The {{db-t3}} template currently has 15 transclusions in Template space, but those pages are not appearing in any of the CSD categories. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I've tracked it down to |page=Foo which has the HTML comment "CIRCUMVENT BLACKLIST" after it. Not sure why that is necessary but it wasn't a problem until an editor stopped categorising in non-template space. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I have applied a temporary fix, and will now contact Happy-melon who added the page=Foo to see if this is necessary. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it was so long ago; I have no idea why that code was employed (or even what the relevant templates looked like at the time). Happy‑melon 08:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well I have removed it for now. If there was a reason for it, it should become apparent soon. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the code was to avoid Template:Category handler/blacklist preventing the CSD category from being added. Anomie⚔ 00:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Please replace the following code (at the beginning of a line)

<small>''See this page's {{#if:{{{1|}}}|[[{{{1}}}|AfD]]|

with the code

<small>''See this page's {{#if:{{{1|}}}|[[{{{1}}}|deletion discussion]]|

, since it does not have to exclusively be an AfD that is linked to (could be an RfD log page, etc.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Done Anomie⚔ 04:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Frequently I come across speedy deletions with the message "This page was last edited by ... 1 second ago" (or occasionally even "... in 1 seconds time"), i.e. the page hasn't been purged since it was tagged. Yes, it's easy to click the time to purge it, but with a slow connection it does take a few moments. I propose this is changed to (e.g.) "This page was last edited by ... at 07:59 UTC (xx minutes ago)", with the purge link still retained. Purging the page will update the "xx minutes ago", but the time of last editing will be unaltered. If there's consensus for this change, I'm happy to try to work out the necessary code. Any thoughts?  An optimist on the run! 08:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Cross-posting to WP:VPR to get better response.  An optimist on the run! 09:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No opposition here or VPR, so I've made the change.  An optimist on the run! 07:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Forced to enter a captcha each time I tag something for speedy deletion, This recent change to this template appears to have had the side effect of requiring anonymous editors to enter a CAPTCHA when tagging an article with a speedy deletion template. Is there some means of changing the added external link so that this side effect no longer occurs? --Allen3 ^talk 23:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You should contact a sysadmin (Brion VIBBER perhaps) to add an inter-wiki link so that "[http://www.bing.com/search?q={{urlencode:{{PAGENAME}}}} web]" can be replaced with "[[bingsearch:{{urlencode:{{PAGENAME}}}}|web]]" or something simular. – Allen4names 00:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As a temporary measure, I've reverted the addition of the Bing link. It can be restored when the sysadmin change described above takes place.  An optimist on the run! 09:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't need a sysadmin, just a Meta administrator, who would edit the interwiki map. Graham87 10:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

A request had been added to add entries for both Bing and Yahoo! (no sense leaving out another large and well-known search engine while we are going through the process). --Allen3 ^talk 11:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you guys for dealing with this issue. 69.59.200.77 (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

So, after I found out that I should use {{db-c1}} for the reason I had, I had to find out how to use {{db-c1}}. Being a 30k editor, I entered my reasoning straight as parameter one: {{db-c1|my reasoning}}. You know, I do a speedy once a month, so I have a good intuitive guess on how to do it. Afterwards, somewhere I read that I was right (param 1=reasoning) -- sorry I cannot recall where I read that.
Then on the deletable page I saw a page with seven or ten lines in bold, and not my reasoning. Now that is strange, not? Where did my resoning go? Anyway, we all understand that seven bold lines is the best way to clarify a SPEEDY. At leasty to a 30k+ editor. Who needs a reasoning anyhow? -DePiep (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Tip: If you're going to recommend the aesthetic value of using bold in a template, you might not want to use bold in an obnoxious manner (i.e., making it appear you're shouting at us) in said request. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Is what I was shouting at the template. It did not listen. That to is why I am here. -DePiep (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I must say I find your posts rather confusing. You're shouting at the template when this question is obviously directed at human beings? The way to use this and almost all the speedy templates is to just place the template with no parameter needed to be filled out. There is only one speedy template that takes a reasoning parameter as far as I know, {{db}}. "db" in all speedy templates stands for "delete because" and the one I just listed is the generic template that does not supply a pre-made reason, thus allowing you to place your rationale. All others do not, and that is proper generally because usually one is not needed. The speedy criterion are strictly construed; a page either does or does not meet the criterion, and wat that criterion is is already supplied in each template. What may have confused you is that speedy warning templates often have additional parameters, but even those do not normally have a place for a rationale, and because they vary, you have to go to the template page to learn how to fill them out. If you had done that here, you would have seen that db-c1's documentation does not describe any way to place a rationale. Anyway, can you clarify exactly what it is you're looking for because I am still unclear what the purpose is of your post.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not shouting. First of all, of course "shouting" is when one writes all caps. Second: I use bolding, as the template does. That is my point 1: why does the template al this bolding? It is 30% of the text! Why complain about bolding here? If you come to me about formatting, why not go to the template? Apart from the bolding (not shouting), the template uses every style one can get mixed every way: red text, left-justified/center justified, indent, italics (also in bold), font-size:95% and x-small, classes: error & sysop-show, click-link-by-button, two font sizes (at least, on top of classes). I see old fashioned literal <b><i><td> tags, and five if-constructs in the text (5). But hey, the template does not shout. -DePiep (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm still puzzled. The focus of your initial post seemed to be about how your rationale did not show up, with the bolding being a side note about the content that should have been yours. Anyway, in your clarification I cannot tell if your problem has now changed to why the bolding or why all the forms of formatting. I am also thrown off by all this speech about being a 30k editor and how the bolding is "the best way to clarify a SPEEDY. At leasty to a 30k+ editor. Who needs a reasoning anyhow?" when you're the one placing the speedy, so its content is not for your edification but to inform others. Anyway, I think the bolding works. In all of the db-templates it serves to distinguish the criterion the template is placed under and the link to that criterion from the rest of the content (as well as the part about not removing the speedy themselves), and those are the most salient parts of the text we hope people will read, if nothing else.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I noticed on page Db-g7 that there was a deletion tag. I would like to vote against this tag, as I believe it sort of violates Assume good faith. I also believe the template is very useful. These matters seem important to discuss.

Walex03. Talking, working, friending. 20:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No, there isn't a deletion tag on {{db-g7}} - {{db-g7}} is the deletion tag. It's visible so that people can see what it looks like before they put it on other pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This is the last test edit! If you want to experiment, use the sandbox. The deletion tag, (which I believe should not be here as well}} is not being previewed, and right now it is filled with false wiki code. I shall make this edit now.

Walex03. Talking, working, friending. 20:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know what you mean here. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The above request I am making so that users do not have to follow the link to know what it is. Thanks. 75.53.218.81 (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This talk page covers lots of different templates... do you mean that the link in Template:Db-g12 should be amended, or does WP:CP occur somewhere else? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The template you specified is it. I was redirected to this talk page from that template's talk page. Please do make the change. Thanks. 75.53.218.81 (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Done This is a reasonable request, so amended. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Could someone make "Note to administrators: this template has content on its talk page which should be checked prior to deletion." bold? It doesn't stand out that well. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the admins seem to have no problem seeing it. →Στc. 22:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

This check should be made routine, similar to set the blinker while driving. mabdul 07:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

For a couple days now, placing the db-copyvio tag wipes the entire content of the page (except for the tag itself). Is this a bug or a "feature"? Hairhorn (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

