Template talk:Article for deletion

Documentation

Usage

{{subst:Afd}}

This template will place a notice that the page has been nominated for deletion. It should be placed at the top of the page and substituted.

Special overrides

Remove the category

{{subst:Afd|category=}}

The category can be removed by adding the category parameter. This is useful if you want to display the template somewhere without adding it to the category.

Display without substituting

{{Afd|nosubst=yes}}

The nosubst parameter, if given any value, will prevent the not-substituted error if the template is not substituted. This may be combined with the category parameter to display on example pages:

{{Afd|nosubst=yes|category=}}

Discussion

/Archive 1

Part of this discussion has been archived. Its conclusion have led to the following template. Some of the reasoning that went into this template is listed below.

The current template:

• This template should be included on pages using the {{subst:vfd}} tag, to prevent strain on the servers. This will cause the code of the template, as it is then, to be included in the code of the article.
• This template does not have full functionality on talk pages, but really should not be used on talk pages.
• Consensus on this template seem to be that the template should be as small as possible, and should include only the bare minimum of information. The template exists to warn readers and editors alike that the page they are reading is currently under heavy scrutiny. Additional text has been suggested and been removed many times.

• The first line is in bold, as it contains the primary point of the template.
• The template features a hidden link. The period behind the words deletion policy links to [[Template:vfd]]. It’s purpose is to make the ‘what links here’ function work, so people can find articles that have been tagged by this template.
• The wording ‘is being considered’ as opposed to wording like ‘is being nominated for’ is used, so as not to imply that ‘’voting’’ (as opposed to discussion) is the primary means of deciding whether or not to delete the page.
• The wording ‘Please vote on and discuss the matter.’, as opposed to ‘Please discuss and vote on the matter’ is used, though not through consensus. One side felt discussing should precede voting, while the other side feels the flow of the second suggestion doesn’t flow smoothly, as though it reads: ‘Please discuss (on) and vote on the matter.’.
• The link 'this article’s entry' links directly to its entry. A red link then means that such an entry has not been created, and thus, no votes have been cast.

• When adding the template to a page, please create an entry on the VFD page, and justify your vote. If the template is included without a vote, the impression is that the template may have been added erroneously.

• The link 'This article’s entry' is in bold, to catch the eye.
• The template invites editing (it’s obviously better to create a good article than to delete a bad one).
• ‘, but please do not blank, merge, or move this article, nor remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress.’ – Previous versions the the template included a warning against ‘defacing this template’, because apparently, many people would deface the templates on individual pages. This warning was protested against, as it was unique to this template and did not assume good faith, and it was subsequently removed.
• The link to the 'Guide to ‘’Votes for Deletion’’' links to that guide, which explains voting etiquette. The link is partially italic for clarification.

• The font of the template has been reduced in size, to 95%. This does not seem to reduce readability (as <small>-tags do) but does reduce the bulk to the template.
• The background colour of the template is now a rather heavy gray, to accommodate LCD-screens, which render very light colours as white.

---

Please keep links to both subpage possibilities for now.

When Grue reverted the template, he broke the only link to the deletion discussion in at least one article: sometimes users apply {{vfd}} instead of {{subst:vfd}}.

So for instance, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Maths debate was a redlink and Wikipedia:Pages_for_deletion/Maths_debate was the bluelink.

As a result, when the template was reverted, the deletion discussion from the article view was hidden, which is bad.

So now, some of the subpages are in Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion/* and others are in Wikipedia:Pages for Deletion/*.

Any version of the template that doesn't link to both areas, for now, is likely to hide discussions that have already started --Mysidia (talk) 07:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

One possible issue, though... the label For older debates, see here instead. sounds like a message providing a link to a list of Previous Vfds for an article: in the long run this labelling could be bothersome. --Mysidia (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Good point. Of course, it wasn't intended for long-term, just for the gradual change. But if you have a better wording, please speak up? Radiant_>|< 22:20, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• I noticed the change. A lot of vfd discussions now end up on "pages for deletion"-subpages instead of "votes for deletion" subpages. Anyone trying to fix links may inadvertedly hide the actual discussion. I think it's a bad idea to change such a major thing without community wide discussion first. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:37, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Please see Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion for the relevant (lengthy) discussion. Radiant_>|< 18:17, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • It is lenghty and 4 days old! Do you really think that is enough to gather the community opinion? Even an article gets a 5 days discussion before being deleted. Although I do not oppose the renaming (it is pointles but looks harmless) I belive this renaming was hasty, you are now ranaming the renamed page! I consider that this was quite disrespectful towards the community. The least I expect from you now is to work very, very hard to set things straight fast, without causing too much disruption. Nabla 02:02:46, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Votes for deletion has not been renamed yet, let alone renamed a second time. Discussion on that is proceeding. I, for one, am currently waiting to see whether the compromise of splitting off WP:NFD helps to achieve consensus on the new name for WP:VFD, as prior discussion has indicated it might. What is described below is renaming of sub-pages. (Or, at least, creation of placeholder redirects.) Uncle G 14:52:01, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
      • My point precisely. VfD has not been renamed and discussion is still going on. So why change the links target? You are creating a de facto name change. That target was changed twice: from Votes... to Pages... by Radiant!, then from Pages... to Articles... by you. WP:NFD was created and activated in 2 days! Nabla 17:59:08, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
• A script is currently running under the aegis of Uncle  G's major work 'bot (talk · contribs) to re-colour the redlinks caused by the alteration of this template, and then to move all recently created sub-pages (that I know about) from Wikipedia:Pages for deletion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I've edited the template so that new sub-pages will be created directly as "Articles for deletion" rather than "Pages for deletion" sub-pages. I plan to run a further script that will rename all of the sub-pages associated with all articles that are listed in Category:Pages on votes for deletion, which should deal with any redlinks on articles where this template was not substituted. Uncle G 18:35:52, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
• Excellent, thanks for the hard work Uncle G! Radiant_>|< 18:42, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

WTF is going on?

What who how? We're getting "Pages for deletion", "Articles for deletion", This is seriously f***ing up the system. You can't check whether an article has been vfded because the debates are now in no less than three places! Why change the system that works? Dunc|☺ 12:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• If you stopped altering the links so that the point to the same place, less confusion would arise. The fact that debates are in three places is in hand, and is being dealt with. To know what is going on, please read the discussion on this very talk page, immediately above where you asked your question. Also please read the larger discussion that it references, where what is being done is clearly laid out. Uncle G 12:51:45, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
  • Look, if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it! You try to fix it, you fuck it up! There's nothing mentioned above, and I see no sensible proposals or discussion anywhere. Dunc|☺ 13:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It's broken because you keep breaking it. Please stop. Of course there is something mentioned above. How have you managed to overlook the entire section of this talk page immediately above that is entitled Please keep links to both subpage possibilities for now.? Uncle G 14:40:56, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
      • No. It is (was) broken because you changed the link target creating a mess. You are the one that must stop changing it until the discussion on renaming or not VfD is finished. Nabla 18:03:30, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
        • I'd be willing to listen more if the language weren't as vivid. Besides, the discussion at WP_talk:VFD has shown that the vast majority of active users either approves of the move or doesn't oppose it, so I don't know what you are talking about. --Titoxd 04:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Exactly. Uncle G knows what he's doing and has community support. Radiant_>|< 08:39, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Allow me to put my total disgust at the link change. Now we have two VfD spaces we'll bloody well have to check to see if a VfD was done. I've already discovered I've made a mistake that makes me look like a total fool because of it: I editing Gordon Cheng, added {{vfd}}, saw that the page didn't exist (redlink) and so assumed it was speedied. So I restored and resubmitted the article to VfD. STOP PISSING ABOUT WITH THIS TEMPLATE!!!!!! IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T "FIX" IT!!!!!!!!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Please see Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion. The new name is considered better by most. The only thing that's broken is people revert warring over this template. Radiant_>|< 10:51, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • I guess I'm just extremely pissed off because a) I've been dealing with personal attacks almost all day, and b) I got told about the Gordon Cheng article by a friend (who happened to be the anonymous editor in that VfD - will have a word about how to use Wikipedia) and I had thought it was improperly speedied. This caused me to waste a great deal of time, time I could have been spending editing MDAC. I hardly get any time any more either. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Look before you leap!

Could we please at least stop changing the VfD template to AfD at least until all the VfD articles have been moved or redirected? Breaking every single article on VfD is not cool. --fvw* 11:14, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I am all for the name change, but this process is going too fast! causing problems and pissing off editors, and creating ill-will. We need to have some perspective. VfD is one of the most central and emotional areas of Wikipedia. We need to proceed with care! It is not enough to do the right thing, we should also do it in the right way. Paul August ☎ 18:57, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Please note: Recent changes

Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion is being overhauled and given a more fitting name. It will henceforth be known as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The old location still contains a number of active VFD nominations. As a temporary fix, this template has been edited to point to the new location, as well as to the old location. See below:

When all older VFD discussions are closed, or moved, the template will be modified to contain only a link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Please use the new link as much as possible. This page will be edited further, to refer to afd, as opposed to vfd.

