Template talk:Afd notice

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Cfd-notify which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Afd notice which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Changing the text of this page
An editor has suggested changing the page text from this: - A discussion is taking place as to whether the article : is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/ until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article - to this: - This is a courtesy message to notify you that the article : is being considered for deletion. All editors, including you, are welcome to discuss this at Articles for deletion/ until a consensus is reached. The nomination and discussion are expected to focus on the quality of evidence and the policies and guidelines which are of concern. Please be aware that there are a number of arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion.

Users are encouraged to edit the article during the discussion, particularly in ways that address the concerns raised in that discussion. However, please do not attempt to remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article— doing so may be considered an act of bad faith and will not halt the deletion process. Thank you! - I don't have an opinion on the matter yet, but this is very well-known and widely-used template which has been discussed and contended over in the past. I know because some years back I suggested just to change the icon, and there was a lively and long discussion over this (it wasn't changed). I note for instance that the suggested new version adds a link to Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, which could be contentious -- that page is just an essay, and IMO at least some of the proscribed arguments are actually pretty sound. On the other hand, some of the suggested changes could well be improvements.

Anyway, as a matter of procedural principle, I'd like to see this change discussed and not made absent consensus to do so. Herostratus (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
Just to list the main differences...
 * Suggested new version begins "This is a courtesy message..." and that seems a nice touch.
 * Old version says the discussion is whether the article "is suitable for inclusion... or whether it should be deleted", suggested new version says the article "is being considered for deletion". The latter is a more succinct. You could say it's a bit stark. It might be more plainly accurate.
 * The old version says "anyone is welcome" to talk about it, the latter says "All editors, including you, are welcome". The latter is slightly less succinct but maybe a bit more welcoming.
 * The old version says "The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines" whole the suggested new version says "The nomination and discussion are expected to focus on the quality of evidence and the policies and guidelines which are of concern" which is a bit longer and adds a link to List of policies and guidelines. List of policies and guidelines is quite a handful and one could maybe question whether linking to it here leads the reader a bit far away from the matter at hand.
 * The new version then adds "please be aware that there are a number of arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion" with a link to Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. For good or ill, this considerably raises the profile of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.
 * The old version says "Users may edit" the article while the suggested new version says "Users are encouraged to edit" the article. That's quite a difference in emphasis.
 * They both says not to remove the atticle's deletion notice, but the new version further explains "doing so may be considered an act of bad faith and will not halt the deletion process". Whether this is necessary or useful I don't know. Maybe. Herostratus (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * My thanks to Herostratus for creating this discussion. I realize that this is a frequently used template— I had hoped my changes would not be considered of sufficient gravity to warrant discussion (which was probably naïve of me), but am certainly glad to have as much input on this as possible.  My thoughts in revising were these: 1.) Being notified that your article is being considered for deletion is often devastating for new editors who feel unfamiliar with "the ropes" and may already expect themselves to fail in defending it.  I wanted to make clear that their participation in the discussion is something we encourage, in no small part because if they are someday to become life-time editors, they will need to understand how to appropriately participate in deletion discussions. It is never too early to learn. 2.) I also wanted to remove the seemingly personal nature of the template message: although the message is a standardized one, the editor reading it may not understand this and may get the impression that he/ she is being approached personally/ targeted on the matter of the deletion ("We have spotted you and YOU are suspect!").  By stating that this is a "courtesy notice", I hope such editors will quickly understand that the notice is a templated one, AND to understand that we are a "courteous" bunch who do not do things behind each others' backs (mostly...!). 3.) Lastly (for now), I wanted to give these editors a heads-up regarding the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions— if they are unaware of these, then they are almost certainly going to make some of those very arguments, which will then undermine their own cause (because the REST of us already know them, presumably).  I wanted to mark the mine field, which seems fair to do in order that they get no surprises if/ when they take steps to defend the article.


 * I have been thinking about this for over a year now, and finally wanted to put those thoughts into action for the good of the project. To me, that means giving new editors (those most likely to create an article which then becomes nominated for deletion) some of the same tools the rest of us use when participating in a deletion discussion (btw, the mention of and link to the policies and guidelines is also included in the original version— I only changed its location here for style reasons, though i do not disagree that it is tedious and a LOT to digest for a newbie).  My apologies for not initiating this discussion here before implementing the new wording— again, Herostratus  has done what I did not, and I am grateful for that.  Am very interested in hearing the thoughts of other editors on this. KDS4444 (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It's fine. I greatly appreciate you thinking about this. And I know what you mean. This template is important. For a lot of users its a shock; its seldom a pleasant thing to see for any user. It's probably a rude introduction to an aspect of the Wikipedia for many new editors -- you know, a lot of editors that will (or at any rate could) go on to become fine editors and create fine articles, maybe their first effort is nominated for deletion.


