Template talk:Article for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Proposal to include {{oldafdfull}} boilerplate text[edit]

When closing AfDs that do not end in deletion, administrators are supposed to add the {{oldafdfull}} template to the talk page. To facilitate this task, I propose to add the following line to this template before the "End of AfD message" comment:

 <!-- For administrator use only: {{oldafdfull|page={{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#ifeq:{{{1|a}}}|{{{1|b}}}|{{{1}}}|{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>PAGENAME}}}}|date={{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTYEAR}} {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTMONTHNAMEGEN}} {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTDAY}}|result='''keep'''}} -->

If my very limited knowledge of MediaWiki syntax is correct, this should produce something like:

  <!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled -->
 {{AfDM|page=Bad Article|date=2007 November 11|substed=yes}}
 <!-- For administrator use only: {{oldafdfull|page=Bad Article|date=2007 November 11|result='''keep'''}} -->
 <!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point -->

When closing the AfD as "keep", the administrator would edit the article page, cut the already filled-out {{oldafdfull}} text, delete the rest of the AfD message and paste the {{oldafdfull}} text to the talk page. Only the "result" parameter would need to be edited as appropriate. What do you think? Sandstein (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There is now a testing implementation at Template:Afd/sandbox and an example of the template's output at User:Sandstein/Temp03. Sandstein (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
In the absence of opposition, I have now implemented this feature. Sandstein (talk) 06:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have (hopefully) improved this nice addition by changing the date to a linked date, making it compatible with the different date formats and the preferences of users. If this is done in error or otherwise gives problems, please revert me and slap me with a trout. Fram (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

{{editprotected}} There is an extra pair of right braces, as can be seen with my pasting of the oldafdfull template here: [1]. I have highlighted in red what I believe to be the extra braces in the text of the template below. Please remove them:

<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled --> {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#ifeq:{{{1|a}}}|{{{1|b}}}||{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>PAGENAME}}|<!-- The nomination page for this article already existed when this tag was added. If this was because the article had been nominated for deletion before, and you wish to renominate it, please replace "page={{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>PAGENAME}}" with "page={{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>PAGENAME}} (2nd nomination)" below before proceeding with the nomination. -->}}}}{{AfDM|page={{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#ifeq:{{{1|a}}}|{{{1|b}}}|{{{1}}}|{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>PAGENAME}}}}|date={{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTYEAR}} {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTMONTHNAMEGEN}} {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTDAY}}|substed=yes{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>ns:0}}}} <!-- For administrator use only: {{oldafdfull|page={{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#ifeq:{{{1|a}}}|{{{1|b}}}|{{{1}}}|{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>PAGENAME}}}}|date=[[{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTYEAR}}-{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTMONTH}}-{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTDAY}}]]}} |result='''keep'''}} --> <!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point --> <noinclude> {{template doc}}<!-- Add categories, documentation, and interwiki links to the /doc subpage, not here! --> </noinclude> The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I think this was fixed yesterday in this edit by Yamamoto Ichiro. I came here to report the same thing and found your posting, went to go fix it myself, couldn't find it in the template code, and then saw it in the history. Since it's subst:ed it will remain in old AfDs. --MCB (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems fixed. Re-enable editprotected if needed. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Twas my error. I have reintroduced my change to the date, minus the erroneous curly brackets (the ones highlighted were indeed the incorrect ones). It should be better now. Fram (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Extra line break[edit]

{{editprotected}}

Could someone delete the line break between the end of the template and the noinclude tag? This causes a break in the transcluded template which leave a gap between it and any other templates on an article. Templates should be flush with each other. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing it out. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Oldafdfull feature broken[edit]

Resolved: Fixed with an ugly hack (see Template:Lessthan).

I have removed the code for pregeneration of Oldafdfull templates because the migration to the new preprocessor seems to have broken this feature. See my post about this on Meta. Does someone who understands code better than I do have a solution? Sandstein (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a horrible mess. I've been closing AFd's today, and I actually have to type all the oldafdfull's in everytime. That's worse than all those sodding extra close braces from the fram thing last week. Can't this just be reverted to some version that worked? JERRY talk contribs 03:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I would imagine not, because the template has been substed onto the AfD page. Due to the code change of the preprocessor, there is no version that works that I am aware of. Sandstein (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The new preprocessor doesn't allow code inside html comments to be evaluated, Tim (the big boss) said it's non-negotiable. AzaToth 08:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Any objections to me integrating the pregenerated oldafdfull code as a small-text notice directly into Template:AfDM, then? Sandstein (talk) 11:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
That would be the way... you could make the text the same color as the background of the template if you wanted to be really fancy about it. JERRY talk contribs 12:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been bold and done it. Without hiding the text, though, or many admins may never even know of the existence of this feature. We could do that later if confused users try to use the oldafdfull code themselves. Sandstein (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Fixed with an ugly template hack: replacing <!-- with {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>lessthan}}!-- allows the contents of the comment to be evaluated when the template is substed. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! It turns out my attempt at generating the code in {{AfDM}} was unsuccessful, but having the code in the comments is more elegant anyway. Sandstein (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wording or link incorrect[edit]

