Module talk:Requested move: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Line 21:
::Would that be easier than checking for templates? [[User:Wbm1058|Wbm1058]] ([[User talk:Wbm1058|talk]]) 05:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
:::The check itself would be easier, but again, there's a problem. Often <code><nowiki>__DISAMBIG__</nowiki></code> is inside a template, so detecting it would require us to use [[mw:Extension:Scribunto/Lua reference manual#frame:preprocess|frame:preprocess]] with every page. That involves expanding all the templates and parser functions on the page, and will probably put us over the 10-second limit after just two or three pages, depending on what templates they use. We could reduce the load by using some criteria to decide which part of the page to parse, but deciding which part isn't easy, and it may put us over the limit anyway depending on what we end up processing. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]</sup> 06:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 
== Ireland (one more request) ==
{{for|background|Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 21#Ireland|Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Sea of bold}}
{{ping|Mr. Stradivarius}} In the [[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Lead]] section there is a note<ref name=Arbitration-Ireland/> that is just distracting to editors trying to learn how to submit move requests. I'd like to move it to [[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions]], which may be a better place for its intended audience to read it, but was wondering if you might modify this module to blacklist those three pages. If an editor attempted to use <nowiki>{{requested move}}</nowiki> on a talk page in the blacklist, then give an error: {{IECOLL-talk}}
 
Not that I'm a fan of blacklisting in general, but I've seen comments suggesting that the WP:RM instructions are too long or complicated, and this would be a way to shorten them a bit. Note that there's a template for that: {{tl|IECOLL-talk}} – that's just transcluded on the three banned talk pages. They did have a discussion [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration#Requested move (January 2014)|here]] as recently as January. Which of course was started on one of the banned talkpages, [[special:permalink/591605293#Requested move|in spite of that loud banner]] [[File:Tongue.png|20px]] ... [[special:permalink/591605293#Move discussion in progress|''say what''?]] (sigh) [[special:permalink/592567653#Requested move (January 2014)|This]] is what it looked like just before closing (they got inventive to make it work: '''<nowiki>current1=?|new1=?</nowiki>'''), and amazingly enough [[special:permalink/592568920#January 20, 2014|the bot did not choke on that]]. I've been asked in the past about supporting (multi-)move discussions on WikiProject talk pages. I suppose that wouldn't be too hard to do—I mean to support it in an official and more graceful way. Maybe by setting '''new1 = talkonly''' to indicate that there is no desire to move [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration]], or something like that. Thanks again, [[User:Wbm1058|Wbm1058]] ([[User talk:Wbm1058|talk]]) 02:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
{{reflist |refs=
<ref name=Arbitration-Ireland>
Note to closers: according to an [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Request to amend prior case: Ireland article names|ArbCom ruling]] of June 2009, [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names 2|confirmed]] in September 2011, discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles ([[Ireland]], [[Republic of Ireland]], [[Ireland (disambiguation)]]) must occur at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration]], unless it is agreed there to hold the discussion elsewhere.<!--It might be moved to a sub page etc.--> Any requested move affecting these articles that is opened on the article talk pages or any other venue should be speedily closed, with a pointer to the ArbCom ruling.
</ref>
}}