Template talk:Db-a7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Usage: This template may be used whenever a biographical article about a single person (not a band or a group) fails to claim or assert significant grounds for notability. If there is an assertion, even if improbable or disputed, use {{subst:prod|reason}}, or {{subst:afd}} instead and follow the other instructions on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if you use it.

Contents

[edit] Redirects

{{deletevanity}} and {{dv}} now redirect here. --malathion talk 16:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the page to {{deletebecause/vanity}} in order to help clean up the CSD category listing. {{deletevanity}}, {{DeleteVanity}} {{dv}}, and {{nn-bio}} all redirect here. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 08:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I've moved it back. Unless this is done with ALL the delete templetes, it shouldn't be done with jsut one to mark that as "disfavored". DES 14:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It's also been done with another one on, the one formerly labelled as {{db:a1}}. However, perhaps a clear discussion firsthand would be better. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 21:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

{{db/vanity}} also redirects here. --malathion talk 09:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Usage

Simply placing {{db-bio}} on a page tags it for deletion. This is the normal usage. Placing {{db-bio|club}} or {{db-bio|band}} on a page substitutes "club" or "band" for "person or persons" in the displayed tag. Placing {{db-bio|band|WP:MUSIC}} uses the word band, and makes sure that the included link goes to the WP:MUSIC page. If you use this feature, be sure your description is one clearly covered by the current text of WP:CSD A7.

[edit] Warning users

After you place this template on an article, you could go to the history, and find the creator and/or primary editor of the article, then go to that user's talk page, and place {{subst:nn-warn|PAGENAME}} on that talk page (of course replace PAGENAME with the name of the page involved). This will expand to a notification that the page has been tagged for deletion, and invite the user to substantiate notability if possible. I think this is a good idea, adn i plan to use {{nn-warn}} regularly in future. DES (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TFD listing

  • This template was listed on templates for deletion, but there was no consensus to delete. See the log. Dan100 (Talk) 14:38, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • The specific discussion can be found here for anyone who is interested. DES (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, the discussion is here (It was moved from August to July, for some reason). --ais523 15:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

This template was renamed to {{Db-bio}} (from {{nn-bio}}) so that all the speedy deletion templates would have names that start "Db-" and all would be grouped together in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. This was in accordance with the discussion during the recent TfD mentioned above. DES (talk) 17:42, 9 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) 14:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for editing the template

I'm sorry, I should probably post a note about why I edited the template earlier. The template used to say, in part,

This page meets Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: it is an article about a real person that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject.

I altered the clause in bold to read:

...it appears to be an article about a real person, but it does not substantiate the significance or importance of the subject.

The two things I tried to improve are:

1. "...appears...". The original sentence states as fact that the article to which the template is applied concerns a real person. In truth, the reality of the subjects of articles for speedy deletion is often indeterminable. An article containing the CV of someone in, say, South Korea, would be difficult to really verify. We cannot have much confidence in the reality or otherwise of many people in "vanity" articles.

2. "...does not assert the significance..." vs. "...does not substantiate the significance..." In very many cases, vanity articles actually do assert the great importance of their subjects; indeed, it is something of a hallmark of these works that their subjects are persons of ostensibly extraordinary ability, sexual prowess, etc etc. What they don't do is to substantiate these assertions to any satisfactory degree.

Hence, my edit.

Regards—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 09:23:07, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

The previous wording is an exact quote from WP:CSD I think we need to restore the exact wording of the CSD, or else include the citation to WP:CSD A7. Also, under the CSD if an assertion of significance is made, even if it is disputed, the articel is not a candidate for speedy deletion (unless one of the other criteria applies). This is not a generic tempale for "vanity", this is quite specifically a template for asserting that CSD A7 applies. It will not apply to all "vanity" articles. DES (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


DES, thank you very much for your thoughts. Here are a couple of mine:

1. I am unsure if there is a procedure to go through to edit policy templates. I am wary of editing anything to do with policy, and only took my action because it was clear, to me, that what the template said was problematic. However, if there is a formal process involved in editing policy templates, please let me know and I'll revert my edit myself; alternatively, I won't be offended or anything if you revert it - it would be great if you could point me to the page that details template edits, if there is one such.

2. I knew that the template followed A7 to the letter. I saw it when I was reading up on VfD before I started participating on that page. Today was the first time I put up the Speedy tag, however, and the contrast between what was meant and what it said struck me. So I thought I'd edit and leave a note.