This template says
"Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page."
There will not be anything about it on that link. The wording either could say find the Afd on one of the days Afd list for that page or remove the link all together. SunCreator (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the template is not working right in your browser. In the rendered template, "this article's entry" is a wikilink to the actual AfD discussion for the article. Are you not seeing that in your browser? --MCB (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I see that clearly and it works. But I'm saying the wording on the Articles for deletion page is not saying what it's linking to. Go to a page under Afd, Kinchan no Kasoh Taisho will do, now using that link 'Articles for deletion' navigate your way to the 'Kinchan no Kasoh Taisho' article Afd discussion. I think you will find it almost impossible. It seems that the template is using old wording as it seem in the past all Afd's where on one page, that is no longer the case, as there is a page for each day, so would be nice to review or remove such outdated link/wording. SunCreator (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, OK, I see what you mean. I think we could fix that by having "considered for deletion" in the first sentence link to WP:AFD; leave "deletion policy" linked to WP:DP, and change the wording of the second sentence from "this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page" to "this article's discussion page" which would link to the actual article's AfD. That way there would be links to AFD, DP, and the actual article's AfD, all in the template. Here's a first attempt: User:MCB/proposedafdm. --MCB (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I like your proposal, but I'm not sure it's necessary to link directly to WP:AFD at all. It's likely to mislead new users, and of course, AFD is already linked from deletion policy. Superm401 - Talk 13:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
"This article's discussion page" sounds like it means the article talk page, and if I saw such wording in a link that where I'd expect it would lead. Perhaps "nomination page" or "deletion discussion" might be more appropriate — neither sounds quite ideal to my ear, but at least they're less liable to cause confusion. (BTW, the current wording has quite a long history; it's not surprising that there may have been a few procedural changes since it was introduced.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
"This article's deletion discussion" sounds good to me. --MCB (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Template mangled[edit]

Why is the template coding all screwed up right now. The bottom half isn't showing up, and I'm getting {{#ifeq:yes|yes| at the top. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 18:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

For admin use only[edit]

I've seen this statement and ignored it for the last two years. Given the increasing number of non admin closures, shouldn't this be removed? Surely we don't need admin approval to remove the template, of add the oldafd template to the talk page, so why is it still there? Any thoughts? — MaggotSyn 11:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The comment exists to prevent inexperienced users from using the oldafd template before the AfD is closed. Of course, it may be used by any editor closing the AfD. Usually, these are admins.  Sandstein  13:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Like I said, it had been bothering me for two years and I finally decided to hunt down which template talk to post to. I was surprised to get a response for how much low traffic there is here. I'd only suggest it be changed to something which at least acknowledges seasoned editors who happen to be in good standing are also able to do the same (but in smaller words no doubt). Regardless, whatever is fine by me. — MaggotSyn 10:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki[edit]

{{editprotected}}

es:Plantilla:Aviso borrar is obsolete in Spanish Wikipedia. Change by es:Plantilla:CdbM--Mercenario97 (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done You can make this change yourself. Template interwikis are held on the template doc page, not on the template itself, for precisely this reason. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

please add hy:Կաղապար:Ջնջում —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vacio (talkcontribs) 07:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


How Can This Be Used Outside Wikipedia?[edit]

How can I use this template outside Wikipedia, in another MediaWiki environment? Copying only this text is not enough - but it is not clear to me what other templates / images I need to copy. --Robinson weijman (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please add a new category or rename the old one?[edit]

{{PAGESINCAT:Articles for deletion}} lists 769 which is completly and widely inaccurate.

MER-C stated that the underlying problem has been fixed for some time now (category count not being decremented on deletion) but the actual counts will not update unless the category is renamed... [2]

Request:

  1. Can an admin please add a new category to this template? Category:AfDc The "c" standing for count?
  2. Or can an admin rename the category, Category:Articles for deletion, to maybe Category:Article for deletion or any other name which will fix this problem?

Ikip (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, there is a better solution:
Ikip, for your purpose you can probably use the Category:AfD debates category, which lists all open AfD debates. --Amalthea 13:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Ikip (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Could we have the author warning template back?[edit]

Speedy and PROD templates both show an author notification template and a reminder to copy it to the author's talk page. The AfD template used to have one, but it has disappeared. Could we have it back? It's easy enough to type {{subst:adw|<pagename>}}, but having it there acts as a useful reminder. JohnCD (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  • The author warning reminder is not a part of this template. It is a part of Template:AfDM, and has not been removed and is still there. So this is based upon a false premise. Uncle G (talk) 11:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

'For administrator use only'[edit]

{{editprotected}} Can't non-admins close deletion discussions, thus making this line inaccurate? Computerjoe's talk 22:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the last discussion on this concluded that non-admins shouldn't be closing deletion discussions, although it still happens occasionally. Given this, I'm going to decline this pending consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Usability broken[edit]

This template used to show the "steps to deletion" until after step 3 was followed. Now, it removes the instructions after step 2 has been completed, which makes it difficult to complete step 3. Can the old, more usable behaviour be restored? Was this downgrade intentional? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

{{{help}}}[edit]

Altenmann, would you mind stating your reasons to revert an uncontroversial change like this? The actual modification of the template visible on article pages happened December 2008, see Template talk:AfDM#Hide instructions. Why do you think that passing the new parameter though this helper template is not fully non-controversial and needs discussion, if the actual change is established since half a year?
Amalthea 22:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is hardly an emergency revert, or a controversial addition. (also)Happymelon 09:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Obviously you didn't see the result of the change: the stepwise help disappeared, i.e., "hide instructions" became default. This behavior is ...er... unhelpful. And I don't understand about which "half of the year" you are talking: half a year ago last edit the help was still seen. - Altenmann >t 03:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
That's incorrect. If you have a look at Template:Afd/testcases for example, you can see that the step-by-step help only disappears in two cases:
  1. The parameter |help=off is passed to {{AfDM}}
  2. The AfD subpage already exists
You'll note that if you have a look at {{Afd}} at this moment, after your revert, you still don't see the instructions, simply because WP:Articles for deletion/Afd exists.
Those are both pretty longstanding features features of {{AfDM}} though, and my edit didn't change them. Could you detail in what circumstances you were looking for the step-by-step instructions, and didn't get them?
Amalthea 10:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I cannot reproduce the problem anymore. Your version restored. Possibly it was caused by interference with other transcluded templates. But it did happen to me: I didn't revert your edit solely because I didn't like it: I did observe the problem, which disappeared after my revert. Sorry for hassle. - Altenmann >t 15:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Your initial message at my talk page and the edit summary of the revert didn't mention any problems, which left me rather confused. If you can reproduce the problem though please get back.
Cheers, Amalthea 20:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Link to wrong log pages?[edit]

