Template talk:Afd2

Relisting debates

It was recently brought to my attention that when relisting AfD debates the "View Log" link still points to the old AfD log rather than the newer transclusion destination. I don't know that there's any way to fix this in the template programming (doubt it, but I'm no programmer)...if not, perhaps this means WP:RELIST should have a remark about manually changing the log? Thoughts? — Scientizzle 19:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of anything, but I've just got minor template syntax knowledge. I'm pretty sure it can't be done, because the tempalte is substited, as is {{relist}}. It might be possible to look for some comment added by the relist template and update the "View log" link according to the timestamp from relisting, but that sounds more like a bot thing. I at least update the link when I relist, so people can get back to the log an AfD is on, and I suggest that for the time being at least. Perhaps a discussion at WT:DELPRO or WP:AN would help. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

My own limited programming knowledge suggested a very small chance of a programming solution, but I thought I'd ask...I think I'll probably bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. I've almost never use that log button, the manual fix isn't discussed at WP:RELIST, and nobody told me about it in the year-and-a-half I've been closing AfDs! — Scientizzle 20:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Documentation

{{editprotect}} Please add <noinclude>{{Documentation}}</noinclude> to the bottom of the template. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 13:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 13:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 13:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

DRV notice in AfD page

The DRV discussion seems to approve providing notification of DRVs in an AfD. Template:Afd2 should be modified so that, in addition to the box listing "AfDs for this article:" that it also lists "DRVs for this article:" (which should only appear if there are any prior DRVs or subsequent DRVs). Thoughts? -- Suntag ☼ 13:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's doable. The "AfDs for this article" section works because an AfD exists at its own page that gets transcluded on to the AfD log. DRVs, on the other hand, are not transcluded and do not exist on their own page - they are merely a subsection of each day's DRV log, and thus there exists no way to access previous DRVs on a subject via templates. Shereth 16:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

adding closure date ?

per the discussion on AN here about early closures of AfD debates. What do watchers of the page think about adding something like

Discussion scheduled to end {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#time: j F Y "(UTC)"|+5 days}}

To the template - reminding closers of the time the debate is supposed to run for ? - Peripitus (Talk) 11:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note in support of this change. We'll see if it sticks :) Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - WP:NOTBURO, and on first look, prohibits speedy closures even when they're warranted. Also looks ugly. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Can someone please remove it? It serves no purpose whatsoever. Anyone who knows how to close an AfD knows that five days is standard. AfD is sorted by day, so a mental calculation is all that's required, unlike RfA, where this kind of notice is useful. As I've said, on the face of it, it prevents any AfD from being closed prior to the time limit, regardless of whether speedy closure is warranted/needed. It's also an eyesore which appears five times on my screen (1440*900) which serves no useful purpose whatsoever. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep the notice, I think it is a good idea to reinforce the deletion policy that AFDs are meant run at least five days as was discussed on WP:AN recently. It gives clarity to contributors on when the AFD will close in almost all cases. However I would add the word 'scheduled' to the message so that it reads "Discussion scheduled to run until at least 8 February 2009" to give some leeway in the limited cases where an early closure is required. Davewild (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  Do we need that 125 times on a single log page, especially when we can put a notice at the top of that instead? At the very least, noinclude it. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  Ok you make a reasonable case as I see the notice has make placed on the days log. I suggest taking the notice off here for now as Sceptre suggests and lets see if the notice on the days log has the desired effect of reducing the early closures. If it does not then we can reconsider whether a notice on here, perhaps in a less obtrusive manner, could be made. Davewild (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  I added the notice to today's only just to see what it would look like; that's now unobtrusive. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed this based on the opposition on this page. per the discussion on WP:AN I think some sort of notice is required as admins are clearly not following the 5 day policy - what form the notice though ? - Peripitus (Talk) 01:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Bug in template

