Template talk:Afd notice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Afd-notice)
Jump to: navigation, search

Creation comment[edit]

This is a useful template to subst: into people's talk pages when they are the only (or one of a very small number of) editor(s) that have been working on an article up for deletion, so they know about it. Modeled after {{Idw}}

Usage: On the user's talk page, do a {{subst:Adw|pagenameOfPageUpForAfD}} and then add expanding or parenthetical remarks, as necessary, then sign. Note, if you start using the '+' tab, it may put in two headings... best to edit the whole page and add it at the bottom. An example of usage (when it was in my user space) is here: [1]

Comments and improvements welcomed. ++Lar: t/c 17:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice idea, I was on afd patrol notiying creators about their articles (which doesn't seem to be done much, despite it being part of the etiquette), and didn't know this template was here. Any objections if I add the existance of this template to the main WP:AFD page? (I'm also going to drop a note to admins regarding the afd2 template, with a suggestion that it adds the line "Has the creator been notified" or similar to remind people) Regards, MartinRe 09:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd add a link to the Wikipedia:Deletion policy from this template, since this is likely to being posted to newcomers' talk pages. - Liberatore(T) 16:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

A variation on this message[edit]

I created {{Adwnote}} as a convenient way to let an editor know that someone else has nominated an article for deletion. That template is based on this one, {{Adw}}. Recipients of a {{Adw}} message may think that the person sending the message is the same one who nominated the article for deletion, which isn't always the case. Note that {{PRODNote}} already exists as a "someone else prodded the article" version of {{PRODWarning}} --Eastmain 21:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Soften the wording?[edit]

If you read it in a certain light, this template's current wording seems kind of ominous:

  • An article that you have been involved in editing, [[{{{1}}}]], has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{1}}}]]. Thank you.

One person I left the message for even complained in an AfD discussion about receiving an automated, intimidating, accusatory summons from a bot.

How about something like:

  • Hi. You're one of multiple editors who have edited [[{{{1}}}]] in the past. I've nominated this article for deletion from Wikipedia since it may not meet our requirements for inclusion. We're discussing this article at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{1}}}]] where you're invited to join us and add your comments if you wish.--~~~~

--A. B. (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

2nd nomination[edit]

How should this template be used if an article is nominated for the second time (or any other number)? Currenty, it doesn't seem to work in this case, can the template be extended? --B. Wolterding 09:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


I had just intended to cut this off my talk page. I'm not sure how I ended up cutting it off here. Sorry.--T. Anthony (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Opt out[edit]

The opt-out does not work if this template is added by hand. I think the sentence "Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?" should only be added if it's a bot/script that's adding the template. This can for instance be done by adding a parameter which would be set by a bot/script. Comments? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I came here to propose the same thing. Is there even a bot adding that notice? Cause I don't know one, and Twinkle only adds {{Idw}}. --AmaltheaTalk 12:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I removed the notice for now, and also from {{AFDWarningNew}}. It had already been removed from {{AFDWarning}}. --AmaltheaTalk 14:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


I've added a clear to the end of the template, to avoid the irritation of needing to add one manually because of interference in the next section's header, as can be seen here. --Dweller (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Hmm, the problem with that is that it will force the signature on a new line:

    AfD nomination of Josh Sanders[edit]

    Ambox warning pn.svg
    An article that you have been involved in editing, Josh Sanders, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Sanders. Thank you.
    ttonyb1 (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

    That's not pretty at all. One could work with a table here, to put the image in a cell, the text in another, but that will leave us with messy substed talk page code, or we could make the image smaller so that it looks better with default font sizes.
    Including the signature in the template would make it inconsistent with all the other user warning templates, and would need changes in all the tools. --Amalthea 12:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Table doesn't work of course, that would put the signature below the text, too. --Amalthea 12:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Or the image could be made small enough to be inline, which is what the user warning templates are doing. But that's probably too small for the purpose:

    AfD nomination of Josh Sanders[edit]

    Ambox warning pn.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Josh Sanders, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Sanders. Thank you. ttonyb1 (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What if you preceded the sig with text along the lines of "Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message --~~~~"? --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Josh Sanders[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg
An article that you have been involved in editing, Josh Sanders, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Sanders. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ttonyb1 (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Josh Sanders[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg
An article that you have been involved in editing, Josh Sanders, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Sanders. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ttonyb1 (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Not perfect, but that might work. I've made the image a little smaller in the second example. --Amalthea 12:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Either for me. I like the way we've made the template less bitey while trying to fix a completely different issue. Less bitey is always good, IMHO. --Dweller (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. I'll tweak it a bit to reduce the empty space around the warning symbol, and will then put it live. I've long noticed the conflicts of the AfD message with subsequent headings, but never thought to do anything about it. Blinded by routine, I guess, thanks for initiating the fix! Cheers, Amalthea 12:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Issues with Clear[edit]

Hey, I just used this template for the first time since this change, and I've got some issues: (1) The "Thank you." you should come last of all; it's a valediction. Tacking on the "Please contact me..." sentence sounds *really* awkward to me. (2) The line break introduced by {{-}} really breaks up the flow of the text. I get that you're trying to prevent interference with following headers, but introducing one problem to fix another isn't good. (3) I don't see any interference at that link in the first place. I tried a variety of window widths, from 450 to 1250 pixels, and a variety of font sizes. This is Firefox 3.5.5 on Linux, if that matters. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Linked article name in section headings[edit]

Fellow editors …

Based on a discussion at Template talk:PRODWarning, I would like to modify this template so that the article name is linked in the subject heading, as it is with {{nn-warn}} and {{PRODwarning}} … the issue is consistency of appearance for WP:PROD, WP:CSD, and WP:AFD warning templates in user talk space, which would be an exception to the caveats of Wikipedia:Accessibility#Links since item #3 is now moot, i.e., JAWS no longer has the problem discussed there … I decided to seek WP:CONSENSUS first, rather than Be Bold. :-)

Happy Editing! — (talk · contribs) 17:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that {{AFDWarning}} links the article name, but not {{AFDWarningNew}} or {{AFDNote}}, so this discussion should apply to them as well, i.e., they should all present a common appearance (linked or not linked). — (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 Done … Linked all WP:AFD and WP:PROD warnings like WP:CSD warnings. — (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

CENTRALIZED DISCUSSION - Replacing icon (File:Ambox warning pn.svg)[edit]

The image in question, File:Ambox warning pn.svg

(NOTE: I am posting a link to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process, Template talk:Proposed deletion notify, and at some or maybe all of the speedy-delete templates such as Template talk:Nn-warn.)

