Template talk:Article for deletion/Archive 1

Hidden Link
The final full stop should link to "Template:Vfd" rather than "MediaWiki:Vfd" in order to save a redirect. &mdash; pne 14:30, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Can anyone tell me why is there a link in the full stop to this template in the first place? It just looks weird and not really necessary, so can it be removed or something? Secfan 15:05, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * That is intended to be a "hidden" link - unobtrusive to most users, but useful for those who realize that the template itself may need editing or updating. Without that hidden link, it can be very difficult to find the template since it does not come up through the search engine. Rossami 21:34, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for your response, its just that most other templates I've seen don't have such link there. And are there lists of Wikipedia templates so that they can be more easily accessed? Secfan 13:03, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The link in the full stop is there to allow you to use what links here from template:vfd when the message has been adding using rather than just  . Angela. 02:51, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * The full stop link would not be obvious for new users, and experienced users are already going to know about Template:vfd. I think we should either have an "edit" link, or not have it at all.  The fullstop link is just weird. &mdash; DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:53, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not there to help you edit the template since the template does not need to be easily editable. It is so "what links here" works. That won't work without a hidden link. Angela. 10:15, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Then why can't we make a link that is really hidden, where you can't even tell it's there? There's no good reason why you shouldn't make it an "edit" link.  And doesn't this only happen when you use subst: instead of msg:?  Tell people to use msg: and you'll be fine.
 * Secfan, there is a list of many templates at template messages &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  19:44, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

vfd anchors have changed
Can an admin please update this page so that the "it's entry on that page" links are correct? the anchors on vfd are now Page name &mdash; Discussion. Please update this template accordingly. -- DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:33, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * No, it shouldn't go to the subpage, that still doesn't work. The link should be  its entry on that page  - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 02:59, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * Here is a sample link (look at the discussion page's source to see the wikitag): its entry on that page. Right now the template will generate links like this:its entry on that page which you can see do not work.  - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 12:57, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * This has been resolved. An admin unprotected the vfd template, so I made the changes myself. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:37, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

Could someone please indicate whether the above, which is esoteric enough to require research to understand, has been resolved? If so, the research is not worthwhile!

And please mention whether the problems mentioned applied then, and/or now, to
 * those who followed the (merely current?) directions and made a subst call and/or
 * those who omitted "subst:" and made a straight, every-time-the-template-changes transclusion?
 * (Note that contrary to instructions, there are currently over 300 links to the Template.)

Part of my reason for asking is that my subst-ed then edited test and proposal at Paul Willmore Sr. seems to work OK, but i don't think i can make a proposal here, let along boldly edit the template, if the above problems are still in the air. --Jerzy(t) 19:08, 2004 Jun 30 (UTC)

Changed template to direct link to the vote sub-page. -- Netoholic 05:31, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Anchor linking doesn't often work. Changed standards, inconsistency(single/double hyphen vs. dash), stray white space.
 * 2) Linking right to the sub-page typically saves on >500kb bandwidth because you don't need to pull down the whole page (which gets quite large).
 * 3) Saves time, no hunting through the long page.
 * Oh, and the link to the main WP:VFD page is still there for anyone who wants to use it.

VfD at User:
The wikilink its entry on that page does not work properly on User: pages. See User:Tmxxine. I have no idea on how that can be fixed (nor if that it possible and disirable) &mdash; Nabla 21:18, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
 * Well, we really shouldn't be deleting user pages, but it appears that this happens with everything outside the main namespace, it seems that takes the title without the namespace, so we would have to make a seperate template for VfDing outside the main namespace.  How about its entry on that page as  or something.  Not that we really delete a lot of user pages here, but you might need a similar solution for something in the Namespace.    &mdash; Tasty Sandwich | Talk 14:14, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I'm going to call up a template idea for namespace VfD's here. &mdash; El Chico!  Talk 14:22, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In cases like this, you can do a, then go back and edit the page a second time, adding the "User:" into the appropriate place. &bull; Benc &bull; 07:20, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Help for newcomers
I've linked the vfd template to deletion phrases in hopes that newcomers can have a chance to feel a little less "bitten", by the short quick replies most people at vfd give. &mdash; siro &chi;  o  19:44, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * This page no longer exists and redirects to ‘Guide to Votes on Deletion’. - Ec5618

