Template talk:Article for deletion/Archive 1

message: Can an admin please update this page so that the "it's entry on that page" links are correct?  the anchors on vfd are now Page name — Discussion.  Please update this template accordingly.  -- DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:33, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
: No, it shouldn't go to the subpage, that still doesn't work.  The link should be its entry on that page - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 02:59, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
::Here is a sample link (look at the discussion page's source to see the wikitag): its entry on that page.  Right now the template will generate links like this:its entry on that page which you can see do not work.  - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 12:57, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
:::This has been resolved.  An admin unprotected the vfd template, so I made the changes myself. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:37, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
Could someone please indicate whether the above, which is esoteric enough to require research to understand, has been resolved?  If so, the research is not worthwhile!
And please mention whether the problems mentioned applied then, and/or now, to
* those who followed the (merely current?) directions and made a subst call and/or
* those who omitted "subst:" and made a straight, every-time-the-template-changes transclusion?
: (Note that contrary to instructions, there are currently over 300 links to the Template.)
Part of my reason for asking is that my subst-ed then edited test and proposal at Paul Willmore Sr. seems to work OK, but i don't think i can make a proposal here, let along boldly edit the template, if the above problems are still in the air. --Jerzy(t) 19:08, 2004 Jun 30 (UTC)
Changed template to direct link to the vote sub-page. -- Netoholic 05:31, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  vfd anchors have changed 

message: The wikilink its entry on that page does not work properly on User: pages. See User:Tmxxine. I have no idea on how that can be fixed (nor if that it possible and disirable) — Nabla 21:18, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
:Well, we really shouldn't be deleting user pages, but it appears that this happens with everything outside the main namespace, it seems that  takes the title without the namespace, so we would have to make a seperate template for VfDing outside the main namespace.  How about its entry on that page as  or something.  Not that we really delete a lot of user pages here, but you might need a similar solution for something in the Wikipedia:Namespace.  — Tasty Sandwich | Talk 14:14, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I think I'm going to call up a template idea for namespace VfD's here. — El Chico! Talk 14:22, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  VfD at User: 

message: I think the bolding should be on its entry on that page rather than the vfd link itself because that is where people will generally go to when they see the notice and also its not very noticable otherwise. LUDRAMAN | T 22:18, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. I also don't like how there are two links to the same discussion. First, it's potentially confusing to the reader. Second, it creates more work when co-listing multiple pages for deletion under the same discussion, or when listing anything outside of the main article namespace. In such cases, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ has to be changed to point to the correct discussion: why make us do it twice? • Benc • 06:57, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bolding 

message: Rather than modify such a heavily-used template, I've put up a proposed version at: /Sandbox. Please give it a look. If you have an major objections, comment on it here, please. Any minor objects, just edit the sandbox version. Thanks, • Benc • 07:10, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's excellent.  I'd get rid of the horizonal rule, though, but you might want to keep it. — El Chico! Talk 21:13, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change 

message: Why did  tags get added on the VfD template?  It makes the wording much harder to read, at least for me. --Goobergunch 02:11, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully agree, looks terrible. - RedWordSmith 05:05, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I saw that and came here. Any reason while it can't be changed back? Darksun 17:33, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki><Small></nowiki> tags

message: I propose to add the link, Alternative outlets for rejected articles at the end of the VfD template text. 
It's been bruited around a bit in the mailing list and at Wikipedia_talk:Votes for deletion and nobody seems to have a big problem with the idea of putting such a link in the text. 
Certain inclusionists assert that Wikipedia has a narrow view and that they seriously see as valuable the articles that Wikipedia deletes and are seriously willing to include them in their own sites. I think they are silly, but don't see why we shouldn't accommodate them. And it also provides a sop to rejectees, although when they actually take a look at JnanaBase, they... well, let me say that you have to admire the audacity of NSK's vision.
Of various alternatives, this one is the most workable, because it doesn't require Wikipedians other than contributors of articles to do anything, pose any burdens on sysops, or require software changes. Potential rejectees, here is a list of places that say they want your material; do what you like. 
I've been trying to think of a shorter phrase than "Alternative outlets for rejected articles" but haven't come up with one so far. It doesn't need to be crystal clear; it just has to be a piece of language that a contributor, whose article has been posted on VfD, will be likely to click on.
I'm a newbie at procedure here; I take it that I leave it here for three days and look for objections before being bold? And that this my listening post for howls of objection? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Alternative_outlets|Alternative outlets for rejected articles]] 

message: If a page with a Vfd notice is moved, the link to the Vfd page breaks.  This happened to List of people named bill, for instance.
That's because the Vfd notice uses , and the pagename obviously changes after a page move.
I tried changing Template:Vfd from using  to using  but that didn't work... that just hardcoded "Vfd" as the pagename.
Is there some solution to this? -- Curps 20:28, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect against page moves? 

