Jump to content

Template talk:Db-notice/Archive 1

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

Needs fixing

This template currently has a hardcoded Talk: hack. It will fail if giving notices on pages not in mainspace (e.g. if you're notifying about "Image:Deletethis.jpg", it will produce link to "Talk:Image:Deletethis.jpg".) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Added a parameter "targettalk"; not sure if there's a better way to deal with this. —Random832 15:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles

I added this text to the notice:

Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.

Many people are probably taken aback when they discover their article was deleted, and this can help reassure them that they can get the content back, for reuse somewhere else (e.g. another wiki). When we're dealing with newbies, we may also want to inform them about Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Title

The title "Speedy deletion of...." is more easily understandable to new contributors than "CSD", link notwithstanding. A good many pages that are marked for speedy deletion are contributed by newcomers. There's no good reason to burden them with a set of initials when the language we have now works perfectly well. There's also plainly not yet consensus to do so. Hence, I've restored it again. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that I've publicized the question at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Template_alteration and requested that interested parties weigh in here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with MRG. Also, CSD stands for "criteria for speedy deletion" and is as such not correct, the correct way would be "SD nomination" but in that case I think it's better to have it spelt out to not confuse new users. More than that, I think the AFD notice should be changed accordingly instead. Regards SoWhy 10:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • (ec) I concur. IRP is right that there is a problem with consistency, but that should be fixed by changing the header in AfD, CfD, ... notices to "Deletion of Foo" or something, not by adding more acronyms to user notification templates. FWIW, {{PRODWarning}} already says "Proposed deletion of Foo", not "PROD of Foo". Amalthea 10:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree also. Simpler (to understand) is better. Kevin (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed with "speedy". - Dank (push to talk) 13:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

See this edit. -- IRP ☎ 22:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

=condensed wording

People are more likely to actually read unpleasant news if its brief and clear; I have put my slightly condensed version at Template:Db-notice/TestDGG (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Documentation

Could someone help me by updating the documentation for this template? I've been trying to figure out how to apply it to some additional db-notice type templates, but the existing documentation includes no information on what the parameters do, and fails to mention some parameters that exist in the template. Some of it is easier to interpret by looking at the code, but, in particular, the code at the very beginning of the template is difficult for me to follow. The template also seems to behave differently when copied to my sandbox, so the additional documentation would probably help much. Bsherr (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

For example, Template:Db-test-notice, which uses this template, has a parameter "nowelcome={{{nowelcome|}}}". I cannot determine what this parameter does. Can anyone help? Bsherr (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
If nowelcome is set then {{db-notice}}'s derivatives do not leave a {{firstarticle}} welcome notice even if placed on a red-linked page (i.e. the talk page of a new user). Amalthea 00:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm following now. I'll make a note to see if I can work on the documentation in the future. Also, I noticed that the db templates, where they provide the instructions to add the notice template to the user page, include the parameter header=1. I know this is used for enabling the header on templates like Template:nn-warn. But it doesn't seem to have any functionality on templates that use db-notice. Db-notice has a parameter for adding a custom header. Templates using db-notice could be designed to take the absence of header=1 to pass header=(null) to db-notice, but I haven't found any that use db-notice's template parameter, nor do anything with header=1. Am I correct about this? Bsherr (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

New icon, and new template

I'm sorry. There's been a discussion at Template talk:AfD-notice#CENTRALIZED DISCUSSION - Replacing icon (File:Ambox warning pn.svg) regarding the icon for this page, and I didn't include a link to it here (until now).

At this writing, what is being tried is:

  • A new, and milder, icon for this page, and
  • A new template {{Db-icon scary}}, which has the old Ambox triangle-wow image. This will be transcluded into the notices for those cases -- G3 (blatant vandalism) and G11 (attack) and G5 (page created by a blocked user) -- where (unless the speedy nomination was woefully incorrect) the user has definitely and purposely done something wrong. Herostratus (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, no consensus achieved, RfC initiated: Template talk:AfD-notice#Request for Comment Herostratus (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Button

User invited to click the button - the button is on another page, if that page hasn't already been deleted. Rich Farmbrough, 17:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC).

There's a TL;DR discussion about this at User talk:Diza, where an editor is calling it a "fake" and a "deceit". I suggest that we split this template's long paragraph into two separate paragraphs to make it clear that there are two cases:
If the page has not already been deleted, and you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by going to the page and clicking (etc etc as now)
If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.
Would this help? -- John of Reading (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC) revised 08:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes to make the template friendlier

In the template's sandbox, I have made two changes:

  • link to WP:RFUD instead of the category listing admins prepared to undelete (I haven't used the page's name "requests for undeletion", since I fear it would cause a surge in misguided posting at WP:RFUD)
  • use of the #ifexist parser function to change the message depending on whether the tagged page has been deleted yet

Hopefully these will result in less confusion for newbies. In particular, they are invited to contest the speedy deletion on the talk page, even if the subject page has already been deleted, which is going to get them nowhere (in fact, it will probably result in another G8 deletion, of the orphaned talk page).

