Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nardog (talk | contribs) at 12:38, 24 July 2019 (→(Usually) unnecessary leading colon in wikilink for current title: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Requested move template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 years

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Requested move template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 years

Remove the automated section heading?

Some editors tend to add the title of the request without realizing the automated "Requested move day month year" heading. If removal is not a good option, what else shall we do? --George Ho (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

And this still continues. --George Ho (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

This behavior was implemented in December 2014 per Updating the template to use the "RMtalk" default section header. The rationale was to merge {{RMtalk}}, which automated the section heading, with {{Requested move}}, which did not. The problem is, for every editor who adds a redundant header when the template creates an automated header, there is another editor who neglects to create a header, or doesn't create a unique header, when the template does not create an automated header. It's probably easier to remove redundant headers than to diagnose and fix certain scenarios that may occur when a unique header is not created. I've been hoping that Phabricator T22307 would provide the solution for this, but development and implementation of that has been frustratingly slow. Code fixes were done at a May 2017 hackathon, but it's been stalled since then, still waiting for review. Another possible enhancement, and way to work around this, is to develop an input form for submitting requested moves, so that direct use of {{subst:Requested move}} will no longer be necessary. Editors would simply fill out the form, click Submit and then the form would internally use {{subst:Requested move}} to complete the request. I might look into trying that approach again, to try to reduce the number of malformed requests. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 27 May 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per my comments below. wbm1058 (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Requested move/dated → ? – This template does not take a |date= parameter, so the subpage /dated is incorrect. Pppery 15:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Despite what the bot is positing on WP:RMCD, this is a request to move Template:Requested move/dated, not Template:Requested move. Pppery 15:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
• What problem are you trying to solve? Perhaps "dated" isn't the best term to use here, but I don't see a sufficient rationale for compelling two bot operators to change their source code, and requiring documentation updates as well. The action of substituting {{subst:Requested move}} "dates" the RM transaction, though the date is placed outside the Template:Requested move/dated parameters, so that the date of the request is preserved after {{Requested move/dated}} is deleted. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I see that /dated is also used for Template:Article for deletion/dated. It's fine for the date parameter to be part of that template, as if the page is deleted, everything is gone, and whether the date is a parameter inside the template or text placed outside the template is irrelevant. RM is a different use case. wbm1058 (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Format of "new title to be determined by discussion" requests

A link is being created to the question mark: {{no redirect|?}}

This is local defaultNewPagename = '?' -- Name of new pages that haven't been specified

As this is not the literal meaning of the request, this should be changed to just boldface the ? without linking: '''?'''

Thanks. wbm1058 (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I just removed the overlink though. I decided not to boldface it. wbm1058 (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Support for WikiProject talk pages hosting significant multi-move discussions

I've updated the module to support hosting significant multi-move discussions on WikiProject talk pages or other talk pages in Misplaced Pages: namespace. {{{current1}}} is thus un-deprecated. {{Requested move/dated}} and RMCD bot already support this with no updates to their code necessary.
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Trucks is currently hosting such a discussion: Requested move 25 September 2017. Common discussion pages such as WikiProject talk pages can still only host one open RM discussion at a time. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Misnested <small> tag_tag-2017-10-29T11:44:00.000Z">

This template has a misnested <small> tag that should be fixed. It appears this error has persisted for many versions. —Anomalocaris (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)_tag"> _tag">

Anomalocaris, I don't see any <small> tags used here. Perhaps you're referring to uses of Template:Relisting to relist requested moves? Can you point me to a specific open requested move where the problem is manifested? Thanks. wbm1058 (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

wbm1058: Sorry! I should have posted this at Template talk:Requested move/dated and I will do so. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, what originally happened was that I went to Template talk:Requested move/dated, which redirects here. Starting over:

{{Requested move/dated}} has a misnested <small> tag that should be fixed. It appears this error has persisted for many versions. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)_tag"> _tag">