During the deletion review of Acharya S, there was a discussion of the AFD page. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya S (2nd nomination). This page includes 3 AFDs including one for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya Sita Ram Chaturvedi who is not the same person, not a related article.... I'm not sure how frequently this occurs but I think is a bug in the template. jbolden1517^Talk 21:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion message

Per (part of) this discussion Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#deleting invalid votes from afd's, how difficult would it be to add a brief talkheader type message specific to deletion discussions? Just how brief would be another issue - ranging from a couple of words linking to Wikipedia:AFD#How to discuss an AfD to some or all of template:not a ballot. The message could either come above the article name (would look best on the AFD entry) or on the right of it, above the links (would look best on the log page). Separately from the feasibility, is it a good idea to explore this? (NB A related idea exists in the archive for this talk page, with no obvious outcome.) Rd232 ^talk 02:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'd prefer not to have a message, however short. A cursory look at past AfDs with participation from new users will show that manual additions of "notavote" templates don't seem to have an impact on behavior. I can't imagine that an automatic reminder will be much more effective. Protonk (talk) 07:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• It might, because of being more widely and consistently applied. Also how exactly can you tell from past AFDs that templates haven't add much effect? The major effect would be discouraging people never previously involved with WP from leaving a vote; if they have nothing to add to the discussion they wouldn't leave a message, and hence no trace. In other words, if the template dissuades (some) potential voters from voting, only a pretty sophisticated statistical analysis (certainly more than a cursory glance) would be able to tell. NB bear in mind templates were only selectively applied in the past on problem AFDs - whose statistical behaviour is therefore abnormal; adding it to all AFDs and seeing if it improves average behaviour (even anecdotally) would be a valid trial. Rd232 ^talk 13:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Quantitatively, I can't prove it. I have no way of knowing whether or not the addition of a big "notavote" template stopped a half dozen people or forced them to give support for their reasoning. My strong suspicion is that it doesn't. Anyone who has been around AfD for a while can recongnize that kind of debate from a mile away. Some website, game or bio is nominated for deletion and a few dozen people on a forum dedicated to the subject show up to argue that the article should be kept. Someone (usually the nominator) puts that big ugly template up reminding folks that AfD isn't a vote and I would say about 15-25% of the time it is heeded. The other times it is ignored completely, it is made moot (article is speedied, or no one shows up), or the newcomers were being hyper-formal anyway (something I've seen a lot). when it is heeded, it is helpful. But another thing to consider for a template which is transcluded to every AfD is that people tend to ignore directions like that. We have the various edit-notices for namespaces and those are ignored frequently (though it is difficult to make a good judgment on their value...we may get a chance when the devs remove single article edit notices, but that is another story). The manually added notavote templates are large and conspicuous. they may get noticed by people coming to AfD for the first time. But any template which would reach consensus here to be on all AfDs would be nowhere near as conspicuous. Even if you don't buy my story about people ignoring directions based on repeated viewing, you have to concede that a much more unobtrusive template would garner much less attention. Protonk (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Not necessarily with single AFD pages - it's a much more favourable situation than talk pages, where people jump to recent discussion at the bottom of the page and away from the top, where the notices are (hmm, food for thought... anyway). By contrast, on an AFD entry people start by reading the nomination (don't they?) and a small, unobtrusive notice right next to it (almost part of the nomination) is more likely to be read. In fact by being small enough not to trigger the jaded web-user's "it's an ad, don't look at it" response, it might be more effective than the bigger notavote notice. Rd232 ^talk 19:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Protonk. Some discuss and some vote regardless, it seems, of the presence of the template. Editors work out how the debates work over time and admins mostly sort the wheat from the chaff in closing. - Peripitus (Talk) 07:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Admins are forced to sort wheat from chaff, what's the alternative, nobody ever closing the AFD? The issue is whether we can/should make it easier by trying to reduce the chaff. It may well not work, but I don't see the harm in trying. Rd232 ^talk 13:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Slight improvement of template for readability

