Template talk:Mfd

Could someone please explain what the purpose of the '1' in the template's name is? Vacuum c 15:47, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Multi-nom problem

There's some breakage here when passing a parameter for a multiple-nomination such as {{subst:md1|foo}}: the "the page's entry" link obeys the passed parameter but the "Maintenance" notes do not. DMacks 03:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, it's just the md3 link in the maintanence section that needs changing; it should be {{{1|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}} rather than just {{FULLPAGENAME}}. --ais523 10:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

md2 link there also. DMacks 15:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} change made. CMummert · talk 16:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks! DMacks 17:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Green background

After this template was converted to {{ambox}}, the green background was restored with the comment "needs to stand out in various name spaces". Offhand, I'm not convinced the red bar doesn't stand out enough, and the current colors look like ketchup on pistachio ice cream. Can we switch this thing to a white background?--Father Goose 22:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for removing the red bar, this isn't an article template after all. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The last version before that seemed rather stable, with only minor format changes in almost a year. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't an article template, no, but I think there's something to be said for having all the deletion templates use a similar style, and the ambox style is surprisingly well-liked considering how much of a departure it is from our previous styles.--Father Goose 05:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Some amboxes are shown on non-article pages. This template was amboxed to make it more in line with {{AfD}}. I don't like eiter shade of green, just changed it to a less nausiating shade (though ketchup on pistachio really isn't that apatizing either). The red bad certainly sticks out enough and is very recognizable. I propose changing the background back to standard ambox grey. — Edokter • Talk • 01:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Samples

Sample 1

This one uses the classic green, but does away with the ketchup: ?

This miscellaneous page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please discuss the matter at this page's entry on the Miscellany for deletion page. You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move this page (without knowing exactly what you are doing), or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, read the guide to deletion. Maintenance use only: {{subst:mfd}}/{{subst:mfdx|2nd}} {{subst:md2|pg=Template talk:Mfd|text=...}} {{subst:md3|pg=Template talk:Mfd}} log

---

Since it is deletion related, the green bar is 'out of spec' I'm afraid. And since the ambox standardisation was primarerly devised to do away all the different background colors, I still think it should just be grey. — Edokter • Talk • 09:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit: added 'official' style) — Edokter • Talk • 09:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Visibility

In at least one other place a reference to Template:Ifd was made. This type of template does stand out very well, with a full border. MFD notices are important to EDITORS, unlike Article Notices which are equally important to READERS and EDITORS. MFD is by it's nature not a part of what we present to researchers and readers, as it's not used in those namespaces where we are trying to maintain a certain style. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ambox

Apparently, AzaToth is not happy with the ambox style and reverted the changes, though i think with a non-reason. Just because the template is not shown in article space, doesnt mean all attemtps to give this template a much needed restyling should be reverted. I have made a proposal much like the Ambox project; Deletion message boxes. Please head over and give your input. — Edokter • Talk • 15:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes the restyling is needed, but ambox is meant for use in ARTICLE space. A design unique to the project space (or any other space MFD handles) would be more appropriate. FunPika 16:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

(Repeating what I've said elsewhere) - I would support a standard look for all the deletion templates.

And they can be, the issue is a question of being able to easily notice them outside the wall-o-cleanup. And I think giving them a different background shading (though of a different colour than the speedy templates), and a full border (see Template:Ifd), and at least linespace between them and the wall, would work. They should be at the top of the page (but a linespace below protection - which also should have a full border). As far as I can tell, all of this is possible with ambox. - jc37 16:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Improve with doc page

Can someone please update this with a doc page which boils out the appropriate instructions. There is no reason with WP:DPP and WP:DOC that any template shouldn't have clear usage instructions one can access with {tl|Lts}} or {{tl}}, and the attempt to incorporate some guidelines at the bottom of the template is a dismal failure... the fonts far too small to read sans sufficient detail. The best solution would be for the doc page (Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, which I now must wade through) to be written so that the guideline page includes that, giving a consistent one source place to change! Sheesh! // FrankB 23:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Editprotected

{{editprotected}}

Purpose—excise redirected template names,

so we clueless occasional users can follow along without extra link hops... plus add some useful usage rather very belatedly!

note md2 redirects to mfd2, md3 to mfd3, user should add either mfd OR mfdx, not both, so making 'that' plain too.Template:Left60

Change from: (at bottom of template)

