Template talk:Old moves

Modification request
It's not entirely uncommon for RMs to be made without a specific name proposed. See here for an example of one that just closed. It usually happens, as it did there, when an editor is dissatisfied with a current name but isn't sure what it should be instead. Could the destination parameter of this template be made optional, then? It omitted, the notice would simply read, "It was proposed on that this article should be moved. The result of the debate was ." This will probably only occur with failed requests, or else we'd still have two names to work with. --BDD (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a belated note that this was ✅ on 2 February 2013‎ – Wbm1058 (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Question
Why does this template at Talk:United States federal government shutdowns of 1995 and 1995–96 display brackets right next to a bracketed link? Toccata quarta (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The link was a URL, and the template expects wiki links. This edit fixed it. – Wbm1058 (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

unprotect
, please unprotect the template (or semi protect it). It is not highly visible (its on talk pages), and it just have 511 transclusions. Christian75 (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's only semi-protected now. I changed it from template editor to semi. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 22:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks :-) Christian75 (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Editrequest
Please add a parameter to specify a revision link, as pages do get archived, so the discussion link can get broken. The revision link would specify the revision id of the closure.

This will add that links to result using a full URL revision link, if one is provided. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I see that you made this request after updating Talk:Parachutes and Talk:Parachutes (album). It is not necessary to update the template code to do this, and I fixed your parameters in those templates to do what you intended. The documentation should be updated to show both options for the parameter link – either a simple link to the current talk page or talk page section, or a permanent link instead. "Link" may be a poor choice of terminology for that parameter's name. It doesn't literally mean a url, but rather a wikilink without the   brackets. The template supplies the brackets, for the convenience of the editor. – Wbm1058 (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

dmy dates
I see that mdy dates are hardcoded into this template. Could we please have a parameter that lets us specify dmy dates, for those topics where dmy dates are used in the article itself? I wouldn't want new editors who look on the talk page be confused that mdy should be the default to use when this may indeed not be the case. I have no idea whether a talk page template can look for the dmy/mdy template in the article itself but if so, that would be the most elegant solution.  Schwede 66  18:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ugh, that's so annoying! Regardless of what format you supply, the template forces the mdy format. Doubly annoying given that the RM requests themselves use by default the opposite dmy format in their section headings. – Uanfala (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's really an easy fix and I've now added a dateformat with default value of mdy to preserve current behaviour during discussion. I'm not sure what the default value should be though. mdy, dmy and whatever the first parameter uses are the ones I'm considering here, but would like to hear your opinions @Schwede66 and Uanfala. --Trialpears (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Than you! But that makes things more complicated. Can't they be made simpler instead, by just accepting the format from the user's input? If there absolutely must be a default option, then it makes sense for that to be dmy: that's the default format that RM uses for the section heading, and it's the most commonly used format on Wikipedia articles as a whole: Use dmy dates has 4.5x more transclusions than Use mdy dates. – Uanfala (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, thank you, . Far more countries use dmy than mdy.  Schwede 66  16:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Uanfala My reasoning for using Module:Date when creating the module version was that when multiple dates were used that they would have a consistent format. That was (and still is to a lesser extent) not the case for many old moves transclusions. By using the date format used by the first entry in the list for all of them I think many of the concerns could be alleviated. What do you think about that solution?
 * Otherwise, I agree that dmy probably should be the default for the reasons you two mentioned and if no one objects in the next few days I will change the default. --Trialpears (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, so that's why! Yes, picking up the date format from the first listed move sounds like the best option, and sticking to dmy would be the next best thing. – Uanfala (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Turns out there isn't a ready made module for date format detection like I thought. I've just changed the default to dmy. --Trialpears (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

TfD of Template:old move and Template:old moves
FYI, and  has been nominated at Templates for Discussion. -- 65.92.246.246 (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * See Templates for discussion/Log/2020 November 28. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Module and merger
I've made a module version of this template at Module:Old move. It's based on the well established Module:Copied and support an arbitrary amount of discussions by iterating parameters (e.g. result2 and link3). Other changes include making the text closer to Old XfD multi and slightly shortening it, adding better support for missing parameters and adding to as a alias for destination.

Here are two examples from real articles with one and three discussions respectively. The one discussion version has been properly tested and should be bug free, but not the multiple discussion version as I intend to do that while migrating old moves transclusions.