On a technical note, it will not be possible to substitute the #ifexist function; this is considered an "expensive" parser function, so if a user accumulates 500 CSD notices on their talk page, it will cause the server to complain. It will also result in some ugly code on users' talk pages (but this is an existing problem with several templates, including {{uw-username}}). Sp I don't think this is a huge issue.

Any issues before I copy it over? — This, that and the other (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Won't server caching spoil this idea? The server won't necessarily re-evaluate the #ifexist condition when the page is deleted, unless the deleting admin purges the user talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
That's a good point. I'll have to look into it a bit more closely. It would be really nice if MediaWiki was written in a language like C, so we wouldn't have the speed issues of PHP and wouldn't have to worry about caching like this! — This, that and the other (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 March 2015

For speedy deletion criterion A7, the link to place a request for undeletion at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion shouldn't be there. Requests to undelete articles deleted under criterion A7 (failed to assert notability) are not accepted there, and such requests placed there are summarily declined, with the requester requested to contact the deleting administrator instead. If this is transcluded into the user warning for A7 (i.e. Template:Db-notability-notice), the text ", or if you have already done so, you may place a request here" shouldn't show up. Gparyani (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 03:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@Technical 13: I've added a test of this to Template:Db-notice/sandbox; basically, whenever "rfudlink=no" (or "rfudlink=[anything]" for that matter) is present as a parameter, the part of the last sentence asking the user to use WP:RFUD won't show up. I plan to use this parameter on Template:Db-notability-notice; it can also be used on other pages if needed. If you make this edit, could you also add this parameter to the documentation? Gparyani (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Ah... Now I understand what you want to do. I do believe you'll need a consensus to be formed for this before it can be implemented as BRD doesn't apply to templates of this nature and I can see the change as being potentially controversial. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 19:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@Technical 13: I don't think consensus is needed for this change, as nothing will change on the outside for all current transclusions; what I will need to establish consensus for is to actually use this parameter on Template:Db-notability-notice. Gparyani (talk) 03:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I have, however, started a discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for undeletion#User talk page notice for criterion A7 asks users to post here Gparyani (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Not done for now: When that discussion is done, this request can be reopened and revisited as is appropriate. Thanks for your understanding. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 10:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have consensus now. Please see the link to the previous discussion. Gparyani (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. Alakzi (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 June 2015

I have nominated the templates for notifying that someone's article has been deleted for deletion. Please add the TFD tags to the templates with noinclude tags. TL22 (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Only one of those is template-protected. Alakzi (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I see, I have added the corresponding TFD tags to each template except that one and {{nn-warn-deletion}} because it is fully protected. --TL22 (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 July 2015

The third paragraph says "if the necessary information is not added within the next days". This should be changed to "if the necessary information is not added within the next seven days". Gparyani (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks like this was omitted when it was altered from "one week" four years ago by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs); Done --Redrose64 (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Douglas Adams joke in speedy deletion notifications

A bit surprised to see Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything being linked to as a "please read" from a lot of speedy deletion notification messages. It's a cute joke for those who get the Douglas Adams reference, but those who don't might reasonably think that Wikipedia is being ludicrously high-handed in explaining why their article is being deleted, and others who recognise it as a geeky joke might consider it ignorably facetious as a result ("lo, the Great Prophet Zarquon has decreed your corporate stub article... non-notable!").

There have been a couple of failed attempts to move the "answer to life" article to a more universally-understood title, but both were rejected with a general sense that it's quirky and reflects the geeky heritage of Wikipedia and editors don't have to use the template if they don't want to. But if it's in a bunch of speedy-warning templates, the editors who post those templates aren't exercising any judgment as to whether the target user is likely to get a sci-fi pop culture reference. Should we change the link? --McGeddon (talk) 09:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

While generally agreeing with your concerns, McGeddon, I would actually support putting the link back to the official page and right quickly at that. It was altered here (when it was under a different title) with a note that it was "easier for newcomers to understand". That's what nutshells are for, and the official guideline is nuanced for a reason. It also includes pointers to the subject-specific guidelines. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 July 2015

In the sentence "You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy." please remove "the". In its current form, this sentence appears to refer to something called "the Wikipedia". Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request

Change

"Click here to contest this speedy deletion"

to

"Contest this speedy deletion"

to match the actual displayed message on {{Db-meta}} as shown in this sandbox edit. If you do not update the corresponding /doc page(s), please {{ping}} me and I will take care of it if no other editor does it first. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Done Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ahecht: Thanks. You chose to leave off the "bolding" of the text (see the sandbox edit), but I can live with that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I didn't leave the bold out intentionally, I thought that was just for emphasis in your example. However, I'm not sure it's needed there in this case, as we usually don't bold quoted text. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 03:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Should db-attack-notice namecheck the article?

