Template talk:Db-meta

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Db-meta template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Template:Db-meta is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, all speedy deletion template talk pages redirect here. If you are here to discuss one of the db-* (delete because) templates, please be sure to identify which one. For discussions on each individual template prior to July 2008, see the histories of each talk page. For discussions about the template for criterion G1 from March 2004, see Template talk:Db-g1/Archive 1.

This talk page is for discussion about the CSD templates themselves (technical questions, maintenance, etc.) Discussions about any CSD criteria (adding, removing, amending, etc.), should take place at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, instead.

This edit request to TM:db-r2, TM:db-f5 and TM:db-u2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 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)

This edit request to TM:db has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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:

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)

This edit request to Template:Db-c4 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 .) 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)

This edit request to Template:Db-c4 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

This edit request to Template:db-imagepage has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

This edit request to Template:Db-gs has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

{{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)

This edit request to Template:Db-spamuser has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change: To account for the creation of Template:Db-timedtext, which is listed under the sub-criteria for G8.

Diff:

ToThAc (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

That seems like a new template you just created, maybe adding it to twinkle (and seeing some usage) would make sense before having it be suggested as a alternative in this template ? Sohom (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta: I already created a pull request on Github, but they're currently backlogged with requests. They don't even have T5 added yet, so we'll just have to wait. ToThAc (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Not done for now: , feel free to wave the bat-signal once Twinkle merges the PR. Sohom (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

This recent edit request introduced incorrect meaning in the text shown in {{Db-f5}}. F5 can apply either immediately or with a 7 day delay depending on how the non-free image was orphaned. The current wording implies that all instances of unused non-free images are subject to immediate deletion. meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a non-free file that is not used in any articles or was only used in a now deleted article and is very unlikely to have any use on any other valid article. The "or" is not correct. Only non-free images that were orphaned as a result of article deletion are eligible for immediate deletion. All other orphaned non-free images should be using {{Di-orphaned non-free use}}.

Can we fix this wording to match with the actual criteria. The "or" can simply be turned into "and" to fix this.

@Motevets and Primefac:: Notifying participants from the original request. -- Whpq (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC) @KindRowboat: - Notifying again as it looks like Motevets was renamed. -- Whpq (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Not that it particularly matters but you could have just reverted me if the change wasn't correct. I have self-reverted. Primefac (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. My main concern was that I might be misinterpreting the policy. I've changed the wording to use "and" as it seems to make it a little less awkward to parse. -- Whpq (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

It is requested that an edit be made to the template-protected template at Template:Db-imagepage. (edit · history · last · links · transclusion count · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately. Edit requests to template-protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request. When the request has been completed or denied, please add the |answered=yes parameter to deactivate the template.

Description of suggested change: Remove |self=yes from {{db-imagepage}}. db-imagepage has been changed to refer to WP:F2 instead of WP:G8 following this discussion. Since page authors are not allowed to remove F2 tags, the template should be updated to reflect this. This reverts my previous edit request.

Diff:

Nickps (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)