Template talk:Mfd

message: Please replace . and . with simple dots. This was once useful when the template was substituted to track its usage, but now it's rather creating confusion when you unintentionally press on the links, and tracking is ensured by the template links and category. Also, while being at it, could you replace  with __NOINDEX__? It has exactly the same effect, but the latter method saves one template call. Thank you, --The Evil IP address (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: . Happy‑melon 17:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove dot links 

message: Replace This miscellaneous page is being considered with:
This  is being considered
If desired, you could replace the error message with "miscellaneous page". — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 22:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "is not the correct" instead of "is the inappropriate". Presumably it's not the only inappropriate venue (as "the" implies). And I think correctness characterizes it better than appropriateness. --Bsherr (talk) 07:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, request edited. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put youer request on Template:Mfd/sandbox. Can you double-check? I'm not sure "Template" should default to "userbox". In actual fact I'm not sure I support this request; it would seem much simpler just to say "This page is being considered for deletion." Why do we need to describe what kind of page it is? It should be obvious. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Namespace detect 

message: On the bottom of the tag, can we make a note to use  tags...I've found 2 messed up UBXs in the last 20 minutes. CTJF83 21:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: I'm not sure that this would be desirable in every case. Often you want people to know, via its transclusions, that something is up for deletion. That's how TfD works anyway. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya, but it really messes up UBXs when a big MfD tag is on it. I guess we can discuss it here....if anyone watches this page. CTJF83 20:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request

message: Is there any way to make this template produce a red "This template is being used in the wrong namespace" warning like  does if you use it in the wrong namespace? I ask this because I saw the MFD tag used on an image, but no warning popped up. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: I've never understood why "this page's entry" is in red. Every time I see it, I think for a moment that somebody hasn't completed the MfD process correctly and that the MfD page itself is missing. Which of course is never true. Having the link as red is confusing and there's no obvious motivation for it. Can we please change it to blue?  — Scott • talk 15:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not something we can fix in the template. The problem is that the page it's on needs a WP:PURGE. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, right. I didn't know that red/blue link status could get baked into a template, even after all these years editing. Thanks!  — Scott • talk 21:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red link 

message: I am requesting to remove the word miscellaneous from the header (leaving This page is being considered for deletion ...) as it is not explicitly necessary to state nondescroptness.
Pppery  (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This is specifically called out so that it is not used for more specific pages (e.g. placing it on an article) - it is not meant to be a template for any "page", only miscellaneous ones. — xaosflux Talk 02:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 17 July 2016 

message: Please wrap the contents of this template in , so that it works when you substitute it, which is proper for many other xfd templates. Pppery 03:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 8 December 2016 

message: Just ran into an interesting issue with the MFD / AFD tags.  I nominated a draft article for deletion (AFD) and came back to find it closed within the same day with a note saying "MFD is that way -->".  I'm well aware that non-article pages are to be deleted with an MFD request, that's obvious, however, a draft article being deleted by MFD  only ?  Doesn't that sound a bit odd, since it's an article, wouldn't it be common sense to AFD it?      In case you're wondering  This is the draft article in question . There's no doubt this is an article, it's not a draft policy or essay page, nor is it someone's .js page of code, the intent of this draft article is clear.    So, since it's a draft article wouldn't it make sense to use an AFD not an MFD template as well as AFD space, rather than MFD space for it ? KoshVorlon 20:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as I don't like it - Drafts are handled here.  From prior discussions it seems the AFD regulars don't want them and there is not support to make a Drafts For Deletion forum. — xaosflux Talk 20:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mfd Usage 

message: Please revert this edit, Special:Diff/889765163. It seems to have caused an error relating to MfD-nominated user pages. See User:George200567 for an example ("This user page page..."). CoolSkittle (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: you made the edit in question --DannyS712 (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted the change. The problem is with the use of Module:Pagetype. It sometimes adds "page" and sometimes not. This caused dangerous confusion when a subpage was nominated for deletion, and the template misreports it as the entire suite. My suggestion is that the template be changed to override the default, as in Template:Mfd/sandbox.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 3 May 2019 

