Template talk:Mfd

Remove dot links

{{editprotected}} Please replace [[Template:Md|.]] and [[Template:Mfd|.]] 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 {{NOINDEX}} 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)

 Done. Happy‑melon 17:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ambox again

Namespace	Ambox	Tmbox	Cmbox	Ombox	Imbox
(Article)	704240	79	2	13	21
Talk	2777	710542	2	71	141
User	15829	3980	86	68041	485
User talk	1054	58740	24	9128	522
Wikipedia	51068	1041	32	16508	106
Wikipedia talk	236	10894	19	12213	43
File	384	4628	35	27	853160
File talk	27	1383	3	1	188
MediaWiki	1	1	0	45	0
MediaWiki talk	4	245	1	3	0
Template	794	1113	129	18840	781
Template talk	97	3621	10	76	17
Help	6	14	0	35	1
Help talk	1	96	0	1	0
Category	38	5	40733	58	34
Category talk	6	5496	92	0	0
Portal	22	48	0	215	1
Portal talk	1	1038	0	1
Book	0	0	0	7	0
Book talk	0	64	0	0	0

I suggest using ambox on this template. While ambox was originally only meant for article space, I think it has become a rather standard style for temporary tags, making this look deprecated. I haven't seen any real argument for why a deletion tag should look different in article space vs. project space. It seems to me that the style that works best there would also work best here. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You think incorrectly. This template currently shape-shifts: it displays with {{ambox}} styles in the mainspace, if it were ever used there, as a {{cmbox}} in the category namespace, a {{tmbox}} in talk namespaces and an ombox everywhere else. Far from being deprecated, these styles are overwhelmingly the predominant styles in their respective namespaces, as you see in the table. Why does it make sense to display MfD templates as amboxes in the category namespace (where they have a legitimate purpose when the category is part of a wider MfD), when there are just forty other amboxes out there, and forty thousand other cmboxes? Even more so for the File namespace, where there are two thousand imboxes for every misplaced ambox. Why as amboxes on talk namespaces, when there are never less than twenty times as many tmboxes? MfD is far from only being for project space; it is routinely used for userspace (four times as many omboxes) and portals (ten times), and in every other namespace. Only in two are the ambox styles more prolific than the ombox appearance, and in one of those the template displays as an ambox anyway.

It is true that the ambox style is more widespread in the Wikipedia namespace than ombox. Why that is the case, and whether we want to encourage it, is a valid question. But blindly converting all this template's appearances to ambox, when it is currently used more times in the User namespace than it is in Wikipedia:, is definitely not the correct approach to take. Happy‑melon 16:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Correction, then. It feels deprecated since mbox styling (or something similar to it?) is what was used in article space until ambox took over. So why doesn't the same logic that applied to updating the styles used in mainspace tags not apply in project space too? And I'm not sure what you mean by "blindly". Is there some caveat of this change that you don't think we have enough information on yet? Equazcion ^(talk) 16:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you might be misunderstanding how these styles actually work, and how they have developed. The "mbox" system is a set of styles which was developed to replace the horrific mess of unstandardised styles we had before. The mbox system has five groups, divided by namespace: ambox styles for the article namespace, tmbox for talk pages, cmbox for categories, imbox for file namespace, and ombox for other namespaces. Within each namespace, all message boxes are should be standardised into one of the mbox groups. The mbox styles are most definitely the future, not the past.

