Jump to content

User talk:RMCD bot/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Bot adding Unicode control characters

Hi. Your bot is warring with mine like here by insisting on adding an invisible Unicode control character. I tried updating the talk page, I hope it will be enough. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 21:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, RCMD bot just ensures that the article notice matches what's proposed on the talk page. You only needed to fix the proposal on the talk page, and then the bot would have fixed it on the article for you. wbm1058 (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Underlined "scu"

This line was found in the bot's source code:

$dlink[$transcludes[$i]] = "Di<u>scu</u>ss";

Why is only the "scu" part underlined? JIP | Talk 19:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@JIP: I did that because when you hover over the link the whole word is underlined, and if I underlined the whole word then hovering wouldn't cause any visible change. Originally discussed HERE when I implemented this in May 2017. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I was just wondering if you had made a mistake or someone had vandalised the bot. JIP | Talk 02:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Only one WikiProject notified

In connection with this move discussion notice, RMCD bot informed just one WikiProject of the discussion - the first one listed at the talk page (as it stood at the time), which is currently inactive. But there are several other WikiProject banners on that talk page, some of which have an equal or greater expectation to be notified. Is it possible to inform all of them? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64: The bot does not inform projects which subscribe to Article Alerts, e.g. WP:WikiProject Hertfordshire/Article alerts, WP:WikiProject Yorkshire/Article alerts. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah, Thank you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding a demo parameter to the RM template

I think that April Fools move requests next year might go somewhat smoother if there was a |demo=yes option for Template:Requested move/dated the same as there is for many other templates. What specifically does RMCD bot cue off of? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

No. Ban them outright. There is too much disruption. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I missed all the action on April 1. I see it's all been archived at Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2021#Requested moves. The template was smart enough to know that Recursion had already been moved!
The bot will not see transclusions of {{Requested move/dated/mirror}}. I won't be doing anything special to accommodate April 1 editing. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Bot not triggering

Hi. I put a request at Talk:Treptichnus pedum that does not seem to be getting picked up. Did I do something wrong? YorkshireExpat (talk) 11:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

No, my computer locked up while I was sleeping. Probably some ad-infested website leaking memory (I have too many tabs open in my browser). Rebooting my machine restarted my bots. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Clearly you should be manning it 24/7 ;). Thanks for the reply. YorkshireExpat (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Requests to move a redirect

Really old move discussion notification - bug?

here the bot decided on 15:47 15 December 2016 to drop a notification Talk:Catholic Church#Move discussion in progress about a move discussion on Talk:Catholic that begin on 5 June 2016 and ended the 12th. I'm just not seeing the recency...

One note is that the bot mentioned "Talk:Catholic" and the article/talk name is currently "Talk:Catholicism". Ahh, recent back-n-forth on 15 December at the Catholic redirect, where one user decided it should be Catholic Church, then reverted back to Catholicism, then another two reverts. (sigh) Shenme (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Shenme: If you follow the link provided by the bot, i.e. Talk:Catholic#Requested move 15 December 2016, it shows at the top "(Redirected from Talk:Catholic)". Normally redirection wouldn't be a problem, provided that a thread of the appropriate name ("Requested move 15 December 2016") exists at the ultimate destination, but it doesn't. This is because Chicbyaccident (talk · contribs) started the thread at Talk:Catholic, which is the wrong venue, but the bot still picked it up. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Note that in this edit the bot did report this as a malformed request. I noticed that, and closed it. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 Fixed – I believe the issues with spurious notifications have been addressed. Bot version 7.58 improved handling of requests to move a redirect, by aborting further processing after it reports that the single page requested to be moved is a redirect. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Help talk:Citation style 1

Why is my request on that page malformed? {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Think that like module RM, wbm1058 can you fix it? Hhkohh (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The undeclared dummy edit that added a single space was within the domain of the {{subst:Requested move}}-generated syntax. This if statement didn't find the requested move: 

if (preg_match("/=+\s?.*\s?=+(?=\n+.*\{{2}(Requested move\/dated|movereq)+[^}]*\}{2}+)/iu", $contents, $m))

I suppose I could make the bot disregard the space, but one reason for this check is to make sure editors use the template to request moves. This test catches manually-created move requests (or requests that are manually edited after submission). As to the template not leaving an edit summary I was hoping that THIS would address that, but it's been a frustrating wait for the submitted patch to get reviewed and approved. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed by bot version 7.52 to support a space or other text inserted between the == Requested move == section header and the {{requested move/dated}} template.
The issue of getting an appropriate edit summary on RM submissions remains unresolved. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

editing to remove a space?

I'd argue that this edit isn't necessary for the bot to make. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

But it was necessary for you to make this edit that removed a couple of spaces from the section header and blank lines around the template? I think that's what triggered the bot. OK, I could fix the bot to not make that cosmetic edit but I'm making it a low priority since there's nothing really broken there. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I think this issue was  Fixed in bot version 7.47 which trims the extra space from inside templates. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Odd edit to remove space originally added by bot

Hi, I just wanted to give you a heads up to an apparent hiccup I first noticed at HTTP. The bot added a notice to the main article that included a space after the date; the best I can tell is that nobody has edited, touched or altered the notice, or the original talk page template. But days later RMCD bot came by and sync'd its own edit to remove the space saying it was tampered. A cursory glance at the bot contrib, it seems to have made a few hundred edits exactly like this from May 24-30, mostly on the latter. Just an FYI, thanks! Strangerpete (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