Currently this template lists a set of instructions (generated by {{AfDM}}} when the discussion page does not exist. In step 3 it says to add to the top of the daily WP:AfD log page list. However the list link goes to the log page of the day the template was added to the article (see the testcases page where it links to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 3) and not todays log. I cannot think of any reason to add AfD debates to an old log page, as even if the template is added but the debate not listed it would still normally require 7 days of discussion. This was brought to my attention when I listed an AfD for an IP editor on an old log page due to following the template instructions. I have now fixed my own editing abilities, but I feel this could probably be easily fixed so others don't make the same mistake I did. regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 12:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Have all XfD be substituted and link to the actual page of discussion[edit]

Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion discussions#Have all XfD be substituted and link to the actual page of discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Expandable?[edit]

As of right now, the template only displays detailed listing instructions before the discussion page is created. After the discussion page is created, those instructions are gone. Is there any way to set up the template so that those instructions are still available (in a collapsed box perhaps)? The fact that instructions for posting the discussion in the daily log disappear from the {{Afd}} template before that step is generally attempted seems to be particularly unhelpful for new users who are unfamiliar with the deletion process. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Rename template[edit]

Would there be any support for a rename of this template to something like Template:Article for deletion. Of course the redirect {{subst:afd}} would still work. The advantage is that when substituted it will look like

{{Article for deletion| etc.}}

rather than

{{AfDM| etc.}}

In other words it will be much clearer from the wikicode what the template is for as AfDM means very little to anyone. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make sense to rename {{AfDM}} in that case, rather than this template? --ais523 13:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I suggest we follow the method used by Template:Proposed deletion and Template:Proposed deletion/dated where the substituted template is a subtemplate. So {{AfDM}} could be moved to something like Template:Article for deletion/dated. This helps to ensure that discussion is centralised in one place. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I have now moved the template and will shortly be doing some tidying and updating. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Uncle G has expressed concern over the move of these templates. I will write my full rationale for moving them shortly, and invite other opinions as well. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Rationale for moving[edit]

It is long standing practice that templates are named clearly so that their purpose is clear when their names, whenever this is possible. To this end, countless templates have been renamed over recent years. I myself have moved many templates, including Template:NtsTemplate:Number table sorting, Template:TsxTemplate:Toronto Stock Exchange, Template:ReqaudioTemplate:Audio requested, etc. Clear names make wikicode easier to understand and helps less experienced users to see what code produces what output on an article.

This does not mean that the old shorter names cannot continue to be used as redirects, and indeed {{subst:afd}} and {{AfDM}} will still work fine.

Template:Afd and Template:AfDM are not clear. A new editor would not necessarily know what these acronyms mean. (Even I do not know what the M in AfDM stands for!) Therefore I suggested Template:Article for deletion in the proposal above. I am open to other names, as long as they are clear and use English words rather than acronyms.

A couple of editors have suggested that, since Template:Afd substitutes Template:AfDM it is only necessary to move the latter. Since the latter is the code that appears on an article it is certainly more important to move this one. But I would still argue that moving both templates to clearer names is the best solution.

The method of grouping related templates by means of subtemplates is a common one and has several benefits. The fact that the templates are related is clear when their name. A shared documentation is more practical to achieve. Discussion of the templates can occur in one place (the talk page of the main template) rather than split across several - less-watched - template talk pages. (To this end I will shortly be proposing to merge Template talk:Article for deletion/dated with this one.

Finally one editor has suggested that the /dated suffix is meaningless because the template does not use a dating system like Template:Proposed deletion and Template:Proposed deletion/dated do. This may be true currently, but several editors suggested in a recent discussions (on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy that the template should display the expiry time of the discussion as it might help to prevent them being closed too early. Anyway I am open to other suggestions if people have better ideas. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Error with Template:Afd1[edit]

  • WTF is going on? I rarely nominate articles for deletion, but when i do i expect the process to actually work.--Milowenttalkblp-r 18:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    Sorry, it seems I forgot to update Template:Afd1 which redirected here. It should be fixed now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Logic change[edit]

{{edit protected}} Hello, in the sandbox, I've created a version of this template that also works without substitution, so that it can be used for example usages. Please update the template with this code. Thanks, --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

So basically you have replaced all the <includeonly>subst:</includeonly> with {{{|safesubst:}}}? Or are there any other changes? I've no problem with that, but perhaps there is an easier way to use the template in examples. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

removal of instructions to notify from boilerplate[edit]

Since I last made an AfD request, the instruction on the boilerplate to notify the article's creator using the {{subst:AfD-notice|article name}} ~~~~ template seems to have disappeared. In my view, its absence discourages nominators (unless they nominate on a daily basis, and know the template name) from notifying the creator – I, for one, would feel a lot less inclined to notify if I have to rummage around for the right template each time I need to notify someone. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Relationship of AfD tag to Rescue tag[edit]

I'm trying to ask several questions at once here. Please correct me if one of the following statements is inaccurate. 1. A nomination for deletion essentially kickstarts a discussion about the merit of content to stand on its own within its own article. 2. The content may be simply Kept, Improved, Merged, Split, Redirected, Incubated, Userfied, Converted (to list or similar) or moved to other Wikimedia projects. 3. In most cases, those who care about the article show up and defend it, but might not always be aware, but there are methods to notify interested users.

I've recently become aware of and interested in the Rescue tag, and after some research, have come to realize it is widely misused (about 50%) of the time. My question relates to the possible *mergence* of the functionality of the rescue tag directly into the AfD tag, in order to eliminate its misuse by editors. Once the rescue tag is added, it appears that most editors won't allow the misused tag to be removed, since the tag says "Please leave this tag in place until the (deletion) discussion has closed." So, in effect, editors are mistakenly thinking it is a properly applied tag when it was not.

To clarify: by misuse, I mean adding the tag without following its guidelines for use. To wit: "As part of this tag's use please comment at the deletion discussion on why this item should be rescued and how that could happen. Your input should constructively lead the way for other editors to understand how this item can be improved to meet Wikipedia's policies and benefit our readers."

I'd like to find a way to solve this issue, and I have discussed the issue of its misuse at length at Template Talk:Rescue. I am finding that several editors are less than willing to discuss alternatives, and seem rather entrenched in the status quo, despite repeated concerns over a nearly 4 year period. If the AfD tag could express the variety of options open to editors besides deletion, we might end up with a different sort of discussion at AfD's, but it would possibly remove the need for the Rescue tag entirely, and as such, eliminate a highly misused tag. -- Avanu (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD template does not suffice[edit]

I have found myself increasingly annoyed by encounters with the generic AfD template. Although it is necessary to have a link to the deletion policies included in a tag posting notice that the article is being considered for deletion, "this article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy" is not, by itself, all that helpful or sufficient. Rather than requiring all N interested parties to search through the deletion policies to refresh their memory, code number in hand, with regards to the putative reason for deletion, the burden should be upon the 1 nominator for deletion to provide a quick synopsis of why they feel an article should be deleted.

I have no problem with this being done with templates; I don't believe that the stated reason need be definitive or exact. It would suffice to be able to see a template such as {{subst: afdSkyInLondon.jpg|F8|similar}} that said "...for reasons similar to F8. Images available as identical copies on the Wikimedia Commons." (As opposed to {{subst: afd|Copy_ofSkyInLondon(3).jpg|F8}}, which would merely cite the reason.)

A generic nomination for deletion that forces one to look on a second page to find (if it's even there) the code word that one must then search for, by hand, in WP:DELETION — the speedy delete codes are now used with some regularity, even on non-speedy nominations — should not be the acceptable standard for affixing an unremovable tag to the top of any given article. It should, itself, be an immediate candidate for deletion. Even now, when the reasons for considering the deletion are not explained by the nominator, I do not find myself having much sympathy for his or her concern. I realize that the speedy delete categories are useful shorthand for committed Wikipedians, but they end up being obfuscatory to the rest of us.

  • I propose that this gap could be easily bridged, and the discussion policy made more inviting and inclusive, if the AfD tag was more informative, rather than just appealing to the authority of 'the deletion policies'. It is perfectly feasible to link to the relevant section of policy discussion, and perfectly feasible to have a copyable version of the template available on the page where that policy is being explicated.
  • I propose that the AfD tag should substitute nothing, and fail to create an entry on the AfD page, unless at least general guidance as to the sort of reason is indicated. This would have the additional benefit of allowing, were it desired, for the subdivision of the AfD page by category so as to facilitate the development of precedents and practices.
This comment is based on a mild rant that I lapses into, elsewhere; I figured, after that, that it was incumbent on me to repeat the useful elements in a more appropriate place. -- 0x69494411 14:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

(Added request for comment, requesting community input. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC))

  • Comment - I agree with the idea of improving the Article for deletion template, to:
  1. Increase the user-friendliness of the template with direct links to policies, guidelines and other information pages.
  2. Disambiguate what policies are being referred to in nominations for deletion, through the provision of stated links directly on the template.
  3. Increase the template's usefulness, similar to other templates that include links to informative pages.
Northamerica1000(talk) 03:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • What about requiring contributors to a new article to include a rationale as to how the article satisfies policies for inclusion? Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Add the {{Find sources}} template parameter to the AfD template[edit]

This proposal has not been accepted and further discussion is no longer required. Spartaz Humbug! 10:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding a {{Find sources}} parameter to the AfD tag makes absolute sense, as the tone of the AfD template be would have a more neutral point-of-view, and provide Wikipedia editors and readers with search resources to improve articles directly on the AfD template. This would balance out the template, and ultimately make Wikipedia more user-friendly. Some people may think that a topic is not notable due to the bright red colorization on the AfD template, which states "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy." (Et al.), and then assume that the article is inferior, due to the appearance of the template. I support this proposal. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Addendum: It turns out, there's an inherent problem that the find sources template "...should not be used in articles themselves", per information at {{Find sources}}. This would have to be changed before this idea could be implemented. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(Added request for comment, requesting community input. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC))

Neutral for the moment, would need to see the exact proposed change, I do support the principle, however would need to be optional for the person making the nomination, as there are a number of reasons for going to AfD when sourcing is not the issue and it could give the false impression that just finding sources will stop any deletion, it would also need to be done in a way that was non-intrusive, perhaps as part of a collapsing part of the template.Mtking (edits) 05:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
An idea is to have this as a template option in addition to the standard AfD template, for articles for deletion that are based upon sourcing matters. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
There is also the problem that {{Find sources}} is generally not helpful in the first place: editors who already understand the importance of sources tend to already know how to find them and what we mean by reliable sources; those that do not are more likely than not to simply quote whichever web sites are the first hits on search engines with the results that they are surprised, confused and annoyed when we then tell them that no, random blogs or self-published pages not independent from the subjects don't qualify (even though we gave them a link that featured them prominently). — Coren (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Why is the {{find sources}} transclusion on {{afd2}} insufficient? 74.74.150.139 (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose Inclusion on AFD2 is sufficient. This is a warning template and it isn't in scope to include this. Spartaz Humbug! 05:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose To restate the afd2 comments in plain English, every AfD has a series of links built into its template to enable users to find sources on the topic in question. "What people may think" in regards to the AfD template is irrelevant to the discussion. WP policies are not subjective; an article either meets the requirements to be kept, or it does not. This is unnecessary and redundant. MSJapan (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Basic layout, draft #1:
.. 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 the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the Guide to deletion.