3. This is what the template said (and A7 says): "...it is an article about a real person that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject." (emphases mine)

As I pointed out earlier, however, there are actually few practical ways to tell whether the subject of a vanity article is a real person. If you come across a vanity page that says, "Joe Bloggs-Chow is an awesome chess player from Taiwan who regularly scores with a hundred chicks a night," for example, it's hard to be sure that Mr. Bloggs-Chow is a real person, quite apart from any other argument we may have with the article. Yet, a condition for applying the template is that the article must be "about a real person". If that were the condition, we really should not be applying the tag in virtually all the cases where we currently (rightly) do.

4. Finally, you raise a point about assertion and substantiation. I do understand that the whole speedy delete is designed to be very conservative in practice (ie. if there is the slightest reason to suspect that the article is not actually a vanity page but actually a legitimate article, the speedy tag should never be used). But thank you for pointing that out anyway, DES. However, do note that my argument re: substantiate vs. assert does not involve this issue.

Examples are very helpful in this type of discussion, so I'll use one. Lets look at the original sentence: "...it is an article about a real person that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject."

Assert means to firmly claim, or declare. Now, lets apply the deletion criterion expressed by this sentence to the following example. You come across an article with only the following sentences and nothing else:

  "J0hn Wang is the most awesome chess master in history, everrrr!!!1!1!one!! He has won all his games!!!"

That's it, two sentences. Now, I believe that no responsible Wikipedia editor will hesitate to say that this "article" is a candidate for speedy deletion — it's the prototype speedy deletion article if there ever was one.

Yet, observe what the template requires of us: we can only apply the speedy tag if the article does not make an assertion that the subject is significant/important.

The problem is, these guys do make assertions as to their significance. Claiming that "X is the greatest chess player in history" is making assertion. And since "greatest in history" is pretty darn important, it's making an assertion about importance and significance.

What the folks who wrote the tag are trying to say is that a speedy delete article does not substantiate any claims to significance that is sufficient to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia.

This is clear when you read the page specifically written to explain A7:

For instance, "John Doe is good at chess" does not assert significance. "John Doe has won the UK National Chess Trophy in 1994" does. If people argue that winning that trophy is not significant enough, they should take the matter to VFD, as the assertion prohibits speedy deletion.

This is perfectly sensible, except for one detail - the very detail we are talking about here. I humbly suggest that they are misusing "asserting significance." Both the claims in their example are assertions. The first asserts that John is good at chess. The second asserts that John won a specific competition. The difference between the two, and the reason why we speedily delete the first and not the second, is that the first contains an assertion of importance — but nothing else. It does not substantiate its subjects' importance or significance. It simply makes a claim (ie. an assertion). The second claim does substantiate (or tries to, depending on how important you believe the tournament is - regardless, it is not a speedy candidate).

So those are the two problems with the template:

1. misunderstanding what "assert" means (the word they are looking for is "substantiate") 2. requiring editors to determine the reality of an often anonymous, unknown subject.

Kind regards—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 15:59:15, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

Woops. Looks like you reverted my edit already. Ok, that's fine. I'm not going to revert or anything of course, in fact I agree with you that the tag should follow the CSD policy. The problem here is that the language of the tag was mistaken at the source, on the A7 page I referenced above. So any change must be made there. If you really think about it, the sentence is actually much longer than it needs to be, quite apart from the assert vs substantiate issue, but anyway. Let's not go there!

I think what I'll do from now on is use the speedy tag that allows you to write the reason. I wouldn't have to if the default worked, but I can't imagine myself being impressed by some vandal telling me that my speedy tagging was completely unfounded, because "I did make an assertion about my importance - I plainly asserted that I'm awesome at chess!!11!."

And there'd be no defense.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ

(posted after edit conflict with above edit) You make some good points. A number of them have been discussed already. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed Examples for A7 (non-notable bios). See also Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/1 (the debate by which A7 entered the CSD), and compare Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/2 a failed proposal to make speedy deletable any biography that did not explicitly cite sources.

To my mind, to substantiate a claim of natability would be to cite sources demonstrating that the calim is true, or at least supported by evidence. CSD A7 does not require this, and the vote on the failed proposal 2 indicated that the consensus was agaisnt such a requirement. I think that what A7 should really say is that if the article fails to "plausibly assert" notability or significance, then the article can be deleted. John Doe is good at chess. does not assert significance, there are lots of good chess players and even if this is true and verified, it is not notable. John Doe is the best chess player in the world. asserts signifigance, but arguably not plausibly (although if i saw this i would run a google search before I put the tag on, in case John Doe did just win a major championship or soemthing). John Doe won the 1998 world chess championship. plausibly asserts significance, unless the claim is checked and found to be clearly untrue, in which case this is a Hoax, which many feel can be speedy deelted as a form of [[Wiki[edia:Vandalism]] (I don't fully agree with this, by the way, see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Hoaxes and Fiction).

