| Revision as of 08:02, 24 July 2019 edit1992 FARHAAD (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,810 edits →New name← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:26, 24 July 2019 edit undoWbm1058 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators265,445 edits →Suggested rearrangement of notice text: commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| The discussion is arguably the most important link, so I like putting it at the front. (Sorry, not sure if there's a better place to propose/discuss this) ] (]) 12:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC) | The discussion is arguably the most important link, so I like putting it at the front. (Sorry, not sure if there's a better place to propose/discuss this) ] (]) 12:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC) | ||
| :OR, if we think of this template as a sort of hatnote, we could respect the guidance given by ], ] '''Don't''' include ''']''' in an entry. "The purpose of a disambiguation page is to direct a reader seeking information on a specific topic to the right page. Strictly speaking, entries should be just sufficient for this purpose." There is a relatively small subset of editors who view article-space notices as an eyesore, and are opposed to them. WIth this in mind, when I created this template, I kept it short and simple, with one blue link. Others have since added aditional links and guidance (perhaps scope creep) which is redundant to the links and guidance given by ], which is the first thing readers will see after clicking that one blue link. – ] (]) 10:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == wikidata item == | == wikidata item == | ||
Revision as of 10:26, 24 July 2019
Suggested rearrangement of notice text
The text of this notice currently looks something like:
It has been requested that the title of this article be changed to Foo. Please see the relevant discussion on the discussion page. The page should not be moved unless the discussion is closed; summarizing the consensus achieved in support of the move.
The first time I saw one of these, I clicked the link on the word 'requested' thinking that it would bring me to the specific request about the article I was reading (rather than WP:RM which generically explains the requested move process). It took a while to train myself not to click that link, but rather the 5th link in the text (on the phrase "discussion page"). I feel like this is probably an easy mistake to make. What about a minor rearrangement/rewording along these lines:
There is a discussion underway about changing the title of this article to Foo via the requested moves process. The page should not be moved unless the discussion is closed; summarizing the consensus achieved in support of the move.
The discussion is arguably the most important link, so I like putting it at the front. (Sorry, not sure if there's a better place to propose/discuss this) Colin M (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
- OR, if we think of this template as a sort of hatnote, we could respect the guidance given by WP:DDD,
Don't include multiple blue links in an entry. "The purpose of a disambiguation page is to direct a reader seeking information on a specific topic to the right page. Strictly speaking, entries should be just sufficient for this purpose." There is a relatively small subset of editors who view article-space notices as an eyesore, and are opposed to them. WIth this in mind, when I created this template, I kept it short and simple, with one blue link. Others have since added aditional links and guidance (perhaps scope creep) which is redundant to the links and guidance given by Template:Requested move/dated, which is the first thing readers will see after clicking that one blue link. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
wikidata item
I have created one wikidata item for this page at wikidata:Q65923863 and ported this page to fa.wiki but don't know why the fa.wiki link is not shown here while there is no problem in fa.wiki. --Editor-1 (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
New name
@Editor-1: Have you notified the bot owner and made sure this doesn't break anything? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- No, I didn't think that it brings any problem. Is there such possibility?! --Editor-1 (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think the bot will crash, but it will most likely keep using the old template. The maintainer has this page on their watchlist, so they will likely see this and change the name used in code (but then all pages need to be updated or code needs to detect both names). I have no idea what other tools or scripts may be using this template by name. You also didn't move the subpage User:RMCD bot/subject notice/doc. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Done Template:Title notice/doc, I was too busy and forgot it |: -- It should be made from the beginning as a standalone template like Template:Requested move and Template:RMassist, because other WP languages have the equal needs. --Editor-1 (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Which says, "This notice is intended to be automatically placed by User:RMCD bot, as part of the requested moves process. Please do not manually transclude this page. Follow the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves." Have you ported the bot to other languages? The next thing I foresee happening is editors putting {{Title notice}} at the top of articles, then asking "Why didn't anyone start a discussion on the talk page"? wbm1058 (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- It is a work-in-progress in fa.wiki, after porting this template, next step is to set one bot to place it automatically after using the Template:Requested move. --Editor-1 (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)