Template talk:Afd2/Archive 1

Comment
The text right now reads: ====== If I augment that slightly: ====== will that muck up the subst procedure? --Phil | Talk 12:31, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Possibly. Do you intend the vfd votes template to be on each page? -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:12, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Protected status

 * Why on earth is this vfd page protected? -- 8^D BD2412gab 06:10, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
 * Yes, please unprotect it so we can carry on with current VfDs. Samaritan 21:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The protection for this page is non-sense: there is no evidence of vandalism. There couldn't be since it seems this page was protected right after creation. Protection is not the default, so someone please remove it. I don't see any need to edit this right now, but perhaps someone else will be able to improve it somehow, who knows. That is the whole point of a wiki. -MarSch 18:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It is protected because it is used in the process of creating entries on WP:VFD: see the instructions here. There is no need to amend it to "carry on with current VfDs" because it is inserted using the mechanism. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk
 * The template never needs to be edited because of the process, as Phil has pointed out. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes but I'd like to be able to discuss and vote on Language adjectives and other issues. Kappa 14:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * But you don't place your vote here. You must place it on the subpage, like at Votes for deletion/Language adjectives. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The page is static for visibility reasons. On the average, there are somewhere around 70 articles or more nominated for Votes for deletion.  If this template is changed or edited, that means the nomination process gets immediately affected.  The purpose of this template was to automatically include the text from this template and insert it into a page, specifically part of the VFD process.  This template was created to shorten the amount of effort it takes to nominate a page to deletion.  It's one of the steps that was to minimize the number of steps that an editor had to remember to add a page to VFD.  The old instructions were at least 10 steps long because they required to you to copy this, cut this, change this, put this there and there.  That's how Votes_for_deletion was shorten down from 10 steps to 3.  If you have an issue with this, please take this up at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Correction... 9 steps to 3. See Template:VfDFooter for the old process. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Some prior comments appear to be based upon a misunderstanding of the effect of protection of this template on its use when actually nominating articles, which is, as AllyUnion points out, nil. MarSch makes a good point, however, which is that (as stated at protected pages considered harmful) protection has to be done for a reason, not simply as the default.  So the question becomes "What is the reason for protection here?".  If it is that this template has a history of persistent vandalism or of edit-warring, then that's one thing.  But if this is merely a prophylactic measure, to prevent vandalism that might happen, then that's a different matter.  The fact that no such permanent protection is required at Template:vfd, the alteration of which would have just as significant effects upon the VFD nomination process, implies that permanent protection of this page is probably unnecessary.  I suspect that if the page is unprotected, it will not be edited very much if at all.  There aren't arguments to be had, about what colour and size a coloured box should be, with this template.  &#9786;  Uncle G 01:51, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
 * "To force community editing of other policy/rules pages to be done on talk pages" - from Protected pages considered harmful. You may say what you will, but I believe it's fair to say that keeping the template static forces the server cache to stay the same, and thus improves the performance of the Wikipedia slightly. -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I would prefer if this page remained protected, and would also like Template:vfd to be protected along with it. The latter is edited almost daily and I don't think that's a good idea (especially as it's subst'ed, so it will subst whatever happens to be the current version, and there's no uniformity or anything). I was under the impression that several common templates are also protected (e.g. Template:Disputed). Radiant_* 09:00, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why will this template ever change? Hmm?  Why?  I wish to know why this template would ever change.  All this template does is to ensure the proper titling of a VFD page followed by someone's comment.  The only forsee-able change for a modification of this template is if the section heading requires modification.  The only reason for unprotection is to permit changes so that anyone can edit the template.  The only reason the template is static is the VFD process hasn't changed over the course of several months.  I don't see any reason... any reason at all for making this template more complex than it is now.  It has worked since February, why all these complaints over its protection status?  Are you going to suggest that Template:Vfd3 be unprotected as well for the same reason?  Functionally, I see no reason to unprotect the page.  Furthermore, if any changes need to be made, they can be discussed here.  If anyone wants to change the VFD process, it should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion first before this template is altered or nominated for deletion. -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Idea?
How would a link beside the level 3 heading with the text "watch" sound, so that a user can click that to add that particular AfD voting article to his/her watchlist? x42bn6  Talk  09:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit
I would like to propose a simlar edit as made on :

 — ~ ~

Example:

 — no need to delete it... ~ ~

→ Aza Toth 16:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the idea, but I don't think introducing the "vote" parameter is a good idea. There are a number of Wikipedians (notably fuddlemark) who don't think that the nominator should be voting on the article. Also, is there need to duplicate the link to the article? What about:

 howch e  ng   {chat} 17:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This suggested edit doesn't seem necessary, nor does it seem to have widespread support. I get the impression this discussion is done. -- Ec5618 14:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to remind people of etiquette
I've been scanning afd on and off for a while now, and notice that not very many people notify the creator and/or contributitors, despite it being listed as part of etiquette. Could I suggest adding a sentence after the deleted nomination in the line of "Etiquette - have the creators and/or main contributor(s) been notified of this debate?" (similar to the Rfa template which requests the nominee is notified) I think it's especially important as many afd debates (vs speedys) are on articles created in good faith by new editors, who may not have them watched, and while they are editing elsewhere, their article just disappears without any notification or reason (as new users may not notice the link to the deletion log when they see their missing article). I see a template, Adw has been recently created to notify people that their page is up for deleation debate, might that be appropiate to add to, or maybe just as a note on the main WP:AFD pages under Afd etiquitte. Regards, MartinRe 09:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is useful. It would clutter the AFD nomination pages. Possibly edit Afd with this in mind; it's already on the main AFD page I think. Stifle (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Editors' recommended actions
This will (might) remind people that it's not a vote (see assumptions above). Rich Farmbrough 21:50 22 June 2006 (GMT).


 * OK, no response, I've put it in. If there's some reason that it's a horrendous idea, just take it out again. Rich Farmbrough 14:40 1  July 2006 (GMT).


 * Doesn't work.   —  pd_THOR undefined | 16:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There likely wasn't a response because not too many people look at this talk page. It had the formatting problem described in the diff above, but even if that were fixed, I don't like what it does to the TOC on the daily AFD pages. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 17:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't change anything and does just bulk up the TOCs and pages. In any case, the editors' recommended actions can still just be "delete" or "keep"; the subsection doesn't suggest anything related to discussion! -Splash - tk 15:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * TOC is easily fixed use :Editors' recommended actions or something similar. Perhaps this is not the place to have the debate. Rich Farmbrough 10:09 21  August 2006 (GMT).

AfD reform
{editprotected} I need admin help to implement this proposal, which has supermajority at AfD reform, listed on WP:CENT (and therefore linked from the top of AfD); could an admin please make the following change to this template?

Current text: You forgot to subst this template. Replace &#123;{afd2}&#125; with &#123;{subst:afd2}&#125; ======

New text: You forgot to subst this template. Replace &#123;{afd2}&#125; with &#123;{subst:afd2}&#125;

This will have no visible change at the moment; the changes need to be done in the correct order to avoid breaking AfD. (The plan is to sort AfDs into categories without affecting the current system; the template will eventually add a category (and a notice notifying users of the categorisation) to the AfD, and the instructions in  and the text of  will be changed (they were unprotected last I looked, so I'll do this myself). It will not break any old AfDs or attempts to file new ones until the changes are complete.

Thanks. --ais523 10:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm declining this edit for now. When REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD is not protected, there is the problem that any vandalism to that template could majorly disrupt things.  Also, the title of that template won't be visible if afd2 is substed.  My recommendation: make a complete alternative set of templates, say afd1new etc, debug them, and once they're working, they can replace these.  Mango juice talk 17:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean like User:ais523/ElC/afd2? I'm just changing the names around. You might want to protect and  if protection's a problem. And the REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE's title will be visible; it isn't substed into afd2 in any way. However, I'll create all the templates in template space for the time being, so that I don't have to prepend my username to everything and the change should be easier. --ais523 17:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

edit request
Please move the "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE" template below the "===Article title===" so that it is visible in section edit mode. As it is, users closing discussions from the daily /Log/ pages are unlikely to remove (or even notice) the categorization templates. See discussion. Note that this will not change the outward appearance of the page, as the template being moved downward is "invisible" anyway. Thanks. — CharlotteWebb 18:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Already done. See Wikipedia talk:AfD categories. --bainer (talk) 02:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