I have reverted to the exact wording of CSD A7. In general when changing a policy page it is a good ide to at least make a suggestion on the associated talk page and see what the reaction is. If the change is significant or major, a formal proposal page may be a good idea, or at least a note at [[WP:RFC}]] and/or the village pump to draw attention to the suggestion. Changes that merely improve wording or clarify existing practice can be made without prior discussion, but discuss first if you are at all unsure, and if you are reverted or get objections, be ready to discuss, don't revert war over policy pages. Note that this tempalte is NOT a policy page, although WP:CSD surely is. DES (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

DES, thank you for an excellent reply. Your last post was very thoughtful - thank you in particular for pointing out those old vote pages.
It looks like we actually have pretty close views on this matter. I do appreciate your concern about substantiate; when I was editing, I wondered if that bar was too high. But I could not think of another, single, word that word describe the idea behind speedy, and I wanted to maintain intact the form of the sentence, out of respect for its policy status.
While I can see that substantiate may be too high a bar, I believe, and hope I have shown, that assert is certainly too low — so low that it actually does not provide any "enforcement" whatsoever against many vanity page authors. Your compromise suggestion — plausibly assert — is beautiful in its ingenuity; however, while I can see what you're trying to do (it's precisely what I'm trying to do too!), I think it's weakened by "assert". I guess to my mind to assert something is simply to claim something, and using that word anywhere in the template rather undermines what we're trying to say. For that reason, when you add "plausibly" to "assert", it might actually weaken it further than assert alone: you don't even have to make an assertion of significance, you just have to plausibly have made it!
It might be impossible to find an ideal sentence while keeping the structure of this one. I do think that if we did not have that encumbrance, and could write a simple instruction saying what we all understand quite instinctively, it would work. I have no intentions of bringing the house down with votes or referendums, of course; this is one of those instances, I think, where we all trying to write a ruling which everyone, including the vanity authors, intuitively understands. The practice of responsible editors is so conservative that I doubt there's actually going to be a problem because of the wording anyway; it's the striving for the theoretically ideal law that we are indulging. Kind regards—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 17:27:33, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
PS. Incidentally, I appreciate your point that "John is a good chess player" not being an assertion of importance. However, this was the example provided on the Vanity deletion (A7) page (not by me), and I humbly suggest they made a mistake in using that example because it is easily defeated — in fact we all agree on that. A more problematic sentence is "John is the best chess player in history": this is a claim to great significance and importance, however you look at it, and the "assertion of significance" ruling fails utterly in moving against this form vanity vandalism. Anyway, thanks for a great discussion, DES. Oh, and you'll never ever have to worry about me reverting — I simply don't do it, except to stop simple vandals. If I'm working on an article and someone reverts me, I'll just talk it over with him. And if we can't reach a compromise, → dispute resolution. I never use reversion for the simple reason that it never works — the people who revert that 4th time are marvelous examples of logic torn asunder: if it didn't solve the problem the first three times, what makes them think it will solve it on the fourth?—Encephalon | ζ | Σ
Indeed to assert soemthing is to claim soemthing, and some early versions of the proposal that became CSD A7 used the word "claim". No one ever thought that A7 would deal with all the vanity pages, but only with the most obvious ones, the ones that when they go to VfD get a string of Delete votes and no keeps, and can be safely recognized as such by a single admin. There are quite a few pages that are created not even including a claim of significace, particularly by high-school students about themselves, other students, or teachers. These are the pages most aimed at by A7 and so by this template. A claim of signifigance even a pretty clearly false one, is enough to deny use of speedy deletion, and instead send the article to VfD.
Of course this can be gamed -- an intelligant and aware user can simply include a half-way plausible claim of significance and the article won't get speedy deleted. But it will still go to VfD, and quite probably be deleted there -- the bar at WP:VFD is rather higher than the bar for speedy deletion, by design. Setting the bar for avoiding speedy deletion much higher would probably have lead to this proposal being rejected. if you look at the various pages associate with the proposal that framed A7 you will see that there was a good deal of debate over the exact form and content of this criterion. Persoanly i am not fond of the page [[Wikipedia:Deletion_of_vanity_articles -- it was created hurridly, after the conclusion of the vote that passed A7, and IMO is misrepresents the consensus that formed A7 to some extant. In the original version of this template I did not link to that page, but others felt such a link to be important.
Besides, most users who create vanity articles or other articles to which A7 might apply simply never read any policy page here, and thus the fact that they could game the system by making a dubious claim isn't important -- they don't know to do that.
Note also that not all articles to which A7 applies are, strictly speaking, vanity articles. Some are trubute articles, some are jokes or hoaxes, some are attacks, and some simply misunderstand WP:NOT and assume that a factually accurate article about a person of no particular significance is appropriate for Wikipedia. DES (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
We're in agreement, DES. And this, may I say — "Persoanly i am not fond of the page [[Wikipedia:Deletion_of_vanity_articles -- it was created hurridly, after the conclusion of the vote that passed A7, and IMO is misrepresents the consensus that formed A7 to some extant. In the original version of this template I did not link to that page, but others felt such a link to be important..." — is entirely unsurprising.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 20:38:31, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

