Template talk:Requested move/Archive 3

Hide advice when it was followed
Would it be a good idea to hide the advice Please use. Do not use directly. when the editor actually used substitution? For example, add parameter help to Template:requested move/dated and use off in Template:requested move, similar to parameter help of Template:Mfd. —⁠andrybak (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Would you be able to sandbox it? --Bsherr (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * please see Special:PermaLink/940778487. Diffs: Template:Requested move/dated/sandbox + Module:Requested move/sandbox. —⁠andrybak (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Please apply these two diffs to Template:Requested move/dated and Module:Requested move: Demonstration: Special:PermaLink/940778487. —⁠andrybak (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Special:Diff/940746352/940746962
 * 2) Special:Diff/850941920/941058708
 * ✅. I hope that's working okay &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You guys don't understand what happens when the advice isn't followed: HERE somebody just copy-pasted somebody else's properly substituted template – of course they simply copied the  to "prove" that the template had been properly substituted... so that solution doesn't solve anything other than to remove the annoying advice from every transclusion of the template. Maybe a better idea is to make it a  that they will see in their edit window. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, if this change is causing more trouble than it is worth, I'm all for just reverting this change. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI, Here's an example of an edit made by a user driving thru without reading the owner's manual. I anticipated that this would happen so I designed my bot to remove such notices when they were placed without starting a discussion on the talk page. Alas my bot isn't smart enough to fix everything; I had to make this cleanup edit.
 * I think adding a comment might help. But editors driving bulldozers think WP:IAR is the only rule and making their COI topic the primary topic helps improve the 'pedia. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course the editor doing this is using VisualEditor. I'm not sure whether that editor shows since it hides the raw Wikitext from the user. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 August 2020
Please replace the following code at Template:Requested move/dated:

A will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within half an hour of this tag being placed.

with this code:

A will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within half an hour of this tag being placed.

This is simply to avoid using a redirect on this template and on the other pages transcluding it.

(See WP:NOTBROKEN, which includes the following: "In other namespaces, particularly the template and portal namespaces in which subpages are common, any link or transclusion to a former page title that has become a redirect following a page move should be updated to the new title for naming consistency.") Jdaloner (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that guidance was boldly implemented after apparent issues with moving the molecular biology portal. You know, this really is "not broken". – wbm1058 (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Perfectly acceptable template redirect use. Primefac (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Check when a request is made to move a page to itself
About an hour ago I erroneously submitted an RM (for Spartak Moscow–Dynamo Kyiv rivalry -> Spartak Moscow–Dynamo Kyiv rivalry) where I forgot to change the suggested article title from "rivalry" to "derby" and so I ended up proposing to move a page to its existing name. I did a preview, but because a nice yellow alert box was displayed I didn't really notice so saved the changes. I then realised that the alert box said the request had been completed. I reverted and I think the bot never got to list it at WP:RM/C, either because I beat the bot or its check for "completed" is based on the current and requested new page names being the same.

I realise this is my cock-up but perhaps we could add logic to function  in Module:Requested move to check for this, i.e. that  ? It could go into the lower-level  routine, but that would require a change to its interface to pass the current title. 85.238.91.38 (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Automatic notice of restrictions on ARBPIA pages
I made up something in the sandbox to display a note to ARBPIA editors. It will only display on pages with the ARBPIA template.
 * Sandbox diff
 * Example
 * ARCA