For named parameters, and explicitly-numbered parameters (as in this case), trailing whitespace in a parameter value is utterly insignificant. The second bot edit was pointless. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Redrose64 is right of course. I'm quite aware of this change as it's a tweak I made to the code to remove the extra space, because other editors were taking it upon themselves to remove the unbalanced space at the end of the template and my bot would edit-war to put it right back. I'm hoping that by removing the space editors will be content to not mess with the bot's template. the rash of bot edits removing the space was a one-time thing. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Why is my request being deleted

I tried to add the following request for move, but it gets deleted by the RMCD bot. What is the problem? GStojanov (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group)#Requested move 30 June 2021 – this is not a request that the bot recognizes. Please follow the instructions at WP:RM#CM to submit your request. Did you not notice the edit notice when you edited the bot's page? wbm1058 (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you wbm1058. This is my first request for move. I will follow your instructions. GStojanov (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Can talk page notifications not be marked as bot edits?

Since the purpose of such notifications is to alert page watchers to the RM discussions affecting the page, it would be desirable for such "Notifying of multimove discussion" edits to not be marked as bot edits, so that they show up on users' watchlists and recent changes pages. Thanks. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Under discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#RMCD bot notices. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 Done in bot version 7.50. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Malformed?

Thank you very much for your post at Talk:Adam Yates#Requested move 21 July 2021. Based on your guidance, maybe we should rethink usage of the term "malformed" at all? Perhaps all of the so-called "malformed requests" should instead be called "incomplete requests"? which is pretty much what they turn out to be anyway. Your thoughts? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 00:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Malformed means the request was formed in a way that the bot can't decipher. Humans may understand what's meant, and a more sophisticated bot would be able to decipher and correct the syntax. A super smart bot could allow users to just free-form wing it and maybe not even bother to use templates. If the bot was monitoring recent changes to detect anything that remotely resembled a move request. The bot understands incomplete requests, though it's not so presumptuous as to predict how they should be completed. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
What I'm suggesting based upon your "Please do not call requests of this nature 'malformed' as that can cause unnecessary ill will with the nominator," is to bag the term "malformed requests" altogether. Rather than risk ill will from any nom whose move request is labeled "malformed request" by the bot, perhaps we should simply use the terms "incomplete requests" and "possibly incomplete requests", thus altering "malformed" to "incomplete". That is what I've started calling them in edit summaries so as not to make anyone else angry. If one editor writes about this as did editor Keven McE, it could mean that many others have been put off by the term "malformed" but didn't actually write about it. How difficult would it be to alter "malformed requests" to "incomplete requests" at WP:RM? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 03:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: Two examples that I just fixed:
I'm open to the possibility that a subset of RMs the bot is flagging as malformed for relatively minor technical issues should be handled more gracefully, if you can give me examples. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Just sayin' the "mal" in malformed could be interpreted also as "incompletely" as far as the RMCD bot is concerned, i.e., they are "incompletely formed". I think that would apply to any request the bot catches. The form of the request does not measure up to its standards and so is incompletely formed. Maybe there is a better word that more aptly applies, but I haven't yet come up with one that is better than "incomplete requests". At least it seems that would cause less unnecessary ill will with nominators than "malformed requests". It's up to you of course. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 11:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I've just begun using the term "update request" rather than "fix incomplete request". After that vein, the section could be termed "Requests to update" oslt. "Update" is a more neutral term, I think. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 16:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd forgotten that I introduced the "malformed requests" section to the bot's report on 13 December 2014. Before that, the only special section was the "Time could not be ascertained" section, which is the only such section I inherited from the original author. I added the "malformed" section as a catch-all for reporting all other issues besides "Time could not be ascertained", which I view as a "special type" of malformed request. Later I added a third section for "Possibly incomplete requests". I'm open to the idea of breaking out more specific issues to their own section, i.e. adding another special section like "Time could not be ascertained" and "Possibly incomplete requests". I'm not sure where I got the idea of using the term "malformed" but in the original author's code they used the variables $MALadd, $MALold and $MALsumm for the "Time could not be ascertained" report and I think I took $MAL to be short for "malformed". – wbm1058 (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I see that the term "malformed" has been used on the "closing instructions" page for a long time. This 27 December 2009 large scale reorganization edit added the "Bot considerations" section and the "Malformed requests" subsection, well before my arrival on the RM scene. After I arrived, I changed the section heading on 7 December 2012 to reflect the heading used by the bot. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

— — —

@Paine Ellsworth: FYI, I just installed a new bot version that should reduce the number of RMs flagged as "malformed" a little bit, by tolerating text inserted between the section heading and the {{Requested move/dated}} template. I could hardly revert this edit by GorillaWarfare since I'd participated in off-wiki discussions of this move request. So, I spent a good chunk of yesterday working on this – finding the right regular expression ("regex") to make it work right isn't easy – and this morning I installed it after Google found me a solution. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Ope, didn't realize doing that would anger the bot. Is it alright now with your change or should I move the template? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
It didn't anger the bot. It just confused the bot, which angered the bot operator. But because this issue has already caused too much confusion and anger due to others occasionally making similar edits, I decided to bite the bullet and work on a fix. Which is done now, so we're good I didn't grow up coding in regex, and learning it later in life means it takes me longer to work with it. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
That will help with other things I think. There is a rather rare type of instance when a RM has gone to MR and was overturned to reopen and relist. In that case, the MRV template that notifies at the TOP between the header and the RM template introduced a malformity. I would just move the MRV notification down below the nom statement. This bot edit should take care of that. Bravo! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
As to the use of the word "malformed", I've thought a lot about it and want you to know that I myself have no problem with its usage. And I don't think most editors care one way or another either. It's just those very few whose sensibilities are a little shaken by someone who comes in and changes things behind them. Vast majority would rather see things done correctly, I think. Any editor who gets sensitive about someone coming in and changing their edits probably should find something else to do or find a way to detach themselves, because if they don't they will get a rude awakening at some point. Wikipedia is all about others improving on one's work, so we have to get used to that if we're going to have a lot of fun here on WackyikipediA. (fixed malformity? ) P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Bot not working?