 * It's a hard line to walk because we want to say two things: "Well, thank you for creating this article, and now some your colleagues are going to help you by joining in and having a discussion about the article". At the same time we need to communicate: "NOTICE! Something you maybe put some serious effort into is about to be maybe ERASED, possibly by some deletionist hardcases. You might want to get over there tout de suite and try to save your baby".


 * (Of course, a lot articles that get this notice are lousy articles; but there's no need to pile on here in this template; those articles will (usually) get deleted anyway, and fine. In the meantime there's no cost (and some benefit) to pretending in this template that all created articles are worthy efforts.)


 * Hmmm... I mean we could say it something like this:

-
 * Ambox warning orange.svg Thank you for creating :! Writing of articles is a lifeblood of our project, and we appreciate your joining with us in this effort. We work together here as colleagues, and one way we do this is to gather in a group and discuss and consider new articles. : is under consideration right now, and (since we can't keep all new articles) one possible outcome would be the deletion of this article.


 * The discussion is here: Articles for deletion/. The discussion is expected to focus on the quality of evidence and the policies and guidelines which are of concern, and together we hope to reach a consensus on the disposition of the article.


 * Editors (including you) are encouraged to edit the article during the discussion, particularly in ways that address the concerns raised in that discussion. However, please do not attempt to remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

-
 * A couple problems with this is:
 * It's a complete rewrite of the template, which would be very heavy lifting to get accepted. Wikipedians, as a rule, do not like to change things.
 * While trying to be pleasant and welcoming, it's possibly too la-di-dah. The person might get the impression that there's a tea party going on, when in fact what might be happening is maybe a lot more serious and maybe not so nice, and consequently not take the notice seriously enough.


 * So getting back to your version. There's lots to like. I get your point about giving "new editors... some of the same tools the rest of us use when participating in a deletion discussion". So I dunno. I just personally just think that too many of the entries Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions could at least be part of a reasonable argument. If there was a short page "Good arguments to use in deletion discussions", that would be better... Basically WP:GNG is the gold standard for articles -- if you meet it you're usually OK, if not then usually not -- and maybe editors should be pointed to that?


 * I could offer a slightly amended version, but I won't yet. Let's see if anyone else has thoughts. Herostratus (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree completely that there is a fine line to walk between being welcoming and being serious and stern: new editors receiving this notice should feel two things: 1.) thank you for making an effort at creating something that might be interesting, and 2.) we have standards here, real ones, that your creation might not possibly be meeting right now, and if you have any hope of saving it, you need to get involved. I don't want to encourage 3rd grade students to feel comfortable creating dubious articles about their math teachers any more than I want serious professional adults to feel uncomfortable about submitting an article about a recent theoretical development in physics.  Part of learning how to edit Wikipedia is learning how to properly take notice of what is going on, and to respect that business— or else what you do will get removed.  I recall that my own very first article submission was deleted— and it should have been!  But at the time, I remember feeling extremely overwrought over the business, and much too emotionally involved in the outcome...  And a little devastated when I "lost".  But I am still here, and I think I do better editing because I understand that what I do can be deleted if I am not minding my Ps and Qs.  I needed that first slap in the face to make me realize it was serious.  And then I needed gentle hands to help me down and disconnect from it personally.  I want to see a template that prepares me for both of those things (well, prepares me better than the current template does, anyway!).  But so far I am getting the feeling that there are only two of us who care about this business...  am I wrong??  KDS4444 (talk) 06:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's been 10 days now and no other editor has chosen to comment on my proposed changes, either for or against. Can I see the slightly amended version you propose, Herostratus?  Maybe we can take it from there.  Thanks!  KDS4444 (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

OK. I now don't remember exactly what I had in mind, but melding some of the elements of your text and mine, I come up with this: - Thank you for creating :! New articles are an important element of this project. However, as with many new articles, the community is now discussing whether this article meets our standards, so it is now being considered for deletion.

All editors, including you, are welcome to discuss this at Articles for deletion/ until a consensus is reached. The nomination and discussion are expected to focus on the quality of evidence and the policies and guidelines which are of concern.

Editors, including you, are encouraged to edit the article during the discussion, particularly in ways that address the concerns raised in that discussion. However, please do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - Here are the differences from your text:
 * Difference one -- changed
 * This is a courtesy message to notify you that the article [article] is being considered for deletion.
 * to
 * Thank you for creating [article]! New articles are an important element of this project. However, as with many new articles, the community is now discussing whether this article meets our standards, so it is now being considered for deletion.


