This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Deletion (defunct) This page is within the scope of WikiProject Deletion, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.DeletionWikipedia:WikiProject DeletionTemplate:WikiProject DeletionDeletion Templates This page is within the scope of WikiProject Templates, a group dedicated to improving the maintenance of Wikipedia's templates. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TemplatesWikipedia:WikiProject TemplatesTemplate:WikiProject TemplatesTemplates

Hi all, how do I promote a new template (temporary name) {{User:The Equalizer/sandbox/Template:Capital Distance3}} and get discussion, suggestions etc. Regs, The Equalizer (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First identify where the template would be used. If it's missing, then you should ask yourself why was it missing. Sometimes a functionally is missing because no one thought of adding it, other times, it's missing because the community does not want it. If you think this is wanted, then post on the talk pages of the pages where this could be used (template talk pages, project talk pages, article talk page, etc.) Gonnym (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: I suspect this relates to Template talk:Infobox UK place#Conversion to use Infobox settlement as a wrapper and Template talk:Infobox settlement#Capital distance measure, also Template talk:Infobox settlement#wrapping of Infobox UK place (where you commented). --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 17:17, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Small maintenance category (~200 pages). I've started cleaning up the PIA notices, some of it is post move cleanup, others are from merges/deletions leaving excess notices effectively. I've upcycled some of these to re-target them, but I've run out of accessible room :)

As far as I understand G8 doesn't cover this as the pages the templates target aren't non-existent (they remain redirects), which is ironic as I've been cleaning this up by suppressing redirects, as is the done etiquette to avoid contributing to this maintenance category. There are others I have tagged as |redirect=yes where there is significant history and page protection, in order to remove them from this maintenance category. This is also something that could do with clarification. Either way, I'm hoping we don't need a WP:T6 to clean these up do we? It looks like a waste of time taking these to WP:TfD as ideally they could just be deleted as G6/G8? Pinging a few admins, @Extraordinary Writ (cat editor) @SilverLocust @Asilvering (I moved some of your templates so thought you might have some insight) CNC (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've occasionally fixed some of the pages in the category. ProcBot unfortunately hasn't been moving them since March (see also notices on inactive bot operator's talk page). Redirect suppression is per WP:PMRC#8 (as WP:G6) rather than just etiquette. When an editnotice can't be resynced to the right page because it already has an identical editnotice added after a move, I would tend to think one of them can be G6'd by analogy to PMRC#8 (if the newer one, deleting it to make way for the move), but I think that would likely seem weird or unnecessary to an admin reviewing a {{db-g6}} request. When you can't delete the editnotice yourself, it might be easier to just use redirect=yes (assuming the editnotice can apply to the redirect, which is the case for PIA editnotices). On that clarification point, I think "instances that should not be cleaned up" mainly refers to the following sentence's "editnotice meant specifically for a redirect page" that should instead be removed from the tracking category via redirect=yes. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 17:07, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the context, the lack of ProcBot explains a lot of it I imagine. I've made this edit in an attempt to clarify things, someone can revert if they disagree with that interpretation. In hindsight I think it makes sense to tag as redirect to remove from category in cases where there is an editnotice where intended already, as part of the sorting process. Although eligble for G6 on the face of it, I'm not really seeing much benefit of nominating these for deletion even if it applies. The important aspect of the category is identifying where editnotices need moving to that have been left behind, unless I'm mistaken? CNC (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: LaundryPizza03 as you appear to be active with nominations in or around that category? Either way I'm not sure these templates need full discussions, G6 or removed from category would be easier. CNC (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear if CSD applies, and most of the nominated editnotices are identical to their targets' editnotices. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:45, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You might get pushback on using G6 from the people who support Wikipedia:What G6 is not. The justification for WP:PMRC#8 linking to WP:CSD#G6 is presumably that the left-behind redirect would be "redirects created by moving away from a title that was obviously unintended", although I could see them pushing back on that too 🤷. Anomie⚔ 19:47, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no insight from me I'm afraid. -- asilvering (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think your best options here are probably something like this:

• Add |redirect=yes if the notice still makes sense for the redirect, and wouldn't for the redirect's target.
• If the redirect target doesn't have an editnotice, move it and apply WP:PMRC#8.
• If the redirect target has an editnotice, but it's a copy-and-paste "move" of the redirect's notice, you could do a few things:
  • G6 the target's notice (per "Deleting redirects or other pages which prevent page moves") and then move as above.
  • WP:HISTMERGE, and then delete the left-behind redirect per WP:PMRC#8 (and probably cite that directly, not G6).
  • Just redirect the redirect's editnotice, and leave it there for history.
• For other cases, you might still justify a G6 of the target's notice (per "Deleting redirects or other pages which prevent page moves") and then move as above, if the old notice is better.
• Failing that, you might just redirect the redirect's editnotice to the target's and leave it for history.
• Failing that, TFD is probably the way to go. No CSD really applies. Or I supposed you could IAR-delete it if you really want.