:''<small>[[Wikipedia:Maintenance|Maintenance]] use only: {{tlsx|mfd}}/{{tlsx|mfdx|2nd}} {{tlsx|md2|pg={{{1|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|text=...}} {{tlsx|md3|pg={{{1|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}}} [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion|action=edit&section=2}} log] </small>''

to

:''<small>[[Wikipedia:Maintenance|Maintenance]] use only: Subst either {{tlsx|mfd}} OR {{tlsx|mfdx|2nd}} on page nominated for deletion.<br/> Then subst {{tlsx|mfd2|pg={{{1|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|text=...}} on the newly created subpage, and then subst {{tlsx|mfd3|pg={{{1|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}}} [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion|action=edit&section=2}} log] </small>''

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 23:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

And add this usage too:

<noinclude><br><br><hr>'''How to use this template:''' :See [[Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion]], but in essence, apply {{tl|mfd}} properly with a subst on the page you are nominating. {{2}}After you save or preview, apply {{tl|mfd2}} on the redlink page now showing to create a 'Miscellany for deletion sub-page'. {{2}}Last, goto [[Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion]] and subst {{tl|mfd3}}.</noinclude>

You should just be able to cut and paste the nowiki'd stuff above. The usage note parrallels the changes I added to {{Mfd2}} and {{mfd3}} already.

Thanks // FrankB 23:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 23:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Reworded the documentation slightly, but also included it via {{documentation}} so it can be freely updated now. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up the instructions

On {{Afd}}, there is a nice clean section at the bottom of the template listing the instructions as such:

Steps to list an article for deletion: 1. {{subst:afd}} 2. {{subst:afd2|pg=Afd|cat=|text=}} ~~~~ (categories) 3. {{subst:afd3|pg=Afd}} (add to top of list) 4. Please consider notifying the author(s) by placing {{subst:adw|Afd}} ~~~~ on their talk page(s).

I would like to mimic that format on this template for clarity. Specifically, this template does not include a reference to {{MFDWarning}}. Thoughts?--12 Noon 17:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotect}}

Please add at the bottom of the template the following text (code can can be copied from {{AfDM}}):

Please consider notifying the author(s) (insert link to history of page) by placing {{subst:MFDWarning|Article name}} ~~~~ on their talk page(s).

Regards.--12 Noon ^2¢ 21:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done. east.718 at 23:34, January 15, 2008

Ombox please?

{{editprotected}}

{{ombox |type=delete |image=none |text='''This miscellaneous page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion policy]][[Template:md|.]]'''{{#if:{{{1|}}}|<br>This nomination is part of a discussion of several related miscellaneous pages.}}<br>Please discuss the matter at '''[[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}|this page's entry]]''' on the [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion|Miscellany for Deletion]] page.<br /> You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move this page (without knowing exactly what you are doing), or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to deletion|Guide to Deletion]]. :''<small class="plainlinks">[[Wikipedia:Maintenance|Maintenance]] use only: Subst either {{tlsx|mfd}} OR {{tlsx|mfdx|2nd}} into the page nominated for deletion.<br/>Then subst {{tlsx|mfd2|pg={{{1|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|text=...}} into [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}|the newly created subpage]].<br/>Finally, subst {{tlsx|mfd3|pg={{{1|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}}} into the [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion|action=edit&section=2}} log].<br />Please consider notifying the [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=history}} author(s)] by placing {{subst:MFDWarning|{{FULLPAGENAME}}{{#ifeq:{{{page|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|{{FULLPAGENAME}}|||{{{page}}}}}}} ~~~~ on their talk page(s).</small>''} }}

ViperSnake151 22:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Your code had an error, by the way (</small>''}). Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Where was this change discussed?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Doug: This is part of the message box standardisation. It started out some years ago when we standardised the brown background for talk page message boxes. (See Wikipedia:Talk page templates.) Then we standardised the article message boxes. (See Wikipedia:Article message boxes and {{ambox}}.) And lately we have standardised the looks for message boxes on the remaining types of pages. This message box goes on "other pages" thus it should have the "other pages message box style". And the easiest way to get a box to show in that style is to use the {{ombox}} meta-template. And this message box is a deletion message box and not a speedy deletion message box, which according to the standardised styles means red border and light-grey background. (Speedy deletion boxes have pink background.)

