Template:Old moves is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use ((edit extended-protected)) to notify an administrator, template editor or extended-confirmed editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, Module talk:Old moves redirects here. |
It's not entirely uncommon for RMs to be made without a specific name proposed. See here for an example of one that just closed. It usually happens, as it did there, when an editor is dissatisfied with a current name but isn't sure what it should be instead. Could the destination parameter of this template be made optional, then? It omitted, the notice would simply read, "It was proposed on (({date))} that this article should be moved. The result of the debate was (({result))}." This will probably only occur with failed requests, or else we'd still have two names to work with. --BDD (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Why does this template at Talk:United States federal government shutdowns of 1995 and 1995–96 display brackets right next to a bracketed link? Toccata quarta (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
@CambridgeBayWeather:, please unprotect the template (or semi protect it). It is not highly visible (its on talk pages), and it just have 511 transclusions. Christian75 (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add a parameter to specify a revision link, as pages do get archived, so the discussion link can get broken. The revision link would specify the revision id of the closure.
| text = On ((date|(({date))}|mdy)), it was proposed that this ((Talkspace detect|main=article|template=template|file=file|draft=draft|portal=portal|default=page|other=<font color=crimson>Error: This template should be relocated to the talk page</font>)) be [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|moved]]((#if:(({from|))}| ((sp))from ((no redirect|(({from))))))}((#if:(({destination|))}| ((sp))to ((no redirect|(({destination))))))}. The result of the debate was '''((#if:(({revision|))}||[(({revision))} (({result))}]|(({result))))}'''. ((#if:(({link|))}|(See [[(({link))}|discussion]].)))
This will add (({revision))}
that links to result using a full URL revision link, if one is provided.
-- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I see that mdy dates are hardcoded into this template. Could we please have a parameter that lets us specify dmy dates, for those topics where dmy dates are used in the article itself? I wouldn't want new editors who look on the talk page be confused that mdy should be the default to use when this may indeed not be the case. I have no idea whether a talk page template can look for the dmy/mdy template in the article itself but if so, that would be the most elegant solution. Schwede66 18:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
|dateformat=
with default value of mdy to preserve current behaviour during discussion. I'm not sure what the default value should be though. mdy, dmy and whatever the first parameter uses are the ones I'm considering here, but would like to hear your opinions @Schwede66 and Uanfala. --Trialpears (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
FYI, Template:Old move (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Template:Old moves (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated at Templates for Discussion. -- 65.92.246.246 (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I've made a module version of this template at Module:Old move. It's based on the well established Module:Copied and support an arbitrary amount of discussions by iterating parameters (e.g. |result2=
and |link3=
). Other changes include making the text closer to ((Old XfD multi)) and slightly shortening it, adding better support for missing parameters and adding |to=
as a alias for |destination=
.
Here are two examples from real articles with one and three discussions respectively. The one discussion version has been properly tested and should be bug free, but not the multiple discussion version as I intend to do that while migrating ((old moves)) transclusions.
On 15 August 2018, it was proposed that this page be moved from Giant panda to Panda. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
This page has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
What do you all think? If no one objects I will take the module live and start migrating transclusions in a few days. --Trialpears (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
After quite a few days this is now done, old moves conversion has been started (slowly). --Trialpears (talk) 10:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- - -
a fairly straight consensus to merge to the "multi" version of this template familyyet what I see above is an attempt to upgrade the singular form of the template, rather than merge it into the multi form. The multi form has
|titlen=
for showing move logs – I don't follow the need to make this "just like ((copied))" as there are no "copied" logs equivalent to move logs. There are over 5000 transclusions of ((Old move)) and over 500 transclusions of ((Old moves)) and given the differing syntax between the two this isn't an easy merge to complete. Given that Trialpears is the only editor to make any effort to finish this, and per "having an exciting time IRL with lots of stuff going on, but that also means that Wikipedia work is lower on my priority list", I think this task should just be abandoned and removed from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell as "not broken, won't fix". ((Old move)) can simply be manually converted to ((Old moves)) when a page has multiple discussions. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
On pages where this template is used with multiple moves, it only shows the first one. See examples at Talk:LGBT, Talk:Bluey, and Talk:Zamboni (disambiguation). Ping @MaterialWorks. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 17:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
result=
and result2=
. If you add a 1 to the numberless parameters, all of the moves will show up. That's a bug I'm aware of, but I haven't been able to fix it because I haven't had the time to rework how the module handles multiple moves (some IRL stuff got in the way). I'll try to fix it as soon as I can. – MaterialWorks 17:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. As indicated by the support vote, both TFDs closed with the merge target being the plural name; I might be wrong but the merge to the singular was more for ease of merge than anything. Since this is more of an RM/TR situation I am closing this early. Primefac (talk) 08:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Template:Old move → Template:Old moves – Plural name reflects the template's capabilities better. The current name is a holdover from when it could only list a single move, but it can now list multiple moves. – MaterialWorks 23:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
I came across two invocations with the unnamed parameter (1=). Sadly, they result in a no-op, effectively hiding content. Can we make it so this generates at the very list a categorization and an alert to the editors? --Joy (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Could Module:Old moves have support added for listing move reviews? In my opinion, this would be helpful, as it would mean that moves & move reviews would be listed in a standardised format, and it wouldn't be necessary to use the |list=
parameter to manually format all the RMs/MRVs.
All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 04:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)