Looking at the this template used for RfDs (requests for deletion) on simple.enwiki, I was thinking that it looks better and more aesthetically pleasing with dots and a little extra space separating each link than the currently-used vertical line. I was hoping we could incorporate that here (see the current examples at simple:Wikipedia:Requests for deletion. (I'd talk about the other features that I like there, but I'll reserve that for WT:AFD when I get the chance.) Any thoughts? MuZemike 23:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I like it, too, but it's not actually this template that does that, it's {{la}}, which has several counterparts. The talk page for all of them is Template talk:Ln. Propose it there.--Aervanath (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Add search button

{{Editprotected}}

Per some support and zero objections at WT:AFD (and I've waited a long time, just in case anyone objected), could someone please restore the search template to Afd2, which was reverted here? It was reverted on merely procedural grounds; nobody has ever objected to its inclusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I object to this change. We should not promote intellectual laziness or the common misconception that Google = reliable source. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Google != Reliable source, but Google often provides links to reliable sources that can be used in the article. Rather than encouraging laziness, this encourages people to actually check how notable something is before blindly saying "there's no references on the page, so it's not notable" when there are loads of obvious RSes on the front page of Google News. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I also object to this change, which was made after a tiny discussion without attempts to engage users who have previously objected. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Find sources

{{editprotected}}

Change :({{find sources|{{{pg}}}}}) to :({{findsources|{{{pg}}}}}). The template is called Findsources, so it seems logical not to point to the redirect instead. I know it's not necessary, but in something used so widely, the removal of one template from the transclusion list could be appreciated... Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion link removed

Per discussion at Wikipedia_talk:AfD#"Having to" defend articles against deletion, I've removed the link to delete the subject of an AfD from the AfD page itself. It's been brought to my attention that a number of administrators believe it is acceptable to actually delete articles without even looking at them, even in cases of contentious discussion. PROD and CSD require administrators to actually look the article "in the face" in the process of deleting it--AfD should be no different. Jclemens (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD statistics

I've boldly added http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser as an utility link to the template. It gives a useful quick headcount, though that is obviously not a sufficient basis for a closure.  Sandstein  18:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD statistics link

{{editprotected}} If there is going to be an AfD statistics link (which isn't working for me right now btw), shouldn't it also show up on the log page? This revision of a template sandbox has the change. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've moved your proposed code to the proper place: Template:Afd2/sandbox. One query: do you know what the purpose of the following code is?

</noinc<includeonly></includeonly>lude>

It is a somewhat baffling. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that confused me also, but when I removed it, it messes up the actual <includeonly></includeonly>. Apparently the inner ones get removed when the template is substed. I'm not sure exactly how that works, but it is definitely needed. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I've made the requested edit for you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Would "vote count" or something be better than "AfD statistics". Personally, I had no idea what it was at first. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Plain link

Would it be possible to turn the AfD stats link into a plain link to keep consistency with the rest of the template? Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 21:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Y It would. Amalthea 11:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Can it use {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>FULLPAGENAME}}}}|2=Afd statistics}} instead? Right now the stats link does not work on later nominations. Tim Song (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done. It seems to work fine. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Broken?

{{editprotected}}

AfD statistics doesn't appear to work, and it frankly has never worked for me. As toolserver is not down, maybe it is no longer being maintained? If that is the case, I see no reason for it to remain. Perhaps it could be removed?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It has been broken for months. See below for my request to have it removed back in August. SnottyWong ^babble 13:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Link removed, tool owner notified. Thanks, Amalthea 13:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone should have told me a lot sooner, I would have fixed it, something with the toolserver broke the way CGI scripts work, however I have adjusted and will be running stats every 30 minutes. http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/reports/afd/{{pg}}.html is the new link to the working stats. tools:~betacommand/AFD.html will also be updated at the same time. There are a few page titles where this doesnt work, but it should resolve the issue for the most part. There are a bug with re-listed AfDs and their expirations that im working on but that should also be a nice tool for people to review. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have added the new link, which is up and running. For an example, see here. Willking1979 (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Transclusion problems