The icon is too scary. That is my opinion and after asking around some other users agree. The general feeling I get is:

  • We do want some image to get the editor's attention, but
  • We want to convey the idea "Hey, something that you maybe did a lot of work on might get deleted" and not "You did something wrong", which is how some people seem to take it.

(It is true that they may have done something wrong, like if they created a nonsense or vandalistic page. But not usually. And there are separate templates for that.) Note that these templates are placed automatically if you use Twinkle, so just not placing the template is not always an easy option.

I have asked over at Wikipedia talk:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop#Request for new icon for deletion notices for the graphics to guys to think about something. So the questions are:

  1. Is it so that the icon should be changed (if a better one can be found or made), and
  2. If it is so, what should it be? Herostratus (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Permalink to the Pump discussion leading up to this is here. Herostratus (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur that a change is warranted, and I suggest the image being discussed at Template talk:db-meta. --Bsherr (talk) 04:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
What image is that -- do you mean at Template talk:Db-meta#Images available, file File:Icon delete.svg and variations which is shown here: Icon delete.svg I like that. Herostratus (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
That's the one! --Bsherr (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest that the image be varied depending on the deletion process: the exclamation point for speedy, a clock for proposed, and a question mark for XfD. --Bsherr (talk) 05:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I think a question mark looks too much like a routine maintenance template, and the creator might not realize their article is at risk of being deleted. -- King of ♠ 17:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm very sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant as to the symbol in the red circle in the above image. --Bsherr (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
As pointed out in the VPP discussion, it's supposed to draw the editor's attention to the fact that the article they worked on is being considered for deletion. I'm not sure why a change is warranted. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

For the purpose of making a "kinder, gentler Wikipedia", I firmly and strongly disagree that this icon needs to be changed. It is something that should stand out like a sore thumb, and let the editor involved know that their contribution is about to be thrown away. If there is a problem, it is that these templates should be a last resort where there are genuine problems. I do believe it is getting overused... which changing the icon isn't going to be helping out here. This doesn't solve the problem being targeted (trying to make Wikipedia more friendly to new users) and instead makes only a superficial change so that those who are putting this template on user talk pages can feel warm and fuzzy about how kind they really aren't being and assuming bad faith. Even if the action involving the template is warranted, it still should draw attention that an extreme irreversible action (from the perspective of a new editor) is about to happen to one of their contributions. --Robert Horning (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to subscribe to the "friendlier Wikipedia" rationale to support the outcome of changing the symbol. I connect with a different part of Herostratus's rationale. The current symbol looks like it's inspired by the ISO standard for warnings. I'm reminded that the ISO standard requires that warning symbols be descriptive of their subject, so that someone looking at it can instantly comprehend what the warning is about. Of course, I'm not saying that the ISO standard governs us. But the logic of that guideline seems very clear to me. Why not use a symbol that is descriptive of deletion, so that when people see it, they immediately recognize what it is. I don't know if the new image is friendlier (and I'm only minorly concerned with whether it is), but I'm positive it will increase recognition of and attention to the notice, and I think that's critically important. --Bsherr (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and in addition, the icon is very similar to (or exactly the same as) the icon used for mid-level vandal warning templates, when the user has already ignored a previous warning and is being told that he is about to get himself into serious trouble. Which I think says something about the reaction expected from the image. Herostratus (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it hasn't been an heavily populated discussion, but there has been some input, especially if you include the discussions at the Pump and at Template talk:Db-meta. There has been some opposition, but I haven't seen a huge amount, especially if we consider Robert Horning's opposition as being "from the left", so to speak. Horning's argument (if I read it right) is that the deletion-nomination process is broken, and incremental improvements only serve to paper over this fact and indeed might make an unacceptable situation seem more acceptable.Interesting, but not an argument that anyone else has picked up.

So let's do this.

Now to specifics. I posted over at the graphics lab board, but didn't get a response yet (which is fine), so we're on own here I guess. There has been only limited input on the actual form of the icons. The file File:Icon delete.svg has been suggested, a couple of people have liked this, and no one has offered a better one. So let's use that as a basis. But what about specifics?

One person suggested using different symbols in the little circle at the left of the graphic - exclamation point for speedy, clock for PROD, question mark for XAfD. But then another person though think the question mark might be convusing. My personal opinion is, the PROD clock is OK, and for the XfD if you could somehow convey the idea of "conversation" in such a small circle that might be good (but could you?), but how about just: As shown, except make the exclamation-point circle yellow for PROD and XfD (Speedy remains red). (Actually the triangular icon used for PROD is yellow now, although not for XfD.) PROD and XfD are a little less urgent.