 * Difference two -- separated the material beginning at "All editors, including you..." into a separate paragraph, which is a minor formatting change.


 * Difference three -- deleted
 * Please be aware that there are a number of arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion.


 * Difference four -- changed
 * Users are encouraged to edit...
 * to
 * Editors, including you, are encouraged to edit...


 * Difference five -- changed
 * However, please do not attempt to remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article
 * to
 * However, please do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article


 * Difference six -- deleted from the end:
 * doing so may be considered an act of bad faith and will not halt the deletion process. Thank you!

Differences two, four and five are minor tweakings and don't much matter either way.

Difference one is wordier. I'm trying to thread the needle here (of being welcoming and thanking while still making clear what is happening). Suggestions for further improvement welcome.

Difference three is key. I do see the point of providing the editor with useful tools. I just... I don't want to valorize that page that much. I also wonder if including this sentence will make it harder to get community acceptance. I'm flexible on this.

Difference six removes an extra half-sentece -- we want it as short as possible, and the clause doesn't add enough IMO.

Also... I didn't do it, but I'm wondering if rather than pointing to List of policies and guidelines we should point to Notability? After all meeting or not meeting the WP:GNG (and/or one of its many substandards) is the crux of most (although admittedly not all) deletion discussions...

OK, you or anyone let me know what you think about points one thru six or other thoughts, and lets see if we can cobble something together that can get accepted. Herostratus (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm also thinking of adding, after "...being considered for deletion", something along the lines of "Don't be downcast! Our best editors (especially when starting out, but throughout their careers) get some of their articles deleted. It's part of the wiki way for the community to consider these matters" or something like that. It is a lot of extra words though. But might still be worthwhile. Herostratus (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello? Herostratus (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:KDS4444 have you lost interest? Herostratus (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Herostratus, to have been away from this for so long: A.D.D., too many fingers in too many pies. My apologies. With regard to the things you mentioned: it looks like your greatest concern is regarding Difference 3, the inclusion of a mention of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I know that page is only an essay, but I remember when I first discovered it I was like, "OH! So HERE are all the things I should be aware of!" I found it helpful in understanding how Wikipedia worked, how and why things/ articles I myself had written were being quite reasonably nominated for deletion ("reasonably" to me once I had read over that page). I am pretty sure that it is a page that editors who are doing the deletion nominating are familiar with, and as I said, it seems fair to make all editors whose articles are facing a deletion nomination to be made equally aware. Are you concerned it is not under the scrutiny of most policy and guideline pages and that we shouldn't be sending people there for that reason? Because I could agree with that to the extent that policy and guidelines are very important, but I am not proposing excluding any important guideline/ policy in exchange for including it (least, I don't think so!). I am willing to forego Difference 6 if you feel it is not helpful (though I just, I swear to God I just had a new editor do just what Difference 6 says he must not to an article he had created, and I am pretty sure the act has lead to a spiral which will likely mean he never edits again, and that was not my intention but hey, he was warned, right? I guess?). Thoughts on all that? KDS4444 (talk) 08:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, welcome back User:KDS4444! My gosh I had forgotten about this also. OK, we are almost there. Yes, very well, regarding Difference Three, that's fine, we'll keep it in. You make a good point, it's fine. As to Difference Six, how about a compromise: Add back in the italics for emphasis and "doing so will not halt the deletion process", but not the mention of "bad faith". I just feel, we've told them what not to do and why, and italicized it, that's enough, no need to bring the term "bad faith" into the conversation. OK give me a bit of time and I'll post a new version, and maybe we can move forward on putting it before the community for consideration. Herostratus (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You, sir, have a deal! Let's implement! put forth for consideration!  Oh, and one thought: I have always found it disconcerting for any Wikipedia instruction to say, "Please do this" or "Please do not do that", because it makes me think that doing or not doing the thing is only a matter of politeness and not one of any seriousness or importance...  This might then mean to some editors that "Please do not remove the notice from this article" means "We would rather you didn't remove the notice, but if you did, hey, no worries."  Except that is not what the "please" really means.  It really means: "If you do this thing, there will be some consequences you won't like and won't be able to stop."  I am all for keeping the template short, however— could we work in some sort of wording that makes it plain that removing the tag isn't just a matter of being impolite but will result in some real consequences?  Part of understanding that Wikipedia is serious is knowing what the consequences are for disobeying the "please", and new editors just don't know or realize what is at stake for violating it.  Please share your thoughts on that.  Thanks!!  KDS4444 (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with KDS4444 on the please. There is a reason "please" is generally considered a poor practice in technical writing; it makes the statement sound less like an instruction ("do this" or "don't do this") and more like a polite suggestion. We don't say, "Please click OK to continue", we just say "Click OK to continue". --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 April 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved to Xfd notice format (this seemed to be the most-suggested form). There is, as one would expect, no prejudice against the creation of redirects if they are deemed to be missing. Primefac (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

