Jump to content

Template talk:Db-meta/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2016

please change {{{rationale}}} to User's rationale: "{{{1}}}. because

  1. better grammar
  2. easier usage

95.49.124.30 (talk) 10:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done for 2 reasons. 1. {{Db-meta}} colors the entire |rationale= as red; this template calls it passing |rationale=. By including the prefix "User's rationale", it would be colored red too, and I don't think that's the intended effect. 2. Your suggested change is considered "breaking", because it would no longer support |rationale= which has been part of the template for a while now. — Andy W. (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Help=off

Why do we have the "help=off" parameter? I find it unhelpful when I am looking at articles to speedily delete at CAT:CSD, and the article creator hasn't been notified. Using the "help=off" parameter is like saying, "I didn't notify the article creator that I nominated this page for speedy deletion, and I want to make it more difficult than normal for anyone else to do so, too." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2017 for Template:db-G13

This template presently says This applies to all pages that contain an Articles for Creation template or are located in the Draft namespace. Per WP:G13, G13 does not apply to pages in draftspace that don't carry a AfC template, which is contrary to what is stated in the template. Per policy, the itaclised text should be changed to This applies to pages that contain an Articles for Creation template, in draft namespace or userspace. 103.6.159.76 (talk) 11:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This template is template protected and not semi-protected. I'll change the template for you. st170e 11:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
edit request is not for db-meta, but for db-g13 which is semi'd only. so I changed back to the old template. 103.6.159.76 (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Done Hi, my apologies I didn't realise that the G13 template redirected to here. In that case, I've now performed this edit. Thanks for your contribution. All the best, st170e 15:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

db-r2 does not have a "Contest this Speedy Deletion" button

Template:Db-r2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Why does {{db-r2}} not have a "Contest this Speedy Deletion" button? -KAP03(Talk • Contributions) 23:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be controversial. At the time of its conversion to {{db-meta}} at 10:57, 24 March 2008 by MelonBot (talk · contribs) there was a "contest" button. Since then, apart from one quickly-reverted error (where the whole template was blanked), it has changed five times:
Maybe one of these users can point to a prior discussion on the matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I can honestly say I have no memory of even making that edit, let alone why, sorry--Jac16888 Talk 23:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
As far as I remember this edit of mine, it was because I was reverting the edits of a sockpuppet JetBlacker (who was modifying several templates). I am honestly not very familiar with templates so I do not know if the edits were constructive or not - I just decided to be safe and reverted them. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

F9 Default deletion wording

This edit about 18 months ago changed the default deletion reason for F9 from "Media file copyright violation without fair use or credible claim of permission" to "Media file copyright violation without credible claim of fair use or permission" - the changed position of "credible" implying that fair use rationales need to be up to scratch in order to prevent deletion. The wording of the criterion says no such thing - if the uploader claims fair use then F9 doesn't apply. I suggest we change this but the previous wording was rather awkward. Hut 8.5 07:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Db-multiple

We need a way to add a different rationale for each db template when using {{db-multiple}}. for example, 

{{db-multiple|G6|rationale=Unused template|G8|rationale2=Pages that are linked to from this template, and that used it, have been deleted at [[WP:AFD]]}}

was used on Template:Infobox RHI All-Star Game. of course, you could argue that only the second tag is really needed here, but there isn't a way to use two rationales without putting them both in both tags. as far as I can tell, there isn't clean way to fix this with {{for loop}}. it could be done by doing some string manipulation to pass two things in each pass through the loop. or, should we just rewrite the core loop in LUA? Frietjes (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

You could just use several speedy deletion tags, like we did before we had {{db-multiple}}. —Kusma (t·c) 16:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Note to administrators: this template has content on its talk page which should be checked before deletion.

I was thinking about placing the above inside <span class="sysop-show">...</span> tags, but considering how much speedy deletion templates are used, I think this be discussed first. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 02:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 March 2017

I propose that a user change the name of parameter one to "user" (e.g., {{db-g5|user=Sockpuppeteer}}) so that the parameter can be used in conjunction with the Db-multiple template. 2605:6000:ED08:DD00:3996:641C:8432:DFEC (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done: I now realize you were proposing a change for {{Db-g5}}, not {{Db-meta}}. I have gone ahead and added |user= as an alias for |1=. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2017

I propose that a user change the name of parameter 1 to "image" ({{db-f1|image=Image}}) to make it compatible with {{db-multiple}}. 2605:6000:101C:813B:451:87D9:907:6826 (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: {{db-multiple}} does not pass 'image' - it passes category,url,source,rationale,blanked,filename,article,url2,url3,user,and nocat. "Filename" is the same parameter as in {{db-f1}}, so {{db-multiple|F1|filename=Example.png}} works. — Train2104 (t • c) 04:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Adding help=off to Template:Db-multiple