Bolding
I think the bolding should be on its entry on that page rather than the vfd link itself because that is where people will generally go to when they see the notice and also its not very noticable otherwise. L UDRAMAN | T 22:18, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I also don't like how there are two links to the same discussion. First, it's potentially confusing to the reader. Second, it creates more work when co-listing multiple pages for deletion under the same discussion, or when listing anything outside of the main article namespace. In such cases, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ has to be changed to point to the correct discussion: why make us do it twice? &bull; Benc &bull; 06:57, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Proposed change
Rather than modify such a heavily-used template, I've put up a proposed version at: /Sandbox. Please give it a look. If you have an major objections, comment on it here, please. Any minor objects, just edit the sandbox version. Thanks, &bull; Benc &bull; 07:10, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * That's excellent. I'd get rid of the horizonal rule, though, but you might want to keep it. &mdash;  El Chico!  Talk 21:13, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As there have been no objections after three days, I've updated the actual template. &bull; Benc &bull; 15:46, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 tags
Why did tags get added on the VfD template? It makes the wording much harder to read, at least for me. --Goobergunch 02:11, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Fully agree, looks terrible. - RedWordSmith 05:05, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that and came here. Any reason while it can't be changed back? Darksun 17:33, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care either way, but since three different people have objected to the change (and no one defended it), I've reverted it back to standard text size. &bull; Benc &bull; 19:39, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alternative outlets for rejected articles
I propose to add the link, Alternative outlets for rejected articles at the end of the VfD template text.

It's been bruited around a bit in the mailing list and at Wikipedia_talk:Votes for deletion and nobody seems to have a big problem with the idea of putting such a link in the text.

Certain inclusionists assert that Wikipedia has a narrow view and that they seriously see as valuable the articles that Wikipedia deletes and are seriously willing to include them in their own sites. I think they are silly, but don't see why we shouldn't accommodate them. And it also provides a sop to rejectees, although when they actually take a look at JnanaBase, they... well, let me say that you have to admire the audacity of NSK's vision.

Of various alternatives, this one is the most workable, because it doesn't require Wikipedians other than contributors of articles to do anything, pose any burdens on sysops, or require software changes. Potential rejectees, here is a list of places that say they want your material; do what you like.

I've been trying to think of a shorter phrase than "Alternative outlets for rejected articles" but haven't come up with one so far. It doesn't need to be crystal clear; it just has to be a piece of language that a contributor, whose article has been posted on VfD, will be likely to click on.

I'm a newbie at procedure here; I take it that I leave it here for three days and look for objections before being bold? And that this my listening post for howls of objection? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, here goes. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:53, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wording update
Fix for some poor wording in the existing template:

"A request has been made on Wikipedia for this article to be deleted. This request is being discussed to form a consensus whether the article meets Wikipedia standards."

is more descriptively accurate than:

"This page has been listed for deletion. Please see this page's entry on the votes for deletion page for justifications and discussions."

since the wording "listed for deletion" is more likely to sound like some kind of formal deletion action by senior admins, and which is "listed" rather than merely "requested", to non-Wiki-ists. It also clarifies that a consensus is still to be formed.

and:

"If you feel deletion is not justified by Wikipedia deletion policy you may vote against its deletion."

is more accurate than:

"If you don't want the page deleted, read the deletion policy and vote against its deletion."

which implies it is the personal wishes which are important, and not Wikipedia criteria.

FT2 14:51, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

"Hack"
I removed  and replaced it with two newlines. It was talking about the link to Template:Vfd, as discussed above. I'm sure we can remember to keep that link. &mdash;Ben Brockert (42) UE News  03:55, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Protect against page moves?
If a page with a Vfd notice is moved, the link to the Vfd page breaks. This happened to List of people named bill, for instance.

That's because the Vfd notice uses, and the pagename obviously changes after a page move.

I tried changing Template:Vfd from using to using  but that didn't work... that just hardcoded "Vfd" as the pagename.

