Template talk:Old XfD multi

Better handling of incorrect page parameter

There is an inconsistency in how the module behaves when a bad |page= is specified. If there is only one entry, the template displays "The result of the discussion" with the word 'discussion' not linked. If there are multiple entries, then the word 'discussion' is a redlink to the bad page spec.

Having the redlink helps editors recognize what mistake they make by seeing how the template is interpretting the parameter in a way they don't intend. It would also be useful if the redlink situation were to populate a maintenance category. The origin of this request was WP:TH#oldafdfull is not linking to a discussion page: a page that had an Old XfD multi tag was later moved, which caused the box to lose the link. The link remained missing for 11 years, and then when someone thoughtfully tried to fix it did they didn't recognize why it was broken. DMacks (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I rediscovered this issue and fully agree that we should show redlinks. Given the lack of objections for over a year I implemented it. Thanks for making this thread @DMacks! Trialpears (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

And thank you for implementing it! DMacks (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 August 2025

The "the discussion" link should use boldface if a talk link is given, just like the {{Old TfD}} template and similar templates. FaviFake (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. You say two other templates do this, but this template and Template:Afd-merged-from are both doing it a different way. Please find a consensus for the styling all four (or more) templates. Primefac (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Primefac Alright, here are the ones I could find. They all boldface the "the discussion" link. I'm sure there are more I could find, but these should be enough to demonstrate the practice is common.

• {{Article for deletion}}
• {{Article for deletion/dated}}
• {{Afdx}}
• {{Cleanup AfD}}
• {{Afd-merge to}}
• {{Afd-merge from}}
• {{Under discussion}}
• {{merge}}
• {{merge from}}
• {{merge to}}
• {{Split portions}}
• {{Old TfD}}
• {{Split}}

 Courtesy link: Template talk:Afd-merged-from § Template-protected edit request on 13 August 2025. (the other discussion) FaviFake (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, I think this is a sensible and helpful change. Toadspike [Talk] 14:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Also support this as a sensible change. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Sohom (talk) 04:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Icon for this template

The current clipboard icon doesn't make much sense from a semantic standpoint. Wouldn't File:Font Awesome 5 solid trash-alt.svg make more sense, as to signify deletion? —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 15:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I think that's supposed to be a log of the previous nominations. I prefer the clipboard, it's also used for similar processes like RM and merging. FaviFake (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Change default wording following PAM–AFD merge

When used in articles, the Module:Old XfD multi module currently defaults to saying "was nominated for deletion" even though the articles are actually being nominated for merging. Could someone kindly make it say "was nominated at AfD" instead? The "merging" link should be changed to point to Wikipedia:Merging rather than the deletion policy. FaviFake (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I believe this is better resolved by making XFDcloser use |merge= properly which so happens to be what I'm working on right now. Then it would say was nominated for merging instead. Trialpears (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

@Trialpears Sure, but then it would still be incorrect for all redirect and draftify nominations at AfD.

Since you mentioned you're working on updating XFDcloser, would you mind taking a look at this issue? Update and remove leftover {{Merge}} templates after closing an AfD as "merge". Right now, every merge proposal at AfD leaves the target article with an outdated or incorrect template, and I've been fixing those manually, but merge nominations keep growing so that's becoming harder to keep up with. Would you be able to work on that too, since it's a much more urgent issue? FaviFake (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

@FaviFake I realised we still would have incorrect text for redirect and drafify too minutes later in the section below. Guess we need an action parameter which XFDcloser populates as well. Will have a look at that tomorrow.

I hadn't looked at the afd merge issue yet since I didn't want to step on Novem Linguae's toes but since they said work is on hold I guess I can pick it up. Trialpears (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

@Trialpears That's great, thank you so much! Please do let me know if you have any questions about the implementation or if something is not clear! This XFDcloser update is the last major step for finally completing the PAM-AFD merge. FaviFake (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm cool with you taking it over. My time is probably better spent reviewing patches than writing patches since I'm one of the few with the ability to merge and deploy. The ticket is spec'd out quite nicely at this point and should be ready for someone to just write patches I think. I would suggest doing one check box at a time rather than making a gigantic patch with everything -- splitting the huge task into bite size chunks should be easier both to write and to review. Thanks for all your help with XFDcloser lately! –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Will have a look later today. Trialpears (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Potential action or rename parameters

Currently we can't properly display that a CfD was for renaming causing inaccurate "this category was nominated for deletion" text in those cases. I see two method to solve this: Either add a parameter |rename= which gets populated with the rename target similar to merge which is already in the template or a parameter |action= which changes "nominated for deletion" to "nominated for action". This has the advantage that it can also be used for draftification or redirection which I take are valid desired outcomes for an AfD based on twinkle or splits which are another action taken at CfD. My gut says go with the action solution since that is usable for more usecases and the target information is just one click away and hence not important to include but I would like to hear others opinions before implementing it. Trialpears (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I fully agree with the approach. I think the wording should default to something like "was nominated at XfD", but if any |action= is provided it should say "nominated for action". FaviFake (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I think that is sadly the most specific we can get without making thousands of messages inaccurate. I've implemented with nominated at XfD and action in the sandbox and you can see how it would look for various inputs at Template:Old XfD multi/testcases. Trialpears (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

It's also not possible to specify which XfD with namespace checking due to RfD having partial jurisdiction of all namespaces. I guess we could check the links however... It's too late to worry about that today however. Trialpears (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Now it links to the correct XfD instead of XfD in general. Trialpears (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks good! I just remembered that for the {{merge to/sandbox}} we're using a different approach based on the date parameter, if given (see {{merge to/testcases}}). This could looks like this in the {{Old XfD multi}} template (only in the case of AfD):

• If the date is provided, then:
  • If it is before April 2026, for example January 23rd 2026, then say it was nominated for deletion
  • If it is April 2026 or later, e.g., June 2026, say it was nominated at AfD, because we don't know for what it was nominated.
• If the date isn't provided, say it was nominated at AfD, per above, to fail safely.

This is because AfDs created before April 2026 were always deletion nominations, and if they didn't provide a deletion rationale they were speedily closed.

This only applies to AfD of course. And, for MfD, it should say "for deletion" every time because you can't nominate a page for anything other than deletion there, even today. FaviFake (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I've implemented this for templates with 1 row (checking multiple dates would be dangerous levels of spaghetti and I don't want to do a significant rewrite of this module). Testcases:

I might be coping but I think the venue link probably is more useful than the deletion policy link. Trialpears (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks great, thank you! And it defaults to "at AfD" if multiple dates are given, even if they're both old, right? Perfect! (Now we just need to update XFDcloser to remove the merging templates from the articles, and then we're almost done with the transition!) FaviFake (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Correct. (And I'm slowly working on that part as well, just taking some time due to the large amount of steps) Trialpears (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2026 (UTC)