The message box standardisation was discussed at many places (see the talk pages of the pages I just linked to) and have been announced at a lot of places during the past year. (Including the village pumps and we even have had messages at the top of the watchlist informing people of the message box standardisation.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not liking this new look. It's far to easy to over look for a deletion message. I really don't understand this obsession to have themes for templates per namespace, but the lack of consistency (ironic, isn't it?) for deletion templates makes them harder to spot. -- Ned Scott 04:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Wait, I think I have my templates confused. Regardless, it's still oddly easy to miss without the change in bg color. Can we do the highlighted background seen in other deletion templates? -- Ned Scott 04:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Use code at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ned_Scott/sandbox4&oldid=240401592

Ombox plus original green. -- Ned Scott 09:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

N Not done - See my response for Doug above. And how can a message box that fills more than half the screen be hard to miss? --David Göthberg (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

David, I respect you a lot, but compulsive standardization isn't always an improvement. In several of the discussions you cited a lot of people were basically "meh, why do we have to change that again..?" And several editors just didn't care to dive into the discussion in the first place. However, when editors now are objecting, you need to listen. Making them look pretty doesn't help us do our jobs. Speedy tags were prematurely changed too, and you guys did not have that worked out before hand. That pink background was added after the standardization, because people felt it was necessary. Don't put so much weight on those discussions, because effort does not always equal perfection. I'm adding back in editprotected, because this should be done, if at least as a transitional effect.

I've said it before, and I know others have said it too, I don't oppose the general idea here, but I strongly oppose this kind of iron-fist-no-compromise approach. We don't even do that with the article space MOSes, and we certainly are not going to start doing that here. -- Ned Scott 02:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Deletion templates need to stand out.

But then I've said this for awhile.

Perhaps we should consider a shading system for Ombox, like Template:Cmbox. - jc37 02:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

N Not done, again.

Ned Scott: The {{editprotected}} request is not a debating tool. First achieve consensus, then you may use that request. (You should take a minute and read its documentation.) And I see no consensus here. Let's count the people who have written here so far:

• Prefer green background: Doug (maybe), Ned Scott, jc37.
• Prefer light-grey ombox background: ViperSnake151, MZMcBride (maybe), David Göthberg.

That's a draw so far. And discussions in previous sections also show no consensus. So I am not going to edit the template.

And if I don't remember it wrongly: The pink background for speedy tags where added during the article message box standardisation a year ago, not after the standardisation. (Albeit in the end of those discussions, after all the other styles were settled.) We reused the pink background for the other mboxes since that makes the speedy tags easy to recognise across the namespaces. So it has not been added "afterwards".

Now for the matter how to get on with this:

The ombox styles is considered a guideline. It had all the formal processing, we just haven't created the guideline page yet since all of us involved have been busy with more urgent matters. During the process we kept it simple by keeping the discussions on the subpages of the mbox templates. (Since it was messy back when we standardised the article message box styles and made the {{ambox}}. We had both the guideline page and the template page, thus splitting up discussion. We have now merged those talk pages.)

If you want to get anywhere with this then you need to formally announce your idea for new message box standard. That is, write up your idea and show your suggested designs for instance over at the talk page of {{ombox}} and then announce it at the village pumps and the other relevant pages. Yes that is bureaucratic, but that is what we did. (We even had watchlist messages!) Until you come close to that you can't really claim that 2.5 editors wanting green background is a new consensus. (Especially since the same number of editors have expressed the opposite view in this very discussion.)

Jc37: The design for the different mboxes have been heavily discussed and consensus was to reserve coloured background for category message boxes and speedy deletion boxes only. How does a box that fills most of the screen and that has a red border not stand out enough? And how does green background say "Warning this is going to be deleted"? To me that says more like "Hey, this article has the green stamp of approval!".

--David Göthberg (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Heavily discussed? I've watched those discussions, and the ones for general Wikipedia pages were barely active. I remember the community barely supporting standardization for the talk page standardization as well. Do not give this more weight than it really has, it's no better then when niche WikiProjects come and try to enforce a micro-consensus on the entire project. Demanding that we make a formal request for you to approve this change is a prime example of wikilawyering, and of why we avoid wikilawyering.

A lot of us supported these templates as something that would be a tool, something to help us but never as a requirement (with exception to the article space templates). I'm going to ask that you refrain from disabling the editprotected tag. Ombox is not a guideline and it certainly isn't a policy. I'm an MFD regular, and I'm no fool, so when even I occasionally miss the MfD box (despite how large it is), and others are saying the same thing, then you need to stop and listen. Why does green say deletion? Because it's been that way for years, and now you're asking people to turn on a dime. For the love of god, we're asking for ombox with some green shading. Don't be a jerk about this and don't give us hell when request something that you don't like. We're volunteers, and we really don't need to deal with this kind of crap. -- Ned Scott 02:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't have a strong preference for the shading colour (though I do miss the stand out pink of the CfD templates), but merely that there should be a shading colour for all deletion templates.

