Wikipedia talk:Twinkle

I don't normally concern myself these days with graphical changes to internal Wikipedia pages (some combination of "it's a lost cause" and "we have bigger fish to try"), but I'm going to make an exception here, since the current Twinkle logo (File:Police man Twinkle Head.svg) is uniquely bad. Laying out the specific reasons so that this isn't just WP:IDLI:

• It doesn't fit the tool's name: There's nothing twinkling in it.
• It doesn't fit the tool's contemporary purpose: It was created back in 2007, and my understanding of the history is that Twinkle then was primarily an anti-vandalism tool, for which a policeman arguably has some fit. But these days it's used for a much broader array of tasks.
• It carries aggressive, exclusionary connotations: The logo is of a light-skinned male, which isn't optimal when we're trying to diversify our editorship. And not to get too political, but police officers in many countries (especially those with grumpy expressions like in the logo) carry connotations of aggression, authority, and other attributes that don't align well with the behavior we'd like to encourage among Twinkle users.
• It's poorly designed: I didn't have to go to the file page to tell that it was made c. 2007 — the design has several qualities that make it feel dated. It scales poorly to small sizes (important for userboxen).

Together (even if you disagree with one or two of my reasons), these add up to an unsuitable logo, so I'd like to propose that we consider changing it to something new. Perhaps it could be related to twinkling (e.g. ✨) or perhaps someone could design something totally new (courtesy ping Triton, who I see made flat versions of the current logo in 2022). Perhaps if it's good enough we'd actually want to use it in the Twinkle tool's interface or on the Github repository page. Thoughts/suggestions? Sdkb ^talk 23:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, feel free to check in the various icons or let me know if you need something new. Cheers. Triton (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I think we probably want to move away from a person-based logo entirely. I suggested something to do with sparkling above, but beyond that I'll leave the design up to whoever wants to make something — I tend to find that design by committee works poorly, so it's better to go with whatever you think looks best. Sdkb ^talk 23:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Sort of related discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle/Archive_49#UTTP_and_Twinkle_(Emergency). Schazjmd (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I came across that; I'd have to dig into it further to determine whether there's anything there. But there are plenty of other reasons, even setting that aside, to change it. Sdkb ^talk 23:52, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Just a random thought but how about a paint roller? ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 00:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Not sure I get it; what prompted that as an idea? Sdkb ^talk 01:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps Huggle's broom logo? ~ Rusty ^meow ~ 01:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

How about the sparkles (✨) at the end of a wand to imply that it is a tool? cmɢʟee τaʟκ (please add {{ping|cmglee}} to your reply) 02:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

The "sparkles" icon is now associated with AI/LLM generation, so please no! qcne (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Good point! I don't want to be associated with LLM. Happy Editing -- IAmChaos 18:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Twinkle makes it easy to make big changes in one sweep, like a paint roller. Don't ask me where my brain gets its ideas from. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 04:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

A large cross-shaped star suggesting the letter "t" surrounded by smaller cross-shaped stars? The middle-left figure on https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/set-original-vector-stars-sparkle-260nw-1405814981.jpg seems an aesthetic arrangement. cmɢʟee τaʟκ (please add {{ping|cmglee}} to your reply) 02:21, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I took inspiration from this, with the smaller stars going at the top to suggest the upper bar of the T! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I am fully in support of a logo change. Once that's out of the way, we just need to bartender our way to a new one... thus far, both the paint-roller idea and the T-shaped star idea sound good. Toadspike [Talk] 11:21, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Gonna ping @Chaotic Enby, who is both active in building Twinkle and has graphic design skills. Toadspike [Talk] 11:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, that's definitely something I had in the back of my mind for a long time! Happy to see there's support for a change. I really don't like it being a police officer, or the very cop-like nature of many of Wikipedia's metaphor (the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit also comes to my mind). Twinkle is more of a tool for helping with technical stuff, or at most housekeeping, than one for policing, and the logo should reflect that.