- Ec5618 11:30, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

An improvement, yes. But seeing as the plan is to move all the VfD pages anyway, why not move them all to AfD first leaving redirects, and then start changing templates. That way you upset nothing, and the page moves are going to have to be done anyway. --fvw* 12:17, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Because that way, all newly created pages will still be at VFD. Radiant_>|< 12:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • And if you keep running the bot, eventually there'll be none at VfD, and then you switch. Yes, perhaps there'll be a race condition and there may be one VfD link broken for a few seconds before it gets fixed, but nobody minds that. --fvw* 12:26, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed changes to template

rem. 'vote on' from 'Please vote on and discuss'

As long as we're already discussing changes to this template, can we please change the second sentence to read "Please vote on and discuss the matter. See at Wikipedia: ..." Thanks. Rossami (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Good idea. Radiant_>|< 15:29, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur. -- Ec5618 18:56, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Seems a bit too discouraging... maybe something like "please share your thoughts on that matter"? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Ryan's proposal

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Where should I vote?

"please vote on and discuss the matter" - I'd sure like to know.... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 18:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Please follow the link to this article's entry to vote. If that link is a redlink, the article was nominated a while ago. Please follow the see here link instead. -- Ec5618 18:56, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Could we leave out "vote on" from "please vote on and discuss the matter"? That would be good. :-)

Hmmm "Please leave your opinion at..." ? Would that do?

Kim Bruning 13:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Leave your opinion? That sounds like abandoning it, then never to return! "Please discuss the matter" seems far more appropriate. [[smoddy]] 16:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I'd love changing "Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia" to "Wikipedia: Leave your opinions at the door" though. --fvw* 16:04, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Heh! Good point. Hmm, "defend your opinion" isn't exactly better either... Ok. "Discuss", Fair deal, unless someone can come up with nicer wording yet, of course :-) -- Kim Bruning 16:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, it's a wiki! Kim, you of all people know that... We can always change it later. [[smoddy]] 16:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Locked

sigh Can someone unlock the template or at least explain why? It seems unfair. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 18:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Please leave the template locked, as it seems that people want to make rather drastic, unilateral changes,as opposed to grammatical corrections or different colours. Drastic changes to a template so widely used should be discussed here. -- Ec5618 18:56, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

It's the admins making all the changes!

• This template has long been protected because of visibility reasons, and because it could be an easy target for disgruntled socks or outsiders wishing to disrupt the VFD process. That is unrelated to the recent revert war, which was entirely done by admins (shame on us!) Radiant_>|< 09:02, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

new look

I went ahead and changed it "share your thoughts on" someone can revert it if they disagree though... I just think that plain "discuss" seems discouraging and not really representative on what should go on.... etc etc. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Template wording

From Wikipedia:Deletion reform/Pros and cons of current system:

Quoting BOTF from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/BotF: "The fact of the matter is, a VFD is detrimental to the article. Why would someone devote their time and effort to an article that begins with, “This article is being considered for deletion…”?" Almafeta 22:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

What about something opening with:

This article is in need of serious improvement or removal from Wikipedia.

Alternately, the reason could be moved higher in the template, to place less emphasis on the impending doom and more on salvaging what's salvagable. 154.20.5.236 09:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Erf. Shows what I get for not reading the template carefully at 3 in the morning. Reason? We don't have a reason, at least on the template (I assume because it's too bulky as it is). Disregard that part. 154.20.5.236 09:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Includeonly/noinclude

It would be really keen if we could put a big, red, blinking warning notice on the template page that it's used with subst, so the usual includeonly/noinclude jiggery-pokery breaks it. But, well, that would break it just as badly. Subst copies the template exactly as it appears; it doesn't handle includeonly/noinclude like transclusion does.

And lest anyone else is tempted, imprisoning the category in an includeonly is about the worst variant on this theme you could do; searching whatlinkshere is impractical, and there's no other way except for the category to find the dozen or so pages that get tagged afd and not listed at WP:AFD every day. —Cryptic (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Done, see comments below under #template broken. dbenbenn | talk 06:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

My request above was from when includeonly/noinclude sections got copied verbatim when a template was substed, instead of being parsed: I wanted a <noinclude>HEY, DONT USE NOINCLUDE or INCLUDEONLY HERE</noinclude> notice displaying prominently on the template page so people would stop adding "See also" sections that got faithfully pasted into every article listed on afd. —Cryptic (talk) 02:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion process is confusing

The deletion process is somewhat confusing. I constantly find myself having to refer to How to list pages for deletion to remind myself of what exactly I need to type in {{subst:afd}}, {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | text=Reason why the page should be deleted}}, and {{subst:afd3 | pg=PageName}}. I'm a fairly experienced Wikipedia edit. I can only imagine how much more confusing it is for a newbie on here. The box from the Afd template placed on a page marked for deletion gives links to Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, but neither of these pages gives the information needed to figure out exactly what to do to post an article for deletion. It's only after finding the right link in the Guide to Deletion that I am able to find the correct steps. It's surprisingly very non intuitive. I think the steps to deletion or a link to that section should be placed prominently atop the Guide to Deletion. —Brim 22:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It's probably just as well. If stuff needs deleting, most likely it'll get deleted. If the afd stuff is too confusing, just stick a {{delete}} tag on it and this more or less guarantees that somebody else more experienced will take a look, and if he agrees he'll either delete it or do the afd stuff. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The new default parameter feature allows one template to emit different output based upon what parameters are provided (or omitted). Someone could consolidate these into {{afd}}. (SEWilco 21:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC))

Icon?

Is it fine to include the icon at right in the template? (I won't do it unless someone else considers it a good idea). Personally, I think it would blend well into the template. Wcquidditch | Talk 19:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I've got a mockup here. Feel free to improve it if need be. Wcquidditch | Talk 20:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't find any prior discussion in the talk page archives, but if you poke through the template's history, you'll find that icons have been several times in the past, and usually reverted out fairly quickly. I don't think it's of much benefit myself, as the icon is pretty generic, and anything more specific like a trashcan wouldn't be very civil. I can name two drawbacks off the top of my head - Template:vfd occasionally goes through spurts of heavy vandalism, and uploading an image over an old one can be hard to notice right away (it doesn't show up in watchlists, and there are both client- and server-side caches to worry about); and {{afd}} is fairly heavily used (currently Category:Pages for deletion has 837 articles), so there are image-server performance problems to be wary of. (Oh, and your icon placement is badly misaligned on non-monobook skins.) —Cryptic (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm fine leaving it alone. In fact, I'm going to tag a speedy tag right onto the mockup now... Wcquidditch | Talk 23:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Why subst?

In the case of Afd, why is subst: important? Most Afd articles probably do not get viewed much, so how much load can they be generating? (SEWilco 21:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC))

This is dicussed extensively in the archives of Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, including at:

• Wikipedia talk:Boilerplate text#Shorthand
• Template talk:Vfd/Archive01#Hidden Link (See Angela's comment half-way down)
• Template talk:Vfd/Archive01#Recent changes to the template
• Template talk:VfDFooter#Subst must be used for calling VfD warning
• Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/April 2004#Boilerplate text
• Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/September-December 2004 and scroll down to {{vfd}} vs. {{subst:vfd}}
• Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/April 2005 Part Two#subst:vfd -- why subst?
• Wikipedia:Deletion policy#"Listed for deletion" notice
• [[Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/May 2005 Part Three#{{vfd}} vs.{{subst:vfd}}]], from whence I grabbed the rest of this list. —Cryptic (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks.

Bless the genius(es) who added the AfD templates to this one. It makes AfD listing much easier. --FuriousFreddy 01:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. Thank you, Zondor! JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Maintenance use only?

What the hell is that? Do we need to tell newbies how to close AfDs?  Grue  18:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Easier listing may come with a trade-off by such vandalism. If there are any cases, let it be known. There's the watchlist. Everything is already open - security by obscurity? -- Zondor 21:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:BEANS. Also, nobody uses Templates afd top and bottom in their full form, there are two letter shortcuts. Also the last line breaks when the template is not at the full stretch and looks ugly in that case.  Grue  21:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

On 5 Nov 05, Zondor was bold and added the "Maintenance" line to the bottom of the template. It's been in place for over a week now. I still haven't figured out the point of this line. It seems to add a great deal of complexity to the template but offers no benefit that I can see. Unless there's a compelling reason to keep this line, I'd like to argue to pull it back out. Rossami [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 01:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• There's a very big benefit. It used to be I had to go to WP:AFD, scroll down to the bottom to find the right stuff to cut and paste, and remember to substitute the page name in the right places. This reduces the workload by about half because all the stuff I need to cut and paste is all in one place, with the substitutions already done. I can remember to start with {{afd}} by myself. Yeah, it looks a little ugly, but so what? Construction sites aren't always the prettiest places in the world, but they're necessary to make progress. I say, good on whoever had this idea. --RoySmith 22:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The idea came from "Office Use Only" sections that you would find in everyday forms [1]. -- Zondor 23:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think the new look is a bit too cluttered. I think it looked nicer with the line break after the second line to make the text easier to read. Would that make the template too tall, though, given the "Maintenance" addition to the bottom? --Spring Rubber 08:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to simplify it. The problem with the previous version is that to anyone not familiar with AFD, this:

Maintenance Use Only: {{subst:afd}} {{subst:afd2|pg=Afd|text=}} {{subst:afd3|pg=Afd}} log

