Template talk:Mfd notice: Difference between revisions

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[reply]

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[reply]

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

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[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[reply]

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

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