Any objections or further discussion on this? Herostratus (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

For illustration, here's my proposal for an AfD symbol: Icon delete talk.svg --Bsherr (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this would be better, but replace the exclamation point with a question mark: Icono aviso borrar.svg. Put a clock on it for PROD. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 02:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The question mark icon doesn't get the point across. The trash icon is even more scary (we're tossing your hard work in the trash!). I see no issue with the current icon. Let's not reference "deletion", which is scarier; let's reference "notice", which is more informative. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Fetchcomms. I agree with your comments against the association with trash. Could you explain more about why the question mark isn't sufficient? I was trying to identify that the deletion was up for discussion (as in a question of whether the article should be deleted). I think it would be valuable for the icon to indicate to an extent what the notice is for. --Bsherr (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Not Fetchcomms, but: I agree an exclamation point is warranted to emphasize that "this is probably important to you; you will probably want to take action; there is an approximate time limit". A question mark completely fails to convey the urgency/importance (Would you rather a newbie be perplexed and discouraged that their article was seemingly arbitrarily deleted due to their failure to bother having read the notice?). Any "attention-grabbing factor" in the image is pretty appropriate and I seriously doubt tweaking the image would have any substantive effect on the level of BITEyness. Deletion is deletion; putting lipstick on a pig does no good. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Gotta agree with Cybercobra. I still don't see a substantial reason to change the icon. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
As I said earlier, my view is not trying to make the image friendlier, but rather make it communicative of the actual reason for the notice. Lots of other templates use ambox, so it's really not very distinctive at all. Would using the exclamation point deletion image above address your concerns? --Bsherr (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Not really. I don't particularly care for the garbage can icon, and don't see why a distinctive icon is really necessary. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, there seems some objection to the garbage can. This leaves us -- speaking strictly about AfD now -- with these:

File:Icon delete yellow.svg
File:Icon delete talk.svg

How to choose? Flip a coin? I prefer the first, but I would say that since that was my proposal. Herostratus (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, since it seems speedy will be employing ambox, we can consider the Icon Delete template above with the exclamation point, if people prefer that to the question mark. I'm not sure what the purpose of the yellow becomes if nothing is red. --Bsherr (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
No, speedy would be this

I quite frankly don't know how to edit the speedy templates, it seems a confusing jungle. Herostratus (talk) 05:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the consensus at speedy is for ambox. But take a look and see if you interpret it differently. --Bsherr (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
But this is the centralized discussion. Herostratus (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Icon delete with red info symbol.svg

At left, another alternate. "i" instead of "!", but red instead of yellow, so probably a wash in terms of how alerty and/or alarming it is. Herostratus (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, OK. I don't know about consensus, but it does seem, all in all, that there's no strong objection, so let's give it try. If it doesn't work, easy enough to change it back. Herostratus (talk) 02:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Can't just vary the color alone. Have to vary the symbol too. Otherwise, contravenes WP:COLOR. --Bsherr (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Having found this discussion somewhat late, I at least do strongly object to changing the CSD icons. If the icon is supposed to the draw the editor's attention, then the shredded paper with a wee symbol on it is really inferior to the ambox sign. Regardless of the editor's intention at least the speedy deletion icon should explicitely stress out that the article is in acute danger of being deleted, which isn't conveyed by the new shredder icon. And as to using separate templates for obvious vandalism, spam etc., at least the non-automated CSD warning templates are all transcluded from {{db-notice}} so the case where the editor actually did something wrong are thrown in a jar with CSD A7. So I feel very strongly that at least the vandalism and spam CSD warnings should have the old ambox exclamation mark as in "stop, wrong". And if no workaround can be found, I'm all for restoring the old look of all CSD warning templates.
The new PROD icon though can remain as it should actually differ from CSD not only in colour (re the old yellow triangle) but also in design. PROD is an entirely different quality so let's also mark that with another symbol. De728631 (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You make a number of valid points. But recall the icon is supposed to draw the editor's attention without making him feel that he has done something wrong.

  • Re WP:COLOR, I was not aware of that. Will fix, see below.
  • Re some deletion reasons should retain the triangle-wow Ambox:
    • Many of the deletion-notification templates transclude {{db-notice}}. They should not, for just the reason you give, they differ. I'll get onto fixing this right away.
    • I do agree that G3 (blatant vandalism) and G11 (attack) and G5 (page created by a blocked user) can retain the old triangle-wow Ambox, and I'll restore those. On the other hand G11 (spam) or G1 (nonsense) are arguable. The editor has not necessarily done anything wrong. At least some "spam" speedies are for good-faith efforts, and some "nonsense" speedies are for articles that are very poor but not nonsense, and may have been good faith attempts to contribute.
  • OK. The clock icon has been suggested for PROD, I'll get right on that.

Other than that, I'd suggest leaving the new icons in place for a couple of weeks anyway and see what happens. Herostratus (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

De728631, I think your concerns are misdirected. It's unprecedented to determine which speedy deletion criterion are "wrongful". Arguably, they're all wrongful. We only speedy delete pages that fail to satisfy a Wikipedia guideline or policy. Db-notice templates are not to be used as user warnings; they are supposed to be informational only as to the deletion, not the user conduct. The user warning templates (WP:WARN) exist to instruct on conduct, and those do differentiate between good- no- and bad-faith. But as to whether the the icon communicates urgency, suggestions for icon would certainly be in order to identify an icon that both communicate the nature of the notice (deletion) and the urgency. Ambox doesn't very effectively satisfy the first criterion, and it would be better if we could find one that does. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
PROD image

I created this image for PROD. It looks fine at full size but seems to scale a little poorly. Being no artist or graphics person, I don't know why this is so, maybe somebody who knows this stuff can explain/fix.

I think it's reasonable to use the old Ambox for G3 (blatant vandalism) and G11 (attack) and G5 (page created by a blocked user). In those cases, unless the speedy tag was placed wrongly, the person has clearly done something quite wrong and knows it, or should. So I created a new template, {{Db-notice scary}} with the old Ambox and transcluded it into the speedy-notice templates for G3 and G11. I couldn't find the template for G5, if there is one. Herostratus (talk) 04:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Herostratus, when it comes to blatant vandalism and personal attack pages there is clearly a bad-faith motivation for ccreating pages and that is even reflected by the message on said deletion notices: "Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as foo, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox"; or even sharper: "Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia. Users who continue ...will be blocked". Those are clearly not the neutral deletion notices as in "a tag has been placed onto your article because...", but they're clear warnings not continue down that path and should well display the appropriate icon. De728631 (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Something seems to be broken now, see this talk page. De728631 (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks correct to me, except for user error. That's the result if a user substitutes Template:db-reason-notice but fails to include a parameter 2. --Bsherr (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Could we improve the quality of the paper sheet on these icons? It looks a bit like old-gen Windows. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 22:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just reverted the changes that have been made off the back of this discussion. Numerous people have opposed changing the icons, not just here, but at the previous discussion at the VP and in the parallel discussion at Template talk:Db-meta. Frankly I'm dumbfounded at the extent to which these comments have been disregarded; there is, quite clearly, no concensus for any change at this time.

