Template talk:Vfd

From Biocrawler, the free encyclopedia.

/Archive01

Part of this discussion has been archived. Its conclusion have led to the following template. Some of the reasoning that went into this template is listed below.

The current template:

• This template should be included on pages using the {{subst:vfd}} tag, to prevent strain on the servers. This will cause the code of the template, as it is then, to be included in the code of the article.
• This template does not have full functionality on talk pages, but really should not be used on talk pages.
• Consensus on this template seem to be that the template should be as small as possible, and should include only the bare minimum of information. The template exists to warn readers and editors alike that the page they are reading is currently under heavy scrutiny. Additional text has been suggested and been removed many times.

• The first line is in bold, as it contains the primary point of the template.
• The template features a hidden link. The period behind the words deletion policy links to [[Template:vfd]]. It’s purpose is to make the ‘what links here’ fucntion work, so people can find articles that have been tagged by this template.
• The wording ‘is being considered’ as opposed to wording like ‘is being nominated for’ is used, so as not to imply that ‘’voting’’ (as opposed to discussion) is the primary means of deciding whether or not to delete the page.
• The wording ‘Please vote on and discuss the matter.’, as opposed to ‘Please discuss and vote on the matter’ is used, though not through consensus. One side feeld discussing should precede voting, while the other side feels the flow of the second suggestion doesn’t flow smoothly, as though it reads: ‘Please discuss (on) and vote on the matter.’.
• The link 'this article’s entry' links directly to its entry. A red link then means that such an entry has not been created, and thus, no votes have been cast.

• When adding the template to a page, please create an entry on the VFD page, and justify your vote. If the template is included without a vote, the impression is that the template may have been added erroneously.

• The link 'This article’s entry' is in bold, to catch the eye.
• The template invites editing (it’s obviously better to create a good article than to delete a bad one).
• ‘, but please do not blank, merge, or move this article, nor remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress.’ – Previous versions the the template included a warning against ‘defacing this template’, because apparently, many people would deface the templates on induvidual pages. This warning was protested against, as it was unique to this template and did not assume good faith, and it was subsequently removed.
• The link to the 'Guide to ‘’Votes for Deletion’’' links to that guide, which explains voting etiquette. The link is partially italic for clarification.

• The font of the template has been reduced in size, to 95%. This does not seem to reduce readability (as <small>-tags do) but does reduce the bulk to the template.
• The background colour of the template is now a rather heavy gray, to accommodate LCD-screens, which render very light colours as white.

Tidying Up

I made 2 changes to the template: I removed the unnecessary <br> to make the template a bit more compact. Also, I removed the notice not to deface the notice, as it was quite silly and caused the text to break to a new line and take up a bit more space on the page than necessary. If I have stepped on any toes, my apologies. Kaldari 19:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• I've restored the request not to deface the notice. It's not silly at all. Furthermore: Not everyone's web browser windows are the same width and resolution as yours. Removing a word because "it caused the text to break to a new line" is daft. If the exact placements of things within your web browser's window is your reason for continually fiddling with this notice, please stop. Uncle G 21:45, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but having a notice that says "don't deface this notice" is utterly silly. Why don't we just put a notice on every single page that says "Don't deface this page". It's totally pointless. And I realize that everyone's window sizes are different, I just meant that it's better to be more concise so that the notice takes up less screen real estate. Kaldari 06:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
    • You're wrong. It's not silly at all. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with how the VFD notice is actually applied (At the very least read what is written on this very page.) and some of the things that are frequently done to it by novices before being bold again. Uncle G 11:14, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

I'd like to stress that the appearance and content of this template have been discussed a great deal on this page, consensus being that it should be as small, clean, and concise as possible, including no more nor less than the vital information. Drastic changes should be reasoned carefully, and preferably discussed here first, especially since it is common to use {{subst:vfd}} (meaning that, once inserted, the template's appearance is not automatically updated). User:Rdsmith4/Sig 22:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I have a problem with the current background colour, in that there is no background colour. Not on my laptop screen, anyway. I find this white block of text ugly. Also, 'or deface this notice'? Is that a real problem? Is that not a rather obvious suggestion?

What's wrong with:

• It's missing the words "or deface", for starters, and it has a newline before the category that results in a spurious newline in the article. The words "is being nominated" bring the aspect of voting to the fore, the wrongness of which has been discussed extensively, both at Biocrawler and at Meta. The words "vote on and discuss the matter" are, as Rdsmith4 has pointed out several times, wrong for the same reasons. Uncle G 11:14, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

It does not contain the words "is being nominated".

I find 'Please vote on and discuss' to run more smoothly than 'Please discuss and vote on'. The background colour is now visible on my laptop screen as well. – Ec5618 00:36, May 10, 2005 (UTC) or:

-Ec5618 08:22, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

• It's missing the words "or deface", for starters, and it has a newline before the category that results in a spurious newline in the article. The words "is being nominated" bring the aspect of voting to the fore, the wrongness of which has been discussed extensively, both at Biocrawler and at Meta. The words "vote on and discuss the matter" are, as Rdsmith4 has pointed out several times, wrong for the same reasons. Uncle G 11:14, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • Considering the fact that User:Rdsmith4 has not yet posted on this page, you'll have to provide more arguments for your point to be valid. - Ec5618 16:40, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Wrong. He has. In this very section of the page, even. He has also made edit history comments, which I suggest that you read. Uncle G 18:10, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
      • Wrong. He hasn't. Perhaps you're mistaking him for someone else. This section? Are you perhaps thinking of me? Kaldari? Dan? As for edit history, the only relevant he said was: "on the contrary, the previous text is much clearer; discussion comes before voting". As I said before, I find 'Please vote on and discuss' to run more smoothly than 'Please discuss and vote on'. Two opposing opinions. What makes Rdsmith4's opinion so great? And thank you for adressing my concerns. - Ec5618 19:07, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • In fact I have, and am doing so right now. Sorry for the confusion - I sign as "Dan". Uncle G expresses my opinion well, but it is no more than my opinion. I'd simply like it to be made clear that VFD, despite its name, is about forming consensus, and not about partisanship or voting. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 21:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Notice: Do not deface this notice

All other issues aside, I feel strongly that the admonition against defacing the VfD notice is inappropriate. Not only is it almost comically pointless, but it also does not assume good faith. No other Biocrawler templates contain such a warning (or such a paternalistic tone). Kaldari 14:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• History has, however, proven that we need such an admonition here. The clause was only added after long experience with notices that had been defaced or modified inappropriately. Yes, we should assume good faith but not the to point of denying reality or experience. Rossami (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

History has proven? How do people 'deface' the notice? And how does the dire warning message prevent them from doing so? If there is a need for a warning message, add it in <!-- --> tags in the code. You'll be able to give a stern talking to to anyone editing the template. - Ec5618 16:40, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

The other problem is that this template is auto-inserted with the use of subst:, meaning that if someone messes up the template, the messed up version of the template is included onto the page which is being considered for VfD. -- AllyUnion (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying the tag {{subst:vfd}} is replaced in all pages by the actual text in the template? Would the comment not be added to all these pages aswell? - Ec5618 17:26, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

It inserts whatever text is on the template into the article. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

First sentence all bold

Having the first sentence all bold looks really clunky and imposing, and makes it harder to pick out the important point. (deletion). Kappa 09:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I would disagree. I feel that the initial line is the point, and that editors will need only to notice the template once, either way and realise its importance. It may be possible (and preferable) to highlight the word 'deletion' in another way, if you insist. -- Ec5618 09:09, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

New link with date

I gather we're supposed to be changing the template to link to [[Biocrawler:Votes for deletion/Log/{{CURRENTYEAR}}_{{CURRENTMONTHNAMEGEN}}_{{CURRENTDAY}}/{{PAGENAME}}|this article's entry]] now. What is that supposed to accomplish? Is it truly easier? I am for easier. -- Ec5618 18:46, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know where that idea came from, but it's a bad one. Uncle G 21:55, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
• I agree. Stick with the original, simpler form. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 22:01, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Ec5618 reverted the changes here and I've reverted the changes in the VfD footer. I am guessing that the proposal was supposed to be a way around the problem of renominated articles conflicting with an already archived decision. We need to preserve the old discussion. The current workaround for renominated articles is ... clumsy. I'm not sure however that this was the most effective or least intrusive way to achieve the goal. We should discuss it some before making the change. Rossami (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • A slightly less clumsy method, perhaps, is to rename any existing [[Biocrawler:Votes for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}]] to a sub-page of itself such as [[Biocrawler:Votes for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}/First]], and then edit the resultant redirect as the new nomination. No hand-editing of the VFD notice required, and you also get a link from the old sub-page to the current sub-page for free (and a link on the new nomination page, that you can edit into a "For a previous VFD discussion see X" note, for free, too). Uncle G 01:13, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
    • See Biocrawler:Votes for deletion/Insidious and Biocrawler:Votes for deletion/Insidious/2005 May 8 for this method in action, by the way. It involves the same 3 pages to be edited as the usual nomination process, in almost exactly the same way, with the sole addition of a page move. Uncle G 16:15, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
• It was my idea, when I was perusing vfd since because the templates are created in a subdirectory of vfd they link back there and not to the day subpage of vfd which is, to say the least, annoying. I hadn't yet fathomed the problem with repeated vfd's, but the fact that my change solves that too makes me wonder why I was reverted. -MarSch 23:41, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Your change stops the link from pointing to where the sub-pages actually are, and causes things to break the next day after a sub-page is created. On a more general note: Having the ability to have a separate VFD discussion sub-page for an article every day is needless overkill. The (purported) simplification that it provides for the small minority of renominations is far outweighed by the complexity that introduces across the board. And since the link to Biocrawler:Votes for deletion at the top of all VFD sub-pages brings you to hyperlinks to the per-day pages anyway, there's not really a great deal of benefit to be gained in terms of ease of use in the first place. Furthermore: Bear in mind that there are now four separate ways of viewing current VFD discussions that people can choose from. Altering naming conventions to suit your own viewing method of choice has ramifications for those who use the other viewing methods. Uncle G 01:13, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
• Making such sweeping changes should perhaps have been discussed. On a more practical note, perhaps closed discussions should be moved manually to a "Biocrawler:Votes for deletion/Deleted articles/{{PAGENAME}}" section, after deletion. Of course, that would only work for articles that are renominated once. /Once deleted, /Twice deleted etc might be better. And it wouldn't address the problem MarSch brought up. -- Ec5618 00:03, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the date has to be substituted for it to work and so it wouldn't have worked. I didn't realize this. I'm not sure if this can be fixed, but I'll look into it, What four ways of viewing vfd are there? -MarSch 12:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• Let me explain the reasoning for the subpage day to day naming scheme. The reason why it was placed under /Log/<insert date here> was that in the event, however likely or unlikely it was, that the page Log was nominated for deletion. Furthermore, the four six ways of viewing VFD are: Biocrawler:Votes for deletion, Biocrawler:Votes for deletion (long form), Biocrawler:Votes for deletion/Log/Today, Biocrawler:Votes for deletion/Log/Yesterday, User:AllyUnion/VFD List, and finally, User:AllyUnion/VFD Calendar. -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • And if you are annoyed, have you tried looking at the list format? Have you tried using a tabbed browser instead of Internet Explorer? -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

TfD'd

This template was listed for deletion on Templates for Deletion. The decision was to keep this template. Please see Biocrawler:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/May 2005 for more information. -Frazzydee|✍ 21:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) Template_talk:Vfd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Vfd) version history (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Vfd&action=history) GNU Free Documentation Lizenz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License) CC-by-sa (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/)