On 13 December 2007, it was proposed that this page be moved from Template:WP:RM2 to Template:RMassist. The result of the discussion was moved.

I've removed the forced "—" character from right before the signature. A huge number, maybe even a majority, of regular WP editors already prefix their sigs with "—" or something similar, resulting in "— —" when this template is used. For those who do not already have "—" in their sigs, it's a non-issue, since it is clear what is a sig and what is content anyway, or ALL sigs would have "—" at the start of them by now. In short: Don't force stuff on users when you cannot predict what they have or have not already done, or errors and annoyances, like having to re-edit every RM filed to removed doubled long-dashes, are going to be very likely results. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tried to use this template as explained on WP:Requested moves but failed, so I came here but found no explanation whatsover. After some experimentation I discovered that the "Reason" section fails if a page history, such as [1], is included. — Joe Kress (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Your reason includes a url with equals signs in it: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NATO_phonetic_alphabet&action=historysubmit&diff=395179623&oldid=394084265]. Work around this issue by either naming the unnamed parameter or templating the equals signs (use template:=). – Wbm1058 (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've installed a new version of this template which enhances the "move" link that the template creates. The previous version put a URL in move edit summaries that, if not truncated because it overran the maximum allowed edit summary length, could be cut & pasted to link back to the old version of WP:Requested moves/Technical requests where the uncontroversial move was requested. The new version writes a permalink which does not need to be cut and pasted, and shortens the edit summary to reduce the risk that it might get truncated.

Also, because of limitations in the ((REVISIONID)) variable (it can't be substituted), the "move" link cannot write these edit summaries with permalinks if it is clicked from the main Wikipedia:Requested moves page that includes the WP:Requested moves/Technical requests sub-page. Because the "move" link must be clicked while on the subpage itself, clicking move on the main RM page links to the subpage, which just adds an extra click and page view to the process.

Administrators and page movers are encouraged to use this link to process technical requests in order to create the enhanced edit summaries with a link back to the original request. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 12:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Here is an example diff showing the edit summaries written by the old version. Note that this one was truncated because it exceeded the maximum allowed edit summary length. I removed the sub-links to anchors, as the technical requests list rarely grows to any substantial size, so anchors aren't really very necessary or useful for this application. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• and here is an example of the new version. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why WP:Requested moves/Technical requests is on a sub-page

See Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 23#The new technical request archiving process. A look at the last "archived" version makes it obvious why "archiving" was deprecated. The length of the subpage, and hence the main WP:RM page that was transcluded into, was getting out of hand! An archiving process would have needed to be set up to archive the "archive". I agree with the consensus that none of that should be necessary. One can track the move history from the move log of redirected former titles as well as the page history of the current title. Clicking on the permalink in either the move log or the page history brings up the "archive" of the technical request. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Wbm1058, it's good to see your recent improvement of Template:RMassist which adds the permalink. If we can speculate on how to improve the template even more, it would be good to have a clickable link which opens a move discussion. The admins or other editors who handle these requests usually wind up opening a formal move for anything that doesn't qualify for immediate action. The steps involved in copying comments over from WP:RM/TR to the article talk page are awkward. If a move discussion could be opened with one click it would be awesome. EdJohnston (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I've been thinking along those lines too. Just need to figure out a way to do it. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Ed and Anthony, I've added a new link "discuss" which is available on the subpage for new requests. Just click on it to open a contested request, and the interface should hopefully be self-explanatory. So much so that probably any editor can do it. But for now I'm not advertising it except here, so you can treat it as a beta. Pretty cool if I say so, kind of works like magic. Let me know if you have any questions or find any issues. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you point to an example of this? I noticed you had done a test but couldn't figure it out. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right, I was going to post my test-example and then I forgot to.