The warning message itself just says "A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page..." - the vandal knows what they did, and naming the article just puts the unnecessary information out there that somebody once considered a particular person to be worth attacking.

The heading used to be "==Month Year==", but was changed to "==Speedy deletion nomination of [article name]==" in June for "compliance with other csd notice templates". Should that bit of it be changed back (or to "Speedy deletion nomination of an article you created"), so that we aren't naming the article? --McGeddon (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking at how db-notice is being called, I now realise that the bulk of the template is just advice on how to improve, defend and recover the article, none of which seem appropriate for a warning about having created an unsalvageable attack page.

db-notice takes a "secondparagraph" template which can replace that half. I've shuffled db-attack-notice around so that it's still calling db-notice, but passing entirely fresh text, using a month/year section header - and not encouraging the user to think about improving or recovering the article. (Pinging User:ToonLucas22 and User:Callanecc on this, since they were the last two to edit the template back and forth regarding db-notice.) Any problems with this? --McGeddon (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

PageName parameter not working

I just used the {{Db-attack-notice}} template with a page name parameter, according to the instructions given by {{Db-personal attack}}, and it seems to have ignored the page name parameter, twice. The outcome can be found at User talk:Zimm2. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: I have updated the documentation, as {{Db-personal attack}} no longer displays the page name. The discussion about this is in the previous section here. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
The notice doesn't adequately indicate to the contributor which article is being deemed a personal attack. What if the person has created multiple articles? In fact, what if they have created multiple articles where more than one of them might have been considered a personal attack? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 September 2016

In the last paragraph, it says "Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion". Clicking on "criteria for speedy deletion" leads to the file criteria, but not the specific criterion (F11). Please change from [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Files|criteria for speedy deletion]] to [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F11|criteria for speedy deletion]] so that when "criteria for speedy deletion" is clicked on, it takes you directly to CSD F11. —MRD2014 (talk) (contribs) 23:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Should Db-notability-notice contain a more detailed explanation on notability and Wikipedia?

Currently, most users receiving the A7 notice are good faith new users who may not be familiar with the policies of Wikipedia. Considering there is a total of 8 links in the message, I suspect that many users may be overwhelmed and not read the relevant links about notability. Moreover, the policy on notability may be too dry and difficult to understand for new users. Therefore I suggest adding:

  1. A simplified explanation of notability, comparing inclusion standards to more traditional encyclopedias
  2. What Wikipedia is not, not a personal website, blog, social network, or place to put a resume
  3. Invitation to WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:TWA
  4. Suggestion of creating a draft first instead
  5. More friendly and inviting tone in general

If these changes sound good, I can start writing a draft of a new template. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 01:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Darylgolden: I know you made the above posting like, six months ago, but I am reading it now and yeah, I like it. I agree completely that new users who get slammed with a speedy deletion notice on their first article often feel overwhelmed by the deletion process and become immediately disheartened, and that it would be great if that process, while no less firm in its execution, were kinder/ simpler in its presentation of facts to these users. I hope my response here comes better late than never (?). Good ideas. KDS4444 (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@KDS4444: I would be willing to work on rewriting the template, but that might have to be in a while as I'm busy with real life stuff. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 08:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
@Darylgolden: Understood. Of course. KDS4444 (talk) 08:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

When a Db-notice template is placed by a non administrator without the WP:REFUND text, it often isn't clear to new users who they need to contact for undeletion. What they see is, for example: "please contact the deleting administrator. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE)", which can potentially mislead them into thinking that I was the deleting administrator. I have mocked up a change in the sandbox that links the term "deleting administrator" to the deletion log, to make it a little bit clearer who to contact. If there is consensus, I can move that change into the live template. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

From the deafening silence the past week, I'll assume that there are no objections. I'll go ahead and make the change. Feel free to revert if you would like to discuss further. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
[Insert one quiet voice of support} - KDS4444 (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Db-noncom notice

The link in the template that mentions the Wikimedia mail server is now dead and thus the rationale explaining why Wikipedia doesn't allow non-commercial only images is lost. Can someone either find a backup of it or remove the link? Sakuura Cartelet Talk 23:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed by replacing http://mail.wikimedia.org with http://lists.wikimedia.org.[1] Special:LinkSearch/mail.wikimedia.org shows a lot of dead links. Are they permanently dead or is it a current error? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Unsure about that. I guess I could check a few days in a row to see if the server is permanently dead or just temporarily down. Sakuura Cartelet Talk 01:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