Hello there! On some templates I have seen an option to turn off the 'help' (i.e. telling you to notify the author etc.). I was wondering if it could be added to Template:Db-multiple? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It already works on {{db-multiple}}. Just pass help=off. – Train2104 (t • c) 16:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Train2014: Thanks! Don't know why I didn't notice it. Sorry! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Image

In the sandbox page, I added an image of a trash can, which is marked as speedy deletion emblem.svg. How do I remove the label and the link? UpsandDowns1234 (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@UpsandDowns1234: I don't think that you can; it would need a change to Template:Db-meta. However, the parameter is not intended to be used for an icon. The code for |image= was added almost ten years ago, and it is used for the wrapper template {{db-f1}}, where (if the first positional parameter is used) it displays the alternative image for the image which WP:CSD#F1 is to be applied. So if you felt that File:Example.jpg was redundant to File:Example.png, and that the jpg should be deleted and the png kept, you would put {{db-f1|Example:png}} on the file description page of File:Example.jpg. That would enable the admin to see the two images together, in order to effect a comparison. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 March 2017

Please add the speedy deletion emblem, since it looks nicer and gives an understanding to everyone that the article may be deleted without having to remove the text. UpsandDowns1234 21:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

What is "the speedy deletion emblem"? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
File:Commons-emblem-speedy.svg UpsandDowns1234 21:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
In which case, Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Where can I propose it? UpsandDowns1234 00:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't see why it shouldn't be discussed here. But I would recommend leaving notes (linking back here) at pages like Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion; Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy; and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64: I have seen this icon be used on other wikis, both English and non-English, so it does not make sense to me why you did not include it. You can check the sandbox and mirror it if other administrators are okay with it. UpsandDowns1234 00:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@UpsandDowns1234: What other wikis? When making claims like that you should give examples. Also, see WP:OTHERCONTENT: you need to demonstrate why it is a good idea for English Wikipedia to do this - it might be that those other wikis are in the process of removing this image.
It makes sense to me why I did not include it: put simply, there is no consensus for your change. Unilateral requests for a substantial change to a widely-used template rarely go through on a rubber stamp. Consensus needs to be established first and although we have a discussion (of sorts) going on here, nobody else has commented in it: a discussion involving just two people is nowhere near enough to make a change like this especially when only one of them has stated that they in favour of the idea.
I asked you to leave notes linking back here in order to bring in other people, and suggested three places for those notes; you did leave a note at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Speedy Deletion Emblem on Template:Db-meta, but it doesn't link back here - in fact, you didn't even mention that you had already requested the change. The result of this is that Beeblebrox, SoWhy, Nyttend, Tazerdadog, and Only in death (all of whom commented there) are probably unaware of this thread, and so are discussing as if it is a new idea. This is not just against WP:MULTI, it is against WP:OTHERPARENT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64: thanks for letting me know. You can move this discussion to template talk:db or wherever it is. UpsandDowns1234 02:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The template {{db-g4|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Supranational (2nd nomination)}} did not work correctly in Miss Supranational (World Beauty Association). ("previously deleted" wikilink was wrong, but "previous discussion" is OK) I had to subst and edit manually.

Please fix. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

"Previously deleted" goes to the page's deletion log by design. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I think Staszek Lem's point is that it doesn't go to the deletion log for the page from the provided discussion – wants Miss Supranational instead of Miss Supranational (World Beauty Association). An additional parameter would need to be added, since the XFD subpage is not guaranteed to match the title of the deleted page. (e.g. Page was moved after the XFD started, and the XFD was not likewise moved.) In cases such as this, where the deleted page title is not the current title, admins can find the relevant deletion log without the link in the template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

If it goes by design then the design is imperfect. There are many cases when a page was recreated many times under slightly different titles, to circumvent salting. "db-"templates must provide the way to list them. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. While you might have a point that the template should be fixed (I'm not entirely sure it should be), there already appears to me to be some disagreement as to the correct change. Izno (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
If there was a technical way to do this, this seems obvious and utterly uncontroversial; can't even imagine a basis anyone would object to making a non-functioning, confusing link to a blank entry, work properly. The problem seems all on the technical end. I at least see no easy way to have the template recognize and then link to the correct name of the prior, previously deleted page whee it does not match the one currently proposed for deletion. My guess is that the only "solution" would be to add a parameter that allows a human to supply the name, but that would not provide much more of a facility than your manual changes did--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
It should be possible to strip the "(nth nomination)" off the AFD link and present that, if the page title is different. Anything else would require a parameter. – Train2104 (t • c) 22:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Do we need db-p1?