Is there some solution to this? -- Curps 20:28, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism protection
Temporary until it blows over. When unprotecting, please keep as protected from move vandalism -- AllyUnion (talk) 21:21, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * page appears not be protected atm, so I've removed the tag.
 * I've just realised its the template thats protect, not this page, so I've restored the template above. Thryduulf 09:48, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This vprotect notice applies to the template, not the talk page. -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the template
I've just had an idea regarding an additional sentence on the VfD template. Following "However, you are welcome to continue editing this article and improve it, especially if you can address the concerns of those who believe the article should be deleted." I propose that we add: "If you make significant changes to the article, it is courteous to mention this on the deletion discussion page." I am not set on that particular wording, indeed I would prefer a phrasing that didn't involve a third link to the same page (see Benc's comments in the Bolding section above). Thryduulf 09:45, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * How about:
 * Should you improve the article and address the concerns of those who believe the article should be deleted, please remark on this page's entry regarding its improvement.
 * -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:48, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I prefer that wording to mine. Thryduulf 14:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Please reword so that the long phrase address the concerns of those who believe the article should be deleted does not appear twice. Otherwise it is a useful addition and there is no harm in linking to the same page three times. -- RWH 19:50, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
 * how about:
 * Should you improve the article to address these concerns, please add a comment on this page's entry that you have done so.
 * I think that it is obvious in context which concerns are being talked about, so we don't need to explicitly mention them again. Thryduulf 20:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Suggested alternative phrasing
"This request is being discussed to form a consensus whether this is, or could be, an article appropriate for Wikipedia. Please see this page's entry on the votes for deletion page for details where votes to keep, delete or otherwise handle the article should be made. Please sign your votes and provide a (brief) reason for them. Please do not remove this notice or blank this page while the question is being considered. However, you are welcome to continue editing this article and improve it, especially if you can address the concerns of those who believe the article should be deleted. Should you improve the article and address the concerns of those who believe the article should be deleted, please remark on this page's entry regarding its improvement. Should the voting be for deletion, consider other possible outlets for the removed article." -- SGBailey 23:02, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)


 * my first impression is that that phrasing is much too dense. The section about voting belongs on the VfD page, not on the template. Thryduulf 23:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For comparison, here is the current text in the same format. It is about half a dozen words longer. There needs to be something here about how to vote. I agree there also needs to be a lot more at VfD where there is no "how to vote", just "what to vote". Feel free to propose something else. -- SGBailey 23:36, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)

"This request is being discussed to form a consensus whether this is, or could be, an article appropriate for Wikipedia. Please see this page's entry on the votes for deletion page for details. Also see possible outlets for removed articles. If you feel deletion is not justified by Wikipedia deletion policy you may vote against its deletion. Please do not remove this notice or blank this page while the question is being considered. However, you are welcome to continue editing this article and improve it, especially if you can address the concerns of those who believe the article should be deleted. Should you improve the article and address the concerns of those who believe the article should be deleted, please remark on this page's entry regarding its improvement." -- SGBailey 23:36, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)


 * How about:

 A request has been made on Wikipedia for this article to be deleted in accordance with the deletion policy.

This request is being discussed to form a consensus whether this is, or could be, an article appropriate for Wikipedia. Please see this page's entry on the Votes for Deletion (VfD) page for details. If you feel that the request is not justified according to the deletion policy or you wish to support the request to delete it, you may vote on this article's VfD page. There you may also post any relevant comments and propose/endorse an alternative course of action to deletion (see: alternative outlets for deleted pages)

Please do not remove this notice or blank this page while the quest is being considered. However you are welcome to continue editing this article to improve it, especially if you can address the concerns of those who believe the article should be deleted. Should you improve the article and address the concerns of those who believe the article should be deleted, please remark on this page's VfD entry regarding its improvement.


 * I know its longer, but I think its clear none-the-less. The template should only really tell you that you can vote for or against and where you can do it. More advanced things like how you can vote and what other detailed options you have should be left for the VfD page. I'd suggest a new template for the start of that, but I'm wary of instruction creep into an already complex process. Thryduulf 00:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mostly I like what you (Thryduulf) have just suggested. My only minor worry is the detail of the "If you feel that " sentence. Surley any votes ought to be in accordance with deletion policy, not just ones in support of keeping the article. Also there are too many negations in the sentence. How about something more like: "According to the deletion policy if you wish to support or oppose the request to delete it, you may vote on this article's VfD page."

