Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requested moves

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:RM)
Enter the title (or part of a title) to search for after "intitle:", then click "search"
Try other variants (e.g. "move discussion") to broaden or narrow your search

How to fix malformed request?

[edit]

I messed up placing the template at Talk:Autobiographical comics. I tried to fix it but have doubts it will work. What do I do? (Sorry about the inconvenience.) RJFJR (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RJFJR: The template is currently correct, but you haven't stated a reason for the move. You should replace "Please place your rationale for the proposed move here" with a rationale, which can be brief. SilverLocust 💬 23:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SilverLocust: Thank you. I've filled in a reason. RJFJR (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just generally speaking, if you screw up a subst, just replace what got messed up with a new subst. Primefac (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closure

[edit]

This discussion was opened 3 weeks ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Tabaeen_school_attack#Requested_move_10_August_2024

It needs closure. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closure requests are made at Wikipedia:Closure requests rather than here. This one has been listed. SilverLocust 💬 20:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should…

[edit]

…contested moves with a participants after the seven-days-period be treated as RMNOMIN? Best, Reading Beans 04:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean "with no participants".
Depends what was said in contesting the request.
  • If it's just something like "I'm not sure about this given ..." or "There has previously been disagreement about ...", then I wouldn't consider that an objection to the move.
  • If the contesting comment indicates disagreement with the move, then it shouldn't be considered unopposed. You could reference the contesting comment in a relisting comment or copy it into the RM.
  • In either event, the contesting comment should be taken into account in evaluating (per WP:RMNOMIN) whether the move is consistent with policies, guidelines, and conventions.
SilverLocust 💬 05:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! “No participants”. Thank you for thoughtful response. Best, Reading Beans 08:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate for deletion & then move, or just move?

[edit]

I nominated Park Sung-hoon for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Park Sung-hoon (2nd nomination)) as it is now just a disambiguation page for 1 article; I assumed that the page should be deleted and then Park Sung-hoon (actor) should be moved into its place. But now I'm thinking I should've just skipped the deletion step and just nominated Park Sung-hoon (actor) for a move to Park Sung-hoon and just let the disambiguation page WP:USURPTITLE'd

Do I withdraw the deletion nom (can I?)? Or just let it run its course and then move Park Sung-hoon (actor) when the page is deleted? RachelTensions (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RachelTensions: Yes, you can withdraw the AfD because nobody has commented yet. I do recommend just requesting a move of Park Sung-hoon (actor) to Park Sung-hoon (while mentioning that the proposed title is a disambiguation page that will be unneeded per WP:ONEOTHER). If moved, the disambiguation page will be dealt with as cleanup. SilverLocust 💬 17:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either is fine, but I do agree it looks like a withdrawal and further {{db-move}} request will be easier. Primefac (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was just notified to this discussion existence after I had !vote on the AfD earlier today. Was this closure cum withdrawal allowed when I had already !vote on it? I believe is an procedure infringement, either we uninvolved snow it or let it run the full course. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sigh. Page deleted per {{db-move}}, because getting too hung up on pedantry is silly. Primefac (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current Discussions bot needs to do better than copy, wrap, paste

[edit]

It seems that Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions is maintained by a bot that copies everything inside the user's original subst'd {{Requested move}} template, and wraps it all into one paragraph that begins with an asterisk (*), which encodes for a bulleted list entry. Moreover, it appears that upon editing the lead paragraphs of a talk page section created with this template, the bot automatically updates Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions. More intelligence is needed. Talk:Sloboda#Requested move 24 August 2024 has a discussion that includes {{hidden}}. Putting this template in a paragraph beginning with asterisk causes four lint errors: two missing end tags for <div> and two stripped tags for </div>. I edited that talk page and inserted a blank line above {{hidden}}, to see what the bot would do. Well, the bot inserted two spaces before {{hidden}}, but the template is still in a paragraph beginning with asterisk, so the four lint errors are still there. Similarly, Template talk:WP LGBTQIA has a discussion that includes {{Not a ballot}}. Putting this template in a paragraph beginning with asterisk causes a multiline table in list lint error. And that's what the bot did. The bot needs more sophistication to avoid creating lint errors in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions.

Also, near the top of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions is the markup

'''This list is also available''' in a '''[[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions (alt)|page-link-first format]]''' and in '''[[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions (table)|table format]].''' nnn discussions have been relisted.''

which has a spurious close italics ('') at the end, which needs to be removed. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions no longer includes the discussion on Template talk:WP LGBTQIA, but you can find it in the version of 00:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC), just before that section was removed. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the hidden note is causing issues, it should be moved from the request itself to the first comment. In general, the request shouldn't be a wall of text. Gonnym (talk) 08:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with this. There are times when it is helpful to add a copy of the signature closer to the top of the request to prevent a wall of text from appearing here. Dekimasuよ! 09:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, the point of using {{hidden}} was to not make it a wall of text :)
Please update the software and/or the instructions if people filing RMs should do something differently in the future, I don't recall ever seeing any warnings against the use of the hidden template there. --Joy (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My original proposal was to modify the bot to avoid picking up templates that shouldn't be bulleted. That still might be worth doing, but it seems that we should also ask users to avoid using templates that shouldn't be bulleted. Template:Requested move/doc#Specified new name includes the bulleted item "Why ... = your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate". We could put, right below that, a two-asterisk indented bullet something like, "Please do not include templates that expand to tables, such as nav templates or {{Not a ballot}}, and also avoid collapse templates such as {{collapse}} and {{hidden}}." Comments? —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that sounds like an improvement over the current phrasing. And obviously saying something like "Please post any such extra information afterwards, as a comment." after that. --Joy (talk) 08:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I enhanced the bot in October 2023 to support {{collapse top}} & {{collapse bottom}}. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wbm1058: Could you add support for {{hidden}}? Is there a systematic way to support the whole family of collapse templates? —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It took me a while to realize that though the {{hidden}} problem was only reported here yesterday, it was created a month ago. Was it really "hidden" for that long, before anybody noticed any problem? Of course, that means this discussion, which generally is only supposed to run a week, has been open for over a month, too. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in the grand scheme of things it would actually be more helpful if more people read the Sloboda discussion and said "yeah the medieval settlement type is what we really want everyone to read first" or "yeah the English reader doesn't know this term, it's really ambiguous" and we get over it sooner rather than later :D --Joy (talk) 09:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves&oldid=1248445782"