Template talk:AFD help

Last link

Headbomb, I think the last link should be removed (Wikipedia:How to save an article proposed for deletion) as it sets the tone of an AfD for being about saving pages, when in the vast majority of cases, things sent to AfD need to be deleted. It unfairly prejudices the tone of the debate, IMO, to be more towards inclusion from the beginning. AfD is neutral on that point. It also saves on space, which is important, because this looks very cluttered. Three links is more than enough. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm fairly indifferent to this. I've made Wikipedia:How to save an article proposed for deletion more prominent in Wikipedia:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! to compensate for this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The current (as I write this) last link is to a page which uses "my article" in the title, as well as the link in this template. I also see this as problematic. Ever since seeing a discussion about a year or two ago in which someone characterized those who do the real work around here as "second-class editors", I suppose all bets are off. Still, we push the notion that no one owns any particular piece of content, which as I write this is displayed very prominently at the top of WP:OWN. So why would be promulgate "my article" if this is still the case? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@RadioKAOS:, the template uses the name of the page as it is. If you want to change it, I suggest you make a move request. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like passing the buck to me. It's bad enough already that we show such a "wink wink, nudge nudge" attitude about WP:OWN in the form of article histories in which a casual editor does all the real work in creating or expanding an article, followed by the usual suspects (mostly members of the WP:MAW gang) showing up to polish turds like a pack of vultures picking away at a carcass. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

We use the page titles as they are. If you want to do something about that, you can follow the above suggestion and make something happen. Or you can keep complaining here where nothing will happen. The choice is yours. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

Reasonable comments by TonBallioni and RadioKAOS are two years old. I would like to see the substance of their objections addressed rather than dismissed in some prissy, bureaucratic manner. Today was the first time I noticed the link to an essay in an AfD, discussions I try to avoid. The content of the essay is secondary. We shouldn't link to an essay at all in every AfD. I understand linking to policy. But a person participating in an AfD should already be well informed. An AfD is no place for a beginner. The person who added this template may think it's helpful, but it will only make bad problems worse, such as 1) assuming that essays are policy or on a level with policy, then using essays to bolster arguments in Afds. 2) Privileging "saving" over deletion. You could change the template. It makes more sense to delete it before it does any more damage. Help by not helping.
Vmavanti (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Tony's concern was addressed, and RadioKAOS' concern is something that can't be dealt with here. Primefac (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Very smart idea. Thanks for implementing this! -- RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Essay quality

The premise of this template/transclusion is good but I wouldn't recommend these links to a newcomer... particularly the first and third links (essays). I would think it would be better to link one page (e.g., Wikipedia:Guide to deletion), drastically reduce its jargon, and rephrase for newcomers. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 00:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Czar: For me, WP:GTD is the one I'd recommend the least to newcomers. By the time newcomers get here, they are more likely to be in panic mode, and want to know what they can do to not have the articles deleted, not how the technical details of process works (WP:AFDLIST or WP:BEFORE) or what the jargon means. What they want to know is what can they do (e.g. "How do I get this article not deleted?") and be reassured that deletion is not the only possible outcome. That's not done in WP:GTD, save for pointing to those two essays we link. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the essays are much better than WP:GTD -- that is full of jargon, and would do little good for the participants. I suggest that the next step should probably be some type of rewrite of one of the essays, or a "Plain and Simple Guide to working with Deletion discussions". Sadads (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: Link to a glossary of commonly used acronyms

Hi

It is very common for people familiar with deletion process to use acronyms without linking to the page they are talking about, sometimes to exclude people from the conversation. This increases the barriers for participation for people new to Wikipedia or those not familiar with this part of Wikipedia. To help lower this barrier it would be super helpful to add a link to this template called something like 'commonly used acronyms' which would like through to a glossary for these pages (not sure if this already exists in some way)?.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Added a direct link to Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Shorthands. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much Headbomb (although I can't see the change?), this is a great start, is it ok to add more of the commonly used acronyms here? The ones I see in current discussions are; GNG, NOTNEWS, SNG, SSG, TNT, WP:N (or sometimes just called N), NBIO, TOOSOON, EVENTCRIT, ANYBIO, BASIC, NEVENT, CREATIVE, POV, NOTTRAVEL, PROMO, BEFORE, ATD, BLP1E and COI. Perhaps it would also be sensible to have a note along the lines of 'when using acronyms please provide a link'?

