This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Afd notice. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This is a useful template to subst: into people's talk pages when they are the only (or one of a very small number of) editor(s) that have been working on an article up for deletion, so they know about it. Modeled after {{Idw}}
Usage: On the user's talk page, do a {{subst:Adw|pagenameOfPageUpForAfD}} and then add expanding or parenthetical remarks, as necessary, then sign. Note, if you start using the '+' tab, it may put in two headings... best to edit the whole page and add it at the bottom. An example of usage (when it was in my user space) is here: [1]
Nice idea, I was on afd patrol notiying creators about their articles (which doesn't seem to be done much, despite it being part of the etiquette), and didn't know this template was here. Any objections if I add the existance of this template to the main WP:AFD page? (I'm also going to drop a note to admins regarding the afd2 template, with a suggestion that it adds the line "Has the creator been notified" or similar to remind people) Regards, MartinRe09:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I created {{Adwnote}} as a convenient way to let an editor know that someone else has nominated an article for deletion. That template is based on this one, {{Adw}}. Recipients of a {{Adw}} message may think that the person sending the message is the same one who nominated the article for deletion, which isn't always the case. Note that {{PRODNote}} already exists as a "someone else prodded the article" version of {{PRODWarning}} --Eastmain21:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Soften the wording?
If you read it in a certain light, this template's current wording seems kind of ominous:
An article that you have been involved in editing, [[{{{1}}}]], has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{1}}}]]. Thank you.
One person I left the message for even complained in an AfD discussion about receiving an automated, intimidating, accusatory summons from a bot.
How about something like:
Hi. You're one of multiple editors who have edited [[{{{1}}}]] in the past. I've nominated this article for deletion from Wikipedia since it may not meet our requirements for inclusion. We're discussing this article at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{1}}}]] where you're invited to join us and add your comments if you wish.--~~~~
How should this template be used if an article is nominated for the second time (or any other number)? Currenty, it doesn't seem to work in this case, can the template be extended? --B. Wolterding09:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Ooops
I had just intended to cut this off my talk page. I'm not sure how I ended up cutting it off here. Sorry.--T. Anthony (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Opt out
The opt-out does not work if this template is added by hand. I think the sentence "Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?" should only be added if it's a bot/script that's adding the template. This can for instance be done by adding a parameter which would be set by a bot/script. Comments? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I came here to propose the same thing. Is there even a bot adding that notice? Cause I don't know one, and Twinkle only adds {{Idw}}. --AmaltheaTalk12:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Based on a discussion at Template talk:PRODWarning, I would like to modify this template so that the article name is linked in the subject heading, as it is with {{nn-warn}} and {{PRODwarning}} … the issue is consistency of appearance for WP:PROD, WP:CSD, and WP:AFD warning templates in user talk space, which would be an exception to the caveats of Wikipedia:Accessibility#Links since item #3 is now moot, i.e., JAWS no longer has the problem discussed there … I decided to seek WP:CONSENSUS first, rather than Be Bold. :-)
I've added a clear to the end of the template, to avoid the irritation of needing to add one manually because of interference in the next section's header, as can be seen here. --Dweller (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, the problem with that is that it will force the signature on a new line:
That's not pretty at all. One could work with a table here, to put the image in a cell, the text in another, but that will leave us with messy substed talk page code, or we could make the image smaller so that it looks better with default font sizes. Including the signature in the template would make it inconsistent with all the other user warning templates, and would need changes in all the tools. --Amalthea12:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Or the image could be made small enough to be inline, which is what the user warning templates are doing. But that's probably too small for the purpose:
What if you preceded the sig with text along the lines of "Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message --~~~~"? --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Either for me. I like the way we've made the template less bitey while trying to fix a completely different issue. Less bitey is always good, IMHO. --Dweller (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Quite right. I'll tweak it a bit to reduce the empty space around the warning symbol, and will then put it live. I've long noticed the conflicts of the AfD message with subsequent headings, but never thought to do anything about it. Blinded by routine, I guess, thanks for initiating the fix! Cheers, Amalthea12:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Issues with Clear
Hey, I just used this template for the first time since this change, and I've got some issues: (1) The "Thank you." you should come last of all; it's a valediction. Tacking on the "Please contact me..." sentence sounds *really* awkward to me. (2) The line break introduced by {{-}} really breaks up the flow of the text. I get that you're trying to prevent interference with following headers, but introducing one problem to fix another isn't good. (3) I don't see any interference at that link in the first place. I tried a variety of window widths, from 450 to 1250 pixels, and a variety of font sizes. This is Firefox 3.5.5 on Linux, if that matters. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The icon is too scary. That is my opinion and after asking around some other users agree. The general feeling I get is:
We do want some image to get the editor's attention, but
We want to convey the idea "Hey, something that you maybe did a lot of work on might get deleted" and not "You did something wrong", which is how some people seem to take it.
(It is true that they may have done something wrong, like if they created a nonsense or vandalistic page. But not usually. And there are separate templates for that.) Note that these templates are placed automatically if you use Twinkle, so just not placing the template is not always an easy option.
I would suggest that the image be varied depending on the deletion process: the exclamation point for speedy, a clock for proposed, and a question mark for XfD. --Bsherr (talk) 05:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I think a question mark looks too much like a routine maintenance template, and the creator might not realize their article is at risk of being deleted. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 17:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
As pointed out in the VPP discussion, it's supposed to draw the editor's attention to the fact that the article they worked on is being considered for deletion. I'm not sure why a change is warranted. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite21:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
For the purpose of making a "kinder, gentler Wikipedia", I firmly and strongly disagree that this icon needs to be changed. It is something that should stand out like a sore thumb, and let the editor involved know that their contribution is about to be thrown away. If there is a problem, it is that these templates should be a last resort where there are genuine problems. I do believe it is getting overused... which changing the icon isn't going to be helping out here. This doesn't solve the problem being targeted (trying to make Wikipedia more friendly to new users) and instead makes only a superficial change so that those who are putting this template on user talk pages can feel warm and fuzzy about how kind they really aren't being and assuming bad faith. Even if the action involving the template is warranted, it still should draw attention that an extreme irreversible action (from the perspective of a new editor) is about to happen to one of their contributions. --Robert Horning (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to subscribe to the "friendlier Wikipedia" rationale to support the outcome of changing the symbol. I connect with a different part of Herostratus's rationale. The current symbol looks like it's inspired by the ISO standard for warnings. I'm reminded that the ISO standard requires that warning symbols be descriptive of their subject, so that someone looking at it can instantly comprehend what the warning is about. Of course, I'm not saying that the ISO standard governs us. But the logic of that guideline seems very clear to me. Why not use a symbol that is descriptive of deletion, so that when people see it, they immediately recognize what it is. I don't know if the new image is friendlier (and I'm only minorly concerned with whether it is), but I'm positive it will increase recognition of and attention to the notice, and I think that's critically important. --Bsherr (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and in addition, the icon is very similar to (or exactly the same as) the icon used for mid-level vandal warning templates, when the user has already ignored a previous warning and is being told that he is about to get himself into serious trouble. Which I think says something about the reaction expected from the image. Herostratus (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, it hasn't been an heavily populated discussion, but there has been some input, especially if you include the discussions at the Pump and at Template talk:Db-meta. There has been some opposition, but I haven't seen a huge amount, especially if we consider Robert Horning's opposition as being "from the left", so to speak. Horning's argument (if I read it right) is that the deletion-nomination process is broken, and incremental improvements only serve to paper over this fact and indeed might make an unacceptable situation seem more acceptable.Interesting, but not an argument that anyone else has picked up.
So let's do this.
Now to specifics. I posted over at the graphics lab board, but didn't get a response yet (which is fine), so we're on own here I guess. There has been only limited input on the actual form of the icons. The file File:Icon delete.svg has been suggested, a couple of people have liked this, and no one has offered a better one. So let's use that as a basis. But what about specifics?
One person suggested using different symbols in the little circle at the left of the graphic - exclamation point for speedy, clock for PROD, question mark for XAfD. But then another person though think the question mark might be convusing. My personal opinion is, the PROD clock is OK, and for the XfD if you could somehow convey the idea of "conversation" in such a small circle that might be good (but could you?), but how about just: As shown, except make the exclamation-point circle yellow for PROD and XfD (Speedy remains red). (Actually the triangular icon used for PROD is yellow now, although not for XfD.) PROD and XfD are a little less urgent.
