Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:TFD)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Deletion
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the WikiProject Deletion, a collaborative effort dedicated to improving Wikipedia in toto in the area of deletion. We advocate the responsible use of deletion policy, not the deletion of articles. If you would like to help, consider participating at WikiProject Deletion.
WikiProject Templates
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Templates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Templates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Clarification request: non-admin closure of own nomination[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus against closing a TFD by an involved editor, except in rare situations. The majority discussion centred around WP:NACD either mentioning it or following its logic. WP:NACD does lay out the exclusion to this and there is strong support for allowing WP:SNOW closures as well though not quite to the point of consensus. AlbinoFerret 20:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I seek clarification on the earlier RfC: Proposal to allow non-admin "delete" closures at TfD. Is a TfD nominator now allowed to close as "delete" a discussion that they initiated? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

This refers to today's discussions at WP:AN, where the is still an open section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
This has got absolutely nothing to do with the earlier RfC. Alakzi (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
It is a general question. I am not referring to any previous discussions other than the RfC which I linked directly. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes you are. I'm not sure why you'd deny it; it's not an unreasonable thing to do, even if the timing is suboptimal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I acted here on the suggestion of Floquenbeam (talk · contribs), who wrote "it might be better to decouple individual editors from the underlying issue. Address the issue of whether this should be done going forward". Hence, no back-links. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
And it still makes sense to me. If a discussion at AN gets sidetracked by personalities, then a new discussion at a more neutral page that doesn't focus on personalities makes sense. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
It would appear that others refuse to allow that shift in focus :-( Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
And I have answered. Whether a non-admin nominator should be permitted to close their nominations as delete was not discussed at the RfC. Alakzi (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I do not support this. I think it is important to have an unrelated editor review the discussion before work begins on closing it, especially as many TfDs receive few comments. — Earwig talk 20:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
In order to inform the discussion, please can you point to a TfD that has been closed, contrary to consensus in the TfD, in this manner? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your question right—I can't provide an example of this, as to the best of my knowledge no or very few TfDs have been closed as delete by their own nominator yet. With that said, Special:Permalink/671179885#Template:1954 railway accidents is an example where a self-close as delete would have been arguably justified, and yet the end result was to keep after the uninvolved admin reviewing the discussion decided another course of action was better. Let me rephrase my original point more clearly. Many TfDs result in a soft-deletion-like outcome where only the nominator or one other editor participates in the discussion. In these cases, I believe it is important for an uninvolved editor (i.e., the closing administrator) to review the situation to see if that is the best outcome before the nominator begins orphaning/substituting the template and carrying out other post-closure work. I mean this as a form of sanity check. In cases where there is more substantial discussion and clear consensus, I don't see as much harm in a self-closure. But even then, how often would this be necessary or helpful? — Earwig talk 21:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, you mean a supervote. No evidence of any actual problem existing, though. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering why we don't start a thread on Jimbo's talk page too, then we can complete the set..... Anyway, to give you an analogy, I don't believe it's against policy for me to wander up to an unsourced article about some random pet cat created 3 minutes ago and delete it per WP:CSD#A7 without waiting for a tag; however you run the risk of somebody (legitimately) crying "abusive admin!" if you get it wrong. So my vote is, yes if it's blatantly WP:SNOW obvious and the template's very existence is causing extreme angst and vexation to the point of a nervous breakdown ... otherwise it's always best to get another opinion on stuff. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

  • In my view, the only times it is acceptable for anyone to close their own nomination are: (1) to withdraw the nomination; (2) to close it per WP:SNOW when (a) there have been several requests for a snow closure, (b) nobody else who regularly closes TfDs and who hasn't commented is active AND (c) leaving the nomination open while waiting for a neutral editor would disrupt the encyclopaedia; (3) when the discussion has been open a very long time (more than twice the normal duration) and multiple requests for closure from others have not been fulfilled. In all other circumstances somebody else should close the discussion, regardless of what the outcome is. Thryduulf (talk) 07:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't support a non-admin has no ability to delete, even their own posts, therefore they shouldn't be allowed to close anything as delete, further they shouldn't be closing anything they're involved with. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 10:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but you're outdated, KoshVorlon, community consensus was established, and enacted, that expressly gave non-admins the right to close TfDs as "delete", please see the RfC farther up this page. There was a reason to do so: closing the discussion is usual not the last step, after closing a discussion , there is "orphaning", "merging", "substitution" etc. which is a gigantic amount of work, partly backlogged since 2013, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell. Kraxler (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