T2 abuse

I notice that Uanfala (talk · contribs) removed the description of WP:T2 from Template:Db-policy-notice, stating that the criterion is rampantly misused in the edit summary. Rather than risk getting into an edit war on a substituted template, I'm going to take this discussion here. Should we restore this phrase? As someone active at TFD, I'm not aware of any real "rampant" misuse of T2. – Train2104 (t • c) 05:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

When a template is tagged for speedy deletion it doesn't go to TfD. It appears at Category:Templates for speedy deletion, which I've been monitoring for some months now. The kinds of templates I've seen tagged, and invariably deleted, per T2 include articles crated in the template namespace, test pages or unfinished templates without an easily visible function. Not a single time have I seen anything that could by any stretch of imagination be perceived as the misrepresentation of policy that this speedy criterion is supposed to apply to.
Now, this is a rather suboptimal situation. The way to properly solve it would be to either change the deletion criterion or to police its usage. I'd support anyone who tries to do that, but I'd prefer to be realistic and try to reduce the damage done under the current practice. The greatest harm is WP:BITE: a new user who creates an article in the template namespace by mistake end up receiving a long talk-page warning that accuses them of misrepresenting policy. What kind of message does that send? Will that user wish to continue editing wikipedia? The very least we could do is to remove the most bitey and inappropriate part of the template warning and at least spare these newbies the pointless accusation. – Uanfala (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Interesting, I'll take your word for it. I do NPP in templatespace, and when I see such things I usually move it to articlespace (and A1/A3/A7 if they apply), or G2 it. Sometimes go through the CSD category, but not really often, so I'll take your word for it. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice

The span tag at the beginning of the template is causing errors with linter and misnested tags. Can we make the following change?

Change
<span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">'''[[File:Ambox warning blue.svg|35px|left|⚠|link=]]'''</span>
to
[[File:Ambox warning blue.svg|35px|text-top|left|⚠|link=]]

It fixes the error and is indistinguishable. Also, if you are aware of any similarly formatted templates, can you fix those and let me know about them as well? A bot will most likely be going through and fixing all of the subst examples in order to clear out the error. Thank you. – Nihlus (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Done – Train2104 (t • c) 12:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Remove ≠Delete

The sentence However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay should be changed to However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay, because the preceding sentence say deletion not removal, the notice is also for deletion, and in most cases whatever is tagged with this it end up getting eleted not removed.  — Ammarpad (talk) 07:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ammarpad:  Done. Use of "removed" in that sense was confusing because we're using "remove" elsewhere in this same material to refer to removal of the template, not deletion of the page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  12:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

{{Db-vandalism-notice}}

Unlike {{db-multiple-notice|g3}} and {{db-g3}}, {{db-vandalism-notice}} mentions nothing about hoaxes. Many G3’d articles are deleted as blatant hoaxes. In fact, it fails to mention pure/blatant vandalism, only “inappropriate pages”. 165.91.12.6 (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'd say a hoax article is an inappropriate page. How would you suggest rewording it? ~Anachronist (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion as blatant vandalism or an obvious hoax. 108.210.217.202 (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible rename for {{Db-notability-notice}}

It is made clear on many Wikipedia pages that A7 is not the same thing as non-notable - a claim of significance is a much lower standard than notability. However, the title of the template remains at "Db-notability-notice." Should we move it to {{Db-notability-signifcance}} or something like that? This isn't a set in stone proposal or anything, just kind of brainstorming here.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 15:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 October 2018

Incorporate the changes at this edit of mine.Will make the t/p notices a bit more user-friendly by lessening one hoop for new-users.Also, it's basically derived from the format (with some tweaks) that is followed by the t/p messages left by page-curation-toolbar, which ought to be the one used to patrol new pages.

I do hope that it does not break anything/Twinkle:-) ∯WBGconverse 16:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter:--As my go-to guy, in these cases:-) ∯WBGconverse 16:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Making some tweaks - need to allow specifying preload as it is slightly different for each template. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Tweak done in sandbox. But also requires first to fill out |criterion= to most templates in {{Speedy deletion notices}}.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I've removed an extra }}. Deactivating the request until the other required updates are complete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Wording for {{Di-no permission-notice}}