The question mark icon doesn't get the point across. The trash icon is even more scary (we're tossing your hard work in the trash!). I see no issue with the current icon. Let's not reference "deletion", which is scarier; let's reference "notice", which is more informative. /ƒETCHCOMMS/01:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Fetchcomms. I agree with your comments against the association with trash. Could you explain more about why the question mark isn't sufficient? I was trying to identify that the deletion was up for discussion (as in a question of whether the article should be deleted). I think it would be valuable for the icon to indicate to an extent what the notice is for. --Bsherr (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Not Fetchcomms, but: I agree an exclamation point is warranted to emphasize that "this is probably important to you; you will probably want to take action; there is an approximate time limit". A question mark completely fails to convey the urgency/importance (Would you rather a newbie be perplexed and discouraged that their article was seemingly arbitrarily deleted due to their failure to bother having read the notice?). Any "attention-grabbing factor" in the image is pretty appropriate and I seriously doubt tweaking the image would have any substantive effect on the level of BITEyness. Deletion is deletion; putting lipstick on a pig does no good. --Cybercobra(talk)05:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
As I said earlier, my view is not trying to make the image friendlier, but rather make it communicative of the actual reason for the notice. Lots of other templates use ambox, so it's really not very distinctive at all. Would using the exclamation point deletion image above address your concerns? --Bsherr (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, since it seems speedy will be employing ambox, we can consider the Icon Delete template above with the exclamation point, if people prefer that to the question mark. I'm not sure what the purpose of the yellow becomes if nothing is red. --Bsherr (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
At left, another alternate. "i" instead of "!", but red instead of yellow, so probably a wash in terms of how alerty and/or alarming it is. Herostratus (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, OK. I don't know about consensus, but it does seem, all in all, that there's no strong objection, so let's give it try. If it doesn't work, easy enough to change it back. Herostratus (talk) 02:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Having found this discussion somewhat late, I at least do strongly object to changing the CSD icons. If the icon is supposed to the draw the editor's attention, then the shredded paper with a wee symbol on it is really inferior to the ambox sign. Regardless of the editor's intention at least the speedy deletion icon should explicitely stress out that the article is in acute danger of being deleted, which isn't conveyed by the new shredder icon. And as to using separate templates for obvious vandalism, spam etc., at least the non-automated CSD warning templates are all transcluded from {{db-notice}} so the case where the editor actually did something wrong are thrown in a jar with CSD A7. So I feel very strongly that at least the vandalism and spam CSD warnings should have the old ambox exclamation mark as in "stop, wrong". And if no workaround can be found, I'm all for restoring the old look of all CSD warning templates.
The new PROD icon though can remain as it should actually differ from CSD not only in colour (re the old yellow triangle) but also in design. PROD is an entirely different quality so let's also mark that with another symbol. De728631 (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
You make a number of valid points. But recall the icon is supposed to draw the editor's attention without making him feel that he has done something wrong.
Re WP:COLOR, I was not aware of that. Will fix, see below.
Re some deletion reasons should retain the triangle-wow Ambox:
Many of the deletion-notification templates transclude {{db-notice}}. They should not, for just the reason you give, they differ. I'll get onto fixing this right away.
I do agree that G3 (blatant vandalism) and G11 (attack) and G5 (page created by a blocked user) can retain the old triangle-wow Ambox, and I'll restore those. On the other hand G11 (spam) or G1 (nonsense) are arguable. The editor has not necessarily done anything wrong. At least some "spam" speedies are for good-faith efforts, and some "nonsense" speedies are for articles that are very poor but not nonsense, and may have been good faith attempts to contribute.
OK. The clock icon has been suggested for PROD, I'll get right on that.
De728631, I think your concerns are misdirected. It's unprecedented to determine which speedy deletion criterion are "wrongful". Arguably, they're all wrongful. We only speedy delete pages that fail to satisfy a Wikipedia guideline or policy. Db-notice templates are not to be used as user warnings; they are supposed to be informational only as to the deletion, not the user conduct. The user warning templates (WP:WARN) exist to instruct on conduct, and those do differentiate between good- no- and bad-faith. But as to whether the the icon communicates urgency, suggestions for icon would certainly be in order to identify an icon that both communicate the nature of the notice (deletion) and the urgency. Ambox doesn't very effectively satisfy the first criterion, and it would be better if we could find one that does. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
PROD image
I created this image for PROD. It looks fine at full size but seems to scale a little poorly. Being no artist or graphics person, I don't know why this is so, maybe somebody who knows this stuff can explain/fix.
I think it's reasonable to use the old Ambox for G3 (blatant vandalism) and G11 (attack) and G5 (page created by a blocked user). In those cases, unless the speedy tag was placed wrongly, the person has clearly done something quite wrong and knows it, or should. So I created a new template, {{Db-notice scary}} with the old Ambox and transcluded it into the speedy-notice templates for G3 and G11. I couldn't find the template for G5, if there is one. Herostratus (talk) 04:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm with Herostratus, when it comes to blatant vandalism and personal attack pages there is clearly a bad-faith motivation for ccreating pages and that is even reflected by the message on said deletion notices: "Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as foo, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox"; or even sharper: "Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia. Users who continue ...will be blocked". Those are clearly not the neutral deletion notices as in "a tag has been placed onto your article because...", but they're clear warnings not continue down that path and should well display the appropriate icon. De728631 (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I've just reverted the changes that have been made off the back of this discussion. Numerous people have opposed changing the icons, not just here, but at the previous discussion at the VP and in the parallel discussion at Template talk:Db-meta. Frankly I'm dumbfounded at the extent to which these comments have been disregarded; there is, quite clearly, no concensus for any change at this time.
In case it's not already clear, I'll add my own opposition to these changes. The icon is supposed to grab people's attention, to let them know that their contributions may be deleted. It does no good to nice this up with a wishy-washy alternative that lacks the urgency of the situtuation. I'm not dead set against any kind of change and by all means keep discussing it, but this needs a proper centralised discussion, at a proper venue, with a proper concensus. PC78 (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, after "counting" all the "votes", I see that you have a point. I'll summarize below, then open an RfC to get more input. (But no need to be "dumbfounded" - it's a wiki).
If I'm not mistaken, the conversation at Template talk:Db-meta#Images available (if that's the one you are referring to) was about adding an icon to the deletion notice on the article page, not changing the ones on the user's page, so is not germane to this discussion.
P.S. Your own position is not clear. Does "It does no good to nice this up with a wishy-washy alternative" mean that you believe that the deletion system is broken? Herostratus (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
No, it means I just don't see the problem with the current icons. Regarding that other discussion, you said there yourself that the two were related, it concerns the same icon, and Bsherr made an edit request there off the back of this discussion. But if this is strictly about the user talk messages, then fair enough. PC78 (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Summary of conversations so far
OK, a user has objected to the change, which is fine. I know this is not a "vote", but just to get a handle on what's gone on so far, I have summarized people's comment to the best of my ability.
Support keeping the current Ambox (triangle-wow) icon:
Change (User did not express an overall opinion, but by offering a proposal for a new icon, indicated acceptance of change) - User:Train2104 (above)
Neutral or No Clear Opinion Expressed
No Clear Opinion (but "Perhaps a smaller version of the image or something less edgy" indicates a tendency to possibly support change) - User:MuZemike (at Village Pump)
No Clear Opinion (Objected to one proposed change (question mark) but didn't express clear opinion on the matter overall) - User:King of Hearts (above)
Red Army Faction
Keep ("image needs to stay and perhaps be even more shocking and annoying") - User:Robert Horning (Mr. Hunter's opinion is basically that the deletion system is broken, the appearance of a deletion-notice message on a user's page indicates the the user is probably being fucked over by an idiot, and the icon should reflect this. He may be right, but it doesn't seem right to put his "Keep" vote in with the others.)
As far as strength of argument, I don't see a clear advantage to either "side". Both positions have reasonably cogent arguments.
