Template talk:Oldafdfull

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Oldafdfull is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template.

Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.
Any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes, categories or interwiki links.

This template was forked from Template:Oldvfdfull. I have migrated the discussion from Template talk:Oldvfdfull to here. --Blackcap | talk 03:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I have updated the usage instructions above. Phil | Talk 11:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] TfD debate

This template survived a debate at TfD. The discussion can be found here. -Splashtalk 02:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Default value for result, annotating"

Hi. First, sincere apologies for using the rollback button to revert Phil Boswell's recent edit to the template. this was an honest mistake. Second, I reverted because it seems to me that there's gotta be a mistake in the edit; the box looked really odd. I'm wondering if, should a change be made once more to the article, clear instructions and notes can be written on this talk page? Thanks. encephalon 11:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thing is you've now broken those articles to which I applied the template when it had those default values in place. I'm going to reinstate the default value, with a simplified note to consult here: maybe you were a little startled because I tried to make it really obvious (or maybe you didn't realise that I had put <noinclude> around the instructions at the bottom?). HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on November 15, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.
The template was placed at the top of Talk pages of articles that survived AFD, as described in Wikipedia:Deletion process. It is produced by placing
{{subst:oldafdfull|date=date of nomination|result=result|votepage=article name}}
on the Talk page. With your edit, however, it became this. I guess I'm not sure why this is necessary? Very sincerely encephalon 14:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple nominations?

Is there a way to adapt the template for articles that have been nominated more than once, or should I just use the template twice? (The article in question is List of villains, which was nominated once under the old VfD and once for AfD, and was kept both times. Right now I've got the template twice on the talk page.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

In most cases that I've seen, there are just multiple templates. If you find that especially ugly, you can subst the first one and then edit it. —Cryptic (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! I should have thought of that. Done.
By the way, it is considered standard practice to keep a "formerly nominated for deletion" notice up indefinitely, isn't it? One user at Talk:List of villains was suggesting that once the nominators' objections had been answered, or if the article has changed radically, the notice can be removed. I haven't found a definitive policy either way. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Use multiple templates rather than trying to mangle multiple instances together. Old VFD pages should be moved to AFD; old AFD pages (any new ones produced by moving VFD pages) should be renamed if necessary to avoid conflict. It is indeed standard practice to keep these notices up indefinitely: if an article has been targeted by vexatious deletions in the past, it is likely to continue receiving such attention and it is handy to be able to refer to previous arguments. HTH HAND Phil | Talk 11:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought the combined notice was more aesthetically pleasing than putting the template up twice (and didn't think there was any "mangling" involved), but if there's a good reason it should be there twice I don't have a problem with it.—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
There is now a {{Multidel}} template that can be used instead. -- Bovineone 23:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page archiving

IMO it would be a good idea not to move this notice into talk archive. If you agree, will it make sense to add a notice at the bottom of the template: "Please do not archive this notice"? Mukadderat 00:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, yes..you got a point there. I'd be in favour of that.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 14:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "here" piped link

I previously changed the "here" piped link to an unpiped link to the AFD page and Phil Boswell reverted it per prior consensus (though I don't see the discussion for this). I can see that using an unpiped link can make the text too long. However, using a link text of "here" is very poor style. Here are some references:

How about a piped link other than "here" at least, for example, instead of

The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

use the text

The result of the discussion was keep. (See the archived discussion.)

What do you think? —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 10:52Z

Or you could make it really simple:
The result of the discussion was keep.
HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. Done. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 14:22Z

[edit] Blank spaces keep intruding

Could editors please be careful not to introduce a line-feed between the end-of-table ("|}") and <noinclude> tag: this makes an unsightly gap when the template is used. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Make result bold

Is there any reason the bold syntax for the result cannot be put into the template, rather than require the author inserts it in the page? -- 9cds(talk) 18:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently existing uses of the template already manually include the bolding so that would break it. But I agree that is merely a maintenance issue preventing the template from being improved. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-07 18:11Z
Additionally, some people like to add extra explanation to the result, which is not bolded. Forcing people to cancel the bolding for this extra bit would not make it easier to use. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Making the date optional

Good idea, one small problem - "recently"? Is a year ago really recently? :) -- 9cds(talk) 15:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, how about "previously" instead or just make the sentence past perfect tense. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-11 07:42Z
What about "This article was previously..." ?-- 9cds(talk) 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine. Ideally admins that close AFDs often should use scripts that write the date automagically. :) —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-11 12:18Z

[edit] "the discussion" link

If there is no "votepage" attribute, then there is no point having a link (that just points to AFD), it should just be plain text. This template is protected so I can't fix it, but can someone else, please? -- Renesis13 16:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to make changes for you, but I don't understand the problem. If votepage is unspecified the default is to use the article's pagename, which is correct 99% of the time. Can you point to an example use of oldafdfull where the problem you're describing exists? —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-11 21:39Z

[edit] fmt (minor)

  1. Put the <!-- From Template:Oldafdfull --> comment at the end of the table, where it appears on every other boilerplate, rather than at the beginning.
  2. Remove the superfluous "|-" on the second line.
  3. Remove the superfluous linebreak between the clipboard image and the start of the second cell.

--CharlotteWebb 11:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Mets501 (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki

Please add [[ru:Шаблон:Oldafdfull]] for Russian. --Vlad Jaroslavleff 19:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Quarl (talk) 2006-09-13 05:59Z

[edit] Multiple nominations

There's a discussion page on an article I've worked on that has been nominated more than once, and each one got a different template, and they're different sizes. I'd rather combine them, but right now I just eliminated whitespace between them. Because of some of the points addressed in previous discussions, there could be another AfD discussion in the future; having too many templates at the top could detract from the actual discussion (such as it is). Any suggestions? A smaller or special template, perhaps? B7T 12:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason they are different sizes is that one is substituted; this template should not be substituted. For articles with multiple nominations, we could revise the template to admin several nominations, so that all the relevant information can be in just one header, while still using a form template. —Centrx→talk • 20:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
We already have: {{multidel}}, which requires slightly different formatting of the nominations, but does the job perfectly. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I just created {{Oldafdmulti}}, which makes a list similar to {{multidel}}, but is more compatible with this current template. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See also

Perhaps someone can include a see also section, linking to:

--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-16 23:19Z
Thanks, that was quick! -Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date formatting

I've noticed this template being used with ambiguous date formats (see eg Talk:Tactics of the Roman century in combat) such as "1-9-07" which could be either of two dates depending on which country you live in (1st september 07, or 9th January 07). Would it be possible for this template to be altered (or a new template used in its place) that explicitly requires dates in the format DD-MMMMMMMM-YYYY or YYYY-MMMMMMMMM-DD or similar in order to prevent any confusion or ambiguity? If not, could a recommendation of an approved format at least be noted on the template page?? Thanks - PocklingtonDan 17:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There are three "magic" date formats which should all appear the same if you have made a choice in the "Date and time" tab of Special:Preferences:

If you don't understand what I mean, click the edit link for this section and look at the 3 asterisk/bullet items. I would recommend consistent use of one of these formats, though it really doesn't matter which. — CharlotteWebb 14:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I've noticed the same problem. Why does the template not follow my date preferences? -- Mikeblas 22:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Probably, the users whom you've seen applying the template have not properly wikified the dates in one of the three formats above, if you do in fact have a preference set. — CharlotteWebb 00:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Substituting

Why should this template not be substituted? It doesn't seem clear to me. Cool Hand Luke 23:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I also have a question about this issue. Generally this template is not substituted, but I have seen some administrators subst it on talk pages after closing AfDs. Did they do it wrong or it simply doesn't matter whether this template is substituted or not. If the latter then why there is a warning saying that it should not be subst??? PeaceNT 09:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
In principle, the template should not be substituted, because it is a header and there is no reason not to preserve the template functionality. Substituting does not break anything, however. —Centrx→talk • 17:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I do not subst the template when using it, but never knew the exact reason why it shouldn't be subst. Somehow it never occurred to me that this template is a header. Silly me. PeaceNT 09:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Four months late to this discussion, but what happens when the page gets moved? Is someone supposed to then move the corresponding AFD page so that the link still works? That's the reason it was supposed to be subst'ed in the first place. howcheng {chat} 17:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I noticed this didn't seem to have ever been resolved and the template still said absolutely not to do it. I changed the documentation to indicate there was disagreement on this point and to see this discussion. User:Howcheng's point seems to suggest that this template ordinarily must be subst. {{oldifdfull}} used to say the same until it was changed for mere consistency with other old xfd tags.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
If the article is moved, the Oldafdfull will still point to the original AfD. If the AfD is moved (which is rather rare), then the redirect most likely remains, and it makes no difference whether the template is subst'ed or not. Am I getting it right this time? :) --PeaceNT (talk) 12:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so, it looks to me like the Oldafdfull will point to whatever page is listed in the |page = parameter if there is one and if not, it will default to {{PAGENAME}} which would mean it wouldn't stay the same if the article moved, would it?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I don't think it used to have a page parameter (it used to just work of PAGENAME). Now that it does, there's no need to subst it anymore. howcheng {chat} 06:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

What does everyone think of merging this template into Template:oldafdmulti? From what I've noticed there is a high propensity for articles that survive AFD once to go through it again. This is particularly true for articles that survive due to no consensus or are the topics are controversial. Oldafdmulti is only slightly larger than this one for articles that go through deletion once, so there shouldn't be any impact to the talk pages and for those that go through AFD multiple times, there's definitely a decrease in the amount of space oldafdmulti takes up compared to the amount of space multiple copies of this template takes up. Just figured I'd go about testing the community barometer before sending this through TFD. Thoughts? --Bobblehead 21:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

As the original author and main editor of Template:oldafdmulti (which got a major update today), I feel there is no need to combine the two at the moment. The multi-deletion template is fully compatible, as it allows the exact same input, so this one is easily replaced when adding the next AfD. Also, deletion of Oldafdfull would damage a lot of talk pages, so redirecting it would be a better idea (as oldafdmulti is fully compatible, redirecting will yield proper results) in my opinion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't my intention to delete this template, but to make it a redirect to oldafdmulti. The reference to TFD was more for the discussion portion of the process, rather than the deletion process. As you said, outright deleting this page would break thousands of articles, so deletion is not a viable option. A fully compatible multi template seems to make a template for single AFDs redundant in my opinion. No sense in having two templates do the same thing, especially when one is more versatile than the other. --Bobblehead 23:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
That kinda makes sense, lets wait and see how others feel about it. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 00:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRV parameter

What about adding a DRV parameter to Oldrfafull. For example, if the AfD is taken to DRV, then perhaps that should be noted in the Olddrvfull template. Template:Olddrvfull currently may be use in the mean time. -- Jreferee 23:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably the easiest would be to use Template:oldafdmulti or Template:multidel instead, both of which allow the inclusion of DRV in the list some way or the other. Template:oldafdmulti is even compatible with Template:Oldafdfull, so any editing involved would be minimal in that case. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Point of Second Sentence

“The result of the nomination was keep.”

What's the point of this? If the talk page is still around, than the result obviously was keep! Nousernamesleft 22:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, there is a difference between "keep" and "no consensus". --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, whoops. I'm new, and I haven't seen one of those until a day ago... what exactly is the difference, though? Nousernamesleft 23:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • "Keep" means there was consensus among editors to keep the article
  • "Delete" means there was consensus among editors to delete the article
  • "No consensus" means no consensus was reached, in which case the article is kept
--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I know, but is there a great difference between "Keep" and "No Consensus"? Temperalxy 15:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Usually, a "keep" is considered more final and a "no consensus" will often lead to a new nomination after a few months. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki

{{editprotected}} Dutch interwiki: nl:Sjabloon:Behouden. SalaSkan 15:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Done ck lostsword•T•C 15:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Documentation, category

{{editprotected}}

We need a

<noinclude>[[Category:Articles for deletion templates]]</noinclude>

in here. Ideally the documentation should be moved to a sub-page using the

{{documentation}}

template to transclude, too. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done and Y Done.—Random832 17:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "result: default value is keep "

I tried the template with a blank result, (here: [1] ) as the result indeed was keep for the article I would add it too, but then it came out as a blank. I have no idea how to fix it if we should have the default as keep. Or we could just change the documentation to not claim there is a default, and not change the template? Greswik (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. It's because you included it, but left it blank. I've edited the documentation to mention that. --Geniac (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Doh... Thanks for your kind reply. Of course :-/. Greswik (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit protected image request

{{editprotected}}
Please replace the clipboard image with the vector version Image:Clipboard.svg. Thanks! Tkgd2007 (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Y Done - Nihiltres{t.l} 23:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Links to non-standard AfD pages

I attempted to fix the link to the deletion debate at Talk:Indigo children and I ended up doing a hack which may have to be fixed through the template code itself. __meco (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Add a <br/>

{{editprotected}}

Current: This article was nominated for [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion]] {{#if:{{{date|}}}|on {{{date}}}|in the past}}. The result of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{page|{{{votepage|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}|the discussion]] was {{{result|'''keep'''}}}.

Proposed: This article was nominated for [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion]] {{#if:{{{date|}}}|on {{{date}}}|in the past}}.<br/>The result of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{page|{{{votepage|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}|the discussion]] was {{{result|'''keep'''}}}.

-- Cat chi? 02:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

N Not done. Your suggestion is a matter of taste. Instead I created a /sandbox page that now is automatically linked from the green doc box. So now anyone can edit the examples there and you can all look at them and discuss what looks best. I think the old version looks best in screen resolutions of 1024x768 and up, and the new suggestion looks best in 800x600 and down.
--David Göthberg (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)