This is deliberate (see history for edit summary of this change. There is some relevant discussion at Wikipedia talk:CSD#DB-G10 template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added a note there. Hairhorn (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the recent introduction of the blanking tag to {{db-g12}} breaks {{db-multiple}}. Specifically, passing the G12 parameter to {{db-multiple}} makes the courtesy blanking notice appear inside the template, and the text of the article does not actually get blanked. (This is because the core part of the template, {{db-multiple/item}}, calls {{db-g12}} itself to set the text of the notice and include the appropriate categories.) It seems to me that the best way to fix this would be to move the blanking tag to {{db-meta}} and just pass it through {{db-multiple}} and {{db-multiple/item}} as a parameter, like |blanked = {{{blanked|}}}. I've already got the blanking code working in Template:db-meta/sandbox, which was just a matter of copying the code over from {{db-g12}} and tweaking it a little. Could someone update the live template so that I can put the rest of the fixes in place? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 00:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, hold on, it looks like we'll need to coordinate this with {{db-g10}} and make sure it doesn't break Twinkle. Might take a little bit of testing. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 03:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so it looks like Twinkle blanks G10s by actually removing the text, and also passes |blanked=yes to {{db-g10}} and {{db-multiple}} at the same time. In this case, the "blanked" parameter displays the "this page has been blanked as a courtesy" notice, but it doesn't add the page-blanking div tag. In {{db-g12}}, though, until I reverted it, the "blanked" parameter added both the blanking notice and the page-blanking div tag. So, we need to be careful to specify what behaviour we want. I think that for now it would make sense to update {{db-meta}} so that the blanking notice appears at the bottom of the template, and not in the middle, as now happens with {{db-multiple}}. The page-blanking div tag needs more discussion, though, I think. (Also see my post at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#DB-G10 template.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I've updated the sandbox with the relevant code. Does anyone want to put this in the main template now? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 05:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Added.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Although, it turns out that to implement {{db-g10}} properly we also need to add the capability to display a "please blank the page" message. Sorry to bother you again, but I've updated the sandbox... could you do the honours? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 06:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No bother at all. What we need are people who step up to write the fixes, like you.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Aww, shucks, you made me blush. ;) Well, I'm glad you said that though, because I have yet another fix that I would like to get put into the template. This time it adds support for the div blanking tag itself, and also custom text inside the blanking notice. If you could add it from the sandbox when you next get a chance, that would be great. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This morning I discovered a bug in the code mentioned in the section above. What I thought was the end of the mbox code was actually the end of an #if: statement used by |raw=. So at the moment, the code {{db-meta|raw=yes|blanked=yes}} includes a blanking notice, when it should not. I've fixed this in the sandbox - try {{db-meta/sandbox|raw=yes|blanked=yes}}. I've also commented/indented the code so that it's easier to read (for me, at least). As far as I know this isn't breaking anything at the moment, but I won't be able to fix {{db-multiple}} while the bug is still in there. Could someone check that I haven't done anything (else) silly, and update the main template from the sandbox, please? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again! Hopefully this should be the last one. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, the fixes are up for {{db-g10}} and {{db-multiple}}. The only visible difference is in db-multiple for now - try previewing {{db-multiple|G10}} and you can see that it shows the blanking message below the template, not in the middle, and it actually blanks the page. (I wouldn't recommend saving that test, of course.) Also, now it will be easy to add blanking code to {{db-g12}} if discussions support it. I'll let people know about this on the WT:CSD as well. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I have sugesstion on Template:Db-G2 Criteria. "If you want to make test edit, use the Sandbox instead". So that the new user can understand where to do test edit. Thanks. --Dede2008 (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Such a message is already in {{db-test-notice}}, which is the note that should be posted to the talk page of the relevant user. This message is likely to persist long enough to be read, whereas the message on {{db-g2}} only exists until an admin deletes the page - which may be mere minutes, and so may not be long enough to be read by the user who created the page. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I ran into an interesting issue with {{db-multiple}}, I tagged an article G6 and G7, with a rationale for the G6, this caused the rationale to appear both for the G6 reason and for the G7 in red. Is there a way to tweak the templates to better deal with this situation? Monty₈₄₅ 19:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

There are ten positional parameters, each of which may be any valid CSD code such as G6 or G7. There are also several named parameters: |category= |url= |source= |rationale= |blanked= |filename= |article= |bot= |divblank=. Each of these applies to every positional parameter - there is no means for making any of them apply to just one. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well I suppose we could fix it, but then we would have to have different rationale parameters for every CSD criteria that used it. I think it might be one of those things that comes up so rarely that it might not be worth bothering with. Actually, you need to look at the sub-template {{Db-multiple/item}} to see which criteria are actually affected. It looks like the duplicates are G6, G7, and G8 for "rationale", G12 and F9 for "url", and F1 and F8 for "filename". G12 and F9 won't overlap, but I suppose F1 and F8 could, and G6, G7, and G8 could, as we have seen. The question is whether making users remember |g6-rationale=, |g7-rationale=, and |g8-rationale= (or whatever names we choose) would be more trouble than having the occasional doubling up that Monty saw. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The page for Template:Db-inc (and I suppose the other Db-___ templates whose talk pages redirect here) recommends

Please consider placing the template:
{{subst:db-notability-notice|Template:Db-inc|header=1}} ~~~~
on the talk page of the author.

Substituted as it stands, it warns the author that Template:Db-inc has been nominated for deletion, not the page that actually has been nominated. --Thnidu (talk) 05:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The deletion template uses a variable to identify the page its on, so that if you copy and paste the code, it leaves the correct message. When you view Template:Db-inc, you see the deletion notice that would appear had you tagged Template:Db-inc for deletion using the template, in which case {{subst:db-notability-notice|Template:Db-inc|header=1}} ~~~~ would be the correct notice to deliver. If you tagged WP:SANDBOX, it would suggest delivering the notice {{subst:db-notability-notice|Wikipedia:Sandbox|header=1}} ~~~~. (Verified using a preview edit) Appears to be working as intended. Monty₈₄₅ 06:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Moved to start discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion --Lexein (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The page Grace Barberry was closed delete at a redirects for discussion (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 28#Grace Barberry), but the link to the discussion doesn't work because the template adds "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion" to the front of the link. Besides, won't most user copy and paste the name of the page with the deletion discussion, which includes the "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion"? Ego White Tray (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2012

Hi there Ego White Tray. To get the link to the RfD page to work properly you need to add "redirect=yes" to the template code. Have a look at the full instructions at {{db-xfd}}. I'm not sure why Grace Barberry would need tagging with db-xfd though, as it has already been deleted by the user who closed the RfD. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be simpler and easier for both coding and editors to just put the entire page name in the template? If it's only a partial page name, editors will always be unclear and confused as to which part of the page name goes there and which doesn't. Especially since the template documentation says "votepage=name of page" - the name of the page includes the articles for deletion part. BTW, at the time, the page hadn't been deleted yet. Ego White Tray (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The button label "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" assumes the viewer is using a mouse or similar pointing-device interface. Minor accessibility issue as someone browsing the page through a screen reader wouldn't "click", but activate navigation differently. Suggest to change to "Contest this speedy deletion" for simplicity as well as moving the viewers focus to the action, rather than the mechanics of how they interact with it.Cander0000 (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:No content on page. Since you had some involvement with the Template:No content on page redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 70.24.247.127 (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there a way to specify multiple URLs? --SMS ^Talk 18:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

No. Each has to be tagged separately. Apteva (talk) 04:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Please implement this change to allow reliable styling of the template. Keφr 14:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I request that

• Template:Proposed deletion templates

should be added in the "See also"-section, because Template:Delete redirects to this page, but may have been typed when wanting to reach other deletion templates. I think this is an easier solution than making Template:Delete a disambiguation page and subsequently fixing all the "What links here". Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I just realized that I can still edit the documentation page, so I made the edit now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

British Rail Class 472 request to delete a document.

Train is not actually planning to introduce.

Searching but can not on other sites.

Request to be removed is false information.

(* Web site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_472 *)

WP:PRODded. Happy‑melon 10:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

For some reason, the {{db-xfd}} cites WP:CSD#G6, but I see no reasons to label any deletion which was previously discussed (and approved) as a "speedy" one. I propose to drop any mentioning of Criteria for speedy deletion from {{db-xfd}} template. See also Wikipedia talk: Criteria for speedy deletion #Slight revision to G4 and G6. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

A page should be deleted. It should be deleted speedily. There is no question it should be deleted. Sounds like the clearest possible case of speedy deletion ever to me. Ego White Tray (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Which deletion summary will be written to the log after "clearest possible case of speedy deletion"? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

At what point did 'in compliance with form 42D as correctly completed in triplicate with the signature of an under-secretary' become the primary methodology for determining whether a deletion is appropriate? The CSD criteria are descriptive: they describe some situations in which it is appropriate for administrators to delete pages without further discussion. Because we like to keep things tidy, we've written that page in such a way that it describes most such cases, but we can never expect to catch them all. So when a page crops up which does not fit into any of the given pigeon holes, but is still unquestionably suitable for deletion, we take advantage of administrators' ability to actually think (and type) and write something in the deletion log that explains that yes, the deletion really is as uncontroversial as you'd expect it to be. Happy‑melon 14:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but this lengthy comment unlikely made somebody happy. Several people (including some admins) think that CSD is applicable to {{db-xfd}} (either as G6 or, a minority view, as G4). I (Incnis Mrsi) and Redrose64, an admin, think that it is not. What do you (Happy-melon) think about this? Not about under-secretaries or pigeon holes, but about how to qualify the deletion action which follows a {{db-xfd}}? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that it is acceptable for any admin to delete a page that has been the subject of an XfD discussion which was properly closed as "delete", and that it is acceptable for any editor to bring to the attention of the admin corps any pages where that condition applies by applying a notification template such as {{db-xfd}}. I don't think that it is necessary either for this edgecase to be spelled out in painful detail in WP:CSD, or for the notification template to link to a CSD criterion to 'make deletion legal'. As such, I think we're singing from the same songsheet. Happy‑melon 16:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I would consider deleting a page as the result of a properly closed discussion, where the only reason the page wasn't deleted appears to be that the closer forgot to delete the page, to be uncontroversial maintenance, which is certainly within the scope of G6. Not knowing about {{db-xfd}}, I have tagged such cases using regular G6 templates and had no problem getting them deleted. Monty₈₄₅ 16:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