If this has been discussed elsewhere recently, I'm not aware of it, but pointers to relevant conversations would be welcome. Herostratus (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Request for Comment
Which icons should be used for the notifications that are placed on user pages when pages which they created are nominated for deletion (either through speedy-deletion, PROD, or AfD)? 03:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Current scheme
Used for all speedy-deletion-nomination userpage notices
The basic argument for supporting the proposed new icon scheme is: the current icons are a bit frightening and might give the impression to some users that they have done something wrong. (Note that the image used is the same as the one used for "you are about to be blocked for repeated vandalism" type notices). But the user probably hasn't done anything wrong, at least not on purpose (and if he has that is handled by other methods), and may well be a new user, and this has the effect of annoying and possibly scaring away new users.
The basic argument for supporting the existing icon scheme is: something very bad is (possibly) about to happen to something the user may have put considerable work into, and we really need to get the user's attention so that he can participate in the discussion or put a hold on the speedy or PROD. The proposed new scheme doesn't do this as well as the current scheme. The principle of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" could also reasonably be invoked.
We are basically looking for an up-or-down decision. Proposals for other icons or schemes are welcome for future reference, but changing the proposed icons during the RfC is probably not a good idea. Any comments to the effect of "neither scheme is satisfactory" will probably be taken as supporting the current scheme. Herostratus (talk) 03:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I prefer the existing icons: they are more attention grabbing, and that's exactly what we need for these kinds of notice. The proposed icons lack the urgency that deletion requires. I also don't see why we need different icons for different types of speedy deletion, and think that the proposed prod icon in particular is too busy. As an aside, I don't really get the red-yellow-red colour scheme of the current icons; in both cases, identical icons with a red-orange-yellow (i.e. for Speedy-Prod-XfD) colour scheme would be preferable, IMO. PC78 (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
But the point that the current icons are the same as the block warnings is important. As is the notion that while we want to grab attention, we don't want to imply every notification is really important. Some notices (e.g. PROD) are less sensitive than others (blocking, vandalism warnings). Protonk (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that point is significant; these are just generic icons used to identify important notifications, which these are. It's not like we use these icons for all notifications. PC78 (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Come on, that's just a list of templates that use the icon. There are plenty of notification templates here that don't use it. PC78 (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, all level three UW templates do use it, and so do many single-level UW warning templates. That's probably about a third of all user talk templates. Most of the rest use the info icon or stop hand icon, and the balance are the block templates. Essentially, five icons comprise the majority of all user talk icons. I would suggest that it's unfortunate that deletion templates share the same symbol as bad faith user warning templates. Deletion is sometimes due to bad faith, but, much more often, it's not. As I've said, it's not to say that ambox is bad, but it only communicates gravity, not nature, and that's a deficiency we ought to rectify in the deletion templates. --Bsherr (talk) 05:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Twinkle automatically generates user-page notifications that use these icons. Anyone who uses Twinkle to nominate a page for deletion (which is a lot of people) automatically places these icons on the user page. Herostratus (talk) 07:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Current. "Oh no, alert!" is, I think, less bitey than "Look, a page getting deleted!". These are notices, and they should use notifying icons. As it's not always certain something will be deleted, using the new icons seems over eager to have their page deleted. /ƒETCHCOMMS/01:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
As I said above, I generally support the introduction of symbols that communicate the gravity of the warning and the nature of the warning. This has been scientifically proven to improve recognition and compliance. I support the new symbols, with the caveat that they be made compliant with WP:COLOR. Presently, the proposed speedy and afd symbols are indistinguishable to colorblind users (as are the current symbols, so the new ones are no detriment). --Bsherr (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, isn't the brightness different, so technically they are not indistinguishable? But otherwise your point is well taken. I don't think anyone would object if some minor change to the AfD icon is made to distinguish them (if the new scheme is adopted), and commenters should assume that this will be done. Herostratus (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, the shading would appear different (in fact, because the yellow lacks shadowing or outlining, it might appear indistinguishable from the background), but variance in shading, dark-lighter-light, does not communicate scale like red-orange-yellow does. An important part of the message is lost to colorblind users. I identify this issue and share PC78's concern about varying the icons between speedy deletion criteria, but only in the course of providing comments (as this is an RfC). To the extent this is a !vote, I am certainly supportive, and I'm confident this issues can be addressed by separate processes (talk pages and TfD, respectively), once the overall question of adoption is decided here. --Bsherr (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