 This request is being discussed to form a consensus whether this is, or could be, an article appropriate for Wikipedia. Please see this page's entry on the Votes for Deletion (VfD) page for details. You may support or oppose the request, propose/endorse alternative courses of action (see: alternative outlets for deleted pages), or post other relevant comments, there.  You are welcome to continue editing this article as normal whilst its deletion is being discussed, especially if you can address points raised in the discussion, with the exception that you do not remove this notice or blank this page while the request is being considered. (Such actions are automatically considered to be vandalism and may influence the decision to delete the article.) Should you improve the article to address points raised in the discussion, please mention this on this page's VfD entry.
 * (Uncle G 11:45, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)) Mentioning the deletion policy twice is simply redundant. I suggest a shorter second paragraph:
 * (Uncle G 11:45, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC))I also suggest a shorter third paragraph (although I'm not happy with the final sentence):
 * And yes, I'm thinking along the same lines of making the voting information clearer than it is. The fact that neither Merge nor Redirect are deletion causes continual confusion, for starters. Uncle G 11:45, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

Alternative phrasing 2
How about:

A request has been made on Wikipedia for this article to be deleted in accordance with the deletion policy.

This request is being discussed at this page's entry to form a consensus whether this is, or could be, an article appropriate for Wikipedia based on the deletion policy. If you feel the deletion is not justified after reading Wikipedia's deletion policy, you may vote against its deletion at Votes for Deletion (VfD).

You are welcome to continue editing this article and improve it, especially if you can address the concerns of those who believe the article should be deleted. Should you improve the article and address the concerns of those who believe the article should be deleted, please remark on this page's VfD entry regarding its improvement.

Please do not remove this notice or blank this page while the request is being considered. Such acts are considered as vandalism, and may encourage the consensus for the article's deletion.


 * Maybe should mention about notatibility and inclusion guidelines? Perhaps point to How to write an article? -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * We do have and  already, of course. Uncle G 12:15, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
 * Maybe link to Votes_for_deletion/Precedents? -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe also link to a set of instructions for voting? (What are the valid votes on VFD) -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I've considered that. I think that we need such a set of instructions first.  &#9786; Uncle G 11:45, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
 * We actually do: Votes for deletion phrases -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not sufficient. Uncle G 12:52, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
 * This and other comments here have made we wonder if we need a short template explaining things like this at the top of each VfD page. Thryduulf 08:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I've had a idea that I think might be a better approach, that won't involve any more instruction creep for creating VFD entry pages. I have some notes, but I need to write them up. Give me a day or so. Uncle G 12:52, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
 * One of the problems I have with this banner is the fact that it is telling you to go to the VfD page and vote there (I now understand by clicking on the edit section link). Unfortunately I have my edit section links turned off, so going to VfD is pointless. What I do is from VfD go to the article page where I see this banner and click on the "this page" link which takes me to the commentary and voting and permits simple edit. Why do we want to direct folk to the VfD page? Why not take them straight to the "this (voting) page". The concept of what we are trying to achieve here alters the phrasing significantly. -- SGBailey 15:46, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
 * Actually, in the current template and all of the proposed revisions the "this page's entry" in "Please see this page's entry" is a hyperlink directly to the individual article's discussion page. We already are directing people straight to the voting page.  We need to direct people to WP:VFD as well, because that is currently where the information about voting is to be found (although it seems that at least three of us are dissatisfied with what WP:VFD says &mdash; I'll try to write something tomorrow if I have the time.). Uncle G 17:09, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the way it is phrased I reckon folk are lilely to skip the "this page's entry" in favour of the "VfD" link. -- SGBailey 17:19, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
 * Then use Votes for deletion (VfD) or something along those lines. -- AllyUnion (talk) 21:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Easing server load, shortening the notice, and consolidating the guides
 A request has been made on Wikipedia for this article to be deleted and is currently being discussed in order to form a consensus, in accordance with the deletion policy.
 * I've written up my idea. I now suggest a much shorter notice without the instruction creep:

Please do not remove or deface this notice, blank or merge this page, or turn this page into a redirect whilst the discussion is in progress.