[edit] Usage in groups

I'd been using this template to flag obvious vanity articles that discussed groups, but apparently this violates the usage. I would argue that the spirit of the CSD vanity poll should extend to groups of people; after all, no one would complain if this was used to flag an article about, say, a non-notable married couple. Thoughts? Deltabeignet 03:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This criterion only applies to individual persons, not groups. --Ryan Delaney talk 19:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I would complain -- indeed I would remove such a tag, or nominate the article for undeltion if I noticed it. There have been sugestions for a policy change to extend A7 to apply to non-notable groups. If you think this is appropriate, support those proposals. But until one achieves consensus, stick to the criteria as approved, please. DES (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template tweaked

I've fixed the "technical limitation" on the meta-template {{db-reason}}, so the template can now be safely displayed here (I'll be displaying it on other pages as well). See Template_talk:db-reason for the details concerning that. More specific to this template, there's an optional parameter that lets you change "a person or persons" ({{db-bio}}) for anything else, such as "bands" ({{db-bio|bands}}). I suggest that we redirect this to a new template {{db-nn}} (non-notable) accordingly, allowing users to specify what exactly the article is about (defaulting to the more common "person or persons"). Until then, that optional parameter is a good substitute. // Pathoschild 18:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I have added a second optional parameter. This is the page to which "importance or significance" should link. for the default case this is WP:BIO. For bands, this should be WP:MUSIC. If the template is used for any other kind of group which has its own criteria page, the name of the page should be insterted as the second parameter. DES (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The "nocat" optional parameter was already implemented earlier (under a different name, "displayonly") but eliminated. Shawnc 11:33, 22 December 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] Personal web pages

Could "personal web page" be added to the list of criteria? Too many new pages being created that are just a description of one person's website or blog featuring their opinions. No reason why your blog should be automatically given a longer consideration than your garage band. --Grace 07:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This can't be added here, needs to be mentioned on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, where it has already come up several times with no consensus. Stifle (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:nn-bio and Template:nn-band up for deletion

See WP:TFD for the discussion. Mangojuicetalk 20:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use on companies

I keep getting conflicting advice on this, so thought I'd ask here. What are the general thoughts on whether or not it's appropriate to use this tag on company articles? Is it appropriate under the "Group, band, or club" wording? Or should a different tag be used instead, and if so, which one? There doesn't seem to be a {{db-corp}} (perhaps there should be?). Thanks. --Elonka 15:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] substitution

I'm not sure what changed but when I went to use this template a few minutes ago, it substituted in the entirety of the recommended userpage warning. Needless to say, it read like nonsense. I tweaked the <nowiki> commands in an attempt to fix it. It passed in a test on my userpage. There may be a more elegant way to clean it up, though. Rossami (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Places?

This tag was just added to Thanksgiving Point Gardens, which is not a person, group of people, band, club, company or website. Does anybody else think that a word such as "place" or somesuch would be an appropriate addition to the list to better cover our articles needing speedy deletion? --Merovingian ※ Talk 22:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] </noinclude>

The closing tag for the noinclude section was deleted in a previous edit, it would seem; it was causing the template description text to show up on pages marked with db-bio. I've fixed it; I hope I'm not overstepping boundaries here. --ES2 14:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename?

