Template talk:Old XfD multi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Edit request

{{edit protected}} Please use {{documentation}} 16@r (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

ok — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Show/Hide

Have you ever thought of making this collapsable with a line such as collapse = yes or no. TonyTheTiger 16:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thought about yes, conclusion: not at the moment. The idea of listing previous AfDs is to have people notice that the article has been put for deletion before. By hiding that information, much of that purpose is lost. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

After some more thought (and a lot of experimenting with parser functions) I included an option "collapse", which allows you to specify the number of older AfDs that show up collapsed. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I just added what I thought would be the correct mechanics to make it collapse for {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, but this doesn't work together with nested=yes. I am asking about that on Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell. — Sebastian 19:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Date9 doesn't work

{{edit protected}} The date9 parameter doesn't seem to work; it's displaying the date8 value for the ninth entry. See Talk:The Game (mind game) for example. Powers ^T 23:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, good eye. Good thing that doesn't come up very often, eh? ;) Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

PNG should be replaced with SVG

{{editprotected}} Please could someone replace Image:Evolution-tasks-old.png with Image:Clipboard.svg? Thanks in advance. It Is Me Here (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Soxπed93^(blag) 22:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed fix

The current header states, "Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination". This should be changed to: "Please review the prior discussion(s) if you are considering re-nomination". It makes no sense to instruct editors not to consider something (e.g. "Please don't even think of picturing a pink elephant until you check out these kick-ass sketches we made earlier!"). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Style tweaks

I've started a sandbox with a tweak to the header layout to save a little space and reduce the height of the template. If there's no opposition I'll request sync. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Requesting sync with the sandbox as there has been no opposition. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge into oldafdfull

{{editprotected}} This template source code is a complete superset of {{oldafdfull}} making that one superfluous. However, it is the more known template name, so I propose to copy this source into {{oldafdfull}} and change this oldafdmulti template into a Redirect. -- KelleyCook (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Not done for now: It sounds like a reasonable idea, but there is no harm in letting this suggestion gather some comments before placing the {{editprotected}} request. We would need to check carefully that the parameters carry across. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

99% of the time the extra code would not be used. Probably better to keep them as separate templates. — RockMFR 23:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether the extra code is usually unneeded or not is unimportant; we don't need to concern ourselves with optimising away the unnecessary code path. We've got far too many talk templates of this sort already, and any low-hanging fruit which can be picked to resolve that is a good idea. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion affecting this template

I'm not sure if there is anyone watching this template who isn't watching the talk page for AFD itself, but just in case: there is ongoing discussions at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Implementation discussion which will likely affect the use of this template. Input into that discussion from anyone here would be greatly appreciated.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 10:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Small parameter broken

If the small parameter ever worked here, it appears to now be broken. Anyone have any idea why? Equazcion ^(talk) 01:32, 27 Feb 2010 (UTC)

It certainly did work originally, but seems to have gotten broken when the template got switched to tmbox [1], on 18 August 2008! Should be fixable, as tmbox also supported the small attribute, but I cannot edit this template anymore. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Reinoutr. I was able to figure out the problem, requesting the edit below. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:03, 1 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Edit request to fix small parameter

{{editprotected}}

• To fix the small parameter, replace the first 7 lines of code with this:

{{tmbox
|small = {{{small|}}}
|type=notice
|image=[[Image:Clipboard.svg|35px|Articles for deletion]]
|smallimage=none
|text= This {{{type|page}}} '''was previously nominated for [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion]]'''. {{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|Review|Please review the}} prior discussion{{#if:{{{date2|}}}|s|}} if {{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|<!-- nothing -->|you are}} considering re-nomination:

Equazcion ^(talk) 12:58, 1 Mar 2010 (UTC)

