Template talk:Non-admin page mover closure (requested moves)

This template was considered for deletion on 2016 June 20. The result of the discussion was "Redirect to Template:RMnac".

Appearance

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I know I participated in this discussion and I shouldn't be the one to close it, but this is now moot due to the template being deleted. If you wish to continue the discussion surrounding having a template that links to WP:RMPMC, see Template talk:RMnac. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does "closed by a page mover" actually say to you? "Page mover" could apply to almost anyone, admins and non-admins. So I'd like to propose that the appearance of this template be altered to appear as:

(extended-mover closure)

The link is the same, it's no longer misleading, and it's still different enough from {{RMnac}} to be useful for debaters of page moves. Suggestions welcome! What's in your palette? Paine 16:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should include the name of the user right, not another name. This is more likely to confuse than anything (what's an extended mover?). The real problem is that we're separating out page movers and non-admins in terms of closing quality. I would never in a million years close a TfD as "template editor closure". But then again we shouldn't separate out non-admin and admin closures either, in my opinion. You either have the technical ability to do something or you don't. If you don't, you shouldn't make the close. If you do, it doesn't matter what your user rights log says. ~ Rob^Talk 17:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rob here, I think. The whole "dealeo" is at WP:Page mover so that's effectively the "common name" of this rights package. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the apparently mistaken impression that "extendedmover" actually is the name of the user group and right - see Wikipedia:Page mover. What's in your palette? Paine 17:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(I was pinged here) - I don't think these is needed "page movers" or "extended-movers" have a technical tool, but have not been empowered to "close discussions" any more than any other editor. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's needed so that page-move debaters will be able to see at a glance that the page will be moved immediately without having to wait as the page move goes on an admin backlog list. And that's all the information that this template should provide for move debaters. What's in your palette? Paine 17:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I was notified of this discussion via my talk page. While I personally plan to continue using simply {{nac}} when closing requested moves: As long as the page about the right is called Wikipedia:Page mover the template should continue to use that wording; However, I support renaming that page and the right as a whole to "extended mover" (as it already is in some aspects) or something similar because that is a better description of the right. Any auto confirmed user can move most pages, users with the right this discussion concerns can move more pages.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm not suggesting that "extended movers" have any special powers other than the ability to close technical moves. Even (page-mover closure) would be more consistent with {{RMnac}}; however, "extended-mover closure" is more consistent with the name of the user group. What's in your palette? Paine 17:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: It's known as extendedmover in the MediaWiki software, but that doesn't mean that the English Wikipedia knows it by this more technical name. The name "extendedmover", as far as I can tell, was made by urbanecm during his implementation of the user group, which honestly makes more sense. A user is a "page mover", while extendedmovers are redirect-suppressors/subpage movers, which are extended operations.

That being said, unless you're calling for a enwiki-wide rename, let's not call it "extended-mover closure".

That also being said, I'm not planning on using this template until the TfD for this is resolved. ~~{{subst:nac}}~~{{subst:rmnac}} has been fine. Thanks for the talk page notification. Side note, would it make sense to ping the "father" of this usergroup, Xeno for input and for TfD closure? — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'extended-mover' was something that a developer came up with on the fly. It doesn't really matter to me what the community ends up calling the userright, be it 'page mover' or 'extended mover'. The reasoning for using 'extended mover' does make sense to me. –xeno^talk 13:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! an oversight on my part for which I shall severely punish myself! Now, the user group as it seems is known as 'extendedmover' where the user right's common name is "page mover". What this template really needs is something that assures page move debaters that the closer is a non-admin who possesses just a little extra in terms of technical ability. The above proposal was made rather than to just go ahead and change it because even I had some misgivings about it and wanted – needed – more input before rashly altering it. Now I am at a loss. What's in your palette? Paine 19:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I almost forgot to mention that even {{subst:RMnac}} is better than {{subst:nac}} because it is more specific to the job at hand. What's in your palette? Paine 19:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