This template is used in multiple namespaces; indeed every namespace except the 'home' of the ambox styles. It is used in one namespace where ambox styles have taken a hold, for whatever reason. You suggest that because of that, we should make all uses of this template appear as amboxes. I am saying that to do so is to act "blindly", because you are disregarding the great inconsistency that would be introduced in other namespaces. Happy‑melon 17:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe maintaining consistency with other templates in User, WP, portal namespaces is a priority (for example; and i specifically exclude template space since this tag isn't used for those deletions). Other templates in those spaces usually don't signify a temporary issue; Maintenance tags, which need to be a bit eye-catching rather than blend in, are more of an article space feature, which is why I can understand there not being much use for the color bars (etc) in project/WP space. A deletion template signifies an issue to deal with, which makes it different, and more in need of attention. For consistency, and for making MFD tags more immediately recognizable as a result, I think they should be switched to the ambox styling. This is one of few "maintenance" type tags that transcends namespace, and I think it should look the same in all of them. PS. You are correct that I didn't realize mbox changes based on namespace; however that doesn't change my opinion. Precisely because ambox doesn't change based on namespace is why I think it should be implemented for this tag. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You can't just "explicitly exclude template space"; MfD templates are routinely applied to templates and categories as part of a larger MfD nomination; eg for a WikiProject. You say you want to maintain consistency, but you would be breaking consistency with all speedy deletion templates in most namespaces, as well as most other templates. All mbox-styled templates which appear in multiple namespaces do or should switch appearance accordingly; {{merge from}} and friends are perfect examples of templates which mark "temporary issues", are used in multiple namespaces, and which change appearance between namespaces. I've mentioned the speedy deletion templates as another; the protection templates, and maintenance tags such as {{globalise}}, {{cleanup}}, {{update}} and {{uncategorised}}, are all further counterexamples to the claims that transient tags outside the article namespace, or maintenace tags which cross namespaces, are in any way rare.

A deletion template in the category namespace, including an MfD tag, hardly "blends in"; an MfD tag in a talk namespace doesn't really fail to be "eye catching". Changing them to use ambox styles would be attention-grabbing only by making them jar horribly with other templates on the page.

Fundamentally, you're proposing a change in the way the mbox system is implemented. Currently our template styles are divided by namespace, as groups of styles which have continuity in colour and tone between namespaces, and continuity in overall style within namespaces. You want to break that system not for an entire style or even an entire class of templates, but for one template which you think is somehow "different" to all the others. I think you need to make a much stronger case for {{mfd}} being in any way fundamentally unique. Happy‑melon 18:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

"After saving the page, follow the redlink and add . . .to create a 'Miscellany for deletion sub-page.'"

Where exactly should this be subst'd? Could someone amend the template to tell us this? Also, the text is pretty small, difficult to read. Thx. kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 20:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC) {{editprotected}}

 Not done You are suggesting an edit to the documentation page, Template:Mfd/doc, which is not protected. go for it, edit that page.  Chzz  ►  04:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} See last part of discussion at User_talk:Chzz#Template:Mfd.2Fdoc.26action kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 15:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, and to keep the discussion on the relevant talk page, are you asking for the following three changes? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

1. On the instructions, change "follow the redlink" to "follow the redlink under 'this page's entry' which will appear on the subst'd template"
2. On the subst'd template itself, change "subst {{subst:mfd2|pg=User talk:Chzz|text=...}} to create the discussion subpage" to "subst {{subst:mfd2|pg=User talk:Chzz|text=...}} on _______?_______ to create the discussion subpage"
3. Increase the size of the font below the separator bar.

Yes (Chzz being only used as an example). kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 17:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no one has opposed this so next step. Please could you make the required changes to the sandbox copy. Once done, reactivate the request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Namespace detect

{{editprotected}} Replace This miscellaneous page is being considered with:

This {{namespace detect|talk={{talkspace detect|user=user talk page|default=talk page}}|user=user page|book=book|portal=portal|wikipedia=project page|mediawiki=interface page|help=help page|template=userbox|other=<strong class="error">Error:Miscellany for Deletion is not the correct venue for this page. Please see [[Wikipedia:Deletion discussions#List_of_deletion_discussions|the list of deletion venues]].</strong>}} is being considered

If desired, you could replace the error message with "miscellaneous page". — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 22:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

Agreed, request edited. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} On the bottom of the tag, can we make a note to use <noinclude></noinclude> tags...I've found 2 messed up UBXs in the last 20 minutes. CTJF83 21:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

Request

Is there any way to make this template produce a red "This template is being used in the wrong namespace" warning like {{Afd}} 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)

