Wikipedia talk:Twinkle

"WT:TW" redirects here. For other uses, see WikiProject Taiwan talk page.

G15

Tracked in github.com
Issue #2196
Resolved

New CSD WP:G15 can be added. {{db-g15}}. Thanks, Cremastra (talk · contribs) 20:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I've created a ticket. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:07, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Bumping this. TarnishedPath^talk 13:46, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

They're working on it per the tickets. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:00, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I was going to finish https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/twinkle/issues/2199 first. But I agree that this and the other new CSD are kind of urgent, so will pause my work on 2199 and refocus on these two new CSDs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Nomination for discussion of Template:Uw-legal

Template:Uw-legal has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Interstellarity (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Compatibility with {{Split}}

Is there a reason why {{split}} is not among the tags that can be applied with Twinkle? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Nomination for discussion of Template:Uw-colorblock

Template:Uw-colorblock has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Concurrency bug

I nominated two pages (Aafreen Dabestani and Shivani Sopori) via the TW > XFD tool. Each page was open on a tab of the same browser (Firefox). I switched tabs back and forth while nominating the pages. The timestamps at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 12 also show a minute difference between the additions, but one nomination was over-written by the other. Expected: either one of the XFD actions should have failed with an edit conflict, or both nominations should have gone in. Jay 💬 08:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Template announcement

Announcing new, single-level notice {{uw-citevar}}. I have added a commented out link to Twinkle banner in the template. If you decide to include it in the installation, please uncomment the link, or if you wish, ping me and I'll do it. Mathglot (talk) 06:47, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Uw-coi-username red text

Twinkle interface showing the red text presented to users using {{uw-coi-username}}

Currently, Twinkle has this red text that appears when trying to use either {{uw-coi-username}} or {{uw-username}}—it tells people that they should skip warning and go straight to WP:UAA for "blatant" username policy violations. For {{uw-coi-username}}, I think we should get rid of this text. The culture on-wiki these days is shifting towards "warn more, block less" for WP:PROMONAME violations—see e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive373#Unblocks backlog and Wikipedia talk:Username policy#Promotional usernames where the user has not made promotional edits. For PROMONAME in particular, we generally require not only a promotional username, but also promotional editing in order to give a block (see the text of WP:PROMONAME)—if a user has not engaged in promotional editing and just has a username that may represent a company, then warning is an entirely appropriate first step before UAA. Mz7 (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I would also be open to refactoring the text to read something like: If this user has a promotional username and has made promotional edits related to their username, then the account should be reported directly to UAA (via Twinkle's ARV tab). If the user has not made any promotional edits or is otherwise borderline, use {{uw-coi-username}}. Mz7 (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Template:Please see is broken

A template in use in {{Please see}} is currently up for TDF and it has broken the template, FYI. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I noticed this yesterday when doing subst:Please see by hand (not in Twinkle). A fix for this would need to happen in template wikicode, I think, not in Twinkle. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Correct, I'm just providing the belated notification that {{Please see}} says is required (and also in the hope that someone here is an admin and can reverse this and close the TFD until we've determined what will break if this is allowed to happen). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I have wrapped the TFD notice with noinclude tags. Does that fix the problem? – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I dunno, let's test. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

No, still broke. I honestly think the TFD notice just needs to be removed. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh, that code is sneaky. It adds an "r" to "Format link" via an #if statement, so {{Format linkr}} is called by default. I have noincluded the TFD notice at both Format link[r] templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

That got it. =) So now the question (which should be addressed at the TFD) is, is this going to break other templates that rely on these two? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 August 2025

−

{{Shortcut|WP:TWPREFS|WP:TWPREF|WP:TW/PREF|WP:TW/P}}

+

{{Shortcut|WP:TW/P|WP:TWPREFS}}

Per the WP:LINKBOXES guideline, only the most common and easily remembered redirects should be listed. The least used shortcuts should be removed, this page doesn't need more than 2 similar shortcuts.

The ones above are the most common and easily remembered ones for this page. FaviFake (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

If you look at the data (go to each shortcut and click "What links here" in the toolbox), WP:TW/PREF has 631, WP:TWPREFS has 49, WP:TW/P has 20, and WP:TWPREF has 15. So you're basically proposing to remove the most popular shortcut.  Not done for now.