In case it's not already clear, I'll add my own opposition to these changes. The icon is supposed to grab people's attention, to let them know that their contributions may be deleted. It does no good to nice this up with a wishy-washy alternative that lacks the urgency of the situtuation. I'm not dead set against any kind of change and by all means keep discussing it, but this needs a proper centralised discussion, at a proper venue, with a proper concensus. PC78 (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, after "counting" all the "votes", I see that you have a point. I'll summarize below, then open an RfC to get more input. (But no need to be "dumbfounded" - it's a wiki).

If I'm not mistaken, the conversation at Template talk:Db-meta#Images available (if that's the one you are referring to) was about adding an icon to the deletion notice on the article page, not changing the ones on the user's page, so is not germane to this discussion.

P.S. Your own position is not clear. Does "It does no good to nice this up with a wishy-washy alternative" mean that you believe that the deletion system is broken? Herostratus (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it means I just don't see the problem with the current icons. Regarding that other discussion, you said there yourself that the two were related, it concerns the same icon, and Bsherr made an edit request there off the back of this discussion. But if this is strictly about the user talk messages, then fair enough. PC78 (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Summary of conversations so far[edit]

OK, a user has objected to the change, which is fine. I know this is not a "vote", but just to get a handle on what's gone on so far, I have summarized people's comment to the best of my ability.

Support keeping the current Ambox (triangle-wow) icon:

Support replacing the icon with something less alarming:

Neutral or No Clear Opinion Expressed

  • No Clear Opinion (but "Perhaps a smaller version of the image or something less edgy" indicates a tendency to possibly support change) - User:MuZemike (at Village Pump)
  • No Clear Opinion (Objected to one proposed change (question mark) but didn't express clear opinion on the matter overall) - User:King of Hearts (above)

Red Army Faction

  • Keep ("image needs to stay and perhaps be even more shocking and annoying") - User:Robert Horning (Mr. Hunter's opinion is basically that the deletion system is broken, the appearance of a deletion-notice message on a user's page indicates the the user is probably being fucked over by an idiot, and the icon should reflect this. He may be right, but it doesn't seem right to put his "Keep" vote in with the others.)

As far as strength of argument, I don't see a clear advantage to either "side". Both positions have reasonably cogent arguments.

If this has been discussed elsewhere recently, I'm not aware of it, but pointers to relevant conversations would be welcome. Herostratus (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment[edit]

Which icons should be used for the notifications that are placed on user pages when pages which they created are nominated for deletion (either through speedy-deletion, PROD, or AfD)? 03:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Current scheme[edit]

Proposed new scheme[edit]


The basic argument for supporting the proposed new icon scheme is: the current icons are a bit frightening and might give the impression to some users that they have done something wrong. (Note that the image used is the same as the one used for "you are about to be blocked for repeated vandalism" type notices). But the user probably hasn't done anything wrong, at least not on purpose (and if he has that is handled by other methods), and may well be a new user, and this has the effect of annoying and possibly scaring away new users.

The basic argument for supporting the existing icon scheme is: something very bad is (possibly) about to happen to something the user may have put considerable work into, and we really need to get the user's attention so that he can participate in the discussion or put a hold on the speedy or PROD. The proposed new scheme doesn't do this as well as the current scheme. The principle of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" could also reasonably be invoked.

