Template talk:Article for deletion/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Tidying Up

I made 2 changes to the template: I removed the unnecessary <br> to make the template a bit more compact. Also, I removed the notice not to deface the notice, as it was quite silly and caused the text to break to a new line and take up a bit more space on the page than necessary. If I have stepped on any toes, my apologies. Kaldari 19:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• I've restored the request not to deface the notice. It's not silly at all. Furthermore: Not everyone's web browser windows are the same width and resolution as yours. Removing a word because "it caused the text to break to a new line" is daft. If the exact placements of things within your web browser's window is your reason for continually fiddling with this notice, please stop. Uncle G 21:45, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but having a notice that says "don't deface this notice" is utterly silly. Why don't we just put a notice on every single page that says "Don't deface this page". It's totally pointless. And I realize that everyone's window sizes are different, I just meant that it's better to be more concise so that the notice takes up less screen real estate. Kaldari 06:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
    • You're wrong. It's not silly at all. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with how the VFD notice is actually applied (At the very least read what is written on this very page.) and some of the things that are frequently done to it by novices before being bold again. Uncle G 11:14, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

I'd like to stress that the appearance and content of this template have been discussed a great deal on this page, consensus being that it should be as small, clean, and concise as possible, including no more nor less than the vital information. Drastic changes should be reasoned carefully, and preferably discussed here first, especially since it is common to use {{subst:vfd}} (meaning that, once inserted, the template's appearance is not automatically updated). — Dan | Talk 22:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I have a problem with the current background colour, in that there is no background colour. Not on my laptop screen, anyway. I find this white block of text ugly. Also, 'or deface this notice'? Is that a real problem? Is that not a rather obvious suggestion?

What's wrong with:

• It's missing the words "or deface", for starters, and it has a newline before the category that results in a spurious newline in the article. The words "is being nominated" bring the aspect of voting to the fore, the wrongness of which has been discussed extensively, both at Wikipedia and at Meta. The words "vote on and discuss the matter" are, as Rdsmith4 has pointed out several times, wrong for the same reasons. Uncle G 11:14, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

It does not contain the words "is being nominated".

I find 'Please vote on and discuss' to run more smoothly than 'Please discuss and vote on'. The background colour is now visible on my laptop screen as well. – Ec5618 00:36, May 10, 2005 (UTC) or:

Category:Pages on votes for deletion -Ec5618 08:22, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

• It's missing the words "or deface", for starters, and it has a newline before the category that results in a spurious newline in the article. The words "is being nominated" bring the aspect of voting to the fore, the wrongness of which has been discussed extensively, both at Wikipedia and at Meta. The words "vote on and discuss the matter" are, as Rdsmith4 has pointed out several times, wrong for the same reasons. Uncle G 11:14, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • Considering the fact that User:Rdsmith4 has not yet posted on this page, you'll have to provide more arguments for your point to be valid. - Ec5618 16:40, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Wrong. He has. In this very section of the page, even. He has also made edit history comments, which I suggest that you read. Uncle G 18:10, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
      • Wrong. He hasn't. Perhaps you're mistaking him for someone else. This section? Are you perhaps thinking of me? Kaldari? Dan? As for edit history, the only relevant he said was: "on the contrary, the previous text is much clearer; discussion comes before voting". As I said before, I find 'Please vote on and discuss' to run more smoothly than 'Please discuss and vote on'. Two opposing opinions. What makes Rdsmith4's opinion so great? And thank you for adressing my concerns. - Ec5618 19:07, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • In fact I have, and am doing so right now. Sorry for the confusion - I sign as "Dan". Uncle G expresses my opinion well, but it is no more than my opinion. I'd simply like it to be made clear that VFD, despite its name, is about forming consensus, and not about partisanship or voting. — Dan | Talk 21:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Notice: Do not deface this notice