What Monty said. I would consider this kind of deletion to be uncontroversial maintenance, and I don't see it as a problem that this specific situation isn't listed at WP:G6. Redrose64 has a good point that the first step in this kind of situation should usually be to inform the closing admin that they have forgotten to actually delete the page, as that way there should be less chance of them making the same mistake the next time. However, I don't see it as any big problem if someone just goes ahead and tags the page for speedy deletion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I repeat the question. Could someone of the people "having no problem getting them deleted" show a couple of links, with deletion logs? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Mytho-Circassian script, Mad Gibbs, and Sergey Bubnovskiy. My practice was to tag the article G6, include a link to the deletion discussion. I would also notify the closer at the same time. Sometimes, as in those cases, the G6 gets action first, sometimes the closer deals with it. If I recall correctly, in each of those cases, the article was moved during discussion, and the admin deleted the redirect, not the actual article. When I have found bundled nominations that were not deleted, I refrain from G6 tagging, and only contact the closer, as it is often not clear from the close whether the closer determined consensus in regard to them, or overlooked the bundled article(s) entirely. Monty₈₄₅ 17:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, actually I did use the xfd template on those, Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce was a regular G6 template though. Monty₈₄₅ 17:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The point is that it's not necessary to get worked up over whether there's a correct shorthand link tag to put in the deletion log, or even whether there's a link at all. There's no requirement for the deletion log to follow any particular format, only that it be clear in why the deletion happened. There are some admins who deliberately use custom log entries for regular 'vanilla' CSD deletions, never mind anything a bit more niche. If the deletion is warranted by policy or common sense, then the important thing is that the deletion be done and that the log be clear, not that the log conform to some arbitrary format. Happy‑melon 18:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I suggested linking back to the XFD discussion. That way, anybody who sees the deletion log entry will be able to find the deletion reason. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Whether we call this speedy deletion or not is completely irrelevant, and there really is no reason to care. I did add the following text to its doc page: "Administrators deleting pages with this template should give the articles for deletion discussion for their deletion summary rather than listing it as G6." I think that this should address any concerns. Ego White Tray (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Per this discussion [[1]] A7 has been expanded to include organized events. I was asked to notify the people who maintain Twinkle and csd templates so we can make the nec changes. If this is not the correct place can you let me know where it is? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just created {{db-event-notice}}, and {{db-event}} was already created, so those are the main templates done. Page Curation uses separate templates, so you'll need to ask at WT:CURATE as well. For Twinkle, ask at WT:TW - they won't see the request here. It might also be worth dropping a note at WT:HG as well, although I'm not sure if Huggle distinguishes between different flavours of A7. Hope this helps! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

This part of the CSD template, visible on those db- tags that suggest that the creator contests the deletion, has bothered me ever since it was introduced:

If you created this page, and you disagree with its proposed speedy deletion, clicking the button below will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place to explain why you believe this [article...] should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page directly and tailor your own message, or check if you have received a response to your message.

It is really verbose and difficult for newbies to understand. How about:

If you created this page, and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message, explaining why you believe this [article...] should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page directly to check if you have received a response to your message.

I think that is a lot clearer and lacks all the nested subordinate clauses of the old message. Should we implement it? — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Your version seems to be an improvement to me. I added you can to remove the imperative. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, looks good to me. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Let's have it, then. Thanks in advance, friendly admin who answers this request. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done  An optimist on the run! 23:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Should the {{db-disambig}} template include any page that only list one Wikipedia article? Obviously if there is only one article listed, there is nothing to disambiguate. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I would have to agree. This use isn't codified in CSD policy (thank goodness), so we can just change the template if no-one objects. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. You should probably bring this up at WT:CSD as well, though, as that's where most of the discussion on this type of thing takes place. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

But we need to avoid ambiguity and clarify that an entry for a redlinked, or even plaintext (see WP:DABMENTION), use of a term, with a blue link to a Wikipedia article which refers to it, "counts" here as "listing" a WP article. PamD 14:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Totally support, with Pam's caveat. —Theopolisme (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at how I revised it, feel free to revert if it still needs changes. Ego White Tray (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Err no, reverted, a page of any title that doesn't end in "(disambiguation)" but has one valid link to another wiki page is effectively a redirect. If there is nothing to disambiguate, then it is marked inappropriately as disambiguation page and that needs to fixed, but not the whole page being deleted. Typical scenario: Redirect gets converted to dab page, but the new links turn red since the targets are deleted, so it can become again a redirect. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Tikiont, a disambiguation page with only one entry is a soft-redirect. The correct thing to do in most situations is to change it to a hard redirect. In other situations, the correct thing to do is to add the other things that should be disambiguated, format it correctly, or merge it with another disambiguation page. In the handful at most of cases where none of these apply then it should go to XfD. Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Whilst I fully agree with the principle of hiding the text of attack pages from everyday readers once a db-attack tag has been added, it can be a bit of a pain for admins to have to go back and view the history of the page to check the content before deletion. I have a suggestion that would make our jobs a bit easier (and speed up deletion of the page). Firstly, replace <div id="AttackPage" style="display:none"> with <span class="sysop-show"> (which hides text from non-admins - see my sandbox. Also remove the instruction to "please blank this page", possibly replacing it with the comment "The following text is available to administrators only" after the sysop-show tag. Once this is done, begin to re-educate page reviewers not to blank the page, but to leave the original text intact.

I haven't done any testing on this template yet, though I don't see any reason why it shouldn't work in principle. If there's support for this idea, I'll do some further testing. What do people think?  An optimist on the run! 22:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The hidden text appears in search results (both Wikipedia and Google), and noindex isn't enabled in article space according to WP:NOINDEX. Peter James (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a fair point, but in my experience attack pages are generally deleted very quickly, so it shouldn't cause much of a problem. My proposal will make the deletion process even quicker.  An optimist on the run! 08:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... does using <div id="AttackPage" style="display:none"> prevent Wikipedia and Google from displaying the wikitext in their searches? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Good question - I'll do a test and get back to you.  An optimist on the run! 11:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I put some random words in my sandbox, hidden beneath the attackpage tags. If this Google search or this Wikipedia search pick up my sandbox (allowing time for them to next spider the site), then the answer is no.  An optimist on the run! 11:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I see it's come up in the Wikipedia search. Nothing in Google search yet, though. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Google search doesn't find the "visible by everyone" line of that page now. Peter James (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That's the part that isn't hidden. I'm not sure what this proves, other than Google is generally slow at updating changes, probably slower than the page would be zapped anyway.  An optimist on the run! 15:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It's my experience that Google is a lot quicker to index new articles than it is to index userspace. I think we should leave the test going for a week or so and see if it registers. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Most new pages in any indexed namespace are added to Google quickly, although a few are missed apparently at random, possibly more articles are added from the transclusions of Special:Newpages in various places. Peter James (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in Google now for that page, but I've created a new sandbox and Google shows the text hidden by "sysop-show" and "display:none" but not text in "<!-- -->" or template parameters. This is the same as what appears in the HTML. Peter James (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• I don't personally find two clicks to be that difficult to execute but I do like the idea of zapping attack pages as quickly as possible so if this is technically possible I'm all for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll do some further testing, and suggest it at WP:VPR.  An optimist on the run! 15:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the article history should always be carefully examined anyway, before a page is deleted. So I'm not sure I agree with the rationale that this will decrease reviewing time for administrators. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I've only just seen this. I agree with Kingpin - one needs to look at the history anyway, (a) because sometimes a valid article has been vandalised, in which case the answer is revert and rev-del rather than delete, and (b) to see who added the attack, and check whether he has been properly warned and whether he makes a habit of it and needs blocking. JohnCD (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

There's one or two technical difficulties (that I'd prefer not to discuss), that may cause problems with this. Couple this with the comments above, and I think I'll abandon this idea. Others can take it forward if they like.  An optimist on the run! 09:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I see that {{db-multi}} handles WP:CSD#G8, but {{subst:Db-notice-multiple}} doesn't. I've not checked for other inconsistencies. For example, if I tag something {{db-multi|G11|G2}}, it offers

{{subst:Db-notice-multiple|Template:DJ-Vaibhav Sawant|header=1|G11|G2}}

which works properly, see User talk:Sawantvaibhav23#Speedy deletion nomination of Template:DJ-Vaibhav Sawant; however although {{db-multi|G2|G8}} similarly offers

{{subst:Db-notice-multiple|Talk:Dj Vaibhav Sawant|header=1|G2|G8}}

which is correct, but when this is saved to a user talk page, only the G2 notice is shown, see User talk:Sawantvaibhav23#Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Dj Vaibhav Sawant. Is there a reason for this omission, or is it an oversight? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