Find sources: "Example" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference Note: Sources added to articles must adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines regarding reliable sources.

Notes:
  • This is a rough draft, and not a finalized draft whatsoever. Feel free to suggest changes, improvements, etc.
  • The actual template would be consistent in appearance with others on Wikipedia.
  • The find sources portion would read as: "Find sources to help improve this article", or something to that effect, and would include, "Sources added to articles must adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines regarding reliable sources", or something to that effect.
  • Feel free to post new versions below, including using the code above, but please don't alter this draft.
Northamerica1000(talk) 06:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Given Coren observations for the need for more then just source links. Mtking (edits) 06:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
See notes section: information would include, "Sources added to articles must adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines regarding reliable sources", or something to that effect. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Rather than immediately opposing this rough draft, what else do you think could be added to it or removed from it, or how it could otherwise be improved? Northamerica1000(talk) 06:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Sourcing is not the be all and end all of why articles end up at AfD, this change assumes it is, so for example something nominated for violations of WP:NOT it is not relevant. Mtking (edits) 07:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
See my comment near the top, "an optional template" (et al.) Northamerica1000(talk) 07:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
What exactly is the problem you are seeking to address? Spartaz Humbug! 06:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I am in favor of adding at least some brief rescue instructions to the AfD template. But I would phrase it a bit different. Alternative draft:
.. 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 the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the Guide to deletion.

If the article was nominated because of a lack of sufficient reliable sources to establish notability, then you can help us to find them: Find sources: "Example" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference.

This would make it more clear that lack of sources is not the only possible reason for deletion, but since it is the most common reason for deletion I think it makes sense to include this brief rescue instruction. It makes for a more neutral worded AfD template that is also 'inclusionist' on the condition that proper sources are found (if that is the problem). It will also put newer editors on the right track, and not make them panic "why is my article being deleted?" MakeSense64 (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Providing it was optional say with "|notability=yes" and "|guideline=GNG" or "|guideline=ORG" so as to allow for topic specific links. Mtking (edits) 08:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we also have to be careful not to make AfD nomination too complicated. Or do you suggest to include these optional parameters , so that ARS members (or anybody else) can activate them if they think the article can be rescued? MakeSense64 (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree with your wish not to make it any more complicated than it is now, as well as allowing them to be added after the AfD started, I think the Twinkle developers should be asked if they could support it in a upcoming release. Only thing I would be opposed to is the use of a category to track usage. Mtking (edits) 08:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I like the improvements. This could become a template to be used for articles nominated specifically for lacking reliable sources, or those which lack the availability of reliable sources. I agree that this would encourage new contributors whose articles have been nominated for deletion to not become panicky. Please see below for other ideas. I've attempted below to condense this information to a one-line addition to the template, to keep the template's size minimal, but it's difficult to include all of the information (in this alternative draft) above on one line. Perhaps it is better to have two lines, so the information is more specific. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
OK. Have added an improved draft at the bottom. It will keep it to one line in most cases. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment – Draft #3, a one-line addition to 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 the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the Guide to deletion.

You can help to improve articles nominated for lacking sufficient reliable sources, which establishes topic notabilityFind sources: "Example" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Northamerica1000(talk) 14:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Not an improvement on MakeSense64 version above. Mtking (edits) 21:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • This is not any better in practice. The template now makes it appear that every AfD is due to insufficient sources (which is not true by any means), so anyone looking at the template now has no impetus to actually go look at the discussion on the AfD page and see what's it's about, which subverts AfD. As I mentioned before, afd2 covers this, and it is where it is so that users coming to an AfD are not running around directionless in a vacuum. MSJapan (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment – Draft #4, per comments above:
.. 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 the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the Guide to deletion.

If the article was nominated because of a lack of sufficient reliable sources to establish notability, you can help to find them and improve the article:

Notes:
Northamerica1000(talk) 00:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
You can continue to draft and re-draft all you like, but unless you address the issues raised by firstly MSJapan about how is it better and mine over how this new addition should be optional as not all AfD's are about sourcing then this is not going anywhere. Mtking (edits) 00:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
An idea is to have this as a template option in addition to the standard AfD template, to be used for article deletion nominations that are based specifically upon topics that lack reliable sources (RS) and/or the availability of RS. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
We're on draft 4 here, and I have yet to see an explanation as to why we need a template to deal with a specific set of circumstances in AfD. We should not end up with different afd<blank> templates for different circumstances, because what's going to happen is that people are going to claim procedural violations if somebody uses the wrong one. I reiterate that I have a serious issue with people running off to find sources when they haven't read the pertinent discussion, and that I fail to see a corresponding improvement in the process by means of this template. I note a distinct lack of community participation, because I think the POINTYness of this is becoming clear. NA, several people have brought up concerns in several areas, and your response is to move discussions around and make templates rather than answer the questions. At best you are trying to force a minority opinion, and at worst, your own personal opinion, onto the community at large. This is not going to be a case of wearing people down, but generally speaking, the community doesn't seem interested in prolonging the debate. MSJapan (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a proposal discussion to enhance a template on Wikipedia. That's all. Please don't refer to good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia by referring to behavioral guidelines such as WP:POINT; discussing ideas is not disruptive. Please post your personal opinions about my contributions on my talk page, rather than here. It's unconstructive and inappropriate to present your personal opinions about my contributions in this discussion. Please consider not utilizing ad hominem arguments to justify your stance in this discussion. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
First of all, your actions are what led to this discussion being in three different places when you didn't get the answer you wanted; the ARS TfD and the ANI didn't get you what you wanted, so you jumped in with a template redesign and stuck it here. That is by no means ad hominem, and if you don't want to have your motives questioned, you need to stop subscribing to IDIDNTHEARTHAT (which is what you are doing by not answering questions and just doing what you want with the template design, hence POINT and answer the questions that have been put to you several times in this discussion. Namely, why do we need this template option when afd2 already does it? How does not even looking at the AfD discussion benefit any editor who wants to work on an AfDed article? Lastly, most AfDs aren't as cut and dried to be RS problems, so what's the point of templates for only one option (or multiple options) when these are the questions that are in fact central to AfD discussions and need to be addressed in those discussions, and can be sidestepped by this template? In short, you have yet to provide a suitable rationale for what you are doing in the first place. MSJapan (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
These proposed ideas would serve to improve the template and would encourage further user participation in articles, through the provision of search resources to improve articles directly on the AfD template. In this manner, user's can then find sources right from the article, without having to click through back and forth between afd2 and the article. The idea was mentioned in other places, and this is the centralized discussion. If you disagree, could you please provide links to where significant discussion regarding this proposal has occurred, above and beyond just a few user posts in the templates for deletion discussion for the rescue template? That discussion is specifically about deletion of the rescue template, not revisions to the AfD template. Please stop stating your personal opinions about what I supposedly want as a rationale to oppose this template; that aspect of your comments is becoming disruptive to this discussion. You seem very strongly opposed to this template revision, and you've already commented above that you oppose its implementation quite thoroughly. Hopefully your questions have been answered. See also: Wikipedia is not a battleground. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I have been one of the people suggesting on ANI to include some brief rescue instruction in the AfD template, so I think NA has just picked up on that and brought it here as a concrete proposal. That's OK I think. I am not in favor of how I see the current rescue tag being used, but I do think a small instruction in the AfD tag would improve it, and take away the argument that the AfD template is "too deletionist" in tone. But it has to be kept simple and should not unnecessarily complicate the AfD procedures. Whatever happens with the deletion discussion about the rescue template, I think this is an idea we should consider. I also agree with the "conditional support" that some editors express. We do not need special "rescue category" being attached to it. As far as I am concerned every AfD is also an AfR(article for rescue), and it is the normal AfD discussion that is to decide on rescue or not, based on WP policies. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
As to the question why to have this on afd1 if it is already on afd2. People who go through the AfD logs will see afd2 before they go to see afd1. If they notice sources are lacking then it is already convenient to have the search links right there at the top of the article, rather than go back to the AfD logs to find them. For the people who come across an article with afd1 on it, they may want to take a quick look for sources before they go to see the deletion discussion. So we can as well ask: if the find sources template is on afd2, then why not have it on afd1 as well? It's certainly not going to hurt anything. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Conditional support for the general concept, but only if {{rescue}} is either deleted in the current TfD or deprecated/deleted voluntarily by the ARS. I think that this should be an optional parameter that ARS members can activate, possibly with different outputs for different situations, producing brief instructions and advice for finding sources or fixing other problems. I am also strongly opposed to anything equivalent to Category:Articles tagged for deletion and rescue (i.e. tracking of ARS parameters). Finally, I would like to state that I find the term "rescue" rather polarizing, and I would appreciate keeping it out of mainspace in the future (in particular, anything like "This article has been flagged for rescue..." is not helping). --NYKevin @344, i.e. 07:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Based on current comments, this is the best I can come up with. Now it will keep the brief instruction to one line for most cases. Short and neutrally worded. My 2nd alternative draft:
.. 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 the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed.

If the article lacks sufficient reliable sources to establish notability, then try to Find sources: "Example" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference.
For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the Guide to deletion.

It is only one extra sentence, but does not suggest that a lack of sources is the only possible reason for deletion. Would make for a better AfD template imo. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Completely oppose all proposals. AFD1 is to notify readers that there is a discussion and point them in the right direction to participate. Adding a sources link here is out of scope and irrelevant to many deletion nominations. More to the point it will encourage noobs to use article talk pages instead of the AFD and that will a) fragment discussion, b) disenfranchise those users and c) make the closing admins' job harder as they then face wikilawyering DRVs and whining about missing comments on article talk. I completely fail to understand what problem this will solve and strongly advise the proponants of this change to get a consensus that a change is necessary before trying to rewrite the template. Right now I'm getting a strong sense that those of us asking for a justification are just being ignored as people try to force through a change. Spartaz Humbug! 13:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I think you are failing to consider the possibility of an optional parameter. Using such an option, the template would behave exactly as it does right now, unless someone (e.g. ARS members) explicitly activated a parameter; it would only be used on articles where sources are relevant. As for the talk page, I don't see where in the most recent proposal it says anything about the talk page, making this no worse than the status quo. --NYKevin @379, i.e. 08:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Its going to encourage inexperienced users to make their comments around the article and not the discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 08:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Isn't the 2nd sentence supposed to direct discussion to the AfD page: "Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page." Even without the extra sentence suggesting to find sources, inexperienced user may comment about AfD on the Talk page. And anyway, commenting on the Talk page during AfD is not forbidden. It's also not as if 1000s of new inexperienced editors come to AfD every day. The extra sentence (with or without parameter to activate) is practical for experienced editors. I see the AfD log, click on an article to see it, and if I think that sources can be found, a search link is right there in the AfD tag. Why would anybody have a problem with that? MakeSense64 (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Er because wikipedia is complicated and it already happens. By the way, did we ever establish what problem needs to be fixed? Spartaz Humbug! 14:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
See addendum to nomination above. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Drafts for consideration[edit]

A one-line addition to the Article for deletion template:

  • To be utilized for articles that are nominated for deletion due to concerns about topic notability (as an alternate template).
  • As a potential template option.
  • To increase the user-friendliness of the template and encourage user participation in articles, through the provision of search resources to improve articles directly on the AfD template
  • Lessening the current template's appearance as a "badge of shame" for articles, which may mislead readers to assume that an article is inferior due to a status of being nominated for deletion.
  • User's can find sources right from the article, without having to click through back and forth between afd2 and the article.

2nd alternative draft:
The find sources parameter written within the current template's text.

.. 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 the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed.

If the article lacks sufficient reliable sources to establish notability, then try to Find sources: "Example" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference.
For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the Guide to deletion.

Draft #5:
The find sources parameter written at the end of the current template's text.

.. 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 the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the Guide to deletion.

If the article lacks sufficient reliable, secondary sources to establish topic notability, please help to Find sources: "Example" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference.

Northamerica1000(talk) 03:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Still got all this "If the article lacks...." rubbish, you said above it is optional, so the text needs to reflect that the extra message will only be displayed on articles where the notability option is selected. Mtking (edits) 03:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
One idea is for this to be an alternate template, used specifically for articles that are nominated for deletion due to concerns about topic notability. The standard template would be used for articles nominated for other reasons, listed at WP:DEL-REASON. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ok, I understand that now, so it is a straight out Oppose, do not support two AfD templates. Mtking (edits) 08:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Do you think some sort of a check-box in which users click on a box for "notability" when nominating the article for deletion would be functional? This seems to be an idea per your notion above about the message only being displayed for articles nominated per notability concerns. Remember these are just ideas, not final presentations at this time. Your input regarding the notion of a check-box would be appreciated. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
This doesn't look like a widely supported idea, but for what it's worth, to avoid an alternate template, you could have {{#ifeq:{{{notability|}}}|yes|<br>If the article lacks sufficient [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable, secondary sources]] to establish topic [[Wikipedia:Notability|notability]], please help to {{Find sources|Example}}.|}} to include the extra note when |notability=yes is included. But that's still an unnecessary complication to the process. Goodvac (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, this seems better, it would keep the system simpler, rather than having two separate templates. Thanks for the input! Northamerica1000(talk) 08:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Goodvac, I agree that would be the best option, and NA1K would have knows that if he had read and taken in the comments above (for example mine from 8 days ago) however I am rapidly reaching the concision that this whole discussion should be hatted for reasons of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Mtking (edits) 08:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't clear what you meant in your comment above, "Providing it was optional say with "|notability=yes" and "|guideline=GNG" or "|guideline=ORG" so as to allow for topic specific links." I heard it; just wasn't exactly sure about it's meaning. Comment above by User:Goodvac helped to clarify. I disagree with the notion of this discussion being archived because the jargon you used was unclear to me, and also because a request for comment has been posted. Please consider allowing time for other users to opine. WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT doesn't pertain to uncertainty regarding technical jargon, does it? Northamerica1000(talk) 08:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
In all fairness, you assumed that I understood the technical jargon you used, and then immediately referred to a behavioral guideline based on that assumption. Perhaps consider using less technical jargon, so users can better understand your meanings. Thanks! Northamerica1000(talk) 09:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Per above, "|notability=yes" and "|guideline=GNG" or "|guideline=ORG", are you stating that various notability guidelines would be used, as in like a check-box system, or something of that sort, per the various guideline pages? I'm still somewhat unclear about how this would be utilized, or if this is exactly what you mean. Could you please expound upon this idea in terms of how it would be utilized? Thanks. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok NA1K, as per my comment above, I am quickly loosing the will to keep this going, you have now made 7 proposals, can you make your final proposal and lets see where everyone stands. Mtking (edits) 08:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no deadline. Please allow time for others who have contributed to this discussion to respond, and also those who may reply per the request for comment. Also, Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Note: I created 5 drafts, not seven. They are revisions. Two were by another user. Please consider checking facts prior to making inaccurate statements about people in this manner. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Code[edit]

  • User:Goodvac above has suggested adding a parameter to the template, in which an extra parameter would exist (|notability=yes), which would then add a find sources line to the template (e.g. - See draft #5 above), to be used for articles that are nominated for deletion for notability concerns. The following is code that this user provided to accomplish this:

{{#ifeq:{{{notability|}}}|yes|<br>If the article lacks sufficient [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable, secondary sources]] to establish topic [[Wikipedia:Notability|notability]], please help to {{Find sources|Example}}.|}}

User:Mtking has suggested parameters of:

"|notability=yes" and "|guideline=GNG" or "|guideline=ORG"

which appears to be based upon the idea of being able to utilize reference to various guideline pages as part of the parameters of the template, although it's not entirely clear if this is what they're literally suggesting. For example, what would be inserted into the template if someone typed "|guideline=ORG" versus "|notability=yes"?
These ideas seem very feasible and possible to implement. What do other users think about them? Northamerica1000(talk) 10:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Note: Notification regarding this proposal has been placed on the Twinkle talk page Located Here, asking for input regarding if proposed changes could be incorporated into Twinkle. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

..."As long as the number of additional options for the AfD process remains reasonable Twinkle can quickly be extended to facilitate them."

Therefore, it appears that Twinkle could easily accommodate the minor revision of adding a find sources parameter to the Article for deletion template.Northamerica1000(talk) 14:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break[edit]

Northamerica1000(talk) 10:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose any more wasted time on this NA1K, I believe your tactics are to bounce everyone into this change when there is no real support for it, making repeated revisions to the proposal, posting notes everywhere about this while you are the only person actively supporting it, without addressing the questions of other editors, we have just been through a tough debate on the {{rescue}} template, which has led to an editor being blocked, another an ANI discussion, there is a RfC open on the Pump policy page all related to ARS and AfD, so I think we need to knock this on the head, and re-visit it in six months if an issue can be identified. Mtking (edits) 11:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Could you at least explain what you mean by the parameters you have suggested? (Excerpted in the "Code" section above.) It would help the discussion. I've thoroughly addressed questions of other editors in this discussion; sometimes thought formulation takes time. Perhaps you can consider your own advice and expound upon the code you presented. You've stated "Oppose" in bold 3 times in this discussion, which may confuse users into thinking that each is a separate oppose vote. Please strike your multiple "Oppose" votes, and just post one. Rather than stating your theories about supposed "tactics", why not address questions in the actual discussion? It sure would help. Can you be more specific about the parameters you stated above? Also, discussion takes time, there isn't a deadline, my motives are in good faith. Please at least consider expounding upon the ideas you presented. I'm in no hurry to change the template; change takes time. Conversely, you seem a little hurried in wanting to prematurely close this discussion. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, please don't forget to note that others have posted comments in other sections of this discussion. Per you statements at the Twinkle talk page Located Here, you made unnecessarily judgmental comments about me, stated that you didn't notice that this discussion had been RfC'd, and failed to notice that the comment that was posted there was done regarding a comment you made earlier in this discussion. It appears that you may not actually be reading the content of this discussion. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I think we have to agree with MtKing here. There just doesn't seem to be much traction to get anything changed or added to this template. So we better go with that. It can always be revisited later. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I also agree with Mtking: An AfD template links to the AfD discussion and the latter should be examined before any attempts to "improve" the article by finding sources occurs (and the discussion has the links to find sources). While the "find sources" text might be optional in the template, what would prevent editors from edit warring over whether to include that option? There could be pages nominated for deletion because, while not quite a speedy delete as an attack page, they are considered by the nominator to be coatracks to promote some odd view, or to denigrate something. Editors should not see an invitation to "find sources" without serious consideration of the AfD discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
This is understandable, to avoid user's bypassing the deletion discussion and to avoid editor conflict about the option. Additionally, I recently found out that the find sources template is not to be used on articles (see addendum to nomination above). Northamerica1000(talk) 03:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Note - In case anyone didn't notice, please note that User:Sixtyninefourtyninefourtyfoureleven has posted a similar proposal directly above this proposal section located here that is in some ways congruent with this proposal. The diff page of the post is located here. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Still oppose, and endorse RFC/U or other disciplinary proceedings if this continues - I have seen neither an adequate response by NA1K to any questions posited throughout this discussion, nor a supportable rationale in response to Johnuniq's and others' comments (such as mine) indicating that there is a greater potential for bureaucracy, subversion of the AfD process, and template misuse when portions of the AfD discussion can be sidestepped. We simply do not need multiple AfD templates, nor one special option for sources. I indicated previously and still stand by my earlier statements that this is nothing more than POINTY, IDHT-type editing in the face of a lack of support for any of the drafts above. After seven "revisions", it is time to let this go instead of prolonging it and wasting time repeating the same things over and over. MSJapan (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Clarify when the template may be removed[edit]

My first reaction to this removal of the AfD template was "Vandalism!". But then I read the warning about removal:

Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled

Settled to whose satisfaction -- the person wanting to remove the template? This seems unnecessarily vague. How about something like:

Do not remove this AfD message until the AfD it points to has been closed.

I concede that this is not satisfactory. It doesn't mention alteration, and it doesn't allow for the legitimate removal of an AfD template attached (without AfD, no matter how silly) as a prank or in a tantrum. I don't claim to know what the best message would be, but the current one seems inadequate. -- Hoary (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"This article's entry": red link[edit]

Resolved

Why do the words "this article's entry" often appear as a red link, even when the corresponding discussion exists and the link works? (e.g. from today's AfD log: Apogee Instruments, Inc.)

הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Answered my own question: just purge.
הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 17:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Article must not be blanked[edit]

Why exactly is this advice in the template? Articles must never be blanked, at that is a form of WP:Vandalism. Is this an actual concern, or just historical cruft? -- Kendrick7talk 04:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, OK, since there are no objections

Please remove the language that states "the article must not be blanked, and" from the template as redundant to our general policies that any given article should not be blanked (see above). Kendrick7talk 03:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: I suspect that the reason no-one objected is because no-one noticed the discussion. Could you advertise it at WT:AFD and leave a few more days for people to respond? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 April 2015[edit]

Change the hidden text to replace administrator with closing editor as shown specifically in this diff between the sandbox. Requested version can be found at Template:Article for deletion/sandbox. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 14:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Why does it have to be specific to only an administrator or only the closer? Wouldn't replacing the whole prefix with "Once discussion is closed, please place on talk page: " be better? I'm closing the request because I'm watching and waiting for a reply. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 22:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Sure if you feel that would make more sense (it does) that will work fine. As long as it no longer claims to be admin specific as it isn't, many keeps are done by non-admins... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Alakzi (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

What about a new template "Section for deletion"?[edit]

It could be used to facilitate discussion about the keeping or removal of a specific section. Not sure if such a template already exists - if it does I couldn't find it. --Fixuture (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

That's normally resolved by somebody just deleting the section, and if others disagree, it gets discussed informally on the talk page.  Sandstein  19:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but imo often that's bad practice. Often such changes go unnoticed - for the page-watchers (e.g. due to newer changes) and for unregistered Wikipedia-users. Also via this the relevant WikiProject could get notified. --Fixuture (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)