Template talk:Article for deletion/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

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 WT: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)