Why is this called "db-bio", anyway? If it's short for "biography", then it's misleading, since it's scope is much broader than that. Should it be changed? mike4ty4 07:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not think that it is necessary to change this at the moment. --Siva1979Talk to me 07:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "website" wording

I just tagged a podcast with this template, but that's not quite a "website", nor are, say, the ramblings of people about their clan or noobs on web-based games. Wouldn't it be a good idea to replace "website" with "web content" to cover these effectively equivalent topics more accurately? Nihiltres(t.c.s) 02:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding "Hangon"

It seems a lot of people contesting the speedy tags think the proper course of action is to place the {{hangon}} tag in place of the speedy tag rather than with it. Why not add "below this tag" after "the top of the page in the template text? I'm going to be bold and go ahead and do it. GoodnightmushTalk 19:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, the meta template is protected. I can't. GoodnightmushTalk 19:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's use {{editprotected}} then, I support that. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 19:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why it matters too much. The hangon tag doesn't take it off the speedy-deletion list. Still, not a bad idea to add. I say go for it. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sanity check

Maybe I missed something, but the template currently says:

It is an article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content ...

If this is supposed to be for biographies, and there are other templates for {{Db-band}}, {{Db-inc}}, and {{Db-web}}, then why are they mentioned at all? This was Too Big a change to make unilaterally, so I thought I'd drop a note and check back in a few days ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 05:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Because CSD A7 says real person, group, web content, etc. and because Twinkle, the most widely used vandal/CSD tool on WikiPedia uses {{Db-bio}} for web content. -- ALLSTARecho 11:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
{{Db-A7}} also redirects here, making this the "generic" A7 speedy tag. --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, then it sounds like the bot and the redirect need to be changed ... {{Db-reason}} is the "generic" template, and people (and bots) should use {{Db-band}}, {{Db-inc}}, or {{Db-web}} where appropriate, not {{Db-bio}} ... this is just plain sloppy, IMHO ... by that logic, I should be able to use {{Db-web}} to flag a biographical article, since "all A7 speedy deletes are the same thing," right? —72.75.72.63 (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you're reading too much into a name. It's probably called "db-bio" because A7 didn't originally include all that criteria and it later on got added in...and specific templates were made for those criteria. Does it really matter what the template is actually named?. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's precisely the subject of the thread on Twinkle's discussion page even as we speak ... OTOH, I have just read this thread from 2005, and I now understand the historic context of its usage as a "generic" template ... as I understand it, the {{Db-band}}, {{Db-inc}}, {{Db-web}} and other templates should have been created using the {{Db-bio}} template with a supplied "stencil" reason that was appropriate for the subject area, and possibly a pointer to the specific WP:N guideline, like WP:BAND or WP:WEB ... that's sort of what {{Db-reason}} does.
The problem is that most NEW editors expect Db-bio to be as specific to WP:BIO as Db-band and Db-web are to WP:BAND and WP:WEB ... it's Too Bad that we have the current situation, and now that I realize just how far it extends, I'm going to back off and rethink my position ... this is a legacy problem, and sometimes, the inertia is overwhelming, and any attempts to change direction are futile ... paradigm shifts are seldom met without any resistance, but I still feel that Db-reason should be the "generic" template used by Twinkle and the other tools, while Db-bio be restricted to WP:BIO specific language ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 19:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(REINDENT) OK, it seems to me as if instead of a redirect, {{Db-A7}} should be a template that is essentially:

{{db-bio|real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content |WP:Notability |category=}}

... and that language should be removed from this template ... this is because (a) both {{Db-band}} and {{Db-inc}} use this template, so having the verbiage about "web content" is inappropriate and misleading, while other categories get repeated, and (b) the template could also be used by {{Db-web}} (which it currently cannot do, because it would duplicate "web content") ... this would also provide a "common" appearance for all of them, as was originally intended ... how's this for a compromise? —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 20:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we're all back on the same page again ... Db-bio is back to being a "generic" template that is used by Db-band, Db-inc, and Db-web (I re-wrote it by cloning Db-inc, which I also tweaked) ... I'll leave it to Some Other Editor to create a Db-A7 and remove the redirect. :-) —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 23:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
See {{Db-A7}} again. Not sure how long it will last though.... -- ALLSTARecho 23:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Roger that ... I copied the text from WP:CSD#A7, and made a note on its Discussion page. —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 00:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: {{db-a7}} redirects to this template, so either should db-a7 redirect to db-A7 (or the other way around), or this template should be reverted to this state. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 01:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

{{Db-a7}} now redirects to {{Db-A7}}. Thanks for catching that. -- ALLSTARecho 01:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Both {{Db-club}} and {{Db-software}} use this template now, as well. —72.75.72.63 (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I have no problems at all, but I would point out none of the other speedy criteria have an actual template for their category number...they're all redirects (then again, none of the other criteria cover so many specific instances). --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to update language

Modified wording for this template is being discussed here. Thank you, Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)