When I coded up db-notice-multiple, I only included the criteria that already had a corresponding notification template. G8 doesn't have a standalone notification template, so I didn't include it as an option. You can see which criteria are included from the table at Template:Db-notice-multiple/doc. This is also how Twinkle behaves - it doesn't leave any user notices for pages tagged with one of those same CSD criteria. If people think adding other criteria to db-notice-multiple would be a good idea, though, I have no problem with that, and I can code it up without too many problems. (It would be even easier if people could suggest wordings for the extra criteria. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, the table at Template:Csdcheck/doc might be useful to see what criteria are used for what. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I was aware that I needed to check for compatibility at {{db-multi}}. I had looked at WP:CSD, and decided that both G2 and G8 applied to the page in question; and checking {{db-multi}} I saw both G2 and G8 marked "Yes", so I used {{db-multi|G2|G8}}. It then displayed a {{subst:Db-notice-multiple}} (exactly as above, but appended with four tildes), and so (as I normally do) I copied it verbatim to the user's talk page. It simply didn't occur to me that I needed to re-check compatibility before doing so - I assumed that what was valid in one would automatically be valid in the other. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see the solution here. I need to change the suggested invocation of {{db-notice-multiple}} that is generated by {{db-multiple}} so that it doesn't show parameters that aren't supported. At the moment it shows parameters that are supported by db-multiple, but I can see now that this is an error. I'll go and fix that now. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, done. While I was doing it, though, I thought of a more nuanced way of doing this that might make more sense, though. It definitely still looks strange if a page gets tagged with, e.g. G2 and G8, but only G2 comes up in the notice template suggestion and in db-notice-multiple itself. A better idea would probably be to include notices for all the criteria in db-notice-multiple, but to stop the suggested notice template invocation from appearing on db-multiple at all if only certain speedy deletion criteria are used. That would prevent confusion about criteria that were in the tag not appearing in the notice, and would also prevent unnecessary notices about criteria that aren't usually worth notifying people about. To make this work properly, though, we would need to make sure Twinkle behaves in the right way, so it could be quite a big job. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this a new policy? I am wondering when it came into action, I don't recall reading that before. Ranze (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That language has persisted unchanged since the first revision of this page as of December 25, 2005.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. The template {{db-catempty}} places categories into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories after four days, but this does not appear to happen automatically. For example, Category:2010 NCAA Division III football season is supposed to appear in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories, but the latter category is empty. Purging does not appear to work. Can anyone explain why this is happening? It's possible that other categories eligible for CSD C1 are not being processed. Edge3 (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I posted a similar query on Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2013_May_15#CSD_C1_categories, but the matter wasn't completely resolved. Edge3 (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Edge. I think this is an issue with the job queue. When I visited Category:2010 NCAA Division III football season it was listed as being in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories, but it wasn't showing up when I navigated to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories itself. This is probably because the job queue hasn't got round to updating all the pages yet. I gave Category:2010 NCAA Division III football season a null edit and purged Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories, and now it's showing up. It can take a while for the job queue to get around to updating stuff, and at particularly busy times it can even take weeks. I hear that there are plans to make the job queue more efficient, but I'm not sure at what stage of fruition they are at. There's no easy answer other than to wait, I'm afraid, unless you want to change the template so that it adds the page to the category straight away. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This could be a suitable job for Joe's Null Bot (talk · contribs), which makes null edits once a day to certain pages to make sure their categories are properly updated. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that a bot like that had been approved. I assumed that since the WMF servers are already doing the job, albeit with erratic timing, that a bot would be seen as redundant. I guess I was wrong - I'll drop Joe a message to see if he can set the task up. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've replied below.... you'd think this would be a job queue issue, but it's not, it's a bit more subtle than that. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not a job queue issue, but a known bug: category membership simply isn't updated when pages are re-rendered. Instead of a null edit, you can also do action=purge&forcelinkupdate=1. You could have a bot do that on all pages transcluding appropriate templates. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5382 Matma Rex talk 09:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly right, this is the same problem we had with expirining BLP templates, the MediaWiki software doesn't get a kick to do anything when the four days have expired. What I generally need to make that work is a category that does get properly filled -- in this case, Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion -- then it's just a matter of cycling through that category once a day and using the API to do a "special purge" on each item within it. It appears that there's about 250 entries, so this is smaller the largest task of the sort that's already running. Making this work is a matter of cut/pasting my own code, changing the category name, maybe tweaking the paramater for the maximum # of articles it'll poke in a day, and well, of course, I'll have to do a BRFA.... Happy to do it if this would help. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the pointer to the even earlier bugzilla reference to this, there are at least three open bugs in Bugzilla on essentially this issue, but 5382 is even earlier than the other two I've seen. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights. I think that a bot would be very helpful. As for the relevant categories, it seems to me that the nominated categories are placed in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion for only four days, then they are switched to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories. The nominated categories do not remain in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion after four days. Does this affect how your bot would operate? Edge3 (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. We're trying to update those whose categorytable entries are "wrong", that is, those whose categorytable entires show them only in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion when instead, categorytable should show only in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories. The problems, that is, the empty categories with bad categorytable entries, are all empty categories that should show when we traverse the categorytable looking for Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that was incomprehensible.  :) In any case, it's not a problem. --j⚛e decker^talk 05:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll submit the approval request tomorrow. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out with this! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! I trust that you know what to do. :) Edge3 (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! --j⚛e decker^talk 00:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Approved for trial and I've started a slow first run, take a look over the next hour or so, scream on my talk page if you see problems. Thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 23:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I note that this matter has been resolved, as per the successful BRFA on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Joe's Null Bot 5. Thanks, everyone, for your help! Edge3 (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry I should have left a note back. The 'bot now in daily, automatic operation, and seems to be working fine. Thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 00:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that this template isn't working right. When Empty categories are submitted they should be going into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories and this category does show in the category list at the bottom of the category submitted. But when I look at that category, nothing is in it. There is a very large backlog of empty categories for deletion that isn't getting worked because they aren't appearing. Here are some examples I submitted: Category:Wikipedia articles needing editing for flag use from May 2013, Category:Wikipedia categories needing cleanup from May 2013, Category:Wikipedia laundry list cleanup from May 2013 and Category:Wikipedia templates needing cleanup from May 2013 and there are also a lot with a system generated message like Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field from April 2013 Kumioko (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This must be related to the previous thread. Perhaps Joe Decker (talk · contribs) can confirm that his bot is still running task 5? -- John of Reading (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Possibly but it seems that thread was specific to those categories that are automatically generating not getting "kicked". I saved the CSD template to these so that should have triggered the queue to pick them up. Also, some of these date back to before January 2013 so I don't think they are all getting hit by the bot. It may be doing the current ones forward, but there are still a lot tagged previous to May still not showing. Kumioko (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look, I am experiencing technical difficulties. (The machine I've been running the bot on automatically had a power supply failure and disk crash, I've almost got it back together.) I've been trying to remember to run the bot code by hand from my laptop each day, but it's possible that I've missed a task. Or there could be a separate issue from me, I'll let you know what I find out. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Those monthly maintenance categories get tagged for deletion as G6 not C1, so won't be picked up by any of your bot's current tasks. FYI, I've just done a null edit at Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field from April 2013 and a purge at Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion - only now is the April category properly listed in the deletion category. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Kumioko (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Category:Wikipedia articles needing editing for flag use from May 2013 according to the history was tagged as C1 more or less today, there is *supposed* to be a four day delay before C1s show up in that category to be deleted as per the C1 criteria. That that category isn't showing up at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories is, I believe, the intended behavior. Not having had my coffee yet this morning, it's entirely possible I'm missing something obvious, though. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Well maybe. I had never heard of the 4 day lag rule before. Not very speedy if thats the case but its not a big deal. They've sat there this long a couple more days won't matter, its just frustrating. If I had the ability I would have just deleted them rather than waste edits to submit them so a bot can do another edit to get them to show up so someone else can delete them. Seems like a major waste of resources. Kumioko (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a little weird, and maybe a bit wasteful--maybe less so than you'd think, because that'd be a pretty easy cleanup to do with batch delete. (It's easy to double-check that they're empty.) I wonder why the delay is there at all. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Me too, might be one of those things that had a reason in 2005 but not anymore. I'm gonna working through a lot of the categories and cleaning some out starting wiht the onesies and twosies, some I think just need to be merged and some eliminated completely as utterly useless. We'll see what happens. Thanks again. Kumioko (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Monthly cleanup cats are not among the exceptions listed at WP:CSD#C1; that entry also mentions the four-day delay, which is also shown in {{db-c1}}. Empty categories shouldn't be G6-ed simply for being empty. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You'll need to change it in Template:Monthly clean-up category/core then. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems that it was altered from C1 with this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

@Redrose, your right, just being empty does't warrant deletion but in addition to being a past dated template in my opinion would justify the G6. Kumioko (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I would like "The page to be moved to this name is [[{{{1}}}]]." (third line on my screen) changed to "The page to be moved to this name is [[:{{{1}}}]].", see this edit for justification.

Launchballer 11:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. I've tidied the code up and reduced the protection to semi for good measure. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Please delete Category:Tactical development on the Western Front in 1917 created in error.Keith-264 (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed that whenever users contest a speedy deletion, they almost always leave the (your reason here) text alone and put their reason at the very end of the new section. Is there any way Template:Hangon preload generic could be changed to make it less likely users will do this? --71.199.125.210 (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Requesting the following:
{{pagetype|subjectspace=yes}}
to be changed to: {{talk other|talk page|{{pagetype|subjectspace=yes}}}}
so that when you tag a talk page for deletion, it won't appear as "this page/template/file may meet the criteria..." but "this talk page may meet..."
Note that there are three instances of this code in the db-meta template, so if you're going to change it, change them all. Ginsuloft (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the fix. I also added one more ("Note that once tagged with this notice, this page may be deleted at any time") and made another tweak to the wording about using the talk page if it is a talk page being tagged. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Could someone add "hoax" to the supported list of reasons in {{db-multiple}}? Thanks. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm requesting that {{Db-meta}} be modified as follows to employ the new shortcuts for the CSD criterion:

Change:

   | See [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#{{uc:{{{criterion}}}}}|CSD {{uc:{{{criterion}}}}}]].

To:

   | See [[CSD:{{uc:{{{criterion}}}}}]].

Please and thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: Sandbox version and test cases please? Come on, you should know this by now. If there's any chance of a slip-up, it's much better to make the slip-up in the sandbox. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Really, for that? Oy vey... Okay... You're right... Template:Db-meta/sb Template:Db-meta/tc... Technical 13 (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Actually, that wasn't complicated at all - sorry if I was snippy. For some reason I thought there would be multiple instances of that code in the template. (Still, it's much easier to see that kind of thing if it's in a sandbox.) Also, about the /sb page, it would be really helpful if you could use /sandbox and /testcases pages rather than shortcuts like that. It's not that I don't like shortcuts, but {{documentation}} and {{edit protected}} are set up to work with the default names automatically, so it makes things easier for other editors. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

 Not done looking at Template:Db-meta/testcases Template:Db-meta does not match Template:Db-meta/sandbox. There were three instances of [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#{{{CRITERION}}}|CSD {{{CRITERION}}}]] that needed changing to [[CSD:{{{CRITERION}}}]]. Technical 13 (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Wait, what wasn't done? Anyway, I've copied across the sandbox for you again - let me know if there is anything else that needs changing. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Notice: These new shortcuts are the subject of a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_10#CSD:G1. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that the following:
You can also [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|visit the talk page]] to check if you have received a response to your message.
should be changed to
{{talk other|You can check back later to see|You can also [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|visit the talk page]] to check}} if you have received a response to your message.
so that on talk pages nominated for speedy deletion, users are not advised to visit the talk page as though it is some separate entity. After all, talk pages don't have their own meta talk pages, so any messages left by the contester will be on the talk page itself — and that's the page they need to check back to. (also note the removal of an extraneous space.) ~ Boomur [☎] 23:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems sensible.  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I used {{db-move}} at the top of Miguel A. Catalán:

{{db-move|Miguel Ángel Catalán|Article misnamed ''and'' more commonly known with middle initial only; see note left for me at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Largoplazo&oldid=590791730#Miguel_.C3.81ngel_Catal.C3.A1n] and note the change made to the person's full name at the beginning of the article}}

The template correctly displayed the name of the article to be moved after the deletion, but instead of displaying the reason for the request, the template displayed "Error: reason for move missing". After I put an explicit "2=" in front of the reason, it worked. Why was it broken without the "2="? —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Because of the = in the URL, it thought the parameter name you was specifying was "Article misnamed and more commonly known with middle initial only; see note left for me at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title".--Launchballer 10:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I should have noticed that! Thanks. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there any way to change this template so that it accepts the tag reason= as well as rationale=? It's not logical to me why only "rationale" is accepted. Thanks! Red Slash 18:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is a meta template that should only be used by other templates and not used directly. I don't see the benefit of adding another redundant parameter. Please explain the use case. Technical 13 (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Since all the talk pages for the db- templates redirect here, it's very possible that Red Slash actually was referring to a directly-used-on-pages template rather than this meta template. Is that the case? Happy‑melon 23:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed I was (I was thinking about g6, for what it's worth). The use case is just that the word "rationale" is unnatural when the word "reason" exists. Is it technically difficult to have two different prompts for the same function? Red Slash 02:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• {{Db-g6}} already supports |rationale= and |wording= - you want |reason= added to that as well? Three different names for the same parameter seems a bit much to me, but I suppose. Done Technical 13 (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• You are the best. Red Slash 01:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I noticed when I was looking at {{db-u1}} that it seems not to have noticed that, being in the Template: namespace, not User:, it certainly doesn't qualify under CSD Uanything. It Would Be Nice™ if {{db-u1}}, {{db-u2}}, and {{db-u3}} would emit some sort of warning when used in the wrong namespace. —SamB (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

What about cases where User:A makes a template at User:A/template and then decides to move it to Template:User:A but realizes that is inappropriate and doesn't want the stupid thing anyways. So they navigate to User:A/template where they originally created to place {{Db-u1}} there and get the entire history deleted because they don't understand how namespaces work. They don't realize that they have been redirected and are placing it in the wrong namespace. Now, User:A is the only one who has ever touched this template and created it in their userspace, so why is U1 inappropriate? Technical 13 (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:U1 is inappropriate because it is defined as applying only to user pages. Once it is moved, it stops being a user page. Full stop. WP:G7 (or even WP:G6) would fit in this somewhat improbable situation. Keφr 22:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I suppose, although I don't know an admin that would refuse to delete in this situation. I'll add it in the next few days if no-one beats me to it. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 23:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The same problem exists with other namespace-restricted templates. Tag an article with {{db-f1}}, for example. The template doesn't complain. The only odd thing is the wording: "This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as an unused image [...]". --Stefan2 (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could explain this? The file is tagged with {{db-delete}}, but for some reason the file isn't categorised in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Something seems wrong with the template code here. If people can tag pages with speedy deletion templates without the pages showing up in the speedy deletion category, this could potentially mean that lots of problematic files remain undiscovered by admins who evaluate CSD tags. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Db-delete is a redirect to {{db-meta}}, and since the latter is only intended for use within templates like {{db-g1}}, it follows that " Do not attempt to use this template directly on articles. For a generic speedy deletion template, see {{db}}" also applies to {{db-delete}} --Redrose64 (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that it would be a good idea to categorise pages in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion even if {{db-meta}} is misused. Otherwise, speedy deletion candidates risk remaining unverified forever because someone doesn't understand how to use the template. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

That would put all of these pages into the category. Not all of them are misuses of {{db-meta}}; for example, there is a legitimate transclusion in Template:Db-f2, and that template must not be speedy-deleted. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing. Perhaps we need to go through Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:db-meta every couple of weeks to make sure we evaluate the mistagged pages. I'll go and check all uses of {{db-delete}} now. —Kusma (t·c) 14:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I have taken care of all pages using {{db-delete}} and deleted that template redirect, as it is confusing that it is not a template to be used for deletion nominations. Better for it not to exist so people look up the correct templates. —Kusma (t·c) 14:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

114.143.62.138 (talk) 09:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC) The article A Way to Explore the Soul by Scientific Experimentation, by Ram Naresh Singh is a scholarly article dealing with the concepts of soul in various philosophies. In addition, it looks in to the properties of soul and proposes a model for soul which could be tested by designing a suitable experiment in future. Kindly restore the article on the Wikipedia site. Thanking you, Yours sincerely, Ram Naresh Singh, M.Sc., Ph.D., Retired Professor e.mail; nareshkusum@yahoo.com

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Db-meta}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, if you would like to restore a deleted article, first please ask the administrator that deleted it if they would be willing to consider. If that does not work, you can try asking at deletion review. However, please bear in mind that articles that do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines are routinely deleted. See here for a quick explanation of the notability guidelines. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Please make it possible to allow more that one url when tagging for G12, it is possible using {{db-g12}} but not using this template. (t) Josve05a (c) 14:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Josve05a: Just to confirm, are you asking for an edit to {{db-meta}} or to one of the other templates whose talk page redirects here? -- John of Reading (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is probably referring to {{db-multiple}}. If that's the case, it's certainly possible to add the capability for more URLs, but it should probably be done at the same time as it is Lua-fied. There are already an awful lot of curly braces in that and {{db-multiple/item}}, and it's been listed at WP:Lua/To do for a while. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Josve05a: I'm not sure if this is needed. As you say, {{db-g12}} allows up to 3 URLs. If you want to directly call db-meta in a way that uses more than one URL, just copy the code in db-g12 and customize it to fit your needs. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I am refering to {{Db-multiple}}. When entering:

{{Db-multiple|G13|G12|url=http://example1.com/|url2=http://example2.com/}}

it only shows the first url...(t) Josve05a (c) 18:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Neither Template:Db-multiple and Template:Db-multiple/item are template-editor-protected. You should have permission to change both files. If you can't wait for lua-ification, please test things out in the templates' sandboxes and ask someone to review your changes before you edit the actual templates. Once you go live, update Template:Db-multiple/doc. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

sir can you please update the page bibek bhattarai — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbkbhatt (talk • contribs) 15:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Db-meta}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

First - I am submitting a Do Not Delete recommendation here because the appropriate button on the deletion comment page is not working. Second - this article is a set of direct and factual statements of the functions and capabilities of the SSDS system. I wrote the original operational specification for the SSDS, and this article closely matches what I said in 1996. It does not advertise for any company or commercial entity. /s/ Archer M. Macy, retired Navy.