Lets look at real example. I made this nomination on 25 July. Two other editors have agreed that the template should be deleted, one on each of the next two days. No-one else has commented. WP:NODEADLINE not withstanding, the discussion was due for closure from 1 August, and is now almost three weeks overdue. What harm befalls the project if I close it as "unanimous delete", orphan it by replacement of its 13 transclusions with a better alternative, and then tag it with {{Db-xfd}} for an admin to delete, which they would usually do within hours? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I just closed the "example" as "delete". Kraxler (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I would say that you should not close it, because WP:NACD says "closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion ... should be avoided", and nomination of the template accompanied by a deletion rationale does constitute the offer of an opinion. Unless of course that NACD guideline has been amended or repealed - if it has, then where was it discussed? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Last time I checked my dictionary "should be avoided" did not mean "is absolutely forbidden". Otherwise I refuse to take part in another time sink. Going back to work. Kraxler (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
We know what WP:NACD says. You should interpret and elaborate on the applicability of the guideline. Andy is arguing that, as the guideline appears to be of no benefit in this particular instance, it should be ignored. I expect, you'd now have to explain why it must be followed, besides it having the status of a guideline. In general, the prevailing arguments against "involved" closures appear to be the need for oversight and the avoidance of the appearance of impropriety. Alakzi (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The question was "what harm befalls the project", not "Which part of a guideline can be selectively quoted". I'm not sure how many times I'll need to repeat this, but once again: The page of which WP:NACD is a part is headed with a notice that it " best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". The NACD guideline does not require to be amended or repealed - it (like many others) already has a provision for such a case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
This is something that's never been done in practice or in policy, and in fact, it shouldn't be done according to the explicit wording. No one has ever had a problem with this simple concept until one editor decided to ignore it and brush off the people who obviously questioned him closing his nominations. It resulted in an AN thread in which consensus was overwhelmingly against performing involved closures, but the editor insisted that in spite if the cavalcade of dissenters and written deletion guideline to the contrary, this was an okay thing to do. So here we are, discussing this non-issue in yet another forum, because one belligerent editor insists on not listening to anyone else and wasting all of our time. I've extensively pointed out at AN why Andy's claim of IAR being applicable is a bad argument. Swarm 22:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
That would be the thread closed as no consensus. As for the "explicit wording" and "written deletion guideline", see above (so much for your "not listening to anyone else"). Why don't you address the example, and my question about it, for which this sub-section was started? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
You must be lost; this isn't the "Chastise Andy" subsection. Alakzi (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah right, that "reading of consensus" was a joke and didn't even mention what the discussion was even about at all. The consensus regarding this specific action was overwhelmingly obvious. And thanks for your input Alakzi, but you must be confused because I just gave an honest assessment of the situation. Swarm 06:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
This wouldn't be an issue, and we wouldn't be having this discussion, if there were more admins involved with TfD closures. It is only because the process is so backlogged that non-admins feel the need to NAC delete their own nominations. While there is no deadline, we can all agree that month-long delays waiting for discussions to close with clear consensus is frustrating and unproductive. I personally would have closed Andy's linked thread days ago had I not been busy working on a TfD closure script and also in the process of moving (ugh). The circumstances are far from ideal, so I can look the other way with these sorts of closures as long as they only come at a time of high backlog and there is very clear consensus. I would still prefer a strong admin poke (I am a willing recipient, in less stressful times than the next couple weeks), which is necessary anyway with the eventual {{db-xfd}}, but as long as the end result is the same expending energy arguing over the specifics seems like a waste of time. When we get more admins involved with this process and the wait time disappears, these closures are no longer necessary and shouldn't happen. — Earwig talk 00:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In the above example, the only thing anyone can possibly dispute regarding the outcome is that there were not enough participants. I'm not incredibly familiar with TfD and its normal levels of activity but I'm comfortable enough saying three people agreeing on deletion is good enough to close a TfD as delete. I would personally choose not to close a discussion I had started/participated in, unless there was an immediate need to do so, to avoid any appearance of impropriety; however, I don't object to anyone else closing discussions they're involved in if it really is obvious and uncontroversial. TfDs are very small scale and closes by participants are hardly going to destroy Wikipedia's reputation, while on the other hand, I would object to (e.g.) a 'crat closing an RfB they had !voted in, however obvious the outcome was, because it's an important decision that can have very severe consequences. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 14:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed modification for managing old unclosed discussions[edit]

I've been the only admin frequently closing TfDs recently. The new NAC processes have helped, but there's been a big backlog for a long time now and WP:TFD is still huge and difficult to navigate, often overrunning transclusion limits and making the oldest discussions harder to find. Last week I dumped a list of old unclosed discussions into my userspace (now at User:Opabinia regalis/TfD - and getting pretty dated, hooray!) by analogy to the way Mathbot curates Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs. I find this much easier to work with than Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions. I suggested here that AnomieBOT's TfD Clerk task be expanded to maintain a new subpage containing such a list, e.g. at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Old unclosed discussions. This seems to be an uncontroversial bookkeeping task, but: any objections?

Pinging others who have closed TfDs or worked on the holding cell backlog semi-recently and who might be interested: @Pigsonthewing, BU Rob13, BethNaught, Primefac, Codename Lisa, and Bazj; and other admins who have closed semi-recently @The Earwig, Northamerica1000, and Jenks24; and also @Dirtlawyer1 because it's his fault for dragging me into this in the first place I mean, because I'm sure he has insight on the matter ;) Feel free to ping whoever I forgot, if you think they care. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think turning TfD into something more closely resembling the AfD process will make it easier to keep track of things. In other words, the main TfD page should have a link to each day's templates for discussion rather than a transclusion of it. A bot could then count how many discussions are still open, allowing for easier archiving. I'd be happy to help out with the post-close actions (moving to the holding cell, doing the required actions, etc), but I think the main thing to focus on is making TfD easier to navigate. Primefac (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but "make a page with a list of links" is very easy, and "change the whole structure" is not :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I like Primefac's suggestion quite a bit. It makes little sense for our deletion processes to operate in different fashions. By the time admins/editors navigate to TfD, they've almost certainly encountered AfD (oddly, I went the opposite direction, but YOLO). If our processes are aligned and look/operate identically, it becomes more likely that admins/editors will jump into TfD and help reduce the backlog. In the interim, I have no objections with Opabinia regalis's suggestion for a new bot task. It sounds entirely uncontroversial to me. ~ RobTalk 22:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
As to Opabinia regalis' proposal I have no objections whatsover. Whatever helps you be more effective is fine by me! BethNaught (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I concur! My earlier comment was meant as a sort-of "first step" which would (hopefully) make the rest of the proposal easier. Primefac (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Looks OK to me, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