 Done, good work. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks DJ :) Equazcion ^(talk) 18:47, 1 Mar 2010 (UTC)

sync from sandbox

{{editprotected}} Requesting sync from sandbox so that when only one XfD is specified the template uses only one row and not the multi-row format; see the test cases. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, but what happened to gaining consensus before placing the {{editprotected}}? Give people a chance to comment, please. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no change to output on any existing transclusions except single-line ones, and it's blocking the merge of two existing templates. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I would support this change, but your version does not yet properly add the date attribute in the single line version, meaning almost all output would change when a merge with oldafdfull would happen. I have added an oldafdfull example to the test cases for comparison. This is also why it is always better to ask for some input (if only checking for mistakes) before changing templates that are use wiki-wide. --Reinoutr (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Good catch. This is now fixed; I'll leave it for a bit in case any other bugs are pointed out before re-requesting. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Re-enabling, bugs have been ironed out. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Another sandbox sync

Requesting another sync from the sandbox. This one allows for unnamed parameters, which means that the template is full backwards-compatible with {{oldafd}}. This will allow for that template to be redirected here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Needs a few fixes before implementation, see the test cases page. Result is not bold in 2 out of 3 cases I tested. --Reinoutr (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. This may simply be unavoidable, as the default varies between {{oldafdmulti}} and {{oldafd}} varies ({{oldafd}} always bolds the output, while {{oldafdmulti}} expects it to be manually bolded). It may be possible to hack around that, but is it worth it? It's really a very minor output change which can be changed in seconds on individual pages. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah didn't realize that, fine by me than. The manual quick fix on a page is easier than implementing this in an already complex template. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a bit ahead of things, but I just added compatiblity with Template:Multidel. Should not (and according to the test page does not) affect any of the other options. Maybe somebody can check? I made the changes under my IP my mistake BTW. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Common behaviour for parameters

{{editprotected}} Change the only instance of {{{date}}} in the code to {{{date1|{{{date}}}}}} so that each parameter is of the same format. (Existing instances of the template will still work.) TheFeds 23:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you make the change in the template's sandbox first? Assuming it works, I'll just copy the code from the sandbox into the template. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ready in the sandbox; verified in testcases. (A couple instances of {{{date|}}} also fixed.) TheFeds 16:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Bug fix

Single-line output is broken. Change:

|The result of {{#if:{{{link|}}}|[{{{link2}}} {{#if:{{{caption2|}}}|{{{caption2}}}|the discussion}}]|{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{page|{{{votepage|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}|[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{page|{{{votepage|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}|the discussion]]|{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/{{{page|{{{votepage|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}|[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{page|{{{votepage|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}|the discussion]]|<!-- error condition? -->the discussion}} }} }} was {{{result|'''keep'''}}}.}}

To:

|The result of {{#if:{{{link|}}}|[{{{link}}} {{#if:{{{caption|}}}|{{{caption}}}|the discussion}}]|{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{page|{{{votepage|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}|[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{page|{{{votepage|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}|the discussion]]|{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/{{{page|{{{votepage|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}|[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{page|{{{votepage|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}|the discussion]]|<!-- error condition? -->the discussion}} }} }} was {{{result|'''keep'''}}}.}}

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

This was never implemented, and should be. --Bsherr (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now that I've got the mop. :) Let me know if there is any fallout. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Misleading use of "This page"

In Talk:Symbian the following input {{oldafdfull| date = 5 June 2010 (UTC) | result = '''no consensus''' | page = Symbian platform }} generates

This page was nominated for deletion on 5 June 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

However nobody has suggested deleting Symbian. I think it should read

A previous version of this page (Symbian platform) was nominated for deletion on 5 June 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Letuño (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Lua rewrite

I've created Module:Old AfD multi, with testcases under "sandbox" at Template:Old AfD multi/testcases. Any thoughts/feedback would be much appreciated! Theopolisme (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Definitions of pogrom