65.207.21.186 (talk) 11:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, which article does this refer to? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that this is in reference to Ship Self-Defense System. Mr. Macy, the article is not currently nominated for deletion, although it does more or less say "the wording should read more like a press release." I would guess that in this case an attempt to delete would be very unlikely, as there is enough in the way of sourcing in the article to preclude deleting it, the "message" on the article which lead you here didn't do a great job of explaining that. You might want to add your comments to Talk:Ship Self-Defense System, but I think the warning notice was placed not so much in an attempt to delete the article as to call attention to the fact that some of the features/benefits language there reads a bit non-neutrally and unencyclopedically, and the boilerplate nature of the warning message really miscommunicates the underlying concern. Anyway, you want to discuss this at Talk:Ship Self-Defense System, it's our fault you got to this location, but I can see how you did, but it's the talk page is the place that would be best (within our maze-like bueracracy) for this. Drop me a note on my talk page ( User Talk:Joe Decker ) if I can explain further. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

<text of article in another language removed> 213.177.4.148 (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

213.177.4.148 (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Db-meta}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) Hello person editing from 213.177.4.148, You seem to have mistaken the talk page of an article you wish to edit with the talk page of the speedy deletion template that was placed on it (or some other confusion brought you here). IN any event, you are not in the right place. If my first guess is at all correct, go back to the article, click "Talk" at the top, and place any request on that articles talk page, if not already deleted. However, Wikipedia is written in English, and a request should start with a description of what you want done. In no event is anyone going to place a swath of foreign language content into an English article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Like every other speedy deletion template I see, u1 and g7 is when the author or user requests deletion to his/her page. But there is one abnormality, they do not have to be such a legal or if I can say it phrase. I want the presentation of the templates to be softer. That is, they do not use 'speedy deletion' in a hard and fast style. I have a live preview here. That is how I want them to look like, both templates should be nice to everyone, not organised in a way that only administrators can really get the personality of those strict templates. Thanks! DSCrowned (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

If you like this idea, please ask me about it on my talk page so I can change the template pages if requested. Thanks! DSCrowned (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose If it ain't broke, don't fix it. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 12:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

DSCrowned (talk) - What do you mean by that? 08:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no reason to go against the standard that all of our other speedy deletion tags use. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The only reason I have is that the standard form kind of distracts the user that requested to delete the page. As the author requests deletion, there is no need for anyone except for admins to be notified. So there should not be a harsh message to the author, unlike other speedy deletion tags. It shouldn't be this legal way or otherwise such harsh db-u1 templates may end up distracting rather than telling others to delete. DSCrowned (talk) 07:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes a {{db-u1}} or {{db-g7}} will be improperly used. For example, user A creates a template. User A later realises that it is not needed after all, and blanks the page: this can legitimately be tagged G7 by user B. However, if User C decides that this template is not needed and blanks the page, it cannot be tagged G7 by either user B or user C. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support the edit that conditionally adds, This page was last edited by a user other than the owner of the userspace in which it was used. Please make sure the page was tagged by the correct user before deleting. to the template and identifies that user. I see no argument above that contests that this is an improvement. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 16:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Elvey: That's a feature I added to the sandbox a while back, and is completely independent of the change he's proposing. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Would an admin kindly just make Jack's feature live?--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 12:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Elvey: {{db-u1}} is only semi-protected, so you should be able to do this if you want. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I just brought https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Db-u1/sandbox&action=edit&oldid=574271933 live (less the redirect-causing addition of an s) per above. Thanks, User:Mr. Stradivarius, Jackmcbarn
BTW, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Db-u1/testcases doesn't work.
As for DSCrowned's changes, I mildly Support those too; I prefer the proposed version to the current version. {{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 17:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The {{Find sources}} template is used as part of an AfD nomination to make it easier to look up sources for an article at AfD. I would like to suggest that {{Find sources}} be included in {{db-a7}} to allow editors to check for sources in an article tagged for {{db-a7}} with a single click. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea, and I've tried to implement this in Template:Db-a7/sandbox. I keep getting a big gap between the find sources line and the administrators' advice line, though. Can anyone see what's going on there? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Mr. Stradivarius, the problem is in {{Db-meta}}. I really have no ambition to fix it right now, but that is where to look. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  The problem seems to be a stray </small><br> in db-meta, right after that parameter. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Please edit this template so that we can use reason instead of rationale on all versions of these templates. For example, {{db-g6|reason=This page is junk}} and {{db-g6|rationale=This page is junk}} would both work and have the same result. Thank you, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. I see no reason to add extra code to the template, which will make it slower for everyone, forever. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Could someone point out to me where the consensus was to add the following wording to the template:

"...or from the Book: namespace to any other namespace."

...as this note doesn't even appear in the speedy deletion criterion's wording itself. If there was never consensus established for this wording, it would be best to remove it from the template. Steel1943 (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Since you're the one who added this, can you answer? Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Headbomb added this with the edit summary "add book: --> anything per lack of objection" [2]. Trawling through the discussion pages that link to the template, I eventually found Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 38#Update db-r2 to cover books. It's true there wasn't any explicit rejection of Headbomb's suggestion, but Gavia immer was the only other person to comment and they said "... it probably needs more eyes on it before changing things". That was the last word on the topic afaict (although as this was in May 2010 and the edit to the template was made in July 2010 I may have failed to find something). While I cannot immediately think of a reason why pages in the Book namespace should redirect elsewhere, that was not consensus to expand CSD to cover that. Further, speedy deletion policy is defined by the list of criteria and the templates need to be in sync with that not the other way around. So I'd remove that wording from the template and propose an expansion of R2 at WT:CSD, although I don't know if will be successful on frequency grounds. I can't bring to mind a single RfD for a redirect in the Book namespace this year for example. Thryduulf (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedy revise (so to speak) to match Criteria for Speedy Deletion. This isn't in the CSD page so it has no business being on a template. The template needs to be change to match CSD right now. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

And I just did that. If someone things the book statement belongs, you need to discuss this and get it added at WP:Criteria for speedy deletion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It was discussed, no one objected, it didn't cause any problem for 4+ years now. This reversion of an utterly uncontroversial update to the template is WP:BUREAUCRACY run amok. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Headbomb, being suggested and lacking any substantial subsequent discussion is not the same as it being discussed. If you had updated the CSD itself, this discussion wouldn't be happening, and I'm guessing that the reason you added it to the template was for one specific case. If you could remember what that use case was, then it could possibly be re-added after a short discussion at the appropriate venue. Lacking a use case, is there really a reason to have it in there? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of cases, typically when people create a user book and saved it by mistake in the book namespace, and they move it to their userspace. There's a redirect left behind from Book:Foobar to User:USERNAME/Books/Foobar. It's the same thing as if someone moved Foobar to User:USERNAME/Foobar. We don't leave those redirects in. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• That's all fine and well, but I apparently didn't emphasize the correct keywords in my previous comment. after a short discussion at the appropriate venue, which is WT:Criteria for speedy deletion in this case, I believe. I apologize for the confusion I may have caused, and look forward to the discussion there. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

And that's why this is WP:BUREAUCRACY run amok. There was a discussion here. It's been in place for four years. There another discussion here. And there's no cogent arguments for why it should not be reinstated except meta discussions about process. Feel free to copy paste this at WT:CSD and go through the whole RfC thing, but it's really pointless to do so except for process's sake. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Headbomb: If you add the note about Book namespace to Criteria for Speedy Deletion itself and no one objects, we'll put it back in the template. However, the template absolutely must match the policy. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I've written only one general sentence about soft solutions. Please advise what should be removed or replaced in order to be objective? Do you consider a definition an advertising? AA5577 (talk) 07:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@AA5577: Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Db-meta}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

When using {{db-g12}}, it's possible to specify several URLs with urlN= parameters.

When using {{db-multiple}} as recommended to avoid to request permission when other issues exist, it's not possible to specify such extra URLs. --Dereckson (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You can just leave several speedy templates, as in the time before {{db-multiple}} existed. It seems a fairly cosmetic issue to me. —Kusma (t·c) 10:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why you would need to list any URLs in most cases now that Db-g12 has a link to the comprehensive copyvios report using The Earwig's tool. This tool scans the page for any URLs that are already on the page (scans all the reference URLs) and does a Google search for other possible copyvios and then returns a report of the possibility of violation for each page and you can view each finding in specific detail or view the overall report with comparison. That said, Db-g12 only supports up to 3 URLs, and now Db-multiple does as well. Please, do not make the administrators have to work harder than needed and if the report is convincing enough, leave the URLs out... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Should we expand the parameters of the a10 template to accommodate specifications of multiple copied articles? The current template, as well as WP:CSD states that this criterion applies to "article[s]...that [do] not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s)". This wording implies that it will also apply to newly created articles that copy multiple other ones. In addition, there have been cases where this has actually occurred with new articles. I thought that this template was capable of referencing more than one article that was copied. However, upon further inspection, I found that this was not the case. It would be much more convenient to be able to reference all duplicated articles with a single notice, as this obviously takes up less space than a separate tag for each duplicated article. Would it be advantageous to edit the template so this is possible? Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 05:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