Thanks again

John Cummings (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@John Cummings: Well, if you hid the box, you should still be able to see it on the documentation section of the template. If you mean at WP:AFD, try a WP:PURGE.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Has this template actually been useful

Sandstein's removal of a link here this morning got me thinking about this. I've never liked this template personally. I can't remember if I supported it, but I've pretty much considered it useless clutter since it was introduced, but I suppose the argument is that it helps new users. Well, it's been around for a while now, and is there any evidence that this actually helps new users, or is it just more clutter that doesn't really serve much point that experienced users have to figure out how to hide technically (and no, it is not easy to figure out how to do.) Are there any statistics on increased page views or comments from newer users citing it? None of the pages linked to are particularly well written or easy to understand in my view, so I doubt it, but I'll open it up for others to discuss. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Fix ping to Sandstein. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Pageviews have skyrocketed since its introduction, yes. You can clearly see the boost in June 2018 on the Intro/Help pages [1] (165 to 405 monthly views, a 245% boost), [2] (96 to 418 monthly views, a 435% boost). The guide has remained mostly flat [3] (actually a slight decrease in monthly views), but that's mostly because it's already highly viewed and has a lot more natural variations from other incoming links. Presumable that decrease would have been more pronounced without the AFD help box.

Again, remember that if you made it to a template talk page and are wondering about pageviews, you are likely not the target audience for this template: people with very little Wikipedia experience. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, yes, I'm definitely not the audience for this type of thing, but the numbers you cite are also extremely unimpressive. I was thinking of going from something like 100 page views a day to 200-300 a day. My talk has roughly seven times the number of monthly page views (also, interesting to note there how being a CU can make you more boring...)

So, while the predicted increase in page views occurred, the numbers still remain very low (roughly 14 a day). I think there's a pretty strong argument here that having this on AfDs hasn't been useful and that it should be removed, or at least made to link to only one page that is written in simple language and is only a few paragraphs.

So to my original issue with this and every template of its type: it's poorly designed and the numbers show it isn't working. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Then start an RFC. Because those numbers clearly show that it is working. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

No, they show that people still aren't using these pages. A 400% increase for a page that had on average 3.2 page views a day is not a good measure of success. For things that were rarely used to begin with, gross numbers are a much more useful metric, and the gross numbers here are really bad still.

It's not worth the waste of time of an RfC, but I did want to raise it to see if we could actually have some introspection here as to if it was needed. There is no proof it works, and what little hard evidence we have (the page view numbers) show it is a resource that it still not really used. By comparison the entire AfD log for 18 February almost has as many views in a week as one of the linked pages has in a month. I'm sure you could find individual AfDs that have more page views.

What these numbers are telling us is that, yes, there was an entirely predictable rise in clicking, but they are still resources that are not utilized. When that occurs, we need to ask if making AfDs ugly and cluttered for the sake of feeling better about ourselves is worth it, because that's all this is doing. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Fine then, a ~300 per month pageview increase is something I call a success, and something I would argue that the hundreds of people it helps per month would also call a success. Newbies looking for guidance shouldn't pay the price for your personal expectations being completely unrealistic at hundreds of views per days when there's not even hundreds of AfDs per day (much less all those AfDs being related to articles created by still-active newbies). In January, there were 1335 AfDs. Getting ~300 extra page views means someone found these links interesting enough to click on ~300 of them (or ~22%), which is a pretty good follow through considering that not all AFDs are for articles made by active newbies. But it also is 300 more than would have been otherwise. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Also "experienced users have to figure out how to hide technically" is also a clearly flawed premise, since you can be perfectly OK with seeing a small box in a corner. I know I am. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

No, it means it went from ~3 clicks a day to ~10 clicks a day. That is not a high number, especially given how much real estate this template takes up. If we assume most AfDs are from article created by relatively new users, the people who this is targeted at, at a rate of 44.5 AfDs a day, you would expect the number to be somewhere in the 20-30 clicks a day range if it was actually working.