Hi,

Can the wording for {{Di-no permission-notice}} be changed? As currently worded, the advice it provides appear to be at odds with the actual practice as carried out by the OTRS team. The template currently includes the guidance that "...if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.", but it appears that forwarded permissions statements are not accepted. See User talk:45ossington#File permission problem with File:Kate Rock, Baroness Rock.jpg where this seems to have happened. This statement by the uploader indicates that a forwarded email was not accepted as forwarded emails could be altered. If this is indeed policy, then this template needs to have the forwarding advice removed. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Db-vandalism-notice - wording

I am not a fan of the wording in the first paragraph of this notice. I find it much too "polite". It also contains no link to our policy on Vandalism, which the Uw-vandalism warnings have (from 2 and upwards). Also, more articles I've came across that qualify for G3 are so blatantly disruptive and ill-natured than otherwise that I always have a hard time believing they were made in good faith. For example, the wording at Template:Db-negublp-notice is much more scathing. I don't wish for this notice to be too pointed or rude, but it needs to have more of a "rebuke" in it. I am submitting a proposed revision below. Please let me know what you think; thank you very much!

Please do not introduce inappropriate pages, such as [Page], to Wikipedia. Doing so is considered to be vandalism, which is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

Regards, Zingarese talk · contribs 04:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the changes - no comments at all in almost two months. Zingarese talk · contribs 16:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Why not change it back to the original version which seems a happy medium since for some people it might be their first edit and like {{uw-vandalism1}} it doesn't have such a harsh warning. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Template:Db-catempty-notice

The wording on this template needs to be slightly changed because the language has needlessly upset some editors, even ones who have been editing for years. The current process with empty categories is that editors/admins who come across ones that do not fall into a few special categories (disambiguation, redirects, CfD discussion, etc.) are tagged and then they appear in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion. If they do not remain empty, they are removed from this category. If they remain empty for 7 days, they are supposed to be moved to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories (which the bot doesn't always do) and then deleted. However, the notice Twinkle places on the category creator's talk page states in part:

A tag has been placed on [[:{{{1}}}]] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

The way some editors have read this is that: a) the category has been empty for 7 days then b) the empty category is tagged and c) it will be deleted on sight. But this is backwards as the category is first tagged, then sits for 7 days. So, they panic, thinking that their category will be immediately deleted. So, I propose that wording of the notice goes something like this:

A tag has been placed on [[:{{{1}}}]] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion, it will be deleted.

This reflects the nature of CSD C1 which is tagging, 7 days, still empty? Then delete. Does this meet with general approval? This proposal has been cross-posted at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle.Liz Read! Talk! 16:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with these changes, but they don't imply that deletion is only appropriate seven days after tagging, which is good. That may be our process, but it's not required per WP:CSD#C1 (briefly discussed recently​). AFAICT, the process is merely because {{db-c1}} does the calculations for us, so it's just simply easier to monitor the one category than go cruising. Still, the proposed changes are broad enough that I think they're an improvement. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Unclear parenthesis in Template:Db-t3-notice

Resolved
 – See solution provided by JJMC89 below. —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Demonstration of the issue—code {{subst:Db-t3-notice|Example|header=no}} wrapped in a table generates the following:

A tag has been placed on Example requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.

As you can see, the result of substitution includes text <noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude> in parenthesis at the end of the second paragraph. This seems like a bug in the template, because adding hatnote {{substituted}} is not the same as explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes. —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Why would you put it in a table? But it doesn't matter whether it's in a table or not, the result is the same. It also doesn't matter whether you subst or transclude this template: it always shows that text, and has done since this edit, more than eleven years ago.
Anyway, it is part of an instruction, which comprises the whole of the paragraph beginning "If the template is not actually ...". The parenthesis at the end of the para shows the note that should be added. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
The table wrapping was done just to show where the template ends. Redrose64, the whole paragraph you mention describes what should an editor do if they disagree with speedy deletion nomination per CSD T3. This speedy deletion criterion is about templates duplicating other templates. The paragraph recommends to the editor to describe on the template page how the nominated template is different from the other. That way, any future editors would be warned against marking a template as a duplicate. The wikitext in parenthesis includes code to transclude the Template:Substituted. It is a hatnote for template page used to distinguish templates which need to be substituted from templates which need to be transcluded. How would such a hatnote help to describe differences between templates, which could be mistaken as duplicates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrybak (talk • contribs) 18:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Back when it was added, the notice mentioned being orphaned. Adding {{substituted}} would make others aware of the case. That isn't part of the notice now (or relevant to T3), so I've removed it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Db-repost-notice missing parameter

I happened to notice in {{Db-repost-notice}}, there's no parameter to provide a link to a relevant deletion discussion. Is there a way this can be added to the notice? Jalen D. Folf (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@JalenFolf: Templates starting with db are about speedy deletion. There are no discussion pages for speedy deletion nominations. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
|2= already exists for that purpose. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, JJMC89. I misunderstood which deletion discussion JalenFolf was referring to. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@JalenFolf: I've updated documentation with instructions on how to use |2= (second unnamed parameter). —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

