Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 26



Template:RMtalk

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge/deprecated per Wbm1058's plan. If there are any objections please make them known, but otherwise, there appears to be consensus to go with Wbm1058's plan. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * RMtalk
 * Requested move

Propose merging Template:RMtalk with Template:Requested move.

This seems like unnecessary redundancy, considering that this template is always substituted. Also, considering that Template:Requested move now utilizes Lua, this template's existence and increased bit usage defeats the purpose of Lua. (In theory, "merging" this template should he as simple as converting it into a redirect towards Template:Requested move without merging anything.) Steel1943  (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * RMtalk is now simply a front-end to Requested move; both use the same underlying Lua module. The only difference is that RMtalk specifies different defaults than those of Requested move. There is nothing RMtalk does that Requested move cannot also do; RMtalk is simply retained as a matter of convenience. RMtalk could be deleted, but that would require its users to learn to use the new syntax needed to do the same thing with Requested move. Simply redirecting RMtalk to Requested move would change its default behavior, unless the Requested move defaults were changed to match those of RMtalk. – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * From what I observed in RMtalk, it's essentially a duplicate of Requested move with the  parameter included automatically. Is there more functionality behind RMtalk than this?  Steel1943  (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, that was the original difference, and the reason the template is named "RMtalk". But there is another difference, as explained in the template documentation: RMtalk by default adds a section title in the format Requested move . Are we ready to implement default section titles in Requested move? There would likely be some short-term disruption while editors became aware of and got used to that change, by editing to remove inadvertently created redundant section headers. But longer term, the result could be a positive. We went through a similar adjustment period when auto-signing was made the default. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, given that I overlooked it. I have no objection to the date being added to the header of all requests; the good outcome of that change would be that the new section has only one out of infinity ("infinity" being the amount of days of existence) chance of causing a duplicate section header, especially considering that the moves listed on the WP:RM board link to the section header, and if there are duplicate section headers on a page, it goes to the first section of that title on the page. Steel1943  (talk)
 * Right, this is what I've been moving towards. We should probably advertise the change at WT:Requested moves for at least a week, to both give editors a "heads-up" about the upcoming change, and to see if there are any objections or things we've overlooked. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Wbm1058, no reason to have two parallel discussions happening though, given that TFD discussions last for a week prior to closing; I put a note on that talk page to have the discussion occur here. Steel1943  (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Wbm1058 and Steel1943 is there any status update? should we just deprecate RMtalk or can it be redirected to Requested move with a change to the defaults? Frietjes (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I generally like to make phased and incremental changes, to minimize the the impacts. The documentation and RM instructions updates need to be coordinated with the actual template changes. and So, how about this approach:
 * Change the default section header functionality of Requested move to match that of RMtalk. The "contested technical request" function of RMassist is also already using this default header. The change can be implemented either in template:Requested move or in module:Requested move. If I'm just doing this myself, I would probably just modify the template, but if would like to update the module sandbox with the equivalent changes at the lower level, that's fine with me. I can update the documentation and "flip the switch" by updating the template/module and documentation/instructions at the same time.
 * RMtalk can be deprecated by replacing all mentions of it in the instructions with instructions to use the code yes in Requested move instead. The code to override the Requested move default section header can be removed, as the default section headers created by each will now be the same.
 * Rather than a simple redirect to Requested move, I would just simplify RMtalk back to the 12:16, 16 June 2013 (documentation) version of the template, before the default section header created by the template was changed. RMtalk can then be kept for historical documentation purposes (there are a few talk page discussions that link to it) and for the convenience of any editors who are used to using it.
 * Sound good? Wbm1058 (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Black dot

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by AnomieBOT ⚡  13:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Black dot

unused outside of the author's userspace. Frietjes (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as basically redundant and unused in articles —PC-XT+ 04:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as author now has copy in their userspace. Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: What is it redundant with? - so we can set up a redirect. Rmhermen (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.