Template talk:Db-author

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Please read Template talk:Db-reason before editing.

If you are contemplating editing this template, especially with regards to categorization or parameters, please read the discussion at Template talk:Db-reason.

{{db-reason}} is the meta-template from which all these templates derive, and is also used for CSD in its own right. Some of the other CSD templates are also used both as meta-templates, and as templates in their own right. Because of this, the relationship between these templates, their parameters, and the issue of categorization (so that candidate articles get categorized, but the templates temselves don't) is more complex that it appears at first glance. The discussion on Template talk:Db-reason should elucidate some of these issues. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 04:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This Template's Criteria is too narrow

There are many reasons why an author might wish to speedy delete a created page other than accidental creation. It seems to me that accidental creation would be near the bottom of the list—editors who are experienced enough to know db tags probably don't often create articles accidentally. But even if true, why such narrow parameters for the template? Earlier today an image I had uploaded as a gif was replaced by a better jpg image; why shouldn't db-author have been available? In fact I did use db-author, despite that the rationale was not a perfect or even close to correct fit. Since I cannot check a list of speedily deleted pages to compare author motivation for use, I can't properly research whether the template is is often used in a nonconforming manner as I have, but I suspect it is. My suggestion is to make it completely open-ended, from:

The only editor of this page accidentally created it and requests its deletion

To:

The only editor of this page requests its deletion.

Alternatively, and less open-ended:

The only editor of this page either accidentally created it or no longer believes it to be useful, and requests its deletion.

--Fuhghettaboutit 04:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I am normally bold in making changes but I thought the change discussed above might be controversial or there might be an underlying policy consideration I was unaware of. 17 days have passed without comment so I am going ahead with the more conservative change.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

There is an underlying policy consideration. CSD G7 applies strictly to mistakenly created pages. Otherwise, an author could unilaterally remove valuable content (which others wish to keep) for any arbitrary reason (such as anger toward Wikipedia or second thoughts about licensing it under the GFDL).

In a case such as the one that you cited, the community (not the uploader) is entitled to decide whether the new image is a suitable replacement for the old one. (Despite your personal opinion to the contrary, some users may have felt that your GIF was superior to the JPEG.)

I've modified the wording accordingly. —David Levy 22:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poor wording

The wording "...do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page, or you disagree with this page's proposed speedy deletion, please explain why on its talk page..." is really inappropriate here.--Srleffler 00:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Ruakh 15:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. However, since the template transcludes this wording from {{db-meta}} it is not that easy to fix. Anyone feel confident in doing it without breaking the whole structure of the {{db-reason}} family and creating more work for future editors? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, we could edit {{db-meta}} so as to make a special case (an exception) for {{db-author}}, or we could edit {{db-author}} so as to remove its dependence on {{db-meta}}. (In the latter case, we should probably add unincluded notes at both template pages stating that they should be kept parallel.) Neither way is ideal, for reasons that I think are pretty obvious; which do you think is less bad? (I'll also bring this up at Template_talk:Db-meta, since whatever we decide will probably affect that template as well as this one.) Ruakh 04:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have already experimented with the proper fix by eliminating the use of {{db-meta}} altogether: User:Omicronpersei8/sb/Db-author

But I think I also see the point about not breaking the "family". If we are to go in favor of using {{db-meta}}, I think we should add an extra parameter that lets you turn part of the precautionary text off. This would be appropriate since there are other maintenance tags that don't require the text in question to be displayed. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 02:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a working example of the "db-meta route": User:Omicronpersei8/sb/Db-meta -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Those both look decent, though the "[…] or you intend to fix it […]" part isn't really suited; perhaps "[…] or you intend to make substantial edits to the existing article, thereby preventing the existing text from being speedy'd, rather than waiting until the article is speedy'd and you can create it fresh without using text accidentally contributed by a fellow editor who wants it speedy'd […]" would be more accurate? :-P Ruakh 04:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

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

– ? People using this tag probably already know what they're doing. If we get too specific in the meta template, we'll make it unusable by future child templates. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't seriously suggesting that alternative text; I was just trying to show the problem with the "[…] or you intend to fix it […]" part as applied in this case. Your shortened version — "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please remove this notice." — looks fine to me. I do think the optional-parameter-at-{{db-meta}} is the best approach. Ruakh 18:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, sorry -- I knew you were joking with that. Cool, thanks for the input. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

For thoroughness, here are all the SD tags I have found that could use the wording parameter in db-meta:

• {{db-author}}
• {{db-authora}}
• Possibly {{db-afd}}
• Possibly {{db-histmerge}}
• Probably Possibly {{db-nouser}} since it sounds like it's inviting sock puppets
  • But the text in question would be appropriate for future bot pages
• {{db-userreq}}

I don't think a plurality or lack of templates that need this functionality should affect the decision of whether to use this parameter, though. There is probably room on the site for more userspace {{db}} templates and templates for pages that can't or don't need to be "fixed". -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)