Template:Db-meta is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.
To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, all speedy deletion template talk pages redirect here. If you are here to discuss one of the db-* (delete because) templates, please be sure to identify which one. For discussions on each individual template prior to July 2008, see the histories of each talk page. For discussions about the template for criterion G1 from March 2004, see Template talk:Db-g1/Archive 1.
This talk page is for discussion about the CSD templates themselves (technical questions, maintenance, etc.) Discussions about any CSD criteria (adding, removing, amending, etc.), should take place at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, instead.
Template:Db-f5 wording change
This recent edit request introduced incorrect meaning in the text shown in {{Db-f5}}. F5 can apply either immediately or with a 7 day delay depending on how the non-free image was orphaned. The current wording implies that all instances of unused non-free images are subject to immediate deletion. meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a non-free file that is not used in any articles or was only used in a now deleted article and is very unlikely to have any use on any other valid article. The "or" is not correct. Only non-free images that were orphaned as a result of article deletion are eligible for immediate deletion. All other orphaned non-free images should be using {{Di-orphaned non-free use}}.
Can we fix this wording to match with the actual criteria. The "or" can simply be turned into "and" to fix this.
Thanks. My main concern was that I might be misinterpreting the policy. I've changed the wording to use "and" as it seems to make it a little less awkward to parse. -- Whpq (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Description of suggested change: Remove |self=yes from {{db-imagepage}}. db-imagepage has been changed to refer to WP:F2 instead of WP:G8 following this discussion. Since page authors are not allowed to remove F2 tags, the template should be updated to reflect this. This reverts my previous edit request.
Diff:
−
|1= as a [[Help:File page|file description page]] with no corresponding file
|summary={{{summary|[[Help:File page|File description page]] with no corresponding file}}}|self=yes
+
|1= as a [[Help:File page|file description page]] with no corresponding file
|summary={{{summary|[[Help:File page|File description page]] with no corresponding file}}}
Not done: if I read this correctly, you want to deny the page creator the right to remove the speedy deletion notice; however, template {{Db-disambig-notice}}, which is placed on the creator's talk page, explicitly states, "If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by [[:{{{1}}}|visiting the page]] and removing the speedy deletion tag." P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there17:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a little ditty from the policy: "The creator of a page may remove a speedy deletion tag only if the criterion in question is G6, G7, G8, G13, G14, C1, C4, T5, or U1." As we can see, G14 is included among the criteria that allow the creator to remove the notice. G14 was added to the other criteria in October, 2020. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there21:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went to your talk page and found at least three instances where editors used a custom message that may have been against policy. If it were me, I'd ask the editors who left those messages why I was told that I couldn't remove the speedy deletion tag when policy allows me to do so, and I would be sure to cite the policy I linked above, WP:CSD. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there23:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
|summary=Article about {{{1|[[WP:CSD#A7|an eligible subject]]}}}, which does not [[WP:CCS|credibly indicate the importance or significance]] of the subject
+
|summary=Article about {{{1|[[WP:CSD#A7|an eligible subject]]}}} which does not [[WP:CCS|credibly indicate the importance or significance]] of the subject
I have no opinion on that. While some Americans seem to insist that that must be used for defining relative clauses, that is not supported by any of the established English grammars I have consulted, and in British English is considered more informal. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Completed. I also have no opinion on "which" to use. I have seen that these can sometimes be interchangeable as long as "which" is always preceded by a comma and "that" is not. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there19:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request to Template:db-c1 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Description of suggested change: Double-bolding (bolding text inside already bolded content, resulting in 900 weight text) is discouraged, and replacing it with another emphasis marker (such as italics) will help with readability.
Diff:
−
This category may be deleted <em style="font-style:normal;text-decoration:underline;">if it has remained empty for at least seven days</em>, specifically on or after '''{{#time:H:i, j F Y (T)|{{{date|{{{1|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}}}}} +7 days}}'''
+
This category may be deleted <em style="font-style:normal;text-decoration:underline;">if it has remained empty for at least seven days</em>, specifically on or after ''{{#time:H:i, j F Y (T)|{{{date|{{{1|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}}}}} +7 days}}''
I've had to clean up far, far too many cases of an admin deleting a page to make way for a move and then that move not being done when they appeared at WP:Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions#G6. I think it's time we abandon {{db-move}} entirely and direct all moves that need technical assistance to WP:RMTR instead. {{db-afc-move}} is a necessary evil since random CSD admins or RMTR responders can't be expected to also be AfC reviewers, but here there's no excuse for keeping the sloppy, trap-laden process. * Pppery *it has begun...05:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Deletions that are required solely to enable a move should never be done independently of the move -if the page to be deleted is actively problematic in some way other than the move then it will either meet a different speedy deletion criterion or it needs dealing with independently of the move. RMTR handles things appropriately and doesn't leave things broken if a move request turns out to be controversial. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's just me, but won't people just use {{db-g6}} directly? {{db-move}} simply customises the rationale to be specific, so removing the template won't necessarily remove the underlying "issue" here. Education might be the better route here, or making the "perform this move" link more obvious, because there is little-to-no reason for an admin not to do the move themselves, other than being lazy and/or just d-batching the category because, well, they're being lazy. But returning to the original issue, I don't think just deleting db-move is going to fix things. Primefac (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Off the top of my head, one way to resolve those issues might be to move "deletions to make way for a move out" of G6 and into a new criterion (G15) that carried explicit requirements to carry out the move at the same time? G6 is an overly complex mishmash of only loosely related things that is one of (maybe the?) most misunderstood and misused criteria, so splitting things out is generally a good thing imo. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also agree. Everything that is currently a clear, delimited use of G6 (especially to the point of using a separate template) should be made explicit as a separate criterion (probably G15 or G16). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like {{db-move}} because it has the nice "link to perform this move" that does what we need in most times (and I typically use that link to do the deletion together with the move instead of doing them separately). Perhaps we just need to rewrite the template and make it not look like the other {{db-meta}} derived CSD templates? We need to emphasise the move over the deletion. —Kusma (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update db-gs for South Asia EC-restricted topics
This edit request to Template:db-gs has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Description of suggested change:
Change "fair use" to "non-free use" in the first sentence of Template:db-f9; the link to WP:NFC is fine, but "fair use" and "non-free content use" aren't one and the same per WP:NFC#Background, and it's the latter that matters when it comes to WP:NFCCP.
Do the same as 1 above for the "has no credible claim of fair use" in Template:db-imgcopyvio-notice, the notification template that corresponds to "db-f9"; the wording of the two templates should the same to avoid any confusion.
which does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia, and the uploader does not assert [[:Wikipedia:Non-free content|fair use]] or make a credible claim of permission.
+
which does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia, and the uploader does not assert [[:Wikipedia:Non-free content|non-free use]] or make a credible claim of permission.
Diff 2:
−
and has no credible claim of [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|fair use]] or permission.
+
and has no credible claim of [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|non-free use]] or permission.
Diff 3:
−
or make a credible claim of permission.
+
or make a credible claim of [[:Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission|permission]].
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
On the {{Db-g4}} and {{Db-xfd}} templates (only these two have this problem), the discussion link should include the "a". So instead of the link just being "a deletion discussion", it should be changed to "a deletion discussion". This is already the stardard for templates linking to a discussion.
This helps the reader understand they're not just being sent to some article about deletion discussions, but the specific discussion for the article in question. FaviFake (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ARBECR allows non-EC editors to make edit requests. Contesting a speedy deletion is essentially an edit request to remove the deletion tag. I do not see why this would need changing. Primefac (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