<<misplaced request removed>>

Civitatis International (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

<<copied template code removed>>

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Db-meta}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that template should blank pages as a courtesy just in case of serious copyright violations. --TL22 (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

HΛIAS-AYΓEPINOS

67.80.64.198 (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Malformed request. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I have often used Twinkle to populate this template. I have noticed that adding multiple CV sources populates the template, but that it does not display. An example is

{{db-multiple|G11|G12|url=http://www.zhhlaw.com/E_zhonghao/aboutus.asp|url2=http://www.zhhlaw.com/E_zhonghao/show_Practice.asp?id=75|url3=http://www.zhhlaw.com/E_zhonghao/show_Practice.asp?id=73}}

I placed this on User:Zhonghao HK/sandbox, which will have been deleted already. Only one of the urls displays. I am entirely unable to work out how to correct this, and hope an expert will take a look. Fiddle Faddle 08:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent: It appears that this edit by Technical 13 (talk · contribs) was incomplete; I've finished it off. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

For which act, much thanks. Fiddle Faddle 15:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:CSD says there will be a button saying Contest this speedy deletion to allow someone to object to a deletion request. However, for G6, there is no such button. It was just pointed out to me that this is because the presence of the button was removed four years ago. Either the button should be put back in, or the instructions should be changed so they don't tell people to look for a non-existing button. If there is no button provided, the instructions should provide some alternative way that people can express an objection. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I think its because since the G6 criteria is for technical cases, there is no reason to contest the speedy deletion. --TL22 (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Unless the nominator is wrong about the applicability of G6, of course. Then the person who studies the situation and wants to object is told to look for a button that does not exist, and is also told "The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so." Then they are stuck in a Catch 22, and foreclosed from doing anything.

The bottom line is that there is a very valid reason to contest a G6 speedy deletion: cases where the G6 claim is wrong.

—BarrelProof (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I can see the button being used occasionally. More importantly, from a costs-benefit analysis I don't see any reason not to add the button back, so I think we should do so rather than changing the instructions. Even if the majority (or even almost all) G6's are entirely technical and uncontroversial and not likely to be contested, I see no problem – no potential for harm and extra bureaucracy – created by having the button in, regardless of whether we expect it to mostly lie fallow.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Since it seems obvious that the notion that G6 could never be asserted incorrectly is flawed, and also that the instructions ought to match the behavior, I am proceeding to restore the button. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• I noticed this after File:Lion waiting in Namibia.jpg was tagged for CSD. The policy page for the F2 criterion reads "Files that are corrupt, empty, or that contain superfluous and blatant non-metadata information. This also includes image description pages for Commons images, except pages containing information not relevant to any other project (like {{FeaturedPicture}}).", whereas the criterion specified in the template is "This template may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a corrupt or empty file, or a file description page for a file on Commons." (i.e. it omits the exception "except pages containing information not relevant to any other project (like {{FeaturedPicture}}).)

I've seen FPs and DYK files (two main categories of pages affected by the exception on the policy page) tagged for CSD several times. To prevent misunderstandings, shouldn't we bring the policy and template in-line? There are too many such files for one person to keep track of them all, and (for FPs) the loss of the description page means the loss of a viable means to both count them and categorize them. I'll make the change myself if there's a consensus. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• And now the file page has been deleted by RHaworth. This means there's no chance to easily organize this FP (for example, with categories), or keep a record of it (and its main page appearance) in file space. If the policy is correct and not the template, this must be fixed. Otherwise all of our FP file pages are at risk of deletion. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

In my view the policy is correct and the template changed to match it. There is a need, in some cases (such as FPs) for local file description pages for images hosted on Commons. I would even support a change to the policy to remove from speedy any description page that contains any information not on the Commons description page (excluding nonsense, vandalism, copyright or attack page issues). Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• That sounds reasonable to me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• I agree that the template must match the policy, or the significant exception may be missed by taggers and admins. I also tend to agree with Thryduulf about the small policy change, but that probably should be discussed on WT:CSD DES ^(talk) 02:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Policy change proposed at WT:CSD#Proposed change to criterion F2. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• Wouldn't it be a better solution to abolish local templates for DYK pictures, featured pictures and other pictures on Commons and move the information to Commons instead? The current situation also creates problems when a file is moved on Commons: there are a few hundred local file information pages with such templates which are no longer shown as the file has been moved on Commons without moving the local file information page on Wikipedia. By storing everything on Commons, we would avoid this problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • No, it wouldn't, because the information in those templates is not used by any other projects. Keep local needs local, rather than try and push them on another community that may take issue with them (and cause further drama). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
    • If a picture is featured on a Wikipedia project, then a template is added to the file information page to Commons. If the picture is featured on the English-language Wikipedia project, then an additional template is added to the local project, so that you see two separate statements that the picture is featured on the English-language Wikipedia project if you view the file information page on the English-language Wikipedia project. In addition to being redundant, this is confusing to new editors who are not aware of how featured pictures are indicated. Additionally, the tagging is out of sync: Commons thinks that English Wikipedia has 5,162 featured pictures, but only English Wikipedia is only aware of 5,149 pictures which are featured on English Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Neither of those are reasons for deletion. The first is a safeguard, and the second just means someone needs to check the tags; it's quite possible that well meaning editors tagged FP pages on the English Wikipedia for deletion, and the deleting admin didn't realize that it was an invalid tagging (as happened above). Since you are proposing a fundamental change to the criterion itself (which already gives an explicit exception for FP templates, and implies that other similar templates are excepted) this is the wrong venue for your proposal. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

When placing a multiple nomination today via Twinkle, I noticed that the template does not allow for multiple rationales to be entered. Twinkle doesn't know this and just puts multiple "rationale=" parameters into the template, and the template just repeats the last one for all of the criteria. The edit is here but of course may be deleted by the time you read this. Can this be fixed to allow multiple rationales? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, this is regarding the {{db-multiple}} template. I didn't realize the talk page redirected here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, to do this properly would require updating both db-multiple and Twinkle. At the moment db-multiple doesn't support multiple rationales, and even if it did, Twinkle wouldn't automatically use them. Which is not to say that it can't be done, just that it needs to be a concerted effort. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

For those unable to view the deleted edit, the added markup was {{db-multiple|G6|rationale=No such user.|G7|rationale=Botched page move; see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 25#User:Sesotho kinship]]}}

@Ivanvector: It's not that the template (whether {{db-meta}} or {{db-multiple}}) is ignoring multiple |rationale= parameters, it's because of the way that the MediaWiki template parser works. If you use the same named parameter more than once (even if they have different values), all are ignored except the last one, this is normal behaviour for all templates. During preview, you get the message "Warning: (pagename) is calling Template:(templatename) with more than one value for the "(parametername)" parameter. Only the last value provided will be used."; if you save it, the page is put in Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Template:db-author and non-free content. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

{{db-a10}} explicitly references the possibility of flagged article being a duplicate of "existing article(s) on the subject", but I can't see any way to list multiple articles here. (Have been attempting to flag Microphone, speaker, megaphone, telephone, clearly a duplication of four different articles one after the other.) Is there an undocumented trick I'm missing? --McGeddon (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The Google news search function appears to be broken:
[[tools:~mzmcbride/redirector/googlearchivesearch/{{PAGENAME}}|news]]
Result: news
Any idea if this is the toolserver? Just me? Could we just change it to:
[https://www.google.com/search?#q={{PAGENAME}}&tbm=nws news]
Result: 3&tbm=nws news
I'm not sure of the details of how this would affect it. Jujutacular (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Any wikilink beginning tools: is toolserver, which has been permanently down for fourteen months. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I see! Obviously I'm a bit out of the loop. Do we see any issues with changing to the code I proposed? Jujutacular (talk) 11:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The redirector was a hack to prevent triggering spam blacklists, as I recall. There's a discussion about this... somewhere. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"Rsd" seems a little more intuitive than "db" ("delete because"). The template comes up with "This template may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion...". I already created {{rsd}} as a redirect to here. What does everyone think? Facts707 (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about {{db}}. The most intuitive redirect to {{db}} is in my opinion {{delete}}. I am not convinced we need more. —Kusma (t·c) 08:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is the list of redirects to {{db}}. —Kusma (t·c) 12:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Why go through an external site when you don't need to? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Should we remove that unnecessary link from the WhatLinksHere page or at least mention that it does not do more than the engine can do already? —Kusma (t·c) 09:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Some redirects (incorrectly) have multiple links, and Special:WhatLinksHere won't find them. There are other advantages too, I think, not sure exactly — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "some redirects have multiple links", and why would that be incorrect? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Rsd as a redirect seems fine. A rename I would strongly oppose. Db as the beginning of the names of speedy deletion templates (195 of them – though that includes doc subpages and the like]), is ingrained in the culture here and everyday working knowledge of vast numbers of users, and is linked or referred to in thousands of other places.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, the {{db}} template isn't really intended for general use - if you can't find a suitably-specific template among the dozens listed at WP:CSD, the chances are that the page doesn't qualify for speedy deletion anyway. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I see {{delete|some reason}} being sometimes used by experienced editors from other wikis who see something that needs deleting but do not bother to find out what process they should use for it here (and local admins here can then use the appropriate process), so I think it is very useful to have a freeform deletion template. —Kusma (t·c) 09:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Commons does have c:Template:Delete but it's a parallel of our {{ffd}}. Every time that I've come across {{delete}} being used on English Wikipedia, it's on a file description page - and none of the WP:CSD#Files criteria were applicable. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The Commons version of our {{delete}} is called c:Template:Speedydelete. {{Delete}} works on almost all Wikimedia projects except Commons. The pages in c:Category:Incomplete deletion requests - missing subpage may have been tagged with {{delete}} by a user from another project who expects this to be a speedy deletion template. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