Combine that with the fact that we haven't seen a noticeable increase in the number of new users in an AfD, no references to the pages themselves, and generally no feedback whatsoever on whether people actually find it helpful, I'm going to go ahead and say that most of those ~10 page views a day are regulars who accidentally click the link or click it because they are curious. Even if we only say 50% of the clicks are experienced editors who are curious, that's still ~5 views a day of the intended audience.

The data here is not good and this experiment hasn't exactly been a roaring success. At best, it has increased the number of regular contributors who visit pages that are probably outdated in terms of the information they contain. Pointing this out should lead to us asking if there is anything we can do to make this actually useful to people or if we should abandon it all together.

On the appearance front: no, I had to get someone on IRC to help me figure out how to instal the script to hide this from AfDs. It's ugly, takes up space, and is just horrible user design. The solution (which I think I proposed when you had this idea, but which was ignored), is to just update the talk page notifications so we don't have to keep staring at a bad idea that didn't work for the next decade because no one bothered to bring it up. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

"If we assume most AfDs are from article created by relatively new users" again, a flawed premise. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, if they aren’t then this is even less useful... TonyBallioni (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, the point isn't to provide AFD Regulars with additional guidance about things they already know, but to provide newbies with additional guidance about things they don't know. That some AFDs only have AFD Regulars participating is not a reason to make things more hostile than they have to be when newbies do get involved, or want to be. If you don't find the box useful, just ignore it (or hide it). About 300 people per month disagree with you, and that is enough to keep the box where it is. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It’s not worth fighting over, but I really think you need to examine this from a user experience standpoint and ask if the benefits to new users (minimal at best as the numbers show) are worth the clearly inferior design choice of keeping the AfD discussion bloated with this when the simple alternative of changing the talk page message would likely have greater success and look less ugly. This is the status quo now, so we’re stuck with it for a decade or more, but I was trying to get actual critical examination of if this has worked, which it hasn’t. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The template has the exact same appearance as the 'Old AFD' box, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Crowder (2nd nomination). You feel it's bloated, I don't. You feel this is minimal help, the majority of people in the RFC didn't. You feel it didn't work, ~300 people or so, per month, would likely disagree with you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:INTROTODELETE

As has been clear from my removal, I support omitting the weird essay Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process. It reads amateurish (it should be "Introduction to the deletion process) and is redundant to the actual, more thoroughly vetted process page. Sandstein 22:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

For the name, just move the page. It could also be "Introduction to deletion processes". As for redundancy, I agree it's not the most well written page, but there are good sections in it, specifically Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process#Deletion discussions. If there's a more helpful page to be linked as a intro to deletion (and discussions), we could link to that instead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

appeared again

I added the code to my css file like an year ago, but the AfD help has become visible again. Anybody having the same issue? Pinging Primefac, and Xaosflux. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

It is possible that the changes made by Headbomb to add in a switch for the "BRFA" variant has done this, as I think it changes the class. Primefac (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I saved something by accident which I meant to save at {{BRFA help}}. Should be fixed now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• yup, its resolved now. Apologies for the delayed reply. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Unexpected result of clicking on "Hide this box"

When I clicked on "Hide this box" I thought the box would collapse, like the Legend at the top of my watchlist. Instead it just takes you to the template page, which is annoying and not very helpful. Wouldn't it be better to just replace this with a collapse box function? Richard75 (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Did you read the documentation at the end of that link, which explains how you can hide the box? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I did, and as an IP user I have no common.css page to edit. The fact that the direction is surrounded by square brackets tricks the user into believing this is a collapsible item, only to be rudely taken to this page, which IPs are unable to edit. The directions on how to hide the page should be removed IMO. 173.85.194.197 (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I added a remark that the option is only available to logged-in users. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I've made it so that only registered/autoconfirmed users will see it. Primefac (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