Regarding the specific ideas that have been proposed, I like the idea of twinkling stars, although the ✨ symbol is (to my greatest regret) associated with AI and might be a bit misleading. We've got many other star arrangements that could work well, especially if we elongate the diffraction spikes in a T shape. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Chaotic Enby proposal 4

Here's a red and yellow version following suggestions by @Darth Stabro and @Argenti Aertheri! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:44, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I haven't been editing long enough to have nostalgic feelings for the cop, but I sympathize with editors who do. With logo changes to internal tools, it really does just come down to personal preference in the end, so I don't really see the logic in weighing one !vote over another. That being said, I don't feel very strongly that the logo should be changed, but if it is to be changed, it makes sense to pay homage to the original. In short: I'm neutral towards changing the logo, but I support version 4 if it happens. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:45, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I change my mind: the new logo has grown on me, and I support it over the original. I still prefer version 4, but I don't mind if version 3 becomes the official logo. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Seems fine to me; I easily support it over the status quo, and have no strong preference for it vs. the purple/blue version. Sdkb ^talk 06:59, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Here's a side by side comparison: imgur. I prefer version 3. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Same. Version 4 feels like better fit to be RedWarn's logo. – SD0001 (talk) 13:38, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Same, V3 is nice. qcne (talk) 13:53, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Same, V3 is in more neutral colors. Serhio Magpie (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Chaotic Enby, version 4 seems very appealing than V3. I easily support it because red means endurance, engagement, decisiveness and courage. Ahri Boy (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I like the color scheme a lot, but I think that it could use a mascot of some sort. To avoid dealing with the human sociopolitical scenario, I propose that the new mascot should be a well-regarded animal. My first thoughts would be:

• A dolphin, because dolphins are usually considered fun and intelligent
• A crow, because crows are known for basic tool usage, and Twinkle is a tool
• A golden retriever, because they act as excellent companions and double as hunting dogs (just like how Twinkle can hunt vandals)

I'd need to see some mockups to be convinced of anything, but I think that one of those could be a good start. GrinningIodize (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Can there be added a feature to WP:BLAR a page? That is, blank it, and redirect it to an article/section of the user's choosing? Kingsacrificer (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

This might be a dumb question, but... why? BLAR just involves editing the page, Ctrl+A, then typing in #REDIRECT [target]. Doesn't seem like it would save all that much time and effort to use TW for this. Primefac (talk) 10:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Because that way, it can also inform the top contributors of the page that a BLAR action is being made on the page. Manual BLAR-ers might skip that step. Kingsacrificer (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, it could prompt for rcats, or at least add {{r with history}}. lp0 on fire () 08:51, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Is this being developed? Kingsacrificer (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Kingsacrificer Not sure, but you can use User:Eejit43/scripts/redirect-helper for something similar to what you're describing. FaviFake (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Needs consensus first due to the objection above. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Twinkle transcludes requested move/dated directly, but the template documentation says to subsitute it. Speedrunz (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

See permanent link for User talk:BrightNova1001. The WP:CT/IMH codes were clearly not formatted properly in the messages, despite being correctly formatted in the deletion templates itself (see e.g. Draft:Capture of Rohtas). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Adding to this that WP:CT/KURD also isn't adding correctly (see ). I've been curious why I've seen multiple talk pages with notices like this, where they state, "No contentious topic code has been specified", and thought it may be user error. Doesn't seem like it, though. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Looks like this applies to all CT SDs I've seen. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Why isn't this included? HKLionel TALK 09:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Because no one has asked yet, I suppose. If you want it (in a "right now" sort of way) see Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc § Warn (user talk warnings) for information about adding your preferred templates to the tool. Primefac (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't mind, but I'd like to see this added to the default set as it definitely addresses an existing issue. HKLionel TALK 10:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of this one. If you manage to get a problematically long user talk page you are likely an established user and is unlikely to be happy about a templated warning that assumes you are a newbie. Trialpears (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Just because someone's an "established user" doesn't mean they can't be reminded about issues that affect others, regardless of their standing. It's also entirely possible that the issue has never been brought up before, or that they aren't aware it's an issue. TM:Please archive exists as a short reminder, consider that instead if you will. HKLionel TALK 11:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

To give my opinion on the merits of this request, I would say that templates in the Twinkle system should be commonly-used. I am currently seeing ~230 uses in the user talk space (and less than 50 of the shorter variant). Even counting stuff that might have been deleted, I'm not sure it's going to be used enough to merit making it a default template in Twinkle. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks, HKLionel TALK 12:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I like {{please archive}} significantly more since it is a lot less confrontational. I also find the concern raised by Primefac convincing although I believe it would be used significantly more often if in twinkle. Adding it in your own install should be sufficient imo. Trialpears (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is an implication of your post, TP, but the template has been nominate for deletion twiceTemplate talk:Uw-archive and kept both times. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Can't say the thought didn't strike me but I guess the second time is too recent for any consolidation at the moment. Trialpears (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to make an objective criteria for adding a template to Twinkle. The criteria should be if a template has at least X number of uses, because this signals popularity/usefulness in an objective way. This would apply to user warnings, maintenance tags, and maybe to some other stuff that I am forgetting. I was thinking 25, but in the section above folks were saying even 230 wasn't enough. What are our thoughts on the exact number? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