When applying {{db-attack}} with Twinkle, the code {{db-attack|blanked=yes|help=off}} is inserted and the rest of the page blanked. However, the page still displays a warning to blank the content. This doesn't happen if the code inserted is {{db-attack|blanked=yes}}. clpo13_(talk) 23:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Clpo13: This should have fixed it. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I want to discuss the template, can the page be lowered to semi-protection? Krett12 (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss it here. Discussion of all speedy deletion templates is centralised on this page. —Kusma (t·c) 06:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I don't think "G5" should be a speedy delete criteria, because pages don't need to be deleted just because they were made in violation of a block (obviously a helpful mainspace page can be left), I think it should be merged with G3 maybe. Krett12 (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a fairly common suggestion, see the archives of WT:CSD, where this discussion belongs. In short, banned means banned. Do you know the difference between a banned and a non-banned editor? When a non-banned editor makes an edit or creates a page, the edit is checked and only reverted / deleted if it is bad. When a banned editor makes an edit or creates a page, the edit is reverted or the page deleted no matter if it is bad or not. Merging G5 and G3 makes no sense: vandalism is deleted no matter who has created it, while the edits of banned editors are deleted no matter what their content is. You think this isn't a very productive way to deal with decent content produced by banned editors? That may be true, but it seems to be worth it to make it clear to banned editors that they and their edits are not welcome here. —Kusma (t·c) 19:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this must be one of the most frequently discussed issues regarding Wikipedia policy. Time and again, someone comes up with the idea that it is unreasonable to delete a page just because it was created in defiance of a block, if in other respects it is OK. I have seen it discussed on many pages, not just this one. However, no discussion about this that I have ever seen has ever resulted in consensus to change the policy, and in most cases there is a clear consensus not to do so. If the only effect of the deletion were to get rid of that page, then it would be difficult to see any reasonable grounds for deleting the page merely because it was created in defiance of a block, but that is not necessarily the only possible effect. There are disruptive editors who keep creating new sockpuppet accounts one after another as each one is blocked, and as long as they know that a significant proportion of the edits they make with their sockpuppets will stay, there is nothing to discourage them from doing so, but if they know that it is virtually certain that all or almost all of their work will be lost, they are more likely to give up. Of course, there is no guarantee that this will work, but there is no guarantee that anything will work, and experience indicates this is one of the tools are most effective. I have seen sockpuppeteers who have ignored and defied blocks repeatedly, until eventually an administrator has started watching them, and reverting/deleting everything that each new sockpuppet does, and after a while of that treatment, the sockpuppeteer has given up. If the net effect is stopping a huge amount of disruption from a persistent sockpuppeteer over a long period, at the cost of losing a small number of articles which might have been OK, then it is far from unreasonable to take thee view that it is a price worth paying. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we should remove the "This page was last edited" line. This line almost never gives useful information, unless yo have just purged the page, which I doubt most of the admins do. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It is useful for me, as it gives some information immediately without going to the page history. For example in WP:CSD#C1 deletions, knowing that the tagging was done four days ago (and by whom) is useful to guess whether C1 actually applies. I can also see no advantages in removing this line. —Kusma (t·c) 06:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The C1 tag only categorizes in CAT:CSD after 4 days; and to see that a page was tagged seconds ago when, in fact it was tagged 4 hours ago makes a big difference - in bad way. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Now I think I understand your point -- you are saying that the "last edited X hours ago" is often wrong. I don't have numbers how often it is how wrong, but I have sometimes found it to be helpful, and never found it to be a problem. If you want to ensure that what is displayed is correct, we could just display the time of the last edit, without saying how long ago this was (although people in some timezones might not be happy about that change). We could also change the "X hours ago" to "at least X hours ago", which should always be correct. —Kusma (t·c) 12:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

All you need do is WP:PURGE the page. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

And I can just as easily click on the "history" link, which will give me all the information I need about the times related to the article. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Can we add things like applications and video games to this? There are currently (AFAIK) no templates which include this, so I end up using this one for those types of articles. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The {{db-web}} template should not mention anything that is not covered by the relevant CSD criterion, WP:CSD#A7. The CSD criteria drive the db- templates, not the other way around. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

So I just tagged EMPTrust for G12, which for once consisted of copied-and-pasted text from not one, not two, not three, but four entirely different URLs. Any chance of getting 4+, or even a more open-ended number of URL parameters? Or even a single parameter that takes a newline-and-bullet-delimited list of URLs? Cf. {{plainlist}} Any thoughts? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Does there exist either a parameter for the existing templates or a separate set of templates that place a CSD template on a page but do not automatically categorise it for deletion etc? I ask because I want to test how various templates work (especially {{db-multi}}). Thanks! crh23 (talk) 11:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Crh23: The documentation says category=no can be used for testing. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@John of Reading: Ahh, I saw that but misinterpreted it. Is there a similar parameter for the other CSDs? - crh23 (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Crh23: I think that the others test for nocat=yes, though the documentation doesn't mention it. If the test is only for a few minutes, then a message similar to this version of my sandbox should be sufficient. Or, depending on what you are trying to do, you may find that previewing your test may be enough, without having to save the edit. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@John of Reading: nocat=yes does indeed work, thanks! - crh23 (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Jschauhan2016 (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Empty request. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I just revised Template:Db-c1 to change the empty period from four to seven days, as agreed by the community. I would appreciate if a technically minded person could check my edit and make sure I did things correctly. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Oiyarbepsy: Have the bots been updated? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64:I posted at the Bot owner's noticeboard and Twinkle about it, but aside from that, I don't know what bots are involved. I figured out that User:Joe's Null Bot purges categories and notified its operator, but that bot doesn't require any updates. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

OK. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The CUSWPC club is a 125 year old institution. I created this page to document the history and structure of the club and to document the results of the annual variety matches in the sport of swimming between the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge. I would appreciate slightly more time before the page is repeated deleted before I can add the required information and citations.

Swimmingguy2016 (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Swimmingguy2016, you're in the wrong place. I will post more on your talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

In addition to "where no artists have an article", that text should also include "or where the artist's article is itself tagged for speedy deletion for lacking notability". GSMR (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@GSMR: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. The text you proposed doesn't agree with WP:A9, so you should get consensus to change that wording before we change the template. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed that {{db-a2}} and {{db-a5}} do not have their own subcategory in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion#Subcategories. Should they not have one (or two) as well? - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The {{Db-g12}} template prominently displays a button, "Contest this speedy deletion" that doesn't work as I would expect. I expect that when I click it because I think "a page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion", clicking should, among other things, "remove this notice". It doesn't do so. It should do so. After all the template instructs me: If I think "a page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion", I should "remove this notice"! Agreed? IIRC, similar templates work or worked that way. Suggestions/help?--Elvey^(t•c) 01:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

No, you don't recall correctly. The button's meant for the page creator, who's forbidden from removing speedy deletion templates (with a couple trivial exceptions, like {{db-g7}}.) If it's not a page you created you should, as the instructions say, remove that notice, not click on the button. —Cryptic 01:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I see that now. Thanks for correcting me. The formatting of the page is poor; IMO the "Contest this speedy deletion" link should merely appear inline, in the sentence directed at creators.--Elvey^(t•c) 06:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Elvey: It's intentionally prominent, that's why it's not inline. The button was added in this edit, prior to which people were avised to use the {{hang on}} template, like this. Much less noticeable, and indeed, often misused.

The action of the button is to start a new section on the talk page. It has a section heading "Contested deletion" and pre-filled text "This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --~~~~" which the user is expected to amend (sensibly) and save. When admins find a page in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, they should check the talk page before deletion, to see if there are any valid posts that might make the speedy template inapplicable. For example, if a page in article space gets tagged {{db-short}} just a few minutes after creation, the creator might use the button to say "This page should not be speedily deleted because I am working on an offline draft which I am just about to paste in." --Redrose64 (talk) 08:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, admins need to check but are they consistently instructed to? Not so much. Were that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Procedure_for_administrators made it clear that the talk page needed to be checked. At least it touches on the idea. I don't see the instructions in the template or at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion doing even that. But if that's the way folks like it, so be it.--Elvey^(t•c) 10:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The instructions show up in prominent green lettering on the template when the talk page exists. It's kind of hard to miss. (Though it occurs to me to wonder how it looks to the colorblind.) —Cryptic 10:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

True. --Elvey^(t•c) 17:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)