Welcome to dextri.com on July 6 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Template talk:Db-meta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Template talk:Db-r3)
Jump to: navigation, search
Template:Db-meta is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template. Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.
Any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes, categories or interwiki links.
To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, all CSD template talk pages redirect here. For discussions on each individual template prior to July 2008, see the histories of each talk page.

Archives
/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Should db-g3 have a rationale parameter?

I think the db-g3 template should have a rationale parameter to help admins when the vandalism isn't immediately obvious. My point is probably best illistrated by two exampes:

  • There are many cases where an already existing page is copied (rather than moved) in it's an entirity to a new (and obviously incorrect) name, often changing all instances of the name in the text as well, and this is obviously vandalism. A rationale parameter would allow the nominator to explain this and link to the relevant page.
  • There are often pages which at first glance may not be vandalism. For example the other day I speedy requested a page on an apparent cricketer. This was obviously a hoax as it stated he'd played in some games that it was very easy to prove he didn't with a link or two. Additionally there were some obvious mistakes (test playing cricketer at a stupidly yound age, age and date of birth not matching). At first glance this page seemed OK but a closer look made it obvious it was vandalism.

In both cases a rationalle parameter would a) allow an admin not knowledgable in the subject area to see it as vandalism and b) even if an admin still wasn't happy deleting it would at least make it less likely they'd remove the tag as inappropiate. I delt with both of the above by just using the plain db template but I'm not sure everyone else does and most would probably just tag it as vandalism (I regularly look at speedy requests to make sure none are inappropiate). If this parameter was avaliable on the db-vandalism (db-g3) template I'd imagine it might lead to some better reasons and so make it easier for admins and anyone else that reviews speedys. I could probably make the change myself but wanted to make sure that I hadn't missed a prior consensus not to have such a parameter and also that there were no disagreements first. Dpmuk (talk) 10:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This could be done — it's already implemented with the wording paramater on {{db-g6}}. Stifle (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The main "db" template - do we really need it?

Do we honestly really need the main {{db}} template? In all my time on Wikipedia, I've never seen someone actually use the free-form speedy template with a valid reason. We have specific speedy templates for all the criteria, and so this one seems redundant and prone to misuse (i.e. unintentional wrong use, not abuse). So why keep it? I'd be one to support deleting the free-form template. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

While it probably is prone to misuse, I'd argue that it's really no more prone to it than the numbered ones. Off the top of my head, when I'm doing speedy deletions, I'd estimate I pick the same criterion as the original tagger maybe 60% of the time. Most of the time, as you say, the confusion is well-intentioned and mostly harmless: tagging an attack page as a non-notable biography, a page blanked by its author as lacking content or a test page as vandalism or nonsense. But still, I'd actually kind of prefer if people who found a page they believe to be speediable but were not sure of the exact criterion would just use {{db}} and write out the reason rather than picking a numbered db-* tag at random. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Seconding the above. I'd also like to note that there are things which unquestionably should be speedily deleted but aren't covered by the existing CSD (can't think of one off the top of my head, I'll come back after I find/think of one). Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move-protect the templates?

I realize there're good reasons for leaving all the speedy templates open to editing (though likely semi-ing them wouldn't hurt too much), but is there any reason any of them would be moved? That sort of thing could kinda' screw things up with the creation of a lot of double redirects. Anyway, just throwing the thought out there. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In general we only protect pages in response to actual unwanted activity, so there's no justification for implementing this sort of protection pre-emptively. I did once try to fully-protect the whole series, but was overruled. (also)Happy‑melon 07:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
There's an ongoing discussion at WP:AN, I believe, since all the templates are currently fully protected, so this is sorta' pointless right now. You can find it here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit protected request

{{editprotected}} Hello, sir. I would like to add a live search link to the page at live search just where google is listed, giving live seach hits, please.

