Archives: 1

It was recently brought to my attention that when relisting AfD debates the "View Log" link still points to the old AfD log rather than the newer transclusion destination. I don't know that there's any way to fix this in the template programming (doubt it, but I'm no programmer)...if not, perhaps this means WP:RELIST should have a remark about manually changing the log? Thoughts? — Scientizzle 19:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of anything, but I've just got minor template syntax knowledge. I'm pretty sure it can't be done, because the tempalte is substited, as is {{relist}}. It might be possible to look for some comment added by the relist template and update the "View log" link according to the timestamp from relisting, but that sounds more like a bot thing. I at least update the link when I relist, so people can get back to the log an AfD is on, and I suggest that for the time being at least. Perhaps a discussion at WT:DELPRO or WP:AN would help. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My own limited programming knowledge suggested a very small chance of a programming solution, but I thought I'd ask...I think I'll probably bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. I've almost never use that log button, the manual fix isn't discussed at WP:RELIST, and nobody told me about it in the year-and-a-half I've been closing AfDs! — Scientizzle 20:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotect}} Please add <noinclude>{{Documentation}}</noinclude> to the bottom of the template. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 13:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 13:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 13:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV discussion [1] seems to approve providing notification of DRVs in an AfD. Template:Afd2 should be modified so that, in addition to the box listing "AfDs for this article:" that it also lists "DRVs for this article:" (which should only appear if there are any prior DRVs or subsequent DRVs). Thoughts? -- Suntag ☼ 13:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's doable. The "AfDs for this article" section works because an AfD exists at its own page that gets transcluded on to the AfD log. DRVs, on the other hand, are not transcluded and do not exist on their own page - they are merely a subsection of each day's DRV log, and thus there exists no way to access previous DRVs on a subject via templates. Shereth 16:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

per the discussion on AN here about early closures of AfD debates. What do watchers of the page think about adding something like

Discussion scheduled to end {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#time: j F Y "(UTC)"|+5 days}}

To the template - reminding closers of the time the debate is supposed to run for ? - Peripitus (Talk) 11:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note in support of this change. We'll see if it sticks :) Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - WP:NOTBURO, and on first look, prohibits speedy closures even when they're warranted. Also looks ugly. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Can someone please remove it? It serves no purpose whatsoever. Anyone who knows how to close an AfD knows that five days is standard. AfD is sorted by day, so a mental calculation is all that's required, unlike RfA, where this kind of notice is useful. As I've said, on the face of it, it prevents any AfD from being closed prior to the time limit, regardless of whether speedy closure is warranted/needed. It's also an eyesore which appears five times on my screen (1440*900) which serves no useful purpose whatsoever. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the notice, I think it is a good idea to reinforce the deletion policy that AFDs are meant run at least five days as was discussed on WP:AN recently. It gives clarity to contributors on when the AFD will close in almost all cases. However I would add the word 'scheduled' to the message so that it reads "Discussion scheduled to run until at least 8 February 2009" to give some leeway in the limited cases where an early closure is required. Davewild (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Do we need that 125 times on a single log page, especially when we can put a notice at the top of that instead? At the very least, noinclude it. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok you make a reasonable case as I see the notice has make placed on the days log. I suggest taking the notice off here for now as Sceptre suggests and lets see if the notice on the days log has the desired effect of reducing the early closures. If it does not then we can reconsider whether a notice on here, perhaps in a less obtrusive manner, could be made. Davewild (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I added the notice to today's only just to see what it would look like; that's now unobtrusive. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this based on the opposition on this page. per the discussion on WP:AN I think some sort of notice is required as admins are clearly not following the 5 day policy - what form the notice though ? - Peripitus (Talk) 01:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

During the deletion review of Acharya S, there was a discussion of the AFD page. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya S (2nd nomination). This page includes 3 AFDs including one for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya Sita Ram Chaturvedi who is not the same person, not a related article.... I'm not sure how frequently this occurs but I think is a bug in the template. jbolden1517^Talk 21:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per (part of) this discussion Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#deleting invalid votes from afd's, how difficult would it be to add a brief talkheader type message specific to deletion discussions? Just how brief would be another issue - ranging from a couple of words linking to Wikipedia:AFD#How to discuss an AfD to some or all of template:not a ballot. The message could either come above the article name (would look best on the AFD entry) or on the right of it, above the links (would look best on the log page). Separately from the feasibility, is it a good idea to explore this? (NB A related idea exists in the archive for this talk page, with no obvious outcome.) Rd232 ^talk 02:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd prefer not to have a message, however short. A cursory look at past AfDs with participation from new users will show that manual additions of "notavote" templates don't seem to have an impact on behavior. I can't imagine that an automatic reminder will be much more effective. Protonk (talk) 07:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It might, because of being more widely and consistently applied. Also how exactly can you tell from past AFDs that templates haven't add much effect? The major effect would be discouraging people never previously involved with WP from leaving a vote; if they have nothing to add to the discussion they wouldn't leave a message, and hence no trace. In other words, if the template dissuades (some) potential voters from voting, only a pretty sophisticated statistical analysis (certainly more than a cursory glance) would be able to tell. NB bear in mind templates were only selectively applied in the past on problem AFDs - whose statistical behaviour is therefore abnormal; adding it to all AFDs and seeing if it improves average behaviour (even anecdotally) would be a valid trial. Rd232 ^talk 13:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Quantitatively, I can't prove it. I have no way of knowing whether or not the addition of a big "notavote" template stopped a half dozen people or forced them to give support for their reasoning. My strong suspicion is that it doesn't. Anyone who has been around AfD for a while can recongnize that kind of debate from a mile away. Some website, game or bio is nominated for deletion and a few dozen people on a forum dedicated to the subject show up to argue that the article should be kept. Someone (usually the nominator) puts that big ugly template up reminding folks that AfD isn't a vote and I would say about 15-25% of the time it is heeded. The other times it is ignored completely, it is made moot (article is speedied, or no one shows up), or the newcomers were being hyper-formal anyway (something I've seen a lot). when it is heeded, it is helpful. But another thing to consider for a template which is transcluded to every AfD is that people tend to ignore directions like that. We have the various edit-notices for namespaces and those are ignored frequently (though it is difficult to make a good judgment on their value...we may get a chance when the devs remove single article edit notices, but that is another story). The manually added notavote templates are large and conspicuous. they may get noticed by people coming to AfD for the first time. But any template which would reach consensus here to be on all AfDs would be nowhere near as conspicuous. Even if you don't buy my story about people ignoring directions based on repeated viewing, you have to concede that a much more unobtrusive template would garner much less attention. Protonk (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not necessarily with single AFD pages - it's a much more favourable situation than talk pages, where people jump to recent discussion at the bottom of the page and away from the top, where the notices are (hmm, food for thought... anyway). By contrast, on an AFD entry people start by reading the nomination (don't they?) and a small, unobtrusive notice right next to it (almost part of the nomination) is more likely to be read. In fact by being small enough not to trigger the jaded web-user's "it's an ad, don't look at it" response, it might be more effective than the bigger notavote notice. Rd232 ^talk 19:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Protonk. Some discuss and some vote regardless, it seems, of the presence of the template. Editors work out how the debates work over time and admins mostly sort the wheat from the chaff in closing. - Peripitus (Talk) 07:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Admins are forced to sort wheat from chaff, what's the alternative, nobody ever closing the AFD? The issue is whether we can/should make it easier by trying to reduce the chaff. It may well not work, but I don't see the harm in trying. Rd232 ^talk 13:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the this template used for RfDs (requests for deletion) on simple.enwiki, I was thinking that it looks better and more aesthetically pleasing with dots and a little extra space separating each link than the currently-used vertical line. I was hoping we could incorporate that here (see the current examples at simple:Wikipedia:Requests for deletion. (I'd talk about the other features that I like there, but I'll reserve that for WT:AFD when I get the chance.) Any thoughts? MuZemike 23:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, too, but it's not actually this template that does that, it's {{la}}, which has several counterparts. The talk page for all of them is Template talk:Ln. Propose it there.--Aervanath (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Editprotected}}

Per some support and zero objections at WT:AFD (and I've waited a long time, just in case anyone objected), could someone please restore the search template to Afd2, which was reverted here? It was reverted on merely procedural grounds; nobody has ever objected to its inclusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this change. We should not promote intellectual laziness or the common misconception that Google = reliable source. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google != Reliable source, but Google often provides links to reliable sources that can be used in the article. Rather than encouraging laziness, this encourages people to actually check how notable something is before blindly saying "there's no references on the page, so it's not notable" when there are loads of obvious RSes on the front page of Google News. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also object to this change, which was made after a tiny discussion without attempts to engage users who have previously objected. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

Change :({{find sources|{{{pg}}}}}) to :({{findsources|{{{pg}}}}}). The template is called Findsources, so it seems logical not to point to the redirect instead. I know it's not necessary, but in something used so widely, the removal of one template from the transclusion list could be appreciated... Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion at Wikipedia_talk:AfD#"Having to" defend articles against deletion, I've removed the link to delete the subject of an AfD from the AfD page itself. It's been brought to my attention that a number of administrators believe it is acceptable to actually delete articles without even looking at them, even in cases of contentious discussion. PROD and CSD require administrators to actually look the article "in the face" in the process of deleting it--AfD should be no different. Jclemens (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly added http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser as an utility link to the template. It gives a useful quick headcount, though that is obviously not a sufficient basis for a closure.  Sandstein  18:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} If there is going to be an AfD statistics link (which isn't working for me right now btw), shouldn't it also show up on the log page? This revision of a template sandbox has the change. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved your proposed code to the proper place: Template:Afd2/sandbox. One query: do you know what the purpose of the following code is?

</noinc<includeonly></includeonly>lude>

It is a somewhat baffling. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that confused me also, but when I removed it, it messes up the actual <includeonly></includeonly>. Apparently the inner ones get removed when the template is substed. I'm not sure exactly how that works, but it is definitely needed. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the requested edit for you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would "vote count" or something be better than "AfD statistics". Personally, I had no idea what it was at first. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to turn the AfD stats link into a plain link to keep consistency with the rest of the template? Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 21:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y It would. Amalthea 11:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can it use {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>FULLPAGENAME}}}}|2=Afd statistics}} instead? Right now the stats link does not work on later nominations. Tim Song (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. It seems to work fine. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

AfD statistics doesn't appear to work, and it frankly has never worked for me. As toolserver is not down, maybe it is no longer being maintained? If that is the case, I see no reason for it to remain. Perhaps it could be removed?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been broken for months. See below for my request to have it removed back in August. SnottyWong ^babble 13:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link removed, tool owner notified. Thanks, Amalthea 13:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should have told me a lot sooner, I would have fixed it, something with the toolserver broke the way CGI scripts work, however I have adjusted and will be running stats every 30 minutes. http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/reports/afd/{{pg}}.html is the new link to the working stats. tools:~betacommand/AFD.html will also be updated at the same time. There are a few page titles where this doesnt work, but it should resolve the issue for the most part. There are a bug with re-listed AfDs and their expirations that im working on but that should also be a nice tool for people to review. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the new link, which is up and running. For an example, see here. Willking1979 (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the recent changes to the template have caused a minor problem. I think there is an includeonly tag that shouldn't be there. Everything looks fine when you're viewing an individual AfD page. However, when you're viewing all of them on the log page (where they are transcluded), you see a bunch of wikicode. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 22. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 04:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an editor has been manually fixing the problem, so it's not visible anymore. I'm not sure if it's something wrong with the template or something that was caused by manual edits. I'll remove the editprotected template and keep an eye on it. SnottyWong ^yak 04:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Since "Findsources" is now called Template:Find sources ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to improve readability, could the transclusion here be changed so we avoid this redirect? Thanks, --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not a vote... we don't decide what to do by counting heads but by discussing principles... Arskwad (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD Statistics link hasn't been working for quite awhile (for me anyway). It hangs for a long time, and then times out with an error message. I'm going to remove the link from the template. If you disagree, revert and discuss here. SnottyWong ^chatter 16:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

Oops, didn't realize the template was protected. Admins, can you remove the "AfD Statistics" link from this template? The link to a toolserver script has been broken for ages. SnottyWong ^comment 16:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Since this is protected, BRD doesn't really apply. I suggest starting a discussion at WT:AFD on the usefulness of the link first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to an Administrator's Noticeboard discussion, I've proposed the addition of a timestamp to this template. Debate is ongoing at WP:AN#AfD's generally closed too soon; your input is welcome. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Template talk:Find sources#Why only Google links?. Mange01 (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a great idea to adding a watch link to the template, so that we can click on it on WP:Articles For Deletion/YYYY Mmmm DD Pages.

We can click on the watch link to watch the article, but I think clicking on the link to watch the page's deletion discussion would be user-friendilyness.Curb Chain (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that sometimes, the previous afd box shows up and sometimes it doesnt. this needs to be fixed.Curb Chain (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show diffs of when it occured? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain what this template is used for in the Usage section? Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a discussion with a suggestion at WT:Articles for deletion#Headers delinked in which editors who are involved with this template may want to participate. Thank you in advance! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If no further discussion is needed, the headers will be delinked soon. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's fully protected by the way with a WP:REDLOCK, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link titled "Stats" (http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=) now redirects to https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page= . It also appears to be broken. Please fix/replace this ASAP.--Auric talk 19:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've asked about this at WT:Toolserver, and hopefully those toolserver experts can help us out. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I've removed the deadlink; once a working replacement has been identified, please request addition here. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• @JackPotte: is now the maintainer of this tool. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 03:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, if anyone else wants to also think about how to fix or improve it he's welcome too (I would create a dedicated WMFLABS project). JackPotte (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @JackPotte: It doesn't look like it needs to be improved, it looks like it's just not there. It returns a 404 error, which means that the votecounter.cgi file can't be found in that location. Is that the correct url, or has the location of that file changed recently? ‑Scottywong| spout _ 13:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  That must be an absolute vs relative address problem, I'm testing it locally to be sure. JackPotte (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Seems to be okay now. but I'm not sure I'm testing it properly. Can someone else confirm before it's returned to the template? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 03:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC) – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ‑Scottywong| chat _ 16:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure! – Paine  01:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the following changes:

• Replace {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} with {{Remove this template when closing this AfD}} in this template
• Move Template:REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD to Template:Remove this template when closing this AfD

There should be no unnecessary capitals. 2602:306:B8E0:82C0:C57C:A2C7:42EA:556A (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. It's to draw attention. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where to bring this up, so bringing it up here. You click the "Stats" link on an AFD, you get taken to a page with heading "AfD Vote Counter", but no actual content other than the heading. See for example this. I think the tool is broken. SJK (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else getting this database error when accessing this template?

A database query error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. [Xou4VQpAAMEAA8@da1cAAAAE] 2020-04-06 23:16:37: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError"

Here's the error in play. This is extremely odd. –ToxiBoi! ^(contribs) 23:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Village pump (technical)#Error on all non-talk pages at the present time. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sync with the sandbox; this adds an explicit 1= parameter to the invocation of {{la}} so that it properly formats articles with an equals sign in the title. Vahurzpu (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Good catch. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Show "edits since nomination" link on AFDs? – this involves an edit to this template. – SD0001 (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This needs documentation. There isn't a list of what the categories are that can be used for this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I found the list somewhere else (via the preview output of Template:Afd), and added a link to it in this template's documentation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]