I may still not support this even if you change your edit request. Tinkering with shortcut boxes can be controversial. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I did look at the link count. My logic was, following the guideline ("only most common and easily remembered")

• most common: WP:TWPREF or WP:TW/PREF or WP:TWPREFS, i don't mind which one, but there definitely shouldn't be three of them, differing only by 1 char. I'd prefer if it didn't have a slash, because the one below does, but I don't mind.
• most easily remembered; it'd say it's WP:TW/P for how short it is.

My point is, there definitely shouldn't be 4 near-identical shortcuts for this page. It even forces the actual preferences down, hindering the usability of the page in favour of... more choiches for shortcuts? as long as you remove one or two I'm happy :) FaviFake (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Must understand that many of the shortcuts that you're changing are part of the Wikipedia gestalt even if not used as a link often.... below can give you a clue to the ones we use the most.

Moxy🍁 15:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, of course, I didn't mean I wanted to change these shortcuts. I meant removing them from the shortcut box, per the WP:LINKBOXES guideline. FaviFake (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. This edit request proposes deleting the most popular shortcut, WP:TW/PREF. Also, even if you change the edit request to propose different shortcuts, I may still object. Is this the best use of our wiki time and wiki brainpower? –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Concur with the above. Primefac (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

What is the point of going through every single shortcut box on Wikipedia and removing the least used ones? Because that's basically what FaviFake is doing. Is there any harm in having less common shortcuts in a shortcut box? Guidelines do not always have to be followed. It ain't broke, so why fix it? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

SuperPianoMan9167 That's obviously a misrepresentation of what I'm doing, as I explained elsewhere. I only edit shortcuts boxes, to add or remove shortcuts, when I'm already reading a page and I notice the number seems too large. I never go hunting for long shortcut boxes.

Is there any harm in having less common shortcuts in a shortcut box?

Yes, yes there is. As I have explained many times above.

Can I ask you then: what, in your opinion, is the benefit of keeping the least used shortcut in this specific page, given that it pushes down the actual content of the page that every single visitor is coming to the page to see?

Nobody seems to address this issue directly. Do you need a screenshot of the page? How else can I make it more clear?

I'll try to post a screenshot when I come back from my trip, but you can try viewing the page yourself to see the wasted space. FaviFake (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@FaviFake: At the time I made the above comment, I was unaware that you only edit shortcut boxes on pages that you are already reading. I did not know that detail until you pointed it out on your talk page; your contributions suggested to me that you were specifically editing shortcut boxes due to the number of edits you have made in that topic area. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Right, I've got my timing a bit messed up and I thought you were aware.

I should start to only reply to talk pages comments in chronological order. My bad.

Still, could you address the question? The language came out harsher than I intended, but I'm still interested in the answer. FaviFake (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Removing two shortcuts from a box that has four only seems to save a minimal amount of space. To answer your question, yes, a screenshot of the page with the proposed changes would be helpful. In my opinion, the tiny bit of space lost by including redundant redirects in the box is made up for by the benefits to navigation. I and many other editors usually learn shortcuts from these boxes and not "What links here". Besides, this particular page probably has more than four redirects that aren't listed.

I support what you did at Wikipedia:Be bold, where there were so many shortcuts in the box that not all of them were even visible, but I am inclined to oppose removing shortcuts when the page has less than five for the sake of clarity. Redundancy can be good sometimes. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I changed my proposal to only remove one, not two, but I understand this might be hard to find given the mess that this discussion has become.

I've actually decided I don't about this so much that I should take a screenshot and upload it.

I'll just say: I think it would be odd to intentinally come to the page and learn 4 different shortcuts instead of just one, two, or even three, and that I think we should focus more on the WP:READER, which i realise in this case is also an editor, and on the actual page content.

Would you support my change if it only involved removing 1 shortcut? You said you're inclined to "oppose removing shortcuts", not " a shortcut". FaviFake (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I would support removing WP:TWPREF from the box because it is basically the same as WP:TW/PREF (the most popular shortcut) but without a slash. That shortcut would still redirect here, of course, but I've thought about your proposal a bit more and I tend to agree with you that near-identical shortcuts may not be the best idea. So, TL;DR, yes, I would probably support your change if it involved removing WP:TWPREF only, since it is basically the exact same shortcut as WP:TW/PREF. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes! We can do it.

Do you think this consensus is enough to reinstate the modified request? If im not mistaken, the opposing editors only point out that they're worried about removing the most popular, which is not the case. FaviFake (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, I did change the request to a different one; I said I don't mind whichever you remove, as long as the layout of the page isn't pushed down due to the high number of shortcuts. That's all I'm asking. This is supported by WP:LINKBOXES.

