Template talk:Article for deletion/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Discussion from Requests for Unprotection Board

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User taking instructions literally

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

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

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

Revised template

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

Code:

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

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

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

multi-article deletions now annoying to do.

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

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

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

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

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

The maintanance links

(formerly titled Wheel warring)

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

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

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

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

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

You have good points, but the line

Maintenance Use Only: {{subst:afd}} {{subst:afd2|pg=Article for deletion/Archive 6|text=}} {{subst:afd3|pg=Article for deletion/Archive 6}} log

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toughening template wording

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have taken on board your views and now suggest:

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

BlueValour 16:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6505

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

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

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

Missing space

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

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

Steps to list article for deletion

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

Reminder to notify users

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

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

Link to current day's log broken

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

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

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

Pointer to Afdx for repeat nominations

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

Template breaks preview at Special:Undelete

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

Current code:

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

New code:

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

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

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

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

I don't think the change worked, or maybe I don't understand the problem. Consider this example special undelete (picked at random, no desire to actually undelete this page, it's salted, but it's a good example of wanting to see more than page source) [1] which if you press 'Show preview' all you see is the template message, as reported above. The view source shows all the content is there. ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Detection of usage on non-articles?

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

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

Sandbox testing

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

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

Bottom section

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

Bad HTML

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

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

Template breaks old non-substituted uses in history

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

Display none - makes histories difficult to read

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

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

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