Template talk:Postvfd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Testing...

[edit] Votes for deletion results

This article was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion in accordance with the deletion policy on January 2005.

The resulting debate of votes for deletion process was delete. Please see this page's entry for archive of the debate.

-- AllyUnion (talk) 05:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Postvfd template

Quoted from User talk:AllyUnion: I love it. My only concern is the number of parameters. I think you may have given us so many options that we won't use the template enough. I'll add more thoughts later today on the template's Talk page. Interested in your feedback. Thanks again for taking the lead with this. Rossami (talk) 13:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have noticed that you both (Rossami and Joy) used the date, so I included that. Sig is for the signature. I was actually thinking that it should have one more... since some article pages are not always {{{PAGENAME}}}. Maybe the result isn't so necessary. -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Is this for the Talk Page of an article that's gone through VfD? If so, then I don't think the "result" is really necessary. If the article is still there, then obviously the result was "keep" in some form or other, and I don't think we need to be creating a Talk page if the article got the zap. Joyous 23:11, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
How about the way it is now? -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:19, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I thought about creating myself a template for this very purpose. The only problem is the {{PAGENAME}}. It means that if the page gets moved in the future, the VfD link will be broken. dbenbenn | talk 01:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another test: {{subst:postvfd|pg={{subst:PAGENAME}}|date=January 2005|sig=--~~~~}}

[edit] Votes for deletion results

This article was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion in accordance with the deletion policy on January 2005.

Please see this page's entry for archive of the debate.

-- AllyUnion (talk) 15:19, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Took me longer to get back to this than I'd thought. Here are my "couple more thoughts" for what they're worth. I'll list them separately so they can be rebutted separately.

I'd like to argue against the use of the box for this template. This template is only used when the article is kept. I don't think we need to call special attention to the decision. A plaintext record on the Talk page is sufficient. I'd also like to tweak the wording and tone down the bolding a bit. I'll be bold and attempt it. Please revert if you don't like it. Rossami (talk)

Well... it's a notice to parallel the VFD... And I do want to use this on conversial articles which have been deleted. Any article which was voted off with a lengthly debate does deserve this notice. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
But if the article was deleted, the Talk page is also deleted (very rare exceptions). That leaves no place to use this template. Am I missing something? Rossami (talk) 14:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
From the deletion policy for administrators: When deleting a page, one may or may not want to delete its talk page or any subpages as well. If not then, depending on the reason for deletion the content of the page to be deleted could be copied to the talk page, to understand what the discussion is about. -- AllyUnion (talk) 21:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'd forgotten that was still out there. Might be time to update it... Rossami (talk)
Because it is official policy, I believe a vote would be required before you can make any changes. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If we require the use of subst:, can we do away with the "sig" section by hard-coding in the four tildes? If we can, is it a good idea? Rossami (talk) 16:05, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Only if we get rid of the div tag and its box. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It would be a good idea, but it doesn't work. You just get the signature of the person who added the tildes to the template. dbenbenn | talk 22:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When the format for this template stabilizes a bit, we need to add it to the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion process with a comment that users should doublecheck that the VfD/Pagename is the same as the article's pagename. It is the same 99 times out of 100 but may not be true when the article has been nominated a second time. (See for example Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rigo Murillo3. Rossami (talk)

Rereading the thread above, I now see that's why you added the parameter about pagename. I think this difference happens only infrequently. An alternative solution would be subst: and then a second edit to correct it. More trouble on the 1% but less typing on the remaining 99%. Rossami (talk)
You could just pass {{subst:PAGENAME}}. That also works. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There's still the issue of a future page move. If you have {{PAGENAME}}, then the VFD link will get broken when the page is moved. You can't control or predict whether someone will come along in ten years and want to move the page. That's the purpose of the parameter, not for the rare case when the VFD page has a different title. dbenbenn | talk 22:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)