Template talk:Wikipedia RFC topics

Requested move 4 February 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Template:Wikipedia RFC topics by a rough consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wider attention → Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Topic areas – It would make more sense as a WP:RFC subpage than a template, and the current title hasn’t fit the content for years. Relisted. Number 5 7 17:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC) 174.141.182.82 (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment or Template: Wikipedia Requests for comment - Topic areas would also work, it would clearly indicate the scope and use of the template. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template is transcluded several times. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirects don’t break transclusions. And I count ~~three~~ two non-Talk and non-User transclusions: WP:RFC and {{rfc}} documentation~~, and WP:Dispute resolution requests/RfC (which I’d suggest redirecting to WP:RFC, but that’s another matter)~~. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should not file a RMTR request when you'ved opened a proper move request; and waiting 1 day for responses to gauge support before filing the RMTR is highly improper; just follow the process. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Your math’s off: 8 – 4 ≠ 1. I waited four days, not one, before trying WP:RMT. In that time, yours was the only response. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read the instructions at WP:RM where the open period is 7 days not 4. And "1 day" is a figurative statement, not a literal one. IOW, it's much less than the standard waiting period. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - That page also instructs to not do an RM if the move is not likely to be controversial, and to make a technical request instead (WP:NOTRM). The move seemed noncontroversial to me, so I did, canceling the RM since I thought it had been an unnecessary mistake. But it was contested after all, so here we are with the RM reopened. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sunrise (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose current proposed title. The template should remain in the template namespace because it basically serves as a navigation box for the RFC subpages. If anything, it should be a concise name like Template:RFC topics. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I’d support that one. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd prefer adding a Wikipedia specification, since it isn't about RFC such as IETF RFCs. Template:Wikipedia RFC topics or something -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 03:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Or that one. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.