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Do we need db-p1?

Please remove the double "copyvio report" in db-g12 template, I would do it myself but i am not sure how this works. Lil Johnny (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lil Johnny: Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Which link is duplicated? —Kusma (t·c) 12:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
yesterday i placed a g12 tag on an article and it says: this article... ...copyright infridgement (copyvio report) of http:(some link) (copyvio report). There is a double "copyvio report" in that template. Lil Johnny (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Can't find one from yesterday, but an example from 11:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC), a little under half a day ago, was at AK-17 where the template {{db-copyvio|url=http://www.is.fi/kotimaa/art-2000000599473.html|help=off}} produced
This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a copyright infringement(Copyvios report) of http://www.is.fi/kotimaa/art-2000000599473.html (Duplication Detector report · Copyvios report).
There are definitely two "Copyvios report" links. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the superscripted one. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The two links are not duplicates. The first report is based on search results, and the second is based on comparison to the specified URL. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Is the first one necessary? Oh and btw, Redrose64 it was "yesterday" where I live, not in GMT (well, not exactly, it was 5 AM but here it is still considered as "yesterday"). Lil Johnny (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 May 2017

Please help me by editing my page "Tufanganj Dot Com Centre" Srejaulhoque (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Srejaulhoque: This page is not for contesting speedy deletions. Go to the deleted page. It will say which user performed the deletion with a link to their talk page. Use this if you have questions regarding the deleted page. Regards SoWhy 10:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 May 2017

please make it extended Gearbox162 (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. – Train2104 (t • c) 13:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:G12 courtesy blanking

Should we make {{Db-g12}} courtesy blank the page like {{Db-g10}} does? It should be noted that {{subst:copyvio}} already does this for possible copyright violations. G12 is used for definite copyright violations. — Gestrid (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Moving this to a more populated talk page, WT:CSD. — Gestrid (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Making {{Db-g13}} display the time frame of the second to last edit

I don't know if this is technically easy/feasible. If it is, it would probably double or more the reviewing speed of Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned AfC submissions. The template states at the bottom line "This page was last edited by NAME (contribs | logs) at 15:28 UTC (2 hours ago)" – that is (except in rare cases where's there's post db-G13 tagging edits), it shows us when the edit was made adding the G13 template. One of the main things we are looking for when reviewing G13s, however, is that the edit before the tagging was at least six months ago (bot edits not included). So if the template listed underneath this something like—

  • "The second to last edit to this page was by NAME (contribs | logs) at 15:28 UTC (237 days ago)"

—it would be a much quicker process to determine that the six-months-ago condition was met. I might as well shoot for the moon: if that line for the second edit could be coded to post an easily noticeable symbol in addition to the listing, recognizing and placing one symbol versus another where that second to last was more than six months ago (maybe, respectively, and ), that would would make it super easy to scan for the six-months-go condition. Can either part of this be done? Anyone willing to code it?

Note that the AfC template already has coding to display "This draft has not been edited in over six months and qualifies to be deleted per CSD G13." This helps taggers determine which AfC drafts to tag, but is no help to CSD reviewers once tagged, because as soon as the tagger makes an edit to the draft to add {{db-g13}}, the AfC template's notice goes away because it calculates from the last edit to the draft.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: I'll let the LUA experts comment on this. I don't think it is possible with plain old Wikitext. But, if you have popups enabled, you can see the date of the second-to-last edit by hovering over the "last edit" link. If the diff shows you someone adding a deletion template, the "Old revision" date is the one that should be more than six months old. Maybe you've spotted that already, though. -- John of Reading (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip John. I tried it out and it would speed up this work (though not as much as being able to see at a glance). But then I deactivated popups again because when I had tried it in the past I found it made the interface feel a bit too busy (and it doesn't place nice with mw:Reference Tooltips which I like a lot).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
There's no way that I know of for a template or module to access the API and get full revision history data, so the only way to get revision info is through Magic words, which can only show the last edit. The only way to make this work would to add something like {{#if:{{{lastrevdate|}}}|The last edit to this page when it was nominated for deletion was {{#if:{{{lastrevuser|}}}|by {{{lastrevuser}}}}} at {{{lastrevdate}}}.}}, and have Twinkle retrieve that info and fill in that parameter when it applies {{Db-g13}}. There's no way to make it work automatically without an additional tool or gadget. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for looking Ahecht. So with that, it seems there is no easy technical way to do this. That clarity is what I was looking for. I'll just do it the slower way – and we're not talking about a huge burden here (though small fixes in lots of places add up of course). Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Fully protected edit request on 22 June 2017