• Here is my example technical request, for Household hardware. You can click on "discuss" and then Show preview to see how it works. And here is what it looks like on the bot's page. I created a couple of new subpages, Template:RMassist/editintro and Template:RMassist/preload that work behind the scenes to make the magic happen. If you're curious about the technical details, I added a couple of technical documentaion links to ((RMassist)). I use Template:Delay subst each time I edit Template:RMassist/preload so that it saves correctly. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• OK, I can open a discussion in your test example. That seems to be fine. When can we look forward to the discuss links showing up in WP:RMTR? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first couple are there already, introduced by this edit. I've boldly implemented this. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, this issue reported on the bot's talk page is what motivated be to finally put in the extra effort to find this solution. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please clarify instruction: Which page one has to put this template in? --109.54.14.170 (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I updated the template documentation:

List new technical requests at the top of Wikipedia:Requested moves' sub-section Uncontroversial technical requests (on sub-page Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, which is transcluded into Wikipedia:Requested moves).

Does that make it clear? Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I updated the template to write an error message on any page other than Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, and added a new section to the documentation with a list of possible error messages. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I made ((RMassist/core)), intended to reduce the amount of code per technical request for managibility. Please ping/post on my talk if there are any inquiries, or if anything's broken. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, we had a suggestion that something like this needed to be done over at RM talk: "generates too much output when substituted, and could surely be made much leaner." Moving the bulk of the code to this subpage is a clever solution. Now, why didn't I think of that ;) Thanks! wbm1058 (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Requested moves

 – where there are 1.5K watchers rather than fewer than 30. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would it be possible to add the Swap functionality to the template, as with Move and Discuss? This would be helpful to Page Movers, as it would (hopefully) include the Permalink to the RMTR page. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi BilCat, unless swap is built into the software, don't think it's possible without JavaScript, and as far as I'm aware, pageswap is probably the only script that does it for now. I could potentially adapt it so that when it finds ((RMassist/core)) transclusions (needs css changes?), the script adds a swap link while in read mode that does the same thing. — Andy W. (talk) 06:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I understand. Whatever you can do would helpful. - BilCat (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BilCat: Sorry to revive an almost 3-year-old thread, but if you install User:Ahecht/Scripts/pageswap you can click the "move" link and it will give you the option to do a swap with the appropriate edit summary already filled in. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is very tedious to use for multiple pages; it should support the same |currentx= and |newx= syntax as ((Rm)).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ —Preceding undated comment added 23:45, 26 January 2017

