Template talk:DRV top

message: One problem I recognized is that if I speedy-close a debate the section header disappears and editing the section on top of it will then also include the whole code for the closed debate. I can think of a couple of workarounds, but none are very elegant. Right now I simply set a ==== ==== on top of it. ~ trialsanderrors 03:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section headers

message: I like this a lot. (Radiant) 10:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good idea! 

message: I have to say that the new layout looks really good; however, is there a particular reason it uses a smaller font?  ColourBurst 04:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no particular reason other than I currently use a CSS class called "navbox collapsible" for the boxes, which sets the font size to 90% (and I can't override it). I'm planning to talk to one of the guys with more CSS experience to create a class called "debatebox" that has some different settings, e.g. 100% font size. ~ trialsanderrors 04:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DRV new layout test run 

message: I had to move the timestamp out of the template since it either shows the last time the template was edited or the current time, instead of the intended time when the discussion was archived. Anyone know a workaround? ~ trialsanderrors 19:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Timestamp

message: I changed the template to include the level 4 header with (closed) in brackets. The template was originally set up for me to close a whole daily log at a time, but since closing DRV's is now a shared duty, keeping the header until the log page is archived is a better solution. ~ trialsanderrors 08:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Header added

message: I've reverted JzG's edit and re-added the autosig in this template, because the DRV closure scripts (as well as everyone's habits) leave it out. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better to have it as a parameter.  MfD has removed it because it's everyone's habit to sign and so what happens is you end up with a double sig that you have to then remove.  The closing scripts can easily be modified to accommodate the signature as tfd already did and mfd has been changed to do.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 13:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signature 

message: As most DRV-closers know, this template needs to be substed in order for archiving to work.  Sometimes folks forget, though, and it takes several edits to fix after the fact.  Any interest in making one of those big red not-substed notices, as in ?  Chick Bowen 22:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substing 

message: I've just changed the language in the documentation as well as default parameter 2 slightly.  The old language was "default DECISION is 'Deletion endorsed'".  I changed the word "Decision" to "result" just to be consistent with XfDs and to avoid confusion with my other change which was to change the word "Deletion" to "Decision" because a DRV of a "Keep" at an XfD will default to "Keep endorsed" not "Deletion endorsed", obviously.  I also changed "Deletion endorsed" to "Decision endorsed" in the parameter.  It would really be perverse if a closing admin didn't put in a result so it defaulted to "Deletion endorsed" when the original decision was "Keep".--Doug.(talk • contribs) 08:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Default result clarified