Template talk:Db-meta

G8 and redirects that can plausibly be retargeted
Sometimes an article will get deleted, and all the incoming redirects will more or less automatically be swept away using WP:G8. The trouble is, sometimes these redirects can plausibly be retargeted elsewhere (for example Lone Islands was presumably a redirect to the now deleted List of places in The Chronicles of Narnia, but instead of getting deleted, it could have been retargeted to Narnia (world), which has a fair amount of content about the islands). The template db-g8 lists a number of circumstances where G8 shouldn't apply, so I'm thinking of adding this as well. What do others think? – Uanfala (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, the text of WP:G8 already mentions this case, so I went ahead and added that to the template. On an unrelated note, I see that the the main text of the template message starts with a statement that says G8 applies if the tagged page is dependent on page which has never existed, has been deleted, or is itself currently tagged for speedy deletion. Non-existent or deleted pages – fine, but why also pages currently tagged for deletion? If the target page is deleted, then the G8 tag would at best be unnecessary (see the previous section), and if it's declined, then the G8-deleted page should not have been deleted. – Uanfala (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Answer/example: if a non-admin finishes up orphaning a template following a TFD, they would tag the template with G6 and, if they're not thinking about the fact that Twinkle already handles the deletion of redirects, tags the redirects to that template with G8. The target will be deleted at some point in time, so the edge case where the target doesn't eventually get deleted doesn't hold. It's a non-trivial situation that I have seen and had to deal with at least four times a week (though it doesn't always involve templates). Primefac (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Should I take this as an endorsement of the opinion that there's no need for people to G8-tag redirects to targets that are tagged for deletion? – Uanfala (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, never said that. You asked when it happens, and I answered. This talk page is not the place to change the wording and rules laid out at WP:G8. Primefac (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:G8 (quite understandably :) ) does not say that it applies to redirects to pages that have not been deleted. I would like to change the text at db-g8 to match the policy, though I'm asking here if there are any legitimate uses for G8-tagging when the target has not yet been deleted. – Uanfala (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. If there's a template that is 100% dependent on another template (e.g. a subtemplate or some sort of data-only template that is called by only by one template), if the main template being tagged for deletion, the other template could be legitimately tagged as G8. Primefac (talk) 01:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * But we're now back where we started. For as long as the other, G6-tagged, page still exists, the dependent page will not be G8-eligible. Different CSDs are typically handled by different admins, at different times. By the time someone gets to the G8-tagged page, the target may have already been deleted (then fine), or it may still exist, in which case the admin will have to either check the target and see if they can delete it (assuming it's a criterion they're familiar with), or don't check and just delete the G8-tagged page anyway, which will be fine if the target's CSD tag is actioned, but if it's declined then the result will be a mess. Anyway, I'm going to remove this bit of text from the template, and if editors feel like invoking IAR and G8-tagging the way you describe, that's fine. It's just that we shouldn't be encouraging that. And in this particular situation – dependent templates after a TfD – wouldn't it be more helpful if the editor used the same criterion they had used for the other template, so the deletion log will link to the TfD discussion (which is after all why the (sub)template is being deleted)? – Uanfala (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure there’s a consensus here for the change made to db-g8? Fairly notable change to G8 tagging, didn’t even realise this change was made. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 January 2021
Please replace the hyphen following  with a dash.--Hildeoc (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC) Hildeoc (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: You submitted this twice. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 23:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 January 2021 (2)
Please replace the hyphen following  with a dash.--Hildeoc (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC) Hildeoc (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 23:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't mark this as complete after doing it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 January 2021
Add this after the redirect link (this should be done for all db talk page redirects)

JsfasdF252 (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Izno (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To wit, the specific page was done. I'm not going to hunt down all the others. Please be specific about the desired pages and reactivate the edit request. --Izno (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this the correct template to use if I want to delete a draft I created?
I'm still confused after reading the deletion guides (though I believe this is the right one) so if someone could just say yay or nay it would be appreciated. If the answer is no, please direct me to the appropriate template. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't use for anything, you should use one of the templates that are specific to the speedy deletion criterion that applies. If your draft is in User: space, U1 would apply, so you can use either  or . But if your draft is in Draft: namespace, you cannot use the U criteria - in this case, the best criterion is most likely to be G7, which only applies if the only substantial content of the page was added by yourself. If that is the case, you can use either  or . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * thank you for replying but I must apologise because I have no idea how I managed to leave this comment on this particular page last night. I think it was around 3 or 4am here at the time I posted, I was running on no sleep w a godawful headache, and my brain thought I was on the db-g7 template page. I saw your reply notif when I woke up a few mins ago and wondered what page this was and how on earth I got here. Please kindly pretend you did not see me 🤦🏽‍♀️. Do have a nice day! -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You almost certainly were at Template:db-g7, that talk page just redirects here =) --Trialpears (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Redirects to nonexistent/deleted sections within pages
I've just found a number of redirects tagged with db-redirnone which are not to nonexistent pages, but to nonexistent sections within a page. Of course, such redirects still function, though they go to the page as a whole rather than any particular section thereof.