.. is just linenoise. Because AFD templates are encountered by the casual reader, we have to strike a balance between the different interests.--Eloquence* 04:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I realize that the old version provides the additional benefit of putting the page name into the {{subst}} calls. One idea would be to have a more verbose version of the instructions similar to Template:AfD in 3 steps (we could make that one callable with the page name as a parameter), but to have it hidden by default (with a show/hide link like the TOC). We seem to have some JavaScript for show/hide links in navigation boxes (se e MediaWiki:Monobook.js), but I can't find any application of them. Do we have dynamic navigation boxes somewhere?--Eloquence* 05:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, please take a look at this dynamic version. I've tested it in IE, Firefox, Opera, and Konqueror (which uses the same engine as Safari) and it works without glitches. The double border is due to a hack making use of the fact that on pages with two navigation boxes, they are hidden by default. This could be fixed by changing the scripts in MediaWiki:Monobook.js to support navigation boxes that are hidden by default. Otherwise, what do you think?--Eloquence* 05:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I've shortened {{AfD doc}} a bit too. Who cares about the double border? It works fine, it looks fine, give it a go. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 05:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, but I'll blame it on you if everything explodes. ;-) --Eloquence* 06:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, it should degrade gracefully. On browsers without JavaScript and stylesheets, the instructions will be rendered visibly. On browers without JavaScript but with stylesheets, only the link to the instructions will be shown.--Eloquence* 06:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure this is wonderful if you use monobook. It doesn't seem to work for the rest of us. —Cryptic (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I just tested in several other skins. It works in the MonoBook derivatives. In Cologne Blue I simply get the link to the instructions. Since this is merely a little tool for regular users, I think that's not too bad - the instructions alone are useful when opened in a new tab, you just lose the minor benefit of having the PageName put in for you. Did you see any actual breakage, as in ugly or unexpected results?--Eloquence* 13:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I use the classic skin, and it's not broken, just inaccessible; probably the same as with a browser with javascript disabled. We'll see over the next few days whether it makes any difference in incomplete nominations (I run the bot that catches these). It would be really nice if there were a non-monobook equivalent of MediaWiki:Monobook.js, though; I don't see one being served in the page source, but maybe that's just because the mediawiki: page is empty. —Cryptic (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I for one really want the 'maintenence use only' back. It greatly speeds up (and reduces the likelyhood of errors in) the AfD listing process by creating all the text for you, it was a great idea. I have noticed a LOT less daily AfD page format screwups during the time that section was there. Wikipedia should be easier to use, not harder. --W.marsh 16:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I have spread this new thingy to all of the other deletion templates that previously used the old "maintenance use only" thingy. In addition, I see that the dropdown problem has been partially solved with the log link's restoration, it wasn't on most of the others, but I spread that, too. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's get rid of subst

I've read all the past discussions about using subst: on this template. I was in support of subst: myself a long, long time ago. But it seems to me that virtually all the arguments there are left are weak at best:

• "Reduces server strain" - hardly. We have thousands of pages tagged with NPOV, Cleanup, Stub notices, navigation bars, infoboxes -- all of them not using subst:. The AfD pages are not in any way special here. Server strain would be an issue if the template was edited daily. This is not the case.
• "Could be vandalized" - true for all templates. Can be protected if necessary.
• "Links break when not using subst:" - this was always a misunderstanding.
• "Makes text editable for special cases" - sure, but special cases are special cases. There's nothing preventing anyone from using subst: when there's a need to do so.

Now, here are the downsides:

• Text is virtually impossible to filter or predictably detect for article mirrors, as it may change from one subst:ed version to the next.
• With complex layout, it clutters up the article page considerably. We want articles to be edited while they are listed for deletion.
• It looks ugly and confusing - violates the principle of least astonishment.
• The text is inconsistent from one nominated page to the next. Updates to the template are virtually impossible to apply without a bot.

Looking through the past discussions, it seems mostly like one discussion always referred to the previous one: "This has been policy! See here .." Well, maybe it has been policy - but there's no convincing argument for it as far as I can see. Let's finally change the policy and stop recommending the use of subst where it is clearly not beneficial.--Eloquence* 06:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur. I read the above links and most of them were just back pointers. One argument you didn't address is that moved pages can be fixed by editing the AFD notice text. But actually in this case it is better practice to create a new AFD page that redirects to the old one because makes it more obvious in the future that the article was AFDed, and it doesn't break Cryptic's AFD bot. Support for non-substed AFD tags might need to be added to the bot, but recognizing a tag is much easier than recognizing its transcluded content. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-26 04:49Z

I can't say as I care for the new layout of the AfD Template

I dislike the new javascript thingy. It adds extra unnecessary clicking to do what needs to be done, and also clutters up the pages to which the AfD banner is added. The previous layout was superior, IMO. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 13:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

With that sig you have the nerve to talk about clutter? ;-) The previous "layout" was a bunch of wikitext thrown into the template with no explanation why it was there. This violates pretty much every rule of usability, as a regular user seeing their page listed for deletion is confronted with a bunch of linenoise for no discernible reason. Yes, you have to click "Show" to copy and paste the text you need - on the positive side, however, you now have a more detailed explanation of what you actually need to do. As for clutter, if you mean the wiki text, this can be avoided by not using subst -- see above.--Eloquence* 13:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think my biggest problem with it is the focus the current banner gives to the "How to list a page for deletion" section. Say what you will about the previous version with the maintenance text, the text itself was fairly unobtrusive. The current replacement is exceptionally obtrusive (again, IMO), and immediately draws the focus of the eye towards it, away from what should be the meat of the banner, which is the "This page is up for deletion" bits. If there were a way to make the "How to list a page for deletion" portion less obtrusive and eye-catching, I would be less vexed by the change.

And you should have seen my signature back in the days when I first found out how to make a custom sig. Oy. =) → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 13:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I've unbolded and italicized the link, is that better? I'm still a bit annoyed by the double-border, but that one is tricky to fix. --Eloquence* 14:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

But it's easy to hide...  Grue  14:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It's an improvement over the bolded version. Don't suppose you'd consider changing the color of the background within the javascript to match that of the rest of the banner? (Assuming there's a way to do so?) → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 14:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Grue has shown me the light ;-). What do you think of this version?--Eloquence* 15:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

MUCH better, thank you. I applaud your diligence, and thank you for your willingness to humor a cranky old luddite like me. The only other suggestion I might make is to not have the text centered, but have it left-justified instead. But that's a minor suggestion, and I can certainly live with the AfD banner as it stands currently. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 15:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Mm. I didn't realize there would be a big gap between the "How to list a page for deletion" and the "[show]" link. Perhaps right-justified would be better? → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 16:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the version with the maintenence use text was great, like I said above, it made it an absolute breeze to take a page through AfD properly - whether it was your first time or your 200th, it sped things up and made it less likely that you'd make errors. I can't speak for everyone, but before I knew what the text was, I didn't even notice it. I think the benefits far outweight the risks of a few people saying "Hmmm I wonder what that text is... oh, maintenence only." --W.marsh 16:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You can use the [show] link to get copy & paste text and instructions. What exactly are you missing?--Eloquence* 16:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[show] link? I don't know what you mean by that. If you mean the Template:AfD in 3 steps, then you now have to manually copy and paste the afd2 and afd3 to format templates for the AfD you are listing (whereas they previously were generated automatically for you)... which takes longer, is more error prone, and involves opening yet another browser window/tab. This just seems like a step backwards for purely aesthetic reasons. --W.marsh 16:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Switch to the monobook skin and/or enable javascript in your browser, and it'll show up. —Cryptic (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, I see it now. I guess that's acceptable... even if I do have to make a whole one extra click! --W.marsh 16:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Oooh, I like the new functionality. Good job, Eloquence. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 16:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest a compromise: include the incomprehensible wikitext with a warning: "Shortcut for expert users only!" I don't have the templates memorized, and the copy-paste convenience of the old version was so much more convenient... Tom Lillis 09:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The copy and paste convenience is still there if you click "Show".--Eloquence* 10:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Ack! Yes, it is. I had Javascript turned off on the machine I was viewing from and failed to realize it. Thanks for pointing that out. Tom Lillis 11:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Hiding the instructions... hmmm... not obvious. I came here to revert the change, because the new javascript is so subtle that I didn't see the Show/Hide. I'm now going to wait until I pass judgement. Josh Parris#: 05:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

debolded part of first sentence

The first sentence of this template was previously entirely bolded. This didn't entirely match with the parts needing emphasis: we need to emphasize that the article is being considered for deletion. The fact that it's being considered in accordance with our policy is certainly true, but doesn't need to be emphasized. Also, with the previous version, there were two bolded wikilinks in the message: the article's entry on AfD and the deletion policy. I kept clicking on the Deletion Policy when I was trying to quickly get to the article's AfD entry. I think that my newer version, which makes only the first part of the first sentence bolded, will increase usability. -- Creidieki 18:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

why not use preload

In Template:AfD doc, why don't we use preload= on the "Create its AfD subpage" link to preload the

 {{subst:afd2|pg=the page you are editing|text=Reason}} ~~~~

stuff into the newly created page? Jamie 11:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[Show] button

How to insert the [show] and [hide] buttons into a template? — Instantnood 15:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks like it's some magic connected to the default Wikipedia CSS and JavaScript code. I dissected the AfD template and here are the relevant bits:

  <div class="NavFrame" style="border-style:none;padding:0;">
  <div class="NavFrame" style="border-style:none;padding:0;">
  
  STUFF THAT GOES IN THE MAIN BOX
  
  <div class="NavHead" style="background:#EDF1F1;text-align:left;">
  STUFF THAT GOES ON THE SAME LINE WITH [show]/[hide]
  </div>
  
  <div class="NavContent" style="display:none;background:#EDF1F1;">
  STUFF THAT GOES INSIDE HIDDEN SECTION
  </div></div></div>

The [show]/[hide] button is magically created by the "NavFrame" divs, and inserted into the "NavHead" div. It acts on the "NavContent" div, which should be declared display:none if you want the text to be initially hidden. Enjoy! If you use it in a common template, let me know — I'm curious to see it. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Is it possible to put the button in a template like {{cantonese-tiyjp}}? Thanks. — Instantnood 20:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Be careul editing this template!