As a side note, I've finished up the TfDs in August 13, which was a date with a lot of nominations. Hopefully that will fix any remaining transclusion limit issues once the existing bot removes that date from the page. ~ RobTalk 23:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not know what is your concept of "closed some semi-recently" but I did so this month (well, maybe only one...? But I did). I do care, of the very few time I dedicate to WP I used to have TfD as my favorite spot; given the recent(?) excitement (and slight abuse, IMO) about NACs, I haven't looked there as much. If it worksm fine, but I do not like it. But I do care. To the point: I see no problem with Opabinia regalis' suggestion, and overall agree that the various XfD venues should get as similar as possible. - Nabla (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Nabla: bad memory, sorry :) I think the recent NACstravaganza can be ascribed to the state of the backlog. Thanks!
Agreed with all of the above that moving all of the various deletion venues to a common workflow would be much better. Wasn't this on the meta:Community Tech team agenda? Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
@Opabinia regalis: As a side note, I am still working on the TfD clerk script (and I realize I sound like a broken record at this point – another two weeks for a usable version!), which is the reason I haven't been doing closures here. I can add a feature to show all unclosed open discussions after the main clerk stuff is finished, assuming no one else has done it by the time I get to that point. — Earwig talk 01:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
@The Earwig: excellent, thanks!! (Hey, I can't complain about how other people spend their time on work I don't want to do at all! ;) It just seems to me that there are so few closers here because that the pages are hard to read, the post-closing edits are fiddly, and people instinctively think "Ew, templates! I don't understand those!" - so if the first problem is simple to fix, might as well fix it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
No problem, Opabinia regalis. - Nabla (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
In the past, a lot of TfDs were closed by Plastikspork (talk · contribs), who has not been very active for the last few months, hence the backlog. I personally avoid closing TfDs simply because of the outright hostility that goes on at TfD. I have mentioned this before. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Good call on pinging Plastikspork. Interesting, one of the reasons I went/go more to TfD than most XfDs is because it is (was?) less hostile than average. - Nabla (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering why anyone would actively choose TfD as their favorite :) I don't know, there seem to be a lot of hostile places around here lately. IIRC Plastikspork's decline in activity earlier this year was the reason some new admins, including me, were prodded to come take a look. I'd rather see more people involved - it's not so good if so many decisions are made by just a few people, even if most of them in isolation are simple - and I'm also trying to hand off some of the stuff I started working on around here over the summer, because I'm pretty busy IRL at the moment. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Opabinia regalis: I certainly have no objection to any bot task that would expedite and better organize TfD tasks. That said, we clearly need more administrators who are willing and able to close a few TfDs on a regular basis. BTW, where's NA1000 these days? He was closing a few per week . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC) @Redrose64: We could use your help closing a few TfDs on a regular basis. If anyone behaves badly towards you (i.e. "outright hostile"), send them my way. I'll explain a few things to him or her. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all. Sounds like we are in agreement that using a subpage to monitor unclosed discussions is a good idea, and other process improvements may be discussed separately later. @Anomie:, I originally asked you because your bot already does the log clerking; can you do this easily or should we wait for earwig's script? (In the meantime, for those interested, User:Opabinia regalis/TfD has been updated, hint hint :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Old unclosed discussions should be created by the bot soon. Fortunately I thought to say "Other tasks affecting only WP:TFD and subpages as determined by consensus at WT:TFD" in the original BRFA. ;) Anomie 23:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Excellent. — Earwig talk 23:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Good thinking :) That's great, thanks Anomie! Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed "Unmerge" of {{Incoherent}}[edit]

Discussion at Template talk:Incoherent shows consensus that the current situation is a mess and needs to be corrected - we have a template whose name and function disagree, confusingly. How do we now proceed? Is there a template guru around who can step in and help? PamD 23:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

TfDs which list a large number of "redundant" templates, when some are and some aren't[edit]

Recently, there have been some cases where editors have listed a large number of templates in a single nomination, on the grounds that they're all redundant. When this has happened, normally some users have opined "delete all", some have opined "keep all" due to believing that they're all useful, some have opined "merge" (sometimes but not always listing the sets of templates they want merged), and some have opined "keep" generically, "keep" for one template, or "keep all", because they think that one particular template from the set is not redundant to the others.

The result is that the TfDs are basically impossible to close satisfactorily. There are likely going to be some solutions that have consensus, but the form of the TfD doesn't make it possible to determine what they are. As a result, the TfD sometimes gets closed as "no consensus" (which has lead to rows over at DRV recently), and often doesn't get closed at all.

I think we need a new type of TfD resolution for this sort of TfD. In particular, the fix I'd recommend would be to close the TfD with no result, but that:

  • permits speedy renomination of smaller sets of the templates (as "redirect", "merge", "delete"); and
  • permits bold merges and redirections of the templates in question, so long as those merges/redirections have only a minor impact on pages currently transcluding the template; and
  • has no prejudice against nominating the names of templates that were boldly merged or redirected at RfD, if the change appears to have consensus (either on the templates' talk pages or, passively due to no objections within a reasonable time limit).

This would mean that there'd be an option for closing the nominations in question, to help to find a consensus where one exists. (There may well be a consensus to keep a particular template, keep a particular template name, merge two templates, delete one of the templates, or delete one of the template names after merging its functionality. That's five different cases for each template, and people rarely say what they mean at that level of detail in this sort of TfD. So we need a process that helps people to distinguish which of the cases they mean.)

The contrast would be with the current situation, some people are jumping straight from "some of these templates are redundant" to proposing the deletion of all the redundant templates and their names, all in one go. Perhaps that's actually going to be correct for some, or even all, of the templates. But in the case where consensus is less drastic than that, our current process makes it really hard to find where the consensus is.

Do people think this sort of TfD close is appropriate? Should it have a name? --ais523 17:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I certainly agree that such things can get convoluted. TFD doesn't explicitly have a BUNDLE clause like at AFD; maybe we should consider adding it to the main TFD page. Otherwise, I agree that some sort of NPASR could be used more often in no consensus situations, but that's less of a policy and more of a decision made by the closer. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
There is no need at all for "a new type of TfD resolution"; it is already possible for a closer to reach such a finding. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. There's a TfD I have my eyes on that's massively overdue for closing, and that I'm uninvolved in, and feel should be closed like that. If I did the close, though, I suspect I'd be facing down a DRV. (Partly that's because I'm not currently an admin, but TfD has reached the stage at which pretty much all the admins who work on closing it end up involved in the discussions and so can't close.) Getting consensus that this sort of close is sometimes/often appropriate (in general) first would help, thus this post. --ais523 18:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I presume the closing admin can always delete whichever templates received a consensus to delete, as keep those they see fit to keep, or merge, or no consensus, or whatever, as appropriate. That is "KEEP these because-of-this, DELETE those because-of-that, [and so on], NO CONSENSUS for the remaining". Certainly any that fell under a no consensus can be nomitaed soon after, and if bundling them didn't work the first time, the average nominator will consider trying something different, that is, to nominate in smaller groups - Nabla (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
This section is somewhat unneeded. There is a simpler solution to the issue. I think such nominations should be closed summarily, and the nominating editor advised, that they should relist the templates individually. Unless, of course, there is a clear connection between the templates (apart from that they are all perceived as redundant by the nominator), in which case they are likely to be treated as a group of templates rather than individual templates. Debresser (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


What do I do to get the unused Template:OuedEdDahabLagouira-geo-stub deleted? TfD says not to list stub templates or candidates for speedy deletion there, so I went to CfD which says to tag it for speedy deletion per CSD C1, but an admin reverted me when I tried to do that. What am I missing? Cobblet (talk) 04:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little confused too. As I understood it, the intended process is to file the template, and any categories that it (and no other template) populates, at CfD, but CfD doesn't seem to have filing instructions for that. The template that you'd use for the purpose used to be {{sfd-t}}, but that template seems to have been blanked (although a TfD a while back found that it was still useful?). If there's a category that you could file, I recommend filing that at CFD (CFD is good at deleting categories) and mentioning that you also want to delete the template populating it. If not, we'll probably have to wait for someone else to explain what happened process-wise when WP:SFD was merged into WP:CFD. --ais523 05:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Liz (talk · contribs) is right: WP:CSD#C1 is only for category pages, not templates. I don't see what part of WP:CSD says to tag it for speedy deletion (C1 or otherwise). But if you consider that it warrants speedy deletion (as opposed to discussed deletion), are any of the G criteria or T criteria applicable? If not, then a discussion is necessary, and being a stub template, that would take place at WP:CSD. It doesn't have its own stub cat (it's upmerged to Category:Morocco geography stubs and Category:Western Sahara stubs), so nominate as if it was an existing stub category, but don't name a category on the nom, just name the stub template. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The way this is done is by nominating the category, and mention that there is a template connected to it. The admin will delete both the category and the template, if the discussion is closed as a delete. This has been the instruction and procedure for as long as I know. Debresser (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@Debresser: No, this concerns {{OuedEdDahabLagouira-geo-stub}} which does not have a single category, it is upmerged to two separate categories, Category:Morocco geography stubs and Category:Western Sahara stubs. If those were to be nominated for deletion, that would imply that twelve other stub templates (such as {{Morocco-geo-stub}} and {{WesternSahara-stub}} that we definitely do want to keep) should be deleted with those two cats. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Stub templates that do not have their own category should be nominated at Tfd like al other templates. The reason is simple: the rule is that all templates should be nominated at Tfd, with the exception of those templates that exist mostly to add a category (simply put), like stub templates. In the case that stub templates don't have a category, there is no reason for the exception, and we stay with the general rule: Tfd. Debresser (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I think this makes a fair bit of sense, so I boldly updated the main TfD instructions. — Earwig talk 20:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I added a few words to your edit by way of explanation. Debresser (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)