Further information: Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard § User:RMCD bot has not run after 30 minutes of Requested_move posted to Talk

A heads up that the bot hasn't made any edits since yesterday, despite having work to do (I made an RM at Talk:Carlos Sainz, yet it hasn't been added to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions) SSSB (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The bot's console is getting the error message: "cURL error: SSL certificate problem: certificate has expired" (I suppose October 1 may be the "expiration date"). This is a set-and-forget type of thing that I set up years ago. Alas, I got no "heads up" notice that my certificate, whatever that is, was about to "expire" after working fine for years. Hopefully it won't take me too long to dive to the depths of my bot's "framework" and figure it out. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
I last needed to deal with SSL certificates in mid-June 2015. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
m:Talk:HTTPS#Bots. All of my bots have been shut down by this. Actually "expired" sometime before 5 PM Ohio time on September 30. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
As I noted back in 2015, my certificate was "valid to 8/22/2018" and indeed it now reports that it has expired. It was valid from 8/22/1998 to 8/22/2018. Yet somehow it managed to continue working for over three years after it "expired". Go figure. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
re: "...the certificate is issued to and by Equifax Secure Certificate Authority, and is valid to 8/22/2018." – that's just the first of many certificates in the bundle that Windows shows you. After editing the bundle with Notepad to remove that expired certificate, Windows showed me the next certificate in the bundle, which hasn't expired yet: issued to and by GlobalSign Root CA, valid from 9/1/1998 to 1/28/2028 – wbm1058 (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Official curl website link: https://curl.haxx.se/ — wbm1058 (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Aha! m:Tech/News/2021/39 2021, week 39 (Monday 27 September 2021) – Changes later this week:
  • A small number of users will not be able to connect to the Wikimedia wikis after 30 September. This is because an old root certificate will no longer work. They will also have problems with many other websites. Users who have updated their software in the last five years are unlikely to have problems. Users in Europe, Africa and Asia are less likely to have immediate problems even if their software is too old. You can read more.
Alas, my bot runs in USA, not Europe, Africa or Asia. Surely they could have identified the most active of that "small number of users" and delivered personal notices to their talk?! – wbm1058 (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

This is what the sucker causing all the trouble looks like in Windows Notepad: 

DST Root CA X3
==============
-----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----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-----END CERTIFICATE-----

When I view it as a .crt file I confirm it was valid from 9/30/2000 to 9/30/2021. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

After removing that, I get a new error message: "cURL error: SSL certificate problem: unable to get local issuer certificate"
Now it's just a matter of replacing that certificate with one that works. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 Fixed I copied the needed ISRG Root X1 certificate from https://letsencrypt.org/certs/isrgrootx1.pem.txt – wbm1058 (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

And you are still using Windows 7? Why didn't you switch to Windows 10? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Windows Media Center. And I still haven't quite figured out what 10 brings to the table that I can't do with 7. My laptop runs on 10 and has been used to run my bots as a backup machine. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Noting that per Certificate Verification with Schannel and Secure Transport if libcurl was built with Schannel (Microsoft's native TLS engine), then libcurl will still perform peer certificate verification, but instead of using a CA cert bundle, it will use the certificates that are built into the OS. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Multiple requested move sections on the same page

 Fixed – bot v 7.63 detects and reports multiple open requested moves on the same page as malformed. – wbm1058 (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

See Talk:North Rhine-Westphalia#Requested move 7 November 2021 – wbm1058 (talk) 07:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Request for not adding a reason: Talk:America's Next Top Model: All-Stars#Requested move on WP:RM

I request that the proposed move had forgot to write a reason and put it in a current discussions list.

User:Status moved all the articles without consensus and common names should be (Cycle XX), as included. Revert to original titles, all of these titles should not included as article name. Many of U.S. reality TV series' seasons don't use the "All-Stars" title.

The problem is you failed to put a reason and it has been missing at the part of February 2, 2013 section. ApprenticeFan work 10:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I see that there were a couple of problems with your RM edits.
  1. Initially there were two identically titled Requested move sections. Although the bot uses the second, most recent section for the current discussions lists, I believe the link back to the talk page goes to the first one. You fixed this issue here. Making a note for my to-do list's back-burner. Perhaps the bot could recognize these redundantly titled sections, and edit one of them to make it unique. Although what you did is fine, I would lean towards changing the name of the more recently created section. This would minimize the risk of breaking links to the older section ( {{Oldmoves}} might link to it, for example).
  2. The issue of your reason for moving not getting into the bot-generated current discussions lists is trickier. Your fix attempts will only be good for about 15 minutes, until they are reverted by the bot. I'm still working on that issue... Wbm1058 (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I diagnosed the second issue. Because America's Next Top Model includes an apostrophe in the title, per the documentation at {{subst:Move-multi}}, you need to omit parameter current1 – did you run into that problem? And did you try working around the issue by using {{requested move/dated}} directly? {{subst:Move-multi}} should have written an en dash before the reason. This is important because the bot looks for that. This edit fixed the issue, with the bot's next update. – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: the second issue is now resolved, but the first is still open.

