Template talk:Db-notice

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Template:Db-notice is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, the talk pages of all speedy deletion ("db-name-notice") and post-deletion ("db-name-deleted") notice templates redirect here. Please specify which one(s) you're referring to in any thread you start.

Template-protected edit request on 4 August 2025

This edit request to Template:Db-notice-multiple has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add support for the new G15 criterion. I tried using this template with G15 and it does not work. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've added just enough code for it to work as a minimum-viable product. The template should support G15. If we want to make it fancier and have a blurb like the wizard box to show up, we should have further discussion here. Sohom (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I updated the documentation to reflect this. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally param's template text needs a comma

Please change

{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#ifeq: {{{additionally|}}}|||Additionally {{{additionally}}}}}<noinclude>

to

{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#ifeq: {{{additionally|}}}|||Additionally, {{{additionally}}}}}<noinclude>

I did not like how I had to put an en dash in Template:Db-llm-deleted, otherwise it would have been "Additionally if you would like", which lacks a comma. The missing-comma use is seen in Template:Db-a10-notice and elsewhere. —Alalch E. 14:51, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of draftify related template phrasing

The following discussion might be of interest to you:

Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Incubation and the draftify-related standardized language.

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove wikilink from heading

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Replace with {{Db-notice/sandbox}} to remove link from heading per MOS:HEAD:

For technical reasons, section headings should [...] [n]ot contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked. [...] These technical restrictions are necessary to avoid technical complications and are not subject to override by local consensus.

The CSD page is still linked in every message, for example {{Db-nonsense-notice}}, so this isn't removing the link. FaviFake (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. That guideline is widely ignored outside of article space (that MOS page says that it applies to articles) and links in headers do not appear to cause any harm (unlike templates). It is possible that something has changed that makes those technical restrictions no longer applicable. I recommend opening a discussion at the relevant MOS talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95 One harm I can think of is mobile users being unable to expand a section because if they try, they get sent to the link. (Also, the link is redundant, as I said) I've posed a {{please see}} at MOS:MOS FaviFake (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simplification effort

I've started a rewording effort at {{db-llm-notice/sandbox}} to trim superfluous parts of the template and make the core message more readable. While having specific criteria is essential for admins to know when (or when not) to delete, these same specifics can be too much for a newcomer-oriented warning and might bury the important aspects (why the page is being tagged for deletion, how to contest it, where to ask for help). I'm thinking that this could also be adapted to other {{db-notice}}-derived templates (and possibly even the core template's wording), as many of them are extremely wordy and not newcomer-friendly at all. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:47, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]