Please read the Guide to Votes for Deletion for more information.
 * Please see Wikipedia talk:Guide to Votes for Deletion for the rationale behind this (and please discuss it there, so that we are, as the saying goes, "all on the same page"). Uncle G 18:08, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)

90% font
I notice that this has been commented because it was "too cluttered, and hard to read". I disagree: it emphasizes the important text at the top, is perfectly easy to read (text much smaller than this is on many other templates and whatnot), and reduces the size of this already bloated notice. &mdash; Dan | Talk 17:25, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Link to Votes for deletion
Why don't we need the link here? I personally, when listing pages, always use two browser tabs and use the two links to bring up VfD and the subpage. This is adding about a minute and a half (loading VfD) to my time... I realise it's not needed, but it is useful... Cheers, Smoddy (t) (e) (g) 23:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The logic of that escapes me. You are complaining that loading WP:VFD is slow, therefore you should ... have a hyperlink to WP:VFD so that you can click on it to load it.  That makes no sense.  Furthermore, the whole point of not having a hyperlink from the notice to WP:VFD (which is explained at Wikipedia talk:Guide to Votes for Deletion, which you really should have read since it explains the changes just made as pointed out immediately above on this very talk page) is to stop everyone seeing a VFD notice (including all of the VFD novices) from loading up WP:VFD unnecessarily too, with the comcomitant increase in load with all of that transclusion, when what they actually need to load up are the page with the particular discussion on, a page that explains what they are looking at, and the deletion policy &mdash; exactly the three hyperlinks on the notice with the modifications described above.  And, as has also been pointed out, if they want to look at other discussions, there's always the link to WP:VFD right at the top of the individual discussion page that they can follow.  Similarly, nominators only need to load up the discussion page and the per-day page.  They don't need to load up WP:VFD either (if they are familiar enough with the instructions on how to make a nomination).  This way, the only hits on WP:VFD are from the people who really do want to see the full transcluded list. When you realised that WP:VFD took so long to load, and when you saw a section of this very talk page entitled "Easing server load", what did you think that it could have been about? Uncle G 00:04, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
 * Whoa, whoa. I'm sorry if I've annoyed you...  I was saying that I found the new system a little more difficult to use.  In that case, if loading the whole VFD page is too much, how about only the particular date page? Not having the link is not a problem, per se, but does slow listing down, which is a problem when RC patrolling.  I found the rationale for removing the link on the page you quoted as less than clear.  I don't see the need for the above rant though.  Smoddy (t) (e) (g) 14:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Smoddy: the VFD link is useful, which ought to trump any worries about server load (and even that should become less of a problem in the near future). &mdash; Dan | Talk 15:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes to the template
Just wondering why the template now says "do not... move this article"? Changing an article name is often an important part of fixing it. JYolkowski 22:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It breaks the link to the VfD subpage. Goplat 00:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * That's why you use subst:, so that it doesn't. JYolkowski 01:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It will whether you use subst: or not, although if you used subst: you can just fix the link without having to manually copy the template's text into the article first. Goplat 02:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right, I got somewhat confused there. Thanks, JYolkowski 03:07, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Message box format
There has been a quiet revert war going on recently about a proposed switch to a message box format instead of the traditional format. I can't comment on the technical advantages or disadvantages of each but I want to put my vote in for the traditional view. I'm not sure why this happens but the message box version conflicts with the script that a few of us are running which suppresses the closed discussions on VfD/Old. (The header and footer which are added to the closed discussion have code which the script recognizes. See Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Old for more.)  That script is very useful for finding and closing discussions on the Old pages. I'd hate to have to give it up. Rossami (talk) 22:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tidying Up
I made 2 changes to the template: I removed the unnecessary &lt;br&gt; to make the template a bit more compact. Also, I removed the notice not to deface the notice, as it was quite silly and caused the text to break to a new line and take up a bit more space on the page than necessary. If I have stepped on any toes, my apologies. Kaldari 19:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I've restored the request not to deface the notice. It's not silly at all.  Furthermore: Not everyone's web browser windows are the same width and resolution as yours.  Removing a word because "it caused the text to break to a new line" is daft.  If the exact placements of things within your web browser's window is your reason for continually fiddling with this notice, please stop. Uncle G 21:45, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but having a notice that says "don't deface this notice" is utterly silly. Why don't we just put a notice on every single page that says "Don't deface this page". It's totally pointless. And I realize that everyone's window sizes are different, I just meant that it's better to be more concise so that the notice takes up less screen real estate. Kaldari 06:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. It's not silly at all.  I suggest that you familiarize yourself with how the VFD notice is actually applied (At the very least read what is written on this very page.) and some of the things that are frequently done to it by novices before being bold again. Uncle G 11:14, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

I'd like to stress that the appearance and content of this template have been discussed a great deal on this page, consensus being that it should be as small, clean, and concise as possible, including no more nor less than the vital information. Drastic changes should be reasoned carefully, and preferably discussed here first, especially since it is common to use  (meaning that, once inserted, the template's appearance is not automatically updated). &mdash; Dan | Talk 22:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I have a problem with the current background colour, in that there is no background colour. Not on my laptop screen, anyway. I find this white block of text ugly. Also, 'or deface this notice'? Is that a real problem? Is that not a rather obvious suggestion?