You said about the link counts that WP:TW/PREF has 631, WP:TWPREFS has 49, WP:TW/P has 20, and WP:TWPREF has 15. Do you mind removing the least popular one then? Again:

My point is, there definitely shouldn't be 4 near-identical shortcuts for this page. It even forces the actual preferences down, hindering the usability of the page in favour of... more choiches for shortcuts? as long as you remove one or two I'm happy :)

I'm not sure what's so controversial about a change that's both supported by a guideline and improves the page layout. FaviFake (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

It's controversial because sometimes the most minor changes are the ones people debate the most. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm a little confused regarding the claim that having four shortcuts is impacting usability. I just viewed the prefs page and saw minimal impact from having a fourth option provided. Perhaps those who feel this would be a significant benefit could provide more context and/or screenshots so that it's more clear how there's a significant impact to usability? DonIago (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I'll post screenshots here, if that is what it takes for this minor edit to be implemented. I'll take them once I'm back from my trip, but I really hope this will have been been sorted out by then... FaviFake (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

When people tell you to stop, you probably should. WP:CIR applies regardless of the guidelines and policies. This shows how paramount your disruptive editing has been. It doesn't matter if you're right, you're still being disruptive and ignoring feedback. – The Grid (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Could you kindly stop following me wherever i comment on talk pages to point me to policies that aren't even relevant, please?

I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish by inserting yourself into every discussion I'm involved in and adding nothing to the actual discussion other than unrelated links and vague (and often slightly incorrect) comment about my editing.

If you want to talk with me, you know this isn't the way to do it. FaviFake (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

There's a history on your talk page that states otherwise and you keep ignoring it. Removing it doesn't make it go away. – The Grid (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

There's also a history on my talk where I've explained why I do it, it seems you've missed that one!!! I'm distraught. You should really go look for it and send me the permalink like you always do, it's really going to help with this discussion about the length of shortcuts boxes. FaviFake (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

A more "reasonable" request

From the previous discussion, it seems to be that:

• Novem Liguae responded to my first request saying "[...] you're basically proposing to remove the most popular shortcut" and my second one saying "This edit request proposes deleting the most popular shortcut". In both cases, they said that, even if I changed the edit request to propose different shortcuts, they may still object
  • Primefac concurred with the second.
• SuperPiano said "I would support removing WP:TWPREF from the box [...] TL;DR, yes, I would probably support your change if it involved removing WP:TWPREF only"
• Donlago asked for more evidence of the issue and other people didn't !vote against or in favour.

So in short there are 2 people in favour of removing 1 shortcut, and 2 people who objected mainly because I was trying to remove the most popular one. So, does anyone object to this?

−

WP:TWPREFS|WP:TWPREF|WP:TW/PREF|WP:TW/P

+

WP:TWPREFS|WP:TW/PREF|WP:TW/P

FaviFake (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

And here's a screenshot of how it currently looks on my end, for Doniago: [1] FaviFake (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, then I see the same thing, which is why I said that I saw minimal impact. Unless it can be demonstrated that there's more practical adverse effects to having four shortcuts instead of three, I don't see myself supporting this proposal. Is it not possible that deleting one of the shortcuts would ultimately have a greater adverse impact than allowing all four shortcuts to remain intact, which seems to have an extremely minor impact on the usability of the page? Is there something I'm missing here? DonIago (talk) 05:01, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The only guideline in support of the change would be WP:LINKBOXES. Other than that, you're correct, there's no other benefits. Agree to disagree, I guess. Thanks for explaining your position. FaviFake (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not in favor of changing these. And I am disappointed that we've written 1,917 words about this minor issue. Seems inefficient. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Concur. I honestly don't care which way this goes because we are now in BIKESHED territory and should just all walk away. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

We wouldn't have written so many words if half of the partecipants hadn't kept opposing the change without even providing a reason... FaviFake (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy notice of changes to templates used by Twinkle

They should not cause any breaking changes, however I would appreciate it if you could review the changes in case. waddie96 ★ (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Compatibility with temp accounts

Tracked in github.com
Issue #1775

As I wrote in WP:VPT#Compatibility of gadgets, scripts, bots, and edit filters with temp accounts, I wanted to ask you to check if Twinkle is compatible. Here's our documentation for developers; in particular, see the section How should I update my code?. Thank you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Do any talk page watchers have any ideas about things likely to break that we should take a look at in advance? –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I know I'm late here but I imagine everything that is geared towards IP users will need to be deprecated and replaced with (or modified to be) things geared towards temp account users. tony 21:18, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Disabling deletion discussion notification for accounts blocked more than 7 days and locked accounts

One thing I have found very frustrating about Twinkle is how it automatically notifies accounts which are currently blocked by default. I kind of view these notifications as counterproductive since the OP is unlikely to be able to comment on the discussion. The typical XFD discussion is about 7 days, which is why if the block expires more than 7 days from the date of notification I don't see it as productive to send a notification.