Thoughts? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 October 2020
Just a little change. In the first line of text, in place of "on requested moves' current discussions subpage", we should say "on the requested moves current discussions subpage". This is not a possessive, so there's no call for an apostrophe. I can't make the change myself: could someone please do it for me? Thank you Andrew Dalby 18:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just say "At our current discussions". The whole lot is way too wordy anyway. You're right it is not a possessive, but since anyone reading the page is already er at Requested Moves, they don't really need to be reminded that they are, er, at Requested Moves. "At our current discussions" is perfectly good English. 84.236.27.182 (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody's arguing about moving project pages. The example in the documentation uses that project pages: to use mainspace pages would make a more realistic example, I agree, but you could have said that, since it's irrelevant to the bug. Similarly, this is not a discussion about where to put the discussion. It's the fact that  patently does not do what the documentation says it does. One person says "fix the documentation to reflect the code", I say "fix the code to reflect the documentation". I simply do not see why "current1=" and "new1=" should be special cases. Get rid of the unnamed parameters entirely, I'd say: the template is subst so, as I said, there are no problems with backward compatibility. That would make the Lua code a damned sight simpler, but the complications do not arise from the trivial handling of two positional parameters, but that they are handled badly. Not badly just to the documentation: badly to any user who gets the mystical "please put your rationale here" in her submission. Where? What's a rationale? You asked me to give a reason, not a rationale. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 04:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Badly worded default for reason= parameter
At WP:RMC, it's quite frequent to see "Please place your rationale for the proposed move here". I believe this wording in the module could be improved.

By saying "rationale" instead of "reason", it's a strong incentive for an editor to assume that the named parameter is called "rationale". Where is "here"? Different maintenance templates use different names, e.g. uses   and something else (I forget) uses.

I think a better wording would be "Please provide a reason by writing ".

The relevant code is at line 426 of the module:

But I think the most common cause for this is that editrices don't specify the destination parameter as the first unnamed parameter, i.e. the page they wish to move it to. Thus their reason is taken as the destination page name. Perhaps it would be better if not supplying a reason were an error. It's unhelpful for the code to substitute useless text.

The documentation says This text should be edited to replace it with an actual rationale for the requested move, or the request will be rejected. That's not accurate: frequently, other editors will continue discussions where no rationale was first given (or is provided underneath the original RM). But anyway, if it should be edited then why not just force the editor do it there and then (or abandon the submission)? Allowing an editor knowingly to submit a badly-formed request that will be rejected is just makework for everyone. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 10:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Does seem to be a little tormentish. Of course we should ask, who runs the RMCD bot, what he thinks of all this. I've placed a little temporary test below to illustrate what happens when the reason parameter is omitted.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 17:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think so. I've been guilty of this myself (not recently) and I'm a fairly experienced editor. The fact the template is subst'd, the text is "hidden" in the module, and the doc calls a "reason" a "rationale" does not really guide the errant editrix to fix the problem. Because RMCDbot updates the RM pages (every half an hour, I don't know if that's the same for other xFDs) one cannot fix it at the RM listing itself and there are dire warnings not to: see the at the top of the source of WP:RMC, that tells you how to add a nomination and how to delete it but not how to change it. Of course, an editrix should not change it (substantially) after others have commented, but this is such a scary box that for a long while I daredn't change anything: such as add a reason. Perhaps that is irrationale behaviour :) 85.67.32.244 (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser. Faulty logic with new1= handing
Ah, the problem is the module's handling of new1. One need only look at to see that.

Here we have an example with,   and   all specified as named parameters. The output (I shan't reproduce the whole thing) says "... renamed and moved to :." (emphasis deleted.) There's definitely a bug in the module code handling "new1": this is hardly a special case, and even the documentation doesn't produce the example it thinks it will! The actual invokation is:

The doc explicitly says Note that the (I also hope that the author who wrote "note that" note that "note that" is MOS:NOTED. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for its mother.)

It's subtle: if you specify the desired new page name with, that won't count as an unnamed (positional) parameter, so if you then put the reason after without   (or the deprecated  ) then it ends up being in. (I've added an example to the Test section below.) What you really need to do, is look around lines 145 and 146 of the module:



which keeps track that we've sucked a named parameter. If we have, we should (but don't) look for the reason in args[1] as well as in args[2] (in case someone specified the deprecated ). The  on Line 146 makes sure we're not looking for the new page name in args[1], so what else could be there? As it happens, the unnamed arg[1] overrides the named parameter, as the test example shows.

Or, more succinctly, in the shortcut-evaluated "or" on line 426, add  – I'm no Lua expert but I mean "if args.new1 has been set take the value of args[1] as the result of this sub-expression".

This is not peculiar to this template/module but a vestige of how template parameters were substituted before Lua, which was... shall we say... quirky. solved this problem years before Lua by accepting only named parameters, but that is bloody annoying actually, for an IP ed like me without tools, as one wants to write simply but must write. Backwards compatibility is really not a problem here, anyway, since this template must be subst'd (and there's a bloody great block of code to say so: anyone heard of code reuse?  or something?)

I claim my 5 pounds. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

it was you who added Single page move on different talk page without discussing with me first, or even informing me about that. This is behavior I do not want to support. It opens the door to allowing the discussion about moving the article about Palestine to be conducted on the talk page for Israel, and other such nonsense. This is gross scope creep the further complicates an already too-complex process. If you add such instructions, it's up to you to fix it and make it work. Don't come running to me for help after the fact. As to what the hell to name "WikiProject Articles for creation" I consider that out-of-scope for RM. That should be a local discussion among the volunteers working at that project, or if more global input is needed, an RfC or village pump discussion. Requested moves primarily focuses on article titles, or, in my view, it should. We don't have enough resources to handle that properly, much less broaden the scope. What was the problem there exactly? This discussion couldn't have been held at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Redirects? wbm1058 (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh my! First and foremost please forgive me for the bold edit made to the RM/doc page. Next time, if you don't agree with an edit, then you might want to go with BRD so we can discuss it while the details are fresh in mind. Now it's a little fuzzy, but iirc the subject page the requestor wanted to rename was connected with a remote talk page (redirect) that targeted a different talk page for centralized discussion. So I migrated the RM to the other talk page, figured out how to do that without malforming the RM, and then made updates to the documentation. That's a rare thing thank goodness, but it does sometimes happen and hopefully not in any vandal-caused manner. Just about anything can be vandalized on Wikipedia, but I think that's why many of us are here... to fight any and all vandalism. You were not asked here to clean up after me; you were asked here because the instructions on both the module and template pages require that you, as operator of the RMCD bot, be involved with any changes here. On that note we should also ask  and  here as operators of, as well as to notify the folks at Twinkle, which has been done. Sincerely hope you feel better now, having finally gotten that all off your chest!  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;-  ed.  put'r there 03:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

current1 and new1 are parameters that were originally implemented only in Template:Move-multi. Upon popular demand, I added support for conducting multi-move discussions on project or other pages. If you must conduct a discussion to move a single page on a project page (which is not advised as there is no need for that because you obviously are not discussing a meta-issue like naming conventions), then maybe it might work if you trick the system by telling it the request to move that single page is a "multi" move request. But probably not. wbm1058 (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * calm down. I've had to deal with a new editor in what amounted to personal attacks, and never once lost my temper or made accusations of blame. I came here in good faith, as User:Paine Ellsworth did. I spent a lot of time trying to go through the code – I have been a professional software engineer for over thirty years, so I can read a bit of code, but have no expertise in Lua – and identified a bug.
 * I do not think it is up to Paine Ellsworth to fix the underlying bug in Module:Requested move. I can do it if you want, but I imagine my edit will be reverted straight away, even if I add test cases, update the documentation, and so forth. Perhaps the code is correct and the documentation at fault: that does not help the end editrix. What we have here is not an edge case, real editors stumble across this frequently, not just klutz like me. What started as a simple request to reword "rationale" into "reason" – presumably it is too complicated to add  sent me on a wild goose chase through the code. If anyone, I am to blame, not Paine Ellseworth, for essentially doing a code review of code that patently I don't WP:OWN.
 * Why shouldn't  and   work for one nomination?  It should patently. The documentation says it should. The code jumps through hoops to distinguish the single/multi case when it has no need to. I feel someone is looking at the problem backwards. I'm a user of this code, which does not do what it says it does, not just for the case I happened to document, but in general. I showed you the exact lines of code that are conspiring to produce the output, and suggested two easy solutions, one at each. I've reported the bug, and by walking through the code in my head identified the lines in the code that conspire to create the failure, and suggested solutions or workarounds at each point. Short of just WP:BOLDly changing the code myself, there is little more I can do. User:Paine Ellsworth WP:BOLDly made a change without discussing it with you first. Is there a tacit system where some editors "own" modules, then? That's never been how WP works. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it seems too easy to confuse WP:OWN with WP:STEWARDSHIP. Editor and sysop wbm1058 and I go way back, so there is no doubt in my mind that any and every word he writes stems from the latter scope. To be honest, I figured he would think that my solution was pretty nifty, and since he didn't say anything, I guess I just "assumed" (makes an a-s-s out of u-m-e) that he was okay with it. If the process causes more problems than it resolves, then it should definitely be scrutinized. I'm no LUA expert either, so there's little I can do to improve this module; however, Wikipedia is not lacking in LUA experts that would run rings around me. Please don't think harshly on wbm1058, because when he's right, he's right'!  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 04:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair play, you were speaking a bit of a private language that I am not privy to: I don't mean that harshly either, but I know sometimes the written word can sound much harsher than is meant. I think highly of both of you, and see each of you often in various fora, possibly you think my comments are harsh but are also meant in good faith to do what we all want to do, make Wikipedia even better. I think the solution here is to simplify the code in many ways, "single" is actually just the base case of "multi" and a lot of the switching around for "if multi" is unnecessary, but I do guess that originally this was taking the dreadful mess that was doing it all in the template language and at the very least translating it to Lua faithfully. Believe me, I have looked at code a lot older and a lot worse than this :) It's nice to see editors working in good faith, I got the wrong end of the stick. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Careful now, you're gonna start my engine :>) tell me about the written word thing. Once did a 15-min rigid oral vs. body language presentation that really wow'd 'em. That's one of many reasons the written word can sound harsh, though a big one. We cannot see each other's body language as we read each other's words, but our brains won't accept that and adds its own version of what body language to expect with those words, and our brains often get it from a little to a lot wrong. It's even worse when we don't communicate at all and have to assume what the other is thinking. At least written communication is more than nuttin (if not better 'n nuttin). And I have proved to be one of the worst of the lot, so it's time for me to turn in. It's great conversin' wi' ya, IP85+! You stay healthy.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 06:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of moving pages in Project: namespace. The documentation would be improved (simplified) were it just used hypothetical examples in article space, ExampleFrom and ExampleTo or whatever, so as not to confound anyone who thinks that it only applicable to project space. But the result is the same for article space, as my test case underneath shew. The namespace is irrelevant – the bug is a bug in every namespace. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * (all) Sorry about my accidentally removing some arbitrary chunk of text here; I'm not sure what happened but I diffed this latest version against the version before Paine Ellsworth's revert, and I think we're OK. My (accidental) fault, I do preview but somewhere between that and "publish", something went wrong...
 * We should also discount the business about where an editor raises the RM. Policy is better enforced in this case through guidance in documentation and those who contribute to RM, not through code. In short, all of the code's lines 275–285 can be cut. Why should a bit of code determine where editors choose to hold a discussion? To put it another way, if consensus changes policy, now you have to change code. That breaks what the modernist programmers call the Don't Repeat Yourself "the "DRY principle").85.67.32.244 (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the huge effort to migrate to Lua, so the redundant code etc. should not offend me too much. But
 * I'm also quite suspicious of suddenly some kinds of redirects setting  on line 280. Perhaps that is correct, but it's a code smell. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 05:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The edit-request template clearly states "This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately." That might have been reasonable if the request was limited to specifically requesting that the word "rationale" be replaced with the word "reason". But this has morphed into a complex discussion about issues far beyond a simple request to change a word, so I'm closing deactivating the template. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Paine Ellsworth WP:BOLDly made a change without discussing it with you first. Is there a tacit system where some editors "own" modules, then? That's never been how WP works — Well, I do "own" my bots, though there have been times that I've just been tempted to shut them down and let "the community" take over ownership of them. It's not reasonable to expect an editor to constantly "watch" for changes that others make; if I had to constantly do that I wouldn't get anything else done. That's why editors starting discussions about things created by other editors are generally advised to ping or drop a note on the creator's talk. I've removed that section from the documentation. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Module:Requested move/sandbox is open to any editor including unregistered IP users to make proposed code changes. I can hack Lua a bit, but am not yet proficient with it either. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't and   work for one nomination? —   is generally an unnecessary parameter. In most cases the discussion will be started on the talk page of   which is what's expected by convention. As I said above, we should not allow a discussion about moving Palestine to take place at Talk:Israel (unless, perhaps, if it's part of a multi-move request). So there are some edge cases allowed now, such as hosting a multi-move discussion on a project page rather than arbitrarily on the talk of one of the pages requested to be moved. Another edge case is the one discussed here, discussing the move of a subpage on the talk of its parent, e.g. allow the move discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects to take place on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation rather than on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Redirects. That's reasonable, although this scenario is impossible in article-space where subpages are not supported. Support for this edge case should be fully coded for and tested before documentation for it is updated. And I'd argue that it should be implemented in a way that makes specific documentation unnecessary. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * IP claims to have reported a bug in Module:Requested move but I am not following the discussion of how to duplicate the bug. No need to show me the output that the bug produces. What I need to see is the input, i.e. what you typed before you clicked on "publish changes". Please start bug reports in new sections below this section which has become a TL;DR mess – and start a separate new discussion section for each bug you report. Thanks. wbm1058 (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the use of current1 for pages with shared talk pages was discussed back at User_talk:RMCD_bot/Archive_2. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me of that. Right. That's a further explanation of the status of this. I miss Dekimasu and their common sense and helpful administrative work at WP:RM. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * why not just force the editor do it there and then (or abandon the submission)? Allowing an editor knowingly to submit a badly-formed request that will be rejected is just makework for everyone.
 * Oh, how I wish it was easier to do this. There are very few scenarios where this behavior happens, e.g. WP:Spam blacklist. Take it up with the MediaWiki developers; nothing we can do about that here. Allowing an editor knowingly to circumvent their site ban is just makework for everyone. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

