Template talk:Db-meta

Edit request

Change db-g7 to the following:

−

If this project page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please remove this notice.

+

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

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 can see two potential issues:

1. will making the link to deletion more prominent encourage admins to delete without taking the time to verify that the rationale is actually correct?
2. 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)

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)

Db-g7 edit request 4 May 2024

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 and/or blanked the page

+

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

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

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)

 Done. SilverLocust 💬 11:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 24 July 2024

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:{{{1}}}}}}}

+

{{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)

Template-protected edit request on 3 September 2024

Please fix the template such that the message box will show on the template page itself. Currently it shows only in the category namespace, which excludes the template page. Animal lover |666| 10:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

 Undone. To editor Animal lover 666: since this template is designed to be used only in the category namespace, placing an example on the template page meant that the automatic namespace detection resulted in the word "template" where "category" is usually seen. (See [this diff].) I think that would confuse more editors than it would help, so I self-reverted. If you still want this edit performed, then please garner a consensus before using the Edit template-protected template again. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I've squirted out the {{Single namespace}} since it doesn't appear to be used on other category-space db templates. Primefac (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

With respect, editor Primefac, please note that the box on the template page now reads "This template may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a maintenance category...", and "If this template does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion,...", which is why I self-reverted. Don't you think that seeing "template" where "category" is supposed to be might confuse editors? I think that's why the creators and improvers left the template invisible on the template page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 14:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

In a word, no. That being said, I have added a |pagetype_override= parameter that will allow for the proper word to be used. Primefac (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Great addition! So, editor Animal lover 666, your request has been  completed after all. Best to you! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 September 2024

Please re-add the rationale parameter to {{db-c4}} (|rationale={{{rationale|}}} into the db-meta template call), I think it was likely removed by mistake during the conversion from {{db-templatecat}} (pinging Pppery just in case it was on purpose). I believe it is still useful to have a rationale for C4 – it won't necessarily be immediately obvious to the deleting administrator why the category is no longer used in cases like templates no longer applying a category. Tollens (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested edit at template:db-imagepage

Please update the template to use criterion F2 per this discussion; additionally, please make the tag visible on the tag's own page (feel free to keep it disabled if transcluded in the template namespace). Animal lover |666| 01:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 13:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 November 2024

{{Db-gs}} currently says that the page has "no substantial edits by others," however, the word "others" is ambiguous (for instance, if the ECR applies, are "others" editors other than the primary editor, or EC editors?), and general sanctions do not apply to individual editors in the first place. I propose that it be changed to something similar to "no substantial edits that do not violate the restriction." JJP_Master (she/they) 01:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. There is no specific edit request here. Please discuss and then reactivate the request. The word "others" seems clear to me (i.e. editors other than the page's creator), but if not, I expect that "other editors" would suffice. Does the link to WP:G5 help you understand what it means? If so, importing a few words (just a few, though) from that explanation may help. We should not invent new language for this template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: WP:G5 says that this criterion applies to pages with no edits from "others not subject to the ban or sanctions." That indicates that it isn't with regard to the creator of the page, but rather to the presence or absence of sanction. I suggest to adopt this language directly as "others not subject to the sanctions." JJP_Master (she/they) 02:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

So just to clarify, the template currently reads:

"This template may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page created in violation of a contentious topic restriction or other general sanction, with no substantial edits by others."

It sounds like you would like it to read:

"This template may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page created in violation of a contentious topic restriction or other general sanction, with no substantial edits by others not subject to the ban or sanctions."

Is that correct? – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

<jumping in> That seems a bit wordy, and I do agree that "others" means "not the person who made the page". Having multiple editors under the restriction all editing the same page seems rather unlikely. Primefac (talk) 11:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

That is what I would have wanted, but I have started a discussion in the meantime. JJP_Master (she/they) 00:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)