User talk:TheTVExpert/rmCloser

Edit summary bug
Hey, thanks for building this script! FYI, it seems to be doing something weird with the automated edit summary when you also have the copy-section-link script active. See here for an example. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for using the script. I see what is causing the issue and I should have it fixed tomorrow. TheTVExpert (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It should now be fixed. Let me know if you find any other issues or if there is a feature you would like added. Thanks. TheTVExpert (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thankyou very much! Looking forward to the next update for the script. Cheers, Jack Frost (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

old move template
Hi, there is a strange text when the script insert an old move template (see ). Is this expected? Vpab15 (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for using the script. This should be a simple fix, which I will try to have done by tomorrow. TheTVExpert (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply. When I closed that RM which had two moves, I selected to request a technical move request. The first request was done fine but it seems the second request overwrote the first one . Apart from that it is a very useful script, thanks for developing and maintaining it. Vpab15 (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The old move template should now be fixed. As for the technical requests, I will see about getting to that in the next version of the script. For now, waiting a few seconds between technical requests should work as a temporary fix. Let me know if you find any other issues or if there is a feature you would like added. Thanks. TheTVExpert (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Add a notification inline about wikiproject ad?
Hey, thank you so much for building this script, I find it insanely helpful! There is one thing I keep doing manually, though, that you may be able to really easily integrate in here. Whenever I use your script to advertise a discussion at a wikiproject, I also add this line to the discussion after the latest comment, like a delsort:


 * — Advertised at WikiProject Medicine. 02:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

like this:

Is that something you think others might find helpful as an option/addition? I know it would save me a lot of time! Thanks again, Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 02:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for using the script. I have added this in for you. Let me know if you find any issues or if there is another feature you would like added. Thanks. TheTVExpert (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Works like a charm! Thank you — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Script removes part of RM
Hi TheTVExpert, I found some strange behaviour in it sometimes, I think it could be due to using markup in the RM. See. The script removes old name and the target name from the request. Is that something you could check please? Other than that, it is a great script, thanks a lot for building it. Vpab15 (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * A couple more examples: . Vpab15 (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It should now be fixed. Thanks. TheTVExpert (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Issues
I've been having issues with the tool. But maybe I'm not using it correctly? It removed almost all of my long close summary.VR talk 13:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This should now be fixed. Thanks. TheTVExpert (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Buttons appear in wrong RM
When I go to Talk:HoYeon Jung the buttons for RM closing ("Close", "Relist" etc) appear in an already closed RM ("Requested move 7 October 2021") but not the current one ("Requested move 14 November 2021"). Please fix, thanks VR talk 21:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Can confirm with other pages. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 17:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