– Six different names with five different formats for nine similar templates. It's confusing and frustrating for those who work across projects, especially since there are insufficient redirects. To which title format should these templates be unified? Note that this is an RfC and an RM because of how important this is. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 02:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Template:Afd notice → ?
 * Template:Cfd-notify → ?
 * Template:Cfdnotice2 → ?
 * Template:RFDNote → ?
 * Template:Tfdnotice → ?
 * Template:Tfmnotice → ?
 * Template:Fdw → ?
 * Template:Fdw-multi → ?
 * Template:Mfd notice → ?


 * Comment - I'm wondering if this wouldn't be better handled as a merge proposal at WP:TFD. Make a brand new template like discussion notice with a parameters for each Xfd type. Once its done we can just deprecate and redirect these old names to it. -- Netoholic @ 06:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, I oppose there bring a centralized template for all of the nominated templates since some have their own unique wording that does not match the sentence structure of others. In fact, I could only support such a template if someone was willing to create a module to perform the tasks which this template would call. Steel1943  (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose all for the plain reason of not seeing a need to affect several automated gadgets and user scripts (specifically, just for a cosmetic change of these template's names) for the sake of consistency. The alternative solution here would be to create any redirects that meet the naming conventions of the others (like, for example, create Template:Rfdnotice to target Template:RFDNote (which I apparently did in 2014) so that the templates are easier to locate. (Also, seems that the transclusion of Twinkle standard installation on each of these templates' documentation pages was either ignored or unnoticed when creating this move request, so I have posted a notice at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle.) Steel1943  (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ...Just scratch all that out since like the nom, yes, I'd prefer everything be consistent, and I ... ugh, once again ... forgot that gadgets and scripts can function off redirects. So, not supporting, but not opposing. Steel1943  (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think this would require any script to be updated. Twinkle just calls, and going through the redirect  works just the same. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This needs to be done via RfC (not RM) on a centralized page because it needs community-wide consensus. It affects atleast two gadgets and a handful of userscripts - so will require a lot of time to put those in order before this change be implemented if it does gain consensus. -- qedk ( t  愛  c ) 22:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it's a great idea to have some naming consistency. And RM is exactly the right venue for it. And even though it will be a good idea to update the gadgets/scripts, I think there will be no immediate effect on them provided redirects are left, which they will be, of course. So, what should the name be? The trend in template names is to use natural words and spacing, so I would propose "Xfd notice". --Bsherr (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support No reason for naming inconsistencies. I even proposed this move way back in 2016. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, won't affect userscripts. I prefer the Afd notice format or alternatively AfD notification, but I support any form of consistency. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Move all to "Xfd notice" style - Some already are there, so this is WP:CONSISTENT and WP:CONCISE. -- Netoholic @ 17:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: FWIW, for a while, I've desired to start a WP:TFD merge discussion for Fdw and Fdw-multi, but due to their current codes, don't know how to go about proposing a specific way to do it. Steel1943  (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and open the discussion and don't worry too much about the technical aspects. One of the template gurus will make it work. Its pretty reasonable that we only need 1 such notice template and that a merged template can easily be made to handle both single and multi- . -- Netoholic @ 18:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If I do, I will wait until this discussion is over since it can be seen as disruptive to have multiple discussions open for the same page at the same time. On a related note, Cfd-notify and Cfdnotice2 both existing as live templates is redundant... Steel1943  (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: There's also MFDWarning missing from the list. It's what Twinkle uses, and predates Mfd notice by a decade. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 02:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also: Fdw and Fdw-multi are related to Fdw-iw; that might need to be included? ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 02:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, even more potential template merges that I'm now seeing... Steel1943  (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, especially one centralized discussion template - no need for different phrasing. Consistency makes us look professional. CapnZapp (talk) 07:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support consistent naming, whatever the format chosen, and please create redirects for all the other formats (Tfd-notice, AfD-notify etc). Most of the time these templates are used, this happens either via scripts or from the suggestions from within the nomination tags, but every now and then there's the need to look them up manually, and it's an unholy pain in the neck when their names are so all over the places. – Uanfala (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.