This last "it" being the entire box. Why not just hide the "[Hide this box]" link, as was proposed? —Cryptic 21:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

A fair point. Misread what was being asked. Fixed. Primefac (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Tested and confirmed working. That's clever! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Box width

I've adjusted the width of the box in the sandbox for this template. If anyone wants to check the testcases page and mention here which size they think looks best, then we can consider updating the live code. I think the current width is way too wide. Another change in the sandbox is replacing the square brackets in "Hide this box" with round ones, to hopefully reduce confusion about what it will do when clicked. Again, please comment here with your thoughts. Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I support these changes. Primefac (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:Primefac. Do you prefer any specific width example on the testcases page, or do you think they all look fine? Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I guess "as small as you can make it without line wrapping", so... 300? Primefac (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@DesertPipeline and Primefac: I oppose these changes, because these boxes were designed to be of the same size as the other AFD boxes. This will create a jarring size difference that will be both ugly and distracting. I've updated the test pages to show that behaviour. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Primefac (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

That said, I have no objection to a proposal that takes care of both boxes' widths at the same time. Which doesn't retroactively makes existing pages look like garbage. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Headbomb: The "old(x)fdlist" templates have already been updated to scale dynamically based on how much text is on a single line (up to a maximum of the static width they were at before). The user Aseleste figured out how to get it to work properly after I failed at it with Template:Oldtfdlist, and I then changed the code for the other templates.

I have three possible proposals:

1. Merge Template:AFD help and Template:Old AfD list in a way that allows only the AFD help box to display if there are no prior discussions. If there are prior discussions, the help text can either be in the prior discussions box, above the prior discussions text with a gap, or inside another box but still a part of the same template (somehow) which scales to match the prior discussions box.
2. Make the AFD help template detect the Old AfD list template somehow and scale to the same size without merging
3. Rethink the design of AFD pages: maybe the AFD help box could go somewhere else?

Please let me know if any of these proposals sound good to you. Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Primefac and User:Headbomb: I've (finally) made the changes in the sandbox to implement proposal one. See the testcases page for examples. One problem is that the current way OldAFDlist is set up is that it just shows everything that begins with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/[whatever you put in the parameter]. So, for instance, if I put "A", I get everything that starts with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A – and I do mean everything. Is there some way this can be fixed without having to make people put all previous AfD links in the template parameters? Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and please let me know what you think of the AFD help box's colour. DesertPipeline (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with the width. I can't figure out how to get it to only become as wide as the maximum width (50em) while keeping it fitted to the elements inside it when they take up less than the maximum width. Does anyone else know? DesertPipeline (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

That... unsightly. The box-within a box design seems fundamentally flawed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Headbomb: Oh. I think it looks quite good personally. What makes you say that? DesertPipeline (talk) 06:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

There's zero reason to have a box within a box, it's jarring, and implies that the help links are somehow hierarchically related to the previous AFDs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Headbomb: I'm not sure about that implication. I think it's fairly obvious by the text of the help box. And doesn't the different colour help? Also, I really don't know what can be done otherwise. Even if the AfD help box can be adjusted so it's the same width as however big the previous AfDs box is, if it exists, it'll still look weird because there'll be loads of blank space with larger widths. What about putting the help box above the previous AfDs list? Would that be better? DesertPipeline (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I just tried putting the previous AfDs box inside the help box and I think it doesn't look very good. Do you have any suggestions for what can be done instead? DesertPipeline (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm thinking the best option might be to use a different colour for the help box (possibly the green that I chose) so that it looks less bad when the previous AfDs box is a different width to it. What do you think of that? DesertPipeline (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I still don't understand what the overall goal of this is / what problem this is trying to solve. Initially it was that you thought the box was too wide (it matches the AFD link box), and something about brackets. Neither are issues. And now it's a Frankenstein hybrid, and a lot of bike shedding. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Headbomb: I understand that the current AfD help box width is to match the previous AfDs list; however, it doesn't look good. There's a lot of whitespace that way. This is the problem I want to resolve. Regarding the brackets, it is an issue; #Unexpected result of clicking on "Hide this box" is the section directly above this one. The square brackets make it appear as if the link is actually going to hide the box; regular brackets might lessen this issue. DesertPipeline (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