Not done: I don't see how this is necessary or useful. I'm open to be convinced, however. lifebaka++ 18:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Please remove Google or add other searchengines as well. 87.78.21.135 (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Why? Stifle (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Content of G3 template

Someone recently used Template:Db-g3 for a suspected hoax (Men's White League), whereas Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Non-criteria says that a hoax that's even remotely plausible (which this one was) shouldn't be speedied. Should advice against speedying suspected hoaxes be added to the template, like with Template:Db-g1? Andjam (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} can an admin please add to Db-g3 content similar to Db-g1? Andjam (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
N Not done. Mistaggings happen frequently, that's why admins review before deleting. There is no need for any change in the {{db-g3}} template as it already says that it only covers "blatant and obvious misinformation" (which applies to blatant hoaxes as well, but only those). SoWhy 08:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{g12}}

The wording on the template does not match the wording at WP:G12. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G12 wording again. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I9 requiring a URL

The reason I9 requires a URL parameter is because if a source image cannot be indicated, there is no evidence that an image is in use in violation of a copyright. Images that may be copyright violations should go to WP:PUI. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've changed this to a half-way compromise — it puts in a big red warning if the URL parameter is omitted, requesting its inclusion or an explanation why it is not included, while still tagging the image for deletion. Stifle (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this is much better than before, thanks. It no longer breaks Twinkle, for one thing. HiDrNick! 15:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link db-album to A9 in the dropdown?

Lifebaka suggested, I should ask here. So, to copy from what I posted to WT:CSD: This is something only other admins will care about, but usually when a certain tag is on a page and you click "delete", the dropdown selects the relevant reason automatically and the summary is blanked. I have no idea how that works but if someone does, could we get the same functionality for {{db-album}}? Regards SoWhy 09:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how to do this, but think it would be worthwhile. Stifle (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I think I know how to do this. I don't know what you mean by dropdown and I don't understand why you say the summary is blanked. (I'm not an admin.) But I'm guessing what you want is to have the summary in the block log filled in automatically for you. That's the "summary" parameter which must be passed to db-meta. Maybe I'll just be bold and go ahead and do that, and you can see if it does what you want. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I edited template:db-a9 and was going to edit template:db-album, but realized I didn't understand what you were talking about, so I reverted my edit. I think that currently, when you try to delete a page by clicking delete on the db-album template, it will put in the block log summary "Article about an an album, which does not indicate importance". Is that what it does? Other than apparently duplicating the word "an", is that not what you want it to do? Are you talking about something else? ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Coppertwig: I have corrected the "an an album" to instead say "an album" in the edit reason.
SoWhy: I see what you mean, you mean when clicking the [delete] tab on top of the page, not when clicking the "delete" link inside the {{db-album}} template. The drop down list of delete reasons on the page that we admins see when deleting a page is handled by MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown and by MediaWiki:Sysop.js. As I understand it the addition you want would be added in MediaWiki:Sysop.js. Thus you should ask for it over at MediaWiki talk:Sysop.js. The guys watching that page probably know how to code it. I myself don't know enough javascript to code the thing you want.
--David Göthberg (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks David, that's the place I was looking for. I'll head over and see what can be done (maybe I can do it myself with copy+paste scripting^^). Thanks again :-) SoWhy 15:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] G3G2: Db-sandbox

I think that we should create a redirect of db-g3 at Template:db-sandbox as it seems pretty ideal for this speedy deletion criteria. Just a way to ease the memorization of all these db's. :) -LelandRB (Chat · contribs) 00:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't you mean the G2 criterion? See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#General.
--David Göthberg (talk) 04:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
G2 does fit better, yes. If you want to do it, have a go. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I forgot to say this. I agree with Lifebaka, if you (LelandRB or anyone else) want to make a redirect from Template:Db-sandbox to Template:Db-g2, then feel free to do so.
By the way, {{db-experiment}} and {{db-test}} already redirects to {{db-g2}}, but that doesn't hinder a redirect from {{db-sandbox}}.
--David Göthberg (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DB-i2

The template {{db-i2}} still has the warning about not deleting a missing image due to a server issue and being able to recover them... has this issue not yet been resolved? I'm not an admin but I have tagged a number of pages with it over the last while and wonder when the issue will be resolved and the template returned to normal operations. Thanks. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you rather ask this at WP:VPT or WP:AN. Regards SoWhy 23:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
IIRC this issue is now largely resolved: all the images that were corrupted have been tagged as such, which should preclude deletion. The majority have now been fixed. I've removed the notice; feel free to readd it if the I am mistaken and it is still needed. Happy‑melon 23:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External link in template

I just wanted to mention that I was on a public computer the other day (logged out) and tagged a page for CSD. Due to the external link (to Google, I assume is the issue) it requires you to enter a captcha to save your edit. This really should be removed, you shouldn't need to enter a captcha when tagging pages for speedy. VegaDark (talk) 04:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I converted it to use an interwiki prefix, so it shouldn't now trigger the captcha. Can you confirm if this is the case? Happy‑melon 08:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it no longer triggers the captcha. Thanks! VegaDark (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
This needs to be changed back, or fixed somehow, now, when you use it to check any article more than one word, it adds _ between them, which fuggs up the results--Jac16888 (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I added a "urlencode", which should turn the underscores into plus signs. Does that work better? Kusma (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Much better, cheers--Jac16888 (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] new position for AfD link at Db-g4 was not visiblel

I reverted a change at Db-g4 [1]. The new location of the AfD link was way too small. See rejection of speedy because admin didn't spot the AfD link. Please make the AfD/MfD/TfD links more visible before making that sort of change, thanks (at that font size, does any admin ever look at them? :D ).

Also, it always display the link under the AfD name even if it's a link to a MfD or TfD discussion, and AfD gets blue automatically anyways if the article had the same name, in which case you don't need to add a custom link on the first place. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The template really needs re-thought. I'll see if I can come up with an alternate layout which satisfies this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving old template discussions

I have begun archiving old discussions under Db-meta [2]. Obviously some of these are going to have nothing of value, but some do, and this will save people digging through histories to find that out. I won't get very far today, but I don't think it's very pressing. Cheers. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 21:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you working from a list somewhere? If so, could you link it, so that I (and others) can check over it to make sure it's got everything? Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization

{{db-c1}} was only putting categories into CAT:CSD, but I tweaked it so that it's also putting them into Category:Empty pages for speedy deletion. This will make them faster and easier to clear out, as non-controversial cleanup. --Elonka 05:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I stuck it inside of |category=, so that non-deletion uses of the template (such as at Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion) can be made not to include into the category. Cheers. lifebaka++ 06:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for that, I was wondering what that extra syntax meant! Also, can you figure out how to change the documentation page at {{db-c1}}, so it indicates the "This template places the page in..." extra category? I tried to look at the docs page, but again, it uses very complex syntax so I'm reluctant to touch it. --Elonka 16:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Y Done, and also for A1 and A3. It should show the next time you view one of the templates, but if it doesn't try purging the page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of db-t1

Hi all. Following the repeal of CSD T1 following discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, the template Template:Db-t1 will be deleted as a misrepresentation of policy, unless there is disagreement here. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion if you disagree with this repeal. Dcoetzee 01:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Why delete? Why not just redirect it to Template:Db-g10? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Because not all former T1 deletions are valid G10 deletions, as in the pedophile userbox example - it requires human judgement to determine the appropriate course of action. Dcoetzee 05:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harmonization with MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown

The reasons offered by the db templates should be changed to the heavily discussed and agreed upon Deletereason-dropdown reasons. Maybe a more prominent delete link would also be useful, because the script automatically selecting the delete reason is broken since the 'content was:...' has been removed. Cenarium (Talk) 19:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean the criteria preloaded into the deletion summary? Yes, those should indeed be harmonised. I think the best solution to the autofill issue is new javascript that works with the new settings, but as an interim measure making the delete link more prominent wouldn't go amiss. Happy‑melon 19:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. We could use a more prominent link in the templates as a temporary fix. I created a sandbox to preview the changes. In Deletereason-dropdown, the criterion number is prior to the reason, this can be handled by db-meta. Then the summary of each template will have to be changed. Cenarium (Talk) 21:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] db-g12 and multiple URLs

I've just tagged a couple of articles with db-g12, both of which infringe copyright from multiple URLs -- one from two different web sites, the other from multiple pages on the same site. For both articles, I gave the most obvious example as the url parameter of the template. It might be a good idea for someone to modify the template to allow multiple sources to be listed for cases like these. Adam McMaster (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I have had success using {{db-g12|url=sourceurl1 and sourceurl2}}. The end result provides links to both urls. Perhaps this should be explained in the usage documentation for this template. Steamroller Assault (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Db-a1

{{Db-a1}} was recently changed to put articles in Category:Empty pages for speedy deletion. I don't think this is appropriate, because these articles lack context, but often do not lack content. Gnome de plume (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons?

When one uses this template, is there some way to state the reasons why the article ought to be deleted? Merely saying it's created by a banned user in violation of the ban is not enough. WP:CSD does not REQUIRE deletion in such cases; rather, it only says an administrator MAY speedily delete in such a circumstance if there are reasons. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting question. The documentation at Template:Db-g5 and Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion does not even point out that the name of the banned user can be included as a parameter in the template (as in {{db-banned|Jvolkblum}}). I don't remember how I learned that, but I learned it after an admin asked which banned user I was concerned about when I tagged an article without including that parameter. When I tagged Rochelle-Park-Rochelle-Heights Historic District‎ for speedy deletion earlier today (the tagging that apparently precipitated this note), I did check to see if the template would let me enter more information about the reason, but I couldn't find a way to do so. I used the edit summary to indicate that checkuser had confirmed this particular sock, but neither an edit summary nor a template provides enough space to tell the whole story of why this banned user was banned and why his/her contributions should be deleted on sight.
There clearly is much divergence of opinion about the treatment of banned users. I have been following Jvolkblum sockpuppets for almost a year. I have been repeatedly advised that this user is so notorious by now that it is unnecessary to expend my time going through standard procedure to get new sockpuppets blocked, but I have also repeatedly had to explain this banned user's history to other Wikipedians (including admins) who appear to distrust my motives and who need to be individually convinced that the ban was justified and that the articles and edits created by new sockpuppets truly deserve to be reverted on sight. As it happens, I don't propose deletion for every new Jvolkblum article I see (just two days ago, I rewrote WVOX, the original of which was a total copyvio, instead of requesting deletion), but life is too short to do that kind of thing real often.
Bottom line: this template is not particularly effective as a communication tool, and experiences like mine are likely to inspire contributors to say "Scr*w it; let Wikipedia find someone else to combat this vandalism." --Orlady (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits " If the banned editor is the only contributor to the page or its talk page, speedy deletion is invariably correct. If other editors have unwittingly made good-faith contributions to the page or its talk page, it is courteous to inform them that the page was created by a banned user, and then decide on a case-by-case basis what to do." --Enric Naval (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested change of url parameter for db-g12

I'd like to change {{db-g12}} so instead of "url" it takes any of the following: "url=", "source=", or "sources=". URL would be kept but depricated. Is this okay with everyone? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) What's the rationale? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
If something is a copyright violation from a book, you can put the book's name and the page in the URL field but it's just awkward. By changing to "source" it makes the template match what I think is its intended use. "Sources" would be used if there were multiple sources. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, that sounds reasonable enough, I'd imagine, although if it's not an online source it might be hard to verify it for speedy (unless it's a really, really blatant offline copyvio). So I'm not entirely sure what you mean when you say URL would be deprecated, you aren't talking about disabling the URL function, but adding alternatives. Am I right? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Deprecated means its use is discouraged. The only reason it can't be removed is it would break articles whose edit histories included copyvio-tags but where the article was not deleted or where it was restored on review, such as where it was on the web in a GFDL-compatible license. Deprecated means either references to it would be removed from the documentation or it would be explicitly marked as deprecated in the documentation with a recommendation to use "source" instead. If this had been a subst'd template I'd just say remove URL altogether. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, well, in that case I don't see a good reason to mandate a change. Expanded functionality is one thing. But URL is what's used on {{copyvio}}, people are familiar with it, consistency is good, and it seems functional as is. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
So, something like this? Any one of |sources=, |source=, or |url= works (checked in that order). Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
If url works and source works and people can use what's appropriate/comfortable, that sounds ideal. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, something like that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Update to db-g8

Since WP:CSD#R1 has been deprecated and the preferred rationale for deleting bad obsolete redirects is WP:CSD#G8, should {{db-g8}} be updated to reflect this. It currently reads "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion, as talk page of a page which does not exist, has been deleted, or is itself currently tagged for speedy deletion." It should probably read "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion, as a page dependent on a page which does not exist, has been deleted, or is itself currently tagged for speedy deletion." WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Er, that's pretty much exactly what it does say... :D Happy‑melon 20:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Addition for author's warning template

I would like to suggest adding the following words at the end of the author's db-copyvio warning template, just before the final "Thank you":

Please note that even if the copyright issue were resolved, the promotional tone of a company or personal website may well be unsuitable for an encyclopedia article, which requires a neutral point of view.

I often add this myself by hand, in bold, out of concern that an inexperienced author will follow the copyright release steps only to have his text rejected. JohnCD (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for C1

Could we put an automatic 4-day time delay on {{db-c1}} in a similar way to the 7-day delay of {{db-t3}}? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Add some magic keywords about the last editor and the last revision

{{editprotected}} Since rev:48149 is live now, we can use {{REVISIONUSER}} to display the name of the person who edited the article in the latest revision. Example: Snigbrook.

Please add this code:

<span class="plainlinks">This page was [{{SERVER}}{{LOCALURL:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|diff=cur}} last edited] {{#if: {{REVISIONUSER}} | by [[{{ns:2}}:{{REVISIONUSER}}|{{REVISIONUSER}}]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/{{REVISIONUSER}}|Contribs]] • [[Special:Log/{{REVISIONUSER}}|Log]])</small> }} [{{SERVER}}{{LOCALURL:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=purge}} {{#ifexpr: {{LOCALTIMESTAMP}} < {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} | ? | {{#ifexpr: {{LOCALTIMESTAMP}} - {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} > 1000 | '''<span style="font-size:110%;"> }} {{#expr: ({{#time: U | {{LOCALTIMESTAMP}} }} - {{#time: U | {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} }}) / 60 round 0 }} }} {{PLURAL:{{#expr: ({{#time: U | {{LOCALTIMESTAMP}} }} - {{#time: U | {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} }}) / 60 round 0 }}|minute|minutes}}] {{#ifexpr: {{LOCALTIMESTAMP}} - {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} > 1000 | '''</span> }} ago.</span>

which is in this case: This page was last edited by Snigbrook (Contribs • Log) 6783 minutes ago.

Features of this code:

  • Displays link to the last diff
  • Displays link to the user page / contribs / log of the user who edited the page
  • Counts the minutes since the last revision and adds a action=purge link
  • If the last revision is older than 10 minutes, the "x minutes" is marked as bold, as this may be important to know for the administrator.

Thanks, --Church of emacs (Talk) 14:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Y Done I added it below the last line in small font and with <includeonly> so it does not show changes here. Regards SoWhy 14:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the fast implementation --Church of emacs (Talk) 15:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Notification template

Is there a template for user talk pages that says "If you came here to tell me an article will not be deleted, don't bother telling me"? I patrol the new pages a lot and when I speedy them, there are some that will not be deleted because they meet the criteria for being here. So when they do stay, I get messages on my talk page telling me that, but I really couldn't care less, so I'd rather not get messages. --Whip it! Now whip it good! 02:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Never mind that, I found a solution to the problem. --Whip it! Now whip it good! 03:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Would this be a legitimate usage of Db-talk?

Would it be legitimate to use {{Db-talk}} to nominate a long-abandoned 'proposed rewrite' of an existing article for deletion? Such pages are generally subpages of the article's talk page, so are impermissible for WP:PROD (and cause a very large error message when a prod is attempted on them), but they are (at least technically) "talk page[s] of a page which does not exist". This would appear to be using a technicality-for-inclusion to overcome a technicality-for-exclusion, but might be considered wikilawyering by some.

If this isn't legitimate, is there (should there be) any means of having such pages deleted, short of MfD? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If the page the rewrite is for does not exist anymore, then G8 can be applied ("...dependent on a page that was deleted or does not exist..."). If it might be useful though, one should consider whether the abandoned rewrite-attempt can serve as a draft for a new article instead. If the article exists, G8 cannot be applied because then the page it depends on exists. One might want to ask the author whether they want to keep it (so it can be userfied) or deleted (then use G7). If the author cannot be contacted/does not respond, go for MFD instead. Regards SoWhy 16:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] This page was last edited by…

{{editprotected}} This part of the template should be wrapped by <includeonly> tags as the last editor of the template itself e.g. "Happy-melon (contribs | logs) 1 months ago" is not terribly interesting. — CharlotteWebb 14:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

But it demonstrates how the template will function on real pages. The "check links, history, etc" links are "not terribly interesting[/useful]" either. Content should only be includeonly'd when it's actually disruptive to have it display, like categories or code that explodes without parameters. Besides, wrapping it in includeonly tags here will only hide it on db-meta, not on all the other db- template pages. Happy‑melon 15:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, can you please come up with something that does hide it on all of the db templates? — CharlotteWebb 10:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Why? It's not doing any harm. Happy‑melon 15:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for Db-c1

Deletion under {{db-c1}} requires that a category have been empty for four days, but it is virtually impossible for an administrator patrolling CSD to determine whether this condition has been met. I suggest adding a conditional expression ({{ #ifexpr:{{#time:U}} >= {{#time:U|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} + 4 days }}| etc.) to the template so that the category links to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and to Category:Empty pages for speedy deletion will not appear until the template has been in place for the required four days. If there are no objections, I will make this change in a few days. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind, but this will have the same problem {{db-t3}} has, meaning that they will not be placed in CAT:CSD automatically, but that it needs a null edit. I'm looking through those pages from time to time, and just performed a number of null edits on all templates in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:db-t3 which is why there are suddenly a couple of templates in CAT:CSD, and it's OK for those CSD categories that have only a moderate number of pages, but automatic categorization won't happen. Amalthea 16:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this is inconvenient. Well done for fixing these manually. I wonder if a bot could be employed to run weekly? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I can have SDPatrolBot do this, although it may require a request for approval. If I understand correctly, it just has to run maybe once every three or four days, and dummy edit (?) all the non-redirect (there's a few redirects which are used) template pages nominated under T3. I'm afraid I don't understand why it needs to do the dummy edit? Should it only do it if the page has been nominated for more then a week? Let me know if I'm wrong about what you want the bot to do, it's likely that I'd be able to get it to do something else to do with CSD. - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'd like that, all pages that transclude the {{db-t3}} template (or one of its redirects). It's theoretically enough to do so eight days or so after the template was placed, and a WP:NULL edit is enough, it doesn't need a WP:DUMMY edit. You could even check first if the page is already in CAT:CSD. FWIW, from what I can tell it's enough to use an empty appendtext parameter, you don't have to fetch the text and timestamp first; but you're the bot builder, you'll probably know better.
The reason it needs a dummy edit is a bit complicated. Categorization of a page is only written to the database in two cases: If a page is edited directly, or if a page which is transcluded onto other pages is changed then jobs are spawned to reparse all those pages (immediately or queued) and update the link tables.
A simple visit is not enough, since typically, no information is written to the DB on a visit, not even with a WP:PURGE. A page might display that it is in a category, but isn't really. Performing a null edit however does trigger a complete reparsing, with updates to the link tables, even if the page was unchanged and no entry to the history is made.
Now, we were thinking once that other pages could profit from periodic null edits as well. {{Adminbacklog}} for example is placed on some pages that aren't edited regularly, like on Category:Requests for unblock. Those pages would benefit from regular null edits as well. An idea would then be to place all pages that need regular updates into a new category, and your bot could then perform a null edit on each page every couple days (possibly skipping those where the last revision is younger then one or two days).
Amalthea 11:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone has been around doing null edits, but I've deleted several categories which were tagged 4 days ago, so the new code seems to be working well. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Stupid null edits don't leave an audit trail. From everything I can tell though, they don't just recategorize themselves. At least no one in the know (and I don't know the intrinsics of the job queue myself) ever told of a mechanism that would help with this problem. For example, Template:BAB-A-NL should currently be in CAT:CSD, and it claims that it is, but it isn't really. Purging it doesn't help. If someone were to perform a null edit, it would show up. Amalthea 17:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Uh... you're trying to confuse me now ;)... Seems very complex, shame that it can't just categorise first time. Anyway, one thing I don't get is; you sugest a category of pages which the bot runs through and does a null edits on every few days, but if the reason for this is because the pages aren't getting added to a category properly, then how do they get added to that one properly? And a null edit to a page which is supposedly in the category (but does't yet show) is enough to update the category page? - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Imagine a stupid categorization like [[Category:{{NUMBEROFEDITS}}]]. With the MediaWiki system, it's very very hard to keep this categorized correctly all the time. The underlying problem is that pages that are shown as part of a category are explicit entries in a database table. Database write actions are expensive since there is only one master database, so it's impossible with huge MediaWikis like Wikipedia to attempt recategorization with every page view.
A category like Category:Wikipedia pages in need of frequent null edits could be simply added to the includeonly area of {{adminbacklog}}, to place every page using it into the category. The {{db-t3}} template could do something like:{{#switch:{{age switch|d={{{1}}}}}|0=[[Category:Wikipedia pages in need of frequent null edits]]|1={{{category|[[Category:Candidates for speedy deletion]][[Category:Templates for speedy deletion]]}}}|-1={{{category|[[Category:Templates for speedy deletion with incorrect formatting]]}}}}}
This would immediately stick it into the bot category since, when the tag is added, the age switch template evaluates to 0. Once the seven days have passed, the template would evaluate to 1, so it only takes a (null) edit to actually place it in the category by triggering the update to the link tables.
Amalthea 17:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm being really slow. If I understand, the proposal is to create a new category which every 1/3/5/7 day(s) the bot goes through and does a null edit. By doing this null edit the bot forces Wikipedia to update the categories for that page. As well as all the admin backlogs, the Db-t3 template will add pages which are tagged more recently then seven days to the category. Right?
So, this means that the bot will have to edit just once after the T3 pages have been tagged for more then a week, yeah? And the admin backlogs maybe once every few days. - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, ones which have tagged less than 4 days ago are in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
So is the current template changing the categories as Amalthea suggested? If they are/were made to it would be a simple task to go through that category and null edit all the pages which have been nommed for longer then 4 days - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, except that it's not adding it to Category:Wikipedia pages in need of frequent null edits just yet.
It really depends on what you want to do: Just take care of the SD tagged pages, or build some general-purpose null-edit mechanism for all kinds of problems. If the former, then I guess you won't need a category since you're already tracking SD tags and can easily find all pages where a C1 or T3 tag was added eight days ago. If you want to tackle the larger problem, then I think a category is best to track those pages for the bot. The next question would then be whether it's necessary to categorize pages by the desired frequency of null edits. Amalthea 13:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
That seems like an okay idea. Here's my thoughts: we have the categories, with different ones for different frequency (as you suggest), so something like Category:Page requiring null edits every 1 days, Category:Page requiring null edits every 2 days, etc. And then every now and then (mebbes twice a day) the bot runs through all the pages in each category, and if the last edit to the page was longer ago then the frequency, then the bot performs a null edit. Wadda you think? - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Sounds OK. But I'd really suggest calling them something like "Wikipedia pages ...", I think that's the standard naming convention for self-referential maintainance categories. All should be {{Hiddencat}}s, and they should be placed in a parent category of the same name. Amalthea 14:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and if you add a category to one of the categories (e.g. you added Category:Wikipedia behavioral guidelines to Category:Page requiring null edits every 2 days) I could make the bot edit all the pages in the category, rather then the category page itself - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
How then do I register the actual category page Category:Requests for unblock for null edits? {{adminbacklog}} and {{backlog}} are sitting on a number of category pages.
I don't think that extra logic is necessary, almost all of the pages will have a template causing the need for the frequent null edits anyway, so the categorization of all of them can be rather easily done there, without a real need to register them all through a preexisting category. Amalthea 14:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Cool with me... also, are you sure null edits work? I just did one in the sandbox... nothing happens. I know it's not meant to but still ;). Anyway, what pages should be included in this? - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and yes. You can currently try it with {{WP:NAMCON}}, which is supposed to be in CAT:CSD and claims to be per the page rendering, but isn't. Make a null edit, and it will be listed in the category. Pages ... I can currently only think of the four templates mentioned in this section. Amalthea 16:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I think I understand this now. So I'll do another BRFA in a while (I've got a bit on my plate in regards to the 'pedia just now, so it'll be about five days). I also have a few other ideas for the bot, and other task have been suggested by other users. If you have any more a ideas rearding this one, please do let me know. Thanks for your help Amalthea :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] updating documentation

Hello,

I made a BOLD change to {{db-a5}} that allows for an optional (unnamed) parameter to supply the location of the transwikied text. The idea is to make it a little easier for the admin handling the request to find the transwikied article.

I would like to update the documentation to explain the parameter, but the documentation file is pretty complex and I'm not quite source how to do it, so some help would be appreciated.

Thanks --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the documentation is a bit of a bitch; it probably needs its own documentation! I've added the new syntax. Happy‑melon 10:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Db-f9 wording

I think this part needs to be removed/replaced from {{db-f9}}: "... and there is no assertion that the file is public domain, fair-use, or available under a free license" because most of the time there are assertions that the file is free. However those claims are simply bogus. Rocket000 (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "... and there is no plausible assertion that the file is ..."? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I've added "credible" since that it also the qualifier used in WP:CSD#F9. Anything beyond that will probably need discussion at WT:CSD.
Thanks, Amalthea 12:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I endorse that change, and don't think anything beyond that need be done - Kingpin13 (talk) 12:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
That works for me. Rocket000 (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Nn-warn-reason

When using Template:db or any of its redirects, the link in the template suggests notifying users with the Template:nn-warn-reason template. The notification template only refers to articles (and it looks like it was only intended for CSD A7), but the deletion template can be used on any page, so the notification template should probably be rewritten. snigbrook (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Db-meta"
Personal tools
Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs