Template talk:AfD in 3 steps

Namespace dispute
Why's this in the Template namespace, and not in the Wikipedia namespace? Because it should be, in my honest opinion. This is a pile of instructions on nominating stuff for AFD, and would therefore suit the project namespace better. -- SoothingR(pour) 09:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This template gets used in a bunch of places, to paste the instructions into other project pages. Having it in a template makes it easy to update the instructions everywhere they appear.--Srleffler 21:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Explain how to delete articles...
Maybe...it's just me, but this is a bit hard to understand. Someone might want to re-word these instructions.
 * Yes, why not just gives examples, an image is worth thousands words as they say !!, its really hard to understand and the process is really cumbersome --Khalid hassani 12:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How much clearer do you guys want it? It's already as clear as it ever could be IMHO.[[Image:Weather rain.png]] Soothing R  17:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The only thing i really don't like about it is that afd3 thing. It's not hard, but i did have some problems the first time i nominated an article for vfd. I dunno how much clearer it could get. My advice would be to try it the best you can, and if you screw up, someone will fix it, and likely tell you what you did wrong. :) --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 02:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. I really don't understand: why don't you like the afd3 template? Perhaps if you explain your reasons more clearly we can work out something that makes everybody happy. As far as I can see, the instructions are about as simple as they can possibly be: all the user has to do is cut and paste three lines of text from the instructions, into the designated pages, replacing PageName with the name of the page. What could be simpler or clearer? There is no need to understand what afd3 is or how it works. Perhaps the instructions could be explained more clearly? I don't see how replacing the afd3 line with a longer and more complicated-looking string helps. The direct string is no clearer or more intuitive&mdash;a transclusion link is, if anything, less likely to be familiar to a new user than a template. Perhaps I'm missing something. How do you see it?--Srleffler 06:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

afd3
Can we wait until the TfD process is done before changing the instructions? Even assuming it gets deleted (which I contest), there's no point in disallowing people from using afd3 while it still exists.  howch e  ng   {chat} 01:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I just took a stab at trying to simplify and clarify the instructions. My goal is that an editor should not have to understand how templates, subpages, etc. work in order to nominate a page for AfD. Someone should be able to come to this page and simply follow the steps listed, and it should work. This is sort of separate from the afd3 vote, in that the third step could just as well be the transclusion link preferred by some. I think it's clearer having three "afd_" templates, but to each his/her own.--Srleffler 07:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. I actually just meant let's not take out the afd3 part until that issue resolved.  howch e  ng   {chat} 07:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Step 3 wrong/incomplete w.r.t. the week at a glance log?
In step 3 it says to add a notice (via template subst) to the deletion log page. I did that and my notice was there. But in the Week at a glance section of Articles_for_deletion it says NOT to update the page. I think it means User:AllyUnion's week at a glance page but maybe it's not quite clear. I'm not sure how or where to clarify it, or if it needs it at all. It confused me for a bit though. ++Lar: t/c 17:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Emboldened by User:MPD being emboldened by me (parse that three times fast!) I tried to tweak the wording to clarify but the wording is in the main page not the template, so take discussion of my tweak there: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion perhaps? ++Lar: t/c 20:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Put "first delete vote" in the Edit summary
I saw this was reverted. This seems a good thing to add to me. Perhaps phrased as a suggestion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lar (talk • contribs)
 * let me give you my perspective on this. As someone who was not familiar with the AfD process until yesterday, I took these three steps very slowly, carefully and literally to make sure I did not do anything wrong at each step. The second step says what to put in the edit summary, but the third step does not. It would be much easier on the noob if you left nothing to chance and told them what to put in the edit line on the third step. I am not going to fall on my sword over this one, but I think it's a good idea MPS 18:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * My point exactly, I agree completely. Although I had expressed my views in many AfDs, the one I listed recently was a first for me, and having everything spelt out step by step reduces chances for error. I found the suggestion helpful. I commented elsewhere about being confused about the page that the User:AllyUnion bot maintains, for a bit I thought it was referring to the step three page. Anything that reduces confusion for new or infrequent users is goodness, IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 18:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC) (actually remembered to sign this time!!)

WP:PROD
Re: WP:PROD. This set of instructions is already way too complex, without adding a proposed guideline. I oppose adding this link to the instructions in any form. In fact, I would also prefer to delete the material about afdx and How to list multiple related pages for deletion too, if there were an easy way to rewrite the instructions to direct people to the appropriate places. The deletion instructions should be kept as simple as possible.--Srleffler 23:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * When people come to this template looking for how to do things, it is because they think that maybe something needs deleting and want to foster the dsicussion on one or more articles and need help with that... While I agree the process is complex, I guess I don't agree that removing information is a good idea, whether it be about a simpler process, or about things that people have to take into account when it's a more complex process such as listing for a subsequent time, or listing multiple articles. I'm not sure I agree that is "instruction creep". As for WP:PROD being proposed, I predict "not for long", as it seems to be going well so far near as I can tell. Once it's not proposed but instead accepted (assuming...), will you still oppose its inclusion? I disagree with your reversion, but I'll not revert you back until and unless other people chime in on this discussion, though... and certainly not today. Happy editing!  + +Lar: t/c 23:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, yes I would oppose adding a link to PROD here even if it were an approved policy. This is not a page of instructions on how to delete an article. It is a page of instructions on how to do an AfD. When prod is approved, it should be added to the instructions at Deletion policy, not here.--Srleffler 00:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I second Srleffler's objection. When I came here long ago, it was to find simplified instructions on how to use the incredibly complex, ponderously documented deletion process (which I'd spent quite some time reading) just to nominate an article — nothing more. I was very glad that someone took the time to create a how-to page that didn't cause me to run screaming, never again to dare to suggest a deletion. And I was hardly a novice wikian at the time. I still find it so handy that I keep it bookmarked. We shouldn't muck with something that works, especially when the detailed information can already be found elsewhere. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, makes sense as far as PROD goes but I still think there's value in mentioning when instructions don't apply... the other two cases mentioned, multiple articles, and repeated noms, should be disclaimed because if you try to use these instructions for those you'll possibly cause problems or confusion. + +Lar: t/c 01:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I just wish that the instructions for deleting an article weren't getting gradually more and more convoluted.--Srleffler 02:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nod. Everything always seems to accrete things, it's the way of the world. The bits I'm talking about are more along the lines of "make sure you don't want to do this other thing instead, if not, then carry on"... but ya. + +Lar: t/c 02:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I concede the problems with multiple articles and renoms. The first is presumably covered by "See also: How to list multiple related pages for deletion" link just after the color-coded section. I've just made the obvious corresponding clarification in the first sentence of the page with "To list a single article". I confess that the renomination issue is a bit harder to discuss concisely. We might add a line in the existing instructions to refer the nominator to more specific instructions (in a separate article, so as not to clutter "3 steps") in the rare cases where step 1 produces a blue link for "this article's entry" in the AfD header. (It should explain how to back out of or continue with the operation already in progress.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the wording change you just did (emphasising "a single") probably addresses a fair bit of it right there... They may not know where to go but at least they'll know that maybe this doesn't fit. Well done. I put "for the first time" in too, and maybe that will get 80% of the edge cases for just a few more words. Happy editing!  + +Lar: t/c 03:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

(Pardon the indent reset, but it was getting ridiculous.) I don't think "for the first time" helps, because new AfD'ers won't be aware of what this phrase implies — that articles sometimes get recreated or renominated — and won't realize this until they've saved (or hopefully previewed) the step-1 edit. (And that they won't realize unless we point it out to them.) If I were coming into this page fresh, I might shrug off the phrase "list a single article for the first time" as needless verbosity ("of course it's the first time I've listed it!"). I think we need to replace the step-1 text:
 * Save the page. (If the article has been nominated for deletion before, use instead of  . See Template Talk:afdx.)

with something like this:
 * Preview the page. An light-blue AfD notice will appear at the top. If the words "this article's entry" in the box are  red , save the page and proceed to Step 2. (If the phrase is  blue , the article has been nominated for deletion before, so use instead of  . See Template Talk:afdx.)

I'm not terribly happy with how cumbersome this explanation becomes, which is why I didn't suggest it earlier. But we need to make it easy to notice an existing AfD page and direct attention elsewhere or adapt the process (simply) to accommodate the situation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that's WAY clearer! Well suggested. Dunno what to tell you about the growth problem, we all do agree it's a problem. But sometimes complicated things have complicated instructions. + +Lar: t/c 06:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Step 2 requires log in...
I can't create an article's deletion vote page without being logged in. Since the quality of a delete proposal is self-evident by the wording of the proposal (and the awareness of the process for deletion), proposing an AfD seems like a good candidate to be a feature which doesn't require logging in...

The article that led me to encounter this issue is Peter Ogilvy. I've looked around for evidence of a policy about proposing a deletion without logging in and couldn't find any (apologies if I've missed it). Meanwhile, for now I'll just mark Mr. Ogilvy as a suspected hoax. 66.167.136.6 12:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC).

Removal of a couple of sentences...
''If you like, you can begin your "reason" with Delete. This will count as your vote in the deletion poll. ''

I removed the above text from Step 2 because it's redundant. There's no specific reason to either encourage or discourage people from beginning their nomination with "Delete" (although I can't see why one would want to do that), and as this practice is not prohibited by either convention or policy, there's no reason to tell the nominator "If you like..." It's just instruction creep on an already rather long page. And of course, AfD (for the umpteenth time) is not a vote or a poll. It's a discussion with elements of strawpolling. That's why we moved Votes for Deletion to Articles for Deletion. So the second sentence is not only redundant, it's downright misleading. Johnleemk | Talk 16:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect behavior is different
I am not sure how to handle this instance: I created a redirect, which turned out to be technically incorrect Fioravanti_(cola) (Fioravanti is not a cola; it is a soft drink). I have a correct redirect in place Fioravanti_(soft_drink), and I felt the incorrect redirector should be deleted. But it turns out that the behavior of a redirect page is different than a regular wiki page, so I can't proceed with step number two in the instructions how to list an article for deletion.

So my question is this: should my incorrect redirect remain where it will do little harm, or should there be extra instructions to handle the deletion of redirect pages?

Jason Vanderhill 2006-03-31

Multiple deletions
The instructions in 2pt font for multiple deletions are a bit nasty. They should really be integrated into the main instructions or provided in more detail on another page. It would be nicer still if the steps could be made the same. Lod 09:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Page should be deleted
Deletion should be against wikipedia policy and thus this page should be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.21.94 (talk • contribs)
 * Deletion is an integral part of wikipedia policy. How would we delete this pagewithout a deletion policy? The absurdity of "delete the deletion policy" makes me suspect you are yanking people's chain. MPS 20:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Something Broken?
This page does not seem to have updated the link today, or it hasn't for me. I use this all the time, and I only noticed because I have posted two nominations in a row on yesterdays page... J Milburn 09:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What's up with this?
My last several posts to the daily AfD page have been coming out really screwy - following the instructions on this page, it appars that some extra characters are not getting resolved in the transition;
 * somehow an additional –  is getting put in the first line
 * and this:

or (with spaces to show the actual line)
 * { { la | subst : xxx } } } }
 * was inserted after it, resulting in a bunch of "stuff"

Fixes? Suggstions?

So how do i delete the article?
Ok, so the debate is over and we want to actually delete the article, as in remove it from existance. How do we do that? Do we blank the page? Something else? I really have difficulty understanding the instructions. --Truth 06 04:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Pointless template in a template
I don't see the point in having this text in a template, which is inside the AfD footer template. It makes this text multiple steps removed from the main Articles for deletion article and its talk page, which makes it hard as hell for anyone to discuss changes in this text or get it changed. I suggest removing both this template and the AfD footer template, so that all this text is within the main AfD article. --Xyzzyplugh 08:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The answer to that is to look at the number of users who link to the template, or transclude it (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:AfD in 3 steps). It means users can find the 3 steps quickly without wading through the rest of the article. It also means that if you watch this template (as I do), any change to the system can be seen immediately. WP:AFD is edited frequently, and I do not have time to review every change to that page. – Tivedshambo (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Simplified edit summary instructions for step 2
When creating the deletion debate page, the instructions said "Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for PageName because ... replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion and providing reasons for deletion".

This means that one would basically be putting the entirety of one's first edit into the edit summary. An edit summary should be a summary of an edit, not the entire edit, and there is absolutely no reason to put so much into this particular edit summary anyway. I removed the bits about "providing reasons for deletion", as these simply don't need to go in the summary. The AfD process is tedious enough without adding additional pointless steps. --Xyzzyplugh 14:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Text formatting corruption
The final "e" in "Create the article's deletion discussion page" and the "r" in "who monitor AfD discussion." are corrupted in my view. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks ok to me. In what way corrupted? Tivedshambo (talk) 08:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a green square about 1 mm across just below the "e" and the same green square overlaid on the "r". This appears both on my home computer (Win2000) and my work one (WinXP). Tim Vickers (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just done some trials, and get the same problem in Firefox in monobook (I'm usually IE6 with classic skin). I think it's the bullet points from the adjacent sentences which aren't lining up correctly - this should be solvable using the clear template - I'll see if I can fix it tomorrow. Tivedshambo (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm using Firefox with Monobook. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I forgotten to look at this. Should be ok now. Tivedshambo (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Changed the template
The problem there has been with the template is that it told you to do the wrong thing. The previous template used 'PAGENAME' where they meant 'NOMINATIONPAGENAME'.

Now, a lot of the time that doesn't matter because they're frequently the same (but sometimes the nomination page is different name to the article even for the first AFD- they don't have to be the same), but when it does matter, particularly, but not only, for 2nd or 3rd nominations then there's these garbled instructions about how to fix up the PAGENAME to make it work, which don't always work either.

But then, why does it say PAGENAME if it's not the article page name? So at that point you have a discrepancy, the instructions are inconsistent, and you have to guess what the heck it's talking about. :-(

I think the principles here should be that you shouldn't have to guess, it should just tell you what to do, and it shouldn't be inconsistent.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Shortening instructions
Popular instructions such as this tend to get wordy. I'm shortening a few parts of the sentences to make the English simpler. AfD would benefit from more people understanding how it works. Step II. in particular is too long - and the OR in the middle of that step is confusing. Better to make the less-used option a smaller footnote, if possible, and recommend everyone use a single process. +sj + 09:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Different from the Preloaded debate
There are a couple of problems: The instructions listed here are slightly different from the preloaded debate instructions. And the preloaded debate instructions disappear if you do a preview or save the page.

Because I cannot remember all the steps at once, this means I have to complete stage III before stage II (the log page is subject to frequent updates so I am forced to save it to avoid an edit conflict); and if I forget to copy the "notify the creator" markup, it is gone and I feel I have missed the opportunity to notify them. It would be really useful if the instructions here were the same as in the preloaded debate. Astronaut (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2015
On the first line of step 3, “Open the page,” please change “Open” to “Edit,” because that’s where the link leads (also see WP:EASTEREGG).

67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. (More or less.) — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That works too, thanks! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)