This request generates an error message when placed on this page
This is the most recent change to Module:Requested move that's stuck: edit of 01:14, 24 October 2018 by

It changed the error message Request to move a single page must be placed on that page's talk

The old error message is what's still documented at Template:Requested move. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've update the error message on the doc page. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just observed that the editor who stirred up trouble here has been blocked as a sock of banned editor SimonTrew. I'm glad that's out of the way. He was being so tiresome with his lectures about the difference between reason and rationale and use of words like "editrix". – wbm1058 (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So the timeline is: discussion about shared talk page June–July 2018, then your edit of 01:14, 24 October 2018 that allowed that instead of failing with an error message as it did previously, then 's addition to the documentation on 31 May 2019. I've been too hard on Paine given that I neglected to recall your Module edit. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also note that the code I added in that October 2018 edit was originally added to the sandbox by you in Special:Diff/850243049/850706069, and all I did was clean it up a bit (including removing the check for mainspace) and then deploy it. Looking at my contributions at the time, that was so I could start what became Talk:Main Page/Archive 193. Personally I don't see a problem with Paine's documentation edit, although I would have worded the first paragraph to be more explicit that it only applies to pages with shared talk pages, which was buried in the last sentence. The example you gave in the previous section about Isreal and Palestine could never have occurred since Talk:Isreal is not a redirect to Talk:Palestine. While someone could in theory turn it into a redirect, then start the requested move, then revert, people that determined to disrupt the RM process could do so in plenty of other ways. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at that RM it appears that the Requested move/dated was working fine. Why was there a delay in making it live between July and October 2018? Was there something that needed to be done? wbm1058 (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No good reason I can remember for not making the October 2018 edit in June 2018, other than procrastination. The thing about that RM is that, at the time I started it, Template talk:Main Page/styles.css redirected to Talk:Main Page (the history of that redirect has been moved around a few times and is currently at Wikipedia talk:Main Page/February 2020 styles.css). So, under the code prior to my edit, Requested move would have rejected that proposal as in the wrong place, and my edit to the module made the proposal valid. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, I think the procrastination was you waiting for me to implement this, and me being a bit reluctant to do so due to the nature of this somewhat counter-intuitive hack of a fix. Anyhow, I've restored 's documentation addition and fixed the syntax error that SimonTrew's IP sock reported as a "bug". – wbm1058 (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, I think the procrastination was you waiting for me to implement this, and me being a bit reluctant to do so due to the nature of this somewhat counter-intuitive hack of a fix. Anyhow, I've restored 's documentation addition and fixed the syntax error that SimonTrew's IP sock reported as a "bug". – wbm1058 (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Miscategorization of page not included in multiple-move request
I started a move request at Talk:The Championships, Wimbledon for numerous Wimbledon-related pages, but not the Wimbledon page itself. However, Requested move automatically categorized the Wimbledon talk page to Category:Requested moves. As that category is for "pages being discussed on Wikipedia:Requested moves", and the Wimbledon page is not included in the request, I don't think it should have been categorized there. This miscategorization had the flow-on effect of Article alerts listing that I requested the move of the Wimbledon page (see this bug report). Is it possible to fix this? --Sod25 (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Template says to be subst'd but when you subst it it gives an error
Hello! So when I requested a move on the article Amazon Fire tablet, the template that was placed on the talk page says to subst it and not to use it directly. However, when I subst'd it in this edit, it throws an error saying not to subst it. I say that the text saying to subst it should be removed since you shouldn't subst it unless I did something wrong. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * It appears it confused me because that message appears when you subst it correctly. I don't understand why that's there since you wouldn't see that message if you didn't subst it (unless you do). ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You substitute Requested move, which then generates a copy of Requested move/dated as part of the substitution process. Requested move/dated is a different template, though it is stored as a subpage of Requested move. The error you made is that you then went back and substituted the Requested move/dated as well, which caused that template to throw an error. 192.76.8.80 (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep. It confused me when I saw it say that on the template. I was just like, "Wait why doesn't Twinkle automatically subst it?" ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Error handling for multiple
I suggest changing to so that it calls {{tl|yesno}} to handle any malformed "yes" and reject non-yes content as it currently does -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 07:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) ifeq:|yes|{{#ifeq:{{{new1|}}}
 * if:{{yesno-no|}}|{{#ifeq:{{{new1|}}}
 * This concerns {{tlx|requested move/dated}} -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Do editors have a TL;DR problem and miss the message Please use {{Tlxs|requested move}}. Do not use {{Tlx|requested move/dated}} directly. ?
 * If there is a way that {{Tlxs|requested move}} can be made to create a malformed "yes" then that issue should be addressed in Template:Requested move – wbm1058 (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Add a Wikinav link?
Is it possible for the template to check if one of the pages is a dab, and if so, then add a link to Wikinav after the move log links at the bottom-right? This new tool is little know, but really indispensable for primary topic proposals that aim to dislodge a dab page from the base title. – Uanfala (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


 * So, here's a mockup of what the template could look like with such a link:
 * So, the first question is: is this going to interfere with the work of ? Pinging the bot creator and maintainer: . – Uanfala (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, adding a link to the list on the lower right of the template won't interfere with bots. Your second question? wbm1058 (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, adding a link to the list on the lower right of the template won't interfere with bots. Your second question? wbm1058 (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)