Template talk:Db-repost
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Would it be appropriate to make this template apply to all recreated articles that were previously delete (including vfd deletions)? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:14, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Removal
Please stop turning this template into a redirect, it is in use. If you want to delete it, take it to WP:TFD. --fvw* 13:43, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
I came expecting an explanation, but I don't see one. How is this template not redundant with {{delete}}?
- Because this indicates that the article has already been deleted before, which is a reason for speedy deletion. This has been listed on TFD and was not deleted, please don't unilaterally remove it. --fvw* 15:05, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
[edit] To the reverters
Please discuss any problems you have with my changes rather than blindly reverting any edits I make. anthony 警告 16:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I couldn't find where you argued for these changes, I must be missing something. Could you give me a pointer? --fvw* 17:37, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
- Please discuss any problems you have with my changes rather than blindly reverting any edits I make. anthony 警告 17:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] New version by Netoholic
An admirable attempt at compromise, but I'm afraid this is still a significant regression from the original: There is no valid "intent to fix it" for things that have been VfDed, and "obviously not a CSD candidate" is wrong either as something VfDed cannot obviously not be CSD candidates, one can merely contend that they haven't already been deleted, which is definately something that should be done communaly and at VfU. Also, page history is not relevant for deleteagains. --fvw* 20:49, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
[edit] No re-creation?
Hang on a sec. You can't demand that editors do not re-create an article! What is not allowed is to re-create the same article with the same content. It's perfectly okay to re-create a deleted article with different content. The deletion policy even mentions that repeated re-creation might be considered a reason for allowing an article to be included! The use of this template would be very misleading for newbies, who might be led to believe, wrongly, that once deleted an article can never be done again. This is simply not true. If you want it to be, make a policy proposal, don't try to create the policy in this way.Dr Zen 00:37, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Repeated re-creation of content is also a sign of vandalism or disruption. I have no problem wording this message slightly strong. It is not an offense to newbies, but rather a way of preventing extra effort. If the newbie learns this rule, they'll contribute in some other way, or follow the instructions and request undeletion at WP:VFU. -- Netoholic @ 01:53, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
The same content, not the same article. You see the distinction I'm drawing? Anthony correctly draws it in his edit. You don't in yours. Please don't revert it again unless you can point to a piece of policy that supports your viewpoint. Dr Zen 02:19, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Vacuum, Fvw, please discuss, don't revert again
Come on, guys. You can't create policy on the hoof like this without being challenged. Let's talk about it here and not get into an edit war about it.Dr Zen 03:28, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Stand-alone template
Using the deletebecause template caused us to have two paragraphs directing users to four different places to dispute deletion. I've tried to avoid this by not using that template. SWAdair | Talk 05:46, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with giving all the places you can dispute deletion though!Dr Zen 06:29, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I considered that, but thought about the job of the admin acting on the article. MWOT. This way there are only two places to check instead of four, and one of them can usually be eliminated by seeing the "discussion" tab is red. For the purposes of the deleteagain template, if the content has been deleted according to policy, the most appropriate place to dispute the Speedy Deletion would be at Wikipedia:Speedy deletions. SWAdair | Talk 08:18, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Not really. If you want to dispute deletion, the best place, by far, is Votes for Undeletion. Dr Zen 23:10, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Normally, yes. This template, however, is for use when content is reposted after it has already been deleted IAW the deletion policy. The debate has already occurred, or the material already qualifies as a CSD. In either case, the material tagged with the deleteagain template qualifies as a CSD and Wikipedia:Speedy deletions would be the place to discuss it. SWAdair | Talk 08:26, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Not really. If you want to dispute deletion, the best place, by far, is Votes for Undeletion. Dr Zen 23:10, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I considered that, but thought about the job of the admin acting on the article. MWOT. This way there are only two places to check instead of four, and one of them can usually be eliminated by seeing the "discussion" tab is red. For the purposes of the deleteagain template, if the content has been deleted according to policy, the most appropriate place to dispute the Speedy Deletion would be at Wikipedia:Speedy deletions. SWAdair | Talk 08:18, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've merged this with {{db}}, by adding the reminder not to recreate content to template:db. No sense in maintaining multiple versions of the same thing without a need. As for pointing to VfU, that's not really the best place to dispute the speedy deletion, rather than have the original undeleted. The question of whether or not to speedy is simple: is it reposted content that was legitimately deleted, or not. The question of whether or not to undelete is much different: would Wikipedia be better with this undeleted, or not. anthony 警告 22:36, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Point taken, although it is helpful for editors to know how they can get something undeleted because there sometimes isn't time for "debate" over speedies. I think the current version is good and captures both the intentions of its creators and the realities of policy.Dr Zen 23:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Link to VfD vote page?
Does anyone else think it would be helpful for this to automatically link to the VfD vote page for the given article, so admins can quickly confirm that it was validly deleted in the first place? It'd certainly make my life easier while combing through CSD to not have to jump through hoops to see if there was actually a vote. — Gwalla | Talk 30 June 2005 06:14 (UTC)
[edit] Transclusion
This template is currently implemented by Transclusion. I think the use of transclusion should be retained. Please look at Template talk:Db-reason#Transclusion, where the issue of using transclusion in the speedy deletion templates is discussed, before editing to change this.DES (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
It was also discussed above in the section on "Stand-alone template" DES (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Self-referential link
I just added a self-referential link to the template. It's "hidden" in the period at the end. The purpose is to facilitate future maintenance. From the discussion, it appears that the preferred use of this template is by transclusion but at least some use is through subst:. The self-referential link 1) makes it possible for new users to find the template if future edits or changes are needed and 2) enables the "what links here" function so we can find the old uses and fix them if necessary. Rossami (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
[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 candiate 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] A redirect to this page was changed
Can't imagine anyone used Template:Da to refer to this one, and no pages linked to it, so I hijacked the redirect for Template:Daughter. But I thought you all should know.
[edit] Clarification proposed
The current template is misleading to users not wholly familiar with the speedy deletion criteria. The template says it is for reposted content "removed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy", and the link goes to WP:DP. However, WP:DP covers all three types of deletion (speedy, proposed, and A/XfD), whereas {{db-repost}} only covers A/XfD. I believe the template should be reworded to indicate this: perhaps something like "It is reposted content that was removed subsequent to a discussion on Articles for deletion or another deletion review." It's not a big deal--most of the time an admin will speedy it anyway because the original CSD criterion applies--but I'd like to be thorough. -- Merope Talk 16:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the purpose of db-* templates is not to nitpick about CSD, it's to tell admins that something has to be done about the pages, right? So here's my proposal: "It is reposted content that was removed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy (CSD G4), or has been deleted previously under some other criterion for speedy deletion and should be deleted under the same criterion. (Please consider using the specific criterion for the latter case)" This would allow people still slap {{db-repost}} on articles that they think were already deleted a moment ago. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] XfD link?
I might be making this up, but I could've sworn this used to include something along the lines of This page may have undergone a deletion discussion [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}|here]] (and possibly a second link to some other page). This seems useful, to me, but I have no experience playing with the db templates and figure this isn't the time to start -- any thoughts? Luna Santin 23:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
