User talk:Swift/vfd

Template tweaks
''The following comment was copied from Wikibooks_talk:Votes_for_deletion. Should this page be deleted, a summary of this discussion there might be in order.'' --Swift 05:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I made the tweaks. I replaced the entire message and changed the icon, but left the ifexist condition in place. --dark lama  03:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Since the VfD is a debate whether to delete or not I have to say that I prefer the rubbish bin with the question mark over the brush. Also, I've always found that the brush was a sign of cleanup and sometimes VfDs don't have anything to do with cleanup (some don't consider deleting pages to be cleanup).
 * Your edit summary says "tried to make the text more friendly" but I find the original text, copied from this version of vfd. I think the "has been listed" is more neutral than "A Wikibooks editor believes this page or book should be deleted" which might more likely be perceived as a slap in the face. On occasion, editors find books which they are passionate about tagged with this message and get offended. I think we should be as neutral as possible in our wording.
 * You also removed the archive link. The reason I put it in was because if the sub-page doesn't exist, the link will point to a section on WB:VFD. By creating a link to the archive in that case, it will be that much easier for editors to create the sub-page without risking typos or having to even type anything in. A simple click on the archive link will take you to the sub-page where you add the entry. From there a simple click on the super/parent-page link (just under the page title) will take you to WB:VFD where you can add the page inclusion. Sweet, eh? --Swift 05:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess that makes me one of those people who believe that deletions and VFDs have to do with cleanup and the brush does reflect its about cleanup which is why I used it. The rubbish bin might be perceived as a slap in the face as well, because of the sybolism that the page is rubbish or trash. I used "A Wikibooks editor believe this page or book should be deleted" in hopes of making it clear that only a single person might be behind the opinion that the page should be deleted. Later where it says "to vote whether to keep or delete" is in hope of making it clear the community decides what to keep or delete and in hope of incressing participate by people who care. I agree we should stay neutral, but I think we need to make certain that other people understand that the decision to keep or delete is made by the community through decission and voting and that the person who added the VFG tag is only initalating the process, in the message used. I guess it is back to the drawing board.


 * I removed the archive link because if it exists already, the link for "VFD entry" will point to it, removing the need for a second link to it. I'm not sure if proving the additional link makes sense or not now. I will need to think about your reasons for having it more, before I can comment any further on it. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 01:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I see the cleanup argument. It doesn't really weigh very heavly on me. Still, I do prefer the rubbish bin. The reasons: It looks nicer, it more clearly shows that it might be deleted, might is well indicated by the question mark. Most of these are just personal preferences. If you want to change the icon, we should probably take it to Template talk:Vfd.
 * On the wording: My only beef is really with the "A Wikibooks editor believes" phrase. Would you mind if we changed it to something like: "... has been nominated for a deletion debate" (not that exact wording, but something to that effect). What I'd like is that the page "owner's" potential offense be directed to a particular editor. By removing the reference to "A Wikibooks editor" the tag seems more of a standard procedure to me. Like with the image, this is perhaps just a personal opinion.
 * Most importantly: Regarding the archive link, it was hidden with the ParserFunctions if the sub-page existed: it was only listed if the two links were different.
 * Sorry, the arguments on the first two points aren't formulated very well. I wanted to give you a quick reply to sort out the functionality (in the paragraph above) so that it could be merged into vfd. The imagery and wording should probably be discussed on that talk page anyway (we can refactor what we have covered here). --Swift 04:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that this discussion probably should be discussed on the talk page for the vfd template. Feel free to summarize this discussion there. I can always make corrections if I think you got any of my points wrong. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 05:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, but what about the "second link". I'd like to finish that up here so I can just update the template with a comment on talk. Since I advertised that on talk and there, I think it is fine. --Swift 08:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed it some more. I don't quite like the archive bit though. The only advantage is as you say is to prevent typos if someone wants to do it right off. Surely there is some other means of ensuring that? Its a bit awkward I guess and doesn't quite fit into the template. I think if it had more use then that in terms of being put on the template then it would make sense. This is all that comes to mind having given it some thought. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 22:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the hiatus on this. I'll agree that it may not be the most suitable thing for the template, but I think the usability aspect well justifies it. Templates aren't just messages, they are also tools. In the current version I've made the link much more discreet. If it is too obscure, "archive link" or "discussion archive" are alternatives. --Swift 04:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)