We are basically looking for an up-or-down decision. Proposals for other icons or schemes are welcome for future reference, but changing the proposed icons during the RfC is probably not a good idea. Any comments to the effect of "neither scheme is satisfactory" will probably be taken as supporting the current scheme. Herostratus (talk) 03:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Looks good to me. The new icons are a bit busy, but I like them. Protonk (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I prefer the existing icons: they are more attention grabbing, and that's exactly what we need for these kinds of notice. The proposed icons lack the urgency that deletion requires. I also don't see why we need different icons for different types of speedy deletion, and think that the proposed prod icon in particular is too busy. As an aside, I don't really get the red-yellow-red colour scheme of the current icons; in both cases, identical icons with a red-orange-yellow (i.e. for Speedy-Prod-XfD) colour scheme would be preferable, IMO. PC78 (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • But the point that the current icons are the same as the block warnings is important. As is the notion that while we want to grab attention, we don't want to imply every notification is really important. Some notices (e.g. PROD) are less sensitive than others (blocking, vandalism warnings). Protonk (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't think that point is significant; these are just generic icons used to identify important notifications, which these are. It's not like we use these icons for all notifications. PC78 (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Except we basically do. Protonk (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Come on, that's just a list of templates that use the icon. There are plenty of notification templates here that don't use it. PC78 (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
            • Well, all level three UW templates do use it, and so do many single-level UW warning templates. That's probably about a third of all user talk templates. Most of the rest use the info icon or stop hand icon, and the balance are the block templates. Essentially, five icons comprise the majority of all user talk icons. I would suggest that it's unfortunate that deletion templates share the same symbol as bad faith user warning templates. Deletion is sometimes due to bad faith, but, much more often, it's not. As I've said, it's not to say that ambox is bad, but it only communicates gravity, not nature, and that's a deficiency we ought to rectify in the deletion templates. --Bsherr (talk) 05:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
              • Twinkle automatically generates user-page notifications that use these icons. Anyone who uses Twinkle to nominate a page for deletion (which is a lot of people) automatically places these icons on the user page. Herostratus (talk) 07:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I like the existing icons better. The point is to catch someone's attention and the big icons do it better. Carrite (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Current. "Oh no, alert!" is, I think, less bitey than "Look, a page getting deleted!". These are notices, and they should use notifying icons. As it's not always certain something will be deleted, using the new icons seems over eager to have their page deleted. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • As I said above, I generally support the introduction of symbols that communicate the gravity of the warning and the nature of the warning. This has been scientifically proven to improve recognition and compliance. I support the new symbols, with the caveat that they be made compliant with WP:COLOR. Presently, the proposed speedy and afd symbols are indistinguishable to colorblind users (as are the current symbols, so the new ones are no detriment). --Bsherr (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, isn't the brightness different, so technically they are not indistinguishable? But otherwise your point is well taken. I don't think anyone would object if some minor change to the AfD icon is made to distinguish them (if the new scheme is adopted), and commenters should assume that this will be done. Herostratus (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Indeed, the shading would appear different (in fact, because the yellow lacks shadowing or outlining, it might appear indistinguishable from the background), but variance in shading, dark-lighter-light, does not communicate scale like red-orange-yellow does. An important part of the message is lost to colorblind users. I identify this issue and share PC78's concern about varying the icons between speedy deletion criteria, but only in the course of providing comments (as this is an RfC). To the extent this is a !vote, I am certainly supportive, and I'm confident this issues can be addressed by separate processes (talk pages and TfD, respectively), once the overall question of adoption is decided here. --Bsherr (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
        • If I'm reading WP:COLOUR right, I don't see how it applies here. The icons are essentially just decorative, they don't convey important information; the text of the message does that. PC78 (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Well, it technically doesn't apply at all, because the guideline is limited to articles. And indeed, the text does convey the message. But per WP:IAR, the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. Where is it possible to design icons that are accessible to the disabled, why should it not be done? --Bsherr (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
            • I don't get that from WP:IAR, personally. But if your specific concern is colourblind users, then the colours need only have adequete contrast in relation to each other. And to take your concern to it's logical extreme, you would need to have a different icon for each specific use. PC78 (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
              • It's verbatim from WP:IAR?, which is an essay, but I believe is relatively accepted. Indeed, I would urge a slightly different icon for each of the three deletion processes. One already varies from the other two. I think the use of color variation for deletion templates generally is misguided, because MOS already indicates that red should be used to identify deletion templates, and I think one level of color coding is quite enough. --Bsherr (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
                • Fair enough, but I think this discussion is likely to end up being about change rather than for or against the proposal as made above. IMO, what would be better than these variatons on the same theme is to have three completely different icons for each process, File:Ambox warning pn.svg for speedy, perhaps File:Icon delete.svg for prod, with something else for XfD, as you and I discussed previously elsewhere. PC78 (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I like these new ones. They probably could be tweaked some (per Bsherr), but I think are an improvement over the current system, which does not allow you to convey that a G10 warning is more important than an A3 message. NW (Talk) 14:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The new ones - they are still obviously "warnings" but do not appear to be accusations! TheGrappler (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Bsherr makes good points. It's kind of a bikeshed though. Further refinement could be done through the normal editing process, rather than voting. Gigs (talk)
  • Personally, I think that G12, F9 and G11 should keep the red warning triangle, as these are serious criteria.Acather96 (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
    • G11 is "Unambiguous advertising or promotion." I think some in some of these cases the contributor knows he is doing wrong, but in some cases the contributor is just proud of his company or doesn't fully understand what we are about here and just wants to make a good-faith contribution. G12 is "Unambiguous copyright infringement." I think in some (many?) of these cases the contributor is not knowingly flouting our rules, but just doesn't know them; he may be persuaded (in some cases) to rewrite the material in his own words, thus giving us a good new article and (maybe) a good new contributor, which is even better. F9 is also ambiguous copyright infringement, but for images; similar argument applies. Of course, if a user is judged to be purposely flouting the rules (e.g., continued and/or obvious infractions), there is a warning and blocking system to handle that. So, Acather96, assuming for now that a change in the proposed new scheme G12, F9 and G11 will not be made (but may of course be discussed in future), which do you favor, the existing scheme or the proposed new scheme? Herostratus (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I think I would favour the new scheme, as sometimes the big, red warning triangles appearing on talk pages of first time contributors can deter them (and not surprisingly, when you take a step back and think about it, it does seem quite bitey). I especially like the new PROD icon, as I think the clock does fit quite well with the actual process of PROD. On a slightly different note, I accept your argument for G11, but I still think G12 and F9 should have the warning triangle because copyright violations is, along with attack pages, something that stands above in-house policies as it could (in theory) result in legal action. Acather96 (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that a picture of something being disintegrated would be more BITEy than just a warning sign. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • They're based on internatioally-used warning signs seen in roads and all over the place, including many computer programs. Anybody who gets the vapours because they saw this symbol on Wikipedia must have an absolutely terrifying time actually leaving their house and walking down the street. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The existing icons are much better. Simplicity and clarity is a good thing. It says "Look, an important alert!" which is exactly what it should say. The new ones are unlear to the point of silliness. One of them looks like a ghostly, spectral Word document, with a wildly spinning wall clock on top of it, and then an alarmed shiny orange ball on top of that. Is it supposed to indicate that a poltergeist is running amok at a NERF plant? To get a more obtuse icon than that you'd have to have a space alien design it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I understand the humor, but a funny story can be made up about any symbol. I could say ambox looks like someone's racking an exclamation point to play billiards with. The issue is as I explained above. "Look, the page I worked on is about to be deleted!" is better than "Look, an important alert!". The purpose of the new symbols is to communicate the nature of the notice in addition to its gravity. If the new symbols don't clearly communicate that, why not tell us how they better can? --Bsherr (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
      • It may remind you of billiards (or whatever) but it's something seen on a daily basis by nearly everyone in the civilised world, and that's the point. In addition to road signs it's also used in computing software of all kinds as a universal warning symbol. There is no need for the icon itself to communicate the nature of the notice, as that's what the text of the notice is for. In other words, I can't fix it because it's not broken. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
        • There's sciencific evidence that symbols that communicate gravity and nature of warning are significantly more comprehensible and promote significantly greater compliance. That's why we need them. --Bsherr (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Oh yes, please show me your scientific research that shows that these arbitrary and frankly downright bizarre symbols are somehow more comprehensible than a universal symbol everyone knows. I'm dying to see this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
            • W.A. Rogers et al., Warning research: An integrative perspective. Human Factors v.42, 102-139 (2000). --Bsherr (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
            • Maybe it doesn't go without saying that this research concerns the use of symbols that communicate gravity and nature, not these specific symbols. As I've said and continue to say, consider these symbols open to suggestions for improvement. Instead of superimposing the circular bangs, we can superimpose the ambox symbols, if that addresses your concern. But I'm trying to have a discussion with you, so perhaps you'd show a little good faith and courtesy, and leave out the sarcasm (as an admin, do you really have to be reminded of this?). If you can't, I won't trouble myself further. --Bsherr (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
              • I find this proposal ridiculous, and trying to lean on a book published before Wikipedia existed isn't doing much to change that position. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
                • Dude. Starblind. Dismissing all human factors research conducted before Wikipedia existed is... well, different. There is such a thing as inferface design, there is such a thing as human factors engineering and all this has been studied extensively for decades. Herostratus (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Here are the icons in the 42px size currently used for such warnings:
    Ambox warning pn.svgAmbox warning yellow.svgIcon delete.svg320px-Icon delete w clock.svgIcon delete yellow.svg
    All the new icons don't convey a page being deleted to someone who hasn't been exposed to them before. The clock icon is unreadable. The yellow bang has no contrast. The only change I would support is changing the current WP:AFD icon to yellow. Other than that, stick with what we have now. —UncleDouggie (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
    • The size need not and should not stay 42px. The icons were never intended to be that small. We've already discussed changing the yellow bang above. --Bsherr (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete.svg Here's an alternative icon that might be useful. gringer (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
    • What is it? Herostratus (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Can't tell? "Image of a fast car erasing a drawing of a car." Haha, wrap your head around that circular thought. --Bsherr (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Why does everything always have to have silly little icons on this project. Whatever happened to plain, readable messages that users might actually read? Gurch (talk) 05:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, I think the issue is that, while some users do read plain, readable messages, many more read messages that have a visual cue attached to them. Research suggests that people pay more attention to messages accompanied by symbols. --Bsherr (talk) 05:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
      • In general, possibly. Certainly if I see a message with a silly little icon on my talk page, I know I can safely ignore it because it's some bot notifying me of a discussion for which I am an "involved editor" because I made a spelling correction two years ago, or something similarly stupid. If there isn't an icon, it might actually be something important so I have to read it. Gurch (talk) 05:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Fair enough, but I think we all should endeavour not to ignore anything on our user talk pages. --Bsherr (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I support the new icon scheme. The old scheme is too alarming for what is being announced. Diderot's dreams (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


