Template talk:Move

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please note that the use of {{{1}}} inside a template inclusion causes this message box to display incorrectly when not included in an article. It actually looks like:

It has been proposed below that Template:Move be renamed and moved to example.

The proposed move should have been noted at Wikipedia:Requested moves.
Discussion to support or oppose the move should be on this talk page, usually under the heading "Requested move". If, after a few days, a clear consensus for the page move is reached, please move the article and remove this notice, or request further assistance.

Maintenance Use Only: {{subst:WP:RM|Template:Move|example|}}

1 Revert war
2 "NAMESPACE" prefix
3 A way to specify the source page
4 wording
5 Using {pagename} parameter
6 "the issue"...?
7 Vote or not to vote that is the question
8 Swap?
9 Template for the article page
10 New use for a redirect
11 Request: enable small version
12 Request
13 Template for non-admin moves?
14 interwiki
15 parameter two

[edit] Revert war

what is the current revert war even about? Whatever happened to discussing disagreement on talk pages? dab (ᛏ) 12:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus 3. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "NAMESPACE" prefix

Whoops, I should have paid attention to the history. For the record, I immediately noticed my error (and was going to self-revert), but was beaten to the punch. —Lifeisunfair 17:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 18:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A way to specify the source page

Right now I'm trying to get Talk:Jack Thompson (attorney) moved to Talk:Jack Thompson (see discussion at Talk:Talk:Jack Thompson (attorney)). This template incorrectly states that I'm attempting to move Jack Thompson (attorney) to Talk:Jack Thompson. My thinking is that this template should allow both the source and destination to be specified. Thoughts? -Locke Cole 02:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

This is an atypical situation, so a manual substitution is appropriate. (I've done so.) —Lifeisunfair 02:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] wording

What about "Please list the proposed move at Wikipedia:Requested moves" or something similar? There are a lot of strays... maybe because people think it automagically gets listed :\. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 04:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Why doesn't it? --82.46.154.93 05:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well there is an automatic list available via the 'What links here' feature. So: Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Move. It's not grouped or sorted in any way though.

Regarding the wording though, I notice that on Wikipedia:Requested moves it says "There is no obligation to list such move requests here; discussions of page moves can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry". That makes sense to me, but this means the current wording on this template is too strong ("The proposed move should have been noted at Wikipedia:Requested moves"") -- Harry Wood (talk) 10:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Using {pagename} parameter

Using the {pagename} parameter is simply rediculous, since an Wikipedia article can move at any time, and having the {pagename} destroys the usefullnes of this template. Unfortunately every page using this template will have to be fixed before the {pagename} parameter can be removed.--Commander Keane 02:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "the issue"...?

I note the source for this template includes the above comment at its very start; what is "the issue" that needs to be settled, please?

Once this issue is settled, would anyone mind my adding a sentence such as "Please indicate whether you support or oppose this proposal in the discussion below (usually headed "Requested move")."

Thanks, David Kernow 02:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

As no-one has picked up on the above, I have amended the template and removed the unreferenced comment. Hope all acceptable. Regards, David Kernow 15:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote or not to vote that is the question

I think the "Discussion and voting to support or oppose the move" should be altered to remove the word "voting" from this template what do others think? --Philip Baird Shearer 21:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You've based this change upon the premise that "things are not voted on in Wikipedia." This is patently false. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but the word "voting" does not necessarily refer to "majority/plurality voting." In this context, it simply means "expressing one's preference for a proposed resolution of an issue." If you still don't believe me, I once again respectfully request that you consult a dictionary of the English language. —David Levy 00:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Technically true, many people are of the same opinion.

My problem is that a lot of people (especially newcomers) get confused by "voting", and we get the famous story of "60% approves that 1+1=3, so it must be true!" ;-) .

Perhaps it's wiser to explicitly state "expressing one's preference for a proposed resolution of an issue."

That way, there's no ambiguity.

Kim Bruning 16:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the idea of artificially simplifying or complicating wording (in articles and elsewhere). If users don't understand the difference between "voting" and "majority voting," the solution is to explain it to them, not to accommodate their misconception.