Could somebody with greater template-fu than I possess take a look at Talk:Definitions of pogrom and figure out why the link to the AfD page isn't getting generated? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Renaming this template doesn't appear to be the best solution to the problem. If anyone has evidence to counter the IP's objection, this request could be refiled. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Template:Old AfD multi → Template:Old XfD multi – Due to the fact that this template's scope is more than just WP:AFD, the primary title of the template should reflect as so. Per the template's doc page, this template can be used for essentially any deletion/discussion forum including WP:CFD, WP:TFD, and WP:MFD. Steel1943 (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support unless someone wants to suggest that this should not be used for any of the other deletion processes it is a logical move.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose the use for other XfD processes is a hack, this template is built for AfD, and does not work well with other deletion processes. If it did, you wouldn't need to enter a full URL for non-AfD entries. Further, it does not support a mix of various XfDs very well either, since "type" doesn't concern a per entry listing, rather just the text at the top. Someone might consider building an XfD template but this isn't it, it's just a hacked up version that barely supports alternate non-AfDs. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

This template (and all similar templates) put the attention on the wrong link

I've encountered this and similar templates over and over again, and every single time I've clicked the word "deletion" and got pointed to a generic page about deletion policy, instead of the specific deletion discussion. The way this template is worded and/or formatted puts the attention on the link to the deletion policy, and not to the correct discussion. I offer two suggestions:

1. Don't link to the deletion policy at all, instead having the specific discussion be the only link
2. Put the link to the discussion on the word keep or delete - since these words are boldface and the focus of the text, this is what we'd expect the user to click.

Another option is to do both of the above. I'm open to other suggestions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Different topic parameter

Hi there, I was wondering if we should add an optional parameter available to make it clear when the old AFD was about a completely different topic. I've just found the new article Andrew Veal, about a footballer. The talk page has an Old AFD template on it, but that AFD was about someone who committed suicide at the World Trade Center, ie a completely different person. Should we modify this template to allow a parameter like |differenttopic = yes to modify the template text to say something like:

A page with this title but on a different topic was nominated for deletion on October 12 2006. The result of the discussion was delete.

It would save any confusion to any new editor who creates a page and thinks that we are threatening to delete the new article, and for established editors looking for G4s, it would save them from clicking through to the old AFD to see if it is CSDable. The-Pope (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking the exact same thing, in this case with the article Dragon City. Excellent idea. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Centering text

Old AfD's counterparts, Template:Old RfD and Template:Old MfD, have their text centered while Old AfD is left-aligned. It looks a bit sloppy to me when the templates are used side-by-side but aren't aligned the same way (see Talk:Apple Watch, for instance). For the sake of standardization, I think it would be worth either centering Old AfD's text, or left-aligning the other two. Thoughts? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion

@Mr. Stradivarius: as seen in the example Single AfD, the text says:

This page was nominated for deletion on January 1, 2001.The result of discussion was keep.

when it should actually say:

This page was nominated for deletion on January 1, 2001.The result of the discussion was keep.

I think you need to change the makeWikilink function to fix this. Stickee (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Stickee: Whoops, sorry about that, and thanks for pointing it out. I've fixed it. I'm not sure why I didn't notice it in the test cases - it was there right in front of me, but my brain didn't register it somehow. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Bug? no discussion link on userfied pages

When an AfD results in a userfication, does this link correctly to the AfD discussion page? I just added this to a userfied article talk page (userspace talk page), and it didn't generate a link to the discussion page -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It (the oldafd template) is at User talk:User talk:Liushiye/sandbox for the AfD located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A brife look at sea salt; if the RMTR name fix request goes through, the talk page will be located at User talk:Liushiye/sandbox -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Well, I just fixed it, but I don't know for certain how. It seems that maybe there needs to be a space or return before the vertical bars, maybe? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • That seems like a bug to me... other templates don't need to have carriage returns an spacing around the bits. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit request 9 August 2016

Change it from "This page" to "This article". Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Anarchyte This text is coming from: Module:Old AfD multi. Please include the exact line changes that you would like changes in that module. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

A possibly related bug

I just added this to Talk:Browse Happy:

 {{Old AfD multi
 |date      = 9 December 2008
 |result    = '''Keep'''
 |page      = Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Browse Happy
 }}

resulting in

As you can see, the word discussion is not linking to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Browse Happy. Can someone more conversant with Lua please take a look? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@OwenBlacker: The template will work if you use |page=Browse Happy. The sandbox version of the template will work the way you formatted it as well. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Support shared talk pages (related discussion elsewhere)

I started a discussion on {{Old TfD}} here about using these templates on shared talk pages (for example Help talk:Citation Style 1 for the various cite xxx templates). Please see discussion potentially related to this template there. Thanks! - Paul^T+/_C 16:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Date for AFD

There is an incompatibility between the |date= parameter of this template and the |action1date=} parameter of {{article history}}; please discuss at Template talk:Old AfD multi#Date for AFD. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Where?

The doc page should give guidance as to where on the Talk page the template should be placed. After WikiProjects and other header stuff seems popular. Is there a guideline for this? HairyWombat 20:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I also would like to know this. SLBedit (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@HairyWombat and SLBedit: It's at WP:TPL, as item 9 'Any "article history" (e.g., {{FailedGA}}, {{Old AfD multi}}, {{Old prod}}) banner, preferably in an {{Article history}} template'. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion link not appearing (again)

Further to the reports above, where I've just added this to Talk:Antiprocess via the redirect {{Old AfD}} (revision), it's not linking to the discussion.  — Scott • talk 14:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Old AfD isn't a redirect, it's a wrapper, and it doesn't include all of the parameters that Template:Old AfD multi does. The deletion discussion is also older, and that's why the template doesn't link to it automatically. I manually added the link. --Bsherr (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 22 April 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. wbm1058 (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

---

• Template:Old AfD multi → Template:Old XfD multi
• Module:Old AfD multi → Module:Old XfD multi

– Sometimes used to refer to deletion discussions other than AfDs. * Pppery * _{has returned} 20:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support - seeing as how Template:Old TfD multi redirects here. To note though, {{Multidel}} and {{Old MfD multi}} exist. --Gonnym (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support Suggests its only for AFDs, as can be seen from checking the transclusions in non mainspace talk pages (such as WT-Wikipedia talk:Fancruft) it is intended for other namespaces. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1,218 transclusions in talk namespaces besides article talk. (though there's 129,343 in article talk). In any case, there's no reason to needlessly divide template code, so a general name is ideal (with a redirect from the old name). e^πi (talk | contribs) 02:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. Noting the objection raised in the April 2014 RM, and that the template code was replaced with the module in July 2015. Presumably, those issues were resolved by the module coding, given the heavy use of this outside of mainspace. wbm1058 (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

@Wbm1058: You forgot to move the module; this was a request to move both pages. * Pppery * _{has returned} 19:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Unlike Zuck, I prefer to move slow and try not to break things There has been a new version of the module in the sandbox for some time now, coded by Ahecht, which was proposed and discussed above. What's the status of that? I need to review it yet. wbm1058 (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

That's completely orthogonal to which name the module should have and does not justify leaving the template and the module with inconsistent names despite me clearly proposing to move them both. * Pppery * _{has returned} 21:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Support merge discussions

This template is often used to replace multiple instances of {{Old tfd}}, especially when WP:XFDC is used, but unlike that template, this one doesn't support the |merge= parameter. This means that discussions of merging template B into template A appear on template A's talk page as a discussion about deleting template A (for an example, see the top of Template_talk:Infobox_person). I modified the sandbox version to recognize the |merge= parameter. Any objections to moving this over to the live template? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I think this would be a great addition, but I haven't been able to check the code to see if there are any issues. I say go for it! - Paul^T+/_C 16:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done I verified the functionality improvement at Template talk:Infobox person, but am not proficient enough with Lua to have done a good code review. So please do revert me if any unexpected issues arise. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Old MfD multi redirected here