Cannot get RMCD bot to trigger

I tried a couple of different ways, but I cannot get RMCD bot to trigger on Talk:Douglas-fir#Requested move: both genus and species articles. what did I do wrong? is there a bug? Thanks for any help you can provide! —hike395 (talk) 10:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

As WP:RM/CM says, Do not put more than one move request on the same article talk page, as this is not supported by the bot that handles updates to this page. However, the first move request on that talk page is getting linked by the bot, and from there it's easy to scroll down and see the second, alternative request. Hopefully the closing administrator will read it all. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Pickup error on double templated sections

The bot is having a pickup error if a template precedes the requested move template in the move discussion section.

(Discuss) – Wikipedia:WikiProject Portuguese geography → Talk:Anadia Municipality, Portugal – The clarification "Municipality" is unnecessary. Vivaelcelta {talk · contributions} 02:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The above had a {{discussion moved from}} template before the {{Requested move/dated}}, and the bot picked up "Talk:Anadia Municipality, Portugal" from the {{discussion moved from}} template, instead of the parameters set in the {{requested move/dated}} template.

I've moved templates around to fix this in the meanwhile. ( {{discussion moved from}} has been moved to after the rationale sentence )

-- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

This is an unusual and unconventional template placement. I'm probably not going to try to implement any bot workarounds for it. This is a preferable way to do that, but generally there should only be an open {{requested move/dated}} template on one talk page—the talk page which is actually intended to host the centralized discussion. RMCD bot automatically notifies other pages listed in {{move-multi}} that the discussion is happening on the talk page of current1. I do admire your creative solution and this is the first time I've seen the {{moved discussion to}} template used. – Wbm1058 (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I've seen the requested move templates show up the the middle of discussions without a new header before, so it'll probably continue to happen, with the bot encountering multiple templates before reaching the "requested move/dated" one. Sometimes people combine RFCs with RMs, so I'd expect an RFC tag to be encountered before the RM tag. I've been fixing the first situation by adding new headers, but that won't work for the second situation. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
See my reply here. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Multimove discussion area

{{subst:move-multi
| current1 = Current title of page 1 with the talk page hosting this discussion
| new1 = New title for page 1

This should be modified to allow for the discussion area to be located at a different location, such as a centralized discussion area. The way the subst template is done now, that won't work. Several multimoves have taken place on wikiproject or policy or guideline discussion pages. But these end up abusing the current1 parameter. Either by moving the page to itself, or making a moveoptions link. Instead, the RMCD bot should inform current1 's talk page, if current1 does not match the page the discussion is occurring on. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Noted. I don't know if we need to seek community support for this, but I think your idea of hosting major multi-move discussions on project pages is a good one. As you have a workaround, I'll focus first on the second issue (below), which has wider impact. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not actually my idea, it's already occurring and the misuse of "current1"/"new1" is something I am finding bothersome, since it's not part of the actual move request. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 Done. I've updated Module:Requested move to support hosting significant multi-move discussions on WikiProject talk pages or other talk pages in Wikipedia: namespace. {{{current1}}} is thus un-deprecated. {{Requested move/dated}} and RMCD bot already support this with no updates to their code necessary. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trucks is currently hosting such a discussion: Requested move 25 September 2017. Common discussion pages such as WikiProject talk pages can still only host one open RM discussion at a time. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Expanding on this, RMCD bot should also allow pickup of multiple different discussions on the same talk page, since centralized discussion areas may be hosting multiple multi-move discussions based on different policy/guideline changes -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

See my reply here. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
This is actually occurring in current and past move requests, so the bot is mixing and matching multiple move reuqests together, making rather odd automated listings. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Bot substitute different lemmas

I want to move Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters to DTM (motorsport).

Perhaps I've used the template wrong, but the bot has used old discussed lemmas. The edit of your bot[1] is different to my edit at the discussion page[2]. thx in advanced --Pitlane02 talk 08:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Section titles must be unique. I've fixed that for you by numbering them 1 and 2. A more robust fix is on my to-do list, see Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive 25#Add section title for adding automatically. Wbm1058 (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Another problem on that page is that the bot was picking up the new names from the {{Requested move/old}} template instead of from the {{Requested move/dated}} template. I am guessing that something in the bot coding needs to be fixed to fix this. Apteva (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
thx --Pitlane02 talk 16:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Pizzagate (conspiracy theory)

The bot restored a move notice to the article, but the move request has been withdrawn - See Talk:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory)#Requested move 15 December 2016. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I have denied the bot until the problem is fixed. Please move the denial once it is appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: Look a little higher up on the page. Talk:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory)#Suggested move - 8 December 2016. There should only be one open RM discussion on a single talk page at a time. -- wbm1058 (talk) 05:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, my error. I looked through the talk page several times, but somehow missed that. My apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Templates with shared talk pages

I just made a request to move {{requested move/dated}}, which has a shared talk page with {{requested move}} and thus put the request on Template talk:Requested move. Is there some way of placing this move without confusing the bot or placing discussions on redirects? Pppery 15:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

This relates to #Multimove discussion area above. This isn't very high on my priority list, and I won't likely be doing anything to support hosting move requests on higher-level or project discussion pages, unless there is more demand for this. wbm1058 (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Alexander Michel