No comment on the specific number, but I'd just like to point out that most templates of this nature probably get their usage from Twinkle itself, so if it's added and Twinkle users find them useful/there are enough use cases that they can be applied to, usage would naturally rise. Some Twinkle users, including myself, sometimes scroll through the menu to see what templates can address the issues at hand, so we aren't really aware of templates not listed there, nor would we really go out of our way to search for one, unless—like me in the above section—we are aware of the specific issue. HKLionel TALK 17:41, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Maybe like 5 per month on average? Doesn't seem overly onerous for an actually widely useful template even if it isn't in twinkle default and makes it easier for new templates to be added to twinkle. Given how easy it is to add your own templates I don't feel like it's necessary to be more permissive than this. Trialpears (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Measuring per month seems a little difficult. I think total uses would be easier to check. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Uses divided by age of template isn't hard to do. Usage might have changed significantly so that's a flaw with that methodology but a template racking up a hundred uses over a decade or two does not mean it's highly used either. Ultimately I think we will have to be a bit subjective here. Trialpears (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I think it should be based on user request. If a single person thinks a template should be added, they can do it themselves. If multiple people (maybe... 5?) agree that it's an overlooked template, we can add it. That avoids the "it's not used" issue and demonstrates that it will actually be used by folk. Primefac (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd do it myself, if there were something on the doc page explaining how. I made a request § above, but I'm not even aware how to determine whether it has already been added or not. Could something be added to the project page about it? Mathglot (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The redirect Wikipedia:FREINDLY has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 6 § Wikipedia:FREINDLY until a consensus is reached. - ExcitedA. It may be a good idea to look at this. 19:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

The "Shared IP" option in Twinkle has been removed per #Delete "Shared IP" module? and #2260. This module was only used 4 times over the last 30 days, by 2 distinct users – which isn't the expected level of usage for a Twinkle component.

If by any chance you continue to find the option useful, the same functionality has been made available as a user script: User:SD0001/SharedIPTagger. – SD0001 (talk) 08:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I struggle with this. I know it's a rare thing to need to do. I find it a right royal pain. Have I just not found the part of Twinkle that lets me do this with ease? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:46, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't know that Twinkle supports that. I use this. DonIago (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

@Doniago Thank you. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Twinkle's UI has been migrated to no longer rely on jQuery UI, which is deprecated. This is largely an internal change and doesn't have visible effects. The only notable difference is that dialogs can be resized only from the bottom-right corner (earlier they could be resized from any corner or edge).

The update is live. Let me know if you notice any unexpected changes in behaviour of the dialog windows or tooltips. – SD0001 (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @SD0001: I don't know if this is connected (or whether it's a Twinkle issue at all, for that matter) but the submit button on the Twinkle dialog box used to be focused on load (ie. it had the 'focus ring' around it), which meant that when eg. welcoming a user you could just select that option from the menu and hit return. For the past couple of days this is no longer the case, and you now need to explicitly click on the submit button. I realise this is a tiny thing in the bigger scheme of things, but if it's a very easy fix, it would save an old dog like yours truly having to learn new tricks. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

It's actually the first input in the form that was focused on load. Now, the dialog as a whole is getting focused. I restored the earlier behaviour (should be live in a few minutes). As long as any form element is in focus, hitting return will submit the form. – SD0001 (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Excellent, many thanks! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

When starting an AfD, I have to scroll through a long list in a narrow window to choose deletion sorting categories. WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Compact is much more helpful in choosing categories, and it should be linked to in the Twinkle menu. If not, then a link to the WikiProject at least please. Thanks, HKLionel TALK 19:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

The interface allows entering a search term to filter the listing. – SD0001 (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Having a list helps make connections to DELSORT lists that wouldn't have been made otherwise. Not every search term turns up results, and synonyms can complicate things. It'd also be more user-friendly for newcomers and people who are inexperienced regarding AfD. HKLionel TALK 21:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

