User talk:Davidwr/db-2

Experimental[edit]

As of 23:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC) and for the next week or so, this template is experimental.

I have announced it in Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Template to get 2nd opinion on marginal A7s and other marginal speedies. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep the template around Until at least January 5, 2010. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples[edit]

None of the three examples of proper use are for speedyable articles. A copyvio needs a source to be speedied (or else it's just a suspected copyvio). The A7 has a revision with a claim of significance that can be reverted to, and, like the third article, a hoax that's plausible enough that it needs to be checked isn't speedyable vandalism. —Korath (Talk) 09:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified the hoax, but I don't follow on the first two. Claims of significance for a7 have to be credible, once proven false, they are not credible. I provided a source for the copyvio: In the example, I'm asserting that I read the NYT article and verified the copyvio. Copyvios of print publications are still db-copyvio. I probably should change that to a real NYT article though.

In any case, if you have a clearer example, please replace the ones I gave. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shorter wording[edit]

I'm not sure whether this test will work or not, and I worry it could be seen as a way to speedy stuff that should go to AFD. But if we are testing it can we go for a shorter wording and thereby a smaller template, and perhaps a white background to make the article less template bombed.

So instead of:

Another editor has reviewed this page's speedy deletion, and endorses both the proposal and the reason given above.

Can we try:

The speedy deletion of this page has been reviewed and endorsed by another editor.

If the test is deemed a success I would like to suggest that we review the templates and aim to make these updates to existing templates rather than adding a whole new box.

Ϣere SpielChequers 17:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the shorter wording, but the look and feel should be the same as a speedy template. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012[edit]

Your user page User:Davidwr/db-2/doc, by reason of its contents, was accidentally included in a content category. It has been corrected for you. For information about this, please see the guidelines about the categorization of user pages. Thank you. Senator2029 • talk 00:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]