HTH. Anomie⚔ 20:04, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe comment on the actual TfD's opened to date? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:16, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a good guide. Though as a WP:Page mover without WP:Page deleter rights it's somewhat lacking. Aside from WP:PMRC#8 and upcycling when possible, I'm left with TfD by looks of it? CNC (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could WP:RMT the ones that would need G6ing. Anomie⚔ 20:33, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea. You mean as overwriting or something? For example with Template:Editnotices/Page/Israeli airstrikes on the Gaza Strip as an RMTR to Template:Editnotices/Page/Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip or am I misunderstanding? Duplicate notices are most of the PIA ones left now if not mistaken. CNC (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Although that particular example might be hard to justify as needing a move, since both were created at the same time with identical content rather than it being a copy-paste move of the edit notice after the article was renamed. Too bad no one noticed that one on 2025-11-29 when G8 would have clearly applied, before the redirect was created on the 30th. Now, depending on the admin who reviews it, you might get away with a post-hoc G8 or you might not. Anomie⚔ 20:57, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty RMTR doesn't sound much better. CNC (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me condense all the TfD's? Most of them are just an editnotice on a redirect that is identical to one on the redirect target, and a user on my talk page recommended merging most of them. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:13, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, two seconds. Primefac (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could only combine the ones that were identical and didn't have any responses, so there are a bunch that aren't merged. Primefac (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: For future ref, WP:TFDHOWTO step 2, the part about multiple templates. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 10:53, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have never noticed this before, since I always use Twinkle, which does all three steps at WP:TFDHOWTO at essentially the same time. An editor asked me to do Step 1 (tag the template with the TFD notice), but I balked, because I knew that the TFD notice links to the TFD discussion section. The TFD discussion section is created in Step 2. Why should we tag the template, which creates a link to the TFD discussion section, before the TFD discussion section exists? What am I missing? – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my read, it looks like it often is not a problem as the header is template name so it tips automatically generated. But that is not always the case. So I agree this should be changed... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:16, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All of the WP:XFD processes follow the same order: tag the page that is to be deleted/discussed first, then create the discussion, then notify others. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Redrose64 about matching other processes. I will note that AFD (the "primary" deletion route) has the deletion discussion on its own page, meaning it is a bit more awkward to create the deletion discussion first (since the AFD notification automatically creates a redlink and prompts to create said page). However, I do not think this discrepancy (i.e. TFD has a daily log of all discussions) is enough to merit flipping the order. If a template is tagged without being nominated, the tag can always be removed until such time that there is one. Primefac (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that if a user is able to perform Step 1 themselves, Step 2 is not going to be performed instantaneously anyway since they still have to navigate to the log, edit the page, add text etc. A slight delay in Step 2 is to be expected for manual nominations. Primefac (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD instructions make a bit more sense, since there is preloaded text behind the link that helps you create the AFD page. TFD has no such preloaded text. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you have never nominated a template for deletion or used Twinkle before, you might want to do it manually to avoid making mistakes. For more experienced editors, using Twinkle is recommended, as it automates some of these steps. I know this is kinda off topix but I think this is completly backwards at this point. Twinkle is reliable and easy to use as well as a gadget making installation trivial. I would 100% recommend that over manual nominations assuming you are auto confirmed. Trialpears (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree with this view. Using Twinkle is the way to avoid making mistakes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; even for complex nominations it's often easier to start with Twinkle (e.g. nominate the first template in a batch) and then edit the log page to add additional template(s). Primefac (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't think of a good place to start this discussion so thought I'd try here... Considering TFDing this entire category. These seem like a slew of templates that were once helpful when they were created in 2008, but no longer are helpful with the upgrades that have happened in the last 15+ tears. They just clutter documentation pages and are used very inconsistently. Before I nominate them, am I missing something? Do these serve some purpose that I'm not seeing? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:39, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think Pigsonthewing was the microformats guy and probably have insights in if this is a good idea. To be honest I still don't really know what a microformat is but that might just be a testament to my ignorance. Trialpears (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: would love to hear your thoughts! Are these templates still useful in someway that I don't know/understand? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping. For background, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats and Microformat.

So long as our templates include markup (in the form of HTML classes) to make their contents machine readable as microformats (and a great many templates do), these documentation templates are needed to advise people about those microformat classes and prevent their inadvertent removal, renaming or relocation, which will break those microformats.

The claim "no longer are helpful with the upgrades that have happened in the last 15+ tears [sic; but funny ;-) ]" seems to be made without justification or basis in fact.

I occasionally see people break our microformats in the manners described above, through not having read, or ignoring, these templates. This requires work to fix them. If these templates are not used, then the frequency of damage and the work required to remedy it will obviously increase considerably.

If there is an issue that these templates "are used very inconsistently", this can be and should be fixed by making their usage consistent. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, thanks for the explanation. Sorry for my dumb typo ( Facepalm ) but glad it gave you a laugh.

I guess i just misunderstood what microformats were! I won't pursue this further. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]