See two open RMs on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Why did the bot not list it on WP:RM? The RM discussion is open on WT:FOOTY, Wbm1058 Hhkohh (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hhkohh: there are two open RMs on WT:FOOTY and the bot only supports one open requested move on a page at a time. So either wait for the first RM to close before opening the second one, or move one of the RMs to the talk page of one of the pages requested to be moved. Routine requests should still be made on one of the pages to be moved; WikiProject talk pages should only be used for requests of meta significance, e.g. those that are de facto requests to change or clarify a specific naming convention. It's on my deep to-do list to support multiple requests on the same page; i.e. something I hadn't been planning to get to soon, unless there is a groundswell of demand for it. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Part of the reason for not supporting multiple requests on the same page is that I don't think it is desirable to have competing RMs open to move the same page to one of two different contending targets. wbm1058 (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Hhkohh, I agree with wbm1058 that these sorts of discussions should be taking place on the talk pages of the articles, not at WT:FOOTY. In particular, I think it is somewhat questionable to have WikiProjects host move discussions. Normal move discussions are presumed to be just as relevant to other editors as to members of a particular WikiProject, and the WikiProjects don't have any special claim to controlling the naming of the articles. I would suggest moving both move requests wholesale to the talk pages that would normally host them, leaving behind just links to the discussions at WT:FOOTY. Dekimasuよ! 23:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, WikiProjects are a reasonable place for soliciting opinions but should not be hosting RMs as that gives the impression that they control topic areas. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Dekimasu, here is an example:WT:F1#"Formula One" or "Formula 1" about F1 articles moving (you closed) and see Talk:F1. So I cannot understand why we cannot discuss in WikiProject discussion page Hhkohh (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I have move the second discussion to article talk page Hhkohh (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

That "F1" discussion was the kind of meta-discussion that I think is OK for hosting on WikiProject pages. The discussion was on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One, and the result literally would have implied moving the WikiProject to WikiProject Formula 1. As was the discussion which prompted me to modify Module:Requested move to support hosting discussions on third-party pages: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trucks/Archive 2#Requested move 25 September 2017. That one was about whether the name "Harvester" should be part of the title of a whole set of trucks made by International Harvester. Both discussions started on the WikiProject pages and only had RM templates added well after the discussion was underway. Interestingly, both ended up at WP:Move review.

Whereas, I don't see how discussions about how to name individual soccer players have any meta-applicability at all to WikiProject Football. Maybe such discussions might be of interest to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), in which case they could be hosted at WT:Naming conventions (people). – wbm1058 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate notices

The bot put two notices at Talk:Keith Lee, separated by 15 minutes, using the same edit summary both times. I don't see any activity in the page history at Talk:Keith Lee (wrestler) that would have prompted a second notice. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. When I changed the cross-post comments to include section links, I guess I needed to make the same change in four places and I missed one (just getting three). I'll get this fixed, and probably should make this a function so I only need to change in one place. Will get this with my next update. wbm1058 (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks very much! —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 Fixed by v. 7.61 – wbm1058 (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Question

A user started RM without substituting the template, so your bot listed it as time can't be ascertained. Later I substituted the template, but up to now the bot didn't understand that so as to move it to appropriate date section. Few days back, I came across something similar and less than 10 minutes after my substitution the bot picked up, but I wonder what stopped it now.–Ammarpad (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The signature needs to be on the same line. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I found this out the hard way when I started relisting stuff with a line break. --QEDK (桜 ❄ 伴) 19:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 Fixed by v 7.65 – signatures may now be placed on a new line. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Relistings are not being processed

Just a curious fyi, I've noticed a few relistings that are not being processed by the RMCD bot. For example, Talk:Hideya Suzuki (musician)#Requested move 27 October 2021 was relisted; however, instead of appearing in the 5 Nov section, it's in the backlog. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 06:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Never mind – found the problem and fixed it. The relister made a line break between the nom's sig and the Relisting template, and this bot could not process it in the normal fashion. The relister has been notified. Thank you Mr. RMCD bot for all the hard work you do! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 13:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for solving this, Paine. This issue has been previously reported, see #Question above. Something I should probably try to solve with better regex. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Searched for others but haven't found any. Just comes in as a little blip now and then. I think I've made the same correction in the past, but I didn't remember. Man it's so great to be gettin' old! It's a pleasure to work on this stuff, so thanks again for making it so much easier than it used to be! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 03:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 Fixed by v 7.65 – relistings will be processed even when on a new line. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Multi-moves

Bot version 7.65 improved regex logic, eliminating the need to specify const maxmoves = 350; #maximum number of allowed moves in a multiple move request.

So now there is no limit set by the code on the number of moves which can be included in a multi-move request. The only limit is on processing time (intended to force a breakout from unexpected infinite loops). I last raised this limit to 24 minutes on 14 May 2020. Wikipedia:Requested moves § Requesting multiple page moves says There is no technical limit on the number of multiple move requests, but before requesting very large multi-moves, consider whether a naming convention should be changed first. Discuss that change on the talk page for the naming convention, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople). I added this advice on 30 April 2014. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate instructions

