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)

Template-protected edit request on 13 November 2022
When the template is substed, it leaves this comment in the page –  to match the template name. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 April 2023
Please replace
 * ==MfD nomination of :==

with
 * ==MfD nomination of ==

I. e., remove the link from the section header, per MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS
 * [...]
 * Paradoctor (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: That MOS page applies to articles. This template is not used on articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Paradoctor (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Paradoctor (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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:.
 * Paradoctor (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * That is the local consensus, yes. And I've pointed it out to you more than once now: MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS is . 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)