• The problem is clarifying what "the wrong namespace" is for MfD. Presumably we want to blacklist, rather than whitelist, the various namespaces which have their own XfD tags (mainspace, templates, images, redirects: are there any more?). It'd also be good to stick a tracking category on incorrect uses. But all of this is dependent on working code, so disabling for now until there's something that can be deployed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Here's an approximation to the wikitext (with some unnecessary newlines added for talk page clarity): Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  {{#switch:{{FULLPAGENAME}} 
  |Special:Undelete=
  |Template:Mfd=
  |#default=<includeonly>
    {{#switch:{{NAMESPACENUMBER}} 
    |2=|3=|4=|5=|12=|13=
    |#default={{error:wrong namespace}}
    }}
  </includeonly> 
  }}
  

• The above is now in the template sandbox. Uncle G (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Red link

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)

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)

@Jackmcbarn: 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)

Template-protected edit request on 17 July 2016

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)

 Not done 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)

Template-protected edit request on 8 December 2016

Please wrap the contents of this template in {{{{{|safesubst:}}}#invoke:Unsubst||$B=...}}, so that it works when you substitute it, which is proper for many other xfd templates. Pppery 03:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Mfd Usage

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)

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)

Template-protected edit request on 3 May 2019

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)

@Hawkeye7: you made the edit in question --DannyS712 (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

Template-protected edit request on 30 June 2019

From sandbox (Special:Diff/904156150/904157802 Special:Diff/904156150/905415381 new diff—found a bug while testing. —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)):

• Added signature to the help for second step
• Tweaked formatting for the talk page notification recommendation —⁠andrybak (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

 Question: The language and example of {{Mfd2}}, which you've changed the formatting for, indicates that the signature should appear inside the |text= parameter. By adding a second set of ~~~~ would you not then create a redundancy and double sigs? Primefac (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: I don't understand what you mean by the signature should appear inside the |text= parameter. The proposed raw wikitext in the sandbox for mdf2 step is:

Then subst <code>{{tlg|mfd2|2=pg={{{1|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|3=text=... |subst=yes}}<nowiki> ~~~~</nowiki></code>

Parameter |subst=yes is the last parameter passed to {{tlg}}. <nowiki>...</nowiki> with a space and four tildes inside goes after closing }} of transclusion of {{tlg}}. Only three dots and a space are passed to the parameter text. I have just tested code currently suggested by Template:Mfd/sandbox in my sandbox. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Another note: current recommended usage of {{Mfd2}} includes manually added signature, as opposed to other templates, like {{Please see}}, which do the signing automatically. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

To clarify: I'm suggesting such formatting using <code>...</code> to allow readers of the help message more easily distinguish what needs to be copy-pasted. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• Please don’t break historic transclusions in page histories. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: I believe that these changes should not break historic transclusions of the template. —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Testcases subpage has been created. —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 August 2020

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)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Onlyinclude MFD template on nominated page

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Onlyinclude template being considered for deletion

Hello! So I came across a user who is using {{User time zone editnotice}} 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 Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

When used in template namespace, should {{mfd}} behave more like {{tfd}}, i.e. display a clearer and more subtle notice of deletion on the transcluding pages? Certes (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Certes: Uh... I don't know? I'm not exactly understanding what you're asking me (unless you're not asking me the question). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

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 {{tfd}} tag in the template (or rather from {{Template for discussion/dated}}, which tfd substs): tfd behaves differently in the two circumstances. Perhaps {{mfd}} could do something similar when the miscellany happens to be a template. Certes (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Certes: 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 Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Certes: I get what you are saying, and if you can figure it out, I'd say go for and edit {{Mfd}} the way you are suggesting. Steel1943 (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: 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)

@Steel1943: It's Indagate's userpage. The template is the only thing on it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

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

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

  @Steel1943: Cool. So what would be the fix for this? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Blaze Wolf: The answer is whatever was done with {{Templates for discussion}} to produce its result. I can't edit {{Mfd}} 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)

  @Steel1943: It appears Rhododendrites 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 Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Blaze Wolf: 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)

  @Steel1943: 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 Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Blaze Wolf: 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. @Certes and Indagate: Courtesy Ping to inform you the discussion has moved here.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Steel1943: Alright sounds good. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it should. I've been working on fixing this and it's not an easy fix for a few reasons. Particularly, {{mfd}} 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)

@Elli: 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 Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

It's not a simple fix given how it's implemented in {{TfD}} and how {{MfD}} works are quite different. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

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)

Also not particularly easy. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)