missing docs[edit]

This template should have the documentation from Template:Discussion top as well. 70.51.8.234 (talk) 06:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that or at least a link to Template:Discussion top, so one knows where to find the documentation. Zodon (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change template to use documentation subpage

Please update this template so that it uses a documentation subpage.

Replace the noinclude section of the template with: 

<noinclude>
((documentation))
((pp-template|small=yes))
<!-- PLEASE ADD CATEGORIES AND INTERWIKIS TO THE /doc SUBPAGE, THANKS --> </noinclude>

(Changes are moving category to /doc subpage, adds documentation template and comment.) I have already created the /doc subpage. Thank you. Zodon (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --- RockMFR 21:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion[edit]

((tfd|((subst:PAGENAME))|Template:Discussion top, Template:Discussion bottom))

__meco (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: - It is only used on less than 5 pages (though I'm sure it is used on more via substitution. Don't see any real benefit in adding the TfD tag given that it is only used on archives and other pages that have no visibility. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's used quite a bit to archive discussions on WP:AN and WP:ANI. This is going to be a speedy keep at TFD for sure.--Aervanath (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Line break[edit]

Can the <noinclude> tag be moved up a line so that it doesn't induce an extra line break below the template when used. Thanks. Wizard191 (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added the line break last time I edited this template, so presumably it has some purpose. I dunno. — RockMFR 01:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Temporarily disabling the edit request until you talk it out and decide whether or not there ought to be a line break.  Skomorokh, barbarian  08:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a programmer, but when I've seen the problem manifest in the past the fix has always been to put the <noinclue> tag on the last line of the template. An example of the extra line break can be found at Talk:Metallurgy. Did something break when you had the up a line before? Wizard191 (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite remember, but it seems likely that something did break. — RockMFR 14:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there some other way to fix this? It wastes space as is. It would look cleaner without the extra white space. -fnlayson (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This extra blank line should be fixed one way or another. Has anybody looked into this? -Fnlayson (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

Can an admin please add a horizontal rule (that is, ----) be added above the first line of text. The same as ((archive bottom)). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 24 August 2015[edit]

There should be no whitespace between </div> and <noinclude>, which would avoid trailing vertical whitespace this template creates when transcluded on talk pages.

— Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole I agree - a common edit summary of mine is 'noinclude must follow "real" template code directly, without intervening spaces or line breaks' - but unlike inline templates, where the trailing whitespace is significant, this is a block-level template, and is often used at the bottom of sections where there is a visual gap anyway. Where is the present format giving trouble? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Talk:Installation (computer programs) § Merger proposal for Application packaging, for example, in which the template whitespace creates a <p><br></p> that results in a too large gap between two sections. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Redrose64 (talk) 11:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 25 September 2015[edit]

In order to get some meaningful documentation for this template, I redirected Template:Discussion bottom/doc to Template:Discussion top/doc. Visually, Template:Discussion bottom looks good. However, the edit link at the top of the documentation box fails to follow the redirect. Would you mind replacing ((Documentation)) with ((Documentation|Template:Discussion top/doc))? Thanks! – voidxor 22:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request to complete TfD nomination[edit]

Template:Discussion bottom has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but was protected so could not be tagged. Please add:

<noinclude>((subst:tfm|help=off|1=Discussion top))</noinclude>

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. JsfasdF252 (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 00:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request to complete TfD nomination[edit]

Template:Discussion bottom has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but was protected so could not be tagged. Please add:

<noinclude>((subst:tfm|help=off|1=Archive bottom))</noinclude>

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More