Template talk:Article for deletion discussion

Why delete?
It's to prevent the drive by. You actually have to sit and justify your reasoning for wanting it deleted. Zero (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really. This template encourages users to jump straight to yes/no voting with little or no discussion or room for compromise options.  18:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I don't understand how the above relates to the changes you just reverted.
 * I moved the position of the reason for deletion to the top, because when there are "keep" votes it would require scrolling down to see what the nominator says, which is stupid.
 * I left the automatic vote for "delete" in its original place.
 * I've moved the category to the documentation sub-page, because that's where the categories are supposed to be kept.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The point is that it prevents drive-by if the vote and description are in delete. This also helps me when I make judgments on deletions since it helps keep the camps straight. Believe it or not, I don't use the number of votes to decide on what gets the axe. I use it to gauge who's overwhelming the argument then read it's contents. If the vote is 2/1/7 but it leans towards delete in the Goat section, I use that for my choice. And most importantly I don't have to duck my eyes around trying to follow a thread (if there is one). Zero (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why should it be all about you? 19:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How exactly does it prevent drive-by templating? I really don't understand your logic. If a page is proposed for deletion, it should be immediately clear why. As for the rest, in my version the proposer's vote is still automatically added to the Delete section.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I really don't think these headings are helpful at all. The point should be, as the template name suggests, discussion, and straightjacketing that discussion into keep/delete/goat votes stifles that process.  Alternative options, like moving or merging pages or just deleting certain sections, are less likely to be suggested or more likely to be overlooked.  It's unnecessary: check the talk pages for deleted articles - a minority of them involve a counted vote (usually when opinion was divided) but in most cases an open discussion to establish consensus is enough.  19:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Quite simply, if the discussion is not started, then it can be safely and easily reverted out of the deletion template. As for such a binary discussion, its what we do anyway, so why not save people the work of putting the headers together ahead of time? Zero (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that an answer to my question or Weaseloid's? Again, how does not putting the motives of the nominator above the votes prevent drive-by templating? You know, the change you keep reverting?--ZooGuard (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * bump*--ZooGuard (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's not "what we do anyway". Did you check any of the old deletion discussions like I suggested?  Hardly any of them use or need headings.  18:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

AFD mechanism does not work well for category pages
See RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Category:Slaveholders for an example - Template:La does not display the page link and puts the subpage into that category. Trying to fix that in the usual way - by using a colon prefix doesn't work, as it messes up the template.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I can bring over WP:Cfd if you would like, or I can try to fix la. I'll take a stab at the later when I get some time or if it is too hard I can do the former. 15:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The main problem is the article links template. Having a separate page for deleting categories would be... disproportional, since RW is much smaller than WP.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed (I think). Added a colon in the pagename link in this & template:la.  This will link to categories instead of adding the AfD page to them, and appears to have no affect on regular links (e.g. woo, category:woo).  22:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you!--ZooGuard (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright. Thanks Weasel. 22:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Having a new template/process would be gigantic overkill as 95% of categories can be deleted without discussion. Bicycle  wheel silverbrain.png 23:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Section change proposals

 * Delete
 * Keep as is
 * Volunteer to fix
 * Merge/redirect
 * Goat

The " Keep as is" section says the article is fine as is and the " Volunteer to fix" section makes sure the people who vote here volunteer to fix the article.17:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Yay

 * 1)  21:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) - 20:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) Instead of antagonizing people here, it'd be better to have a process of fixing stubs. 20:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ooo, coming up today. That's a better solution and putting articles in a queue. 21:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * How about a section saying, "Fix it" or something instead of "Volunteer"? 21:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)