"orphaned" in Template:db-disambig-notice

Why does {{db-disambig-notice}} include "orphaned" in its wording? G14 applies regardless of whether the page is an orphan (though links to it should probably be fixed or removed). Geolodus (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Db-negublp-notice and Template:Db-negublp-deleted were too soft

Hi, I would just like to let you know that I have updated the documentation of DB-negublp-deleted and the documentation of DB-negublp-notice. The templates are too soft because:

  1. Db-negublp-deleted and Db-negublp-notice provided a welcome to creators. This should not be done because people who create attack pages typically don’t need to be welcomed. Entirely negative and unsourced BLPs are types of attack pages.
  2. Db-negublp-deleted and Db-negublp-notice provided information about how to contest the nomination. This is usually not required for entirely negative and unsourced BLPs nor is it required for attack pages. I cannot think of a false positive where an attack page was kept.
  3. Both templates had titles that make the warning look less obvious to the reader. What if the page in question had obscenities.

If you would like to object to my edits, you may do so below. Thank you! 122.108.183.105 (talk) 06:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:db-imgcopyvio-deleted is too hard

question mark Suggestion: As a recipient of this message; it feels very bitey. ‘You will be blocked from editing’ in bold doesn’t sit well as a notice for a regular who is fully aware of policy. Equally, it could potentially land on a newcomer who is not aware of policy. In my specific situation, this notice was posted on my talk page as the result of an erroneous deletion of a file. I’d much prefer to see the wording on this template change to something softer focusing primarily on starting deletion discussions and links to policy. - Chip🐺 • #TeamTrees🌳 02:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

ChipWolf You may wish to exercise caution before claiming the file was incorrectly deleted. AFAICS (I'll stand corrected), the deletion was in accordance with policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
@Kudpung: respectfully; this post is in regards to the tone of the template as it is used globally, not a discussion regarding the situation we’re alluding to. If you’d like to discuss the file elsewhere, I’m happy to do so. - Chip🐺 • #TeamTrees🌳 03:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The language should be strong. Copyright violations are not just against Wikipedia policy, they are against the law. In cases where this notice is received, a deletion discussion isn't required, so wording related to that would be irrelevant. (The deletion was not erroneous. You falsely claimed that a work was your own and "released" it under CC0.) — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 15 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move (non-admin closure) —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


– These are all misleadingly named; (non-)notability is not a criterion for speedy deletion, and these templates talk about A7, which is also not about notability. Its standard of significance is lower than notability, and having these notices use 'notability' in their titles contributes to the confusion between the two. Adam9007 (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:Db-draft-notice

What's the point in issuing the notice mere minutes before deleting the draft?

Please change the procedures so the notice can arrive a week before the deadline, instead of at the same time!

CapnZapp (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

When creators can remove the CSD tag

The creator of a page is allowed, by the WP:CSD policy, to remove the speedy tag if it's for G6, G7, G8, G13 or G14. However, this doesn't seem to be accommodated by the db-notice template. The text about clicking the "contest" button can be removed with |button=no, but the bits about the prohibition from removing the tag remain. There should be a parameter (similar to the |self=yes of {{db-meta}}), which will allow the correct text to be displayed in these circumstances. – Uanfala (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Template:Db-a10-notice is a mess

The crucial article parameter in Template:Db-a10-notice is misssing in the documentation and examples (also in Template:Db-a10-notice/doc), so the template user has to guess the right syntax by trial and error. Secondly, even with the parameter, the message is broken if the article parameter is a draft, as "the article's talk page" in the "you might want to discuss it at [[Talk:{{{article}}}|the article's talk page]]" message is not a proper wikilink. The same applies to Template:Db-a10-deleted.—J. M. (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Saying "If this is your first article..."

It looks very weird to see a user's talk page that has several of these templates, with each one saying "if this is your first article..." one after the other. Can this template be adjusted to only say that if, you know, it really is the editor's first article? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't help but feel like a whole list of policies is really unhelpful for a newcomer. Maybe a specific section? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 09:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

You're right, the link to Wikipedia:List of policies is supremely unhelpful here. But I'm not sure we can change that without rewriting the whole sentence. And anyway, what exactly does this template aim to communicate with the advice that users should "not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines"? – Uanfala (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@Uanfala: Maybe the link could be changed based on which db template is used? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

db-deleted-multiple bug: U3 text getting added when not selected

Template:db-deleted-multiple, not Template:Db-notice

Bug: steps to reproduce:

  1. Type {{subst:db-deleted-multiple|1=Draft:Maqbool ahmed sensei|2=G2|3=G11}} in a sandbox. Save.
  2. The resulting notice should only have G2 and G11 mentioned, but instead has G2, G11, and U3.