If I'm reading WP:COLOUR right, I don't see how it applies here. The icons are essentially just decorative, they don't convey important information; the text of the message does that. PC78 (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, it technically doesn't apply at all, because the guideline is limited to articles. And indeed, the text does convey the message. But per WP:IAR, the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. Where is it possible to design icons that are accessible to the disabled, why should it not be done? --Bsherr (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't get that from WP:IAR, personally. But if your specific concern is colourblind users, then the colours need only have adequete contrast in relation to each other. And to take your concern to it's logical extreme, you would need to have a different icon for each specific use. PC78 (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
It's verbatim from WP:IAR?, which is an essay, but I believe is relatively accepted. Indeed, I would urge a slightly different icon for each of the three deletion processes. One already varies from the other two. I think the use of color variation for deletion templates generally is misguided, because MOS already indicates that red should be used to identify deletion templates, and I think one level of color coding is quite enough. --Bsherr (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I think this discussion is likely to end up being about change rather than for or against the proposal as made above. IMO, what would be better than these variatons on the same theme is to have three completely different icons for each process, File:Ambox warning pn.svg for speedy, perhaps File:Icon delete.svg for prod, with something else for XfD, as you and I discussed previously elsewhere. PC78 (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I like these new ones. They probably could be tweaked some (per Bsherr), but I think are an improvement over the current system, which does not allow you to convey that a G10 warning is more important than an A3 message. NW(Talk)14:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Bsherr makes good points. It's kind of a bikeshed though. Further refinement could be done through the normal editing process, rather than voting. Gigs (talk)
G11 is "Unambiguous advertising or promotion." I think some in some of these cases the contributor knows he is doing wrong, but in some cases the contributor is just proud of his company or doesn't fully understand what we are about here and just wants to make a good-faith contribution. G12 is "Unambiguous copyright infringement." I think in some (many?) of these cases the contributor is not knowingly flouting our rules, but just doesn't know them; he may be persuaded (in some cases) to rewrite the material in his own words, thus giving us a good new article and (maybe) a good new contributor, which is even better. F9 is also ambiguous copyright infringement, but for images; similar argument applies. Of course, if a user is judged to be purposely flouting the rules (e.g., continued and/or obvious infractions), there is a warning and blocking system to handle that. So, Acather96, assuming for now that a change in the proposed new scheme G12, F9 and G11 will not be made (but may of course be discussed in future), which do you favor, the existing scheme or the proposed new scheme? Herostratus (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I think I would favour the new scheme, as sometimes the big, red warning triangles appearing on talk pages of first time contributors can deter them (and not surprisingly, when you take a step back and think about it, it does seem quite bitey). I especially like the new PROD icon, as I think the clock does fit quite well with the actual process of PROD. On a slightly different note, I accept your argument for G11, but I still think G12 and F9 should have the warning triangle because copyright violations is, along with attack pages, something that stands above in-house policies as it could (in theory) result in legal action. Acather96 (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
They're based on internatioally-used warning signs seen in roads and all over the place, including many computer programs. Anybody who gets the vapours because they saw this symbol on Wikipedia must have an absolutely terrifying time actually leaving their house and walking down the street. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind21:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The existing icons are much better. Simplicity and clarity is a good thing. It says "Look, an important alert!" which is exactly what it should say. The new ones are unlear to the point of silliness. One of them looks like a ghostly, spectral Word document, with a wildly spinning wall clock on top of it, and then an alarmed shiny orange ball on top of that. Is it supposed to indicate that a poltergeist is running amok at a NERF plant? To get a more obtuse icon than that you'd have to have a space alien design it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind21:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I understand the humor, but a funny story can be made up about any symbol. I could say ambox looks like someone's racking an exclamation point to play billiards with. The issue is as I explained above. "Look, the page I worked on is about to be deleted!" is better than "Look, an important alert!". The purpose of the new symbols is to communicate the nature of the notice in addition to its gravity. If the new symbols don't clearly communicate that, why not tell us how they better can? --Bsherr (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
It may remind you of billiards (or whatever) but it's something seen on a daily basis by nearly everyone in the civilised world, and that's the point. In addition to road signs it's also used in computing software of all kinds as a universal warning symbol. There is no need for the icon itself to communicate the nature of the notice, as that's what the text of the notice is for. In other words, I can't fix it because it's not broken. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind19:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
