Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion

XFD backlog

V	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	0	93	18	111
TfD	0	2	29	3	34
MfD	0	0	2	0	2
FfD	0	0	9	1	10
RfD	0	0	38	5	43
AfD	0	0	0	18	18

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)

Amendment proposal

As mentioned here, I would like to propose an amendment to the third point of our rules. The current text reads:

The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used.

I would like to change it to (addition in yellow):

After at least six months since its creation, the template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used.

--Grufo (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

No. If you can't use a template the moment you created it, then why did you create it? A template (and module) should be created to fill a need. If you want to practice template and lua code, do that in your own sandbox. Gonnym (talk) 11:17, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Gonnym. The amendment does not contrast what you think should be a good reason for creating a template; it only says that you can judge whether a template meets your criteria not before six months since its creation. There can be many reasons why a template has few transclusions the moment is created: it might come from another Wikipedia (in another language), where it is used massively although here older (and less efficient) habits have their own inertia, or it might come from a need expressed in a talk page, and so on. In any case, the time window we set has nothing to do with the criteria we then follow. --Grufo (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

None of your examples above are valid in my opinion. I completely oppose editors importing templates from other wikis and not doing anything with them. en.wiki isn't a code repository. If you think it is useful, use it. If you can't find a use for it, then it isn't useful. Gonnym (talk) 07:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Again, this proposal is not about what we consider to be valid reasons delete a template; this proposal only concerns the minimal time window we request before enforcing point #3. --Grufo (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

No, this is only unnecessary delay. The Banner talk 01:52, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, there is a necessity, which is that of not impeding, by nominating a template for deletion prematurely, potential large usage, simply because the template is not yet visible, or has to fight with old albeit less efficient habits, and so on. On the other hand, I don't see the necessity for not keeping a template, even if it will never be used, for six months more: What damage does that do exactly? And “a delay” towards what goal? --Grufo (talk) 01:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose this is clearly an editor who is unhappy that their work is being challenged for deletion and wants to make that process harder. This barely dignifies a response but I will voice my emphatic opposition to this. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by “my work”, but the context that inspired this proposal is not hidden (and in general it is a good thing when a dysfunctional aspect of a process is discovered in action). A good proposal, however, can be inspired even by a rolling stone. What is your opinion on the amendment's content and on what grounds do you oppose it? --Grufo (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

You have dumped dozens of templates that are used on other wikis into the english wiki. Most of those templates are unused, unhelpful and unneeded. Now that there are being deleted, you are very clearly upset and are trying to impose new rules to make it harder to delete those templates that you claim will someday be useful. As I pretty clearly stated, I 100% oppose the amendment's content. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure why you keep mentioning your taste concerning the templates I created. Here we are discussing an amendment to the rules. On what ground do you oppose the amendment? What makes you think that a time window of six months is a bad idea? --Grufo (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to a one-month period for reasonable-looking templates to avoid being bitey toward template creators, but anything longer clutters up unused template reports and ties the hands of editors working to eliminate unused cruft from the encyclopedia. The speedy criteria for test pages would still apply, of course, so a template with the content of "Bill Wilson is stupid" would not be subject to any such time-related generosity. Six months is far too long, though. If you're going to create something in Template space (rather than your User space or Draft space), put it to use. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

One month is definitely better than nothing. It would also discourage people from following newly-created templates only for the sake of nominating them for deletion. I still think that six months would be a better period for lowering down any rush though. --Grufo (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

That is a hefty accusation... Do you have actual instances of that happening? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Funny you see an accusation there. --Grufo (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I oppose any period. I've seen admins revert your speedy "test pages" on the grounds that they aren't test pages more than once. I can only talk about myself here, but my thought process when I look at newly unused templates is this ->

Does it look like it duplicates an existing template? Is it a navbox full of red links? Does it violates guidelines or policies? Is it a single-use template? Is it article content in a template? And finally, a more opinion-based one, would I never want it being used anywhere? -> if the answer to one of these is yes, I send it to TfD. I don't see anyway that a one month period would change my opinion, which is why we have TfD and I don't decide what stays or not (as clearly not everything I nominated was deleted).

