Template talk:Article for deletion/Archive 3

message: When Grue reverted the template, he broke the only link to the
deletion discussion in at least one article: sometimes users
apply  instead of .
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)
thread_title:  Please keep links to both subpage possibilities for now. 

message: 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:
This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
Please vote on and discuss the matter. See this article's entry on the Articles for Deletion page. For older discussions, see here instead.
You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank, merge, or move this article, or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress. For more information, read the Guide to Deletion.
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)
thread_title:  Please note: Recent changes 

message: ==== 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)
thread_title:  Proposed changes to template 

message: 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)
thread_title:  rem. 'vote on' from 'Please vote on and discuss' 

message: This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for Deletion page. For older discussions, see here instead.
You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank, merge, or move this article, or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress. For more information, read the Guide to Deletion.
Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ryan's proposal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  new look 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Template wording 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done, see comments below under #template broken.  dbenbenn | talk 06:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My request above was from when includeonly/noinclude sections got copied verbatim when a template was substed, instead of being parsed: I wanted a HEY, DONT USE NOINCLUDE or INCLUDEONLY HERE 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)
thread_title:  Includeonly/noinclude 

message: 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 , , and .  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)
replies: text: 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  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 SidawayTalk 22:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: 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 .  (SEWilco 21:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion process is confusing 

message: 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)
replies: text: BTW, I've got a mockup here. Feel free to improve it if need be.  Wcquidditch | Talk 20:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Icon? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Seconded.  Thank you, Zondor! JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks. 

message: What the hell is that? Do we need to tell newbies how to close AfDs?  Grue  18:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Maintenance Use Only:    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)

text: I've shortened  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)
replies: text:  OK, but I'll blame it on you if everything explodes. ;-) --Eloquence* 06:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Maintenance use only?