exhortation
I have added it and suggest that it be left in place for a few weeks in the hopes of leading to some culture change. There have been some recent unflattering articles in the press about our deletion debates and they are a constant source of mail sent to WP:OTRS. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not the greatest of ideas. I spotted this when there seemed to be too much whitespace in my AFDs today, and saw that a nice fat notice had been placed telling editors not to use newspeak like nn and vanity in their nominations and votes.  Apart from the needless whitespace, I also think that the exhortation is too long and wastes too much space without any sort of payoff.  The AFD pages are long enough already without having to load more behind the scenes stuff.  I understand that the OTRS guys may be getting flooded, but it would be better had this notice been posted to the WP:AFD page under the "how to nominate articles" section instead. - Hahnch  e  n 00:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have used afd2 numerous times, and never read the commented out text. It's a template that is designed to be substed. A report on WP:AN has stated that it creates whitespace, and consequently I have reverted the change, because on the one hand we have whitespace, and on the other we have commented out text that no-one will read. And I don't see why we should inconvenience ourselves to salve the feelings of advertisers.
 * We are an open-editing model encyclopaedia. Because we have an open editing model, people will post pages that don't belong here. Because they post pages that don't belong here, it is required that we have an efficient process to get rid of them. Because of this, there will be nominations with too much jargon. Better that we have obscure deletion nominations than we become a free web hosting service for adverts. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Apart from the horrible whitespace, the recommendation: 'Phrases such as "not notable" should be avoided in favor of, e.g. "does not meet our inclusion guidelines." ' is recommending replacing one bad argument with another. "Does not meet our inclusion guidelines" is just going to have the people looking at the AFDs asking "which ones?". Failing asking the nominator to provide a reasoned case for deletion, at least recommend they link to the relevant policy or guideline. And..."We frequently get WP:OTRS complaints about deletion listings" - if we are talking about avoiding jargon let's not use more jargon in the exhortation. Yomangani talk 01:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Adding links to AfD "preloaded debate" template
Per the discussion here, can I ask someone to add the following to the template:



As I said on the AfD talk page, this change should encourage people to investigate the logs and page history, and cases where legitimate articles are changed into non-notable articles that get deleted, may be avoided, previous deletion discussions and speedy deletions may be discovered, and people may be encouraged to look at what links here to see how much disruption a deletion may cause. None of this should over-ride policy considerations, but it is all links to extra information that may help when considering a deletion debate. In addition, this type of thing is already done on the CSD templates, such as Template:db-meta. If this change is too sudden, maybe manually adding the links to a few selected debates where the links are helpful could illustrate my points?

As for the technical stuff, I copied the suggestion above from the AfD talk page, so can someone check exactly how and where it should be added, as I don't know enough about template coding to do that. Thanks. Carcharoth 14:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Since this has been kicking around for a few days and no one else has commented (and there was some support above for the same idea previously) I have gone ahead and made this update for now. We'll see what happens. --CBD 11:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why was it considered desirable to change la to la-admin? All that does is show the vast majority of users administrative functions that they can't actually use. --Metropolitan90 08:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone else did that. See the discussion at the general AfD talk page. Carcharoth 11:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't intend to imply that User:Carcharoth or any other particular person had added the administrative functions, just that somebody had done so. --Metropolitan90 18:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it taught me that ?action=protect works for non-admins (we can't change the settings but we get the screen with the current values on). --ais523 09:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

editprotected
 * On a related note, could


 * be added to this page (preferably just below the la template)? This would make it much easier to go to single debates from AfD logs; the nested includeonlies produce an includeonly on the page itself when substed (I've tested this in the template sandbox X7). --ais523 17:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. I hope it doesn't break anything... JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It broke (see today's afd log); I think you need { – } not – .  But it's also probably unnecessary, as each one in the transcluded list can be accessed via the edit section link. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Checking your edit, I see what happened...


 * should work. (It's because you can't type {{subst: in a page save because it substs too early.) The link would be useful to prevent having to go via edit screens, especially when comparing the article to individual comments, and also to reach individual debates when viewing a page in the log's history (where there aren't section-edit links), but it's not a big deal really. --ais523 09:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Done added newer version.  Kimchi.sg 13:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * At DRV we use
 * {{la|Pear Cable Audio Cables}}{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pear Cable Audio Cables| — (AfD)|}}

{{la|Pear Cable Audio Cables}}{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pear Cable Audio Cables| — (AfD)|}}
 * Maybe this can be done here too. I don't see the need for an extra line. ~ trialsanderrors 22:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The code is more complicated here because the link has to work the same when transcluded on different pages. That said, I shifted the subpage link into the heading.  Kimchi.sg 12:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Problem with listings
editprotected

