Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion

XFD backlog

V	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	24	15	54	93
TfD	0	0	0	22	22
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	27	21	48
RfD	0	0	0	52	52
AfD	0	0	0	19	19

Medal TFD

@Pppery you might be the only usual admin to close things at TFD who isn't involved in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 April 13#Medal templates 2. Can you take a look? Izno (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I actually think it would be best for somebody who isn't a TfD regular to close this, simply because of how polarized the discussion is between TfD regulars and sports regulars. If I had to close this myself I'd probably go with "delete" on the grounds that the lack of accessibility hasn't really been refuted but in doing so I would be declaring editors I regularly interact with correct and ones I've hardly ever interacted with wrong in a discussion right on the line between "delete" and "no consensus" which I don't feel I can do impartially. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 04:18, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion as delete, since I do think there is a weak consensus to delete. However, I haven't actually deleted the templates yet because they are still widely transcluded. They're listed at the holding cell now. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Epicgenius, the TFD gnomes (myself included) will take it from here :-) Primefac (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Being able to hide "‹ The template Infobox (insert what ever infobox it is) is being considered for (insert what ever reason is). ›"

Being able to do this would do really good so that for us who read articles don't have to be stuck seeing it every time something is going on. I get it that some things need to be merged but if it keeps popping up... we should be able to have a option to hide it. XxNick118xX (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

FWIW I find it especially superfluous to ever show this alongside templates that mergers are proposed into. Nardog (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

The merge has the potential to affect both templates and therefore is absolutely warranted. These messages are small and only appear for the duration of the TFD (usually 7 days). Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:11, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

There is an option to do this, but with the exception of templates that are substituted it is rarely done. Primefac (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not just infoboxes; any template up for TfD could have a message like that. Anyway,

div.tfd-sidebar { display: none; }

is a rule that you could put into Special:MyPage/common.css. It might hide more than you intend. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

ok, that worked.... thanks! XxNick118xX (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Where should these templates be post-TFD?

Resolved

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 June 1#Template:Contentious topics/gmo editnotice closed as delete, and then no consensus (cc Izno as closer), but the templates involved are all still listed as if they're being deleted or are in the holding cell, which I also can't find there. What's the actual status of these templates? Are they being deleted but just haven't been filed correctly at the holding cell, are they not and the TfD templates removed from the edit notices? Thanks in advance, template wizards, this is all magic to me and I do appreciate everything! Sennecaster (Chat) 17:08, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

My talk page would probably have been enough for this one. I fixed it. Izno (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Templatespace is a pile of wizardry that I don't touch :p Sennecaster (Chat) 17:46, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Would anyone oppose this?

I was planning on making DiscussionTools available on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell so editors can follow the discussions they participate in without adding the entire page to their watchlist, but I think it needs level 2 headings. Would anyone oppose me turning level-3 heading into level 2 headings, since Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell isn't transcluded anywhere? FaviFake (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

It should be noted that changing the headings on WP:H/C may break Wikipedia:XFDcloser. Ran into this issue in the past when I accidentally removed a heading. It might be that just changing the heading level won't do that, but please check and verify.

As for changing the heading levels, I think it is helpful to have the "merge" ones as heading-3s but open to other ideas. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:04, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae (I'm so sorry for all these pings!) Since you're basically the only maintainer of XFDcloser, do you think it would break if the section levels were changed (without being renamed)? FaviFake (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Probably. You can test it by converting the holding cell page, then creating a test TFD, then closing it wit XFDcloser and seeing what happens. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Can confirm, it didn't do the last step :(   FaviFake (talk) 06:54, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I submitted a pull request on GitHub: Look for level-2 headers in the TfD/Holding cell rather than level-3 headers. FaviFake (talk) 08:49, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I mentioned it at the git, but as a historical note TFDH always had L3 headers because it was transcluded at WP:TFD itself and the L2 headers messed with the TOC. After a few big /Log days and multiple issues with PEIS we opted to stop transcluding it there. In other words, the reason for L3 headers doesn't exist any more, so if this change improves functionality I have no issue with it. Primefac (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Speedy keep

I just noticed this discussion closed by User:Voorts as "speedy keep" stating that No valid deletion rationale has been provided. There is no minimum article count for templates. I was surprised to see this speedy closed when we so many recent discussions like this one and this one started by User:Woodensuperman quoting the WP:NENAN essay which suggests there is a minimum. Is there some new policy that I am unaware of that states that a small number of links in a navbox is no longer a valid deletion rationale? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:46, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Not as far as I am aware. I would respectfully ask Voorts to self-revert as that is not a good close; there is zero harm in letting a valid TFD go a full week assuming the nominator doesn't withdraw or it's clearly made in bad faith (which this one is not). From NENAN: A good, but not set-in-stone rule to follow is the "rule of five", meaning that "only 3 links" is a perfectly valid rationale. Primefac (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I didn't realize that this essay existed. I'll revert my close. In the future, you should go to the closer's talk page instead of opening a discussion somewhere else. The proper place to challenge a close is DRV after discussing the issue with the closer, not on project talk. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:11, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I didn't open this discussion, but since I saw you were pinged here I figured I would kill two birds with one stone so that you would see the request when/if you read it. I think the substance of the question is still worth talking about, which is probably why Plastikspork didn't go directly to you (and need to start a second thread here anyway) but I don't want to assume anything of their intentions (it's just how I read it). Primefac (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Correct. I was not challenging the close. I am just making sure I understand the current policy before I continue closing discussions myself. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:39, 6 September 2026 (UTC)