JQuery warning when loading certain pages (main page, watchlist, etc.)
Not a big deal, but is cluttering up my JavaScript console a bit. Figured I'd report. The fix is probably to check and make sure the in between element exists before trying to call it. Screenshots. – Novem Linguae (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This should now be fixed. Thanks. TheTVExpert (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Issues with multi-move request
Please note the page history of Talk:Barabanki, moved the pages & closed the RM appropriately, but in the very next edit the closure note is removed. And old moves template, that should've appeared in the other page involved, is applied here automatically. Thus, the old move template did not appear in Talk:Barabanki (disambiguation) at all. I tried closure using the script too, same issues. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk&#124;contribs) 15:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * pinging for notification. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk&#124;contribs) 15:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My guess is that this was caused by the pages being moved prior to using the script to close the discussion. I assume the script tried to add the old move template to the Talk:Barabanki now at Talk:Barabanki (disambiguation) and since the pages were already moved, it added it instead to the Talk:Barabanki that was formerly at Talk:Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh and so the template ended up on the wrong page. As for why the closing text was removed, this is likely because when preparing to add the old move template to the Talk:Barabanki now at Talk:Barabanki (disambiguation) it fetched the content of Talk:Barabanki before the closing text was added and so when it saved the changes the closing text got removed. The easiest solution would be to use the script to close the discussion and then move the pages, though I will see if I can add something to the script to prevent this from happening just in case. TheTVExpert (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Old Move template merger
I would like to remind you of efforts to replace Old move with Old moves; the merger is years old, so I presume you know about it already. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisting with comment
Hi @TheTVExpert. Per WT:Requested moves & WT:Requested moves/Archive 34, there is a consensus that relisting without comment is generally very unhelpful and adding a relister's note should be encouraged. Since your tool is the most frequently used tool for RM close/relists now, I think, a "Relister's note" text box when "Relist" button is clicked will be helpful to encourage this. Basically the relisting template will work as usual, but a new line at the end of discussion will read something like this:. When the text box appears, a "Relist without leaving note" button will allow relisters to relist the RM like they do currently, if they deem it okay. Thanks! &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 19:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for using the script. I have added this in for you. Let me know if you find any issues or if there is another feature you would like to see added. Thanks. TheTVExpert (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! I tested this at WT:Sandbox and it worked just I had hoped it to. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 21:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Preview
Can we get a "preview" button on this tool? Would be helpful to see what we're about to do... - UtherSRG (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add an option to watch the page after the discussion has been closed via the tool. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Would probably be good, too, if the default setting for this is in the user's common.js . - UtherSRG (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I will see about adding this in a future update to the script. Thanks. TheTVExpert (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Using permalinks instead of talk page link in edit/move summaries
Hi again @TheTVExpert: Today, I completed a double-swap requested at RMTR due to the closure of a RM, with the help of this tool. Move was like this: →,  →. Original RM was at and the RMTR also mentioned it, but when we do double-swap, it will get moved to, and the new Talk:B page will not contain the RM. Even in normal cases, RMs may get archived, so you click the link in move summary, go to the talk page, do not find it there and have to start searching in the archives. It would be great if, instead of Talk page link, the permalink after closure is supplied to the move summary, and RMTR requests, so that it is easily navigable. Thanks! &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 19:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

RMCloser incompatible with misnamed RM sections
RMCloser cannot close requested moves whose header is not in the format "Requested move [DATE]", like here. Is this fixable? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Why not just update the section header to the standard format manually, then use RMcloser to do the close? - UtherSRG (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

RMCloser doesn't recognize subprojects
See for instance Talk:Dendrolagus_notatus. This article is in a project that has a subproject, but the tool only picks out the main project. I manually notified the subproject. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree I've had this problem as well, and have resorted to manual notifications. Would be great if this could be fixed!!! — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't remove RM banner on article
Hi @TheTVExpert. For some reason the banner on the articlespace wasn't removed. I don't remember if this is an intended functionality so that the RM bot would take care of that or a bug — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The RM bot takes care of that indeed, it is not a bug. Vpab15 (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ahh I see, thanks for the reply! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 19:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Feature request: check for move protection before non-admin close
Hi, I wonder if it would be possible to have rmCloser check whether the article is move-protected before closing a discussion, so that I could know in advance to either leave the RM to an admin or to use the WP:RM/TR button. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Buttons showing under the wrong move request
Hey, on Talk:2022 Peruvian political crisis, the buttons to close/relist/notify wikiprojects are showing under the first RM, which was closed, as opposed to the currently-open second RM. I'm guessing it's because of the alternate template used for closing the first discussion. Skarmory  (talk •   contribs)  05:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Odd closure
Can you take a look at this diff and see if there's a tool issue that needs fixing? Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Interface-protected edit request on 7 June 2023
Can you please change the code to  to reflect the new title? Interstellarity (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Izno (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Change of edit summary in history after move
Can you modify the tool to instead of adding a link to the pertinent discussion, based on which a move was agreed upon, it adds a piped permalink to the discussion because after archiving the link will be broken? Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Example from Talk:List of Grand Slam and related tennis records --> Special:Permalink/1161945502.

