Template talk:Afd bottom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since people regularly ignore it, can I make the "Please do not edit this page" notice, which is already bolded and italicized, bright red, font-size=500%, and blinking? Please? —Korath (Talk) 17:24, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I just made "Please do not edit this page" bright red. → JarlaxleArtemis 23:56, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

The red is fine! Now I wonder if we'll need to bang it up to ALL CAPS as well... Master Thief Garrett^Talk 00:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The red is ugly (looks like a big neon sign), but I guess it's needed... --cesarb 00:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 template links to itself? 2 VfU→DR 3 Just a note 4 AFD List notice 5 Please add to a category

[edit] template links to itself?

Please do not edit this page. << notice the period (.) links back here. Why? I've always wondered about that. No other template (to my knowledge) links back to itself... Master Thief Garrett^Talk 11:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Back when I first created this template, most of the ones I modeled it after did link back to themselves. It was (is) a way to find the template when you need to make corrections. Without the self-referential link, it can be almost impossible to find the darned thing. Remember that this template is almost always used through "subst", not through transclusion. Even the fact that it's a template may not be obvious.

It also gives you a way to find all the uses of the template even when it is used through "subst" - go to the template and use "what links here". I can't see needing to use that feature on this particular template but didn't want to preclude the chance that someone else would see value to it.

If that is no longer the preferred technique, go ahead and change it. As I said, I was just modeling it after other templates that I saw in use at the time. By the way, you will see the same thing on Template:Vfd top. Rossami (talk) 12:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ahhh I see now. No I don't care about its removal, it's barely noticeable so I'm sure it doesn't matter to anyone, I just always wondered why it was like that. Having templates link back to themselves isn't a bad idea. As it is, I've always had to manually edit a page to see if a fancy table thing is manually or automatically applied (you can't always tell). In fact that could be a useful thing to implement into the next MediaWiki build, maybe with a cute symbol like the picture magifying one... hmmm... Master Thief Garrett^Talk 00:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The self-link did get removed in a recent edit, but I've added it back in as I do find it useful - feel free to take it out again if you think it's causing more harm than good. sjorford →•← 22:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

user:Cryptic deleted the self-referential link on 25 Sept 2005 with the comment Removing the link to self. The commented text in afd top makes it vital that this be substed, and the self-link makes it impossible to find unsubsted transclusions. I'm not sure I understand why it is "vital" that afd-bottom be substituted just because afd-top is but I suppose we should try to be consistent. Rossami (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VfU→DR

I have updated the template in accordance with the latest nomeclature. Regards encephalon 19:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Just a note

This likely should not be used for MfD debates being closed, as {{mfd bottom}} is now up and running. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AFD List notice

The following regular expression is used for the AFD Bot in determining whether this template has been properly {{subst:at}} into a nomination:

:.*?above.*?discussion.*?archive.*?debate.*?</div>

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) 06:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please add to a category

Could someone with admin powers add this to Category:Archival templates? It would make sense there. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)