message: Please add the class .mbox-mfd to this template to make it easier to find MfD templates using code. Aasim 01:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: * Pppery * it has begun... 01:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 19 August 2020 

message: Hello! So I came across a user who is using  on their userpage. However, the template is currently being considered for deletion at WP:MFD, and because the deletion notice is on the template, it makes it appear like the user's userpage is being considered for deletion at MFD. Would it be appropriate to onlyinclude the template so that the deletion notice isn't transcluded on the whatever page uses the template? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: When used in template namespace, should  behave more like , i.e. display a clearer and more subtle notice of deletion on the transcluding pages? Certes (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uh... I don't know? I'm not exactly understanding what you're asking me (unless you're not asking me the question). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Club Atlético Vélez Sarsfield sections is up for deletion and has a banner to that effect.  Club Atlético Vélez Sarsfield, an article which uses the template, has a small notice at the top, making it clear that a template it uses may be deleted rather than the article itself.  Both notices come from one  tag in the template (or rather from , which tfd substs): tfd behaves differently in the two circumstances.  Perhaps  could do something similar when the miscellany happens to be a template. Certes (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe? What exactly are you suggesting here? Apologies for not understanding, I'm not great at understanding some of the technical stuff on Wikipedia. The question I initially asked was something someone had actually asked in their !vote at the nomination page which I asked here myself because I felt that the people here would know the answer. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I get what you are saying, and if you can figure it out, I'd say go for and edit  the way you are suggesting. Steel1943 (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

text:  Whose user page are you referring to? I'd like to see it for various reasons, such as if the template's existence on that page throws the user page in erroneous categories related to WP:MFD. Steel1943 (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's 's userpage. The template is the only thing on it. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Saw it listed at templates for discussion and thought could be good for my userpage but haven't included anything else yet Indagate (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

text: * Thanks. As I suspected: As per Indagate's original user page, the  template threw the user page into :Category:Miscellaneous pages for deletion. Seems that if the  template transclusion itself is transcluded, the category should be suppressed as well. Steel1943 (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

text: *::Added clarity in bold italics. Steel1943 (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

text: *: Cool. So what would be the fix for this? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

text: *:: The answer is whatever was done with  to produce its result. I can't edit  at the moment due to lack of the Template Editor user right, but I'd think it should be somewhat easy to implement since we already have a good example of how to do it. Steel1943 (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

text: *::: It appears  wrapped the MFD template with noinclude tags which seems to have fixed it. I really just came here to ask if doing something like that would be appropriate. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

text: *:::: That works as a bandage, but it's not a permanent fix. The template still has the issue which caused this discussion to be opened in the first place. Steel1943 (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

text: *::::: Ah alright. I would ask for the change necessary to the MFD template on the talk page of MFD but I have no clue what I would ask them to change since I don't know what I would do. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

text: *:::::: As seen here, I've moved the discussion here so that it's at least on the most applicable talk page. This way, editors who watch this page may get involved since the issue with the template has exposure on the talk page of the template itself.  Courtesy Ping to inform you the discussion has moved here.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

text: *::::::: Alright sounds good. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Yes, it should. I've been working on fixing this and it's not an easy fix for a few reasons. Particularly,  would need to be made subst-only, or we'd need a separate subst-only version of it for pages that act like templates. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah alright sounds good. Glad to know that this issue is already known and a fix is being worked on. For now maybe something should be in the doc saying to wrap the template in noinclude tags if it's used on pages that act like templates? (so probably pages in Template and User space) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

text: I came to report the same issue, but it appears to be already reported. Another userbox is at MFD and I'm seeing a misleading warning on someone's userpage, saying that the userpage is up for deletion. Hopefully, someone can fix this. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 10:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a simple fix given how it's implemented in  and how  works are quite different. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we add a |userbox=yes parameter. One could manually set this parameter and it works like TfD template. Twinkle can do this automatically like it already recognises userboxes from other templates. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 14:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Also not particularly easy. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Onlyinclude MFD template on nominated page