Template talk:Afd top
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Somebody filed a report at the bug-tracker that VfD was failing XHTML validation because multiple tags were using id="vfd". It turns out, these were just the uses of this template. I took the id out, and it didn't seem to have any adverse effect, but if it was there for a reason, I apologise. As my edit summary says, there's no guarantee that this template won't be used multiple times on a page, so it's technically incorrect to hard-code an id, because it will then not be unique. But if it's there for a reason, and there's no other way of doing it, XHTML compliance can bow to the needs of usability as far as I'm concerned. - IMSoP 01:52, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I think the idea is to make it possible to hide these with CSS+javascript, like with tables of contents. (I actually came here looking to see whether there was something already in place to make this possible.) —Korath (Talk) 18:49, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Parameters
I changed this back to not accept the 'reason for deletion' as a parameter, mainly because it breaks the behaviour described on Wikipedia:Deletion process which I am sure many people are now used to using. --bainer (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Section editing
I removed the __NOEDITSECTION__ tag from this template, as it causes all "edit" links to be removed from the relevant vfd day page. sjorford →•← 21:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Terribly sorry about that everyone, I'll try and think a little more big-picture before editing templates in future. --W(t) 23:24, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
[edit] Template link
Is there a reason for the link to this template at the end of this sentence?
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below[[Template:Vfd top|.]]
Just wondering. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
- See the same question (and an attempt to answer it) at Template talk:Vfd bottom#template links to itself? Rossami (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- It was removed on 25 Sept 2005 by user:Cryptic who commented Removing the link to self. The commented text makes it vital that this be substed, and the self-link makes it impossible to find unsubsted transclusions.
[edit] Cut and paste move
Could someone clean up after RN's cut and paste move from Template:Vfd top and Template:Vfd bottom, please? —Cryptic (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] New design
I have given it a look based on its bottom counterpart. Is this a good idea? I'm just wondering... if it's not you are welcome to revert. Wcquidditch 22:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] VfU→DR
I've changed the text to read Deletion review instead of Votes for undeletion, after the recent change. Regards. encephalon 19:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Just a note
This likely should not be used for MfD debates being closed, as {{mfd top}} is now up and running. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] AFD List notice
The following two regular expressions are used for the AFD Bot in determining whether this template has been properly {{subst:at}} into a nomination:
<div.*?class.*?=.*?".*?boilerplate.*?metadata.*?vfd.*?".*?>
&
:.*?following.*?discussion.*?archived.*?debate
Should this template have any radical changes, please make certain to alert AllyUnion as his new feature in User:AllyUnion/AFD List may break. --AllyUnion (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Category
Just to let people know, there can't be a line break between the end of the template text and the section containing the category, or else a line break will appear at the end of the template text every time it is used. --bainer (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ahhh... Thank you. That wouldn't matter for the vast majority of templates but I can see that it does for this one. I appreciate the explanation. Rossami (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Changing the wording of the result
The template contains the partial sentence, "The result of the debate was". I think that the current text might confusing for some people because there is not always a debate, such as when an article is speedy deleted or speedy kept. Also, sometimes the consensus of the debate is not followed for some reason, such as the article being deleted because it is in violation of some policy, even though there was no consensus to delete. I have been asked by one person where the debate was when a nomination was speedy kept, and, if I recall correctly, similar confusion has also been seen on the talk page of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion once or twice. I think that it is especially confusing if someone does not know that templates are used to close nominations. I suggest that the text be changed to "The result was" or "The result of the nomination was". -- Kjkolb 08:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'd rather see it as "the result of the nomination was..." - "the result was" tends to look awkward sometimes. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 19:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Afd top
Hello, Ezeu. I was wondering if you could elaborate on your reasoning for reverting my change to Template:Afd top. The reasons why I changed the template are given on the talk page. You said that, "The decision is based on the discussion, not the nomination" in the edit summary. However, as I said on the talk page, the result of the discussion is not always followed. For example, sometimes the result of the consensus violates policy (verifiability, original research, attack page etc.), or the nomination is closed before a consensus has been reached and sometimes before any discussion has taken place at all, like a speedy keep or delete. It seems illogical and confusing to refer to a discussion that never took place, did not reach consensus, or came to the opposite conclusion, as the reason that an article was kept, deleted, redirected or merged. As I said on the talk page, one person has asked me where the discussion took place after a speedy keep and, if I recall correctly, it has come up on the AfD talk page before.
I suggested two alternative wordings, "the result was" and "the result of the nomination was". The second wording was not intended to imply that the decision is based upon the nomination (also, by nomination, I mean everything, the nominator's statement and the discussion). It was intended to give the result of the nomination. When an article has been to AfD before, the nominator and participants say that the "result of the first nomination was..." rather than "the result of the first discussion was". If you still object, would the wording "the result was" be acceptable? I think that the previous wording may have been to reinforce that AfD nominations are not votes, but it should not do so at the expense of clarity. Also, the examples I gave above prove that AfD nominations are not always discussions, either. This is not an exceptional occurrence, speedy deletions happen frequently on AfD and speedy keeps/speedy closes are not rare. Thanks, Kjkolb 23:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Moved to here from User talk:Ezeu by Ezeu 22:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I understand. You are right. I have no problem with the wording "The result of the nomination was ...". Couldn't the first sentence also say "The following is the archived result of the proposed deletion of the article below," so as to remove the ambiguity you mention above, ie. that not all decisions are based on the debate or discussion?--Ezeu 22:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- The new wording is hardly an improvement. I understand the issue, that sometimes there is a result not arising out of the discussion, such as speedy deletion, but how does such a result arise out of the nomination? Speedily deleted articles are deleted regardless of AfD nominations. The use of "nomination" is also misleading because it implies that the discussion is irrelevant. If you must change it then "The result was..." is the better option. --bainer (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The result of an AfD is not the result of the nomination; the nomination could very well be to delete, and then the result be to keep. This is horrible wording. Either "debate" or "discussion" should remain or it should just be "The result was to blank". —Centrx→talk • 04:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- RfD has "The nominated redirect was blorged", which could be changed to "The nominated article was blorged". However, this is a different tense than what is currently at AfD, "kept" rather than "keep", etc. —Centrx→talk • 22:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] possible alternate fofrmat
Following some discussion about the length/load times of AFD these days, there's been an interesting template proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#voodoo that users of this template may be interested in. -- nae'blis 15:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
