Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

XFD backlog
V Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
CfD 0 0 2 22 24
TfD 0 0 3 30 33
MfD 0 0 0 1 1
FfD 0 0 1 16 17
RfD 0 0 0 23 23
AfD 0 0 0 8 8

Is this the right place to discuss splitting templates?

[edit]

There are many navboxes that are absurdly long or dense to where it would be better served as a few different navboxes, and I'd like to get some of them split up into multiple smaller navboxes, but it's unclear how this should be discussed since they affect so many articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 17:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is a specific place to discuss merging templates, but I could not find anything when it comes to splitting them. I simply sent messages to those I believed to be most familiar with the topic. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first place to discuss a split is on the template's talk page. If there is little/no discussion, and/or no consensus can be reached, then TFD would be an appropriate venue for wider discussion. Primefac (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, imho it always helps a discussion if you link a few examples at the outset, especially when you OP starts out, "There are many <Wikipedia thingies> that are <undesirable attribute>...", as it's hard to know if you have something specific in mind or it's just a general gripe, and also it helps tune responders tune into the same wavelength you are on.
Additionally, you pose one problematic attribute (long/dense) and one solution (split them) whereas in reality, there may be many other solutions you have not considered (better group/label hierarchy, child navboxes, selective collapse, compound navboxes, create and/or link to list page or outline page) and so on. You increase the likelihood of getting a satisfactory response for your situation if you describe the underlying issue that prompted your question, rather than your suggested fix (split), because that tends to limit responses to "How do I split this" rather than whatever the underlying issue is.
Is it that it is hard to find a link in the box? Is the organization or order of the many links non-intuitive or arbitrary? Does it take too much vertical space and makes scrolling past it annoying? Does it take too long to load the page? Do you prefer succinct lists as one tends to see in a sidebar on the right side of the page rather than in a navbox? Do you hate navboxes and wish they would all be suppressed when you look at a page? Are you trying to track down where a particular source string resides using Advanced search, and the voluminous navboxes give you too many search results to pages that only transclude the string but do not contain it? Is the font too small and your eyes glaze over when there are more than a few links?
All of these are legitimate issues and might all be [overly] summarized as, "navbox too long", but they all have different focus and a different range of solutions that may apply. Describing your pain points regarding navboxes might help you get to a solution easier and faster. Mathglot (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to split them. I want this because they are too long. Examples: {{United States topics}}, {{Fascism}}, {{Russian invasion of Ukraine}}. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of repetition, what does "too long" feel like to you, or where does it impede usage of the encyclopedia, or make some article worse by including the navbox, or cause some other negative effect? Personally, I do not think they are "too long" but I suspect we mean different things by that expression. As one approach, I am the kind of person that occasionally likes to browse or read a printed dictionary (or an online one) stopping at some of the unfamiliar terms to read them in detail. A bunch of editors spent considerable thought and effort into designing {{Russian invasion of Ukraine}}, and it's a great one-stop shop of topics with comprehensive coverage of the issue; I don't know where else one could find a list like that to quickly access almost any aspect of the invasion; a tremendous time-saver for someone interested in a deep dive. Finding a navbox such as that one or the others you linked feels to me like hitting the jackpot, with all those yummy unfamiliar topics to learn about, and maybe improve, as well. So to me, they are a boon. It takes a little longer to scroll past, but that is a minor inconvenience to me. Knowing where your discomfort lies with the length of {{United States topics}} might lead to a solution you didn't expect. Mathglot (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussions need to be closed

[edit]

It's been a long time since many of the discussions have been abandoned. Here are the discussions that I think we should close immediately:

2600:1700:6180:6290:28F7:14C:F72F:9A57 (talk) 09:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have WP:TFD/O; they will get looked at in due time. DEADLINE and suchlike. That being said, it is on my list of things to do this weekend. Primefac (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Something missing

[edit]

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)[reply]

For some reason an IP closed it. No idea how that is ok. Gonnym (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Need helping constructing a TFD

[edit]

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)[reply]

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