A protected redirect, Template talk:Db-hoax, needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:

  • from this:
#REDIRECT[[Template talk:Db-meta]]
  • to this:
#REDIRECT [[Template talk:Db-meta]]

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R related}}
{{R for convenience}}
}}
  • WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

The {{Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  14:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

 Not done However @Paine Ellsworth: I lowered the protection level to TE, you can make the changes as needed. — xaosflux Talk 14:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
All done and thank you very much, xaosflux!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  14:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (important template) --72.73.112.126 (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

You are not the first to try this. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Db-g6: Syntax error

Hey, guys. I just caught wind of a dispute in {{Db-g6}}, whose talk page redirects here. I am trying to piece the bits and pieces of the puzzle together, but there is what I have discovered so far:

  • On 12 November 2017, Codename Lisa made these two edits: [1] The edit summary reads: (1) Resolved a syntax error preventing "Asserted to be non-controversial maintenance" from being displayed. (2) Moved the rationale from |1= to |2= to avoid a large chunk of boldfaced text. Flash-tested: Template:Latest stable software release/Spaces. So, my understanding is two things has happened here: A repair and a bold change.
  • On 14 November 2017, ToThAc reverted said change: [2] The edit summary reads: "It actually messed up template syntax and made each case have an awkward italic sentence (with no capital) to them." Can't say I understand it, but the first sentence seems to hint at a coding error on Codename Lisa's part, one that I cannot find myself. Surprisingly, this ironclad reason is absent from ToThAc's warning for vandalism he posted in Codename Lisa's user page: [3] "the reason I reverted is because the revision actually messes up the rationale parameter when it is used. It displays as "This template may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason. because it does". Funny, I could not reproduce this in the sandbox either.Update:{{db-g6|reason=because it does}} seems to reproduce the problem. But then again, "because it does" is ToThAc's own bad form of writing. If someone wants to write something meaningful, like "This template was once used in the Internet Explorer article to enable rapid updating of beta status and will never again be needed, because of product discontinuation", the result would look simply gruesome.
  • Almost one hours later, Codename Lisa counters the reversion with this explanation: "The code you are reverting to is broken. Not liking my change is one thing; restoring broken code is another." If what she says is true, i.e. the code is broken (previously she wrote: Resolved a syntax error preventing "Asserted to be non-controversial maintenance" from being displayed.), then yes, this counter-reversion is valid. Editing in the template namespace demands a lot of responsibility and accountability.
  • Half an hour later. ToThAc reverts again, with an edit summary that reads: "That's not what I meant." This is simply the most irresponsible reversion in the template namespace that I have seen in my life.

From where I am standing, ToThAc has no case for a full reversion whatsoever: His prefered version is broken code and what he asserts as the reason for reversion, I could not reproduce. must be accomplished through ordinary editing. But I welcome his comment and code sample to demonstrate his case.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 20:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@FleetCommand and Codename Lisa: Sorry I didn't make it clear enough; Codename Lisa's preferred version breaks the sentence flow, messing up templates such as {{db-move}}, {{db-disambig}}, and {{db-copypaste}}. See this page as an example. ToThAc (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello. :)
I see the problem: There is a small "i" that must be a capital "I".
But it could be corrected via ordinary editing, or at least a partial reversion.
I'll get to work on it now.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello again, ToThAc
I have an update: I have effected a partial reversion, undoing my flow change from 12 November 2017, without restoring the damaged code. I have also flash-tested the template on the Phil Murphy page. Looks good from here.
Always remember: You have the right to contest edits to templates, but you must do it with utmost consideration for the effect and responsibility.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh, somehow I didn't notice the other broken code... Thanks, the issue is cleared! ToThAc (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Broken transclusion

{{db-r2}} does not seem to transclude properly at User:Al-Imra International University -AIU/sandbox. 108.210.219.2 (talk) 02:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion criterion R2 only applies to certain redirects in the main/article namespace. The template is coded to do nothing on other pages, such as this user sandbox. -- John of Reading (talk) 03:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Match closer to Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7 guideline

Change the first sentence in the template from:

This template may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a real person, individual animal, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organized event that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject.

to (difference in bold):

This template may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.

TaxAct2018 (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. The sandbox is at Template:Db-a7/sandbox. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2018

Submit the following sentence directly after the current first sentence (This template may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as an article about an individual animal (e.g. a pet) that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject.):

Note that species of animals are not eligible under this criterion.

