Template talk:Db-meta
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Db-meta template. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
![]() | Template:Db-meta 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 centralise discussions and keep related topics together, all speedy deletion template talk pages redirect here. If you are here to discuss one of the db-* (delete because) templates, please be sure to identify which one. For discussions on each individual template prior to July 2008, see the histories of each talk page. For discussions about the template for criterion G1 from March 2004, see Template talk:Db-g1/Archive 1. |
![]() | This talk page is for discussion about the CSD templates themselves (technical questions, maintenance, etc.) Discussions about any CSD criteria (adding, removing, amending, etc.), should take place at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, instead. |
Days parameter in db-c1
[edit]Apparently, {{db-c1}} has a |days=
parameter. It is only used in one place: if it has remained empty for at least {{{days|seven}}} days
(nowiki added). It does not change the behavior of the template, and there is nothing in WP:C1 that permits deleting an empty category after fewer than seven days. The only possible use I can think of would be to delete an empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past
, but in that case an editor should use {{db-g6}} (if it has not be automatically tagged). I think it should be removed. Thoughts? HouseBlastertalk 19:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Adminbox Suggestion
[edit]I noticed that this template has a section with tools for administrators, which has the sysop-show class applied. However, it seems like this would be useful for non-administrators who are reviewing CSDs that should be taken to XfD instead. Perhaps it would be better to set this to display for logged in users? I understand that there's CSS code that editors can put to get around this, but not everyone knows about that. Sagflaps (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 12 February 2024
[edit]![]() | This edit request to Template:Db-c1 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please sync with Template:Db-c1/sandbox, which removes support for |days=
(see discussion above). It also reflects the fact that interwikis should be at Wikidata. Thanks! HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 06:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Edit request 18 February 2024
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Description of suggested change: I believe we should remove the ellipsis from {{Hangon preload generic}} because if someone does follow the instructions directly and replaces (your reason here)
with their reason, they'll be left with something like This page should not be speedily deleted because... the page is notable.
I have seen this unnecessary ellipsis make it into editors' messages more than once, and I don't think the ellipsis currently adds any clarity.
Diff:
− | This page should not be speedily deleted because | + | This page should not be speedily deleted because (your reason here) --~~~~ |
popodameron talk 21:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Edit request
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change db-g7 to the following:
− | If this project page does not meet the criteria for speedy | + | If this project page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion and you are an administrator, please remove this notice. |
Reason: lots of non-admins following this and removing CSD templates. Feel free to make this change on all templates that have this issue. Thanks --- thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/ $ 19:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Not done: G7 can be declined by anyone, as it is "user requested". There is no mandate for an administrator to be the only one that can decline this nomination type. Primefac (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Add clickable icon
[edit]Over at Commons, speedy-deletion tags have a nice large clickable icon of a rubbish bin, which when clicked, sends you directly to the deletion tab for the page, with the rationale prefilled. It's comparable to what you get when you click "deletion" in the phrase Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion. However, it's much larger and easier to click, and for people using touchscreens, I suppose it's much easier to select without accidentally selecting some other link.
Could such a clickable icon be added to this template, too? I don't see a downside.
While I was a Commons admin (lost my rights there and here, due to inactivity), I performed virtually all speedy deletions by clicking this button, and it was a reason that I did more speedy deletions there than here. Now that I've regained rights here, I'm finding speedy deletions more awkward than over there, since I have to click a little in-text link instead of getting a big icon, and (unlike when clicking the "delete" tab), I know for certain that I'll be given a prefilled rationale. Nyttend (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- I rely on Twinkle to do this for me but agree there's no reason it couldn't be built into the template itself. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- I will also note for the record that the
More > Delete
option also pre-fills if there is a CSD tag on the page. Additionally, CSDHelper also exists. If folks really want to add a button, I'm not strictly opposed, but we do have a ton of two-click options already available... do we really need a one-click option? (as a minor point, as I wrote out that last sentence it occurred to me that one-click deletion might cause more accidental deletions, similar to how people constantly are accidentally rolling folks back) Primefac (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- I will also note for the record that the
- I can see two potential issues:
- will making the link to deletion more prominent encourage admins to delete without taking the time to verify that the rationale is actually correct?
- Are there any accessibility issues?