We can do the same for speedies where the user is blocked indefinitely or locked because there isn't a good reason to notify a user who is blocked and it can be perceived as gravedancing.

For locked accounts as well if the lock is because the user has passed on it is quite counterproductive to notify, as with accounts banned by the WMF or the Wikimedia community.

TL;DR: it would be helpful to skip automated discussion notification if the user being notified is currently blocked (but then don't turn the help message off). Aasim (話す（はなす）) 18:57, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Counter example: there could be people watchlisting the blocked user's page that would like to participate in those discussions / help with cleanup. It's not an oppose from me, but I would want to see support from multiple people before changing this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't have a fixed timeline in mind, but it's a good idea. Blocked editor talk pages being filled up with eg. notifications of speedy category deletion feels a bit rude to the blocked editor. CMD (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

For many locked accounts of deceased editors, their talk page stalkers will appreciate the notifications. —Kusma (talk) 08:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Maybe set this feature as on by default with a template to be added to the user talk page to opt out. So if page stalkers want the page to continue to get notifications, they can set it. There is a very minimal amount of pages that actually have stalkers that want to continue to have these notifications. Gonnym (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Announcing new user notice template uw-rfcbefore

Hello. Announcing new, single-level user notice {{uw-rfcbefore}}. If you decide to include it in the Twinkle installation, please lmk so I can add the Twinkle banner to the doc. Or, just feel free to add it yourself. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Discussion of draftify related template phrasing

In case the Twinkle community is involved or impacted, here's a heads-up for the following discussion:

Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Incubation and the draftify-related standardized language.

Regards CapnZapp (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

UTTP and Twinkle (Emergency)

So for some background context the file police man Ganson was created as a parody of the character Officer Short Shrift from The Phantom Tollbooth. I couldn’t help but notice that this image is used by both Twinkle the and UTTP a group of online trolls known for not only being silly and trolling online but promoting sextortion on sites like Discord and SkibidiFarms. I am posting this message on both Twinkle and Police man ganson. Its Lido (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Meh. Primefac (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like an emergency. Would you like us to do something, or are you just informing us of the history of the icon? –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

It’s used for sextortion Its Lido (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

You're not presenting your case very clearly. You haven't told us what you want us to do (remove it I assume?), and terms like Officer Short Shrift, The Phantom Tollbooth, UTTP, and sextortion are unfamiliar to me. You've provided no wikilinks or external links. But despite that, you may be right. I'm not sure it's good to have a Twinkle icon that basically looks like this guy. His personality and identity doesn't seem like something we would want people to associate Twinkle with. I think whoever made the icon was probably going for "generic police officer" rather than trying to associate Twinkle with this guy.

That icon is used on WP:TWINKLE and also in multiple userboxes. We should probably figure out a replacement square image before swapping. Would someone like to make something and/or look for suitable replacement images on Commons and suggest them here? –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Uh... I think we should probably have a discussion before we start panicking about finding a replacement. Honestly, I don't really care what icon we use, but I don't see a compelling reason to change. Primefac (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Ever heard of the UTTp search it up and they use an image called police man game on inspired by officer short shrift and twinkle shares the image:

links

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IjPXHdJ4Tls

lhttps://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/1bpjnua/does_anyone_know_where_the_logo_of_the_uttp_comes/

this person right here was extorted into self harm by the uttp and made a video about it later in life https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ILsftmMkzWo

Anyways for more information search up UTTP, Police man Hanson, officer short shrift a character associated with trolling. Its Lido (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

The current Twinkle logo, File:Police man Twinkle Head.svg, appears to have been used since at least 2007. The logo isn't going to be changed just because of a couple of random YouTube videos of questionable legitimacy. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

And this isn't an "emergency" by any definition of the word - misuse of that word tends to undermine the effectiveness of using the word for actual emergencies. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Well its associated with a group that doxxes people. Its Lido (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Primefac: I feel like this thread should be closed since it clearly isn't going anywhere productive. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

