Template talk:Afd top

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] XHTML

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)

[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)

[edit] Doesn't work on other wikis

I'm been trying to use this code on a wiki which runs on MediaWiki 1.9 and hosted on Wikia but it doesn't work. I use it with Template:Afd bottom and yet it doesn't work. Why?--Intoours 03:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Describing the debate - it isn't "proposed" deletion

I see a slight problem with the current wording of the template: "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below" (emphasis added). Proposed deletion has no debate; it's a separate process from AfD. Couldn't this better be called "debate on the nomination for deletion of the article below" or something else that doesn't use the word proposed, which has a set meaning in the deletion process? —C.Fred (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parameter

I think we could add a parameter to this template. For example:

{{subst:at}} '''Delete''' ~~~~

would be replaced with:

{{subst:at|delete}} ~~~~

In my opinion, it looks nicer in the instructions as well as making it easier to enter. It is also more intuitive as the parameter is usually part of the sentence generated by the template, and there's usually no reason to have it split off. It's also substed anyway, and thus will have no long-term impact on the size of deletion pages. Comments? Sigma 7 04:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have missed the initial comment at the far top in 2005. Sorry about that - although the version that I wrote makes it an optional parameter. --Sigma 7 05:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

My tests on User:Sigma 7/Sandbox2 don't show any problems, and given the nature on how the parameter is implemented, I don't forsee any problems with the bots. Is there any objection before I commit the change? --Sigma 7 06:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parameter added

I have added an optional parameter, which should ease closing debates considerably. Note the "optional" part, meaning that the template can still be used in the old manner, and should not break bots. The way it works is simple:

Using any option, rationales can always be added after the template. More options could be added. — Edokter • Talk • 14:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I almost reverted this myself when it was added yesterday. Parameters added with no documentation explaining them are worse than useless - they are actively confusing and contribute to instruction creep. Now that you've added an explanation, we can at least begin to debate the merits of the change. (But until the documentation is added to the template page itself and not merely here, it's still a not fully functional process.) Rossami (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The documentation can always be fixed. I first want to probe administators' input. There is a thread on AN/I guiding admins to this talk page. If it meets with approval, I'll add to the documentation. — Edokter • Talk • 14:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I added some instructions, as there were none - even to explain the basic function of the template. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I moved it to Template:Afd top/doc to minimize the toll of editing the documentation, as the template seems highly transcluded throughout all the AfD archives. — Edokter • Talk • 15:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I see y'all beat me to it! I reverted User:J-stan's update because it wasn't putting out clean code in the absence of a {{{1}}} variable, which I was worried might cause problems for the bots or existing scripts. (My explanation on his talk is here, his response on my talk is here.) I've since updated the template so that clean wikicode is output whether you specify a parameter value or not, so hopefully all should be well!
I've also gone ahead and let User:Oleg Alexandrov know about this discussion so he can make sure there are no problems with Mathbot. --jonny-mt 15:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, just to clarify in case anyone is wondering, the addition of the blank "|" in the switch function is just to ensure that nothing, not even apostrophes, are output when someone opts not to fill in a value. --jonny-mt 15:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
That is why I put the extra space in {{{1| }}}. Now the free text option doesn't seem to work. — Edokter • Talk • 15:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Well, the goal was to eliminate errant wikimarkup--is it possible to just remove the bold formatting from around the {{{1}}} parameter and instruct users to fill it in as normal? After all, I can't imagine that someone using that option would necessarily want their entire statement bolded. --jonny-mt 15:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not ment to put entire rationales in there, just non-standard results (ie. Speedy deleted). The default space seems to clear out any undefined garbage just fine. I'm not seeing any stray apostrophes in any of my tests. — Edokter • Talk • 16:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I get stray apostrophes in the wikicode (see this test of this template version), but given that Oleg has mentioned that it's probably all right, I suppose we can live with it. My concern was just trying to keep it as clean as possible in case any automated processes or scripts got tripped up by the errant formatting. If they don't mind, then I don't mind. --jonny-mt 16:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I see it in one case; when an empty parameter is passed. Though logically, it should not happen (I don't know where the apostrophe comes from). But one should pass an empty parameter anyway. [thinking] Hold on a minute... it's because it passes six apostrophes. OK, that should be fixed now. — Edokter • Talk • 16:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, the idea of accounting for no parameter is to make the changeover transparent for users who would still close discussions the old way, without using the parameters. I was worried that, on the off-chance that Mathbot tripped up on the apostrophes (incidentally, they're still there; that's simply due to the fact that that entire line is the default argument when one of the predefined items is not passed), WP:AFDO would suddenly start reporting massive backlogs as the bot failed to count closed discussions. But the operator says it's probably okay, so I think it's probably okay.
Although...I did come up with a fix :) --jonny-mt 16:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) Actually, your fix makes no difference (see my test in your sandbox using your template. But as long as one doesn't pass an empty parameter, as opposed to no parameter, there shouldn't be a problem. A definitive fix would probable using #if: in the default parameter. — Edokter • Talk • 16:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see now; I misunderstood what you meant when you said "empty parameter" then. In that case, I think we're safe--I can't imagine that anyone would pass an empty parameter, and we're covered in the event that they pass no parameter (which is what I was focusing on). So I'm satisfied.
And on that note, it's well past my bedtime. Thanks for taking the time to explain this! --jonny-mt 16:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] break

You all need to keep working on this. The template is almost always used via substition but that's not been an absolute rule. Right now, the template brings in a lot of extraneous and confusing wikicode when not substituted. That needs to either be suppressed or the parameter needs to be backed out. Rossami (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! I see what you mean. — Edokter • Talk • 19:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, it should work either way now, even though there is some visible code in edit mode when substituted. That should't be a problem though. — Edokter • Talk • 20:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm getting worried now... how to make sure the code is not exposed (using subst:) while also making the parser works when the template is not substituted? — Edokter • Talk • 20:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I should note that the parameters break the various AFD closure scripts. --Coredesat 03:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, we actually had it worked out so that it could be used either with the new parameters or in exactly the same manner as before, down to producing the exact same wikicode output (assuming that it was substituted per WP:DELPRO#AFD). Unless closure scripts were not substituting the template, then, they should have been okay with that solution. Since we've changed it to account for the instances when it is not substituted, however, they're probably choking on the parser code they're being passed.
Since it seems we need to do a little more troubleshooting, I'm going to go ahead and copy the existing version to User:Jonny-mt/At (a test version myself and Edokter have been working on) before reverting back to the pre-parameter version. My gut tells me there is a solution to all of this, but this will restore the status quo until we get this figured out. --jonny-mt 04:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice one. So who wants to go through and fix all these cases where this new template has vomited wikicode everywhere and stopped my bot from working. I'm not running it anymore until either you decide to stick with what works, or come up with a parameter version that actually does. the wub "?!" 19:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take a crack at it later, although I think calling us "tards" in your edit summary is a bit harsh. The fact that this template was being edited was brought up on ANI, and if you look at the discussion above you'll note we spent hours trying to perfect it (and succeeding) so it specifically wouldn't vomit wiki-code. I'm sorry your bot choked on it, but we had no way of knowing that we should inform you (although I'm glad to see that you've since added a note about that to the page).
A new version is being tested at User:Jonny-mt/At--feel free to drop by and lend a hand! --jonny-mt 01:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed all of the discussions your bot noted. Please let me know if I missed any. --jonny-mt 02:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Riiiiight...

Before we do anything, it's time to have a fundamental discussion about who this template is designed for... instead of what. Thats right. I find it quite astonishing that some template cannot be improved for those who actually use it because it might break some script or bot. I for one am not willing to accept that.

So far, Jonny and I are more then willing to accomodate for scripts and bots, as far as coding permits it. However, let's not forget why this template is here in the first place: for the benefit of the closing admins. So when someone comes along yelling "fuck this shit", excuse me for being a bit annoyed.

What is your bot doing anyway? And what exactly needs "fixing"? Or anyone else's for that matter. It can't be the actual closing; only admins can do that. So it has to be collecting data afterwards. If those bots have to extract a result, there must be a better way of doing so instead of reading the raw output, and I'm sure it can be coded in trivially using a meta flag. Anything better then looking for raw output, because that seriously hampers this template's evolution. — Edokter • Talk • 22:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)