Wikipedia talk:Twinkle

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

LLMPROD

Tracked in github.com
Issue #2362

Any chance the recently adopted WP:LLMPROD could be added as an option in Twinkle? InfernoHues (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

On it! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:41, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

While you're at it, I think Template:Uw-llmblock and the associated block option might be a good add. (I'll add it to github when I get home though, I can't access GH from work) ASUKITE 17:25, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Already wrote a PR for that one. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 17:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Kermit the Frog waving his arms and going "Wheee!"

Seriously, given the volume at which we're doing LLMPROD, this would be so helpful. Thank you! M kuhner (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Tagging for Merge

Until recently, when I was reviewing drafts, and I clicked on the Tag tab for Twinkle, the tags that I was able to apply included {{merge from}}, {{merge to}}, and {{merge}}. I no longer see them in the Twinkle menu. Was a decision made to drop them? If so, why? I see that I can apply them manually, but that is less convenient, and Twinkle is a feature that is designed to provide convenience for reviewers and other editors. Have I missed something? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I see that these templates still say that they are associated with Twinkle, but I don't see them in Twinkle, either if I am listing the tabs in alphabetical order or in functional order. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

The templates were removed as part of the PAM-AfD merge process because the XFD module of twinkle now supports merges. Some of the merge templates are also set to become wrappers of AfD templates per a TfD consensus. You could use a new template {{Consider merging}}, but that isn't supported by twinkle yet, but it also doesn't create a discussion about the merge which could be helpful for the drafts use case. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Am I reading the general implications of this correctly that in order to request a merge, one chooses the "XFD" option with "Merge" as the desired outcome? Primefac (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

In order to open a discussion about a (potentially contentious) merge, yes. The “request a merge” use case is why I created the new template. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

In that case, I may have missed the boat. The uses that I was sometimes using these tags for do not involve merge discussions, but had to do with merging material from a declined draft into an existing article. That doesn't involve a formal discussion and is purely advisory to the submitter of the draft. So maybe there is just more work for the reviewer who wants to advise a draft submitter to merge their material into an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes. The {{Merge from}} and {{Merge to}} tags were removed to encourage folks to use the new XFD -> AFD -> Merge feature. There were gnomes going through new {{Merge from}} and {{Merge to}} tags converting them to AFDs, so we (@FaviFake and I) wanted to save them that work.

{{Consider merging}} is controversial and I've objected to it. I feel that if we still need a tag like that, then we should have just kept {{Merge from}} and {{Merge to}}. However the template is live so I guess that ship has sailed? If so then I guess use {{Consider merging}} or an AFC comment on drafts, since XFD -> AFD -> Merge doesn't work on drafts.

Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh, is {{Consider merging}} ready for showtime? Should we add it to the Tag module? –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

It should be be ready for use but I hadn't asked for it to be added yet because we hadn't finished the discussion on the objections to it existing and adding it to twinkle before we add it to the instructions at MERGING seems premature. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 07:47, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Sofixit § Requested move 23 May 2026

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Sofixit § Requested move 23 May 2026. FaviFake (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace § Requested move 24 May 2026

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace § Requested move 24 May 2026. CheeseAndJamSamdwich (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Moving {{Blocked talk-revoked-notice}}

I will be moving {{Blocked talk-revoked-notice}} to {{Uw-talkrevokednotice}} to better align with our current norms of user warning template naming norms, this will not break Twinkle since it will be a redirect but would also be good to update sometime, I can contribute a PR as well once someone acks. qedk (t 愛 c) 11:55, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeap, that all sounds like a good plan to me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

LLMPROD

Tracked in github.com
Issue #2362

Since WP:LLMPROD is now a guideline, it would be helpful if it were added to Twinkle as a PROD variation in the same way WP:BLPPROD is. Lovelyfurball (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

See above, under the topic with the same name from earlier, sounds like this is in the works. ASUKITE 17:25, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Listing for discussion of Template:Uw-salt

Template:Uw-salt 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. Toadspike [Talk] 10:50, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Loss of data when switching in AfD

Tracked in github.com
Issue #2382

Happened to me twice now, is annoying: Start nominating some article(s) at AfD, finish text, notice that the dropdown at the top says "deletion" but want instead "redirect", and poof, all text written below is gone. Why can't this just keep what is already there? Alternatively, remove that dropdown which doesn't do a lot otherwise. Fram (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I fixed this in 2382. – SD0001 (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Automated edit request to complete RfD nomination

I noticed yesterday that Twinkle generated an automated edit request on the talk page of a protected redirect that I nominated for RFD. This is super helpful! I think this may be a a new feature as this did not happen the last time I nominated an edit-protected redirect but I don't recall if I used Twinkle or used another tool or did it manually.

Could the edit request be amended to include instructions to leave an edit summary along the lines of Nominated for RFD at: [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 14#Article merge]] per edit request when completing the request? I used the full location for my nomination but obviously this should be modified to fit the relevant nomination. I haven't used this for other nominations of protected pages via Twinkle but I assume the functionality is similar, and could be updated similarly. This is similar to the instructions at WP:RFDHOWTO.

This may seem like a minor point but editors who work on redirects and participate in WP:RFDs often rely on edit summaries in the history to identify past discussions that may inform their assessment. There are of course other ways to find this information. In my experience {{Old RfD}} and {{Old XfD multi}} are often missing or incomplete, especially for redirects that were nominated many years ago.

Thanks for considering. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Talk page watching defaults

Now that topic subscriptions are a thing, I don't think most Twinkle users are going to be interested in watching the user talk page of the initial contributor to a page beyond the notice of the XfD (which they will generally be automatically subscribed to). Could we change the default Twinkle settings to reflect this? Sdkb ^talk 01:33, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Feature request: option to suppress username in edit summary upon revert

Tracked in github.com
Issue #2381

I originally brought this up on GitHub where Novem Linguae (talk · contribs) had some really useful thoughts and advice, and directed me here for better discussion and seeing if there's a consensus to be had.

To compress what I wrote on GitHub: we have a number of high-speed vandals who register abusive usernames, often insulting specific editors, then go on a spree.

Twinkle is the fastest way of non-admins reverting them while we wait for action at AIV, but leaves an edit summary that reads Reverted 1 edit by [Abusive Username] (talk) to last revision by [Previous Editor] This is causing extra work for administrators who go back and suppress the edit summary in order to reduce disruption.

There is a workaround (manually undoing the abusive edits and replacing the default edit summary with RVV or the like) but this is far slower than using Twinkle directly — important when the vandal is a high-speed one editing high-traffic and highly visible pages.

A possibility might be in the tools presented in the diff view, by adding a fourth option:

[rollback (AGF)] || [rollback] || [vandalism] || [LTA]

The [LTA] button would generate a username-less edit summary: Reverted 1 edit to last revision by [Previous Editor]. If this is likely to be misused (I don't see how, but it's possible), having it in the Options so it has to be deliberately turned on rather than being present by default might mitigate that?

Novem points out [t]here's a lot of newbies that use Twinkle. You only need to be autoconfirmed. Some might mash the LTA button without knowing what LTA means.

A better name/label might be a solution, or moving that particular button to be less prominent perhaps. I'd be grateful for all input on this overall idea, even if it's only to tell me to slink away! • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 16:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to quote from the git:

I think the "An optional comment for the edit summary:" popup is implemented via JavaScript prompt(), which is extremely simple code but also completely un-customizable with check boxes. We would need to add a bunch more code to pop up a Morebits form that had a check box. Do-able, but not a simple change.

There's a check box for Prompt for reason for normal rollbacks in the TW prefs, and if I'm not mistaken it's ticked by default. If it's not, can we make it that way? seems like that would take care of it for the majority of users. Primefac (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I believe the resulting edit summary would still be

Reverted 1 edit by [Abusive Username] (talk) to last revision by [Previous Editor]: [reason given in JS box]

and thus wouldn't solve the issue? • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 17:04, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Right, forgot it's an addendum not an overwrite. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

From a sandbox test, the resulting edit summary suppresses the [Previous Editor] but not the [Abusive Username] part. Bum! • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 17:10, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to respond to the "is there consensus", as someone who is constantly hiding edit summaries because of this, I absolutely support it. Primefac (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Is there a technical or policy reason why we name the account being reverted in the edit summary, in Twinkle or in native rollback, other than transparency and/or because we always have? • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 17:33, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

No, just best practice to give as much useful information as possible (who, what, why, etc). Primefac (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Got a preference on which solution should be implemented? –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I like the idea of the "LTA" button, but I think the best option is just change the default edit summary to omit the username altogether (i.e. in all cases). Primefac (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Survey: remove the vandal's username from the Twinkle rollback vandal edit summary

Thoughts? Credit to Primefac for the idea in the comment above this one. I am neutral, Primefac supports. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support. I hate making ongoing work for other people, but hitting [rollback] (native or Twinkle) when faced with the fifth variation of "Respected Editor Name is a commienazi" today is basically muscle memory and I will keep doing it without thinking. Primefac's idea reduces that work and I don't believe, personally, that it reduces transparency enough to matter. • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 20:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Module talk:Module wikitext § Template-protected edit request on 16 June 2026

 You are invited to join the discussion at Module talk:Module wikitext § Template-protected edit request on 16 June 2026. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Use Rollback API if rollback perms

Reverts using the Twinkle rollback links would probably be much faster if the Rollback API was used rather than the undoafter API, by reducing unnecessary API calls. This would only affect rollbackers and administrators, other users would continue using the older API. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 17:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Bug report for a non-English welcome template

Issuing {{welcomeen-ja}} to a user resulted in a duplicate header with nothing beneath it. [1] –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:58, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Not seeing anything obvious in the template code that would do it. Primefac (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Bug: can't type in user talk warning template selection drop-down on mobile Firefox

• Android 16, Firefox
• Open a diff page and revert it by tapping the vandalism button
• User talk page automatically opens and shows warning template selection dialog
• Tapping in the selection text input field to search for a template correctly brings up soft keyboard (with digit row) but keystrokes don't register
• Next, toggle the desktop mode in Firefox menu to bring up the user talk page in desktop mode
• Tapping in the selection dialog now correctly brings up soft keyboard (with digit row) and keystrokes work normally to filter the templates

This bug appeared maybe a month or two ago, and if I remember right it happened at the same time the digit row was added to the soft keyboard for this input field. If this description is confusing, I made a screen recording which demonstrates it and I'm happy to share on Discord. --tony 23:31, 25 June 2026 (UTC)