That said (and please everyone take this in the best way possible), I don't necessarily think User:Davidgothberg (or anyone else) deserves such either.

I do think that it could be perceived as "unfair" that admins could potentially boldly make cosmetic edits, but anyone without the ability to edit the protected page is required to form a consensus.

And in regards to deletion templates, perhaps, as admins, we may be used to not seeing much of a difference in our Wikipedia editing/reading experience when an article is deleted, but it makes quite a difference for users without the ability to see deleted content. So such a notice may be incredibly important to those users.

I don't think that a touch of helpfulness, with a touch of trying to avoid a bit of WP:BITE, is such a bad thing.

I'm especially concerned that a cosmetic change seems so strongly opposed.

Anyway, all that said, I think I'm going to try to restart some discussion somewhere concerning the XfD tags. (I'm not going to try to reopen the last attempt, as it appears to mostly be a messy sandbox.) - jc37 07:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I too want to clarify some things:

I have not edited this template, apart from adding the missing {{pp-template|small=yes}} and fixing a white space bug some time ago. And that was before all this.

As can be seen above and in the edit history it was ViperSnake151 that requested the change to ombox, and MZMcBride that performed the edit. And so far all was normal and correct.

Then Ned Scott requested it be changed back to its old green style. However as can be seen here there is no consensus either way. Thus as an admin I am not allowed to perform that request. A consensus for what should be done must first be achieved.

And yes, I am partial since I prefer the ombox style. Thus I have not denied the editprotected request a third time. Instead I leave it to other admins to deny it and again explain to Ned Scott that the editprotected request may not be used as a debate tool. (Ned: Have you even read the text in the {{editprotected}} box above?)

So really, you guys need to announce this at some places and bring in more editors here so we can find out what most people prefer. It's as simple as that. Since currently we have a draw. (Sure, I could do that for you, but I am not obliged to. And since I prefer the current style (ombox), and have plenty of more important things to do, then why would I?)

--David Göthberg (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily dispute the above, and my apologies if my comments in any way seemed to indicate that you (or anyone else) were taking inappropriate actions. - jc37 00:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

David, I've got no reason to be at odds with you, but please don't misrepresent the situation. I made a request for a compromise version, not a revert to the old style, and even called it a temporary measure to smooth out the transition.

I'm fully aware that the editprotect tag isn't a debate tool. I still feel that the template should be reverted because consensus was lacking for the original edit. We don't take changes to the deletion system lightly, and this template is no exception. Your reaction is on pair with "I don't give a shit about your concerns because I think it looks pretty". When a reasonable argument is made that a deletion notice might not be getting its full attention, heaven forbid we listen and be cautious. But like I said, it appears you don't give a shit about that because you like how it looks. I don't care how it looks, I care how it functions. You don't have to agree with the other person to be reasonable. -- Ned Scott 05:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

And don't think that I hate you or anything, because I think you're a great guy. Honestly, I do, but if people never actually tell others how they feel then things would never progress. I'm not saying this as an attack on you, I'm saying this as the impression that I get. -- Ned Scott 05:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

 Not done... if a consensus is reached please replace the tag. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC

Since this is a poorly watched template talk page, let's see if the RFC tag might help this situation out. -- Ned Scott 23:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ned Scott only added his view in the RfC "reason" parameter. So I added the other view. Now the request is balanced. And this is not a policy issue, but a style issue. So I changed from {{RFCpolicy}} to {{RFCstyle}}.

--David Göthberg (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I felt it was neutral, but fair enough. I hope you don't mind that I changed "standard" to "default" in the description. I wasn't sure about putting it in the style RFC or the policy one, since it's a style issue for a deletion template, but it will probably get more notice in the style one, since there aren't as many listed RFCs there. -- Ned Scott 03:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why this situation has become difficult while Template:Adminbacklog did exactly what I attempted to do here. Especially considering MfD can be used in multiple namespaces, I think it would be more logical to have consistency with the MFD template itself rather than having it change for each namespace. I'm sure the same can be said for a lot of our recently converted templates. Constancy and standardization has more to do with function than it does with namespace. -- Ned Scott 04:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In the model of bold,revert,discuss; I've reverted the last change; discussion on style differences should be resolved here. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Is an actual RFC open on this, if so the links above are not helping lead me there. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What message boxes looked like before they were standardised

The image to the right shows why we did the message box standardisation. That image is a screenshot of an actual article, before the message box standardisation.