Example diff: [2]

Decent sized bug. 173 occurrences in 2022: [3] This bug is misinforming users of what CSD criteria their articles are being deleted under. And it is subst'd, so can't be easily fixed retroactively.

Anybody good at templates willing to attempt a fix? –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I tested the above and found it reproducible. I then discovered that U3 had been repealed in 2021, so I summarily removed the U3 section from the template and its documentation. I tested the above code again and there was no U3 section inserted. It seems like it was too easy, but I think we may be done here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Wish I had time to write some testcases. Wish I also had time to dig deeper into this... the bug appears to only crop up for certain types of titles. I wasn't able to reproduce the bug if I didn't use Draft:Maqbool ahmed sensei as the title. Maybe the namespace makes this template go haywire?
But that'll do for now. Thanks Jonesey! –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Update from |OTRS pending to Permission pending for Template:Di-no permission-notice?

As the name OTRS has been changed to VRTS, can one of the template editors or admins update the template Template:Di-no permission-notice?

In particular, change the following from:

If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

to

If you take this step, add {{Permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

Stylez995 (talk) 12:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Update the "Db-draft-deleted" notice?

I've noticed that this notification often spurs the editor to make an immediate REFUND request, even though they aren't ready to work on the draft. Sometimes this causes a loop every 6 months of delete, REFUND, wait 6 months, delete, REFUND, etc. How about changing If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can... to When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can... (bolding only to show the suggested change). UtherSRG (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

This suggested change sounds fine to me :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the sanity check. I'll make the change. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 February 2023

Please resync Template:Db-deleted-multiple from Template:Db-deleted-multiple/sandbox. Yesterday's edit has left an unbalanced noinclude tag, causing talk page formatting errors. Tested at User:John of Reading/X3. Reported by Liz (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Aidan9382 (talk · contribs), this is pretty much an edit conflict with your report in the previous section here. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
It's fine - I probably should of put an edit request template down for attention anyways, so thanks for doing that. Aidan9382 (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 Done Nardog (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Bad noinclude tag

I'm looking at {{Db-deleted-multiple}} and it appears, during the removal of portals here by Pppery, that there has been a noinclude kept at the end of the R4 notice thats causing the template to break (See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Help!). Could this be fixed quickly? Thanks. Aidan9382 (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Oops, and sorry that I was asleep when this happened and couldn't help. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Testing for page existence to remove "or" statements

One of the clearest indications to a user that they're being spoken to by a template, not a person, is when the template contains any sort of "or" statement. I came across one recently when I used {{Db-test-notice}}: has been or soon may be deleted. We want to remove these sorts of statements whenever possible to make our notices sound more human, and to give concise information tailored to the recipient's particular situation.

We have the ability to make a switch that tests for whether or not a page exists using {{#ifexist:}}, so I was thinking about adding this to customize the message for that template and similar others. There are a few potential pitfalls, though:

  • Because of caching issues, I'm not sure if the notice would immediately detect that a page has been deleted. Thus, we might consider having the still-blue condition retain the "or" language. Or we might just decide that it's not a big deal if a user sees the still-blue language and clicks through to discover that the page has been deleted, as it'll be easy for them to know what happened.
  • We tend to think of talk page notices as static to the time of the timestamp. It might be confusing for editors to see certain language before the page has been deleted and then return and find different language after. This could be mitigated with a small gray "This message was updated after the page was deleted" note at the bottom.
  • Using conditional code might have a fractional impact on page loading speed and would make the source text less easy to read. The latter issue is less of a concern now that the reply feature has been implemented, which means that most new editors won't be using source code.