oops, corrected — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(I was pinged here. FWIW I am not a page mover and have no intention to become one even though I supported the right creation.) I'd almost rather this be something like "(non-admin closure: page mover)" makes it both clear that it is a NAC and the editor is a page mover as well. That said is this necessary? I think RMnac is good enough. (edit conflict) PaleAqua (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's better I think, and yet the colon seems to announce "page mover" like a blare of trumpets. How about something like "(non-admin page mover closure)"? It's still a little long, but it does at least show that the closure is still a non-admin one. , What's in your palette? Paine 19:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know of this discussion. Honestly, I think that (page-mover closure) makes it sound like page movers have even more authority than the current template makes it look. However, if we do choose to use something along those lines, I think we should use "page mover" not "extendedmover" as the latter is merely the technical name for the right used by the software and not what it's widely known by on enwiki. I really like the sound of PaleAqua's proposal as it makes it clear that the closer is also a non-admin, although I agree, the colon is unnecessary. Omni Flames (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my take on this template: I think this template is an unnecessary "version" of {{RMnac}} and should be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, that's for a different venue, Steel Man. This discussion is merely about how this template (if kept) should appear in the closing statement of an RM. Should it stay the same? or would something like PaleAqua suggested above be an improvement? What's in your palette? Paine 03:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right. In those terms, in my opinion, it this were to be "kept", this should have the exact same wording as {{RMnac}} since page movers aren't entitled by policy to enforce consensus any more than any other non-administrator. So, with that being said, may as well redirect the entire template to {{RMnac}}. Steel1943 (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good, except that entitlement by policy to enforce anything is not what this template is trying to do. All it should do is inform debating editors that the closer has the technical ability to move a page even if there is a redirect with more than one edit. Nobody who is in favor of keeping this template in order to do that is also advocating that it should mean anything more than that. So I wonder why you and some others just automatically assume that we want to wear this like a US Marshall's badge or something? That just ain't the way it is, so why try to make out otherwise??? What's in your palette? Paine 04:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just stating my opinion without starting a WP:TFD nomination. My motivation to do so is pending the outcome/answer to the original question posed in this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 04:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a TFD discussion. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 June 20#Template:RMpmc. PaleAqua (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleAqua: Sure enough, I hadn't even looked at Template:RMpmc yet for its WP:TFD notice; I read only the talk page discussion since the link I found about this discussion directed me here. Anyways, thanks for pointing me to that discussion; I put in my thoughts. (And, if I had known that discussion were happening, I probably would have never commented here) Steel1943 (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Break

So far we have:

~~(extended-mover closure)~~ – this one's pretty much crossed off
(non-admin closure: page mover)
(non-admin page-mover closure)
(non-admin closure – page mover)
(non-admin closure by page mover)
(non-admin closure) (retain present link)
(page mover closure)

I think that the above suggestions that aren't struck through are better than my first suggestion and much better than the message as it is now, but which is the best improvement? What's in your palette? Paine 03:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's going to link to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Page mover closure, something like (non-admin closure) could also work depending on the importance of explicitly noting the closure was done by someone with the page mover permission. Just like {{nac}} and {{RMnac}} are used for different reasons and have different links but still show the same text. PaleAqua (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Wikipedian Sign Language Paine 05:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of those above, I think. The NAC template does things just fine IMO. I really think the number of people who care exactly what rights were used to carry a close out are so vanishingly small. But if we absolutely must have this template then rewording to include non-admin in it is ideal. I have no particular opinion on whether to use a colon, dash, etc. Jenks24 (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I like the ~~2nd~~ 5th option, pt2 the most ((non-admin closure by page mover)). It's not too obtrusive and it tells the observer exactly what this template is meant to do. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PaleAqua, Paine Ellsworth, and Anarchyte: I had "(non-admin closure)" in the back of my mind at one point. I personally think a custom link rather than custom wording is great option and a good compromise, and for those who care, will be obvious whether the closer has the additional technical capacities. (similar to how {{RMnac}} has the same wording but a different link) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 14:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about the option (page mover closure)? Otherwise, #4 (non-admin closure by page mover), or #5 (the current option), seems suitable enough. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Epicgenius: ~~That's been the current one, and this discussion has been about re-wording it.~~ How incorrect I can be... I should elaborate that that suggested phrasing probably suffers from the same problems as described above - too much emphasis on "page mover" — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC) 20:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC) 20:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Andy M. Wang: The emphasis can be taken off PMs if the 5th option is implemented; otherwise, the 4th option is the most smoothly worded, in my opinion. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- To editor Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium: Added. Wikipedian Sign Language Paine 14:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please !vote

6. After looking at all the non-struck-through choices, number six [(non-admin closure) with the page mover link] is the best improvement IMHO. Wikipedian Sign Language Paine 14:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. for reasons I gave above and for conciseness. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 14:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. per my comments above. PaleAqua (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6 (the current option) is the most concise and also does not put unnecessary emphasis on page movers. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium, now featuring BB-8 (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. See my comments above for the reasoning. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3 as I feel it's the smoothest of the lot without seemingly giving page movers extra authority. However, I'd be fine with 6 if that's how the discussion turns out as I suppose it's an acceptable compromise. Omni Flames (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anything goes. None of them imply authority, imo. In fact, I don't find the need to differentiate between NAC and AC either. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 18:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6 I agree with Epcigenius in that this does not put an unnecessary emphasis on page movers. — Music1201 ^talk 03:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Labeling page mover closures

This template is affected by an RfC opened at Wikipedia talk:Page mover#RfC: Labeling page mover closures. Please comment there. — JFG ^talk 23:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]