--David Göthberg (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for article message boxes. The situation is not the same for the project namespace. -- Ned Scott 04:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Or let's make this even more basic. All templates related to XfD simply do not stand out enough from the other mbox templates. (A thin red line just doesn't cut it.) And Template:Prod is being confused with other XfD templates by some editors.

So how about this: Does anyone here mind if we start an RfC concerning XfD templates? I presume that everyone here prefers standards, so perhaps if they had a standard unto themselves, then this confusion could be resolved. - jc37 05:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. -- Ned Scott 05:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Xaosflux: The RFC has already passed. That is, it was announced for some time and then a bot came here and removed it since it had become too old. And as you can see it did not bring any new users to the discussion here.

Since you reverted back to the non-standard green style for this template (in spite that two admins had already denied the request to revert it) I assume your preference is for the green style, right?

Ned Scott: You are wrong, the situation is the same for message boxes in all namespaces. Before the standardisation it used to be chaos like that everywhere. Just that the standardisation has been ongoing for several years now so most of you have not seen how it looked back then.

Jc37: Well, most users wants their message box to stand out compared to the other message boxes. If we would allow everyone to make their message box stand out more then we end up with the old arms race in message box styles that we used to have. And then we are quickly back to the chaos that the image above shows. So your wish to make "your" message box stand out is very selfish.

--David Göthberg (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Selfish? We're talking about page deletion, not "would you mind cleaning up the article". And having XfD boxes "stand out" is a convention longerstanding than mbox and for that matter, most templates in general. And I am fairly certain that consensus has not changed in regards to that.

David, you know I respect you, but honestly that last comment treads awfully close to WP:OWN territory. You may wish to re-examine your position on this. - jc37 02:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• David G, can you point me to the RFC? I prefer that mis deletion notices stand out strongly, especially on misc pages that do not have a requirement to use any other type of boxes (e.g. user: user_talk: certain wikipedia: pages <like essays, humor pages>). I am not married to a particular color. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Xaosflux: This is the RFC. That is, this very discussion below the header "RFC" above is the RFC. Only that the template that explained that this is the RFC has been removed by the RFC bot. The bot used the edit comment "removing old RFC".

Jc37: The colours for deletion boxes and all the other types of message boxes have been discussed repeatedly in many places. And consensus each time has been that deletion boxes should have a red border. And the purpose of the red border is to make them stand out. So do you mind explaining what you think is the big difference between {{prod}} and the XfD boxes, such as {{Mfd}}? And why you think that difference is big enough that you want to keep {{prod}} and the other deletion boxes apart?

And how do you mean WP:OWN comes into the picture? What I mean is that it is "selfish" to try and make the template you care about stand out more than other templates that you seem to care less about. That doesn't have much to do with "owning" the template, just that you seem to think that {{Mfd}} is more important than for instance {{prod}}. What I point out is that different people think different templates are more important. And as I stated above: If we would allow everyone to make their message box stand out more, then we end up with the old arms race in message box styles that we used to have. And "we" in this case is the great majority of users who wanted the message boxes to be standardised. During the standardisation process some users brought up special templates and special cases and wanted special styles for those cases, but the majority of users wanted to stick to a reasonably low number of standardised styles and thus denied those special requests.

And by the way, the green colour was brought up for discussion several times, each time consensus was that if green should be used then it should be used for something that means a page is good or so. But ultimately consensus was that we don't need a special colour for that at the moment. And here you instead use green as a warning colour? Very weird indeed.

--David Göthberg (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

First, you seem to misunderstand me. PROD is just-another-deletion-template. The main difference between it and the CSD and XfD templates is that it can be removed on sight at any time. This obviously is not the case with other templates.

As there are (at least) three types of deletion templates, the three should be instantly clear from each other, and stand out from the rest of the wall-o-cleanup.

And the "consensus" for red, was only that the highest level of your colour progression should be red, and that deletion was (at least) at the top of the colour progression. Noting of course that when you (plural) attempted to go through with this, editors screamed about CSD templates, and you reluctantly complied. (If I'm in any way mischaracterising the past, please feel free to clarify.)

And I'm not the only one who was and is concerned about this. There were several discussions, but the concern (at the time) was that to try to have a separate discussion about the deletion templates might derail the mbox, and we all agreed that that was more important at that time.

So it's now "later", and there's little likelihood of derailing mbox now. So I don't think it's quite beyond the pale to have the discussion now.

And by the way, I helped with the implementation of mbox (in the deletion templates in particular), so I think you're a bit hard pressed to suggest that I'm opposed to it.