At talk:Mission Specialist, this bot left a message stating that any discussion of that page's RM should be held at the RM for Payload Specialist. Primergrey (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a longstanding practice. I replied in the discussion at Talk:Payload Specialist. wbm1058 (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
See Template talk:Move-multi § Subst:Move-multi. {{Move-multi}} originally supported up to 10 pages. That was soon ramped up to 20, then 30. With the implementation of Module:Requested move, the floodgates were opened. Re unnecessary server strain, in January I bumped the limit up to 350 when the system was flooded with several bulk requests to move train station articles. That was sufficient to cause processing to fill the bot's 15 minute window and temporarily delay updates to once every half hour rather than the usual once every 15 minutes. I need to research what the prior way of doing this before November 2009 was, to see what sort of discussion and consensus there may have been for consolidating related discussions (though to me the rationale is obvious and makes perfect sense). – wbm1058 (talk) 10:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:RMCD

Hi, Wbm1058. Why the bot did not update WP:RMCD? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

It maxed out its 8 minute lime limit for execution. A lot of work to process Talk:Anshandao Station#Requested move 6 January 2018 and notify all those pages. If the next run still times out, I'll bump up the maximum allowed execution time. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
It's still timing out at 14 minutes. Normally a new run starts every 15 minutes. Totally swamped by huge train station move requests. Kind of disruptive. These should have just been technical moves, if there is already a consensus for the naming convention. wbm1058 (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Finally had a bot update run to completion, in 14:45. Finished just 15 seconds before the next update started. Usually these run well under five minutes. Running at maximum capacity, and page-load times are impacted by this request-bombing as well. wbm1058 (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Blast from the past: RM bot's old to-do list

I suppose when I took over this process, I inherited the to-do items listed at User:RM bot/TODO. A copy of that is below, and I will check on the status of each and respond below. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Pending:

  • Investigate issues with user pages per Vegaswikian
    • We really need to get the bot running every 15 minutes starting at the top of the hour. Going several hours without updates is not acceptable.
      Windows Task Scheduler has my bot running every 15 minutes. Quite reliable, but for the occasional power outage or system hangup requiring a reboot that happens while I'm sleeping or away. wbm1058 (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    • If a user lists a user page and it winds up at the bottom of the list due to an error, fixing the errors can cause the listing to disappear for a few runs before it reappears. This does not apparently happen with regular namespace pages.
      {{subst:Requested move}} doesn't allow user pages to be listed: Template:Requested move is not for moves from draft or user space.
  • Follow redirects when posting messages on talk pages per Arthur Rubin
    When the target's talk page is a redirect to a different page other than the page which has been requested to be moved, the bot follows that redirect, and if that target's talk page has non-redirecting content, the bot posts a notice there too. (v 5.21)
  • When discussions are archived, may be initially showing up as incorrect syntax; example
    This RM closed at 06:01, 26 October 2011, four minutes before the bot wrote its report at 06:05, 26 October 2011. If the bot began processing at the top of the hour, then the RM closed while the bot was running. The error message This move request does not use the accepted syntax. Please fix. must be something HardBoiledEggs added in a version of the code he never published. It's never been in any of my versions. This seems to have been an "edit conflict"; see § RMCD bot: edit conflict. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Find statistics (esp. historical) for mabdul
    Still no formal statistics collection, but maybe someday. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Resolve issues in display of unsigned move requests per Station1 and IP
    We avoid issues with unsigned requests by making {{subst:Requested move}} automatically sign. This resulted in occasional doubly-signed requests; the bot now detects and reports these to my console, and occasionally I remove the redundant signatures, e.g. HERE, HERE, and HERE.

About time I got around to reviewing this, five years after I said I would! wbm1058 (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Correcting a mistaken request is not "tampering"

The edit comment for this this edit says Sync tampered notice of move discussion on Talk:Horror vacui. "Tamper" is an inappropiate pejorative for a requester fixing their own mistake. Please change this to neutral language, such as "Sync to modified notice of move discussion". Paradoctor (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done Bot version 7.71 changed "tampered" → "modified". – wbm1058 (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

BOt adds underline

Hello whoever will see this message and respond to it! I've noticed that when a bot adds an entry on the RMCD page, it occasionally adds an underline like this: Discuss. If this is intentional why does the bot underline the whole word and why doesn't the bot do it to all of them? It seems to be random when the bot adds that and I originally thought it was someone's signature forgetting a closing underline tag but no, it's deliberately in those spots. I've checked the history of the page and it's all the bot so that shows that it's not some user adding it as vandalism. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: see User talk:RMCD bot/Archive 3#Underlined "scu". I suppose since you're at least the third person to ask me about this, I should just remove this feature – that subtly indicates relisted discussions – on my next bot update. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
@Wbm1058: I think an indication of a relisted discussion is good, but I feel it should be a bit more obvious that 1. It's relisted and 2. That that is what it means. Maybe changing the color of the link or something? ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
This indicator should be redundant to the — Relisting.  notice posted by the relisting editor (generated by {{subst:RM relist}}), which is included in the subpages. Did you notice the message that the top of the list?
This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 48 discussions have been relisted, indicated by (Discuss)
I suppose that I could change it to "indicated by (Discuss) but then I think someone would post another question here, "why are some of the links orange?"
The purpose of this is to confirm that the bot recognizes the items as relisted, and I implemented this to support the table, which more clearly distinguishes the discussions that have been relisted. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
This feature has been removed, in bot version 7.71 – wbm1058 (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

RMCD bot malfunctioning

Your bots going crazy at Talk:Barry Allen (DC Extended Universe). Gonnym (talk) 08:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, it did detect an issue and report it here. If there were any adults in the room, they would have seen that, and closed the conflicting discussion. OK, so I still need to make the bot check for such detected conflicts before it posts notices. – wbm1058 (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
...or removes notices ;)  Fixed in bot version 7.72 – wbm1058 (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Insults in move request

