Template talk:RMlink

message: * Created by 
* Added documentation Phil | Talk 07:46, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
* Cleaned up formatting; typo—Chidom talk  21:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: *This template was listed on templates for deletion, but there was no consensus to delete. See the log. Dan100 (Talk) 15:50, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Some may prefer Template:move2, which has only the first two arguments. Septentrionalis 18:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD 

message: I suppose this template isn't often used for Images, but I just tried to use it, and of course I had to use the :Image notation so it wouldn't inline the image...but that broke the Talk: link (by putting :: instead of :).  I'm not savvy enough to fix the template to avoid this, but I thought I'd point it out.  — JVinocur (talk • contribs) 00:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trouble with :Image syntax 

message: : ...the talk page link should be featured, so people don't accidentally start a discussion on the WP:RM page. I also thing bolding both titles is easier to read.
No-one else seems perturbed, so I'm happy to let your preferences ride. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:WP:RM&curid=1964067&diff=80265696&oldid=80230888] 

message: According to the  template, a section should be created on the article's talk page with the title "Requested move". To make the "Discuss" link more accurate, I've added "#Requested move" to that parameter. As you know, if a link contains a section name that doesn't exist, the link goes to the top of the article. This won't hurt anything if the section is called something else (or isn't there at all), it will help when procedure has been followed correctly.—Chidom talk  21:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move section 

message: Should there be a link that links to the move page of the article, so then it's easy 2 click moving? The link would be ?wpNewTitle=. For example: this link would move Foo to Foobar. Would a move link be a good change, or bad? Soxred93 | talk count bot 17:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would certainly make them easier to close. Could the rationale be preloaded as well? --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 18:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be possible, but there are so many different ways it could go. Soxred93 | talk count bot 00:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just built a prototype in my userspace, see it at User:Soxred93/Template:RMlink. Soxred93 | talk count bot 21:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move link? 

message: I just created an alternative to this template for those unsure on what the name will be. See  Simply south (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative 

message: I'm really frustrated with templates that include both a "--" and ~~~~. I noticed that some image-related templates used to have a built-in signature (like this), but have since removed them and instead documented their use to show, e.g., " ~~~~". I propose that we remove the built-in "--" and ~~~~ and fix the documented references to show " ~~~~". +mt 05:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autosignature