There's actually a fairly simple solution to all of this (in my opinion anyway) but until we can get past having a discussion to decide to have a discussion, it's pointless to try to "move forward" and try to discuss options/solutions.

If anything, I might request that you dial it down a bit. Not everyone here is out to destroy what has been achieved. (I honestly don't think anyone here is out for that.) So please try to be a bit less defensive, and bit more open to discussion. - jc37 13:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to take this opportunity to support the use of mbox styles here. MfD is in fact now the only XfD template that doesn't use appropriate mbox "delete" styles. There are a number of reasons why using {{mbox}} (note that since this template can be used in several namespaces, the shape-shifting "mbox" template should be used instead of {{ombox}}, so that the box automagically restyles itself to whichever namespace it is in) is beneficial. First, the mbox template incorporates a huge number of clever tricks toe ensure that the template renders correctly in as many situations, and on as many browsers, as possible, tricks that are not applied here resulting in occasionally broken output. In particular, the div format has flow issues with right-floating objects like {{shortcut}}, does not stack properly with other templates, and uses the uncommon "boilerplate" class, which is AFAIK deprecated and has been for some time. The template is nonstandard not only in its colouring but also in its shape, width, padding, etc. It does not apply the "plainlinks" class consistently, which is done by default in {{mbox}}. Whether or not the background colour is retained, the template should be converted to use {{mbox}}.

Now consider the colour. Who on earth ever thought that green was a good colour for a template that is effectively a dire warning?? What possible consensus could have chosen that? The answer is that there was no discussion: the green colour was added by one editor In December 2005 and hasn't been touched since. Before that the notice was a very dull neutral grey, so I can see why the action to add some styling was taken. Why he chose green is something that I guess we'll never know. The fact remains that green is an idiotic colour for what is a very important and serious warning. We have through innumerable discussions over many years come to the entirely sensible conclusion that such important and serious warnings should use striking colours such as yellow, orange and red; red in particular is a wiki-wide standard for deletion notices that is followed universally except on this template, where precisely the opposite colouring is used. This situation is really very silly; the issue is not conformity with other templates so much as conformity with common sense :D. The only redeeming feature of the green colourscheme is the historical precedent, and we are lucky enough on wikipedia to be free of such malign influence. We really don't have to be bound by the decision of one editor three years ago. Happy‑melon 19:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Shades of green are likley not the best color here, can we see any mockups besides the last one proposed that have backgrounds that are much more noticeable then the redish-gray though? — xaosflux ^Talk 05:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I checked, Happy-melon is right, according to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Introduction this {{mfd}} message box should be used in the following namespaces:

• User, Wikipedia, MediaWiki, Help, Portal = Namespaces covered by the {{ombox}} "other" pages style.
• Userboxes, regardless of namespace. Which I think sometimes means template space = Also covered by the ombox style.
• All talk spaces = Namespaces covered by the {{tmbox}} talk page style. Which since 2005 has this guideline: Wikipedia:Talk page templates. Note that the styles for talk pages was somewhat amended this summer by lengthy discussions and votes: See Template talk:Tmbox, Template:Tmbox/styles and Template talk:Tmbox/styles. Those styles are implemented in the tmbox and the tmbox CSS classes in MediaWiki:Common.css. We just haven't gotten around to update the old guideline accordingly.

This means that the current green {{mfd}} box breaks existing guidelines such as Wikipedia:Talk page templates in several ways:

1: The green box here is 90% wide. While the guidelines and all other message boxes are 80% wide.

2: It is green even on talk pages, in spite that the well established talk page standard and guideline says it should be talk page brown. And since summer 2008 it should have a red border, since it is a deletion message box.

Thus this template needs to use {{mbox}} instead of {{ombox}}, so it automatically shows the deletion style for talk pages when on talk pages.

And as Happy-melon correctly pointed out: The current green div based {{mfd}} box doesn't have any of the technical fixes that the mboxes have. So it has box flow problems, such as overlapping right floating boxes even in several modern browsers, and it doesn't stack well with other boxes. And it has some other margin and padding issues.

The best way to solve those technical problems is to use the {{mbox}}. Then if it should have any special colours those can be fed to the "style" parameter of the mbox.

