Template talk:Db-meta

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)

Edit request for Template:Db-spamuser on 1 January 2025

In the "When to use" section of the documentation, pipe the link of User:Bob's Widget Shop to User:Example to avoid the page from being created. WednesdayProblems (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: The page has never been created, so I do not see this as necessary at this point in time. Primefac (talk) 11:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)