The long heading is causing problems. For instance, in Articles for deletion/The Political Spectrum of the left and the right in the Roman Catholic Church, it's eating up the entire edit summary space. Please do something. -Amarkov blahedits 22:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I moved it into the second row. ~ trialsanderrors 23:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Tweak to remove need to take off category templates
I propose the template be changed to the code at User:Amarkov/afd2, which will work with the change to the category template I'm also proposing to automatically remove the categories. I brought it up at WT:AFD, and there seemed to be no problems. -Amarkov blahedits 05:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * An example of this working is at User:Amarkov /testingtweak. -Amarkov blahedits 06:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing a little bit of objection over there because of the way some of the bots work; has this been pushed to a wider audience at the Village Pump or anything? -- nae'blis 20:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * *poke*
 * Anything further on this?
 * James F. (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing any rationale presented for making this edit, nor any support. I'm removing the editprotected template, please have a discussion, express reasons for the desired edit, get wider input (via Rfc or the Pump if necessary) and if there is support for this change please repost the editprotected template. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

View AfD ↔ View log
Here is a bit of a tricky one. When looking at the AfD on the project page, is it possible to toggle the "View AfD" link with a link to the AfD in the daily log, e.g. View log It might malfunction if the AfD is created just before midnight and logged just after, but using &lt;noinclude&gt; and subst it should be possible. ~ trialsanderrors 10:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The current code:

======
 *  — (|View AfD)


 * I think tweaking it to

======
 * - (|View AfD)(View log)


 * might work. I'll test it after posting this comment. --ais523 10:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * According to my testing, the previous version was fine but for the month (which I've corrected now). Adding editprotected. --ais523 11:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This looks good. I'll have to find an article to nominate so I can field test it. Btw, there's a simpler way to write dates: . That should cut down on some of the subst: 's. ~ trialsanderrors 11:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've had bad experiences with subst/ParserFunction mixtures borking, so I normally prefer to write it down by hand. As the template is substed, it shouldn't generate any extra server load when rendering the AfD logs or debates. --ais523 11:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem if it works better. I added an "i" to Wikpedia, the anchor link and field tested it with the perfectly titled International Moron Patrol. ~ trialsanderrors 11:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that typo out; somehow I managed to miss it in the testing. I've corrected in the copy-paste code for the editprotected above. --ais523 12:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Added the anchor too. This probably needs one final test now it's been changed, to avoid breaking AfD. --ais523 12:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (After seeing the edits to the template) You probably want to use anchorencode and on the anchor, as they're what determines the heading's anchor and the heading's name. --ais523 12:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I used SUBPAGENAME now. Trying to think which one might be better for 2nd nominations. I guess it's ok to let it run for a couple of hours. ~ trialsanderrors 12:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The template still needs an anchorencode, so I'm bumping the editprotected here. --ais523 13:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed by crzrussian. --ais523 17:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just checked it and it seems to work fine on the current AfD's. One of my bigger beefs after commenting/closing an AfD, that I couldn't simply go back to the log page and continue scanning the following AfD's. If you like the challenge, I posted a request at Template talk:Afd to move the "preload discussion" link into the second row if the AfD page itself doesn't exist yet. There's a bug in my coding and this pretty much has to be field tested, so I can only do it late at night when no one else posts AfD's. ~ trialsanderrors 20:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Request to change
Right now, the DO NOT REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE template is transcluded onto the AFD logs. For future AFD discussions, can we it?— Ryūlóng ( 竜 龍 ) 02:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? ~ trialsanderrors 03:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The various AFD logs should probably not be in the categories and said categories should just be populated by the open AFDs themselves.— Ryūlóng ( 竜 龍 ) 03:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not sure if that can be done with noinclude. Currently, REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD is inside includeonly, and if there is a way to get a noinclude tag onto the AfD discussion page, without noincluding the category template, it's not coming to me. This might be easier to do with something along these lines:

Add that to REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD, and the category will only show when viewing AfD discussion pages. The logs will be unaffected. Luna Santin 04:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You see, I think that would still affect the daily logs. The tags could be utilized so that the next batch would be unaffected, to the best of my knowledge.— Ryūlóng ( 竜 龍 ) 07:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't -- the categorization template would, essentially, only display on an AfD discussion subpage that matches the current pagename. The logs use a different naming format -- Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 18 wouldn't match the #ifeq condition, it'd have to be Articles for deletion/2007 January 18 to cause any problems. Items like FULLPAGENAME and such depend on the page being viewed, not the page being transcluded (previously, this worked against me when I was fixing up rfcu box, but in this case, it would work to our advantage). Luna Santin 08:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Does this create any problems, other than cosmetic ones? I've seen the daily logs listed in the categories but couldn't get stressed about it, especially not enough to add another layer of complexity to the template. Plus I find the links to the deletion sorting projects kinda useful. ~ trialsanderrors 08:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It leads to a problem when the name of the article being deleted contains a slash (but that needs manual adjustment with the current afd1 anyway). (By the way, it was a deliberate decision on my part to have the category on the logs, so looking throught the main CAT:AFD could find logs with unclosed discussions in much the same way as the AfD bots do, but I'm not sure if anyone uses this feature, so I don't mind it being changed.) --ais523 09:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was kind've thinking the same thing -- the logs will only show in-cat if they still have open discussions. I have a slight preference for only including the discussion pages, but either way is fine with me. One way or another, the whole setup is a very good idea. :) Luna Santin 09:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My question was more to ask whether the current setup creates any problems, say with bots. It doesn't seem that way, and it looks like having the logs listed is considered useful not only by me. ~ trialsanderrors 23:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears that Ryulong and I think it clutters up the category, but (while I can't speak for him), I don't think it does so all that much, and as you've pointed out, some people find it useful. No major harm in leaving it, and people want it. Either way, there doesn't seem to be a consensus to make the change, so I'll remove the editprotected template for the time being. Luna Santin 08:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Spelling correction needed
If you give the type as U, the AFD page goes into a category whose name contains the misspelled word "indiscernable" (should be "indiscernible", though the choice of the word is also questionable). I've put the category on CFR, but the template also needs to be changed. --Trovatore 06:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The template has now changed per your suggestion, and the CfR is still running. I've created the destination category of the move (and added it to CAT:AFD) so as to prevent AfD breaking during the debate. --ais523 09:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wording on the starte+editinro page - suggested change
The step-by-step approach is great ("Remaining steps to list article name for deletion:"), but could be improved at the end, I thin. After step 3, "Edit today's ... ", I suggest:

4. Use this line as your edit summary, below ...

5. Save this page.

Right now, step 4 isn't numbered (and adding "below") gives the editor a bit more detail, and step 5 is omitted altogether. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 15:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to Template:Afd3 starter, the editintro that's generated after you click on 'Preloaded debate' on this template, you might want to place an editprotected on its talk along with the exact details of what you're trying to do. --ais523 16:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks; will do. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 21:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal
I want to propose the inclusion of a link that returns to Today's AfD listing (place it beside "View AfD" perhaps). It would save some time and add some efficiency for AfD patrollers in my opinion. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 23:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what the 'View log' link on the individual AfD does (it goes to the log containing that AfD, not to WP:AFD/T)? --ais523 17:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Afd2
Since most AfDs are about whether there is enough WP:RS material, I think we should add the search template as part of Template:Afd2 or revise Template:Afd2 to include search strings. I added the search template to Michael Bilsborough AfD to give an example of what a revised Template:Ln may look like. However, AzaToth recommend here that it may be better to adapt afd2 with search instead of adapting Template:Ln. Your input would be appreciated. -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It would certainly be possible to add {{subst:search}} to Afd2 (due to the way the templates work and the nature of the search template, any addition of it to Afd2 should use optional subst to prevent excessive server load). Do people think that this is a good idea? --ais523 16:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, remember that subst only should be used when it makes logical sense, not for the reason to limit "excessive server load". → Aza Toth 09:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yesterday's AfD has a pre-expand include size of 541812; search without substing would add 911 per AfD to this value, and with the 84 AfDs there were yesterday this would add an extra 76524 bytes to the size (developers initially wanted to set the limit at one mebibyte, but were later persuaded to increase it to two). This isn't as bad as I thought, but would still add a chunk of server load to AfD. (Substing or switching to the template doc page pattern on search would both limit this value.) I'm just a bit jumpy about this, because a similar change to RfA lead to it hitting the limit and nominations not transcluding, but on review search seems reasonably well-behaved. (I have no opinion on whether substing makes logical sense or not here; I don't see anything semantically wrong with the subst, but it may not be necessary.) --ais523 09:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Add link to Introduction to deletion process
It might help newbies to have a link to Introduction to deletion process, such as changing the (#|View AfD) to (About deletion debates – #|View AfD). --h2g2bob (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, certainly some info would help because there are many newbies mistakes.  or   would be nice to have on this template as most don't seem capable of searching. SunCreator (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)