Template talk:Mfd top

The colour[edit]

It's soul-destroying. I'm going to play with some others here. - brenneman ^{L} 06:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Variations[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. - brenneman ^{L} 06:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous[edit]

Before it was edited, the color I had put here was this:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Tito xd^(?!?) 06:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too pale, but better than the lilac. How about this one? - brenneman ^{L} 07:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. - brenneman ^{L} 06:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too dark, too little contrast, not a websafe color, too similar to both the TFD and the AFD notices... it reminds me of this... Tito xd^(?!?) 07:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's just me eastern-bloc mood showing through. Can we collect all the XfD templates in one spot and make them co-ordiinated? Pretty please? - brenneman ^{L} 07:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The others[edit]

I'm not terribly au fait with colour schemes, but these aren't Websafe_colors#Web-safe_colors either? - brenneman ^{L} 04:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was #e3f9df

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was #bff9fc

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was #F3F9FF

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

How about

It's websafe! - brenneman ^{L} 04:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was #cccccc

Are these debates or discussions?[edit]

I haven't seen any true debates in AfD, RfD, CfD, TfD, or MfD, but I've seen many discussions. It seems more appropriate to modify the top boilerplate to say "The result of the discussion is" instead of the current wording. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added signature parameter[edit]

The signature was removed from the template as it was causing some people to duplicate their signature but removing it causes xfd closing scripts to lose functionality. I've added a parameter |y to insert the signature.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing[edit]

I observed that the process for closing MFDs creates errors at WP:MFD by removing the discussion heading and breaking the TOC. I observed that it's idiotic to be following a process that creates errors when it almost certainly doesn't have to. I've made an assumption that it's the collapsing that creates these errors, and that it would be just as well if the discussions didn't collapse if that would remedy the problem. Of the limited feedback I've received on these matters at WT:MFD, it has all been supportive.

But I don't know how to change this template (which I assume is what needs to be changed) so that it doesn't collapse the discussion. Does anyone? Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 9 October 2019[edit]

‹ The template below (Edit template-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please revert this edit by Anarchyte, to make this consistent with other closed xfd templates - the colon is not added in any other XFD type I looked.

This change has been causing Legobot to incorrectly format entries on subpages of Wp:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates, which I had to fix in 3 years' worth of archive pages. Its easier to just revert this edit of questionable utility, than request a change to the bot's code. SD0001 (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{Mfd top}} and {{Cfd top}} and {{Ffd top}} appear to use a colon. {{Afd top}} and {{Xfd top}} and {{Rfd top}} do not. Are there more templates that are in the same family? Can you please look to see if the colons are causing trouble with Cfd and Ffd, and that Afd/Xfd/Rfd are working correctly with Legobot? Let's pick one and make sure Legobot is programmed correctly for all of the templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legobot logs closed discussions only at MFD. (At the boards, such logging isn't needed as they already have daily log pages). So the problem doesn't arise with Cfd top and Ffd top. SD0001 (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Harej:, as the maintainer of Legobot Task 33, to see if he's able to make the change to the bot's code. Sceptre (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was ready to revert until I saw that this edit was from 2016, so probably not so urgent. I have disabled the request until we have agreement on the best format to use. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]