An editor who has never edited Russian information war against Ukraine has filed a request for a page move. I am having trouble taking this seriously, since the editor does not appear to have read the article, but hey I have been trying to recruit other editors there so perhaps this will help. I would like however for the mischaracterization of my actions to be removed; apparently I am in bad faith being mean to Putin per an acronym salad. Is this the proper venue to request this? Elinruby (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

No, this is the page for reporting problems with my robot's automated processing of the requested moves, and for requesting enhancements to that processing. I'd rather not resolve editor disputes on this page. But I did take a look, and some of the things I see on that page make me . I'm keeping an eye on it, and may even try to help settle the matter. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
thanks. I asked because there was some verbiage in there about a default. I’ve since realized that it came from the requestor not the bot. I’ve struck it out along with the insults for the moment, but your eyes are appreciated. Elinruby (talk)

Appreciation

Firefangledfeathers has given you batteries! Batteries promote WikiLove (📖💞) and hopefully this one has made your day more powerful. It is the power source best preferred by bots. 🤖 Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else batteries, whether it be someone you have had robot wars with in the past or a good friend.


Spread the goodness of batteries by adding {{subst:Batteries for you}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! My bots actually run on the local electrical grid but the operator often needs new batteries to keep his wireless mouse powered up. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

RMCD bot notifying talk page of move discussion on the same page

RMCD bot keeps notifying Talk:Acasa, My Home of a move discussion happening on the very same talk page. Is this a bug presumably arising from the fact the proposed destination differs only in the presence of a diacritic, or have I formatted the request incorrectly? Nardog (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Scratch the hypothesis above, I assume this space was the culprit. Nardog (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Egads! You can even insert consecutive spaces inside an article title and the system will remove them! [[Talk:Acasa, My Home]]: Talk:Acasa, My Home is not a red link! [[Acasa, My Home]]: Acasa, My Home is not a red link! Even <nowiki> doesn't stop the extra spaces from getting eaten – when you read the page. But NO! They aren't stripped before you SAVE a page. No, no no! I haven't seen that one yet, but Murphy's Law tells me that if I don't check for that, eventually I will. Hopefully no "bean counters" are reading my talk! I know where to fix these in the code – I have functions talkpagename and wikititle. Now on my high-priority to-to list. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
@Nardog:  Fixed in bot version 7.78 – wbm1058 (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Robot gone wild. Thank you. לילך5 (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, surprisingly, this was not caused by any subpage-related issues. The problem was caused by experienced user Mvcg66b3r's edit which created the page. Per the edit summary:

Created page with '== == {{subst:requested move | current1 = Audubon/Downriver, Spokane

This edit by GeoffreyT2000 resolved the issue. I still need to patch my bot's code to ensure it won't be thrown for more loopy loops when this sort of edit happens again.

Mvcg66b3r, why did you put a blank header in front of the template?: The instructions don't say to do that.

I recall last September making a patch to accommodate another form of funky section header. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't intend to put a blank header. I thought I was following the rules. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 Fixed in bot version 7.80. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Contested RM/TR requests

Wbm1058, how much work do you think it would be to have the bot list RMs by the "This is a contested technical request" datestamp rather than by the original one? Take Talk:Michigan Opera Theatre#Requested move 21 September 2022, for instance: someone made a request at WP:RM/TR on the 19th, but it wasn't converted to a full RM until the 21st. The bot only saw the original datestamp and listed it at WP:RMCD in the section for RMs from the 19th, but it'd be better if it were listed under the 21st—otherwise, RMs end up in the "elapsed" section before there have actually been seven full days of discussion. Would it be possible to use the "This is a contested technical request" datestamp instead? Don't worry about it if it'd be a lot of work, of course: I just figured I'd throw it out as a suggestion. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ: See Template talk:RMassist#Edit performed on Template:RMassist/preload regarding time stamp, where Steel1943 already found a way to solve the problem. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Bot not running

The bot has not been running for more than 3 hours since 17:07 UTC today. So, what makes the bot currently down? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I have recently started an RM about a possible naming error on an article, see if the bot makes the tagging there. If not, I say the bot is probably not running. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Bot updates will be limited over the next several days. Sorry. wbm1058 (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Bot hasn't edited since 14:25 UTC, 19 August 2022. ––FormalDude talk 05:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Why did the bot do this?

Hello! I just noticed that the bot performed this edit, while I corrected the punctuation in this edit. It was my mistake not to use the proper punctuation on the article's talk page, but I also corrected it there, as well as on the requested moves page. -- 31.223.130.252 (talk) 31.223.130.252 (talk) 06:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

It looks like you've found a way to fix that. That's great. Although, I'd say that you really do not need to edit every instance of the move request when you modify one, the bot will fix them all automatically in its next run. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 11:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, a longstanding issue. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarifications. Yes, it seems that my last fix worked, and I performed the edits all around just to save the bot from doing some work this time. :) -- 31.223.130.70 (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Issue with hidden or collapse templates at WP:Requested moves/Current discussions

