Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 January 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 30
February 1 >

January 31

[edit]

Template:RM protected

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. The author and only significant contributor has agreed to and requested deletion. I'll remove the 30 transclusions from old RMs. wbm1058 (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barely used template. I don't think this template solves anything; anyone can indeed verify that the page is move protected by checking the protection log or observing the "move" button absent. Awesome Aasim 20:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Creator here. Many non-admin closers prefer to follow WP:BADNAC#4 by not closing as "moved" any RMs with move-protected titles. But checking whether the move button is hidden (and also whether any target title is protected) is not a normal thing to do before closing an RM. The vast majority of RMs don't include any protected titles, so checking them individually is a waste of time.
Instead, I periodically just check every title on WP:RM/CD at once and add {{RM protected}} to the RMs that do, so that there is a non-intrusive move-protection icon with visibility settings limited to admins and pagemovers (who are the large majority of closers). I last used the template 4 days ago at Windows 1.0, 1993 Aurora, Colorado shooting, and Stellantis Italy. Since then, there is also Yakuza (franchise) that could use it.
I have gotten no complaints about it from closers (or from anyone else before this TfD). Hilst gave some positive feedback about it here. Wbm1058, the admin who operates the RMCD bot, mentioned it at User talk:RMCD bot, apparently as an alternative to an automated feature that another frequent closer had requested. (I shan't ping them out of precaution against canvassing — though that would just be pinging everyone who I recall saying anything about it.) SilverLocust 🃏 💬 06:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the appropriate solution would be to only show something like this in {{requested move}}? Where on check the protection level is checked and the appropriate topicon is added? Awesome Aasim 07:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into {{requested move/dated}} and update the codes to use {{PROTECTIONLEVEL:move|article title}} to determine which icon to display. – robertsky (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Awesome Aasim and Robertsky: While I have very limited ability with Lua modules (and coding generally), I have drafted some changes for the relevant templates:
Here are some examples. If you would like to try it, use {{subst:requested move/sandbox}} on Template talk:Requested move/testcases — or preview it on another talk page. I would be happy for any improvements or feedback. I also checked whether adding |protected=yes to a current RM would confuse either RMCD bot or AAlertBot, and it seems not to have. SilverLocust 💬 11:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Requested move/dated has now been edited to take a {{{protected}}} parameter, so this can be closed (whether that should be called a "merge", "delete", or what have you). The transclusions from old RMs can just be removed rather than subst'ed. I'll wait to request changes to Module:Requested move until maybe a week after this is closed (to see if there is any objection to that part). SilverLocust 💬 02:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SilverLocust: User:TheTVExpert/rmCloser.js: Revision history shows that TheTVExpert hasn't edited their script since September 2022‎, and the two most recent edits were done by Izno in response to edit requests at User talk:TheTVExpert/rmCloser. Given that the new Template:Requested move/dated which is now live will trigger a known regression (bug) in this highly-used script, you should make your request there to Edit to some regex a formal {{edit interface-protected}} request so that Izno or another interface administrator promptly expedites that fix. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The request is now active as an IPER. I was giving the script's author a few days as a courtesy in case he wanted to respond after he saw the request. I had previously made an IPER there without without giving the user an opportunity to respond. (Izno is currently taking a break from being an int admin.) SilverLocust 💬 20:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented the requested change to script, so it should be good now. TheTVExpert (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • An issue which belatedly occurred to me – any editor (troll) could drop by an open RM and make an edit to add |protected=yes to any open requested move, even when none of the involved pages are actually protected. And then {{Requested move/dated}} will dutifully, and erroneously, show a padlock icon where it shouldn't. My Murphy's law experience on Wikipedia says that if editors can make trouble, it's guaranteed that some of them will. Also, protection status can change after an RM is opened, but with this template coding, the protection status is locked into what it was at the time the RM was opened, unless an editor manually changes it. The intent of the design of {{subst:Requested move}} was to perform parameter pre-processing to ensure that the syntax of {{Requested move/dated}} would be in a standardized form to facilitate consistent bot processing. Dynamic (real-time) determination of protection could be done directly by {{Requested move/dated}} – that template could internally call a module to do the protection-check processing, every time the page is loaded. This would ensure the protection indicated by {{Requested move/dated}} was always up-to-date. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was leaving the /dated template without a module call to avoid calling expensive parser functions each time someone loads the talk page (in case of a large RM with many titles to check). To avoid that, the subst could instead specify |protected=ProtectedTitle and /dated could just call a module function to check (1) the protection levels for that title and (2) whether that title is one of the parameters. There could additionally/alternatively be a tracking category (like the one for Category:Fulfilled page move requests) to make it easier to see which RMs indicate a protection level. SilverLocust 💬 21:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:The Rolling Stones videos

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{The Rolling Stones}} --woodensuperman 12:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_31&oldid=1206683952"