--David Göthberg (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page templates is nothing more than a lonely little page that describes a hand full of ideas that no one really objected to at one point. I wouldn't put a whole lot of weight on it. I remember adding lots of links to WP:TPTs because almost no one even knew the page existed. -- Ned Scott 07:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Mockups

An mbox-based MfD notice would look like this in various namespaces:

'Other'

talk

User

Portal

User talk

Wikipedia

Comments? Happy‑melon 14:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's do it. I haven't seen any compelling arguments for the old style's retention. —David Levy 16:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia: and User: are the name spaces most used here, and I think we still have the same issue with those two (see above) not standing out as much that brought us to this discussion in the first place. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added other mbox templates around the examples to demonstrate the relationship; I do not agree that they fail to stand out. Ironically, the one that stands out the least prominently for me is the pastel-pink categoryspace style complete with pink background; consequently I don't think adding such a background will be particularly helpful. Happy‑melon 21:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Compulsive "per-namespace" standardization isn't the answer here. MfD is MfD, just because it's appearing in one name space or another doesn't matter. Changing the look based on namespace makes this less standard and more confusing. Whatever we do, I feel it should be consistent. -- Ned Scott 07:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please. I've added the current template to all the examples: could you point out in which set it looks "consistent" or "standard"? Why is "per-namespace standardisation" not the answer? Changing appearance based on namespace is being consistent: MfD is indeed MfD regardless of namespace, and the namespace doesn't matter, so why the objection to it changing style to match the default styles in that namespace? Why is that a problem? Happy‑melon 08:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've updated that example to use the current system with the green background. If you want the MfD tag to blend in with other tags on that page.. then I'm afraid you've missed the point. Changing the appearance of the tag greatly simply because it's on a talk page or on a user page is absurd. Should a stop sign look different based on it's neighborhood? This is a deletion template, and it is not in the same class as other page template headers. I can understand if an AfD tag looks different than the MfD tag, because they're different processes, not because they're different namespaces. AfD simply only covers one namespace. If we had another main content namespace that used WP:AFD, then I would make the same argument for the AfD tag. -- Ned Scott 09:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is self-perpetuating: you assert that "changing the appearance of the tag greatly simply because it's on a talk page or on a user page is absurd" without providing any evidence why this is so. Without such, it merely represents an opinion. On the other hand, the arguments in favour of standardisation are obvious: it means that it fits into the established and widely-used standards in each namespace, that it thereby improves the professional appearance of the encyclopedia, and that it is actually more work to make the template not change appearance sensibly than it is to allow it to do so. Any argument against style-switching should be able to explain why it is necessary for this template to not follow precedent in the wide variety of templates that perform style-switching; while these include templates like {{notice}}, are you aware that the various SfD templates, {{rfd}}, and the entire CSD collection also style-switch? I would be impressed if you can argue convincingly that these latter templates are somehow "not in the same class" as {{mfd}}. I must ask again: why the fixation with green? Surely of all the statements presented as self-evident in this thread, the lunacy of using green for a dire warning is the most axiomatic. I can conclude only that you support green because it is the current style and hence involves no change? Happy‑melon 17:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Standardization helps us when we are looking at groups of "systems". The article space (the true content of Wikipedia) can be seen as a system. A deletion process, such as MfD (or CSD, RfD, etc) can also be seen as a system. The article system is contained in one namespace, so it simply works out that having those standardized "by namespace" makes sense. This same logic does not hold true for how we use MfD, as that "system" is used in several namespaces.

I do believe CSD templates and others should not be changing styles based on namespace, same as MfD.

I don't particularly care if the style is green or whatever. Originally I only asked to use the green coloring to help aide in transitioning the style. I believed it was logical (and self-evident) that changing the appearance of something for the first time in years should make some attempt to soften the blow of the transition.

What I'm trying to say now is that whatever we pick should be consistent for all MfD uses. Do not single me out there, as I was willing to let this go as "one of those things" that no one else cared about. Other users here insisted on continuing the discussion. Since there is renewed interest in the discussion, I am again trying to participate and help by voicing my opinion and observations. I mean no ill-will towards anyone, and I do not understand why you and David Göthberg have become so defensive here. (a position I don't like to be in, BTW. I have a lot of respect for both you and David.)

Precedent (and I can't stress this enough) is more of a "default in this situation". There was discussion for the styles, it did not attract much attention, but that's not always needed (etc etc). It is not unnatural for these slower, less noticed, discussions to evolve just as this one has. Please, do not treat us as a nuisance because we have objections to a something you thought was a concluded decision. In other words, I do not believe the "precedent" currently shown has the kind of weight you are implying. (and again this is different, while related, to the article standardization, which I fully supported and still love).