In response to some recent changes to the template which broke the [show]/[hide] button:

This template uses some magic CSS and JavaScript to provide a dynamic [show]/[hide] button. This is used to reveal some shortcuts used by many editors when listing articles for AfD. Although this code looks ugly in the wikisource, it is very fragile and easily broken by even small changes.

Please be very careful when editing this template, especially the lines involving CSS tags. And please test your changes using "show preview" to make sure the [show]/[hide] funciton still works, before commiting it to public view; the AfD template is used over 200 times daily.

Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 12:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a good reason to finally get rid of subst.--Eloquence* 05:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

No pics please

Hi, no pics in this template please. It's a subst: so I've got broken images stuck on the pages I've just AfD'd now. - Randwicked 14:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Why the resistance to images here?

I don't see why the template should consist solely of sterile text. What's wrong with a little icon to indicate the nature of the process? Firebug 02:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is, Category:Pages for deletion is one of the largest and most-used categories on Wikipedia, and an image would thus have a side effect on performance. I'm not a developer, but that's most everyone's stance on this issue. My own idea to include an icon failed after this (the mockup was then declared unneeded and speedied under userpage criterion 1. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

template broken

on jan 17 the template got broken by adding a subst: on it. I've reverted the changes. [2] has a screenshot of the breakage. Moreover, if someone moves a page with an afd tag, it's the mover responsability to fix links (as in any move, mover alawys should fix links) -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Weird... I tested it in my sandbox before I made the change and I successfully used it myself on a few articles (see Lambert - The Blue Robot With Style and Lilly Greenough, both of which subst'ed the page name correctly). Why would it work for me and not for you? I wonder if anyone else has experienced this problem. As for the larger issue of people moving pages, it happens not too infrequently and oftentimes they forget to change the link. Anything that reduces complexity IMHO is good. howcheng {chat} 07:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I get it. Someone didn't subst when applying the template to the article. Tsk tsk tsk. I guess I'll leave it as is, then, because you can't expect people to remember to do that. Lesser of two evils, I suppose. howcheng {chat} 07:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I reinstated the <includeonly>subst:</includeonly> trick. I also added a message to the top that appears only if you use {{afd}} instead of {{subst:afd}}. I see two benefits to having the PAGENAME substituted: 1) If the page gets moved, the AFD link doesn't break, and 2) Once the article is deleted, admins looking in Special:Undelete will see a working link to the AFD discussion page. The template uses Template:Empty template to make the big subst message disappear on substing. dbenbenn | talk 05:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through Category:Pages for deletion and substed the template wherever it was just transcluded (as of about an hour ago). I've also removed the self-link, so that in a week or so, once all the articles that were already substed with the old version are resolved and the template removed or deleted, Whatlinkshere will be able to find articles where it needs to be substed. I'll check it the hard way about once a day or so until then. (Can you tell I'm in favor of this? I'm certainly tired of leaving two or three snippy "please fix the redlinks when you move articles on afd" talk messages every day.) —Cryptic (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

We could add a category, Category:Unsubsted uses of Template:Afd, that only gets included on un-substed pages. That might be a little easier than using Whatlinkshere ... dbenbenn | talk 18:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

New optional parameter

I've made it so that the template now takes an optional parameter that will take the place of {{PAGENAME}}. This should be useful for when bundling a number of articles into a single AfD.

For example, when nominating Some article for deletion, use:

{{subst:afd}}

And then on Some other article, which is related to the first article:

{{subst:afd|Some article}}

I've tested this with and without subst and with and without the optional parameter. I don't think this should break anything. howcheng {chat} 16:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Afd vs Template:AfD in 3 steps

Not that it's a gigantic problem, but wouldn't it be best if this template and Template:AfD in 3 steps matched each other? Expert Wikipedians won't have any problems with it, but the difference is more than enough to make a newbie stumble, IMHO. --Aaron 03:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

How could they match? Template:AfD in 3 steps is instructions on how to nominate a page for deletion. Template:Afd is a notice that a page has been nominated. dbenbenn | talk 20:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

bad wording

This should changed from

You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank this article or remove

to

You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank it or remove

// paroxysm (n) 23:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Big red message

See Wikipedia:Deletion policy for an example of why the "big red message" is a sloppy solution. Rhobite 03:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Could we come to some sort of compromise instead of fighting back and forth over this? What if it were only displayed if the template was unsubsted in the main namespace? (As an aside, I really badly dislike that the current version does not subst PAGENAME. I would be happy to have my bot spit out a list of afds with redlinked discussions to some lucky volunteer's user talk page instead of a file on my hard drive as at present; fixing these is getting real old, and the recursively-substed PAGENAME would fix a significant chunk of them.) —Cryptic (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

disambiguations

Somebody should make some disambiguation pages for VfD nominations that are entitled on the same article name (e.g. "WP:AFD/x" and "WP:AFD/x (2nd nominaion)") so that people can know that there are multiple iterations of deletion ballots. --Nintendude 04:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, you already did. It mangled them horribly. Please don't do it again. —Cryptic (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is this page protected?

Page protection is considered harmful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.61.186 (talk • contribs) 23:10, February 8, 2006 (UTC)

On articles, yes, it is harmful. Alas, this is not an article, it is a high-risk template, which means that page UNprotection is harmful, and protection is good. (Category:Pages for deletion, the related category, has many articles in it, and editing high-risk templates can make Wikipedia vulnerable to a brief database lock.) More info is in the aforementioned link. So, that is why the template is protected. I should note that I am not a developer, I am just saying what is already known. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Auto-including text for the second template in "How to list a page" link

I'd like to change the first link under "How to list a page for deletion" from the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Article for deletion to for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Article for deletion. (code directly below)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User%3ASuperm401%2FTemplate%3AAfd2+starter&editintro=User%3ASuperm401%2FTemplate%3AAfd3+starter&title={{PAGENAME}} Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}]

This uses a inputbox link to automatically put the text of afd2 into the editbox and put information about the next step before the edit box (someone apparently suggested something similar in #why not use preload and was ignored. This hack won't break any of the auto-afd scripts or bother editors who don't use the "how to list links". The link relies on User:Superm401/Template:Afd2 starter and User:Superm401/Template:Afd3 starter. These would be moved and probably renamed, but are there for testing purposes (if people ignore this too, I'll go ahead and implement, as warned in my recently successful adminship nom :) ). Superm401 - Talk 03:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverse change

Who ever made the last change to this tempalte messesd it up badly, please put it back the way it was, {{AfD}} isn't supposed to look like this--Cr0w bar 00:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me

But in the last couple of days the link to "Create its AfD subpage." seems to have changed... but the history of the template isn't showing anything? Has it been (for example):

Copy {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groucho glasses}}

to today's AFD with an edit summary of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groucho glasses

{{subst:afd2|pg=pagename|text=Reason}} ~~~~

Since the 9th and I haven't noticed? And it now says "pagename" as opposed to putting the {{pagename}} into the afd2 template? Or am I just loosing it?
brenneman^{T}{L} 12:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

See Template:AfD doc :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-26 04:33Z

Addition to not bite the newbies

As per my addition to {{prod}} which stayed, I've added "If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, please join the discussion and consider improving the article so that it meets the Wikipedia inclusion criteria." This is an addition not to bite the newbies. Despite rules on article ownership, having your creation nominated for deletion feels like someone's knifing your baby (even when it's well-deserved, which it usually is); there's no reason to fail to be polite about it - David Gerard 19:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Good. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-26 04:33Z

Meh. I just noticed this. I find it to be somewhat patronizing, and makes the assumption the person posting the afd is in the right, and the article creator is in the wrong. -- MisterHand 04:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki

Please, add bg:Шаблон:Изтриване

Done. —[admin] Pathoschild 05:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that the interwiki links were accidentally placed as comments in the AFD source code. Someone should fix it. And while they're at it es:Plantilla:Aviso borrar should added too :). Pasajero 21:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Zsinj^Talk 15:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-substed message doesn't work

It displays {{subst:empty template|This template was not substituted. The link to the deletion discussion below is broken. Replace {{afd}} with {{subst:afd}}}} (plus bolding, but I don't feel like taking the effort to do that). TimBentley (talk) 05:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, as described in the following section. —[admin] Pathoschild 04:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

New check-if-subst'd method

{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>NAMESPACE}}| |{{error:not substituted|AFD}}<div style="display:none;">}}

I've implemented a new method to check if the template is substituted based on a logical check between the namespace magic word and the same includeonly-substituted. See User:Pathoschild/Help/Template special effects, where I describe the method in more depth. Note that I've added a CSS style which will hide the box if it is not substituted, since many users may not notice the little error message above it (or not care). That aspect can easily be removed if desired. —[admin] Pathoschild 04:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

How-to box

The how-to box is not functioning properly. In order to have it shown it's necessary to click on the "hide/show" button twice (after first click, it changes from "hide" to "show"), after second, the box is shown). The same goes for cfd templates. Could anybody fix it, please? Conscious 10:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

As I see, the problem involves Template:Hidden. Conscious 06:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think only developers can fix it...  Grue  08:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I've asked Pathoschild who edited {{hidden}} on 11 May to look into it. Conscious 08:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Change in the category?

Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_7#Category:Pages_for_deletion_to_Category:Articles_for_deletion, Pages for deletion was kept and the other XfD categories were made subcategories of that. To properly set the categorization, the afd template will need to be changed to dump tagged articles into Articles for deletion instead of Pages. I just thought I would bring this up here in case someone has objections. --Syrthiss 01:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary material on this template

I don't think we need a "how to" section on this template. In my skin it is not hidden, and thus this, to most of us, at best utterly useless information and at worst completely mystifying material is displayed on every single article listed for deletion, making the template display obscenely large.

The result is very unprofessional. People coming to read the article are getting about sixteen lines of confusing stuff before the first text of the article they came to read.

I just don't see the point of having this, except perhaps to show off someone's skill/ineptness with cascading style sheets.

If editors want to find out how to list an article for deletion, you can provide them with a link to click. This is, after all, a wiki. --Tony Sidaway 12:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, it's a pain to have to hunt down where the current nomination instructions are to find the next 2 templates you need to do an AfD, not everyone has them memorized (I don't), and besides, it's 2006... forcing people to memorize exact syntax or hunt through instruction manuals should be long dead by now. Perhaps a return to the older style, where the two templates were mentioned "for maintenence use" in tiny text, so people who wanted them could get them. --W.marsh 13:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tony Sidaway. The purpose of this template is to alert the reader that the article has been submitted for afd, and to direct them to the discussion. There is no need for an instruction manual here, since editors don't generally see an article up for afd and then immediately run off and submit another one. Completely unnecessary and garish. -- MisterHand 13:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

In reply to w.marsh, I certainly don't ask people to memorize the instructions. If a howto is needed on the template (and I agree that it's a logical place to start looking, then it can be given as a wikilink to a separate document instead of being inline on every single instance of a substed AfD template. --Tony Sidaway 13:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I do (anecdotally) recall that malformed AfDs became much less common once the instructions appeared on the actual template. Like it or not, many people aren't going to click through to a new page to read instructions. But I could live with returning to that system though, if there was a good effort to make sure the template always pointed to a concise version of the current instructions... though I'd prefer to keep the instructions on the template unless it becomes apparent that it bugs way more people than it helps. --W.marsh 14:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Tony Sidaway. In fact, when I saw the instructions start showing up, I came here looking for some obvious syntax error. A link to the how-to section should be sufficient. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

They should be hidden by default. Must be some glitch with Template:hidden or something. The instructions are extremely useful since they include the PAGENAME where needed, so you only need to copy paste. They were there for quite a long time.  Grue  16:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I seem to fixed it. Do you like it now?  Grue  17:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC) (or maybe it wasn't me after all...)

Why has nothing been done to fix the problem. Apart from making AfD nominated pages look horrible, it just looks odd to put descriptions of the process for anyone who wants to nominate another article. Who changed the process to have it display? User:Ansell 09:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's still horrible. There doesn't seem to have been any change at all.

I propose to edit this template to place the instructions on another page. I will leave a link to that page in the template. Any objections? --Tony Sidaway 15:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Only applause. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong? The instructions are hidden by default. Can you provide a screenshot of the problem?  Grue  15:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

They're not hidden for me, but I find having the forms there, with the PAGENAME in place, very convenient. Perhaps a last instruction: "Replace this template by {{subst:Afd1}}", which would be the short version? Septentrionalis 18:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The {{hidden}} template must not be working correctly, however, I still wonder why they must be included in the template at all, if by definition they are not going to be shown on the pages using this template. Ansell (T) 02:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Image showing problem Image:AFDHiddenTemplateNotWorking.png Ansell (T) 02:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What is this skin you're using? It's probably a bug in skin, not in the template. Also, this template doesn't use hidden, but rather Template:hidden begin.  Grue  06:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I am using the Cologne Blue template. It is a standard Mediawiki template, and therefore I think that something as major as an AfD notice should be consistent across the range of supported skins.

It still strikes me as totally unnecessary to include the listing information in the template though. What use is there in someone looking at an AfD nominated page to find instructions for how to list another template. Seems like much more hassle and more unnecessary subst'd text than is necessary. Ansell (T) 09:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if it were a bug in the skin, putting these instructions into the template to be downloaded every time, whether the instructions are needed or not, seems unnecessary. This is a wiki. What's wrong with having a wikilink to the instructions?

Would there be a serious problem with this? I don't think anyone is asked to memorize instructions, just that we shouldn't be putting the instructions on every AfD'd page. --Tony Sidaway 09:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The instructions on a separate page would be useless, because you'll have to substitute all metasynatactic variables, such as PageName to the real page name. With the current system it's a matter of Ctrl-C Ctrl-V. With your proposed system user needs to copy-paste several times, significantly increasing the probability of error.  Grue  10:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Useless? Hardly. I did my first afd with zero problems, and there were no instructions on the afd template at that time, just a link. Thousands and thousands of editors have done afds without the instructions on the template. It makes no sense to me to put the instructions on a template that many will read, but only one will be actually following. A link will suffice, and more concise. -- MisterHand 10:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It does seem like a very well intentioned addition to the process to reduce errors, however, it is not needed, and in its current state where it is not supported by all skins particularly, it is hindering the process significantly. I do not see how hard it is for someone who actually wants to propose something for deletion to follow manual instructions. If they make an error it is a simple edit to fix it. Ansell 12:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

But it makes it much more tedius and error-prone. Wikipedia requires way too much exact syntax and instruction hunting as it is, anything that helps bring us out of the stone age even a little bit is good, in my opinion. The pregenerated afd2 and afd3 templates should stay on the afd1 template, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe the drop-down could be a lot shorter, just 2-3 lines, so even if it does display in full it won't be particularly bigger than the normal afd box? --W.marsh 13:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Even without this unnecessary clutter, the afd template is ridiculously large. Two or three extra lines? I still don't see why the instructions can't be on a separate page. Do we want to make it easier for people who aren't even able to do basic editing to to go around listing pages for deletion? If we want to do so, why is this so important than it excuses making articles much, much more difficult to read by imposing a simply massive template at their head? --Tony Sidaway 13:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, most AfD'd articles are hoaxes and so on that can not be saved through "basic editing", so to act like AfD nominators are simply lazy non-editors is wrong and a bit insulting. We should not be making templates less useful because we don't like people who use those templates. --W.marsh 13:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This hidden thing does not work on the classic skin either. And the show/hide thing on the monobook skin is weird. --Henrygb 01:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well here's the last version without the pulldown instructions: [3]. I know it's not the best looking thing in the world but if the current semi-broken template annoys a lot of people I think the one with the maintenence stuff in fine print would be tolerable (of course some changes would need to be made, it's nearly 6 months old). --W.marsh 02:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. We do really need to get back to just having a simple notice without filling an entire page with crap before the editor can actually read the content of the page that has been proposed for deletion. Would anyone have an objection to adoption of an updated version of the form of the template wmarsh has linked to? --01:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Coming late to the discussion, I would. It certainly is convenient when going on New Page patrol, and the links, when clicked, contain a pre-filled version of the template. Perhaps it is lazyness, or it could also be being barraged with a boatload of junk and trying to spend the least amount of time trying to get rid of it. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It may be convenient for you, but do you recognise, at least, that the current version of the template is obscenely large? --Tony Sidaway 02:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it is excessively large, but if it is really necessary, just copy the following code into another template, and make a call to it, which will cut about 5 lines of text from this template:

{{hidden begin|ta1=left|header=<span style="font-weight:normal;">[[Template:AfD in 3 steps|How to list a page for deletion]] ([{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/{{CURRENTYEAR}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAMEGEN}} {{CURRENTDAY}}|action=edit}} log])</span>}} {{AfD doc|{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}} {{hidden end}}

Titoxd 02:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I've no idea what that gibberish is supposed to mean, but why don't you try putting it into the template if you think it will help? --Tony Sidaway 02:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it, I'm now going to check if everything works as intended. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And it does. Titoxd 02:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for trying. Looks like the same old horrible mess to me. Nearly a whole screenful of template before you get to the actual article. That is completely unacceptable. --Tony Sidaway 04:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the horrible mess is mostly prose now. The optional listing is only 12 characters. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could see what is supposed to have changed. The template looks almost the same size and it contains quite a lot of garish and distracting color--quite unsuitable for a bit of boilerplate that is supposed to appear at the top of an article.