Either way, there are going to be instances in which someone challenges the meaning of the word "vote." If we purge all documentary references to the word, the people who continue to use it correctly will be on the receiving end of unfounded criticisms. ("This is a discussion, not a vote!") I've already had this happen, in fact.

Frankly, if someone must be corrected, it should be the people who are actually wrong. —David Levy 16:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Why keep text, that is open to misunderstanding and that appears predominantly on every talk page of an article with a request to to be moved, when it can be rephrased to remove the potential misunderstanding? --Philip Baird Shearer 17:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the misunderstanding will occur either way. I see no valid reason to alter accurate wording, thereby increasing the likelihood of users being chastised for correctly referring to their comments as "votes." Also, I believe that any alternative phrase will fail to convey the process' nature as well as the word "vote" or a derivative thereof. —David Levy 17:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"The proposed move should have been noted at Wikipedia:Requested moves.

Discussions and preferences regarding this proposal should appear somewhere on this..." ...?

Regards, David Kernow 16:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

To be consistent with wikipedia:consensus, I prefer DK's wording to the current wording, but I think we should keep the words support and oppose in the template. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

How is the current wording inconsistent with WP:CON? —David Levy 17:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"...Discussions and a survey of support or opposition regarding this proposal should..." ...? David 17:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swap?

Is there a template for indicating that a redirect and article should be swapped? I'm thinking of OpenTransport and Open Transport in specific, but I want the general answer too! :) -- Steven Fisher 20:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to solicit advance feedback, follow the standard WP:RM procedure (using this template). Otherwise, you should be able to simply perform the move. (The MediaWiki software allows this when the target has no history as anything other than a redirect to current title.) —David Levy 21:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Feedback wasn't really necessary, as it was pretty open and shut. I did not realize that the software would let me do the move without breaking history... I must have missed that somewhere. Thank you! :) -- Steven Fisher 07:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template for the article page

Is there a related template to put at the top of the actual article page, to let visitors know that a move discussion is going on, on the talk page? --Elonka 19:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, and nor do I think one should be used. This is an editorial issue not a reader issue. Articles accumulate far too much editorial cruft at the top as it is. Anyone who is interested will watch/look at the talk page. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there plenty of precedent for soliciting reader opinions though? For example, merges, deletions, lack of categories, and most other administrative actions are advertised on an article page. Why not move discussions? --Elonka 22:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

(Update) Though I understand that in some cases it's not advisable to place a "suggested move" template on the main article page, there are some cases where it's still a good idea, for example where there's a very complex move discussion going on, on the talk page, and it's desired to attract as much attention to it as possible. If there's not a standard template for such a thing, I'm prepared to make one, unless someone else wants to give it a shot? --Elonka 21:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New use for a redirect

Hello all. The Bureaucrats are considering the possibility of using the template {{rename}} (that is, the name "Template:Rename") for a newly-created template to be used by users requesting renames on Wikipedia:Changing username. That title currently redirects here, and I believe that it would be no problem. However, if anyone would disagree with this, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Changing username#Username Change Template. Thank you. Redux 07:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request: enable small version

Resolved.

I don't want to experiment with important template like this but can sb incorporate the following into the first line: {| class="messagebox {{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|small|standard}}-talk". For desired effect, see Talk:New York City.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request

We should create a similar templete to go on the actaul article page instead of the talk page, so we can alert people that the page is being discussed for a potential move.--Sefringle 02:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please link to an interlang ja:Template:Move--220.210.189.203 10:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template for non-admin moves?

Is there an appropriate template to declare the intention to move a page, analagous to {{Split}}? I recently expanded the Split template and changed the wording to refer to a move, but I'm not sure if that was the best choice? Thanks. jhawkinson 02:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] interwiki

Please add it:Template:Spostare --87.6.65.233 (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] parameter two

I think a second parameter should be added to the template, to indicate the section where the requested move discussion is occuring, if it isn't the default "Requested move" t would be easier to set up than "section", if it were "{{{2}}}" instead. 70.55.85.177 (talk) 06:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)