What do you all think? If no one objects I will take the module live and start migrating transclusions in a few days. --Trialpears (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * looks good to me. TheTVExpert (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

After quite a few days this is now done, old moves conversion has been started (slowly). --Trialpears (talk) 10:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , would I be correct in assuming part of what is causing the (slowly) to appear in your message because it requires checking the number of old moves on the page? Primefac (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That isn't a big issue but more a slight annoyance. The actual issue is just how many different ways people format these as old moves essentially gives an empty text box for people to add whatever information they want. Haven't done any of these in a while but I intend on starting it up again shortly. --Trialpears (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

- - -
 * What do I think? I think this process was flawed from the get-go. The 28 November 2020 proposal was made by User:Sbb1413, who has subsequently been blocked for (disruptive editing, WP:CIR and racism per Special:Permalink/999244891 – so they're not available to help implement their approved proposal. 's close (after very limited participation from only three other editors) said there was a fairly straight consensus to merge to the "multi" version of this template family yet what I see above is an attempt to upgrade the singular form of the template, rather than merge it into the multi form. The multi form has titlen for showing move logs – I don't follow the need to make this "just like copied" as there are no "copied" logs equivalent to move logs. There are over 5000 transclusions of Old move and over 500 transclusions of Old moves and given the differing syntax between the two this isn't an easy merge to complete. Given that is the only editor to make any effort to finish this, and per "having an exciting time IRL with lots of stuff going on, but that also means that Wikipedia work is lower on my priority list", I think this task should just be abandoned and removed from Templates for discussion/Holding cell as "not broken, won't fix". Old move can simply be manually converted to Old moves when a page has multiple discussions. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As I just did HERE. Not trying to gin up more discord on the project than there already is ;) wbm1058 (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because something takes a long time doesn't mean that it won't ever be done. I knew Trialpears was taking point on this so I didn't really dive into the how-to of the actual implementation, but if they're stepping back from it (and I'd personally wait to hear back saying they're fine with someone else taking over) I can add it to the list of things that might actually get done some time this year if I ever stop being so busy. And, on the off chance that it's not possible to pull this off, I'll just trigger the "relist" part of my close and seek additional input regarding the original proposal. Primefac (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So, is this merge still happening? It's been more than two years since the TfD was closed, and both templates are still up. Now that Old move has support for multiple entries and has more than 13x the transclusions, wouldn't it make more sense to merge Old moves into it, instead of the reverse? –  Material  Works  11:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Short answer, yes. Primefac (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes,, if YOU volunteer to do it. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Broken with multiple moves
On pages where this template is used with multiple moves, it only shows the first one. See examples at Talk:LGBT, Talk:Bluey, and Talk:Zamboni (disambiguation). Ping @MaterialWorks. C LYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 17:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * That's because those pages are using the template with  and  . If you add a 1 to the numberless parameters, all of the moves will show up. That's a bug I'm aware of, but I haven't been able to fix it because I haven't had the time to rework how the module handles multiple moves (some IRL stuff got in the way). I'll try to fix it as soon as I can. –  Material  Works  17:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This should be fixed for now, I'll try to cook up a better solution later. – Material  Works  18:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 15 August 2023

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. As indicated by the support vote, both TFDs closed with the merge target being the plural name; I might be wrong but the merge to the singular was more for ease of merge than anything. Since this is more of an RM/TR situation I am closing this early. Primefac (talk) 08:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Template:Old move → Template:Old moves – Plural name reflects the template's capabilities better. The current name is a holdover from when it could only list a single move, but it can now list multiple moves. – Material  Works  23:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support. In the original merge discussion, the plural version was supposed to be the one that survived. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Unnamed parameter support
I came across two invocations with the unnamed parameter (1=). Sadly, they result in a no-op, effectively hiding content. Can we make it so this generates at the very list a categorization and an alert to the editors? --Joy (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Support for including move reviews
Could Module:Old moves have support added for listing move reviews? In my opinion, this would be helpful, as it would mean that moves & move reviews would be listed in a standardised format, and it wouldn't be necessary to use the parameter to manually format all the RMs/MRVs.

All the best, &zwj;—&zwj;a smart kitten[ meow] 04:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Fault with heading
There seems to be a fault causing the "Discussions:" header to appear twice when the template is collapsible. The fault can be observed in Template:Old moves/doc. Can anyone with more module expertise than me see what's happening? Bsherr (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * . I made this edit which should fix this problem. The one side effect is that if you invoke old moves with no parameters, it will now have "Discussions:" where it didn't before—invoking the template without any parameters is unhelpful and almost never used, so I think this is fine. Mz7 (talk) 06:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just thought of this fix which would get rid of even that side effect. Mz7 (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)