Template talk:Requested move notice

Suggested rearrangement of notice text
The text of this notice currently looks something like:

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:

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, Red x.svg 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)
 * I like that suggestion even better. What do you think about also moving the link to the text "discussion" (or "relevant discussion", or "discussion on the talk page")? I think there's a bit of a MOS:EGG situation, in that when I see a link with the text "talk page", I assume it's going to be just a link to the talk page as a whole, rather than a specific discussion. Colin M (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The link text is now "the relevant discussion"; "on the talk page" is kind of redundant and verbose. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

wikidata item
I have created one wikidata item for this page at 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)
 * The link is now shown here; in English it's in the left margin, in Farsi it's in the right margin. wbm1058 (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

New name
Have you notified the bot owner and made sure this doesn't break anything? — HELL KNOWZ   ▎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. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 07:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅ 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 ." 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)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#The notice template. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 08:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed revision to make this notice less disruptive
This notice is unduly disruptive to pages. Quoting myself from the conversation that led to this:

I propose that we adopt the sandbox version of this template, which addresses this issue by making the notice smaller, more proportionate to its importance for readers:

The left-alignment moves the notice right under the title itself, a logical placement. The new version also removes the "Please do not move this page until the discussion is closed" line. This used to be necessary because an old version made it seem like the move request might be just a technical matter awaiting implementation, but this issue has since been resolved. Moving pages requires autoconfirmation, and I think we can trust that autoconfirmed editors with the knowhow to move a page will also know to visit the discussion at the talk page first, where the "do not move until" line can be added to Template:Requested move/dated, where it will be infinitely less disruptive to casual readers. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Courtesy pinging the previously involved editors: &#123;{u&#124;  Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I like this. It's a fair compromise I think. Herostratus (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I noticed you just changed "title be changed" to "be moved" in the live version. I considered that for this proposal, but many readers may not understand what it means to move a page, so I think we're better off keeping the "title be changed" language. (It also introduced a double space; see the test cases.) &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah "moved" is really obscure. It took me a while (when I was new) to figure out it meant "renamed". It's an artifact of somebody's wrong word choice 15 years ago... Herostratus (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * More like 18 or 19 years ago, although I can't find where the term was first used, exactly. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure what's the worst that could happen? — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, clear and noticeable yet not huge. In my opinion every single one of those enormous cleanup temlates should also be converted into this. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There are some tags that reflect urgent enough issues for the reader that I think the bigger style is warranted, but for others, I definitely agree with you. Please feel free to propose similar changes at other templates that come to mind for this! &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support! I'd be happy to hear from you too if you have in mind any specific other pages that might benefit from this change. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 08:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support 109.158.239.84 (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I just saw this redesign and I would like to express my approval, just in case anyone was having doubts. Much less intrusive. Now, when we get the other notice templates to look like this, the real party can begin. Nohomersryan (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * +1 --Netoholic @ 10:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * -1  - This change is awful - The picture is how it looks on my screen and IMHO it's barely readable, The previous size was readable and imho much better, Given the consensus above this obviously isn't going to be changed back anytime soon but feel I should show how it looks to me. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd just add to that, it looks weird on any page with other tags (which is very common). We don't align our page-level templates to a side, probably all of them are centered. Now this one just looks odd and misplaced if there's existing templates. The example image given was only for page that have no tags, not sure why both are not give to compare. See . – Ammarpad (talk) 06:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The shortdesc tool, linthint, and the old revision notice (none of which affect readers) all serve to separate the title notice from the title, which I think is part of why it might look a bit off. Beyond that, I'd suggest waiting a bit to see whether you warm to it once you've had a chance to adjust to the change. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The first two (shortdesc tool, linthint) are not default for everyone. I don't see any of them, probably because I turned them off. They are not in boxes either.  Old revision notice is in box, but it's not aligned to any side. It's full-width banner (in content area). – Ammarpad (talk) 07:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 May 2020
Please adopt the sandbox version of this template, per the discussion above. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * and, this is creating a weird situation at Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. I agree with making it smaller but we should fix the alignment. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I recommend this version in the sandbox: --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll have to take a look at the sandbox in the morning, but for that article, there are two options that come to mind: move the title notice to the top where it won't look weird, or set no so that it'll be sized the same as the others. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 09:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , ok. Here is what it looks like with no:
 * --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the kind of weird result that I was trying to point out above. We don't align our page-level templates to any side. And this alignment makes the template worse than it previous iteration. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the kind of weird result that I was trying to point out above. We don't align our page-level templates to any side. And this alignment makes the template worse than it previous iteration. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted my change for the time being. That certainly does look awful, and I'm sure that some who supported above would agree. Let's see what people think &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, so something isn't working quite right for the small=no setting, then. I think the best solution here would be to fix that bug, and then have the bot set the notice to not be small whenever there is another notice at the top of the page. This is an edge case, and we should figure out how to handle it, but also shouldn't let it override the main thrust of the design change agreed to above. For testing purposes, I set up Template:Title notice/multi-notice testcase, and the design change adopted above can be tinkered with at Template:Title notice/sandbox2. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not an edge case: it will be quite a common occurrence that another maintenance banner is already present on the page. Unless the bot can handle this, perhaps the small parameter should default to "no"? This would give editors a chance to override the default behaviour and make it smaller. Do you want to ping the editors who commented above? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's best to separate the technical and editorial questions here. Let's first figure out if it's feasible to have the banner be small only when there aren't other maintenance templates, or to at least always be at the top (which solves most of the issue imo). If that works, we're good; if not, then we can try to figure out what to do. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My initial implementation did always place the notice on the top of the page, but that was found to be noncompliant with MOS:ORDER. It took significant coding effort to make the placement compliant with that. See the previous discussion: The subject notice template should be placed underneath disambiguation hatnotes. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Review of consensus
the change agreed above was reverted due to concerns from other editors after it was implemented. To see an article with the smaller version in use, please see. The concerns were that this message box were no longer consistent with the other message boxes on that article. Sdkb is saying above that if the title notice was at the top then it would look better; however many editors may still object to this inconsistent styling. Any comments please? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't mind at all that it doesn't look like other notice templates. It doesn't have to because it performs a unique function. Especially on very popular pages, the RM notice tends to attract casual readers/editors who aren't familiar with our title guidelines. I'd even like to go further and see it embedded in the title line itself (sort of how FA/GA top icons are moved above), but I recognize that's even more extreme. -- Netoholic @ 09:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thoughts on Move topicon? You can see an example in my sandbox. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I love it! It's a sensible placement since it's at the same level as the title, and it helps get the notice out of the way of the article body while still keeping it visible for anyone who wants to see it. In your sandbox, it looks like it's making the page protection marker sit oddly low, and I'm not sure I'd favor changing the language as it appears to be doing currently, but overall, I think that's what we should be working toward implementing. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a proof of concept and styling can be tweaked. I'm fine tweaking the wording too, but given its size and location, keeping the text as short as possible is for the best; those interested in the specifics can find them by going to the discussion. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , just following up on this, since I'd love to see 's idea implemented. The sandbox version still looks like it's sitting too low, and it's to the right of the featured star whereas I think it'd be best as the leftmost topicon. Could we iron out those things so we can present a fully working version here? I have limited topicon technical expertise, but I'm happy to help track down answers to any questions if that'd be useful. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I forgot that I added to my user css a left float styling, which will push it to the left. You need to add #mw-indicator-move { float: left; } to your common.css page so that it displays correctly. Eventually this can be added to MediaWiki:Common.css. I've also updated the styling so that it displays better; but it won't look right without that css change. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me; thanks for doing the coding! I assume that changing MediaWiki:Common.css will require some discussion; would we go to WP:VPT for that? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 03:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably not; I think adding it to the CSS, at least temporarily, should be uncontroversial since it's needed for people to evaluate the proposal. That would be done by an edit request at MediaWiki talk:Common.css. We'd probably want wider consensus for this change to the move template, so a VP thread about this is probably a good next step since it would be a rather major change to the UI. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Made the request. Regarding the forum, for the previous change, I think I used an RfC. We could perhaps open up a new section here, put a Please see notice at VPR and places like WP:WikiProject Usability, and ping the prior participants from above. That might be enough. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * move topicon doesn't show on mobile. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , good catch. I'm not sure how we'd want to display the notice for mobile readers, and there's some argument to be made that it's not important enough to be something mobile readers need to see at all. Thoughts/ideas? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Mobile editors should definitely be able to see move requests (just like other notices like refimprove etc are shown). Personally I think this is a abuse of the indicator functionality - it's not designed for a large message, and I think the current system works fine. If its size really needs to be reduced it can be made to have a lower vertical height and centered. Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I like it. If it were positioned directly after the title itself, that'd be even better to me. -- Netoholic @ 10:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't also don't mind that's in smaller font, but it's a little jarring that it's flush left when the other boxes aren't. Cannot that be changed. (Not being flush with the other on the left margins matters much less, but if practicable that ought to be fixed too.)