I agree. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support this proposal. Don't have time to enact, though, at the moment. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 22:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I may or may not get around to this, but ... Template:RMassist/core needs to display an error message if it is transcluded in any page other than Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests or Wikipedia:Requested moves (or Template:RMassist and its subpages), possibly directing the editor to use Template:Requested move instead. There should be no reason why this template should be on any page other than the aforementioned ... but, here's the list of pages which transclude Template:RMassist/core, which currently contains several pages ... Steel1943 (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is happening when contested technical requests are converted to standard one-week discussions; often when multiple technical requests are converted to a pseudo-multi-move discussion. I'm not sure this is something to be concerned with as it doesn't seem to be causing any procedural problems, and the requests are being properly discussed and processed. This issue will likely be mitigated if and when the requested enhancement in the above section #Needs to support multiple entries is implemented. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Wbm1058: Regarding "...I'm not sure this is something to be concerned with as it doesn't seem to be causing any procedural problems..." ... I have to disagree with that since I've already run across an issue where an editor thought using that template created a properly formatted move discussion, leaving that discussion untouched since it was started in 2017 since the editor did not use ((Requested move)) instead of ((RMassist))/((RMassist/core)). So, there could potentially be more of these either now or could happen in the future if there is no type of error message directing the editor to use the proper template. Steel1943 (talk) 04:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • OK, so you found what appears to be a one-off. But, if it means a discussion remaining stillborn for two years before anyone notices, I agree that's one too many. What's the old saying, "users will find a way". I belatedly converted it to a standard RM and relisted it. Will look into an easier way to convert the others so they don't transclude that (sub-)template. wbm1058 (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • ...That works, considering doing that was my second thought (but ultimately ended up doing the edit you partially reverted.) No grief about that shall be given from me. Steel1943 (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The discussion surrounding the most recent, 26 June 2019 edits to Template:RMassist/core is at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 32#No more discuss link on technical requests. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm counting 41 current transclusions of that template, a manageable number –
    • 4 in User talk: either discussing a declined technical request, or asking a specific editor to make technical moves... there are some 327 ((error))s in user talk; I don't patrol this namespace for errors
    • 1 in a user sandbox
    • 1 Template: testcases
    • 3 in WP: and 3 in WT: (in the RM discussion archives)
    • 29 on Talk: pages – all we need to be concerned with (the 12 in other namespaces are OK) – wbm1058 (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I modified the template to suppress the (move · discuss) links when ((BASEPAGENAME)) is not "Requested moves". I don't think we should ((error)) this usage when used this way; it's "valid" usage, albeit unanticipated by the template designers. Perhaps a warning message could be output, but maybe we should wait to see if a second invalid use happens before taking that step. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It can often be useful to know when one of the two page titles is a redirect (for example, if the first title is a redirect, the page may have already been moved, and if the second is a redirect, it may be possible to do a move over redirect). I have modified the sandbox version at ((RMassist/core/sandbox)) to use Template:RMassist/core/styles.css to add (redirect) after bolded redirect links. Any objections to incorporating this into the main template? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That sounds reasonable to me. I tried updating the testcases to include examples where the source or target are redirects. I'm seeing both versions (sandbox and trunk) showing the (redirect) text after the source name (if it's a redirect), but not after the target name, which is not what I would have expected. But maybe the test cases I added are coded incorrectly? Colin M (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Colin M: Because it relies on a stylesheet to add the suffix, if the sandbox template is anywhere on the page, the new stylesheet with the (redirect) text will apply to the entire page. I fixed the issue with the target link (the template uses ((no redirect)) which actually formats the link as an external link, so I had to add a hidden wikilink). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, I see. Then I'm +1 to merging the changes in. Colin M (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Colin M: I stumbled across module:redirect, which is a much less hacky way of detecting the redirect (and, as a bonus, can tell you the redirect target). I reworked the sanbdox version yet again, so it will say, for example, 1999 AD (redirect to 1999). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ahecht: Wouldn't it be a good idea to delete the CSS pages now that you have decided to use Lua instead? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pppery: I blanked it, but I'm not sure how to submit a speedy deletion request on a CSS page. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 03:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Currently, the user posting an RM is mentioned in the edit summary of the move, if the admin/pagemover fulfilling the request clicks the "move" link. I think that if this username is wikilinked, it would send a notification to the requester (See Help:Notifications#Mentions in edit summaries). I think this could be implemented by changing ((#if:(({requester|))}|by (({requester))} at|at)) to ((#if:(({requester|))}|by [[User:(({requester))}|(({requester))}]] at|at)) in Template:RMassist/core.

I think I would like to have this functionality, so that I don't need to check back if my request was fulfilled, I'd just get a notification for it. What do others think?

Second, my template coding isn't particularly strong, so whoever implements this, please double-check my work. And while we're at it, the "at" can probably be moved out of the "#if", right? --rchard2scout (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wanted to let everyone know that I WP:BOLDly performed this edit on ((RMassist/preload)) since the bot that maintains WP:RM goes by the last time stamp in the same line as the original nomination statement, and often the time when the request is posted on WP:RMTR and when the request is moved to full discussion can have a significant difference ... which can otherwise result in a "new" discussion looking like it was posted yesterday (or worse) without this fix. (And pinging the bot owner, Wbm1058, in case I broke something.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK thanks. Your change seems to work OK. My original thinking was that the clock started when the original technical request was made, but if consensus is that the clock should restart when the tech request is contested, then OK. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

would it be possible to add an example to the template doc. page? Michael H (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]