Of course, if the target article still covers the topic indicated by the redirecting title, it would be sensible to keep the redirect, and maybe update or remove the section name in the target. But if the article doesn't cover the topic and no other suitable target can be found, should it be tagged as G8?

G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page

 * Redirects to targets that never existed or were deleted

"non-existent or deleted page" implies no, but "targets", as opposed to something more specific like "articles" or "pages", implies yes. Failing that, what's the most appropriate course of action for dealing with such redirects? — Smjg (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If the target exists, it should not be deleted via db-redirnone. Full stop, end of story. If the redir is not mentioned in the target article, then RFD is the way to go. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * By "the target" do you mean the target page, or the target section within the page? — Smjg (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Target page. Primefac (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 May 2021
In the markup of Template:Db-g4,,   is a stripped tag and should be removed. This markup was inserted in the by SMcCandlish. — Anomalocaris (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , as near as I can tell this is to make the rationale (provided by reason) not be in bold, as line 7 of db-meta includes a . This whole template family is full of stuff like that, so it might be worth exploring alternate "bolding" options for such cases as this. I've also turned off the TPER until this can get sorted Primefac (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done The and  in db-meta form balanced pairs; the  in db-g4 was unbalanced. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , as I said the purpose was to make it so the reason is no longer bolded, which doesn't happen with your change.
 * Also, it's apparently already in db-g11, so why is that not triggering the same issue? Primefac (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It might be best to create a testcases page for db-g4 and other templates in this family to explore various implementations of the template. I attempted to fix a few Linter errors in this template family a while ago, and they were a major pain to diagnose and track down without breaking some other member of the template family. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, this might give me the impetus to rewrite some of the code for this group, it's been a fractured mess of different formats and prose for far too long. We don't need to be splitting bold tags between the individual and meta templates. Primefac (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Smarter code needs to be used in the meta-template; we already talked about this. Removing the workaround, as is proposed here, doesn't fix the problem, it just rips the bandage off the wound and reopens it, with a rationale that amounts to "the Band-Aid is unsightly". The very fact that the parser strips this code when it is not actually needed means that it does not need to be removed. So keep it in place until the meta-template is improved to stop boldfacing more than it needs to.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Or just use nobold on the wrapper templates, which should accomplish what you are trying to without Lint errors. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Or, as I'm wont to do when I get around to the rewrite, we could not have the bold split across templates and instead include the bold only on the individual templates that call db-meta (i.e. the meta template would only control spacing, not text formatting). Primefac (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request 19 June 2021
In db-f7, Associated Press and Getty Images should be linked to their respective articles. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 04:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ (for now). We want to minimize the number of links in  templates, due to people's tendency to click on the first link they see and type "Please do not delete this page!!!!" (see, for instance, this talk page's history, even though it's not even linked from the template). Knowing what the AP and Getty are isn't really integral enough to understanding F7 to justify linking them without discussion, IMO. But I welcome others to comment on your suggestion. If a consensus emerges, you can reënable the request.I'll note also that the template does of course link to WP:F7, which also mentions AP and Getty without linking them. That might be a better place to link them. That way, someone confused as to what those are will still have access to that knowledge in two clicks.  -- Tamzin (she/they) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 09:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Non-breaking space in Db-g4
The first unnamed parameter in Db-g4 begins with a non-breaking space character  instead of the standard space   used in other speedy deletion templates. The non-breaking space is visible when Db-g4 is wrapped inside Db-multiple, which is somewhat annoying. Kleinpecan (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ firefly  ( t · c ) 10:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Db-g5, multiple different banned users
Db-g5 currently supports only a single banned user. However, I have run into cases in which the only substantial editors were banned users from separate SPIs (sometimes this is a sign SPIs should be joined, but sometimes it is two separate people so they shouldn't). For example Survivor (Tamil season 1) was almost 50% authored by a Sockpuppet investigations/Giriprasad Damodar 02 sockpuppet while being created by a Sockpuppet investigations/Srinesh.saravanan sockpuppet. Should this template many support a 2nd and possibly even 3rd account?-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 07:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)