There's sciencific evidence that symbols that communicate gravity and nature of warning are significantly more comprehensible and promote significantly greater compliance. That's why we need them. --Bsherr (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes, please show me your scientific research that shows that these arbitrary and frankly downright bizarre symbols are somehow more comprehensible than a universal symbol everyone knows. I'm dying to see this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind18:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it doesn't go without saying that this research concerns the use of symbols that communicate gravity and nature, not these specific symbols. As I've said and continue to say, consider these symbols open to suggestions for improvement. Instead of superimposing the circular bangs, we can superimpose the ambox symbols, if that addresses your concern. But I'm trying to have a discussion with you, so perhaps you'd show a little good faith and courtesy, and leave out the sarcasm (as an admin, do you really have to be reminded of this?). If you can't, I won't trouble myself further. --Bsherr (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I find this proposal ridiculous, and trying to lean on a book published before Wikipedia existed isn't doing much to change that position. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind15:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Dude. Starblind. Dismissing all human factors research conducted before Wikipedia existed is... well, different. There is such a thing as inferface design, there is such a thing as human factors engineering and all this has been studied extensively for decades. Herostratus (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Here are the icons in the 42px size currently used for such warnings:
All the new icons don't convey a page being deleted to someone who hasn't been exposed to them before. The clock icon is unreadable. The yellow bang has no contrast. The only change I would support is changing the current WP:AFD icon to yellow. Other than that, stick with what we have now. —UncleDouggie (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The size need not and should not stay 42px. The icons were never intended to be that small. We've already discussed changing the yellow bang above. --Bsherr (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Can't tell? "Image of a fast car erasing a drawing of a car." Haha, wrap your head around that circular thought. --Bsherr (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Why does everything always have to have silly little icons on this project. Whatever happened to plain, readable messages that users might actually read? Gurch (talk) 05:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think the issue is that, while some users do read plain, readable messages, many more read messages that have a visual cue attached to them. Research suggests that people pay more attention to messages accompanied by symbols. --Bsherr (talk) 05:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
In general, possibly. Certainly if I see a message with a silly little icon on my talk page, I know I can safely ignore it because it's some bot notifying me of a discussion for which I am an "involved editor" because I made a spelling correction two years ago, or something similarly stupid. If there isn't an icon, it might actually be something important so I have to read it. Gurch (talk) 05:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
When I add this template to a talk page, it reminds me to provide a heading for the section, while in fact the template automatically generates its own heading. If I would follow this advice and add a heading, it would result in the message carrying a double heading, which doesn't seem to be wanted at all. This is quite confusing and totally unwanted in my opinion. Can this behavior be changed somehow? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Spaces causing discussion link to be red after transclusion
In the "The article will be discussed at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{1}}} ]] until a consensus is reached"-line, the space after the template parameter is causing the transcluded links to be red instead of blue. Is there any reason why that space is there? Both the template and the documentation should be corrected, I think, to eliminate these spaces. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, and question
Sorry for accidentally blanking this page a moment ago. For some reason, someone added it to my page without creating a new section for it; when I clicked on "edit" to delete that section, I deleted this page without realizing it. I'm not sure why the template is set up that way, but perhaps the "edit" button should be made more distinguishable between editing a user page section and editing the template directly. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Looks like this is already trancluded on several user talk pages. To avoid taking time to clean them up (and unnecessarily triggering the "you have new messages" banner on each of those users), I borrowed a trick from Template:Tfdnotice, which also adds a parameter to change the level-one header to a level-two header. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Done … Linked all WP:AFD and WP:PROD warnings like WP:CSD warnings. — 138.88.125.101 (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Josh Sanders, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Sanders. Thank you. ttonyb1 (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I like that. Herostratus (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
--Bsherr (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
. Put a clock on it for PROD. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 02:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Used for all speedy-deletion-nomination userpage notices
Used for all WP:PROD-nomination userpage notices
Used for all other speedy-deletion-nomination userpage notices
Used for all WP:PROD-nomination userpage notices
Used for all WP:AFD-nomination userpage notices
Here's an alternative icon that might be useful. gringer (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
