Template talk:AfD in 3 steps

message: Why's this in the Template namespace, and not in the Wikipedia namespace? Because it should be, in my honest opinion. This is a pile of instructions on nominating stuff for AFD, and would therefore suit the project namespace better. -- SoothingR(pour) 09:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This template gets used in a bunch of places, to paste the instructions into other project pages. Having it in a template makes it easy to update the instructions everywhere they appear.--Srleffler 21:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Namespace dispute

message: Maybe...it's just me, but this is a bit hard to understand. Someone might want to re-word these instructions.
: Yes, why not just gives examples, an image is worth thousands words as they say !!, its really hard to understand and the process is really cumbersome --Khalid hassani 12:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How much clearer do you guys want it? It's already as clear as it ever could be IMHO.SoothingR 17:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing i really don't like about it is that afd3 thing. It's not hard, but i did have some problems the first time i nominated an article for vfd. I dunno how much clearer it could get. My advice would be to try it the best you can, and if you screw up, someone will fix it, and likely tell you what you did wrong. :) --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 02:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I really don't understand: why don't you like the afd3 template? Perhaps if you explain your reasons more clearly we can work out something that makes everybody happy. As far as I can see, the instructions are about as simple as they can possibly be: all the user has to do is cut and paste three lines of text from the instructions, into the designated pages, replacing PageName with the name of the page. What could be simpler or clearer? There is no need to understand what  is or how it works. Perhaps the instructions could be explained more clearly? I don't see how replacing the afd3 line with a longer and more complicated-looking string helps. The direct string is no clearer or more intuitive—a transclusion link is, if anything, less likely to be familiar to a new user than a template. Perhaps I'm missing something. How do you see it?--Srleffler 06:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explain how to delete articles... 

message: Can we wait until the TfD process is done before changing the instructions? Even assuming it gets deleted (which I contest), there's no point in disallowing people from using  while it still exists. howcheng  {chat} 01:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just took a stab at trying to simplify and clarify the instructions. My goal is that an editor should not have to understand how templates, subpages, etc. work in order to nominate a page for AfD. Someone should be able to come to this page and simply follow the steps listed, and it should work. This is sort of separate from the afd3 vote, in that the third step could just as well be the transclusion link preferred by some. I think it's clearer having three "afd_" templates, but to each his/her own.--Srleffler 07:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. I actually just meant let's not take out the  part until that issue resolved. howcheng  {chat} 07:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  afd3 

message: In step 3 it says to add a notice (via template subst) to the deletion log page. I did that and my notice was there. But in the Week at a glance section of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion it says NOT to update the page. I think it means User:AllyUnion's week at a glance page but maybe it's not quite clear. I'm not sure how or where to clarify it, or if it needs it at all. It confused me for a bit though. ++Lar: t/c 17:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Emboldened by User:MPD being emboldened by me (parse that three times fast!) I tried to tweak the wording to clarify but the wording is in the main page not the template, so take discussion of my tweak there: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Update_warning perhaps? ++Lar: t/c 20:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Step 3 wrong/incomplete w.r.t. the week at a glance log? 

message: I saw this was reverted. This seems a good thing to add to me. Perhaps phrased as a suggestion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lar (talk • contribs) 
: let me give you my perspective on this. As someone who was not familiar with the AfD process until yesterday, I took these three steps very slowly, carefully and literally to make sure I did not do anything wrong at each step. The second step says what to put in the edit summary, but the third step does not. It would be much easier on the noob if you left nothing to chance and told them what to put in the edit line on the third step. I am not going to fall on my sword over this one, but I think it's a good idea MPS 18:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My point exactly, I agree completely. Although I had expressed my views in many AfDs, the one I listed recently was a first for me, and having everything spelt out step by step reduces chances for error. I found the suggestion helpful. I commented elsewhere about being confused about the page that the User:AllyUnion bot maintains, for a bit I thought it was referring to the step three page. Anything that reduces confusion for new or infrequent users is goodness, IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 18:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Put "first delete vote" in the Edit summary 

message: I can't create an article's deletion vote page without being logged in.  Since the quality of a delete proposal is self-evident by the wording of the proposal (and the awareness of the process for deletion), proposing an AfD seems like a good candidate to be a feature which doesn't require logging in...
The article that led me to encounter this issue is Peter Ogilvy.  I've looked around for evidence of a policy about proposing a deletion without logging in and couldn't find any (apologies if I've missed it).  Meanwhile, for now I'll just mark Mr. Ogilvy as a suspected hoax. 66.167.136.6 12:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Step 2 requires log in... 

message: If you like, you can begin your "reason" with Delete. This will count as your vote in the deletion poll. 
I removed the above text from Step 2 because it's redundant. There's no specific reason to either encourage or discourage people from beginning their nomination with "Delete" (although I can't see why one would want to do that), and as this practice is not prohibited by either convention or policy, there's no reason to tell the nominator "If you like..." It's just instruction creep on an already rather long page. And of course, AfD (for the umpteenth time) is not a vote or a poll. It's a discussion with elements of strawpolling. That's why we moved Votes for Deletion to Articles for Deletion. So the second sentence is not only redundant, it's downright misleading. Johnleemk | Talk 16:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of a couple of sentences... 

message: The instructions in 2pt font for multiple deletions are a bit nasty.  They should really be integrated into the main instructions or provided in more detail on another page.  It would be nicer still if the steps could be made the same.  Lod 09:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple deletions 

message: Deletion should be against wikipedia policy and thus this page should be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.21.94 (talk • contribs) 
:: Deletion is an integral part of wikipedia policy. How would we delete this pagewithout a deletion policy? The absurdity of "delete the deletion policy" makes me suspect you are yanking people's chain. MPS 20:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page should be deleted

message: This page does not seem to have updated the link today, or it hasn't for me. I use this all the time, and I only noticed because I have posted two nominations in a row on yesterdays page... J Milburn 09:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something Broken? 

message: Ok, so the debate is over and we want to actually delete the article, as in remove it from existance. How do we do that? Do we blank the page? Something else? I really have difficulty understanding the instructions. --Truth 06 04:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So how do i delete the article? 

message: I don't see the point in having this text in a template, which is inside the AfD footer template.  It makes this text multiple steps removed from the main Wikipedia:Articles for deletion article and its talk page, which makes it hard as hell for anyone to discuss changes in this text or get it changed.  I suggest removing both this template and the AfD footer template, so that all this text is within the main AfD article.  --Xyzzyplugh 08:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer to that is to look at the number of users who link to the template, or transclude it (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:AfD in 3 steps). It means users can find the 3 steps quickly without wading through the rest of the article. It also means that if you watch this template (as I do), any change to the system can be seen immediately. WP:AFD is edited frequently, and I do not have time to review every change to that page. – Tivedshambo (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pointless template in a template

message: When creating the deletion debate page, the instructions said "Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for PageName because ... replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion and providing reasons for deletion".
This means that one would basically be putting the entirety of one's first edit into the edit summary.  An edit summary should be a summary of an edit, not the entire edit, and there is absolutely no reason to put so much into this particular edit summary anyway.  I removed the bits about "providing reasons for deletion", as these simply don't need to go in the summary.  The AfD process is tedious enough without adding additional pointless steps. --Xyzzyplugh 14:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Simplified edit summary instructions for step 2

message: The final "e" in "Create the article's deletion discussion page" and the "r" in "who monitor AfD discussion." are corrupted in my view. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks ok to me. In what way corrupted? Tivedshambo (talk) 08:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Just done some trials, and get the same problem in Firefox in monobook (I'm usually IE6 with classic skin). I think it's the bullet points from the adjacent sentences which aren't lining up correctly - this should be solvable using the  template - I'll see if I can fix it tomorrow. Tivedshambo (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry - I forgotten to look at this. Should be ok now. Tivedshambo (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Text formatting corruption

message: The problem there has been with the template is that it told you to do the wrong thing. The previous template used 'PAGENAME' where they meant 'NOMINATIONPAGENAME'.
Now, a lot of the time that doesn't matter because they're frequently the same (but sometimes the nomination page is different name to the article even for the first AFD- they don't have to be the same), but when it does matter, particularly, but not only, for 2nd or 3rd nominations then there's these garbled instructions about how to fix up the PAGENAME to make it work, which don't always work either.
But then, why does it say PAGENAME if it's not the article page name? So at that point you have a discrepancy, the instructions are inconsistent, and you have to guess what the heck it's talking about. :-(
I think the principles here should be that you shouldn't have to guess, it should just tell you what to do, and it shouldn't be inconsistent.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed the template 

message: Popular instructions such as this tend to get wordy.  I'm shortening a few parts of the sentences to make the English simpler. AfD would benefit from more people understanding how it works.   Step II. in particular is too long - and the OR in the middle of that step is confusing.  Better to make the less-used option a smaller footnote, if possible, and recommend everyone use a single process. +sj+ 09:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening instructions 

message: There are a couple of problems:  The instructions listed here are slightly different from the preloaded debate instructions.  And the preloaded debate instructions disappear if you do a preview or save the page.  
Because I cannot remember all the steps at once, this means I have to complete stage III before stage II (the log page is subject to frequent updates so I am forced to save it to avoid an edit conflict); and if I forget to copy the "notify the creator" markup, it is gone and I feel I have missed the opportunity to notify them.  It would be really useful if the instructions here were the same as in the preloaded debate.  Astronaut (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different from the Preloaded debate 

message: On the first line of step 3,  please change “Open” to “Edit,” because that’s where the link leads (also see WP:EASTEREGG).
67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: .  (More or less.) — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That works too, thanks! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2015