This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Template:Requested move
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Template talk:Requested move

This template was considered for deletion on 2009 July 17. The result of the discussion was "keep".

This template was considered for deletion on 2012 October 20. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

Usage

See Wikipedia:Requested moves.

History

Created by 132.205.45.148 (talk · contribs)
Added documentation Phil | Talk 07:46, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Cleaned up formatting; typo—Chidom ^talk 21:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

TfD

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)[reply]

Trouble with :Image syntax

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:{{{3}}}]] 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)[reply]

Re [1]

...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)[reply]

I think that Mets501 format is better than David' alternative, but I would like to go back to the original format we went for when we moved from conversations on WP:RM to having the discussions on the talk page an: [[Talk:{{{1}}}]] — [[{{{1}}}]] → [[{{{2}}}]] – {{{3}}} because the link to the talk page is the most importand of the links, as it is where the discussion takes place. If this is done there is no need to emphasise any of the links with bolding. This format was originally reflected in this template (see first entry Revision as of 18:17, 30 May 2005 and lasted until it was changed earlier this year Revision as of 18:58, 28 March 2006. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move section

According to the {{Move}} 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)[reply]

Move link?

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Movepage/{{{1}}}?wpNewTitle={{{2}}}. 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)[reply]

It would certainly make them easier to close. Could the rationale be preloaded as well? --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 18:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be possible, but there are so many different ways it could go. Soxred93 | talk count bot 00:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Alternative

I just created an alternative to this template for those unsure on what the name will be. See {{RMlink?}} Simply south (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simpler signature code

Currently this template uses this code:

—~<includeonly>~</includeonly><noinclude>~</noinclude>~~

But I did some tests and it seems we can do like this instead:

--~~<includeonly></includeonly>~~

On the template page it will render like this:

--~~~~

But when the template is substituted onto a page it will render the signature of the person that did the substitution. But please double check that it works since I am having the flu with fever so I don't want to make code changes to frequently used templates today.

--David Göthberg (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did the change. And tested it again. Seems to work fine.

--David Göthberg (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autosignature

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., "{{sometemplate}} ~~~~". I propose that we remove the built-in "--" and ~~~~ and fix the documented references to show "{{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} ~~~~". +mt 05:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]