I would like to try the suggestion of using the older version, just to see if it looks better. This would require a bit of editing to bring the wording up to date, but otherwise should be quite simple. Any objections? I really, really want to get the size of it down to something reasonable for the top of an article. --Tony Sidaway 13:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I woudl like to see this much smaller, too. But I looked way back to, e.g. Nov 2005, and then it was 17 lines (1024x768), and it's currently 19. So I'm not sure that a significant improvemnt is possible, without some radical reinventing of the template. Which is possible, but I'm not sure how one might go about that. That said, at least going back a ways would squelch all the unreadable conditionals stuff. -Splash - tk 13:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone suggested this one. I like it and I think it puts the usage information into its place, instead of splurging it all over every single article on AfD. --Tony Sidaway 13:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good choice, I think. Perhaps with an addition of a link to the current instructions, wherever they have been moved to. (And that "Wikipedia:Maintenance" link is odd.) I think the phrasing could be de-flabbed a bit, in the manner of my edit to the template a minute ago, but that's not important really. My only concern is that we might break someone's helpful bot somewhere if we don't check; but then this thread has been around enough that they'd have spotted it. -Splash - tk 14:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ever since this version, the pulldown instructions briefly appear before being hidden when I view a page with AFD on it (I'm using Firefox 1.5.0.4 on Ubuntu Linux). Besides this bug, I think the best way to reduce the clutter would be to make the main AFD template a non-substed one. I really don't see a strong argument for substing AFD notices.--Eloquence* 18:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do we subst it anyways? WP:AUM? If we didn't subst it, we could have all the prose we wanted, and we wouldn't need to split code into {{Afd-list}} and others. Titoxd 05:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Subst wouldn't make the template any less intrusive. It's ludicrously large at the moment, subst or no subst. --Tony Sidaway 11:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a mock-up for the compact template at User:Tony Sidaway/Sandbox/afd . What would need to be changed in this to make it acceptable to all? --Tony Sidaway 11:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I like it a lot. Short, simple, and too the point. Nice work! -- MisterHand 13:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's actually one more line (on 1024*768) than the present template, even though it does away with the "how to" bit. But I would't object to the replacement. -Splash - tk 13:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thumbs up from me. The links that are what people seem to think justifies the aft-list template are still available but they aren't intrusive (or buggy, ie. "hidden" that don't hide consistently) Ansell 13:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll swap it in. --Tony Sidaway 17:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Please tweak a little if it needs it. --Tony Sidaway 17:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

One query I have is the relevance of the Maintenance link. It is really just for the nominator, however, you probably don't want to say Nominator use only. Sounds suspicious to me. Calling it Official use only is also not the right term as anyone is welcome to use the templates if in good faith they are sure something needs deletion. Possibly "Initial use only:"... although I am not sure about that either. The page BTW that is linked to almost looks like a collaboration point for efforts to expand the encyclopedia. Is that what is desired? Ansell 23:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's okay myself. It's good because someone curious enough to click it is taken to Wikipedia:Maintenance, which he might not otherwise know about. This gives an introduction to all the minor chores that go on behind the scenes. --Tony Sidaway 23:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Short-Circuiting the Reasons Behind Blanking/Removing the Notice

Current "tweak" revision (for admin consideration):

Big top-to-bottom rewrite:

Discussion:

I think the vast majority of people who delete the AfD notice on pages do so under the belief that that will stop the page they care about from being deleted. I suggest that we could short-circuit that reaction with a slight tweak to the AfD template:

Thoughts? — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  23:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure about the "blanking", in my mind that is wikipedia jargon, and as such might not be interpreted correctly by authors who are being slowly put through the wikipedia process. I suggest changing it to "removing all content from the page" if only to avoid the feel that there is jargon in the community that they have to know to get anywhere. Ansell 01:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the "blanking" is terminology from the existing page. I didn't want to go too crazy with the wording changes, to increase the chances of community approval. I understand your point about jargon, but I think there's also value in conciseness. As someone far too prone to verbiage, I always think my writing is better when it's tighter. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll also say this in response: I think the verb "to blank" is fairly jargon-free. If I go up to someone entirely uninvolved with Wikipedia and ask them to "blank your mind," they're going to understand I'm saying "wipe your mind clear." Similarly, "blanking a page" conveys to a total stranger "clearing a page of content," which is what it is.

That's not to say that we're not a bit jargon-apt on Wikipedia. But since I have no reference for that statement, if that was in the namespace, I'd be in violation of WP:NOR, although not WP:NPA (thankfully, or someone might use {{RPA}}) on me, the text of which can be found in WP:TT, and then I might get reported to WP:ANI and possible even ArbCom. Of course, that'd only be if someone was wikistalking me. (And if I was an experienced Wikipedian, I'm sure I could've stuffed that entirely made-up nonsense anecode with even more Wikijargon.) ;-) — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

While we're at it, let's get of the wording "consider improving the article so that it meets the Wikipedia inclusion criteria." This is condescending and implies that the person who created the article is in the wrong, and the person placing the afd is in the right...before consensus has been reached! -- MisterHand 01:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've spent a little time today in AfD. Although I acknowledge your point, trust me, a very large percentage of the stuff that comes up to AfD should be up for AfD — non-notable bands and people doing their own bios, mostly. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Good modification but i think you should get rid of "people from being aware of it" since the purpose they remove it is to prevent people from being aware of it. I dont think we should confirm their expectation. - Tutmosis 02:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

See, I don't think they do that to prevent people from being aware of it; I think they do it thinking somehow the process is tied to the warning, and removing the warning ends the process. ("I don't like this, so I shall make it go away!") Still, you could be right, so here's another try:

— WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats perfect although the underline I think is over the top. Its straight to the point and it doesnt side track "this will happen/or this will not happen" type of stuff. I definetely support your proposed changes to the current template. - Tutmosis 02:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think I'm formally submitting this, but I have to admit, i do think the whole template could use a rewrite — something like:

I think that might require more discussion to get passed than the above wording tweak, but thought I'd post it just for the halibut. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

One of the reasons I liked this was it uses the active voice and not the passive voice (i.e. "Mary reads the book," and not "the book is being read by Mary"). — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

These all are very large. I like the French one: L'éventuelle suppression de cette page est discutée, conformément à la procédure de Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer. ("The possible deletion of this page is under discussion, according to the Pages for deletion process"). There is a little trashcan logo to the left. Short and sweet. I don't see why we always have to overload our templates so that they eventually take over the page. --Tony Sidaway 23:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion from Requests for Unprotection Board

Splash recently altered the {{afd}} notice — and based on his edits, I'd like to propose an alteration to the AfD template as it stands, that essentially incorporates two wording changes to combat the two most common problems with AfD nominations: the first being vandalizing removal of the notice from the page, and the second being an editor taking the nomination personally. However, the additions don't add an immense amount of verbiage to the template. My suggested changes can be viewed at User:WCityMike/ProposedNewAFD. Hopefully, this'll be as useful as the {{spoiler}} spacing fix I suggested. ;-) — Mike • 17:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to object to the new design. I feel it's too wordy and heavy-handed, and I don't really think that bad-faith removals of AfD notices is that big of a problem honestly. Removal of speedy deletion tags, on the other hand, is a slightly larger problem. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you a frequent visitor to AfD? — Mike • 03:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am, and I frequently list articles there as well. Whenever I list an article on AfD, I have it watchlisted and revert if the AfD tag is removed, leaving a note on the removing user's talk page explaining not to do that. I've never really seen it as all that big of a problem, and I don't think putting a big angry warning would prevent it even if it were a problem. Anyway, I'd like to discuss this, but I would prefer if we could move the discussion to Template talk:Afd if you don't mind. I'll have it watchlisted and will respond to any queries there. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it adds that much. I'd be curious — those monitoring our discussion here. Straw poll, perhaps? — Mike • 04:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No, because they are evil. -Splash - tk 04:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a much better proposal several sections up to go back to a conditionals-free version above. All the proposals in the section immediately above are very sort "pleady" and "cuddly" and excessively wordy. Whereas, the cut back version I wrote the other day cuts out all the fluff, conveys the information that needs to be conveyed and does so perfectly politely. However, it retains the horrible-looking and lengthy conditionals code, and as I said, the section a couple up about ditching it is a good one. -Splash - tk 04:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the stronger wording of Splash's, but also like the conditionals that he doesn't. Not that I'm voting, of course. - brenneman ^{L} 04:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll = evil. That said, I'm personally okay with the version you (Mike) provided at 02:56 on 5.6.06 (currently the last one you provided). If we are going to make a modification to the template, I would prefer something more along those lines. AmiDaniel (talk)

User taking instructions literally

9cds (talk · contribs) has taken the instructions on the template way too literally. He nominated Greg Mathew on AfD, and hence he used the instructions provided by {{afd-list}} to fill out the proper nomination pages. Then I come along into the discussion and see the page, do a bit of fixing up and ultimately remove the afd-list part of the template as it is now useless after he finished the nomination. I removed it because it takes up too much space on the page considering it doesn't hide at all on my Cologne blue skin, as I detailed above in the unnecessary material section. He goes and reverts with no reason other than removing material from the template. I reverted it giving a full reason why it is 1) totally unneeded and 2) ugly. He thought he would have fun with his new admin privileges though and use rollback without a real reason why he is not just being a process fanatic to keep it there. Anyway, to cut a long story short (well kinda). The message didn't get across and he actually had the nerve to warn me about 3RR which I thought was a bit more of a joke than I could deal with right now just having finished a 3 hour exam.

