Template talk:Afdx

This template survived a TFD nomination - see CorporisPublica:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/May_2005. Radiant_* 08:47, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Purpose
This template is used to tag an article nominated for deletion that has had one or more previous nominations. It creates a link to a properly named page so that the separate discussions are not confused.

Usage
List the ordinal number of the nomination in the parameter. Thereafter complete the nomination with afd2 on the discussion page and afd3 on the deletion log page as for any nomination.

Examples
To nominate an article for deletion for the second time, use:  second  or  2nd 

To nominate an article for deletion for the third time use:  third  or  3rd 

If you are bundling this article with another nomination, use:  second, and replace PageName with the name of the first article that you nominated, also replacing "second" with "2nd," "3rd," "third," or whatever is appropriate.
 * This doesn't work. As I try it at the moment, AfDx just ignores the second parameter. -- Smjg (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

New element
I just added the "Maintenance use only" section recently added to Afd and other deletion templates. --Wcquidditch | Talk 18:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I recently revisited this template and updated it to the latest deletion template thing -- the new Javascript menu. -- WC Quidditch   &#9742;  &#9998;  23:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion yet??
Has there been any discussion about what the maximum number of times an article is to be nominated for deletion within its history?? I believe a good answer is 5. Any opinions?? Georgia guy 17:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * See CorporisPublica:Repeated AfD nomination limitation policy for a failed attempt at making policy. Note that it's probably a bad idea to try and limit the number or frequency of AFD nominations. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit Request
I am requesting that the template be updated to have text similar to that at. This is particularly in regards to the instructions for listing an article for deletion, located at the bottom of the template. --  tariq abjotu  00:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please provide a directly copyable version of what you want this template to be, and re-add the editprotected tag. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I wanted the template to be changed to...

 This article is being considered for deletion for the time in accordance with CorporisPublica's deletion policy.

Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.

You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank this article or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the Guide to deletion. Steps to list an article for deletion: &#123;&#123;subst:afd&#125;&#125; &bull; Preloaded debate OR'' &#123;&#123;subst:afd2|pg=|cat=|text=&#125;&#125; &bull; &#123;&#123;subst:afd3|pg= ( nomination)&#125;&#125; [ log]

This template will categorise articles into Category:Pages for deletion. This template is a self-reference and so is part of the CorporisPublica project rather than the encyclopedic content.

This template should always be subst-ed onto pages it appears on in order to avoid excessive server stress by reloading part of the template every time.

Another edit request
Please change ' ' to '  ' on this template, so that Afdx can be used with the new AfD categorization scheme. --ais523 08:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks; btw, your copyable thing was slightly wrong; it should have had in it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

request 3
Add preloaded debate to maintenance line: Steps to list an article for deletion: &#123;&#123;subst:afd&#125;&#125; • Preloaded debate OR'' -- Chris chat edits essays  22:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. — Mets 501 (talk) 03:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem with the template
It appears that there's now an extra "see also" section that isn't properly &lt;noinclude&gt;'ed. If someone with magical powers (i.e. a mop) could fix it ASAP, that'd be great. -- NORTH talk 00:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Preloaded debate

 * Hmm, the preloaded debate still isn't quite right. The loaded title and la-admin parameters aren't quite right.  Can someone whose had some experience with this poke it a little bit?  If not, all probably take a look at it tonight.  Wickethewok 22:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I just set the default for the first parameter to "2nd". Which makes me wonder if we can combine this with Afd and set the default to "1st". Or, if someone feels frisky, add an #ifexist clause. ~ trialsanderrors 07:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

When to use this template??
Is there an easy way to determine how many times an article has been up for deletion??? Thanks - PocklingtonDan 08:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's been nominated and kept a number of times, you should be able to find links to the discussions on the talk page. If not, the only other way is to come through What Links Here and find all instances yourself.  howcheng  {chat} 16:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess that's a "no" on the easy way then unfortunately - I was looking for something that a bot would be able to easily parse/fetch. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 17:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Preloaded debate again
Still isn't quite working right. When the preloaded debate link is clicked, it creates ~. But since the subpage name includes "(second nomination)" (or third, fourth, etc.), while the actual article name does not, this results in two redlinks: one in the subsection link to the article, and one when it's substituted into the template.

This can be corrected manually by removing the parenthetical from the la template and piping the subsection link (eg. "Foo|Foo (second nomination)"). Not sure there's a way to automate it without altering or replacing the afd2 template. Shimeru 10:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet again
Is there a way to make this say ", yet again," if it's the 10th or more nomination? --Random832, not entirely serious, 15:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Missing signature in afd2 instructions
Please add four tildes after the afd2 tag instruction, as in afd1.--Chealer 22:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Change this template to call ?
Now that subst'ing doesn't dump a load of code onto the article (which this one still does) and the effect of this template can be better achieved by typing , why don't we make this template subst  with the aforementioned parameters? It would make this one unnecessary. Resurgent insurgent 07:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Making this template call proved too complicated, so I just made this template use  directly by copying over the code from .  It's only three lines, so it shouldn't be too hard to keep in sync.  ( also contains an extra kluge I added to try and help people to do renominations properly; I didn't include that here, since, pretty much by definition, anyone using this template has already figured out how to renominate an article.)  I also moved the documentation over to Template:Afdx/doc and updated it a bit.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Contributor notification
Can we put together a template to notify contributors that their article has been nominated, and have this availabla on the AfD notification? Often people nominate articles but do not bother to notify the contributor. &mdash;Gaff ταλκ 17:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeated AfD nominations

 * Repeated AfD nomination search links with number of such articles as of date of my signature:
 * (5,784)
 * (884) (6668 total)
 * (583)
 * (102) (685 total)
 * (128)
 * (18) (146 total)
 * (43)
 * (9) (52 total)
 * (24)
 * (3) (27 total)
 * (12)
 * (1) (13 total)
 * (7)
 * (1) (8 total)
 * (3)
 * (1) (4 total)
 * (1 total)?
 * (1 total)?
 * (2 total)
 * (2 total)
 * (2 total)
 * (1 total)
 * (1 total)
 * (1 total)
 * (1 total)
 * After that, it's BEANS all the way down. Шизомби (talk) 07:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (1 total)?
 * (2 total)
 * (2 total)
 * (2 total)
 * (1 total)
 * (1 total)
 * (1 total)
 * (1 total)
 * After that, it's BEANS all the way down. Шизомби (talk) 07:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * After that, it's BEANS all the way down. Шизомби (talk) 07:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I must admit, the 2nd nom total is nowhere near as high as I expected. Possibly there was some other wording used for multiple nominations in the past that I missed. Шизомби (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

On this topic, see also CorporisPublica:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions AKA WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED and CorporisPublica:Perennial proposals. The latter unfortunately does not link to the prior proposals and "instruction creep" is something of a fallacious argument if there's nothing more to the argument than that. Шизомби (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)