There's a lot of whitespace, I'm going put a big on that a) being a thing b) being a problem. As for changing the brackets, that's pretty trivial thing to do and doesn't need... whatever the sandbox is trying to do. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Headbomb: Do you have a small monitor? Because on a regular-sized one, there is a lot of whitespace. And it is a problem; it's taking up page space for no reason. DesertPipeline (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I have dual 27 inch 1440p monitors, and it's taking no more or less space than the AFD link box, since it's designed to be of exactly the same width for aesthetic and consistency purposes at all zoom levels, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Carver (3rd nomination). Again, if you don't like the box because it's taking 'space', just hide it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Headbomb: For people who don't have an account, or aren't logged in, they can't hide it. So it would be nice to fix this for their sake. Can the help box or the previous AfDs list be moved elsewhere so it doesn't matter that the AfD help box isn't the same size? DesertPipeline (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

This is not something that needs fixing to begin with. As for "Can the help box or the previous AfDs list be moved elsewhere?" not without editing tens of thousands of AFDs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Headbomb: I'm not suggesting that existing AfDs be edited to change them; just that, for new AfDs, one of the boxes would go somewhere else. DesertPipeline (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

You could in theory design something that's used on a go forward basis, but you'd need to redesign the AFD link box, the AFD help box, both should line up and be of equal width, then redesign the AFD workflows to make use of them. And then you'd need an RFC to roll out the changes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Headbomb: How about using a left-aligned ombox? See the testcases page for an example. DesertPipeline (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

No, that's prime real estate for comments and primary AFD links ({{la}}, {{Find sources AFD}} templates). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Headbomb: Is it better now? DesertPipeline (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

No, that somehow even more distracting than before. Leave the bikeshed alone, please. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Headbomb: Do you have an objection to a small centre-aligned ombox of the regular style, as I've just changed it back to? DesertPipeline (talk) 05:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, leave it alone. It's fine as is. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Headbomb: I appreciate that you're the initial developer of this template and so you don't want it changed from how it currently looks; however, please be willing to consider the opinions of others. While it's perfectly okay that you think it's fine, that doesn't necessarily mean it is. It doesn't, of course, necessarily mean that it isn't, but I personally think that this redesign is an improvement. Obviously, it's just the two of us here. I'm going to post on the idea lab section of the village pump to see what other people think of this. DesertPipeline (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The issue with this "opinion" that there's somehow a problem with the template is that it simply amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT that ignores basic design principles, ignores why things were designed this way to begin with, or proposes things willy-nilly without consideration on how to do the roll-out without borking up tens of thousands of existing AFD. I pointed that above with 'You could in theory design something that's used on a go forward basis...' but you've ignored that, and insist on painting the bikeshed another color when it's fine as is. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Headbomb: I think that suggesting this is simply "I don't like it" is an unfair characterisation. I've given specific reasons why I think the design could be improved: That there's a lot of whitespace and that the "hide this box" link can be confused with an action link – surrounding it in square brackets is the same as Template:Collapse and Template:Hidden With their "show/hide" links. Anyway, I started a section on the idea lab of the village pump: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Possible_redesign_of_Template:AFD_help. Please feel free to participate – but remember to consider opinions based on their merits and not based on your personal opinion. We should want to improve the encylopedia, even if that means something we were the initial author of gets changed in the process. DesertPipeline (talk) 05:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Accidentally deleted

Maybe a village stocks is possible... MusikBot II save the day to prevent vandalism on this template... Thingofme (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 December 2022

AfD conventions are particular, and it's hard to find the instructions on how to contribute. It should be directly linked from this help box

Add a link titled "How to contribute":

• How to contribute

I would add this link at the top of the list. --Frogging101 (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 20:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

New to AfD? Then how the hell are you supposed to know what "AfD" means?

Please spell out acronyms on first usage.

Articles for Deletion, not AfD

Thanks, 51.37.82.168 (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 12:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)