When I add this template to a talk page, it reminds me to provide a heading for the section, while in fact the template automatically generates its own heading. If I would follow this advice and add a heading, it would result in the message carrying a double heading, which doesn't seem to be wanted at all. This is quite confusing and totally unwanted in my opinion. Can this behavior be changed somehow? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Spaces causing discussion link to be red after transclusion[edit]

In the "The article will be discussed at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{1}}} ]] until a consensus is reached"-line, the space after the template parameter is causing the transcluded links to be red instead of blue. Is there any reason why that space is there? Both the template and the documentation should be corrected, I think, to eliminate these spaces. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, and question[edit]

Sorry for accidentally blanking this page a moment ago. For some reason, someone added it to my page without creating a new section for it; when I clicked on "edit" to delete that section, I deleted this page without realizing it. I'm not sure why the template is set up that way, but perhaps the "edit" button should be made more distinguishable between editing a user page section and editing the template directly. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The template should always be substituted, but apparently some are not doing it. We might have to use an alternative method. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Added {{substchecktop}} for now, similar to what is on {{Cfd-notify}}. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Looks like this is already trancluded on several user talk pages. To avoid taking time to clean them up (and unnecessarily triggering the "you have new messages" banner on each of those users), I borrowed a trick from Template:Tfdnotice, which also adds a parameter to change the level-one header to a level-two header. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it, much appreciated. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Cfd-notify which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Afd notice which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Changing the text of this page[edit]

An editor has suggested changing the page text from this:

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ARTICLE NAME is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARTICLE NAME until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article

to this:

This is a courtesy message to notify you that the article ARTICLE NAME is being considered for deletion. All editors, including you, are welcome to discuss this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARTICLE NAME until a consensus is reached. The nomination and discussion are expected to focus on the quality of evidence and the policies and guidelines which are of concern. Please be aware that there are a number of arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion.

Users are encouraged to edit the article during the discussion, particularly in ways that address the concerns raised in that discussion. However, please do not attempt to remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article— doing so may be considered an act of bad faith and will not halt the deletion process. Thank you!

I don't have an opinion on the matter yet, but this is very well-known and widely-used template which has been discussed and contended over in the past. I know because some years back I suggested just to change the icon, and there was a lively and long discussion over this (it wasn't changed). I note for instance that the suggested new version adds a link to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, which could be contentious -- that page is just an essay, and IMO at least some of the proscribed arguments are actually pretty sound. On the other hand, some of the suggested changes could well be improvements.

Anyway, as a matter of procedural principle, I'd like to see this change discussed and not made absent consensus to do so. Herostratus (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


Just to list the main differences...