Error with multi-page RM moves
Hi. After closing Talk:List of High Commissioners and Ambassadors of Australia, an error stopped the script from working, here is the full error:

load.php?lang=en&modules=ext.discussionTools.init%7Cjquery%2Coojs-ui-core%7Cjquery.ui&skin=vector&version=vygu3:357 jQuery.Deferred exception: Cannot read properties of null (reading 'getTalkPage') TypeError: Cannot read properties of null (reading 'getTalkPage') at Object.onLoadSuccess (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TheTVExpert/rmCloser.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:271:46) at Morebits.wiki.page.fnLoadSuccess ( :511:759) at Morebits.wiki.api.onAPIsuccess ( :489:885) at mightThrow (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/load.php?lang=en&modules=ext.discussionTools.init%7Cjquery%2Coojs-ui-core%7Cjquery.ui&skin=vector&version=vygu3:354:881) at process (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/load.php?lang=en&modules=ext.discussionTools.init%7Cjquery%2Coojs-ui-core%7Cjquery.ui&skin=vector&version=vygu3:355:544) undefined

Thanks for looking into it — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 09:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The Notify WikiProjects button isn't working for me
@TheTVExpert, just letting you know, the Notify WikiProjects button isn't working for me on my iPad. I checked it on my requested move at Talk:Aspire TV. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 08:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Interface-protected edit request on 8 September 2023


Please remove  but not with   where it treats   as being the new title instead of just.

The current version means that the script is unable to move the page to the new title, since a title with | is not a valid title (or the intended one). I have tested this on testwiki:Talk:rmCloser.

\| — the character |

. — any character

_* — as many of _ as possible

_*? — as few of _ as necessary (lazy)

(_) — capture group (outputted as a string)

(?:_) — non-capture group (not separately outputted)

_? — 0 or 1 instances of _

SilverLocust 💬 23:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC) ( changed to an edit request on 20:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC) )

Requesting technical move after RM closure
I've noticed that when I close an RM that I am unable to perform due to my lack of page mover rights, I have the option of requesting a technical move. However, when I clock on that button, it places the move request under the "Requests to revert undiscussed moves". Is the the intended action? Because I feel as though it would be more appropriate to place the request under the "Uncontroversial technical requests" section.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 03:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * This is a bug that I was recently made aware of. It should be simple to fix, so I hope to have it fixed soon. Thanks. TheTVExpert (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing my last request. Note that this one can be fixed by changing since the invisible comment at WP:RM/TR was changed again in October.