It would be very beneficial if mobile got the same features as desktop. This would save time and effort. Thank you for your time. Dafootballguy (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Dafootballguy: Have you looked at Plantaest/TwinkleMobile? Alternatively, if you're already using it, consider reporting the issue to that talkpage instead. ~ rusty ^meow ~ 14:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

It used to be the case that reporting a sockpuppet through Twinkle would include a tickbox for requesting a checkuser, but I'm not seeing that box any more. Was it removed deliberately? Belbury (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Belbury Yes, the SPI template no longer has an option for the filer to request CU. New cases are now set to "New". Clerks/admins can request CU on a case if needed, while cases that don't need CU are set to "Open". Toadspike [Talk] 14:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. Belbury (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Is there a setting that I'm missing to disable automatically subscribing to WP:AIV when I report a user via ARV? I know that this was a known issue on Wikimedia's end, but to my (not terribly tech-savvy) understanding, that issue was resolved quite a while ago, and the flood of notifications that comes in when I forget to manually unsubscribe is quite obnoxious. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 17:59, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I've raised 2332. The issue was previously reported for XFDs, but not for ARV module. – SD0001 (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@LaffyTaffer If you turn off "Automatically subscribe to topics" in your settings, it will fix this problem. You will, however, no longer be automatically subscribed to talk page topics you comment on. I found the tradeoff to be worth it, though, and have turned this feature off. Toadspike [Talk] 23:27, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I was aware of that, yeah. I personally did not find the tradeoff to be worth it, I already forget to subscribe to topics enough with things like Wikilove messages. Thank you for the reminder all the same, and thanks to @SD0001 for opening a ticket(?) ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 23:38, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Fixed. Auto-subscribe is now disabled for AIV, SPI, and AN3. It was already disabled for XFD listings. Let me know if there are other places where it's a problem. – SD0001 (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

It would be handy if Twinkle could be used to apply templates meant for tagging user (talk) pages by third parties, such as {{Not around}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable idea. Next step is to think about what module we'd put it in, then to create a GitHub ticket. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The former is beyond my pay-grade. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: We could put it in the tag module--I'm thinking it could provide different tag options for different namespaces. ~ rusty ^meow ~ 19:00, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I might be missing something, but I can't find the {{uw-aitalk1}} and the other warning levels for LLM use on talk pages in Twinkle even though the template documentation seems to indicate that they are included. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

GitHub issue filed: #2334. ~ rusty ^meow ~ 18:54, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

So, trying to batch-delete a mixed group (draft/template/file) pages in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user, Twinkle just hangs with the message "Grabbing list of pages: loading..." – something I've never seen before. Tried purging, opening the category in a new page and so on, no joy. Any cmt or suggestion? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I can reproduce. Seems to be due to a change in API response formats. Will look into it when I get home. – SD0001 (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I speedied a page under G5 > general sanctions > KURD, and the user talk notification has a bunch of error messages: Special:Diff/1343140597 Please fix! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Already tracked: #2282 on GitHub ~ rusty ^meow ~ 15:02, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Am I misremembering, or was there once a "Request check user" checkbox in the sock puppetry section of ARV? If so, could we have it back? If not, could we perhaps consider adding one? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

OK, I see that this has already been asked in #SPI reports lacking a checkuser tickbox above. Any particular reason for disabling this useful option? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Looks like the checkuser folks requested it. The rationale appears to be that if someone requests checkuser and it gets declined, it gets a CU declined status, which is one of the slowest-to-process SPI queues. So the idea is that only SPI clerks, who are good at picking when a case actually needs checkusers, should do the CU requesting, which will speed up SPI requests overall. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Just letting you guys know, I plan to nominate Template:Hoax for deletion sometime in the near future. This template is used in Twinkle's standard installation. Newbzy (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

@Newbzy: Thanks for the heads up; I would suggest posting again on this page when you do actually nominate it for deletion, just so it doesn't get buried/forgotten. ~ rusty ^meow ~ 04:11, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I teach classes and tell my students to install Twinkle. Some of my students this semester cannot install it - it does not appear in their preferences. I confirmed it visually - for some it is not there (should be between gadet "revisionjumpe" and "Suppress display of all CentralNotices", but for some there is no Twinkle button to activate, and it also doesn't show up in their search). At this point I cannot identify a common cause for some of them not having it - is it supressed/hidden for new editors or such (an early guess)? _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 07:06, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, its shown only for autoconfirmed and confirmed users. – SD0001 (talk) 07:15, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