 * However: It's quite rare for an article to have a move tag box and also other tag boxes. It happens some. It happened here, because its a contentious subject that a lot of editors are crawling over. So it's not all that big an issue. Yes, putting it at the top would help a little I guess.


 * And if it's on a page by itself, I don't care at all if it doesn't look like other boxes on other pages. Herostratus (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't really care either way. It's worth trying something different. If people don't like it, revert and send it back to the drawing board. I like Netholic's idea. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support there's no need for a big notice for a move discussion that unlike something like accuracy or NPOV doesn't really concern them much even though the title may become a DAB or similar.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your belated support! Looking at where things left off, I think they stalled at this discussion, where and some others felt that adding the code needed to display the topicon correctly to the common css wouldn't be the right way to go about it. Does anyone know how we could get the topicon to work? &#123;{u&#124;  Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't know, I don't know enough about technical issues.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 November 2020
Change ambox to mbox because requested moves are not just for articles. JsfasdF252 (talk) 03:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 03:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:RM notification which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 9 November 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 to Template:Requested move notice. Consensus developed on the proposed title: Template:Requested move notice. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Template:Title notice → ? – Other templates has clearer name so I think this template should too (Template:Short description, Template:More citations needed, Template:Article for deletion, etc). Also at main namespace the new template name should be used in source code instead of User:RMCD bot/subject notice. Hddty (talk) 14:38, 9 November 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.
 * Oppose for lack of any explanation as to what is unclear about the current name. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I do think the name could be clearer. What is the proposed alternative? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * When "?" appears in an RM it means that a specific alternative name is not advanced by the move proponent and is left up to later partipants to propose.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's still their burden to explain what's unclear about the current name and why it should be moved, which this statement was vague on. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Move to Template:Requested move notice, since that's was this is. That name already redirects to the current template anyway. The nominator's base rationale, that WP has been moving toward more sensible/meaningful template names, is correct.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No objection. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree, better title. Hddty (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)