 * For a fix that will keep working the next time that invisible comment is inevitably changed, here is how Twinkle puts new requests at the bottom of the uncontroversial section (which is where new requests are now meant to go). SilverLocust 💬 03:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bait30 and @SilverLocust: This has now been fixed. Let me know if you find any issues or if there is another feature you would like added. Thanks. TheTVExpert (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems to work fine. Thanks. SilverLocust 💬 06:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Script confused by multiple move discussions on page
See eg Talk:Dobrujan Tatar dialect. The buttons end up under "Requested move 23 June 2023", rather than the current discussion. -- asilvering (talk) 18:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I had noted this issue in an edit summary at Talk:Dobrujan Tatar dialect but didn't look into it further until now. The issue is actually with {{subst:requested move/end}}, because that template (which is somewhat uncommon in RM closures) includes . I have now removed that from the template and from Talk:Dobrujan Tatar dialect. No action is needed on the script. At some point soon I will remove that tag from the substed template on other talk pages with AWB. SilverLocust  💬 19:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are over 1700 pages with id="reqmovetag" in the wikitext from previous uses of {{subst:requested move/end}}, and WP:AWBRULES#4 would suggest that removing those is a bad use of AutoWikiBrowser (see also WP:COSMETICEDIT's standard of "egregiously invalid HTML"). It would be easier to just use a new unique tag with the script and Template:Requested move/dated. I have added a span to that template with id="requestedmovetag" just before the existing one. Could you fix this issue by making the following replacement in each of the 3 locations it appears in your script:
 * SilverLocust 💬 00:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @SilverLocust: ✅ TheTVExpert (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Mobile
Does this tool work on mobile? I’m primarily a mobile editor and I attempted to use the tool today (for the first time) to close an RM and it didn’t work. It seemed like it was loading forever but the close wouldn’t go through. Perhaps I did something wrong as it was my first time using it and my first time moving an article. Hope to hear from you soon. Kind regards,  Robertus Pius  (Talk • Contribs) 16:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It doesn't work in mobile view, but it should work if you switch to desktop view on a mobile device (the link on the bottom of the page). That's often how I do it. I'm not sure why it would be loading for a while. If you zoom in to click the "close" button, you may need to zoom out again to see the interface. SilverLocust 💬 19:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Robertus Pius: SilverLocust is correct that the script does not work on mobile view, but should work in desktop view on a mobile device. Based on your recent contributions, I’m guessing that the RM you tried to close was Talk:E. M. Carroll and so the problem was likely that the script currently does not work with non-default section headers and therefore an error occurred. This is a known issue, but I have a solution for it, which I plan to implement by the end of the week. TheTVExpert (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe the issue was the latter as I always use desktop view while mobile editing. Once you fix the issue I’ll try using it again. Thanks,  Robertus Pius  (Talk • Contribs) 19:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Editing the redirect
Not sure if this is the result of user error or tool error, but when someone was moving Talk:Nigerien crisis (2023–present) to Talk:Nigerien crisis (2023–2024), it edited both the old target and the new one. Aidan9382 (talk) 09:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

User:BilledMammal/rmCloserExpanded.js
I've made some changes to the script to support a few things that have annoyed me for a while:


 * 1) I've added an option to close moves as an uncontested technical request
 * 2) I've added an option to specify a move target other than that proposed
 * 3) I've fixed a bug where the script would freeze if it couldn't work out where to place the old moves template

The work isn't complete; there are now some redundant calls that I will want to remove, and I want to do further work:
 * 1) To support round-robin moves
 * 2) On the screen where editors can move pages, limit the provided move options to those actually available to the editor
 * For example, if a page is move-protected and the editor is not an admin, it would only allow an editor to post a request to RMTR - similar to the feature request posted by Maddy from Celeste.
 * 1) Provide feedback whether a move succeeded