  • Suggested new version begins "This is a courtesy message..." and that seems a nice touch.
  • Old version says the discussion is whether the article "is suitable for inclusion... or whether it should be deleted", suggested new version says the article "is being considered for deletion". The latter is a more succinct. You could say it's a bit stark. It might be more plainly accurate.
  • The old version says "anyone is welcome" to talk about it, the latter says "All editors, including you, are welcome". The latter is slightly less succinct but maybe a bit more welcoming.
  • The old version says "The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines" whole the suggested new version says "The nomination and discussion are expected to focus on the quality of evidence and the policies and guidelines which are of concern" which is a bit longer and adds a link to Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines. Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines is quite a handful and one could maybe question whether linking to it here leads the reader a bit far away from the matter at hand.
  • The new version then adds "please be aware that there are a number of arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion" with a link to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. For good or ill, this considerably raises the profile of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.
  • The old version says "Users may edit" the article while the suggested new version says "Users are encouraged to edit" the article. That's quite a difference in emphasis.
  • They both says not to remove the atticle's deletion notice, but the new version further explains "doing so may be considered an act of bad faith and will not halt the deletion process". Whether this is necessary or useful I don't know. Maybe. Herostratus (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • My thanks to Herostratus for creating this discussion. I realize that this is a frequently used template— I had hoped my changes would not be considered of sufficient gravity to warrant discussion (which was probably naïve of me), but am certainly glad to have as much input on this as possible. My thoughts in revising were these: 1.) Being notified that your article is being considered for deletion is often devastating for new editors who feel unfamiliar with "the ropes" and may already expect themselves to fail in defending it. I wanted to make clear that their participation in the discussion is something we encourage, in no small part because if they are someday to become life-time editors, they will need to understand how to appropriately participate in deletion discussions. It is never too early to learn. 2.) I also wanted to remove the seemingly personal nature of the template message: although the message is a standardized one, the editor reading it may not understand this and may get the impression that he/ she is being approached personally/ targeted on the matter of the deletion ("We have spotted you and YOU are suspect!"). By stating that this is a "courtesy notice", I hope such editors will quickly understand that the notice is a templated one, AND to understand that we are a "courteous" bunch who do not do things behind each others' backs (mostly...!). 3.) Lastly (for now), I wanted to give these editors a heads-up regarding the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions— if they are unaware of these, then they are almost certainly going to make some of those very arguments, which will then undermine their own cause (because the REST of us already know them, presumably). I wanted to mark the mine field, which seems fair to do in order that they get no surprises if/ when they take steps to defend the article.
I have been thinking about this for over a year now, and finally wanted to put those thoughts into action for the good of the project. To me, that means giving new editors (those most likely to create an article which then becomes nominated for deletion) some of the same tools the rest of us use when participating in a deletion discussion (btw, the mention of and link to the policies and guidelines is also included in the original version— I only changed its location here for style reasons, though i do not disagree that it is tedious and a LOT to digest for a newbie). My apologies for not initiating this discussion here before implementing the new wording— again, Herostratus has done what I did not, and I am grateful for that. Am very interested in hearing the thoughts of other editors on this. KDS4444 (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
It's fine. I greatly appreciate you thinking about this. And I know what you mean. This template is important. For a lot of users its a shock; its seldom a pleasant thing to see for any user. It's probably a rude introduction to an aspect of the Wikipedia for many new editors -- you know, a lot of editors that will (or at any rate could) go on to become fine editors and create fine articles, maybe their first effort is nominated for deletion.
It's a hard line to walk because we want to say two things: "Well, thank you for creating this article, and now some your colleagues are going to help you by joining in and having a discussion about the article". At the same time we need to communicate: "NOTICE! Something you maybe put some serious effort into is about to be maybe ERASED, possibly by some deletionist hardcases. You might want to get over there tout de suite and try to save your baby".
(Of course, a lot articles that get this notice are lousy articles; but there's no need to pile on here in this template; those articles will (usually) get deleted anyway, and fine. In the meantime there's no cost (and some benefit) to pretending in this template that all created articles are worthy efforts.)
Hmmm... I mean we could say it something like this:

Thank you for creating ARTICLE NAME! Writing of articles is a lifeblood of our project, and we appreciate your joining with us in this effort. We work together here as colleagues, and one way we do this is to gather in a group and discuss and consider new articles. ARTICLE NAME is under consideration right now, and (since we can't keep all new articles) one possible outcome would be the deletion of this article.
The discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARTICLE NAME. The discussion is expected to focus on the quality of evidence and the policies and guidelines which are of concern, and together we hope to reach a consensus on the disposition of the article.
Editors (including you) are encouraged to edit the article during the discussion, particularly in ways that address the concerns raised in that discussion. However, please do not attempt to remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

A couple problems with this is:
  • It's a complete rewrite of the template, which would be very heavy lifting to get accepted. Wikipedians, as a rule, do not like to change things.
  • While trying to be pleasant and welcoming, it's possibly too la-di-dah. The person might get the impression that there's a tea party going on, when in fact what might be happening is maybe a lot more serious and maybe not so nice, and consequently not take the notice seriously enough.
So getting back to your version. There's lots to like. I get your point about giving "new editors... some of the same tools the rest of us use when participating in a deletion discussion". So I dunno. I just personally just think that too many of the entries Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions could at least be part of a reasonable argument. If there was a short page "Good arguments to use in deletion discussions", that would be better... Basically WP:GNG is the gold standard for articles -- if you meet it you're usually OK, if not then usually not -- and maybe editors should be pointed to that?
I could offer a slightly amended version, but I won't yet. Let's see if anyone else has thoughts. Herostratus (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree completely that there is a fine line to walk between being welcoming and being serious and stern: new editors receiving this notice should feel two things: 1.) thank you for making an effort at creating something that might be interesting, and 2.) we have standards here, real ones, that your creation might not possibly be meeting right now, and if you have any hope of saving it, you need to get involved. I don't want to encourage 3rd grade students to feel comfortable creating dubious articles about their math teachers any more than I want serious professional adults to feel uncomfortable about submitting an article about a recent theoretical development in physics. Part of learning how to edit Wikipedia is learning how to properly take notice of what is going on, and to respect that business— or else what you do will get removed. I recall that my own very first article submission was deleted— and it should have been! But at the time, I remember feeling extremely overwrought over the business, and much too emotionally involved in the outcome... And a little devastated when I "lost". But I am still here, and I think I do better editing because I understand that what I do can be deleted if I am not minding my Ps and Qs. I needed that first slap in the face to make me realize it was serious. And then I needed gentle hands to help me down and disconnect from it personally. I want to see a template that prepares me for both of those things (well, prepares me better than the current template does, anyway!). But so far I am getting the feeling that there are only two of us who care about this business... am I wrong?? KDS4444 (talk) 06:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay, it's been 10 days now and no other editor has chosen to comment on my proposed changes, either for or against. Can I see the slightly amended version you propose, Herostratus? Maybe we can take it from there. Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@KDS4444:OK. I now don't remember exactly what I had in mind, but melding some of the elements of your text and mine, I come up with this:

Thank you for creating ARTICLE NAME! New articles are an important element of this project. However, as with many new articles, the community is now discussing whether this article meets our standards, so it is now being considered for deletion.