Something needs to be done about people taking things too literally! User:Ansell 11:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the instructions themselves. They absolutely do not belong anywhere on the template. --Tony Sidaway 11:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Revised template

I think that this would work much better for the template:

Code:

The "Step 2" link brings you to a new subpage for that article's AfD entry with the text "===Afd=== Reason —Mets501 (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)" already inserted, and the "Step 3" link is a link to the log. It also has a link to the "How to list pages for deletion" section of WP:AFD for newbies. (By the way, the Step 2 link does not work on this talk page because someone has already created a "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afd" page with a redirect to "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion", but it works on all articles) —Mets501 (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems interesting at least. I'm not sure if it would be faster/easier than copying and pasting though, especially at step 3 (adding it to the log). You'd have to copy the afd subpage's address it from the second window that loaded, right? --W.marsh 00:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that's why I added {{subst:afd3|pg={{PAGENAME}}}} into the template, so you could just copy that. —Mets501 (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

multi-article deletions now annoying to do.

The template is now broken as it is incapable of satisfying the instructions on WP:AFD for nominating multiple pages for deletion. One can no longer specify a parameter for what the discussion page is. Could someone please fix it? Kevin_b_er 08:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it got reverted to a six-month old version so it may take a while to reimplement all of the lost functionality...  Grue  12:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a copy that works with the parameter for discussion page at User:Ansell/sandbox. I would fix the template as it is a simple fix, but I am not an admin. {{{1|{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>PAGENAME}}}}} replaces the current PAGENAME bit in the articles entry section Ansell 02:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have changed to semi-protection, you can make your change if you'd like. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. I also restored the category Category:Articles for deletion, instead of the old one Category:Pages for deletion (Liberatore, 2006) 14:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The maintanance links

(formerly titled Wheel warring)

Please stop wheel warring. There are people who definitely think that the appearance of the {{afd-list}} template inside this template is annoying because the hiding mechanism does not work on all templates. This is why a compromise has been made with the single line having the equivalent information. Lets face it, if you don't know how to use the "Maintenance" links you probably shouldn't be nominating. However, there are some who think that even the single line is too much. Why? Well, lets discuss this instead of edit warring about it. Ansell 10:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought we had been discussing it for a month or so, and that consensus was to keep the maintenance language, but not the full instructions so long as they don't stay hidden properly for non-monobook people. Late arrivers to a discussion can still discuss... but they need to understand that the debate had already been going on for a while. --W.marsh 14:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

OK then, my edit got reverted. Yeah, more discussion should have taken place, sorry.

However, I strongly disagree with the maintanance links in. They do not belong there. This template gets subst'ed around 100-150 times per day, and is an awfully distracting thing. Let us keep in there only what we must, please. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As I've said above, it's very annoying to have to check some other page, hunt down the directions (which knowing Wikipedia, could have been moved), manually insert the page names, etc. to list an AfD. Before this stuff was on the template, we saw way more malformed AfDs... and it certainly was a big pain to list AfDs even if you knew what you were doing. I think the benefits vastly outweigh the annoyance, and I'm not even sure how many people are bothered by the text in the first place. We should be making Wikipedia easier, not harder... it already requires an ungodly ammount of instruction hunting and exact syntax for a website in 2006. --W.marsh 22:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You have good points, but the line

Maintenance Use Only: {{subst:afd}} {{subst:afd2|pg=Article for deletion|text=}} {{subst:afd3|pg=Article for deletion}} log

does not help one learn how to list AfDs or how to not malformat them. At most, it tells people that one should use subst, which is not even necessary. It is irrelevant that there exist two other afd templates, afd2 and afd3 when the user has chosen to use the simple afd template.

You may be referring to the 'log' link, but that is just confusing. Unless you know in advance what that thing is for, you will never know that it is that link you need to use to list an AfD. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The other version would actually show people how to list the AfD, but that annoyed some people because it didn't display properly for some. Anyway, the text still serves a purpose for those of us who don't want to remember and have to type yet another string of exact syntax so much. It makes listing an AfD just copy and paste work (of course, coming up with a good argument may still require some actual thought). --W.marsh 02:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That still does not explain what is the gain of listing in this template the {{subst:afd2}} and {{subst:afd3}} options since the user already chose to use {{afd}}, or, if you wish, {{subst:afd}}. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? It pre-formats both of them with the arguments all filled out, rather than forcing someone to look up what arguments are needed and fill them in manually. You can't just use template:afd at every step, as far as I know. We are on the same page, right? When someone uses template:afd, presumably they're about to use afd2 on the subpage, and afd3 on the log page. So this just sets that all up conveniently --W.marsh 04:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I see now, so they are not equivalent templates, they are used at different stages. I never bothered with that and was doing it the old way, with ===...===. So got it now, that line is just a cheat sheet, and if you don't know in advance what it does it won't help you.

Conceptually it still does not belong there, and a plain link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion would be more appropriate, but I do agree that it has a use once you know what it does. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

How about renaming "Maintanance use only" to "Steps to list an article for deletion"? More clear that way I think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Any comments on the above? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe "Steps to list this article for deletion" It would benefit from a change. Ansell 20:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I like it with "an" more than with "this". It is more generic that way. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Toughening template wording

I have spent extended periods on AfD and New pages. There are increasing examples of the AfD template being removed. Usually this is by new editors. Often, this is not deliberate vandalism but a failure to appreciate the seriousness of removing the tempate. I suspect that many users do not read the template thoroughly and miss the implications of the phrase "but please do not blank it or remove this notice during the discussion". I think that it would be helpful to such new users to toughen the wording to make its importance clearer. I do not think this should cause upset but any mild upset would be inconsequent to the problems misunderstandings bring.

I should like to suggest that this phrase be replaced by the following, in bold:

"Editors are not permitted to remove this template until this discussion has been closed. Such unauthorised removal would be viewed as a serious breach of Wikipedia procedures".

I should welcome views and possible alternative wordings. BlueValour 22:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this wording, it is way too strong, makes it look as if removing that note is committing a crime. And using bold is not good either.

I really think we should be nicer on newbies than that. Just put the note back and write to them saying not to remove it again. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the present wording is that it is not working. In consequence, because newbies do not appreciate the implications of blanking the template, they get badly bitten. I agree with your view as to how to deal with newbies but many editors are not so gentle. The key point is that wording in a template is a generalised instruction not aimed at an individual. We are therefore not being either nice or nasty. Surely you would agree that a toughening of the wording is worth it if it saves a newbie from being savaged? The point about bold is so that it stands out and will help newbies spot it.

I have taken on board your views and now suggest:

"Editors must not remove this template until this discussion has been closed. Such removal would be a breach of Wikipedia procedures".

BlueValour 16:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Your reworded message is still a "you are being commiting a crime" kind of thing. Come on, a newbie writes his/her first virging article, a smart ass comes along and afd's it, and of course the newbie gets pissed off. I don't think a stronger wording is appropriate, and I doubt it will help much.

In other words, there is a price to pay for having an encyclopedia anybody can edit, and there are always new people coming along, some better/smarter than others. I still believe one'd rather put back the template if removed and write a gentle message to the newbie rather than emplyoing dictatorial language. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

At the same time, the current wording "please do not blank it or remove this notice during the discussion" is way too weak. How about: "the article must not be blanked and this notice nor removed until the discussion is closed?", leaving out the "criminal" part? BTW, I think there should be a suggestion for the case in which the author realizes that the article does not belong to here (something like: "if you realize that the article should be deleted, just place {{db-author}} after this notice. (Liberatore, 2006). 11:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This sounds acceptable, as long as it is not in bold. I think the part "if you realize that the article should be deleted, just place {{db-author}} after this notice." is not really necessary, once an article is on AfD, it is admins who should decide on speedy deleting it, and some conversation still must take place. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Action by admin please - now this has agreed please alter the template:

From: Feel free to edit the article, but please do not blank it or remove this notice during the discussion.

To: Feel free to edit the article but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed.