I expect to get onto this when I have time in the next couple of weeks, but I was wondering if you would be interested in merging these changes into your version, rather than having two versions of this script? I'm happy to work with you to make modifications to my changes if the current implementation doesn't align with your vision for the script. BilledMammal (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * On #1, note that declaring that there is no consensus and treating an uncontested RM as though it were an WP:RM/TR request is not ordinarily how these are closed as WP:RMNOMIN. I would suggest proposing/attempting changes first to the closing instructions rather than making this a standard type of closure via a widely used user script. SilverLocust 💬 21:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My understanding of that part of the instructions is that we don't evaluate consensus when nobody has objected; we merely perform the move, unless it is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guidelines or policy. BilledMammal (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Per the quoted text, the closer should evaluate the arguments presented and their consistency with policy and guidelines. Another term for that is determing consensus — even if silence is only a weak consensus.
 * I would agree with noting at WP:RMNOMIN that these should be reopened upon prompt request to present new arguments, or that a new RM within a reasonable time should not treat these as establishing a stable title, but they shouldn't be reverted without continuing the RM (or opening a new RM to request a revert and giving an argument for doing so — again to be evaluated by a closer for consistency with policy and guidelines). SilverLocust  💬 22:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've never actually thought ahead far enough to determine how to respond to an objection, but reopening the RM sounds reasonable; I'll update the default close text in my script. We should probably also move this discussion to WT:RMCI, so that editors not watching this page can join. BilledMammal (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested in seeing the updated text (though obviously I have no veto on anyone's user scripts). Opening a WT:RM[CI] section is fine with me. SilverLocust 💬 01:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Moved without consensus, as an uncontested technical request. Any objection within a reasonable time frame should result in the move being reverted and the request being reopened.
 * Sorry for the delay, took a while to update it - ended up doing other code enhancements instead. Technically you don't have veto, but practically, I don't want to closing discussions in a manner other editor see as inappropriate, and I am hoping TheTVExpert will incorporate these changes in their script. BilledMammal (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's inappropriate, just not ideal. I would suggest Moved as an uncontested request with minimal participation. If there is any objection within a reasonable time, please ask me to reopen the discussion. I don't see the point in calling it a technical request or linking to WP:RM/TR when the editor chose to open a discussion. SilverLocust 💬 23:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable, though I am concerned about the lack of clarity regarding the time frame and what to do if the closer has gone inactive. What about if on "within a reasonable time" we link Stable version to revert to (already linked at WP:TITLECHANGES), to help editors understand what a reasonable time is, and we add "If I am inactive, please make a request at WP:RMTR?" BilledMammal (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to the WP:RM/TR suggestion. E.g., "(If I seem to be unavailable, ask at the technical requests page.)" As to SVTRT, the time estimates there are more formulated for a bold edit/move, rather than a change that was was prominently advertised via an article banner, the centralized RM listing, and WikiProject article alerts. On the WT:Stable version to revert to talk page, also linked from TITLECHANGES, one of the points several users made in the failed RfC was that it depends on how much attention there would have been to the change. And one reason a user might choose to go with an RM rather than a bold move is so that they can reasonably rely on the move being stable when making changes necessary to reflect the new title. Personally, if someone asked to reopen after 3 months, I'd decline and recommend opening a new RM; WP:THREEOUTCOMES suggests that 3 months is already a long enough time for a new discussion, and it's longer than any RM would reasonably be expected to run. If the RM had been open for 14 days (a full relist) without participation, then I don't think I would reopen it after a month. SilverLocust 💬 06:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an invention of a change of the guideline about moving pages, disguised as an improvement of a script tool. I object to it on that basis. If the guideline is going to be changed, that should be done by changing what the guideline says, not by changing what the closure tool does. As SilverLocust said before, "declaring that there is no consensus and treating an uncontested RM as though it were an WP:RM/TR request is not ordinarily how these are closed". A lack of commentary does not indicate a lack of consensus. There is nothing in WP:RMNOMIN about considering RM discussions that lack participation as having any less of a conclusion of consensus than any other RMs. Such RMs have been open for the full period of potential commentary and are simply not controversial. My personal impression is that when no one comments on an RM, it does not indicate that no one noticed the suggestion. Rather, it indicates that the people who looked at the RM thought the suggestion was not a problem and was obvious enough to proceed without controversy. People don't feel a need to comment if a suggestion has sufficiently obvious merit and no one is objecting to it. Adding an offer to revert such moves is unnecessary and inappropriate. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammal I would absolutely be interested in collaborating with you to improve the script. I can merge your changes in soon. If you want to make further improvements, just make pull requests on the GitHub and generally I will merge them in within a few days. Thanks. TheTVExpert (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you; however, unfortunately I don't have an account on Github, so the best I can do is let you know here if that would work?
 * Since my initial comment here, I have also:
 * Added a check for what options the user has available, and only show them the options suitable to them
 * When posting a technical request, added a check for whether an admin is required and if they are post within the "admin required" section
 * BilledMammal (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Bug on multi-moves
For multi-moves it seems the script assumes that the discussion is taking place on the first from page listed. So, when I tried to use it to close the move on Norman Hunter (footballer), it appears to have tried to add the old move template twice to that page, since it was listed second in the multi-move. There was some other stuff going on, like it failing to add the closed RM header, but that may have been due to having another RM further up the page. Bensci54 (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)