All editors, including you, are welcome to discuss this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARTICLE NAME until a consensus is reached. The nomination and discussion are expected to focus on the quality of evidence and the policies and guidelines which are of concern.

Editors, including you, are encouraged to edit the article during the discussion, particularly in ways that address the concerns raised in that discussion. However, please do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Here are the differences from your text:

  • Difference one -- changed
This is a courtesy message to notify you that the article [article] is being considered for deletion.
Thank you for creating [article]! New articles are an important element of this project. However, as with many new articles, the community is now discussing whether this article meets our standards, so it is now being considered for deletion.
  • Difference two -- separated the material beginning at "All editors, including you..." into a separate paragraph, which is a minor formatting change.
  • Difference three -- deleted
Please be aware that there are a number of arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion.
  • Difference four -- changed
Users are encouraged to edit...
Editors, including you, are encouraged to edit...
  • Difference five -- changed
However, please do not attempt to remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article
However, please do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article
  • Difference six -- deleted from the end:
doing so may be considered an act of bad faith and will not halt the deletion process. Thank you!

Differences two, four and five are minor tweakings and don't much matter either way.

Difference one is wordier. I'm trying to thread the needle here (of being welcoming and thanking while still making clear what is happening). Suggestions for further improvement welcome.

Difference three is key. I do see the point of providing the editor with useful tools. I just... I don't want to valorize that page that much. I also wonder if including this sentence will make it harder to get community acceptance. I'm flexible on this.

Difference six removes an extra half-sentece -- we want it as short as possible, and the clause doesn't add enough IMO.

Also... I didn't do it, but I'm wondering if rather than pointing to Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines we should point to Wikipedia:Notability? After all meeting or not meeting the WP:GNG (and/or one of its many substandards) is the crux of most (although admittedly not all) deletion discussions...

OK, you or anyone let me know what you think about points one thru six or other thoughts, and lets see if we can cobble something together that can get accepted. Herostratus (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm also thinking of adding, after "...being considered for deletion", something along the lines of "Don't be downcast! Our best editors (especially when starting out, but throughout their careers) get some of their articles deleted. It's part of the wiki way for the community to consider these matters" or something like that. It is a lot of extra words though. But might still be worthwhile. Herostratus (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello? Herostratus (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
User:KDS4444 have you lost interest? Herostratus (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Herostratus, to have been away from this for so long: A.D.D., too many fingers in too many pies. My apologies. With regard to the things you mentioned: it looks like your greatest concern is regarding Difference 3, the inclusion of a mention of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I know that page is only an essay, but I remember when I first discovered it I was like, "OH! So HERE are all the things I should be aware of!" I found it helpful in understanding how Wikipedia worked, how and why things/ articles I myself had written were being quite reasonably nominated for deletion ("reasonably" to me once I had read over that page). I am pretty sure that it is a page that editors who are doing the deletion nominating are familiar with, and as I said, it seems fair to make all editors whose articles are facing a deletion nomination to be made equally aware. Are you concerned it is not under the scrutiny of most policy and guideline pages and that we shouldn't be sending people there for that reason? Because I could agree with that to the extent that policy and guidelines are very important, but I am not proposing excluding any important guideline/ policy in exchange for including it (least, I don't think so!). I am willing to forego Difference 6 if you feel it is not helpful (though I just, I swear to God I just had a new editor do just what Difference 6 says he must not to an article he had created, and I am pretty sure the act has lead to a spiral which will likely mean he never edits again, and that was not my intention but hey, he was warned, right? I guess?). Thoughts on all that? KDS4444 (talk) 08:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, welcome back User:KDS4444! My gosh I had forgotten about this also. OK, we are almost there. Yes, very well, regarding Difference Three, that's fine, we'll keep it in. You make a good point, it's fine. As to Difference Six, how about a compromise: Add back in the italics for emphasis and "doing so will not halt the deletion process", but not the mention of "bad faith". I just feel, we've told them what not to do and why, and italicized it, that's enough, no need to bring the term "bad faith" into the conversation. OK give me a bit of time and I'll post a new version, and maybe we can move forward on putting it before the community for consideration. Herostratus (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
You, sir, have a deal! Let's implement! put forth for consideration! Oh, and one thought: I have always found it disconcerting for any Wikipedia instruction to say, "Please do this" or "Please do not do that", because it makes me think that doing or not doing the thing is only a matter of politeness and not one of any seriousness or importance... This might then mean to some editors that "Please do not remove the notice from this article" means "We would rather you didn't remove the notice, but if you did, hey, no worries." Except that is not what the "please" really means. It really means: "If you do this thing, there will be some consequences you won't like and won't be able to stop." I am all for keeping the template short, however— could we work in some sort of wording that makes it plain that removing the tag isn't just a matter of being impolite but will result in some real consequences? Part of understanding that Wikipedia is serious is knowing what the consequences are for disobeying the "please", and new editors just don't know or realize what is at stake for violating it. Please share your thoughts on that. Thanks!! KDS4444 (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with KDS4444 on the please. There is a reason "please" is generally considered a poor practice in technical writing; it makes the statement sound less like an instruction ("do this" or "don't do this") and more like a polite suggestion. We don't say, "Please click OK to continue", we just say "Click OK to continue". --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)