I believe that changing the appearance based on namespace will make the template less likely to be noticed. I also believe that it confuses the entire notion of why we have notification templates in the first place, which is to give notice first, and to be pleasing to the eye second. (which isn't to say that the two are mutually exclusive.) I believe it is much more in the spirit of standardization to have consistency based upon "system" (in this case, MfD) rather than namespace. Although someone else has said they would like to make this RfC much wider and about all deletion templates (the larger "system"), which is probably a very good idea.

I believe that MfD-standardization will give a much more professional appearance (as far as wikis go, since this is non-content namespace we're talking about) and be more functional. It will not require any more work than what is currently done, as we only have one MfD tag.

I hope I have addressed your concerns, and I hope I have better explained mine. Cheers. -- Ned Scott 06:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe I now see properly where you're coming from; thankyou for taking the time to explain. I'm sorry if you thought I or DG were being "defensive", that certainly wasn't my intention (or, I'm sure, DG's).

I think where we differ here is in how we define our "systems", as you call them. You consider AfD, MfD, CfD, etc, as separate processes, to which I cannot assent. I consider the important "system" to be 'deletion' as a whole; although there are technical and procedural differences between the various XfD streams, they are fundamentally one process, that's why we have the term "XfD".

Take the admittedly rather contrived example of a page Wikipedia:WikiProject Foo/stub, a nonstandard stub template outside the template namespace which is transcluded on several articles. There are numerous possible fora in which such a template might be discussed. Naturally there is SfD, or it might be MfD'd (especially if the parent project is also taken to MfD). Although slightly out of the letter of policy there is clear sense in using TfD, or to follow procedure to the letter it could be moved into the Template: namespace and then RfD the redirect. My point is that there are numerous ways in which deletion of most pages could be discussed, all with equal legitimacy, and hence a variety of deletion templates that could be applied. Given that the purpose of the templates is to inform people of ongoing deletion discussions, people who might not be familiar with our processes, the fact that 'deletion is being considered' is much more important than what exact process is being used. So my fundamental argument is that marking a page namespace:Foo for deletion should always have the same appearance no matter how you go about it.

That condition makes no requirement that all XfD templates should look the same all the time, only that they should behave in the same manner. I agree that the interests of the templates being instantly recognised are best served if they were all the same all the time, but I do not believe that this is possible whilst also giving weight to the "appearance" requirement.

You state your support for the position that all deletion templates should not change appearance based on namespace. Given the overlap in the processes' mandates, there is, to my mind, no way that a "professional appearance" can be maintained in that situation (which is what we had prior to the mbox standard) unless all the templates are the same. Anything less than complete uniformity results in different-looking templates appearing in identical situations, sacrificing both the quality of appearance and the easy recognition.

Since {{afd}} and {{rfd}} can both appear in the mainspace and be easily seen by readers, conclude that those two must use the same styles. Yet to change {{afd}} from the ambox styles would severely damage the professional appearance we have fought so hard to achieve in the mainspace. Should then we use ambox styles for the other deletion templates? Again that is not a very pretty solution, indeed that is the whole reason why we created the other mbox streams. There is no way to fully achieve both the contradictory goals of easy recognition and cohesion with the styles already in wide use throughout each namespace; such would be a contradiction in terms. There are only two viable positions: either all the XfD templates use a single uniform style that is distinct from all the mbox standards, or all the XfD templates adapt themselves to use styles that are suitable for the namespace they are in; styles that are still designed to be easily recognised as deletion warnings. I can see no defensible middle ground that achieves the goals we both want: easy recognition and professional appearance. It is counterproductive to look at {{mfd}} alone without considering this bigger picture.

Half of that bigger picture already exists: we already have a set of five styles that discussion has concluded shout 'deletion' loudly enough while still looking professional in each namespace. I'm sorry to keep harking on about the green as I know you don't support it, but I have seen no viable alternative here. I maintain that instituting a single style only makes sense if that style is applied uniformly to all XfD templates in all namespaces, which means it needs to look as good against "ambox-notice" as it does against "tmbox-content". If you have such a design up your sleeve, I would really love to see it. Happy‑melon 18:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Section break

I am going to make the change to {{mbox}} suggested and discussed above. I am doing so because this discussion has very clearly stalled; we have no comments for over ten days, and the number of participants has declined to a level to make consensus impossible to attain. We have attempted to gain more input through various media including RfC, which has has almost no success. I hope that by being bold, therefore, I can either resolve this deadlock, or reopen this discussion with enough participation to establish a valid consensus. This strikes me as a textbook instance for the legitimate invocation of WP:IAR. I look forward to participating in any discussion that follows. Happy‑melon 16:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)