All other issues aside, I feel strongly that the admonition against defacing the VfD notice is inappropriate. Not only is it almost comically pointless, but it also does not assume good faith. No other Wikipedia templates contain such a warning (or such a paternalistic tone). Kaldari 14:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• History has, however, proven that we need such an admonition here. The clause was only added after long experience with notices that had been defaced or modified inappropriately. Yes, we should assume good faith but not the to point of denying reality or experience. Rossami (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

History has proven? How do people 'deface' the notice? And how does the dire warning message prevent them from doing so? If there is a need for a warning message, add it in <!-- --> tags in the code. You'll be able to give a stern talking to to anyone editing the template. - Ec5618 16:40, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

The other problem is that this template is auto-inserted with the use of subst:, meaning that if someone messes up the template, the messed up version of the template is included onto the page which is being considered for VfD. -- AllyUnion (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying the tag {{subst:vfd}} is replaced in all pages by the actual text in the template? Would the comment not be added to all these pages aswell? - Ec5618 17:26, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

It inserts whatever text is on the template into the article. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

First sentence all bold

Having the first sentence all bold looks really clunky and imposing, and makes it harder to pick out the important point. (deletion). Kappa 09:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I would disagree. I feel that the initial line is the point, and that editors will need only to notice the template once, either way and realise its importance. It may be possible (and preferable) to highlight the word 'deletion' in another way, if you insist. -- Ec5618 09:09, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

New link with date

I gather we're supposed to be changing the template to link to [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/{{CURRENTYEAR}}_{{CURRENTMONTHNAMEGEN}}_{{CURRENTDAY}}/{{PAGENAME}}|this article's entry]] now. What is that supposed to accomplish? Is it truly easier? I am for easier. -- Ec5618 18:46, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know where that idea came from, but it's a bad one. Uncle G 21:55, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
• I agree. Stick with the original, simpler form. — Dan | Talk 22:01, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Ec5618 reverted the changes here and I've reverted the changes in the VfD footer. I am guessing that the proposal was supposed to be a way around the problem of renominated articles conflicting with an already archived decision. We need to preserve the old discussion. The current workaround for renominated articles is ... clumsy. I'm not sure however that this was the most effective or least intrusive way to achieve the goal. We should discuss it some before making the change. Rossami (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • A slightly less clumsy method, perhaps, is to rename any existing [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}]] to a sub-page of itself such as [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}/First]], and then edit the resultant redirect as the new nomination. No hand-editing of the VFD notice required, and you also get a link from the old sub-page to the current sub-page for free (and a link on the new nomination page, that you can edit into a "For a previous VFD discussion see X" note, for free, too). Uncle G 01:13, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
    • See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Insidious and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Insidious/2005 May 8 for this method in action, by the way. It involves the same 3 pages to be edited as the usual nomination process, in almost exactly the same way, with the sole addition of a page move. Uncle G 16:15, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
• It was my idea, when I was perusing vfd since because the templates are created in a subdirectory of vfd they link back there and not to the day subpage of vfd which is, to say the least, annoying. I hadn't yet fathomed the problem with repeated vfd's, but the fact that my change solves that too makes me wonder why I was reverted. -MarSch 23:41, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Your change stops the link from pointing to where the sub-pages actually are, and causes things to break the next day after a sub-page is created. On a more general note: Having the ability to have a separate VFD discussion sub-page for an article every day is needless overkill. The (purported) simplification that it provides for the small minority of renominations is far outweighed by the complexity that introduces across the board. And since the link to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion at the top of all VFD sub-pages brings you to hyperlinks to the per-day pages anyway, there's not really a great deal of benefit to be gained in terms of ease of use in the first place. Furthermore: Bear in mind that there are now four separate ways of viewing current VFD discussions that people can choose from. Altering naming conventions to suit your own viewing method of choice has ramifications for those who use the other viewing methods. Uncle G 01:13, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
• Making such sweeping changes should perhaps have been discussed. On a more practical note, perhaps closed discussions should be moved manually to a "Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Deleted articles/{{PAGENAME}}" section, after deletion. Of course, that would only work for articles that are renominated once. /Once deleted, /Twice deleted etc might be better. And it wouldn't address the problem MarSch brought up. -- Ec5618 00:03, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the date has to be substituted for it to work and so it wouldn't have worked. I didn't realize this. I'm not sure if this can be fixed, but I'll look into it, What four ways of viewing vfd are there? -MarSch 12:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• Let me explain the reasoning for the subpage day to day naming scheme. The reason why it was placed under /Log/<insert date here> was that in the event, however likely or unlikely it was, that the page Log was nominated for deletion. Furthermore, the four six ways of viewing VFD are: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (long form), Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/Today, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/Yesterday, User:AllyUnion/VFD List, and finally, User:AllyUnion/VFD Calendar. -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • And if you are annoyed, have you tried looking at the list format? Have you tried using a tabbed browser instead of Internet Explorer? -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