This should be mentioned in Wikipedia:Twinkle#Quick_info _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 07:19, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I've added a mention. Toadspike [Talk] 17:43, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I seen now this was already in the notes below, but - who reads that far down :P Now it's much better _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 01:47, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

It was also in the first line of the page. "It allows autoconfirmed users to ..." – SD0001 (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

@SD0001 Fair, but redundancy is important here - I skipped the intro as I know what Twinke is, and we just looked at the place (section) we expected to be most relevant. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 13:44, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

it would be great is we could use twinkle to put CT notice templates on user talk pages, especailly if ti would check whether they have aware templates or prior notices. (i think this functionality is in place for others, but i could be wrong). -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 20:40, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

You can install User:TheresNoTime/Scripts/CT-Helper.js as a workaround. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Technical assistance would be appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion § Follow up from RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Voorts. Did you have any specific changes in mind for Twinkle? Will this affect the XFD -> Articles for Deletion page's options/layout? (That page is used to file AFDs.)

Also, will this affect WP:XFDCLOSER at all? That gadget is used to close AFDs. If so, may also want to post there. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: I don't think XFDCLOSER will require any updates since it already supports merging. I think Twinkle's AfD layout will need to be changed to be similar to CfD so that editors can specify the outcome they're selecting. That will need to be paired with changes to the templates to indicate what is being proposed. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:50, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Got it. I guess post here again once the templates are updated, and we'll take a look. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: see Special:Diff/1346945924. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:13, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks to Chaotic Enby. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:14, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Basically, Twinkle should now give editors an option to pick the type of action they're suggesting, and for merges/redirects, add the name of the target page. I think Twinkle should also tag the target page for merges with {{merge from AfD}}, linking to the AfD discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:31, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Should the merge/merge to/merge from tags be removed from the tag menu's options, assuming the new process takes care of it? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:00, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:11, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I wrote a ticket at https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/twinkle/issues/2335. It's missing some details though. 1) What's the exact list of options you want in the dropdown? 2) Is the only change to the writing of {{Article for deletion/dated}} to add `|target=` for the situations merge and redirect? 3) What wikitext exactly should be written for {{Merge from AfD}}? What parameters? Feel free to reply on GitHub if you want. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae

1. The template has been updated to support these four options: Deletion, Merging, Redirecting, Draftification. On github, the last one is missing. These are selected using the |outcome= parameter. See {{Article for deletion/dated/testcases}} for the 4 cases.
2. Yes, but there are other changes unrelated to the writing of the AfdD template on the page to nominate, such as to the talk page notice sent to the creator of the page. They will need to be adapted to what the user has picked. Note that the |target= parameter is optional, of course; editors oftentimes don't know right away where an article should be merged, for example.
   • For deletion, nothing changes.
   • For merging: {{subst:Afd notice|ARTICLENAME|outcome=merge|target=TARGETNAME}}
   • For redirection: {{subst:Afd notice|ARTICLENAME|outcome=redirect|target=TARGETNAME}}
   • For drafitication: {{subst:Afd notice|ARTICLENAME|outcome=draftify}} (it doesn't support |target=)
3. At WT:AFD we've decided to rely on the main {{Merge from}} template, since the other was just a copy with some longer and outdated text. So the parameters are:

   {{Merge from
   |1=FIRSTPAGE|2=SECONDPAGE|...
   |afd      =FIRSTPAGE (3rd nomination)
   |section  =yes
   |date     ={{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}}
   

   Every parameter is optional except |1= and |date=, and the template supports 20 unnamed parameters, so a maximum of 20 source articles (to use for bundled AfD nominations). |section= should only be added if the proposed destination is a section and the template is placed at the top of that section.
   Here's how {{merge from}} should link to the AfD discussion:

• If this is the first nomination, then simply use |afd=FIRSTPAGE, which will link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIRSTPAGE.
• If this is the second, third, ... nomination, then include parenthetical part of the AfD page: |afd=FIRSTPAGE (3rd nomination), which will of course link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIRSTPAGE (3rd nomination)

We will continue supporting the old |talk= and |discuss= parameters until all old PAM merge proposals that use it are closed, and once the implementation is finished we can turn them into aliases of |afd=.

Point 3 was heavily edited to match the current behavior after Chaotic Enby added the |afd= parameter. FaviFake (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, I didn't add the target parameter for draftification as the name of the target is relatively immaterial, usually being Draft:ARTICLENAME or (if the latter is preoccupied) Draft:ARTICLENAME 2, which doesn't affect the discussion like a merge/redirect target would.