What's wrong with:  This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please vote on and discuss the matter. See this article's entry on the Votes for Deletion page. You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank, merge, or move this article, nor remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, read the Guide to Votes for Deletion.


 * It's missing the words "or deface", for starters, and it has a newline before the category that results in a spurious newline in the article. The words "is being nominated" bring the aspect of voting to the fore, the wrongness of which has been discussed extensively, both at Wikipedia and at Meta. The words "vote on and discuss the matter" are, as Rdsmith4 has pointed out several times, wrong for the same reasons. Uncle G 11:14, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
 * It does not contain the words "is being nominated".

I find 'Please vote on and discuss' to run more smoothly than 'Please discuss and vote on'. The background colour is now visible on my laptop screen as well. – Ec5618 00:36, May 10, 2005 (UTC) or:  This article has been nominated for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please vote on and discuss the matter. See this article's entry on the Votes for Deletion page. You are also welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank, merge, or move this article, nor remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, read the Guide to Votes for Deletion.

-Ec5618 08:22, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's missing the words "or deface", for starters, and it has a newline before the category that results in a spurious newline in the article. The words "is being nominated" bring the aspect of voting to the fore, the wrongness of which has been discussed extensively, both at Wikipedia and at Meta. The words "vote on and discuss the matter" are, as Rdsmith4 has pointed out several times, wrong for the same reasons. Uncle G 11:14, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
 * Considering the fact that User:Rdsmith4 has not yet posted on this page, you'll have to provide more arguments for your point to be valid. - Ec5618 16:40, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Wrong. He has.  In this very section of the page, even.  He has also made edit history comments, which I suggest that you read. Uncle G 18:10, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
 * Wrong. He hasn't. Perhaps you're mistaking him for someone else. This section? Are you perhaps thinking of me? Kaldari? Dan? As for edit history, the only relevant he said was: "on the contrary, the previous text is much clearer; discussion comes before voting". As I said before, I find 'Please vote on and discuss' to run more smoothly than 'Please discuss and vote on'. Two opposing opinions. What makes Rdsmith4's opinion so great? And thank you for adressing my concerns. - Ec5618 19:07, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * In fact I have, and am doing so right now. Sorry for the confusion - I sign as "Dan". Uncle G expresses my opinion well, but it is no more than my opinion. I'd simply like it to be made clear that VFD, despite its name, is about forming consensus, and not about partisanship or voting. &mdash; Dan | Talk 21:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Notice: Do not deface this notice
All other issues aside, I feel strongly that the admonition against defacing the VfD notice is inappropriate. Not only is it almost comically pointless, but it also does not assume good faith. No other Wikipedia templates contain such a warning (or such a paternalistic tone). Kaldari 14:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * History has, however, proven that we need such an admonition here. The clause was only added after long experience with notices that had been defaced or modified inappropriately.  Yes, we should assume good faith but not the to point of denying reality or experience.  Rossami (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * History has proven? How do people 'deface' the notice? And how does the dire warning message prevent them from doing so? If there is a need for a warning message, add it in tags in the code. You'll be able to give a stern talking to to anyone editing the template. - Ec5618 16:40, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

 This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please vote on and discuss the matter. See this article's entry on the Votes for Deletion page. You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank, merge, or move this article, nor remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, read the Guide to Votes for Deletion.


 * The other problem is that this template is auto-inserted with the use of subst:, meaning that if someone messes up the template, the messed up version of the template is included onto the page which is being considered for VfD. -- AllyUnion (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying the tag is replaced in all pages by the actual text in the template? Would the comment not be added to all these pages aswell? - Ec5618 17:26, May 11, 2005 (UTC)