There were only a few dozen uses of {{Old MfD multi}}, and it was the odd one out, so I've replaced all uses and redirected it here to match the rest. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 17 May 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. wbm1058 (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

---

• Module:Old AfD multi → Module:Old XfD multi

– Module and template should have the same name. * Pppery * _survives 20:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• Unless I'm missing something, this has already been approved in the previous move request. --Gonnym (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
• @Wbm1058: are we ready to move the module or is the technical issue still around, either way I don't think we need a new RM, thus this should be speedily closed as there is already consensus for this either way. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Script error, possibly caused by template/module changes or moves

There is a script error at Talk:María Elena Holly: "Lua error in Module:Old_XfD_multi at line 41: bad argument #2 to 'format' (string expected, got nil)." I suspect that it wasn't there when the Old AFD template was originally applied. Can someone familiar with these templates/modules please look at it? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

It's complaining about the parameter

|votepage= [[Talk:Buddy Holly#Merger with Maria Elena Holly]]

- if you delink it, the error message goes but then you get a different problem. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I've fixed the issue on the talk page, but the module still has that issue. As an additional note, the parameter |votepage= is mentioned in passing in the docs, without explaining how to use it. It's also mentioned that it's used as part of compatibility with {{Oldafdfull}}. This parameter should really have been deprecated and replaced and not kept on and just ignored. --Gonnym (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

|votepage= is just a "synonym" (an alias) for |page= . . . they are essentially the same parameter. The coding in the old {{Oldafdfull}} template was:

{{{page|{{{votepage|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}

meaning "if |page= exists, use that. else if |votepage= exists, then use that. else if neither |page= nor |votepage= exist, then default to using {{PAGENAME}}

The same logic was implemented in the module. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest the following three fixes, (one of which will also remove the need for the url linking of non-AfDs):

1. Remove all text following |, all []<>{}, and all sequences of quotes longer than 2 from the page parameter.
2. Have getAfdPage check if the namespace of the page parameter is zero, if so add AfD prefix, else leave as is.
3. Have makeWikilink return display if page is nil.

I will implement these in the sandbox if no one objects. Danski454 (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually instead of 2, have a new function, getVotePage check if the namespace of the page parameter is zero, if so add AfD prefix, else leave as is. Use this function instead of getAfdPage in OldAfdMulti:renderFirstRow and OldAfdMulti:renderSubsequentRow. Danski454 (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Use the first one instead, VfD compatibility isn't affected. Danski454 (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking att the errors below, running a URI decoder over page would also be useful. Danski454 (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Extent of the problem

From Category:Pages with script errors, in talk namespace:

• Talk:$pread
• Talk:1949–50 United States network television schedule (weekday)
• Talk:1968–69 United States network television schedule (weekday)
• Talk:2007 Laotian coup d'état conspiracy allegation
• Talk:Amanda Baggs
• Talk:David Conway (academic)
• Talk:Édgar's fall
• Talk:Mii (Jungle de Ikou!)
• Talk:Ninjutsu (Naruto)

Only nine pages, though I'm not sure there might be more lurking until their page refreshes. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

So nobody fixed Talk:$pread after the error was introduced in October 2016, until just now! wbm1058 (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 May 2019

Please copy the contents of Module:Old XfD multi/sandbox to Module:Old XfD multi. I have changed the pageTypeName function to better support the User, Wikipedia, MediaWiki, and Help namespaces. The changes can be seen on my talk sandbox or by editing a page that uses the template to use the /sandbox version, and previewing (I did not save the pages to avoid disruption). Danski454 (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Noting that this specifies the default display, which can be overridden with |type=, for example |type=page will change "This project page was previously nominated for deletion" to simply "This page was nominated for deletion" on a page in the Wikipedia: namespace. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Let's get the script error fixed, before we update the module. Then we can make a single edit for both. wbm1058 (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I've made some changes to improve bad title handling, reopening. Danski454 (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Old XfD multi/testcases may be useful as well. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done – wbm1058 (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Improving support for non-AfD venues

