Template talk:Article for deletion/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

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
• Agreed. This shouldn't be substed. Substing it utterly horrible for usability. Even for customization I'd rather we not subst but instead provide an argument that allows you to replace some of the default text with custom text. Is there anyone that object to making this change? --Gmaxwell 18:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • See {{AfDU}}. Uncle G 19:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• I agree that the AFD template shouldn't be substed. It's now putting over a page's worth of low value wiki source onto every article that goes through the process. It must be terribly intimidating for new users trying to improve articles that are up for deletion. --Cyde Weys 20:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Yes indeed. It's become a true monster of markup. I never really spotted when it was that the old one became insufficient for our needs. Would a simple reversion to one from, say, a year a long time ago be better? eg [1]? Splash - tk 22:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• There are templates that are transcluded hundreds of thousands of times already (see WP:1.0/I), so permanently protecting the template isn't really an issue anymore. I agree, change it to no-subst behavior by default. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

As shown below, we have a solution for the complaints that it is "a monster of markup", and have had since last year, when Haseler created {{AfDU}} in order to address the very problem of intimidating new users with reams of wikitext. "subst:" is not the real problem, here, and saying "Let's get rid of subst:" isn't addressing the real problem. Indeed "subst:" is required in order to ensure that the article name is included without using the {{PAGENAME}} variable (the use of which would cause link breakage when articles are renamed during AFD discussions). The real problem here is the amount of literal wikitext, and that problem has already been solved long since. The resultant markup from using {{subst:AfDU}} is exactly 3 lines: 2 HTML comments and a transclusion. If you don't like the length of the wikitext that {{subst:afd1}} generates when you use it, start using {{subst:AfDU}} instead. I've been using it for some months. If you think that all AFD1 notices should be 3 lines of wikitext, then the answer is to copy Template:AfDU to here. Uncle G 11:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• {{AfdU}} is quite out-of-date compared to {{subst:afd}}, although I agree that cutting down on the markup is a good thing and that the transclusions shouldn't hurt the servers. It might be worthwhile to update the AfdU system to work the same way as the current AfD system, with a view to changing over to AfdU at some stage. --ais523 17:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• So this is quit a good solution. To reply to ais523, I think the solution is to copy {{AfDU}} to this template, and copy this template's current contents to {{AfDM}}. Followed by a redirect {{AfDU}}→{{Afd}} (and possibly a rename from AfDM to something ... intuitive). I'm tempted to to do this and wait for the screams, but I'll wait for someone who can read the incantations more accurately to check the sanity of doing so. Splash - tk 12:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Could be extra evil and reverse the subst logic so if you try to subst it... it comes up empty. That'll probably be the only way to get people to *stop* at this point. --Gmaxwell 14:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Or better, can we make substing AFD add a non-substed template link to afd-notice|date=foo ? --Gmaxwell 21:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, {{subst:AfDU}} doesn't work unless it's substed! The point is that it substs into a transclusion of another template, {{subst:AfDM}}. So the subst: is still needed, the change would merely change what text would appear in the article. (N.B. Please don't anyone try to make the change unless they understand the full setup; the server param in AfDM is wrong at the moment, for instance (although the instances in which it would cause a breakage hardly ever come up), and AfDM is lacking the preloaded-debate link so trying to make the change without first sorting out AfDU and AfDM will cause horrible biting, possibly leading to horrible AfD breakage. What the change would accomplish is changing the current mass of text that {{subst:afd}} produces into something more like what you get if you use {{subst:prod}}; you'd end up with a 'named afd' template on the page, which transcluded all the formatting, with just a few parameters to remember the debate's name. Worst of all, {{AfDM}} currently expects parameters other than what {{AfDU}} is providing. If people agree that this change would be reasonable, I'll see what I can do to create a new set of templates that reduce the substed markup on the page; if people want an actual transcluded AfD template (not recommended in case the page is renamed during the debate, but as you're not supposed to do that it wouldn't be nearly as bad as with {{subst:prod}}, where the date is almost guaranteed to change while the tag is up...), I may be able to do that too (it would have just one optional param for the debate name, for mass-noms). Some way to handle {{afdx}} would also be needed (an extra optional parameter? A new reduced-substed-code template?) --ais523 11:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Don't create yet another set of templates. And there's no "worst of all" about it. The task of {{afdx}} is handled quite simply with the {{AfDU}} system. Doing bulk nominations and repeat nominations doesn't require any separate template at all, just {{AfDU}} itself. How to do them is explained in the template's documentation (q.v.). Uncle G 15:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Where is the link on {{subst:AfDU}} to create the debate page as preloaded? Failing that, where's the text to copy to fill out afd2 (which has the advantage of working, whereas the preloaded debate doesn't, on afdx)? Although you may be quite capable of filing an AfD without handy links that do it for you, or text to copy-and-paste into the edit box, I'd prefer {{AfD in 3 steps}} to look like it does now rather than this (which is what it was before the vfd2 template was invented). Afd2 is quite a hard template to fill out for a new user without some text to copy-and-paste to make the nomination easier. --ais523 15:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
            • The answer to both of your questions is "Right in front of you. Look.". Uncle G 15:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
              • Ah, the power of a wiki; you can change a page while you're discussing it. I have no objections now, and would support this; all we need now is to publicise this properly and then it should be possible to make the change. --ais523 13:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                • They were actually there right from the start. Uncle G 00:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

←So to be clear, what is needed is to:

1. Verbatim copy the current contents of {{Afd}} to {{AfDM}};
2. Verbatim copy the current contents of {{AfDU}} to {{Afd}};
3. Redirect {{AfDU}} to {{Afd}}.

I'm thinking that actually retaining subst:ing of the resultant AfD template is desirable because it allows a message asking for removal to not be done, and gives some meaning to the otherwise-cryptic 'computer code' that would appear on articles. Also, I don't see the need to print flyers and newspapers about this change since it's entirely transparent. This section of this talk page is plenty. Splash - tk 15:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've synched up AfDU with {{afd}} now, and corrected a bug involving the magic word{{SERVER}} (it should never be substed, not even in this case, because its job in this case is to prevent breaking a secure connection during an AfD nomination). So all that needs to be done now is

1. Move {{AfDU}} over {{afd}}

That's it. Don't change {{AfDM}}, unless it needs to be changed to synch it with {{afd}}! (It's right at the moment.) The HTML comments given in the substed version will still be there, and the usage will still be {{subst:afd}}; it's just that it will be about 2 lines long (not counting the comments), not the large number it is currently. --ais523 09:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

I plan to make this change. For the time being, I'll consider this post (which is on the correct talk page), and the {{editprotected}} tag, to be sufficient advertisement for this non-breaking change that shouldn't require any change in user behaviour. Any objections? --ais523 09:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I believe that to be wrong. AfDM contains the actual text that will appear on the page, and so it needs synching with AfD at this point right now, it not being the same at present (up to the awful documentation stuff, I guess). Splash - tk 13:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not quite that simple; we need to copy the doc, but we also need to propagate the nosubust and category parameters from {{afd}} through {{AfDU}} to {{AfDM}}. (We mustn't copy the coding for the message part of AfD, though!) --ais523 13:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't "verbatim copy", just move the pages, which will keep the edit history sane. You will have to move one to a temp location first, and delete some redirects as you go. CMummert · talk 23:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So all that's left now is to do something with {{{nosubst}}} and {{{category}}}. Actually, just removing them might work; I've checked all {{afd}}'s transclusions, and there's one msgnw: via a redirect on a defunct project page (msgnw doesn't care about parameters), and one example in a user's sandbox (which would be easy enough to fix), so removing this feature may be a good idea. So that deals with {{{nosubst}}} (it's not being used, so we don't need to retain it); as for {{{category}}}, seeing as we've already established that {{afd}} isn't transcluded, that can simply be edited out of any substed versions. The /doc is in a subpage and therefore trivial to transfer across (although it will have to be corrected). I've synched up {{AfDM}}. So any objections to this change now? --ais523 15:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. Let me know if there are any problems with the new format. --ais523 09:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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 • c • w • 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)