It appears the recent changes to the template have caused a minor problem. I think there is an includeonly tag that shouldn't be there. Everything looks fine when you're viewing an individual AfD page. However, when you're viewing all of them on the log page (where they are transcluded), you see a bunch of wikicode. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 22. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 04:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like an editor has been manually fixing the problem, so it's not visible anymore. I'm not sure if it's something wrong with the template or something that was caused by manual edits. I'll remove the editprotected template and keep an eye on it. SnottyWong ^yak 04:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Redirect correction

{{editprotected}} Since "Findsources" is now called Template:Find sources (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to improve readability, could the transclusion here be changed so we avoid this redirect? Thanks, --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

remove afd statistics link

AFD is not a vote... we don't decide what to do by counting heads but by discussing principles... Arskwad (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The AfD Statistics link hasn't been working for quite awhile (for me anyway). It hangs for a long time, and then times out with an error message. I'm going to remove the link from the template. If you disagree, revert and discuss here. SnottyWong ^chatter 16:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Oops, didn't realize the template was protected. Admins, can you remove the "AfD Statistics" link from this template? The link to a toolserver script has been broken for ages. SnottyWong ^comment 16:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Since this is protected, BRD doesn't really apply. I suggest starting a discussion at WT:AFD on the usefulness of the link first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Change to template

In response to an Administrator's Noticeboard discussion, I've proposed the addition of a timestamp to this template. Debate is ongoing at WP:AN#AfD's generally closed too soon; your input is welcome. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Should "Find sources" only provide Google links?

See Template talk:Find sources#Why only Google links?. Mange01 (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding A Watch Link To The Template So That We Can Click On It On WP:Articles For Deletion/YYYY Mmmm DD Pages

I think it would be a great idea to adding a watch link to the template, so that we can click on it on WP:Articles For Deletion/YYYY Mmmm DD Pages.

We can click on the watch link to watch the article, but I think clicking on the link to watch the page's deletion discussion would be user-friendilyness.Curb Chain (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm Not Sure How To Fix It, But If You Know How, To Request A Change To This Template, Type {{editprotected}} Into The Edit Box

I've noticed that sometimes, the previous afd box shows up and sometimes it doesnt. this needs to be fixed.Curb Chain (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you show diffs of when it occured? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Documentation

Can someone explain what this template is used for in the Usage section? Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Headers delinked

I have opened a discussion with a suggestion at WT:Articles for deletion#Headers delinked in which editors who are involved with this template may want to participate. Thank you in advance! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

If no further discussion is needed, the headers will be delinked soon. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It's fully protected by the way with a WP:REDLOCK, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Stats link has changed

The link titled "Stats" (http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=) now redirects to https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page= . It also appears to be broken. Please fix/replace this ASAP.--Auric talk 19:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I've asked about this at WT:Toolserver, and hopefully those toolserver experts can help us out. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
• I've removed the deadlink; once a working replacement has been identified, please request addition here. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• @JackPotte: is now the maintainer of this tool. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 03:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks, if anyone else wants to also think about how to fix or improve it he's welcome too (I would create a dedicated WMFLABS project). JackPotte (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

  @JackPotte: It doesn't look like it needs to be improved, it looks like it's just not there. It returns a 404 error, which means that the votecounter.cgi file can't be found in that location. Is that the correct url, or has the location of that file changed recently? ‑Scottywong| spout _ 13:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

  That must be an absolute vs relative address problem, I'm testing it locally to be sure. JackPotte (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done – Seems to be okay now. but I'm not sure I'm testing it properly. Can someone else confirm before it's returned to the template? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 03:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC) – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! ‑Scottywong| chat _ 16:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Pleasure! – Paine  01:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 June 2015

I suggest the following changes:

• Replace {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} with {{Remove this template when closing this AfD}} in this template
• Move Template:REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD to Template:Remove this template when closing this AfD

There should be no unnecessary capitals. 2602:306:B8E0:82C0:C57C:A2C7:42EA:556A (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. It's to draw attention. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

AfD Stats tool appears to be broken

Not sure where to bring this up, so bringing it up here. You click the "Stats" link on an AFD, you get taken to a page with heading "AfD Vote Counter", but no actual content other than the heading. See for example this. I think the tool is broken. SJK (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Database error

Anyone else getting this database error when accessing this template?

