Template talk:Requested move

message: @Wbm1058, can you add a check somewhere in the module on the reason= parameter for the presence of <ref> tags and append  automatically if there isn't a  invoked already? This should help with the occasional refs being bunched up at the end of the WP:RMC page. – robertsky (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Modules aren't things I'm really clever with yet. The module was originally written by , perhaps either he or  can help. I'm kind of swamped with other projects at the moment. wbm1058 (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add checks for refs in reason parameter 

message: This template currently produces a message that includes the text . The word moves should not be possessive (i.e. should not have an apostrophe), and the word "requested" should be preceded by the: ; Or, maybe better: . I don't see how to edit this myself, so I'm posting the suggestion here. Eric talk 05:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the subpage not belong to RM? Is it like saying "that page's subpage"? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

text: . It appears that the possessive "requested moves is appropriate. The sentence informs that the RMCD bot will add the new request to the "current discussions" page, which is a "subpage" of the requested moves parent project page. If I'm reading the English possessive article correctly, this type of possessive can be shown by either an ending apostrophe (moves') or by s" (moves's), whichever the writer deems suitable. In this respect, a subpage "belongs" to its parent page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 10:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it more like a talkpage:  as opposed to . Eric talk 14:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that sounds like a valid viewpoint. Either phrase seems to show possession, yet the former is more subtle than the latter and "MOS" is a true adjective in the former. If t'were me, in the case of the MOS I'd probably use "MOS's talkpage". But that's just me. The editor who originally put those phrases together is most likely the same one who still takes good care of all things RM. Happy New Year to you and yours! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nix possessive in template message 

message: Hello- Please see my post from December 2022: Template_talk:Requested_move#Nix_possessive_in_template_message. Eric talk 20:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the subpage not belong to RM? Is it like saying "that page's subpage"? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

text: . It appears that the possessive "requested moves is appropriate. The sentence informs that the RMCD bot will add the new request to the "current discussions" page, which is a "subpage" of the requested moves parent project page. If I'm reading the English possessive article correctly, this type of possessive can be shown by either an ending apostrophe (moves') or by s" (moves's), whichever the writer deems suitable. In this respect, a subpage "belongs" to its parent page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 10:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it more like a talkpage:  as opposed to . Eric talk 14:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that sounds like a valid viewpoint. Either phrase seems to show possession, yet the former is more subtle than the latter and "MOS" is a true adjective in the former. If t'were me, in the case of the MOS I'd probably use "MOS's talkpage". But that's just me. The editor who originally put those phrases together is most likely the same one who still takes good care of all things RM. Happy New Year to you and yours! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 7 January 2024 

message: This template says "within half an hour", however, it took 37 minutes to post on Vamsi (name).  Should we not change the time frame to "within one hour"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: * Reply - Thank you for your help.  However, it still says "half an hour" at many Templates on Template:Requested move. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

text: *:It's working on Talk:Vamsi (name). Might just need a purge? If not, give me a link to a page it's not showing and I will check — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

text: *Oh, right. Notices used to be posted faster. Delay posting notices, to mitigate the impact of vandalism. – wbm1058 (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this template say "within half an hour"? 

message: I have drafted some changes to Module:Requested move (sandbox diff) and Template:Requested move/dated (sandbox diff) so that  will automatically check current and proposed titles for page protection (admin or template-editor) and, if found, add a |protected= parameter to the resulting  in new requested moves, which would then show the usual green lock or pink lock icons (examples at /testcases).
Before now I have been using  to add an icon the top of move-protected RMs manually, but at Templates for discussion/Log/2024 January 31 it has been suggested that this shouldn't be a separate template, and hence this proposal. SilverLocust 💬 20:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also added in the sysop padlock since I saw that your module sandbox edit seems to emit it. SWinxy (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. The additional option is fine, though the module sandbox doesn't ever give |protected=sysop as part of what it returns. It gives |protected=yes when the move would require an admin, whether because the protection log has "move=sysop" (move protection), "edit=sysop" (full protection), or "create=sysop" (salt). See Template talk:Requested move/testcases#Fully creation-protected (salted) target for an example. SilverLocust 💬 00:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh OK. I forgot that "move protection" refers to "move=sysop", as opposed to any move protection level. Should there also be lock icons for ECP or even semi? SWinxy (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: ECP isn't really necessary because RM closers are almost invariably extended confirmed. Semi isn't necessary because it would apply to everything: only autoconfirmed users can move pages. SilverLocust 💬 01:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 👍 SWinxy (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detecting and showing page protection 

message: Please edit Template:Requested move/dated with the sandboxed changes. This will add a small protection icon to the message box when |protected= is specified (and not blank or "no"). This does not affect the appearance unless the parameter is added, which applies to a small number of RMs. I have checked that this will not affect the bots (AAlertBot) (RMCD bot). 
See Template talk:Requested move/dated/testcases.
* If |protected= is set to anything else except "no", "", or "tp" (or the synonyms below) [edit: is set to a title with sysop-level move/edit/create protection S.L. 💬 23:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also added in the sysop padlock since I saw that your module sandbox edit seems to emit it. SWinxy (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. The additional option is fine, though the module sandbox doesn't ever give |protected=sysop as part of what it returns. It gives |protected=yes when the move would require an admin, whether because the protection log has "move=sysop" (move protection), "edit=sysop" (full protection), or "create=sysop" (salt). See Template talk:Requested move/testcases#Fully creation-protected (salted) target for an example. SilverLocust 💬 00:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh OK. I forgot that "move protection" refers to "move=sysop", as opposed to any move protection level. Should there also be lock icons for ECP or even semi? SWinxy (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: ECP isn't really necessary because RM closers are almost invariably extended confirmed. Semi isn't necessary because it would apply to everything: only autoconfirmed users can move pages. SilverLocust 💬 01:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 👍 SWinxy (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Pakistan Soviet air confrontations during the Soviet Afghan war which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 15:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress