Template talk:AfC preload

message: Looks like User:Upload found a way to automatically include a signature, by substing another template: 
  
Unfortuately Xyr edit made the instructions next to useless, so I've had to revert it. See this version  - the instructions need to be placed on this talk page, and the new sig template will apparently have to be deleted and undeleted to get it to work. Kappa 17:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic signature 

message: :Could someone edit the sources' section of this template to make it more clear that we need to have information from reputable, third party sources (I've been getting a lot of submissions with unreliable first-party sources recently, and have been updating all the pages to fix this). Part Deux 09:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added "THIRD-PARTY"; reputable is already mentioned in connection with websites, and unless we've been having a problem with lots of vanity published books being cited, that should be enough, yes?  We don't want to make this too long... For the future, it'd be nice if you provided a specific, copy-able suggested text when you make a  suggestion.  Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: This template is protected, and should be tagged with , or another suitable protection template. Thanks – Qxz 19:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Fixed by reverting my prior edit. "Oops." I've worked with Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Inputbox/Sample, before, so thought I'd have a better handle. Should have tested it to make sure everything was in order. My apologies. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested edit 

message: :I would like the following addition to this template.
*Something along the lines of If using an internet source, please provide a URL or link to the specific page you are using as a source. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 20:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please state where you would like this added and how. Cbrown1023 talk 22:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a comment with the rest of the Sources comments. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cbrown1023 talk 20:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested addition 

message: It would be really good to explain to users that when creating new sections it should be done using 3 equals signs (=== TITLE=== rather than == TITLE ==) when writing their article. It creates a lot of hassles for reviewers having to reformat the page every time someone uses sections like that. Cheers, --Pumpmeup 08:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. GDonato (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: Could an admin remove  from the bottom of this template? The noincludes have no effect when preloading this template onto a page, and end up categorizing Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today into that category, which is incorrect. The talk page header I've added above adds this talk page to the same category, so the page will remain categorized. Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 13:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --ais523 18:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of category from template page 

message: I see we are steadily gaining HTML comment on this page. In the interests of simplicity I would like to trim it down to the bare essentials. Most of this could go probably into the editintro. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead with this. Please bring your discussion on-wiki if you think more stuff is needed here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The "consensus" we came to over IRC was that people were not reading the Edit notice so we would make the bare essentials clear in the edit window. Blurpeace 20:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloat of HTML comment in preload 

message: "" is not an appropriate message. It is acceptable to remove the template, e.g. if it the author merely does not want it on the page or per sentiments such as WP:DUD. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: So... change the text to read "Do not remove this line unless you want to remove it from the draft process"? Primefac (talk) 11:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewording it is an option. However, I think my first choice would be to remove the note altogether. Finding concise, accurate wording would be difficult (e.g. "draft process" is vague). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately I do not have the institutional knowledge to know why this was added, but I do suspect it stems from a time when people (not realizing that this was an AFC-specific template) would remove it because "nothing should be before the lead/infobox". I'm not saying that we can't remove it (at this point in time I don't think anyone even notices it), but I would be interested to know why it was added in the first place. Primefac (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is probably intended to prevent editors from removing  and then not being able to figure out how to submit the draft without . — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Important, do not ..." 

message: In case anyone watches this page, I've added some text. Feel free to review it and change it as necessary. ― Qwerfjkltalk 10:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added text