Anomalocaris, oh, I see. Sorry. This is a centralized discussion page for both templates, so we can handle it here. I didn't think to look at the "sub-template" since you didn't make the distinction. wbm1058 (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Anomalocaris, I'm not sure what the problem is, but if you have a proposed solution you may edit Template:Requested move/dated/sandbox to use it, then we can review it. wbm1058 (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

wbm1058: In the past 3 months, I have edited a few templates, but this is way above my pay grade. I assume that when you say "I'm not sure what the problem is," you are acknowledging that template does yield a misnested <small> tag, but like me, you don't know how to fix it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Anomalocaris, no, I mean that I don't immediately see any obvious problem.

Internally, it uses Template:Tmbox which in turn runs Module:Message box which has <small> tags in it. There could be some interaction there.

Where and how do you see the problem? wbm1058 (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

In the following, easily found on Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Requested_move/dated, we have {{Requested move/dated}} generating a misnested <small> tag.

Talk:Tensor : {{requested move/dated|?}}

Talk:Church (building): {{requested move/dated|Church building}}

Talk:Xinjiang: {{requested move/dated|Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region}}

Talk:State of Palestine: {{requested move/dated|multiple=yes |current1=State of Palestine|new1=Palestine|current2=Palestine|new2=Palestine (disambiguation)|current3=Palestinian flag|new3=Flag of Palestine|}}

Talk:NATO phonetic alphabet: {{requested move/dated|ICAO phonetic alphabet}}

Talk:Human swimming: {{requested move/dated|multiple=yes |current1=Human swimming|new1=Swimming|current2=Swimming|new2=Swimming (disambiguation)|}}

Talk:Saraiki dialect: {{requested move/dated|Saraiki language}}

Talk:Fiddle: {{requested move/dated|Fiddling}}

There are undoubtedly hundreds more examples from the same source.—Anomalocaris (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

So it seems you see this with every single transclusion of the template. Is there anything wrong with the visible appearance of the page when you look at it? Templates are above your grade; to some extent html tags are above mine. What exactly do you mean by "misnested"? I use <small>say something!</small> to write small text: say something! "say something!" is nested between the tags, which makes the text small. I assume you're seeing this in the raw html produced by the page. Can you show me the exact syntax issue you see in the raw html? I still don't see it. wbm1058 (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)_tag"> _tag">

wbm1058: For more on misnested tags, go to Lint errors: Misnested tags and click on "Help" in the upper right corner. In example 4, <small>...</small> tags wrap around multiple bullets. This is not allowed because bullets are coded as <li>...</li>, and <small>...</small> can't wrap that; <small>...</small> has to be inside <li>...</li>. In {{Requested move/dated}}, we had a similar situation with two cases of <small>...<div>...</div></small>. These had to be rewritten as <small>...</small><div><small>...</small></div>. (There are several oversimplifications in this explanation, but it's good enough.)

So, with that, I fixed it. I guess I get a raise now. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The Linter extension is apparently something added in the past year, that I wasn't aware of (I may have seen a notice, then forgot it). I just added it to my list at Help:SpecialPages. I see these are listed as "medium priority" at Special:LintErrors, and there's only some half-a-million more left to fix. I never noticed any misnested tag warning on pages with open requested moves. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

wbm1058: If I had a magic wand, I would make it so that "Show preview" and "Save changes" would warn users of lint errors, or at least new lint errors. But that's not how it works now. There are no misnested tag, or any other lint error, warnings to notice, so if you want to find lint errors:

• You can go to Lint errors.
• The tools menu on (almost) every page has a "Page information" link, which gives a page that lists, near the bottom, a count of the various lint errors (if there are any), but no further info telling you where to find the them.
• User:PerfektesChaos/js/lintHint describes a tool you can install that identifies and localizes lint errors while you are editing.