A database query error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. [Xou4VQpAAMEAA8@da1cAAAAE] 2020-04-06 23:16:37: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError"

Here's the error in play. This is extremely odd. –ToxiBoi! ^(contribs) 23:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Village pump (technical)#Error on all non-talk pages at the present time. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 August 2021

Sync with the sandbox; this adds an explicit 1= parameter to the invocation of {{la}} so that it properly formats articles with an equals sign in the title. Vahurzpu (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Good catch. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Show "edits since nomination" link?

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Show "edits since nomination" link on AFDs? – this involves an edit to this template. – SD0001 (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

cat parameter

Resolved

This needs documentation. There isn't a list of what the categories are that can be used for this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Never mind, I found the list somewhere else (via the preview output of Template:Afd), and added a link to it in this template's documentation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Fix for list of previous AfD pages

Hey, I propose a fix for list of previous AfD pages.

Currently, the list of previous AfD pages for the Earth article looks like this:

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Earth
• Articles for deletion/Earth's Adventures (film)
• Articles for deletion/Earth's Call Fund

.....

• Articles for deletion/EarthCheck (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/EarthCore (Podcast novel)
• Articles for deletion/EarthKosher Kosher Certification
• Articles for deletion/EarthKry
• Articles for deletion/EarthLab
• Articles for deletion/EarthTHESHIP
• Articles for deletion/EarthVision 10
• Articles for deletion/Earth (10th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Earth (11th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Earth (12th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Earth (16th nomination)

....

This is my suggestion to remove most of the unrelated pages from the list:

−

{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{pg}}}}}

+

*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{pg}}}]]{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{pg}}} (}}

Notice the last parenthesis on the second line, which would help reduce the clutter. Could anyone implement it? FaviFake (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Link to the sandbox version diff: FaviFake (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

You can request someone implement it by adding {{TPER}} to the top of this talk page section. That'll put it in a queue that template editors patrol. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Yup, I know. I wanted to gain a small consensus first because other proposed edits of mine that were more minor that this one were rejected for lack of consensus, but it sounds like you don't disagree so I'll consider it enough and apply the tag, thanks. FaviFake (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

it sounds like you don't disagree. Yeap. +1 to the concept of fixing this bug by narrowing the list of pages displayed. No comment on the code. We should be careful of side effects on really old AFDs -- perhaps the 1st AFD 2nd AFD etc. title pattern used to be different back in the olden days. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I checked a couple of old article AfD and they don't seem to use a different format. FaviFake (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Notified: Template talk:Priorxfd. FaviFake (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

The same edit should probably be performed on {{Priorxfd}} too, for consistency. FaviFake (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Not done for now—Won't this break for articles where there is only one old nomination, or where there are more than one, but all old-style? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing Which old style of titles of AfD discussion pages are you referring to, specifically? FaviFake (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Add tm:Scam warning to some AfD discussions

Per this discussion I'd like to add {{Scam warning}} to AfD discussions categorized as Media and music, Organisation, corporation, or product, or Biographical. I've implemented the switch template and the template call in the sandbox. Its set up to not transclude the warning template when discussions are translcuded to the AfD logs (thanks to Chaotic Enby for helping me figure out how to substitute transclusion tags without them being parsed). I've also added instructions to Scam warning for editors to hide it if they want to in their CSS. See the testcases (bottom of page) one of which has an included category, the other not. I'm requesting that the sandbox code be merged to the main template. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:55, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for doing it! Could you add a line break on line one between the last </includeonly> tag and ===[[:{{{pg}}}]]=== like I had it here ? Having it all on one line causes heading issues like you can see here (I'm going through and fixing them manually rn) ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Just did it, thanks a lot, my apologies. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby I was silly with the way I implemented the switch function. Could you add safesubst: right before the switch call so that it substitutes just the result of the function on the discussion page and not the entire switch function? I've tested it in the template sandbox and tried substing it on the sandbox page, it fixes the issue. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:52, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 May 2026