I was inspired to suggest this change after reading the first commandment from User:SoWhy/Ten_Commandments_for_Speedy_Deletion. @SoWhy: It gives more instruction for quick reference without including on the page that is tagged.

TaxAct2018 (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC) TaxAct2018 (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. The sandbox is at Template:Db-animal/sandbox. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Namespace restrictions

@Serial Number 54129: Could you please explain further why you reverted me? It seems illogical to use a template that explicitly starts with "... may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a userpage ..." outside of userspace. Non-userspace G11s can still use the main {{db-spam}}. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Pppery: What is this in relation to? Over 250 talk pages redirect here. Where reverts are involved, it's best to post either a diff of the revert, or a diff of the edit that was reverted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
@Redrose64: They are refering to this by me, in which I reverted this by them. My edit-summary speaks for me on this. User:Pppery, your change didn't just stop it from being used " outside of userspace", but also all user talk and subpages too. That's what drew my attention to it in the first place. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 10:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, so it's in relation to where {{db-spamuser}} may be used. This templates links to CSD G11, which being a G criterion, may apply to all namespaces except where explicitly exempted at WP:CSD (for example, G2 explicitly exempts user space); but G11 has no namespace exemptions. By contrast, criteria that apply to only one namespace have a code beginning with a letter that is not G. Thus, criteria that only apply to pages in user space have codes beginning with U; it follows that if this template should only apply to pages in user space, it would show a U criterion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
And all of the non-userspace WP:G11s can still use the main {{db-spam}} (which I didn't add a namespace restriction too). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 March 2018

Change This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) <includeonly>--</includeonly>~~<includeonly></includeonly>~~ to This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) <includeonly>—</includeonly>~~<includeonly></includeonly>~~. Note the difference between the "--" and "—". MOS:DASH specifically states: Do not use a double hyphen (--) to stand in for a dash. Thanks. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done OK. — xaosflux Talk 21:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Um, @Xaosflux: The default inserter of signatures has always done the common dash (as I will call it). I don't see that this was a good change. --Izno (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
@Izno: the "default signature" is [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]] ([[User talk:USERNAME|talk]]). I'm fine changing this to a single "-", is that OK for you? Note: the MOS does not apply here, it is for "articles" anyway. — xaosflux Talk 00:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I reverted this change. WP:SIGN advises people to sign their posts using methods that include "clicking the signature icon on the edit toolbar". If you do that, you always get two hyphens, not a dash. Let's get the MediaWiki software changed first, then the help pages can be amended to follow the software, and then we can worry about trivia such as Template:Hangon preload generic. Here is what I get when I click the sig button: --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with this. It is really no big deal, as I noted above MOS's scope is "articles". Looks like we may be able to localized those buttons (e.g. in MediaWiki:Wikieditor-toolbar-help-content-signaturetimestamp-syntax / MediaWiki:Wikieditor-toolbar-help-content-signaturetimestamp-result) but I don't really see a need to. — xaosflux Talk 11:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding Template:Find sources to Template:db-a7

Some articles tagged for failure to asset notability ({{db-a7}}) can be salvaged if an editor searches for references. I suggest that the code in {{Find sources}} be added to {{db-a7}} to encourage editors to use those links to try to find references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

db-disambig - what about set indexes?

Is {{db-disambig}} applicable if the page is labelled as a {{set index}}, {{media index}}, {{animal common name}}, etc., rather than {{disambig}}? It seems to me that if such a page doesn't list any extant articles then deleting it is uncontroversial maintenance, just the same, but WP:G6 doesn't comment on this at the moment. — Smjg (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Template error? How to add multiple criteria

Three issues:

1. The current template shows ' Error: No reasons specified ' at the top. Is this working as intended?

2. I chose this template as I wanted to enter more than one criteria, ex. WP:G3, WP:G11, WP:A11. How can this be entered into the template, if indeed it can be? I tried adding {{db-multiple|[[WP:G3]], [[WP:G11]], [[WP:A11]]}} but still got an error.

3. If there is not a template that allows entering more than one criteria. Should I add, as in this case, three templates to the top of the nominated page for speedy deletion, each one representing a different criteria? Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Veritycheck, see the documentations for an example of how to use {{db-multiple}} Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your 'speedy' answer. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

"Bad Titles"

Can we add something about "bad titles" to the template (g8 criterion)? Thanks, JustBerry (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I've just started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposal of mojibake redirects criterion proposing this. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Db-meta/Archive_4&oldid=1229447418"