Template talk:Article for deletion/Archive 6

message: Splash recently altered the  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  spacing fix I suggested. ;-) — Mike • 17:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Are you a frequent visitor to AfD? — Mike • 03:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No, because they are evil. -Splash - tk 04:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion from Requests for Unprotection Board 

message: has taken the instructions on the template way too literally. He nominated Greg Mathew on AfD, and hence he used the instructions provided by  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)
replies: text: The problem is the instructions themselves.  They absolutely do not belong anywhere on the template. --Tony Sidaway 11:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User taking instructions literally

message: I think that this would work much better for the template:
 
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.
Feel free to edit the article, but please do not blank it or remove this notice during the discussion.  For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the Guide to Deletion.
Maintenance Use Only (for help, click here):  Step 2 • [ Step 3] 
Code:
 
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.
Feel free to edit the article, but please do not blank it or remove this notice during the discussion.  For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the Guide to Deletion.
Maintenance Use Only (for help, click here):  Step 2 • [ Step 3] 
Category:Pages for deletion
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No, that's why I added  into the template, so you could just copy that. —Mets501 (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised template 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}} replaces the current PAGENAME bit in the articles entry section Ansell 02:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  multi-article deletions now annoying to do. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  6505 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Missing space 

message: There should be a signature sign ~~~~ after the second step. Schzmo 14:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steps to list article for deletion 

message: Could someone please modify Template:afd to remind nominators to notify users of the AFD using  or . 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reminder to notify users 

message: 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)
replies: text: A broken magic word, it appears. I'll bring it up in the Village Pump, but I've replaced  with  for the time being. Titoxd(?!?) 05:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Bug 6911. Fixed in SVN, and today it is working in Wikimedia sites. – rotemliss – Talk 10:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to current day's log broken 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pointer to Afdx for repeat nominations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Detection of usage on non-articles? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bottom section 

message: This template has a  closing </small> tag for which no opening tag exists.  — Miles←☎ 22:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears it got broken here. It's now fixed (I restored the opening tag). --bainer (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad HTML 

message: The code in the template which checks if the template has been substituted or not, and adds  if it has not, breaks the display of old revisions which used the template without being substituted (see for instance ). 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)
thread_title:  Template breaks old non-substituted uses in history 

message: the  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Thx --Trödel 02:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Display none - makes histories difficult to read