RfC on nominating and closing template mergers edit
 | This draft RfC is not yet open for comments. Please discuss changes to the format of this RfC on the talk page, but do not comment on the topic of the RfC itself until it opens. |
Should a sandbox implementation be required before a template for discussion is closed as merge? ~~~~
Problem edit
Many templates are nominated for merging by users without the capability to perform the merge - and discussions are closed as merge, again, by a user without the capability to perform the merge. This has lead to a large backlog at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell.
Additionally, this has problems for template maintenance. Writing and merging complex templates is not an easy task, and what is and isn't feasible is not completely understood by the average TfD commenter. This can lead to bad conclusions of merge, based off of what some editors think make sense, but without considering whether merging the templates is technically a good idea.
Proposed solution edit
When a template is nominated for merging, the nominator should also provide a merged version of the specified templates in a template sandbox. If not provided, any passing user may merge the templates in a sandbox and list it as a comment in the discussion.
Without a merged sandbox, a discussion must not be closed as merge. If there is a clear consensus to merge, but no implementation, the discussion may be closed after fourteen days as consensus to merge, but no merged version available and said templates must not be re-nominated for merging without a merged version available.