Template talk:Vfd

Updates to the vfd template?
Over a year someone added the Wikipedia speedy delete template to Wikivoyage, and (WT-en) Huttite then updated it be be more appropriate for Wikivoyage's deletion policies. I don't think we should use that template, but would it be worthwhile to update the vfd template to use similar text & a similar look? The speedy delete template looks like the following:

 This page has been recommended for deletion from Wikivoyage. If you have an opinion, please discuss on the Votes for deletion page. Pages that are recommended for deletion are usually removed in about 14 days.


 * We'd rather fix than delete articles; please read the deletion policy and if you can help fix this one, plunge forward and work on it.
 * Please note that removing this message won't stop the article from being deleted; it will just make it harder to discuss the deletion.

Reminder: please check if anything links here and [ the page history] before deleting.

This template has the advantage of saying not only where to go to discuss deletion, but also says not to remove the notice and provides a reminder to remove links to an article before deleting. Additionally, it just looks a bit nicer to me. Thoughts? -- (WT-en) Ryan 13:52, 3 April 2006 (EDT)


 * I like it. The VFD notice really should draw more attention to itself. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 21:31, 9 April 2006 (EDT)
 * I've taken the liberty of adjusting the wording a little. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 09:23, 10 April 2006 (EDT)

Anyone else care to comment? Would anyone object to copying the text above into the current vfd template? The advantages are:


 * It is more noticeable. The current VFD notice is easy to miss, especially on image pages.
 * It provides more information about what to do in case a page has been recommended for deletion.

The disadvantages:


 * It's different, and change is scary.
 * It's somewhat "Wikipedia-like", and there seems to be a consensus that Wikivoyage doesn't want to use templates in the same way or as prevelantly as Wikipedia does.
 * Other things I'm not thinking of.

Comments from others would be much appreciated, for or against, so that we can either kill this idea or move ahead with it. -- (WT-en) Ryan 19:23, 10 April 2006 (EDT)


 * I like it, since it's more clear about the deletion process. I didn't like the original version because it was really long and whitespace-y. I've tried to cut down the size and the amount of text. --(WT-en) Evan 20:08, 10 April 2006 (EDT)


 * I've updated slightly since people often don't understand why an article is being deleted, so we really need to link to Project:What is an article? and/or the Project:Deletion policy. I've also moved the note about checking history since that's primarily an admin job. Does the current version look OK? -- (WT-en) Ryan 20:34, 10 April 2006 (EDT)


 * I agree that this is an improvement on the current notice. I've made a few tweaks to it too. -- (WT-en) DanielC 08:26, 11 April 2006 (EDT)

We seem to have a consensus that adding more info and using a more noticeable border is a good thing. Last chance for objections - anyone? -- (WT-en) Ryan 05:24, 12 April 2006 (EDT)
 * I like this. &mdash;(WT-en) Ravikiran 05:55, 12 April 2006 (EDT)

Done. -- (WT-en) Ryan 14:36, 12 April 2006 (EDT)

update call for category
Currently, the category:VfD page lists help and policy pages such as Project:City guide status and Project:Template index. I would like to modify the Category:VfD call as shown below.

This would permit us to exclude these policy and help pages from the Category:VfD list since these pages are not in fact under consideration. The category list would only contain the real vfd candidates. We would then modify the calls on those help pages to something similar to:

No change would be needed to normal use of the Vfd template. Just  , as always.

Of course, the policy and help pages will continue to show up on the list of pages linked to the template. --(WT-en) Bill in STL 03:20, 30 August 2010 (EDT)


 * Doing that would not work, as the template already takes a parameter to change the name of the section of the VfD page to which the template points. (For example, if you're nominating several pages created by the same user, you can title the section on the VfD page "Uploads by Bill Ellett" and then use  to make the link work correctly.  (WT-en) LtPowers 11:47, 30 August 2010 (EDT)
 * Thanks. I should have seen that. What about second parameter?


 * Then modify the call to read:


 * --(WT-en) Bill in STL 13:20, 30 August 2010 (EDT)


 * That should work, although I'm not sure how important it really is. If we're going to go that route, I'd prefer a more explicit designation, like a named parameter "category" that defaults to on (so the call would be  or something like that.  (WT-en) LtPowers 14:00, 30 August 2010 (EDT)

Friendliness
I think this template is decidedly intimidating and unfriendly looking. It's huge, and reddish, and if I were a new contributor, I would be fully dissuaded from continuing work on an article as long as it's on the top. As vfd discussions last two weeks, this might be a significant problem.

Could we slim this way down, and make it a calmer cool blue? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:57, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

 This page has been nominated for deletion. Please weigh in with your opinion, at Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion after taking a look at the deletion policy. Don't worry, your work will not be lost; it may just need to be merged to a different article or otherwise retooled!

How's ↑this↑ ? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:06, 31 August 2011 (EDT)


 * We had an edit conflict... I think the "do not remove" notice is relatively important, but the "what links here" notice should go. It does also seem important to keep the box fairly prominent since it's a proposal to remove an article entirely, and thus should be eye-catching.  The current version and a proposed update are below. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 20:25, 31 August 2011 (EDT)




 * I'll take a little of each of your ideas and propose a slightly shorter version than Ryan had:


 * (WT-en) texugo 21:29, 31 August 2011 (EDT)


 * I like it. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 00:25, 1 September 2011 (EDT)


 * It's definitely an improvement. I suggest we also look at Template:Merge in the process. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 01:09, 1 September 2011 (EDT)


 * The blue seems a bit dark to me; it seems like it'd be even more distracting than the cool pinkish red. I also liked the bit in the current template "we'd rather fix it than delete it".  (WT-en) LtPowers 10:01, 1 September 2011 (EDT)


 * Regarding the "we'd rather fix it than delete it" bit, is that really the case? Articles aren't nominated for deletion due to style issues that can be "fixed", but because the content is either inappropriate or in the wrong place.  That text seems misleading to me. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 10:50, 1 September 2011 (EDT)


 * Precisely. A VFD is exactly what it says on the label, and not a plea for a fix. The blue is fine to my eye but perhaps it could be slightly paler. I would not spend long on that though as it is hardly of great importance. --(WT-en) burmesedays 10:53, 1 September 2011 (EDT)


 * I like Texugo's version as well. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:41, 1 September 2011 (EDT)


 * Any further comment, or can this change to Texugo's version be made? -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 14:03, 18 September 2011 (EDT)


 * This color would be much better, IMO. Though I hardly think the worst thing about this template was that it was pink.  I'm worried that blue might get overlooked.  (I also tweaked the wording for flow.)  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:07, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
 * Works for me... (WT-en) texugo 09:47, 19 September 2011 (EDT)


 * Yep, agreed. Let's just do it.--(WT-en) burmesedays 09:58, 19 September 2011 (EDT)


 * Done. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:54, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

The version we developed consensus for here for some reason at some point was undone, and the older, less friendly aesthetic restored. I have reverted back to the consensus version, and hopefully did not lose anything useful that had been added more recently. --Peter Talk 19:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)