The part after the "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/" already exists as a parameter, name. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:47, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! And in the last paragraph I was referring to {{merge from}}. I guess you could copy the same functionality to that template as well? FaviFake (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Yep! Also I misremembered, the parameter for the AfD template is page, not name. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:52, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I edited the original post in the ticket. Please check it out when you get a chance and let me know if it needs further changes. Feel free to reply in the GitHub ticket to keep things centralized. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done, see . FaviFake (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

@FaviFake, I used the redirect template in case we want to split it out from {{merge from}} at some point in the future for an unforeseen reason. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:15, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry! That makes sense. I think a parameter like the one i suggested above could be used for this purpose, to avoid making the transition harder for users and bots FaviFake (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I've finalised my proposed plan for the transition. What are we thinking, especially about the last paragraph? Is it doable to implement into Twinkle? (logging off for now, I'll respond tomorrow) FaviFake (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: XFDcloser does in fact need updates, specifically it needs to use the newly introduced named parameters for {{afd-merge to}}+{{afd-merge from}} so that the unnamed parameters can be repurposed to align with how the {{merge}}+{{being merged}} series handle unnameds; we have already discussed this extensively in Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Implementing the PAM–AfD merge.

We have a maintenance category in use to track the deprecated use: Category:AfD merge templates using unnamed parameters. Currently it is only populated with pages using {{afd-merged-from}} (which is not used by XFDcloser), as I have kept the other afd-merge templates updated with the named parameters via periodically checking a cross-cat search (+ all namespaces enabled), but current XFDcloser usage reintroduces population with the other templates.

I've had a PR open for a few days that resolves this: https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/xfdcloser/pull/133, but as I missed this discussion it seems to have slipped under the radar. ~ oklopfer (💬) 19:05, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Oklopfer. Manually tested, merged, and deployed. Thanks for the patch! –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for updating! :) ~ oklopfer (💬) 00:05, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae it seems like the change was inadvertently rolled back in the most recent bump: Special:Diff/1347983525 ~ oklopfer (💬) 12:43, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Per the two recent edit summaries v4.0.16 at 72f6fa2 and v4.0.16 at 60a827b, seems like this was due to using generated outputs from the PR commits rather than their squashes into the repo, and 60a827b was not rebased to include 72f6fa2. ~ oklopfer (💬) 16:47, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I probably forgot to change back to the master branch before I ran `npm run deploy`. Try it now. Also, when #101 add this tool to https://gadget-deploy.toolforge.org/ is finished, the possibility for this human error will go away :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Looks all good now, thanks again! ~ oklopfer (💬) 22:13, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Regarding XFDCLOSER, thanks for reminding me that I was halfway through coding the draftifying option and should definitely finish it some day! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:18, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

See relevant TfD discussion as well: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 April 4#Merge templates. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:52, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

What's the urgency of this one? https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/twinkle/issues/2335 looks like a lot of work. Probably spread across multiple patches, adding one option to the dropdown at a time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd say it's the most urgent of the requests so that editors can actually use Twinkle to nominate articles for merging. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:07, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae The most urgent change is to allow editors to add |outcome=merge to te AFD template when using the twinkle XFD popup. Anything else is less urgent (but still very much necessary!) FaviFake (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

That one is the most complicated of the 3 new dropdown options. I'll probably start with draftify, the easy one :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but you don't need to implement the merging one all at once. For example you could just add a very simple check box that says "this is a merge proposal" and literally just adds the parameter |outcome=merge to the AFD template on that page alone, without doing anything else. That would already go a very long way towards helping editors nominate articles for mergers. The rest is less important. FaviFake (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Updated the GitHub todo list, and replied in GitHub with a question. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

And I replied with an answer :) FaviFake (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Any reason why Template:CCI notice is not included in the talkback menu? 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:59, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Nope, no particular reason. Just need someone to code it up. I created a ticket for you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Is there a template for warning against using ai in editing? per Wikipedia:LLM

Should there be if not? Chattenoir (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

{{Uw-ai1}} through {{Uw-ai4}} are probably what you're looking for. Yeah, good idea to put it in Twinkle. I created a ticket. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Turns out {{Uw-ai1}} through {{Uw-ai4}} are already in Twinkle. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Template:Template for discussion has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 18:54, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The discussion has already been closed as "Speedy keep" -- John of Reading (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2026 (UTC)