Template talk:Move

From Minecraft Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I nominate we remove the move link here. it can only be a bad thing. people know how wikis work, and can be told without the link, which encourages move-spam. --Kizzycocoa 23:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

What's worse, people moving pages to bad names properly, or them copy-paste moving, which requires you to do history merges? –ultradude25 (T|C) at 01:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
History merges, by far. I'd revert ill-advised moves that were properly done, all day long, before I'd want to clean up a half-dozen copy-and-paste moves. =P ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 06:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


This template is formatted in a way that doesn't fit. Other message boxes, such as {{merge}}, use {{{title}}} and {{{discuss}}} correctly, while this template does it all with {{{text}}}. I created an example of what the template would look like in my sandbox. Should we use it as a model for this template? The BlobsPaper.png 17:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

 Support the use of proper parameters. Can you do one where it still warns against copy-pasting the page? According to the previous discussion, it was highly preferable that people know not to copy-paste a page. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 20:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 Done I added this. The BlobsPaper.png 20:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how anybody could disagree substantially, if you want to go ahead. It's unquestionably an improvement. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 18:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 Done The BlobsPaper.png 18:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Namespace preserve[edit]

@Dinoguy1000: would it make sense to still have some option for change of namespace for moving? While in most cases we can assume template to template or file to file, I can see the occasional use for a proposal changing between namespaces, such as moving from between Project and Help, from a project to a main page, or if we ever add that Tutorial namespace. KnightMiner t/c 19:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought about that while making the change, and decided it was a rabbit hole I'd rather not jump down unless and until it's actually needed, though admittedly I was only thinking about determining automatically on the basis of the namespace of the current page versus the namespace of the proposed move target, rather than a separate parameter specifically for namespace or something of the sort. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 20:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Image to this template?[edit]

Hi, I would have a image to this template, usually a move icon, but it gets removed by User:Dinoguy1000, and I would have a image, what sort of image, and image helps reader see which sort template it is and no image is very hard to understand which template, and no image do I not think is good, I would have this image: Arrow right.png, it easily sees that it is a move template instead of no image, and in Template:Msgbox, we could modify it to show a info icon by default, but it can be removed by setting image parameter to none, and could we also use an arrow from the game also? Wikipedia-logo.png psl85 (talkcontribs) 05:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Dinoguy1000 - I'm pretty sure that the main reason why Orthotope removed the images is that they deleted them for violating copyright (the appropriate attribution wasn't given) - not solely because they disagreed with them. So adding other images back (with the appropriate attribution/source, which File:Arrow right.png has) wouldn't exactly be edit warring or probably wouldn't require consensus.-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 12:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't have any strong feelings about this one way or another. I didn't realize that was Orthotope's reason for removing the images originally, since he didn't leave an edit summary in his removal. If that's all it was, though, then no, consensus isn't needed here. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 14:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
The main reason for adding a image is to easily see which template and the arrow I uploaded easily shows that it is moving, and no image think I is ugly, and the image makes it easier to see which template it is, I support adding the arrow I uploaded --Wikipedia-logo.png psl85 (talkcontribs) 16:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree this template could be improved by the image you uploaded.  Support. – Sealbudsman talk | contribs 22:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I identify notice templates by their text, not images. Since there's a properly-licensed image now, I have no particular opposition to using it. -- Orthotopetalk 22:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I went ahead and readded the image, as the reason Dinoguy reverted it isn't actually the case, as seen above. Tbh, I personally don't have much of an opinion here, though.-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 22:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

When should this template be used?[edit]

Right now it seems like there are extreme inconsistencies among different users as to when this template should be used. In order to be consistent and make the template wording clear, I think we should establish under what circumstances this template can be used. Right now we have the problem of users throwing this template on a page, with no discussion having been opened, nobody moves it because of the "Do not move the page until a consensus is reached" on the top of it, and then it just sits there for months. I see a few possible options:

  1. This template should only be added without the adminneeded parameter after a discussion has been opened on the talk page and removed once such a discussion has been closed. It can be added to a page with the adminneeded parameter without any kind of discussion if the move is clearly uncontroversial (the later would basically be the equivalent of the technical moves requests page on Wikipedia).
  2. This template can be added anytime a user thinks a page should be moved without necessarily opening a discussion. It should sit on the page for a certain amount of time and if anyone objects at all during that time it should be removed, otherwise the page should be moved after that amount of time. As with the previous option, the template can be added to a page with the adminneeded parameter without any kind of required discussion or waiting period if the move is clearly uncontroversial.
  3. This template can only be added if the move requires an admin; otherwise, it should either be moved directly or a discussion opened on the talk page with no template on the actual article.

I'd be happy to clarify some of these points as needed, and I'm sure there are more possible options than listed here. Note that in all these cases, if the move is clearly uncontroversial (e.g. fixing an obvious typo) and a user has the necessary rights to move it, they would be able to move it without any kind of discussion or template. Also note that depending on what is decided, we may have to create a whole new move template in addition to this one. Please discuss here, so that we can come up with a decision.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me | View what I've done) 13:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

This is how I see interactions with a move nomination template:
  • [Non-speedy move: Propose] User X thinks a page should be moved, but the move may require discussion. X places the template on the page and adds a brief summary of the reasons to move. If it is necessary to provide a more detailed summary, it is done on the talk page.
  • [Non-speedy move: Comment] User Y notices a non-speedy move template on a page and has something to add to the proposal. Y either uses an existent talk page topic for the move or creates it if it hasn't been created already.
  • [Non-speedy move: Contest] User Y notices a non-speedy move template on a page and doesn't agree with the proposal. Y does not delete the template, but posts on the talk page (either in an existent discussion topic or in a new one).
  • [Non-speedy move: Admin required] Any user, who sees a concluded discussion which resulted in that a page is to be moved, can edit the template to include the parameter than an admin is needed.
  • [Speedy admin-only move: Propose] User X thinks a page should be moved, the move should not require discussion, but only an admin can perform it. X places the template on the page, adds a brief summary and a parameter telling that this page should be moved by an admin.
  • [Obviously disruptive nomination] Anyone who sees such a nomination can remove it, but should be prepared to engage in a discussion if they turn out to be wrong.
  • [Move performed or rejected after discussion] The template is removed.
I'm not certain how this would apply here, but I'll just leave these thoughts. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 14:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Anyone else want to leave a comment? Note that we should also probably specify when {{Split}} should be used in reference to before/after discussion.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me | View what I've done) 16:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)