On the other hand, I don't nominate templates right away where I see some kind of potential to them. There are unused templates such as Template:Flag football men's national team flag which were created a year and a half ago and has not been sent. Gonnym (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I have read this only now: What are Jonesey95's “speedy ‘test pages’”? --Grufo (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Templates that they tagged under WP:G2 but were declined. Some templates aren't exactly a test, but they are basically one minor step above. Some admins find that enough of a distinction. TfD usually does not. Gonnym (talk) 09:50, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. --Grufo (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Gonnym: “On the other hand, I don't nominate templates right away where I see some kind of potential to them”: This point opens an interesting reflection, I think. Imagine you see a template and you don't know anything about it, except for what it does. Now there are two possibilities:

1. You see a potential for it
2. You don't see a potential for it

In the first case you cannot nominate it for deletion, point #3 already discourages you to do so. In the second scenario you check if it has transclusions; in our ideal example you see it has many, and you realize that you were wrong, you hadn't thought about that. This means that we can be wrong, in general, when we assess whether something can have use cases. Don't you think then that a time window of six months can only be a useful check against our subjective judgement? Especially given the fact that some templates, if the author did not link them around enough, take ages even just to be discovered? --Grufo (talk) 11:36, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We already have and has no likelyhood of being used. We do not need to add a six month time limit. As Gonnym stated, If you can't use a template the moment you created it, then why did you create it.

As for Jonesey95's idea of a 1 month, I just don't think it is necessary. We seldom see nominations of brand new templates that have a likelyhood of being used. Just because a template is only 2 weeks old, shouldn't prevent us from taking it to TFD if it is a terrible template. This recent example comes to mind.

If a relatively new template DOES end up at TFD, there is nothing to stop a creator (or another editor) from saying "Hold up, I'm still working on this and plan to use it". I have NEVER seen that be an issue that would require a rule barring nominating templates under 30 days old.

I will also point out again that the only reason we are discussing this is because Grufo has bulk imported templates from other wikis that have been sitting unused (in some cases) for months. Now those templates are being taken to TFD and they want to prevent that from happening by imposing a 6 month restriction. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Maybe a little refresh will be helpful. The cause (not the reason) we are discussing this is because a template I created has been nominated for deletion only two weeks after being created, without any argument concerning its code, its usability, its benefits, and so on, and only mentioning that after two weeks it had few transclusions. That appeared to be intrinsically flawed, and a general rule had to be introduced. After I proposed such a rule—I don't know exactly why—you decided to go after every template I created. --Grufo (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Because those tempaltes do not have likely hood of being used, are redundant to other templates and are generally not useful or helpful. You are bulk importing templates from other wikis (see, for example, the edit summary for the creation of Template:Purge icon where you specifically stated Import template from Latin Wikipedia). Then you are disappointed when those templates are nominated for deletion. Additionally you are reporting other FAR more experienced users such as Gonnym for made up policy violations when you don't get your way.

I have said all I intend to say on this mater. If consensus is to impose a 1 month (or other timeframe) restriction on deleting new templates, I will of course abide by it. But so far all I see is an editor throwing a temper tantrum because they are not getting their way. Lashing out at other editors by threatening to report them (as you did to me when I called you out on your talk page), filing bogus ANI reports (as you did to Gonnym and generally acting in very bad faith towards other editors.

Final statement I will make on this is that I think it is unnecessary to impose such a restriction, would allow the propagation of bad code and prevent the removal of badly designed templates based on some arbitrary timeframe. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

This proposal is not going to be accepted. People create articles which are quickly removed all the time. There won't be an exception for templates. If someone identifies a reason for what they are doing—a reason related to improving enwiki—and if that reason is accepted, then deletions either won't occur or deletion attempts won't succeed. However, if an editor cannot identify a reason for creating Template:Whatever, before creating the template, it should be deleted. The community has seen many cases where someone tries to change the rules when they don't get a result they want. Such attempts never work. Johnuniq (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

This is not a valid argument. Our point #3 does not apply to articles; articles are not deleted because “they are not used, or have no likelihood of being used”. Articles are deleted for a bunch of reasons, which would also apply to templates (as Jonesey95 mentioned, if a template wrote “Bill Wilson is stupid”, it would be deleted immediately). As for the fatalistic part, I am not sure what you mean. I am pretty sure though that most of us here on Wikipedia did get very often what we wanted when we were right. --Grufo (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Telling an admin their argument is invalid... yea that seems like a good strategy... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: Strategy to what end? --Grufo (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Your policy just isn't gonna happen. Everyone who has commented opposes you pushing your ideas, here, at TFD and on policy pages. Just let it go and quit BLUDGEONING the process. It is just exhausting. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

The essence of templates is that they are used often (or at least multiple times). Therefore unused templates can be deleted. The Banner talk 14:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Not really. The essence of templates is placing some wikitext elsewhere. Single-transclusion templates are perfectly fine, as long as there are good reasons to place that wikitext elsewere. Even zero-transclusion templates can be fine in some cases (a {{Delete this page}} ideal template is a perfect example). In any case, I repeat this again and again, this discussion does not affect the criteria we follow to judge whether a template qualifies for deletion or not, it only proposes a time window that must be granted before enforcing point #3. --Grufo (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

So far you have failed to reach consensus for your proposal. The Banner talk 14:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)