TfD'd

This template was listed for deletion on Templates for Deletion. The decision was to keep this template. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/May 2005 for more information. -Frazzydee|✍ 21:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

link "vote on and discuss" to page?

I remember being confused, the first time I came across this template, as to where one went to discuss and vote. Even today, "vote on and discuss" is separated from "See this page," which does not seem to follow standard Web interface, let alone proper wikipractice. I suggest we link the vote page to "vote on and discuss." This would have the additional benefit of tightening the text.

Any thoughts? Bbpen 19:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Icon

I suggest to put an icon onto the template: Scriberius 10:33, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

hybrid CSD-VfD

Should we mod the speedy deletion template for pages that are candidates for speedy deletion in conjunction with having votes for deletion? I am going to make a new mod template for it. --SuperDude 22:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Please don't. There's no need for such a template. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:07, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

One category per day?

At the moment, there is a discussion going on about a reform of the VfD process. A part of this proposed reform is to have a separate deletion category for each day. I just realized that this is very easy to implement in the current system: change the [[:Category:Pages on votes for deletion]] in the VfD template to [[Category:Pages on votes for deletion {{CURRENTYEAR}}-{{CURRENTMONTH}}-{{CURRENTDAY}}]]. Would this be possible/useful? It will mean that the links to the VfD categories on the nominated articles will be redlinks, as the categories by date do not actually exist, but the only consequence of this is that the link to the category wil be red. Which is perhaps even an advantage.

I propose to make this change. It will mean that the single category Category:Pages on votes for deletion would no longer be used. I cannot imagine anyone using this category at the moment: it's huge. But if you are, please let me know how.

I should point out that one of the reasons I'm proposing this change is that I want to show that these categories (e.g. Category:Pages on votes for deletion 2005-08-3) would not be a satisfactory replacement for the currect daily VfD pages (such as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 August 3). Eugene van der Pijll 22:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It's a nice idea, but unfeasible. Doing this would cause the category to just become the current date each time the page was viewed/edited (not sure which). I can't see a way round this with the current software design. [[smoddy]] 22:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Not if the template is inserted using {{subst:vfd}} instead of {{vfd}}. Which is how the VfD process suggests it should be done. Eugene van der Pijll 22:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, yes. :-) The text left in the edit box will be [[Category:Pages on votes for deletion {{CURRENTYEAR}}-{{CURRENTMONTH}}-{{CURRENTDAY}}]]. Which will render the date of the last edit, as far as I am aware. [[smoddy]] 22:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh. I did not test it, but based my suggestion on some of the suggestions at VfD reform. My apologies. (Actually, I still haven't tested it; but I'll take your word for it.)

Option two: just put todays date in this template, and update it each day. Probably should be done by a bot. IIRC, there is a VfD bot which creates the new daily VfD pages, and inserts a link on the main VfD page. Perhaps he could do it? Eugene van der Pijll 22:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I've tested it now: [[Category:Pages on votes for deletion {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}-{{subst:CURRENTMONTH}}-{{subst:CURRENTDAY}}]] actually works. See Template:VfD test. Eugene van der Pijll 22:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposal:please discuss.