Currently, any discussion not at WP:AfD must be linked to by using the full URL. I could quite easily make it so if the page parameter is not an article, then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ is not added to the front. This could possibly break some instances of the template. The edits are not part of the request above, as I would like to see if there is consensus first. Danski454 (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Just did the following search: insource:/(Old .fD multi|Oldafdfull)\s*\|[^}]*\|\s*page\d*\s*=\s*[^|}]+:.+[|}]/ hastemplate:"Old XfD multi" in all discussion namespaces, it finds nothing that breaks in the all but a few hundred transclusions it checks. --Danski454 (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Batter search: insource:/(Old .fD multi|Oldafdfull)\s*(\|[^}]*\||\|)\s*page\d*\s*=\s*[^|}]+:.+[|}]/ hastemplate:"Old XfD multi" found one thing that would be broken, but I changed it. Danski454 (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Please sync the contents of Module:Old XfD multi/sandbox to Module:Old XfD multi, I have made the above changes. Danski454 (talk) 06:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Why was it altered at all? It used to be the case that a normal page name was quite sufficient. Enforcing full URLs complicates things needlessly - see this for example. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, FWIW, I oppose any changes that require full URLs be utilized. IMO, such linking causes more problems than it solves. Steel1943 (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Very glad to be used for the example <3 –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. As right now there does not seem to be one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Reopened request @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I'm not sure if you've misread the discussion, I see two other editors in favour (as they oppose whatever change caused full URLs to be required in the first place). Alternatively, do I need more support? Danski454 (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

No, it seems like I misunderstood the purpose of this request. Carry on. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I approve of this change, I'm just wondering why it takes so long for this to be fixed. It's a very real problem which makes this template more Old AfD multi rather than Old XfD multi. It was a pain having to use full URLs when converting the multidel templates. --Trialpears (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. @Trialpears: that's because we don't have enough admins or template editors patrolling User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable... — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Wording of first sentence of "Old XfD multi"

is there a way to tweak the first sentence of {{Old XfD multi}} to allow it to be more easily used with WP:FFD discussions? FFD used to be "Files for deletion", but the name was changed to "Files for discussion" a few years back after WP:NFCR and WP:PUF were phased out and incorporated into FFD. So, FFD discussions these days don't always involve the deletion of a file, but rather the removal or addition of the file. The current {{Oldffdfull}} template was changed to reflect this, but that template doesn't seem to be able to be used for files discussed multiple times. So, I thought that it might be able to either create an FFD version of "Old XfD multi" or tweak the current version of "Old XfD multi" to make it a bit easier to use for file. Right now, the first sentence seems to state "This file was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:", but perhaps that can be changed to "This file was nominated for review in the past. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:" or something similar. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Would this be useful for other XfD discussions? --Danski454 (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes. At very least, we need to be able to replace "nominated for deletion" with something else. E.g., it's more common for CfD stuff to be non-deletion. For the template at Category talk:Surnames of English origin, I should be able to do something like |deletion=rename and merger to change that word to those. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Bold of results

Is there a reason why the module doesn't handle the bold of the result itself instead of requiring it to be manually added? --Gonnym (talk) 08:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Not automatically bolding has been used by some editors to give more detail to results, as seen on Talk:Blood libel, although I do not think this is intended by the creators of the template. However, automatic bolding would be very easy to add to the template if there is consensus for it. Danski454 (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, see the template at Category talk:Surnames of English origin for example. This allows us to preserve information from other XfD templates that have parameters this one does not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

add support for =action parameter

I would like for this template to support the |action= parameter, as used by {{Old CfD}}. This way Old XfD multi would also be useable to consolidate multiple such templates (including ones about merging or renaming, which is what the |action= parameter controls).

One way of stating this would be that an "Old XfY multi" template would be very useful! ("Old XfD multi" would still be an useful alias, since the action parameter should default to deletion) CapnZapp (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)