Template talk:Old XfD multi

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Old XfD multi template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Template:Old XfD multi is permanently protected from editing as it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

This template was nominated for deletion or considered for merging. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

merge, 9 June 2019, see merge proposal.
Merge with Template:Multidel: no consensus, 24 July 2012, see merge proposal.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 4.

Use Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace

I've occasionally seen this put on articles rather than their talk pages. It could be worth it to use {{talk other}} to automatically put the page in Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace when that happens. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 6 August 2024

This edit request to Module:Old XfD multi has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove line 251 of Module:Old XfD multi.

At the #top of this page, we have a transclusion of {{Old XfD multi}}. This template uses {{tmbox}} as its container, and within the container, the module generates a <table /> element with a hardcoded background color. This color specification causes compatibility issues with dark mode, so it needs to be removed to allow the table to inherit the background color of its parent tmbox. Thanks! Dragoniez (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done in Special:Diff/1239025895. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better handling of incorrect page parameter

There is an inconsistency in how the module behaves when a bad |page= is specified. If there is only one entry, the template displays "The result of the discussion" with the word 'discussion' not linked. If there are multiple entries, then the word 'discussion' is a redlink to the bad page spec.

This template was nominated for deletion on January 1 2001. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This template was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, January 1 2001, see discussion.
Keep, January 1 2001, see discussion.

This template was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, January 1 2001, see discussion.
Keep, January 1 2001, see discussion.

Having the redlink helps editors recognize what mistake they make by seeing how the template is interpretting the parameter in a way they don't intend. It would also be useful if the redlink situation were to populate a maintenance category. The origin of this request was WP:TH#oldafdfull is not linking to a discussion page: a page that had an Old XfD multi tag was later moved, which caused the box to lose the link. The link remained missing for 11 years, and then when someone thoughtfully tried to fix it did they didn't recognize why it was broken. DMacks (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 13 August 2025

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

The "the discussion" link should use boldface if a talk link is given, just like the {{Old TfD}} template and similar templates. FaviFake (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. You say two other templates do this, but this template and Template:Afd-merged-from are both doing it a different way. Please find a consensus for the styling all four (or more) templates. Primefac (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac Alright, here are the ones I could find. They all boldface the "the discussion" link. I'm sure there are more I could find, but these should be enough to demonstrate the practice is common.

Courtesy link: Template talk:Afd-merged-from § Template-protected edit request on 13 August 2025. (the other discussion) FaviFake (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think this is a sensible and helpful change. Toadspike [Talk] 14:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also support this as a sensible change. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sohom (talk) 04:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Icon for this template

The current clipboard icon doesn't make much sense from a semantic standpoint. Wouldn't File:Font Awesome 5 solid trash-alt.svg make more sense, as to signify deletion? —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 15:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's supposed to be a log of the previous nominations. I prefer the clipboard, it's also used for similar processes like RM and merging. FaviFake (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]