I'm curious to hear thoughts from others on this idea. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, but I think this is a subset of a larger "...or may have been..." issue, such as in unsourced or vandalism warnings, where their edit "may have been undone" or "removed", where the #ifexist test won't work, because it's only about some words of content, and not deletion of a page. So, either you could separate the two issues, and just carry on with the #ifexist test just for this case, or else maybe you could expand the scope to think of them as aspects of a larger category of imprecise wording due to "OR" issues, and leave it up to the editor who places the template. I've long wished for those templates that confusingly tell the user that "maybe someone smacked down your edit, or maybe they didn't" could have a param that lets you pick, and then defaults to whatever the template does now. If we go that route, it would be nice if the param name could be the same across all templates that do this sort of thing, so we don't have to learn |deleted=, |sourced=, |removed=, |undone= depending what template we're using. That could also work for the deleted page warnings, although not automatically of course, as your scheme would. Finally, you're aware that it's an expensive parser function I'm sure, but normally this would have no effect on a User talk page, as the limit is around 500.
A vaguely related issue, and probably less important, is the singular/plural issue; it rankles, to tell someone that their edits at the article have been undone, when they have only one edit at the article (sometimes just one edit at Wikipedia). But maybe that's getting a bit out of scope for your section. Mathglot (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
@Mathglot, hmm, good points. I'm inclined to proceed with the automated detection for this case if no one objects, just as a place to start, but I'd like to see a parameter introduced for the other templates you mention. Do you have any thoughts on which parameter name would be preferable? And as I mentioned below, I think it's crucial that it be easily compatible with Twinkle and related tools, since editors won't ever use it if they have to write it out manually. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I think moving ahead for that one case is fine. It's an easy upgrade, and would be an improvement to the template language that makes it look less template-y. As far as a param name for the other ones, maybe |done=yes? That would be sort of analogous to |listed=yes at {{rough translation}}. Mathglot (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Plural contributions

@Mathglot: Opening a separate subsection to talk about the singular/plural issue you noticed in the last paragraph here so we can give it its due. That's a good observation. I guess the three ways we can go on it would be (A) to try to determine automatically (if that's even possible) whether someone has made one or multiple edits, and adjust the template accordingly, (B) to try to find language expansive enough to cover both cases (e.g. does "contribution" cover an instance in which someone made multiple edits? Sorta but it's not great...), or (C) to create a parameter as you mention (in this case, I think it'd be crucial that it be integrated with a simple checkbox at Twinkle/etc., since otherwise no one will use it). Do you or others have any further thoughts? Is there a practical example or two we could start off with? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

This question deserves its own venue. Mathglot (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace § "One or more of your edits..." – inconsistent and wishy-washy language over singular/plural

Edit request 5 April 2023

Description of suggested change: Change "fair use" in Template:Di-replaceable non-free use-notice to "non-free use" to reflect a December 2021 renaiming of the template. For Wikipedia's purposes, fair use and non-free content use are not the same as explained in WP:NFC#Background, and it's best avoid using the two interchangeably whenever possible because it only just leads to confusion. There are five uses of "fair use" that should be changed to "non-free use". Diff:

−
fair use
+
non-free use

-- Marchjuly (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Paine Ellsworth. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
my pleasure! Paine  17:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 April 2023

Please change all three occurrences

[[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|Speedy deletion]] nomination of [[{{{namespace|}}}:{{{target}}}]]

to

Speedy deletion nomination of {{{namespace|}}}:{{{target}}}

I. e., remove the links from the section header, per MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS

section headings should [...] Not 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. Paradoctor (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 Not done: That MOS page applies to articles. This template is not used on articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 October 2023

Please sync Template:Di-no permission-notice with its sandbox. I have fixed a typo (CC-BY-SA -> CC BY-SA; see the CC style guide) and changed '''decorative bolding''' to <strong>semantic markup</strong>. HouseBlastertalk 17:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: I've changed the CC-BY text, but I'm not yet implementing the bolding change because I'm not sure if it brings it out of line or in line with other templates. H:HTML doesn't offer guidance. It's no big deal to change them all together, though. SWinxy (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
If it brings it out of line with other templates, they all should be changed. See MOS:BOLD, H:HTML#strong, and H:HTML#b ("formats text stylistically offset from other text (bold) without conveying extra importance", emphasis mine). HouseBlastertalk 00:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Rewording notification about G13 deletions

I was redirected to this talk page from Template talk:Db-draft-deleted. Administrators use this template on User Talk pages when they are deleting a draft under CSD G13. The message is built into Twinkle such that if an administrator performs a G13 deletion with Twinkle, the template is automatically added to the User Talk page of the draft author. The template currently says:

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted.

A problem with this wording is that in many cases, the material that's been deleted has not been deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace. G13 is used all the time on drafts that have never been reviewed. If someone's work hasn't been reviewed, telling them it's been "deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace" is incorrect and makes people feel bad with no benefit. So I suggest changing this sentence to:

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted.

This would be more accurate. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed I can edit this template, so I'll be bold and do so. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. Primefac (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 March 2024

Make the change as described in this diff. It is a relatively light change for the purpose that "discussion page" is commonly refered to as "talk pages". Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 16:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done SWinxy (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 15 April 2024

Description of suggested change: "Copyright status" means licensing status of the image, not source. I think I have something better.

Diff:

−
so the copyright status is unclear.
+
which means there is no source information to specify who holds the copyright to the image.

TheGreatestLuvofAll 12:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I think I like the current wording better. It's clearer and more concise than the proposed change here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Deactivating pending consensus. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Db-notice/Archive_1&oldid=1235741569"