 October 2025

[edit]

Please implement my changes in the sandbox, which adds a convenience link to the appropriate page to log the deletion after it is carried out. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 19:11, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please demonstrate the difference on the testcases page, or on a sandbox page if substing is required? Here's the live/sandbox diff for other template editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just created Template:Db-gs/testcases. The changes are invisible by default (as the parameter generates text with the CSS class sysop-show), but it can still be checked by locally editing the CSS to remove display: none;. Also noting that page sanctions for PIA are logged on a separate page. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:49, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Awesome Aasim, was there a specific reason to make the logging link not work (with the <noinclude> tags) if no code was provided? I presume it makes sense (as there isn't a default page where they can be logged – AE doesn't work for community GS), but the visibly broken link is something that could be fixed if you want to keep working on this template. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - there isn't. That is kind of the problem.
I was thinking maybe the link should be to WP:AELOG but not all of these G5 deletions fall under arbitration restrictions (some are under community restrictions). I do wish there was a central contentious topic log (that would solve this issue) but there isn't. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 17:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I've made it so that the link doesn't display at all when no code is given, as the broken [[|here]] link could be confusing otherwise. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:52, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 18 October 2025

[edit]

Please incorporate this change (also stated below) from the sandbox, which will only add a period to the {{{1}}} or {{{2}}} parameter if it isn't terminated (e.g., ends with a period, question mark, exclamation mark). Adding punctuation unconditionally to user-provided strings is silly, and just leads to people ending CSD reason parameters with ".." because they didn't memorize which templates add punctuation in which cases.

(Also yes technically this will make the period for {{{2}}} italic when it wasn't before, but I think we'll survive.)

Perryprog (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Perryprog, this sounds like a great change on principle, and I don't see any downsides to it. Most templates derived from db-meta don't have free-form text parameters, but some like {{db-g15}} do have them, and it will be useful in these cases. I'll test this on Template:db-g15/testcases to see if it gives us expected behavior, as the main template output at Template:db-meta/testcases appears unchanged. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:58, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:05, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! And yeah, G15 was precisely the one I got affected by. I remember a while ago UAA reports (presumably via Twinkle) had the same issue which drove me nuts, so when I noticed it here I wanted to make sure that no one else would fall into the same trap. Perryprog (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Db-meta&oldid=1317694343"