message: How about:
----
A request has been made on Wikipedia for this article to be deleted in accordance with the deletion policy.
This request is being discussed at this page's entry to form a consensus whether this is, or could be, an article appropriate for Wikipedia based on the deletion policy.  If you feel the deletion is not justified after reading Wikipedia's deletion policy, you may vote against its deletion at Votes for Deletion (VfD).
You are welcome to continue editing this article and improve it, especially if you can address the concerns of those who believe the article should be deleted.  Should you improve the article and address the concerns of those who believe the article should be deleted, please remark on this page's VfD entry regarding its improvement.
Please do not remove this notice or blank this page while the request is being considered.  Such acts are considered as vandalism, and may encourage the consensus for the article's deletion.
----
*Maybe should mention about notatibility and inclusion guidelines?  Perhaps point to How to write an article? -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative phrasing 2 

message: I notice that this has been commented because it was "too cluttered, and hard to read". I disagree: it emphasizes the important text at the top, is perfectly easy to read (text much smaller than this is on many other templates and whatnot), and reduces the size of this already bloated notice. — Dan | Talk 17:25, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  90% font 

message: Why don't we need the link here?  I personally, when listing pages, always use two browser tabs and use the two links to bring up VfD and the subpage.  This is adding about a minute and a half (loading VfD) to my time...  I realise it's not needed, but it is useful...  Cheers, Smoddy (t) (e) (g) 23:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]] 

message: Just wondering why the template now says "do not... move this article"?  Changing an article name is often an important part of fixing it.  JYolkowski 22:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It breaks the link to the VfD subpage. Goplat 00:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why you use subst:, so that it doesn't.  JYolkowski 01:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It will whether you use subst: or not, although if you used subst: you can just fix the link without having to manually copy the template's text into the article first. Goplat 02:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I got somewhat confused there.  Thanks, JYolkowski 03:07, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes to the template 

message: There has been a quiet revert war going on recently about a proposed switch to a message box format instead of the traditional format.  I can't comment on the technical advantages or disadvantages of each but I want to put my vote in for the traditional view.  I'm not sure why this happens but the message box version conflicts with the script that a few of us are running which suppresses the closed discussions on VfD/Old.  (The header and footer which are added to the closed discussion have code which the script recognizes.  See Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Old#Suppressing closed discussions for more.)  That script is very useful for finding and closing discussions on the Old pages.  I'd hate to have to give it up.  Rossami (talk) 22:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Message box format 

message: I made 2 changes to the template: I removed the unnecessary  to make the template a bit more compact. Also, I removed the notice not to deface the notice, as it was quite silly and caused the text to break to a new line and take up a bit more space on the page than necessary. If I have stepped on any toes, my apologies. Kaldari 19:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not contain the words "is being nominated".
I find 'Please vote on and discuss' to run more smoothly than 'Please discuss and vote on'.
The background colour is now visible on my laptop screen as well. – Ec5618 00:36, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
or:
This article has been nominated for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
Please vote on and discuss the matter. See this article's entry on the Votes for Deletion page.<BR>
You are also welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank, merge, or move this article, nor remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, read the Guide to Votes for Deletion.
-Ec5618 08:22, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
*It's missing the words "or deface", for starters, and it has a newline before the category that results in a spurious newline in the article. The words "is being nominated" bring the aspect of voting to the fore, the wrongness of which has been discussed extensively, both at Wikipedia and at Meta. The words "vote on and discuss the matter" are, as Rdsmith4 has pointed out several times, wrong for the same reasons.  Uncle G 11:14, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
**Considering the fact that User:Rdsmith4 has not yet posted on this page, you'll have to provide more arguments for your point to be valid. - Ec5618 16:40, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
***Wrong.  He has.  In this very section of the page, even.  He has also made edit history comments, which I suggest that you read. Uncle G 18:10, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
****Wrong. He hasn't. Perhaps you're mistaking him for someone else. This section? Are you perhaps thinking of me? Kaldari? Dan? As for edit history, the only relevant he said was: "on the contrary, the previous text is much clearer; discussion comes before voting". As I said before, I find 'Please vote on and discuss' to run more smoothly than 'Please discuss and vote on'. Two opposing opinions. What makes Rdsmith4's opinion so great? And thank you for adressing my concerns. - Ec5618 19:07, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
*** In fact I have, and am doing so right now. Sorry for the confusion - I sign as "Dan". Uncle G expresses my opinion well, but it is no more than my opinion. I'd simply like it to be made clear that VFD, despite its name, is about forming consensus, and not about partisanship or voting. — Dan | Talk 21:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tidying Up