This discussion doesn't seem finished to me yet. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

The OP seems to have the cause and effect, or the timeline, backwards. This "policeman ganson" image appears to have existed on Wikipedia since 2005, when it was uploaded from a PD clipart site. YouTube was created only a couple of months earlier than the image's upload date, so it seems improbable that the image came from a YouTube source. It is much more likely that some YouTubers have adopted the image for their own purposes, which, since it is public domain, they are welcome to do. It should not affect us. The Reddit thread linked above appears to be speculation. As for the resemblance between our image and Officer Short Shrift, all I can say is that there are a lot of male-presenting, overweight police officers who wear blue uniforms and caps with badges on them. It's practically a stereotype. In addition, Officer Short Shrift has a flashing red and yellow light on his cap and has a wheel instead of legs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Feature request: WP:G5 general sanctions enforcement CSD

Tracked in github.com
Issue #1942

Currently, Twinkle offers the normal WP:G5 for banned/blocked users, but not the version for general sanctions enforcement, which is used when a page has been created by a non-extended confirmed editor in violation of WP:ECR. The template in this case is {{db-gs}} and it takes a topic code as the argument. The notice template is {{db-gs-notice}} and it takes an additional named code parameter containing the topic code. Please consider adding this as an option in the CSD menu. Thanks, OutsideNormality (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Double checking feature

There are some popular Twinkle tasks (e.g., XFD) that have specific considerations that are not always clear to taggers. The discussion @Tamzin started about WP:U5 deletions has made me wonder whether Twinkle could be extended to warn taggers when they're likely making a mistake (e.g., trying to add U5 to an experienced editor's User: page, or A1 within the first 10 minutes of the article's creation). What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I like this idea, specifically for heuristics that will almost always mean the tagging is incorrect. You could probably do both age and length checks for A1 or A3; very few things >100ww will qualify for either. And a recent-creation check for A10 and R3, set at 4 months, which is the point where policy says pages are "almost never" considered recent. An invalid U2 would also be very easy to check for, but maybe not necessary; the only times I can recall seeing that criterion misused have been people overlooking one of the exceptions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:19, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I proposed adding age-based checks 6 years ago—wow, how time flies!—in 702. Response wasn't very enthusiastic, but probably should be done anyway. – SD0001 (talk) 10:02, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Seems like a decent idea. But needs a GitHub ticket, an engineering specification ("when exactly X happens, have Twinkle do exactly Y". So for example, "when a user clicks the CSD A1 radio button, do an AJAX API call to figure out the page creation datetime. if that datetime is less than 10 minutes ago, display Z red warning message in the Twinkle CSD interface, and disable the submit button until a different CSD is selected, at which point re-enable the button"), and a volunteer dev to code it up. I was trying to keep up with this kind of stuff for awhile but fell behind. I really need people's help with GitHub tickets and engineering specifications, since it's too much for me to do by myself. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:25, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Probably best to engineer it as an "Are you absolutely sure this is what you mean to do?" than a hard disallow, as there might always be some edge case. For instance, if a user makes a bunch of A1able articles and then gets blocked for disruptive editing, there's no need to wait on tagging those, because they're blocked and won't be able to expand the articles. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Template:Too many photos is not on Twinkle

In the "Article maintenance tagging" popup, there is no mention of Template:Too many photos. I found an article that had too many images, but I couldn't find the template. - Sebbog13 (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

You can go to TW -> Config, and there is a spot to customize which templates show up for you. And/or you can file a ticket at https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/twinkle/issues/new to get it added for everyone. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Curiosity: How does some of the modules notify administrators?

When looking at User:Sandbox for user warnings, it said:

Please do not use this page to test advance reporting and vetting (ARV), speedy deletion (CSD), nominate for deletion (XFD), or request page protection (RPP), as these notify administrators.

I'm just curious about what this means, and how it notifies administrators. While I have sometimes "tested" the templates in the editor in sandbox pages/user space, I have not actually been publishing the changes; only viewing the preview before abandoning the edit(s). RaptorsFan2019 (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't mean "notify" as in "ping" or any direct 1-1 notification.

• ARV lets you automatically file reports to WP:AIV, WP:SPI, WP:AN/3, etc., and does so by directly editing those pages. Some administrators monitor those pages.
• RPP files a report at WP:RPP, which is monitored by some administrators.
• CSD adds a few categories to the page which some administrators monitor.