About a third of the entries on VfD contain no encyclopedic content, but would make good redirects. VfD explicitly encourages you to do redirection instead of VfD, but that seems to be unfashionable. The best way to deal with some of these is to simply make them redirects, instead of having an administrator spend time deleting. But the wording of the template encourages evey possible improving edit, except this one. Therefore I propose to remove the word merge from the template.

It would be possible to add; Merges and redirects should be noted on the VfD page or something of the sort. Septentrionalis 02:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• If the page is merged or redirected, won't the link on VfD automatically fall through to the object of the redirect, which is not the page being discussed for deletion? Talk about confusing!!! Robert A West 17:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Two possibilities:
    1. Make the redirect, but leave the VfD notice. The redirect will not work until the {vfd} tag is removed, but that's a trivial part of closing. This would answer the concerns about vandalism of the notice which inspired the present wording. (see above).
       • As I understood the archived discussion, there was clear consensus: any action that removes the page content (i.e. blanking or redirect or the redirect following merge) is ipso facto vandalism.Robert A West 19:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    2. Make into full redirect and remove the tag, but post a link to the preceeding version of the srticle on the VfD discussion page.
       • And if someone wants to improve the original article, we now have "two versions" on top of a VfD. That will streamline everything! Robert A West 19:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Pick one, or permit both. I don't much care which, but VfD itself should be edited accordingly.Septentrionalis 18:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• I pick neither. The proper remedy is to vote speedy keep, and explain that you volunteer to merge/redirect/whatever after the vote closes. Then watch the page and when the VfD tag comes off, be bold. Wikipedia is not a race. Robert A West 19:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I will try the experiment, probably Sunday. I expect that the articles will be deleted on autopilot anyway, but we'll see. Septentrionalis 19:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

In the mean-time, consider Egyptian Americans, a perfectly reasonable stub rewrite of a vanity page, which is still getting delete votes. Septentrionalis

Vandalism

If this page is protected (as it appears to be), then how in the hell did an anonymous editor vandalize it with a picture of a penis? I'm completely confused and would love it if someone can figure out what went wrong? Jwrosenzweig 21:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

It was only protected against moves. Now fixed properly. [[smoddy]] 21:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Excellent -- thanks so much, smoddy! I hadn't realized there was a way of protecting without really protecting...how did you check that status? Jwrosenzweig 22:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Special:Log/protect is one part. This happened to work in this case because the admin used helpful edit summaries. The other option is to log out and attempt to edit and attempt to move the page. There should be some indicator (such as, perhaps, a differently-coloured border), but that isn't currently written into the code, so it's hacks that have to sort it! Cheers, [[smoddy]] 22:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD

Could someone insert a direct link to the actual VfD page? It's fairly tricky nagivating yourself there right now.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand you. Surely, the 'the article's entry' link refers to the VfD page. -- Ec5618 11:33, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it does, but I was refering to a link to Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion. / Peter ^Isotalo 15:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

What Peter asked is what I came here to ask. There are three steps and three templates to be used in the deletion process. The first step is to place {{vfd}} on the article page. The second step is to place {{vfd2}} (plus the explanation etc.) on the article's VfD subpage. The third step is to place {{vfd3}} on that day's page on VfD.

The places to do the first two steps are easily accessed from the article. The third step can't be accessed directly from the template. That day's page on VfD has to either be navigated to manually, or has to be accessed from the 'Follow this edit link' at the bottom of the wp:vfd page.

I wondered whether it would be possible to put that link in the main vfd template, in a similar manner to the "If you have just labeled this page as a possible copyright infringement, please add a link to it on..." text at the top of Template:copyvio.

I was going to be bold and do it myself, but it seems from the talk page that the aim is to keep the template as empty as possible. Is that a fair assessment? I think the link could still be added without cluttering up the template (perhaps linking part of "on the Votes for Deletion page"?) However I'd be happier hearing from someone with more knowledge of the history of the template, rather than just rushing in and making the changes myself. I may yet summon up the courage to be bold in the next few days though! KeithD (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)