—Anomalocaris (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Displaying in article page

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I am a user of malayalam wikipedia. I would like to know the statements in the module that needs to be changed for displaying the message of requested move in the article page and not in talk page. Adithyak1997 (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You'll need to modify the part that starts with if not title.isTalkPage then. Huon (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Huon, I have removed lines 213 to 224 of the module from malayalam version but the warning "This template is misplaced. It belongs on the talk page" is shown. How can that be removed?Adithyak1997 (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know Lua in general nor the Misplaced Pages-specific parameters used in this module and thus have to guess, but I'd try if not title.isArticle then or something like that, something that, instead of checking whether you're off a talk page, checks whether you're off an article. If you can't guess the correct word, you can remove that entire if clause outright, but then your template can be placed anywhere, talk page, article, wherever. You may also want to take a look at the next if clause which makes sure the template appears on the talk page of the article to be moved. To me that one seems as if only the text of the message might need changing; otherwise it also could be removed outright if you don't mind losing a little more functionality. Huon (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

If an RM is closed and reopened

If an RM discussion is closed and reopened, will the RMCD bot come back and tag the discussion as an RM again after delisting it? In other words, how do I make the discussion a requested move again? —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Move links

Rather than the "direct move" link in the box, I would like to have a link to move each article in the list underneath. This would make things easier when multiple pages are to be moved. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Pppery: is this something you could help with please? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Martin, the change would need to be made in Template:Requested move/dated, which is still a conventional template. Since Template:Requested move was converted to use Module:Requested move, the former hard-coded limit on the number of moves in a request (20 or 30) was eliminated, and now we sometimes see requests to move over 100 pages. So while I don't think Template:Requested move/dated needs to be entirely converted to Lua, I think a Lua module could be coded as a function or subroutine called by Template:Requested move/dated to generate the "links" portion of that template. I've yet to take a deep-dive into learning more Lua coding to become more proficient with it, but a task like this, which I agree would be very helpful, motivates me more to do it. So if nobody else picks up the ball with this, it's on my radar, and I may get to it eventually. I'm juggling a lot of balls on Misplaced Pages. wbm1058 (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for you reply, but I'm not sure you are correct. Requested move/dated produces the tmbox at the top of the move discussion. But it does not produce the list of pages beneath that box. And it is this list that I want to modify. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The list beneath the box is the permanent record of the request – anything written there remains after the move is closed. the tmbox holds the temporary part of the request (a move is closed, from the bot's view, when the tmbox is removed). As I don't think any "move" links should remain after a move is formally closed, the move links should all be inside the tmbox. A lot of multi-move requests are for just two pages, e.g. requests to change a primary topic. It shouldn't be hard to add links in the template for a second page into the tmbox to handle these. But the big requests to move more than two, sometimes a lot more than two pages, need some sort of programming to handle. Another approach would be to develop a (Javascript) tool to assist with these moves. All the information needed to produce the move links is contained inside the tmbox, for example:

{{requested move/dated|multiple=yes |current1=2018 FIBA Europe Under-16 Championship|new1=2018 FIBA U16 European Championship|current2=2018 FIBA Europe Under-18 Championship|new2=2018 FIBA U18 European Championship|current3=2018 FIBA Europe Under-20 Championship|new3=2018 FIBA U20 European Championship|current4=2018 FIBA Europe Under-16 Championship for Women|new4=2018 FIBA U16 Women's European Championship|current5=2018 FIBA Under-18 Women's European Championship|new5=2018 FIBA U18 Women's European Championship|current6=2018 FIBA Europe Under-20 Championship for Women|new6=2018 FIBA U20 Women's European Championship|current7=2017 FIBA Europe Under-16 Championship|new7=2017 FIBA U16 European Championship|current8=2017 FIBA Europe Under-18 Championship|new8=2017 FIBA U18 European Championship|current9=2017 FIBA Europe Under-20 Championship|new9=2017 FIBA U20 European Championship|current10=2017 FIBA Under-16 Women's European Championship|new10=2017 FIBA U16 Women's European Championship|current11=2017 FIBA Europe Under-18 Championship for Women|new11=2017 FIBA U18 Women's European Championship|current12=2017 FIBA Europe Under-20 Championship for Women|new12=2017 FIBA U20 Women's European Championship|current13=2016 FIBA Europe Under-16 Championship|new13=2016 FIBA U16 European Championship|current14=2016 FIBA Europe Under-18 Championship|new14=2016 FIBA U18 European Championship|current15=2016 FIBA Europe Under-20 Championship|new15=2016 FIBA U20 European Championship|current16=2016 FIBA Europe Under-16 Championship for Women|new16=2016 FIBA U16 Women's European Championship|current17=2016 FIBA Europe Under-18 Championship for Women|new17=2016 FIBA U18 Women's European Championship|current18=2016 FIBA Europe Under-20 Championship for Women|new18=2016 FIBA U20 Women's European Championship|}}

Lua modules can use loop coding to check if |current18= and |new18= exist, but it's really a mess to try to hard-code that kind of test into a conventional template.

An issue with the current system design is that the list below the tmbox duplicates the data contained within the tmbox. If an editor decides to change the parameters of a request after-the-fact, they need to make changes in two places – both inside and outside of the tmbox. Often editors change parameters below the tmbox, while neglecting to make the necessary parallel changes inside the tmbox. A possible solution to this might be to only create the "permanent record" at the time the request is formally closed. It's a problem that's been on deep end of my to-do list for a long time. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I take your point about the temporary/permanent record. But putting extra links in the box will effectively mean we are showing the list of articles twice when the discussion is open. I also agree that a fundamental rewrite may be in order, and offer the following suggestion. If {{Requested move/dated}} produced the list of articles as well as the tmbox, then when we close a discussion we could just change the /dated to some other subtemplate like /fulfilled, which would keep the list of articles but without the move links. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The other piece that may become part of the solution for this is {{Requested move/old}}. That template or its coding, could be part of the system that converted the temporary record to the permanent record at the time the move was closed. Still would need to be converted or partially converted to use Lua. Another consideration is how a move would be re-opened if an appeal was made to the closing admin or that was called for by a move review. Probably just by reverting to an earlier version of the page. wbm1058 (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Noting this edit I made back in 2015. The old code for this may point the way to how the request can be handled by {{Requested move/dated}} while the request is still open. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I keep my "to-do list" (for RMCD bot) on the bot's talk page. The relevant section is User talk:RMCD bot#Problems caused by syntax redundancy, when an RM is modified while open. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

(Usually) unnecessary leading colon in wikilink for current title

Below the {{requested move/dated}} header, this template generates wikitext like: ] → {{no redirect|Bar}}

I've long been puzzled by that leading colon. After reading WP:COLONTRICK, I'm thinking it's there in the case of articles whose titles begin with a slash? But would it not be possible to conditionally add the colon only if the title actually does begin with a slash? Or are there other scenarios that this guards against?

Pretty trivial, I know, but I think it would be at least a tiny quality of life improvement to exclude it when it's not needed (i.e. the vast majority of cases). When I participated in RMs (before I investigated this), if I copied and pasted the article link from the top of the section, I would go back and remove the colon, just because I was vaguely concerned that using this spooky mysterious syntax feature might have some undesirable effect. Colin M (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

That colon was introduced by this 8 December 2012 by Zzyzx11. Just three days later, my 11 December 2012 edit made the need for that moot. As Template:Requested move is also not for categories (see Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion), I guess the link doesn't need a leading colon, but on the other hand, I'm not sure I see the harm in keeping it there. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The colon is required not only for categories and pages starting with a slash but also for the File namespace. It doesn't affect the appearance, so introducing a code to check whether the colon is necessary seems way more complicated than it needs to be IMHO. Nardog (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)