Template talk:Afd top

"Expensive" parsers
Ed, re, why would "expensive" parser functions even matter in archives which pull so few views? Selery (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Views are not the determining factor, re-caching is. Each time anything on, or related to, the archive page is changed, the page has to be rebuild which causes the 'expensive' hit. And if over time those parser functions build up in the archive, we have a problem. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 23:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I don't believe the server would actively update the parser and rebuild the page except when someone requests the page, and I don't see us ever having enough users surfing old AfDs at once for it to be a real problem.  Regardless, I don't believe that the edit was necessary and would rather not see it repeated, for the sake of keeping the template as simple as possible.  And no, we can't simply subst: the parser to make life easier, because the existence of an article's talk page might change some time after an AfD is closed.  Cheers.  lifebaka++ 00:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Remove italics from "Please do not modify it."
,, and anybody else: Would it be okay to remove the italics to the bolded, red, italicized text "Please do not modify it."? Generally, it is bad style to both bold and italicize something, and the red makes it even worse/more unnecessary. This can be accomplished by putting two extra ' on both sides of the text for the top and bottom templates. While we're at it, color could be changed to #C00 as well. See the example and the original below it: 
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request proposal
As per Deletion review/Log/2017 February 15, amplification of this template is suggested.

Was:

appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).

New:

appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page, the closing administrator's talk page, the AfD talk page, or in a deletion review).


 * Unscintillating (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I see this never received a response. For what it's worth, I'm not aware that the AFD talk page is used for anything, let alone would we recommend it as a place to lodge a concern. Largoplazo (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Referencing the article's talk page when the result was "delete"
I propose that the template be updated so that when the result is "delete", instead of "such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review", the template should produce "such as in a deletion review", as there should be no talk page from that point on. Largoplazo (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 April 2022
Please add the "archived" class so tools can recognize discussions as having been archived. At least Bawl, Convenient Discussions and Reply-link recognize this, possibly others that I'm unaware of. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 02:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)