You're "notifying" admins by putting things on pages or in categories which admins check often. --tony 15:58, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I think "Please do not use this page..." is referring to the fact that some Twinkle reporting functions make edits to both the test page (the sandbox in this case) and a noticeboard. The noticeboard edit is what notifies admins. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Query

Tracked in github.com
Issue #1382

Hello, Novem Linguae and other tech-savvy editors,

I ran into a case today where an admin used the "Nuke" feature to delete dozens of articles but the Nuke feature doesn't delete either Talk pages or redirects of those articles so these had to be deleted separately later which is quite a pain. And I was remembering several times where I came here asking about a similar feature on Twinkle because Twinkle deletes articles/drafts/pages but doesn't delete the talk pages of any redirects that exist. You all were working on this feature and I wanted to follow-up and ask how it was coming along. Is it still a change at somw point in the distant future? You would think that this would be an uncommon situation but it actually comes up every day.

Thanks for any update you can provide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Why can't it handle more than two blocks?

As partial blocks are being used more I'm often running into this problem, making me unable to use it... ~Lofty abyss 17:40, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Coding Twinkle to handle multi-blocks would be complicated and would need additional engineering time. So as a band aid measure, we have it display a link to Special:Block, which can handle multi-blocks. A patch to Twinkle adding support for multi-blocks would be welcome. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Why delay in merging pull requests by maintainers?

We see fairly frequent bug reports and feature requests in this page. There are several issues in the code that need improvement, which volunteers are willing to help. In spite of this several pull requests are pending approval without any comment, many from several months ago. I understand maintainers are volunteers as well, but it is not good to ignore pull requests for so long and discourage those who are willing to contribute code. 2409:40F2:314C:15B9:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'm a volunteer and I have been busy. It's on my todo list to spend like a week and clear out the PR queue as soon as I get some free time. PRs take awhile to approve because I manually test each one, and that's not very fun. And reading code is a high-brainpower activity. However I think the manual testing makes sense and must be done because 1) Twinkle has like 40,000 users or something so any bugs will affect a lot of people, and 2) we have a lot of first time contributors / newer contributors who write patches in this repo and they don't always manually test them on testwiki before submitting their PR.

WikiConference North America is next week. Maybe I can carve out some time there to work on this. Thanks for your patience. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

If it matters I'll take whatever you can give, whenever you can give it. You're everywhere helping out with a ton of our vital tools, which is great, but if it's too much then I'd rather wait another week or two. Enjoy WCNA! Primefac (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Nomination for discussion of Template:Image hoax

Template:Image hoax has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Polygnotus (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Template:Uw-controversial

Tracked in github.com
Issue #2216

This was deleted and should probably be removed from Twinkle.--Launchballer 03:05, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: See above. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Maintenance tags don't go below Template:Family name hatnote

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Kramnik&diff=prev&oldid=1317990527. Neo Purgatorio (pester!) 07:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Nomination for discussion of Template:Uw-hoax

Template:Uw-hoax has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 20:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

G15 doesn't tag article creator?

Tracked in github.com
Issue #2220

Hi, I just used the G15 speedy deletion for the first time, but it seems that it didn't put a notice on the user talk page? Is this intentional? Fram (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Interesting bug. This has to do with the Twinkle config at User:Fram/twinkleoptions.js only writing true values and assuming anything absent is false. But in reality, it should also write the false values, that way it can assume anything absent should use the default value.

This is a hard bug to fix properly. But it has an easy workaround. You can just visit your Twinkle preferences -> "Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria" -> tick G15 -> Save. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Perhaps in the preferences, an option "all" can be added to overrule the individual toggles of when to notify/not to notify? Not mega-important, but I can imagine that others have the same issue and perhaps don't even realise it. Fram (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

"CSD U5 has been repealed."

Tracked in github.com
Issue #2221

"CSD U5 has been repealed. It has been replaced with U6 (procedural deletion of some previously U5-eligible pages) and U7 (a much narrower reworking of U5). Please see those criteria to determine if either applies." just appeared on something Ione normally tags as U5 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion#RfC: Replacing U5 with a primarily procedural mechanism ScrabbleTiles (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

This does need to follow through to Twinkle, I think. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, they should remove U5 and add U6 and U7. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Working on it! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Nomination for discussion of Template:Db-notwebhost-notice

Template:Db-notwebhost-notice has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 16:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Nomination for discussion of Template:Db-u5

Template:Db-u5 has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)