Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	62	19	81
TfD	0	0	20	9	29
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	4	6	10
RfD	0	0	1	12	13
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Something missing

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_June_19#Template:Controversial This discussion is closed, but is has no "The result of the discussion was". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

For some reason an IP closed it. No idea how that is ok. Gonnym (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

It's not, I've reverted. Granted, it might still get closed with no consensus (I've not managed to close it yet due to time issues) but it should be done by someone with demonstrable experience in this field. Primefac (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Need helping constructing a TFD

So I want to tag 2 templates into a 3rd one. But don't know the exact options in twinkle to tag which templates to merge into navdoc. The merge option in beffudling me. Don't want to accidentally start TFD on the same thing. That's why I am asking here first.

This is what I have thus far: "{{Navdoc}} contains information about both {{check completeness of transclusions}} and {{collapsible option}}. Proposing to merge the latter two into navdoc. ~~~~ 8rz (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity I will call the templates nominated for deletion/merging the "nominated" templates, and the target/end template the "target" template. There are a few ways to nominate multiple pages for merging:

1. Use Twinkle on one nominated template (selecting the target as the target) and manually add the TFD tags to the other nominated template(s)
2. Use Twinkle to nominate each nominated template and then manually merge the sections on the TFD log page. The target template will need cleanup for the multiple TFD tags
3. Manually nominate all templates and manually create the log entry.

I have used both #1 and #2 about equally, though if I am doing a dozen or so similar templates I'll usually go for #1 via AWB to avoid too much clutter on the Log page. #2 is really best if you're only nominating two or three templates. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd've used AWB too for #1 but I am awaiting for my perm rights approved at WP:PERM/AWB. 8rz (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

If you're only nominating two templates, AWB would be rather useless. Primefac (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Comments repeatedly refusing to meet nominator arguments

I'm getting frustrated by the inability of this process to actually generate discussion.

Have a look at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 13#Template:Uw-archive. To me, the comments basically boil down to "I like it, so I !vote keep" with zero attempt to meet my argument: since specific numbers are no longer part of the guideline, and indeed, the guideline leaves user talk size entirely up to the discretion of the user, it is inappropriate to have a user warning template: the user have not done anything wrong by having a large user talk page.

We can still politely ask them to reduce the size of their user page, and indeed we have a template for that. This TfD is making the point that there should be no user warning template (which implies "officialness" or that the user has done something inappropriate or against guidelines).

But no responder have actually engaged with this point. What is the value of a !vote if they don't even try to base their comment on the actual circumstances? I could absolutely respect a comment that provided compelling arguments against any or all parts of the above chain of logic. A commenter that engages with my above line of reasoning and tells us where or how they think it is wrong, sure. But no, nothing.

If this TfD doesn't generate any discussion of substance and yet is closed as keep, I don't know what I'm doing, except I'm doing it wrong. Why do I feel like my arguments as nom are completely and utterly ignored? Any advice appreciated. CapnZapp (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Speaking as a TFD closer, I weigh the arguments in a discussion against our policies, guidelines, and norms. I have certainly closed discussions against the majority when their arguments were not as sound as those of the minority, though that is fairly rare and usually only in really lengthy TFDs. That being said, overruling unanimous opposition would mean very weak arguments against the nomination (e.g. every !vote was something found in WP:ATA). I don't think a nominator has done anything "wrong" if their nomination fails, just that their opinions differ from the majority. Primefac (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Unless I'm blind the basic "arguing something not relevant to the nomination at hand" isn't in WP:ATA. I'm baffled by this. How does it benefit Wikipedia if comments aren't discounted when arguments are based on misunderstanding the rationale for a nomination? Or when arguments are clearly made by someone who dislikes a settled and stable guideline change (and that change is specifically the impetus for the nomination)? CapnZapp (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Ignore the bit about ATA, I was trying to give an example. I did say that poor arguments are often discounted (though that does not mean "ignored completely"). Primefac (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay, fair enuff'. Awaiting the outcome of the discussion (it's three days overdue). CapnZapp (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Template:Pelé series recreated yet again

Template:Pelé series was deleted at TfD, was then deleted again at TfD, and was recreated yet again. Can an admin do something here? Gonnym (talk) 07:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I have tagged the page for CSD and SALTING. Also reverted the various edits by the creator that re-added it to articles. I would suggest you WP:ANI the user though... If you do, ping me and I'll endorse. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:11, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Page has been deleted and salted. Primefac (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)