Template talk:Mfd notice

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Cfd-notify which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 13 November 2022

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

When the template is substed, it leaves this comment in the page – . Change it to  to match the template name. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 23 April 2023

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

Please replace

==MfD nomination of [[:{{{1}}}]]==

with

==MfD nomination of {{{1}}}==

I. e., remove the link from the section header, per MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS

section headings should [...] Not contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked

These technical restrictions are necessary to avoid technical complications and are not subject to override by local consensus. Paradoctor (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: That MOS page applies to articles. This template is not used on articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

provisions related to accessibility apply across the entire project, not just to articles Paradoctor (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In what way are links in headings related to accessibility? That MOS page appears to be silent on the matter. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

necessary to avoid technical complications Paradoctor (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to start a discussion at a MOS talk page about the links that have been used in the headers of these notification templates for a very long time. If you ping me, I will be happy to attend. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right after you explain why you think you can ignore the guideline. I told you how and why it applies, and you have not challenged that. Since the guideline applies, the only justification for refusing to apply it would be you showing that overriding guideline/policy exists: not subject to override by local consensus.

@Jonesey95: Paradoctor (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my reasoning above. As far as I can tell, this template has had a link in its header since its creation 2007 and does not appear to have caused any problems. Its sibling templates are all or mostly the same. Overturning the long-term consensus to display links in the headers of these notification templates was bold, but the edit has been reverted and now requires discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the long-term consensus to display links in the headers That is the local consensus, yes. And I've pointed it out to you more than once now: MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS is not subject to override by local consensus. The guideline is unequivocal about that.

WP:Consensus can change, and it did here, at least ten years ago. We don't do CamelCase for links anymore, either. That these templates escaped attention so far doesn't afford them a customary right to ignore the applicable guideline. Paradoctor (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]