Template talk:Db-nonsense

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 TFD
2 rename
3 Transclusion
4 Negative examples
5 What technical reasons?
6 Please read Template talk:Db-reason before editing.
7 Category:Nonsense pages for speedy deletion

[edit] TFD

This template was nominated for deletion, but consensus was to keep it. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/July 2005 for details. R adiant _>|< 08:38, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] rename

I moved this template to {{Db-nonsense}} so that all the speedy deletion templates would start with "Db-", and they would all group together in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. DES ^(talk) 20:11, 8 August 2005 (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) 13:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Negative examples

A recent version of the template include a list of negative examples -- that is of things that are not nonsense and to which this tempalte should not be applied. This read: This does not include: copyvios, bad writing, partisan screeds, religious excogitations, immature material, flame bait, obscene remarks, vandalism (which is speediable under CSD G3), badly translated material, hoaxes, or fancruft, unless the material is actually unsalvagably incoherent. I think this list was copied from WP:PN I urge that this list be restorted to the template (possibly after some editing). I see this tag beign applied with a fair degree of frequencey to thinks which IMO are not "patent nonsense" in the specific meaning used in WP:CSD A1, and this list should help remind users of thsi tempalte, and admins called on to delte (or not delete) pages tagged with it, of the limits of A1.

Since the edit summery suggests that the removal of the above wording is the result of a discussion on IRC, I am not simply reverting. But I would favor the above wording being restored to the template's reason section. DES ^(talk) 17:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Remarkably, I agree with DES. As a speedy criteria, the notion of patent nonsense has been fairly limited, and in my opinion should be, as most forms of coherent non-vandalism content deserves at least a little discussion prior to deletion. The nonsense template on the other hand gets abused to attack all sorts of things which are coherent but which people choose to disagree with. I am going to edit the template to restore a shorter warning related to those categories of things where I see this getting most abused, but would welcome participation from Ambi or anyone else who feels there are problems with this template in order to explain those concerns. Dragons flight 17:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The template focuses on that which is unsalvageably incoherent. All of the examples in that template, with the possible exception of fancruft, are very likely to be fit this definition - and all but fancruft are seriously unlikely to need a second opinion. We have the policy - there's no need to make templates horribly verbose. Ambi 22:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I was unaware of it until some time after posting here, but adding that list was apparently the result of a discussion at CSD talk, which might be a better place to discuss it now. Note however, that many of us have believed CSD A1 means only Wikipedia:Patent nonsense, which has long been linked to from CSD and is considerably more limited than everyday "nonsense", since it excludes poor writing, hoaxes, fan cruft and a variety of other things that are legible even if untrue or argumentative. On the other end of the scale "nonsense" gets used to attack things like Flying Spaghetti Monster which the community, in its infinite wisdom, generally decides to keep when discussed at AFD. Dragons flight 22:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

PS. Do you find the current text any better? I agree that the list being offered was fairly verbose and unhelpful.

No objection at all. Thanks for the excellent rewrite. :) Ambi 23:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What technical reasons?

This template did not show itself on the page, and said it did this for "technical reasons". I did a test in my sandbox, I really don't see any reason not to do it. Maybe there was a bug that's been fixed or something. Anyway, I changed it to show what it looks like, what do you think? --Phroziac^(talk) 03:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

did not show itself on the page - which page? You have missed the point of <noinclude> / <includeonly>. I have reverted your esecond edit. -- RHaworth 06:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
The main reason is so that the template will add pages to which it is applied to the category, while not appering in the category itself. This requires a bit of a kludge, with the noinclude and includeonly HTML tags. It might be posisble to have the apperance of the tempalte page include most of the formatting that it would if the noinclude tag was not being used. 205.210.232.62 16:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oops. I forgot to come back here and see the responses. Ok. What makes the noinclude and includeonly require eachother? It still sounds quite strange to me. --Phroziac^(talk) 13:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  - The point is that this template is implemented by transcluding {{db-reason}} (as mentioned above). We don't want these templates to show up in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, especially since there's so many of them now. Normally we would put the category link inside a noinclude, but since that's over in {{db-reason}}, it can't be done here. So we instead put all of the {{db-reason}} invocation inside a noinclude, and place an includeonly section later that says what this template does, so it doesn't look blank if you go to the template page. —Cryptic (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I used subst to get the diaplay code that would result, without the category, and added it to the include only sectiopn, so users can see what they will be puttign on an article. The oen draw back is that this will not update when/if the wording or formatting of db-reason is changed, but it takes only a moment to fix. DES ^(talk) 00:21, 29 October 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)