- The second should be easy to answer, but I don't know about the first. We already have a lot more bad speedy deletions than we should have (I think it's Pppery who keeps track of these more than anyone else) so we want to incentivise proper reviews rather than ease of deletion, but I don't know whether making the deletion tab easier to reach will make any difference. Off-hand I can't think of any easy way to get an answer to that question. Thryduulf (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think those of us who are going to be lazy admins are going to be lazy admins no matter whether they have to click a button, a "before deleting" link, or even there being no link in the template at all and instead manually having to select "more -> delete" (which is what I do when processing speedy deletions). On the other hand I'm not convinced of the value because in the vast majority of cases (but admittedly not all) the amount of time it takes to determine whether the page is speedy deletable greatly exceeds that required to physically carry out the deletion. So, I have no opinion on this. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Accessibility — I don't think this matters. If you can't see the icon, you'll continue performing deletions as you've always done; I'm asking for an extra way to delete, without removing anything that's currently there. Nyttend (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think those of us who are going to be lazy admins are going to be lazy admins no matter whether they have to click a button, a "before deleting" link, or even there being no link in the template at all and instead manually having to select "more -> delete" (which is what I do when processing speedy deletions). On the other hand I'm not convinced of the value because in the vast majority of cases (but admittedly not all) the amount of time it takes to determine whether the page is speedy deletable greatly exceeds that required to physically carry out the deletion. So, I have no opinion on this. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- The main issue I see (and the main difference to Commons) is that you can't possibly decide whether to delete a page without looking at the history. (There are a few exceptions like WP:CSD#C1). This is easier on Commons where at least the file history is visible without clicking an extra link. So the "delete" button should not be any easier to access than "history". (Personally, I wish there was a way to delete a page from the history that still pre-fills the rationale). —Kusma (talk) 07:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't done much deletion since regaining admin rights, but if I remember rightly from previous years, there are some situations where clicking the "delete" link in the template gives a better rationale than clicking the "delete" tab at the top of the page, even when you're on the page itself and not somewhere else, like "history". (I clearly remember consistently using the "delete" link, to the exclusion of the "delete" tab, and I can't imagine why I'd do this if both work equally well.) Does this sound right, or do you think I'm imagining something? Nyttend (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the "delete" tab takes you to the vanilla Special:Delete page with only the page name filled in. All (or possibly most) of the speedy deletion templates include a link that includes a preconstructed deletion rationale passed through the
wpReason=
parameter of the URL query string. It should be possible to make the icon's link do exactly the same thing. On the matter of making an icon clickable, we would need to choose an icon that is copyright-free, ot has a license that does not require attribution. This is because images having licenses that require attribution (such as CC BY) must allow you to reach the file description page so that the license and creator's details may be examined. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the "delete" tab takes you to the vanilla Special:Delete page with only the page name filled in. All (or possibly most) of the speedy deletion templates include a link that includes a preconstructed deletion rationale passed through the
- I haven't done much deletion since regaining admin rights, but if I remember rightly from previous years, there are some situations where clicking the "delete" link in the template gives a better rationale than clicking the "delete" tab at the top of the page, even when you're on the page itself and not somewhere else, like "history". (I clearly remember consistently using the "delete" link, to the exclusion of the "delete" tab, and I can't imagine why I'd do this if both work equally well.) Does this sound right, or do you think I'm imagining something? Nyttend (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Db-g7 edit request 4 May 2024
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Description of suggested change:
Just a splash of MOS:ANDOR to brighten everyone's day.
Diff:
− | the author of the only substantial content has requested deletion | + | the author of the only substantial content has requested deletion or blanked the page |
Remsense诉 10:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Done Nardog (talk) 10:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Edit request 20 July 2024
[edit]![]() | This edit request to Template:db-imagepage has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Description of suggested change:
Add |self=yes
to {{db-imagepage}} since the creator of a page is allowed to remove WP:G8 CSD tags.
Diff:
− | |1= as a [[Help:File page|file description page]] with no corresponding file
|summary=[[Help:File page|File description page]] with no corresponding file | + | |1= as a [[Help:File page|file description page]] with no corresponding file
|summary=[[Help:File page|File description page]] with no corresponding file
|self=yes |
--Nickps (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 16:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Remove |self=yes
from all tags that can't be removed by the page's creator
[edit]![]() | This edit request to TM:db-r2, TM:db-f5 and TM:db-u2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
WP:R2, WP:F5 and WP:U2 are criteria that the author cannot contest by removing the tag. Despite this, |self=yes
is set in {{db-r2}}, {{db-f5}} and {{db-u2}}, so no "Contest this speedy deletion" button appears. This is a problem because if the author of such a page wants to contest such a deletion, the template tells them "If this [redirect/file/user (talk) page] does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please remove this notice." but they actually can't do that. What they have to do instead is go to the talk page but there is no indication for that. Nickps (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Alternatively, the templates could somehow indicate that the author cannot remove the tag and direct them to the talk page without providing a button. This is what {{subst:db-rediruser-notice}} does (after I removed a reference to the non-existent Contest button). In my opinion, this approach is strictly inferior to just providing the button but I thought I should mention it.Nickps (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)- I turned this into an edit request per WP:SILENTCON. Nickps (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Nickps is the edit you are requesting to change
|self=yes
to|self=no
on these three pages? — xaosflux Talk 13:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)- @Xaosflux Yes, or equivalently just remove the parameter entirely.
|self=no
is the default, isn't it? Nickps (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)- I just realised this can be misunderstood. I mean remove the line
|self=yes
(or set it to "no", it really doesn't matter) from those three templates, not remove the functionality from {{db-meta}}. Nickps (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I just realised this can be misunderstood. I mean remove the line
- @Xaosflux Yes, or equivalently just remove the parameter entirely.
- @Nickps is the edit you are requesting to change
Done. SilverLocust 💬 11:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Edit request 24 July 2024
[edit]![]() | This edit request to TM:db has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Description of suggested change: When {{db}} is used to call another CSD template, it should forward the rest of its arguments to it. Currently, if someone writes something like, {{db|a1|nocat=yes}}, the nocat argument will be ignored and the page will still added to CAT:A1, despite that going against the intention of the user who wrote the template call. I've pushed the change to TM:db/sandbox as well.
Diff:
− | {{SAFESUBST:<noinclude />#invoke:Unsubst||$B={{#ifexist:Template:db-{{lc:{{{1}}}}}|{{db-{{lc: | + | {{SAFESUBST:<noinclude />#invoke:Unsubst||$B={{#ifexist:Template:db-{{lc:{{{1}}}}}|{{db-{{lc:{{{1}}}}}|1={{{2|}}}|bot={{{bot|}}}|raw={{{raw|}}}|help={{{help|}}}|nocat={{{nocat|}}}|category={{{category|¬}}}}} |
Nickps (talk) 11:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Edit: I also added the second unnamed parameter to the ones forwarded so template calls like {{db|f1|test.jpg}} work. Nickps (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Done Sohom (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Start a discussion about improving the Template:Db-meta page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "Template:Db-meta" page.