Please revert the addition of the scam warning template. This is a terrible idea, and there was barely any discussion of it prior to addition. Given editors' general attitude about these things, a widely participated RFC would very likely have resulted in an overwhelming opposition. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:11, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think its a terrible idea? The template is intentionally very easy to hide by adding a line to your css page since the intended audience is not regular editors. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

The number of editors that want to see this is probably close to 0, and requiring every single one of them to fiddle with CSS settings is a bit burdensome in the aggregate. But even hiding it by default for logged in users (I'm not sure if that's technically possible or not) is a problem, since then we'll get comments about it from unregistered readers asking about something that's not visible to logged-in users. And finally, it's extremely unlikely to be effective. It has to be seen by the subject of an article, and it has to be seen by someone gullible enough to fall for such a scam. It's also relatively easy to bypass; simply make a a mirror page that adds the hide CSS rule (or any other variant) (sure, you have to fall for the fact that you're being shown a mirror, but we're looking at the gullible folks here after all). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:51, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll respond the the CSS bit of it all on Novem's comment below to try and keep the two arguments organized in case this discussion expands. On the reason for having the warning in the first place:

We know that paid editing scams are a problem and that article creation and deletion are areas targeted by scammers, in deletion for example, subjects being contacted by scammers after articles are nominated for deletion or even after articles are deleted asking for money to restore or protect articles. If a scammer can send someone a link to a legitimate community discussion (which is full of WP:WTF that they don't understand) and say, "I can rebut these arguments for you", some people are going to pay them (or scammers can tell article subjects to just go to the article themselves and click on the link to the discussion in the AfD notice template at the top, no mirror site required). I think its kind of on us to make it more difficult for people to take advantage of our community processes (and article subject's ignorance of them) to extort people. The warning template also has the potential to lower editors workload at other noticeboards and help desks since it provides a foundation email address for people to contact and directs them to the project page with more information on paid editing scams instead of them ending up at AN or the teahouse or wherever if they suspect something but want to ask about it. Finally, I don't think the warning falls afoul of strong community consensus on a guideline like WP:NODISCLAIMERS in a similar way that warnings about the neutrality of content like {{promo}} and {{Undisclosed paid}} don't. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

very easy to hide by adding a line to your css page. Having to write (or copy) program code to hide something is probably not very easy to hide for most people. No comment on the scam warning itself. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Having to write (or copy) program code to hide something is probably not very easy to hide for most people That's fair and I think its something to weigh. That's why I made the instructions on hiding it as easy as possible to follow (copied below and linked to directly in the template). I think the instructions are easy to follow even if someone only ever uses the visual editor and isn't comfortable at all with programming. If the warning is restored maybe we can figure out a one click install similar to the install that's used for some user scripts. I wouldn't support hiding the warning for all logged in users, since some the newer users
are potentially the kind of users we're trying to warn.

== How to hide this warning ==
If you no longer wish to see this warning you can hide it for yourself.

1. Copy the CSS code below

   /* Hide [[tm:Scam warning]] boxes */ .ombox-scam_warning {display: none !important;}

2. Go to Special:MyPage/common.css and paste the code there and publish the page.
3. Clear your cache as instructed on your common.css page.

ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done Feel free to continue discussing but I'm reverting as per WP:BRD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:17, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy pings: Nil NZ, ONUnicorn, GiantSnowman from the original AfD discussion ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Agree with Deacon Vorbis that this is not needed and agree with Novem Linguae that the 'just hide it' counter-argument is weak. You appear to have created a (bad) solution for a problem that did not exist. Make it optional, at least. GiantSnowman 16:05, 14 May 2026 (UTC)