I have altered the wording very slightly to make it read better. BlueValour 22:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

6505

Found on a processs page: mediazilla:6505. The template appears to be broken wrt older pages only visible for sysops. -- Omniplex 21:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see from the discussion, it is not likely this will be fixed. I guess we can switch to the trick used in Template:Prod, but this of course will not solve the problem for the articles that are already deleted (Liberatore, 2006). 11:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that I look better, this bug is currently flagged as "Invalid", so it is quite sure it won't be fixed (Liberatore, 2006). 12:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Missing space

A simple matter that may as well be fixed. A space is missing between 'at' and 'article' thus: Please share your thoughts on the matter atthis article's entry BlueValour 01:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

OTOH it isn't missing; just looks as though it is. Ah, well, ignore this, sorry! BlueValour 01:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Steps to list article for deletion

There should be a signature sign ~~~~ after the second step. Schzmo 14:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Reminder to notify users

Could someone please modify Template:afd to remind nominators to notify users of the AFD using {{subst:AFDWarning|{{{1}}}}} or {{subst:Adw|{{{1}}}}}. It's annoying having to open up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion to look up which usertalk templates to use each time and I've noticed a lot of users not even bothering to notifiy article creators about AFDs. Thanks, 16:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we please just keep this simple and to the point? It's not even 'policy' or particularly common practise to do this, and if some user keeps on forgetting, then they should stick a post-it note on their computer screen or something! -Splash - tk 19:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Link to current day's log broken

No one has changed the template since early July, but the log link now points to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 <august-gen> 3]] instead of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 3. --Spring Rubber 05:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A broken magic word, it appears. I'll bring it up in the Village Pump, but I've replaced {{CURRENTMONTHNAMEGEN}} with {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} for the time being. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see Bug 6911. Fixed in SVN, and today it is working in Wikimedia sites. – rotemliss – Talk 10:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Pointer to Afdx for repeat nominations

I'll add a comment to use Template:Afdx for repeat nominations, if no one objects. Recently, I've seen lots of confused AfD-newbies around asking how to link to a fresh nomination page for re-AfDs. Kimchi.sg 10:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Template breaks preview at Special:Undelete

The code in the template which checks if the template has been substituted or not, and adds <div style="display:none;"> if it has not, breaks the preview of deleted revisions at Special:Undelete, even when the template has been correctly substituted in the deleted revision. I've worked out a fix which involves wrapping the subst check code with another ifeq construct, like so:

Current code:

 {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>NAMESPACE}}| |{{error:not substituted|AFD}}<div style="display:none;">}}{{#if:{{{nosubst|}}}|</div></div>}}

New code:

 {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Special:Undelete| |{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>NAMESPACE}}| |{{error:not substituted|AFD}}<div style="display:none;">}}{{#if:{{{nosubst|}}}|</div></div>}}}}

If noone has any objections, I'll change the template. --bainer (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please make the change. Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-19 18:37Z

Ok, I've made the change. --bainer (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the change worked, or maybe I don't understand the problem. Consider this example special undelete (picked at random, no desire to actually undelete this page, it's salted, but it's a good example of wanting to see more than page source) [4] which if you press 'Show preview' all you see is the template message, as reported above. The view source shows all the content is there. ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made a small change, it should be fixed now. Not all the <div style="display:none;"> tags were enclosed by the extra {{#ifeq}}, enclosing them all guarantees that the rest of the article will still display when using Special:Undelete. The revision you cite above still won't work because the template has been subst:ed into that revision and won't change, but any new substitutions should work – Gurch 18:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix, Gurch! It means all the pages that carry this subst'd AFD notice from when the bug was introduced until now can't be viewed at all though. Pasting source into a sandbox page and fixing whatever the DIV problem is (or deleting the whole AFD notice from the source) would let you view content though, which is a workaround. Not one that's easy to make widely known though I suspect. ++Lar: t/c 19:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Detection of usage on non-articles?

Would anyone like to add a expression that prevents usage of this template in non-article namespaces? Another #ifeq expression? Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 14:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a #switch that checks for namespace and allows this template's text to show only when it's in article space. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 08:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox testing

I practiced both substing and non-substing this template in the sandbox and it simply gave me a warning. Any separate sandbox to use for practicing templates?? Georgia guy 16:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Use your userspace. Create the template at User:Georgia guy/sandbox and then transclude it using {{User:Georgia guy/sandbox}} on another user page. howcheng {chat} 19:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Bottom section

Does the bit at the bottom have to be so large and italicized? It doesn't really mesh well with the rest of the template. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 03:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad HTML

This template has a closing </small> tag for which no opening tag exists. — Miles←☎ 22:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears it got broken here. It's now fixed (I restored the opening tag). --bainer (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Template breaks old non-substituted uses in history

The code in the template which checks if the template has been substituted or not, and adds <div style="display:none;"> if it has not, breaks the display of old revisions which used the template without being substituted (see for instance //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tenths_digit&oldid=2584205). This is the same problem reported above, only in a different situation; is there any reason to not close the div, which would fix both instances of the problem as well as any future problems with the same cause? --cesarb 17:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Display none - makes histories difficult to read

the <div style="display:none;"> code included when the template is not substituted creates problems when reading histories. I.e. any difference like this one before vfd or afd were required to be subst displays none of the article text. User:Nardman1 brought this up on Wikipedia talk:Template substitution, and I agree with him - we should remove this code unless there is a good reason to blank the rest of the article. --Trödel 22:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If someone doesn't substitute the template they'll see the message when they save the page; there's no good reason to hide the remainder of the page given the problems it causes. I've removed the div tags. --bainer (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thx --Trödel 02:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Technical hitch

If I preview any deleted article with {{afd}} subtituted at the top, all I see is "This template must be substituted. Replace Template:Atl with {{subst:AFD}}". In large red bold text. Which makes reviewing deleted content a bit tricky at times :-) Guy 13:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've been bugged by this for a while... I have no idea how to fix it, but the two obvious workarounds are to preview an older version or copy a version without the AfD tag to your sandbox. --W.marsh 13:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Colour

Can we change this to a less distracting colour than the grey it is now? Something like a light yellow or cream would look a lot less ugly (in my very humble opinion). Voretus^talk 16:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

In the original discussion, the plan was to make the background, and therefore the template, stand out even on LCD screens that don't show contrast very well. --ais523 17:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Why? Voretus^talk 21:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the original discussion: Template talk:Afd/Archive01#Tidying Up. It doesn't seem as though there was that much discussion about the background colour. --ais523 08:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Add a note?

We should probably add some kind of note here that for low-quality or unsourced articles, if you want it not to be deleted, it may be more productive to improve the article than to argue on the AFD page. The latter seems to happen a lot but the former is preferable. (Radiant) 16:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this in theory, but unfortunately it seems as though the people who write low-quality articles tend not to read all the text on the AfD tag anyway... --ais523 13:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove parameter about wrong namespace

Could we remove the parameter that says about wrong namespace from it - the reason being that I've been trying to create a version of this template in a sandbox in my userspace, and when I subst it, it comes up with a wrong namespace error - can we remove this?? Thanks, --SunStar Net 01:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You can copy the template code from this page, remove that part and paste it on your sandbox. —Centrx→talk • 02:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Red link in the second row

I'm trying to replace the redlink in the second row with a temporary link to preload the discussion, but there might be a coding error, so I autoreverted. Can anyone look this over:

{{#ifexist:[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}]]|You may share your thoughts on the matter at 
 '''[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{1|{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>PAGENAME}}}}}|this article's entry]]''' 
 on the Articles for deletion page.|[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
 action=edit&preload=Template:Afd2+starter&editintro=Template:Afd3+starter&title=Wikipedia:Articles+for+deletion/{{PAGENAMEE}} 
 <span style="color:red;">'''Click this link to create a discussion page'''</span>]}}<br />

Supposedly the "Click this" redlink (3rd variable in the #ifexist bracket should be replaced with the "You may share" line (2nd variable) as soon as the discussion is created, but for some reason it didn't work. It might've been a browser cache problem though, so there might not actually be a coding error in there. ~ trialsanderrors 23:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There was some disagreement about the preloaded-debate link when it was added (it was reverted by someone who wanted to use the older method of copying-and-pasting the Afd2 text that appears at the bottom of the template); the current version is a compromise solution added at the same time as WP:AFDC that makes both the preload and copy-afd2 methods possible. This change would remove the old copy-afd2 method and so might infuriate people who still use it. Apart from that, it looks pretty good, except that it would make a symmetrical mass nomination (where the debate page name is different from all the article names) harder to do (because the preload method doesn't work in such cases). There is also the confusion for new users that would be created due to the #ifexist not changing until the article page was edited or purged; there would be a 'create a discussion page' link even after the page had been created, until the next edit or purge (and how many new users know about purging a page). This is probably the 'browser cache' problem that trialsanderrors is referring to (I think it's a server rather than a browser cache problem, which would be quite hard to correct without some sort of purge backlink from Afd2, which would complicate the process rather than simplifying it). So: technically correct, but probably a bad idea anyway. --ais523 12:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki for Interlingua

Dear administrator, please add the following interwiki:

[[ia:Patrono:Vpd]]

Thank you in advance, Julian Mendez 15:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- JLaTondre 16:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit Request

Propose to have the phrase "Articles for Deletion page" in the second line wiki-linked to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 19:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I'm not sure, but putting the two links so close together might cause confusion (newcomers might ask "which link do I click?"). But in general, a link like that might be helpful. Worth running this past the village pump, perhaps, to see whether the link to Wikipedia:Guide to deletion at the end is sufficient, or if some other solution can be reached. Luna Santin 20:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Protected edit request at Template:Afd. Luna Santin 20:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Request filled. Viridae^Talk 09:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Simplify source

I'd like to see a template that works like something like this:

User types:
{{subst:afd}}

Template substs

<!- The next line relates to the discussion about deleting this article. Do not remove until the discussion is finished. ->
{{smartafd|Main|My_Vanity_Article|12th May 2009}}
<!- The above line relates to the discussion about deleting this article. Do not remove until the discussion is finished. ->

Readers see the normal boiler plate.

This would really make the code more readable, and less susceptiable to accidental breakage. Comments?

Rich Farmbrough, 11:59 14 January 2007 (GMT).

Afd source would be something like at {{:tl:testafd}}

Rich Farmbrough, 22:53 16  January 2007 (GMT).