Hi @Wbm1058, I think I've had this issue before but I cannot recall how to fix it. If I use a Template:ctop and Template:cbot, it breaks the page and includes everything below, ignoring the cbot. This is affecting my current move request at Talk:Auschwitz trial, for example. Any idea how to prevent this from happening? I am all ears and I apologize for the difficulties. Thanks — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, don't write a damn book for transclusion to the Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions page, and don't mess too much with the structure that the bot expects. I noticed that abomination yesterday and it annoyed me. OK, I'll fix it now. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, but I don't have much choice when the move request involves so many pages. That's why I'm collapsing it to avoid taking up too much space. I think I'm figuring out which line break forms the bot handles. It would be a lot easier if I had documentation to know which things to use and not use... It seems the bot does not handle double returns, but does handle the html break or the template break...
So I will use that in the collapses, and make sure the cbots are recognized. I really am just trying to work within the confines of what the bot can do, but I have no idea what it can and cannot do. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
The confines are determined by what you can do with the parameters of {{subst:Requested move}}. If you edit the page after that template's been substituted you are at high risk of going out-of-bounds. The whole purpose of {{subst:Requested move}} is to define your bounds. If we didn't need to do that we would just delete that template and tell everyoune to use {{Requested move/dated}} directly. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
the documentation for that template does not tell me which things I can and cannot use in terms of formatting, lists, etc. I have no idea if I can use html markup, templates within templates, etc with that documentation.
Another issue is that, from reading that documentation, I have no idea how to handle titles which I don't think should change, but which could be affected by the discussion. Do I list their current title in both current and new? I'm guessing not, since that would probably break the template. For example, the move discussion in question involves many titles which I as the proposer think should stay where they are. But it is possible the discussion could go the other way, and they would be moved.
I get the point of restricting what can be used. It makes headaches like this. I get it. I write software for scientists to use in my day job and it often breaks when they try and do things that aren't described. It's annoying. But when we get into really weird move territory like this, with 25+ entries in the list, with edge cases, I am forced to experiment to make it work and have all the necessary information for participants to make an informed decision. The entire point is to make the move process work properly, if I can't actually do that with the template then the choice between make a bad RM that probably will be contested later and experiment to make it work is pretty clear to me.
Again, sorry for the disruption, I didn't intend to take an hour of your time I promise — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Just to clarify @Wbm1058, the reason I did not use the "names to be determined by discussion" format is that there are also articles which could be affected by the discussion which are not in that list. Namely, the current big T articles could be determined by discussion to be lowercase t, and vice versa. But I was not advocating for them to be changed, I think they should stay. SO I manually advertised on those pages instead of using RMCD. and then made sure they were clearly a part of each list in the drop down.
But if we're using that format, I have to add every single article to that list not just those 4.... which I will now do. I didn't do it initially because it looks terrible and will be extremely long with 25ish entries — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
When your list gets to be 25, 50 or more pages long you're essentially trying to establish or change a naming convention. RM isn't an ideal venue for that. Maybe better to start a request for comment on the applicable naming convention's talk. RM is the ideal place for the edge cases or the exceptions to the naming conventions. If you feel the need to hide or collapse your rationale, it's too long. Just summarize your rationale for transclusion to the "current discussions" page, then put the details at the top of the detailed discussion that appears only on the page where the discussion is. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I think I'm not communicating to you well about the situation in question, so I don't think this is going to be a very productive use of either of our time to go into detail about why that is not applicable. Suffice it to say, it's about a move request that happened 8 years ago involving all of these 25 pages, but which would not affect the extremely large number of other pages in the same technical category (court cases). As the rationale would not work for most court cases, but does apply to this group.
Anyway thank you for your time and advice. Especially the idea to have a shorter summary for RMCDbot to use for WP:RM and then to put other pertinent details at the top of the discussion, thats a perfect idea and thank you for doing that for me in this case. I actually did not do that because I've had people come into the discussion and undo that in the past to get it all on WP:RM, so I thought I would be breaking some rule. Annoying, but it's the consequences of a volunteer project. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Notices at redirect targets

Sometimes the bot puts move discussion notices on pages that are not directly affected by a proposed move. This seems a bit misleading and confusing. It happens when an RM is submitted at "Talk:Foo" that proposes "Foo" to be renamed to "Bar", but "Talk:Bar" is a redirect to "Talk:Nightclub". Then we end up with a notice on the "Talk:Nightclub" page that says "There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Foo which affects this page" (i.e., it says the RM affects the "Nightclub" page). This is basically not accurate, as the RM does not propose doing anything to the "Nightclub" page – it is only proposing to change the pages at "Foo" and "Bar", without touching "Nightclub".

An editor who has "Nightclub" on their watchlist could get rather confused when they see a bot notice that says the Nightclub page is affected by some discussion, and when they go look at that discussion, they see no change actually being proposed for "Nightclub".

An example of this phenomenon can be found at Talk:The Buddha § Move discussion in progress.

If this situation can be detected, it would be better for the bot's notification to say "There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Foo which (indirectly) affects this page."
—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"Talk:Foo" isn't the talk page of an article; it's Talk:Buddha (disambiguation), talk page of a disambiguation. The proposal isn't to rename Buddha (disambiguation) to something unrelated like ["Bar"] Christ (disambiguation), it's to remove the (disambiguation) qualifier, which implies pulling something off of primary-topic status. Talk:Buddha is a redirect to Talk:The Buddha, the talk page of the primary topic. The difference between "Buddha" and "The Buddha" is currently the subject of two conflicting move requests, each proposing to move a different page to "Buddha". I don't see anyone else confused in the discussion at Talk:The Buddha § Move discussion in progress and the distinction between "directly" and "indirectly" affected seems insignificant. As in a car accident, the driver "indirectly" causes damage to another vehicle, the damage was "directly" caused by their car. This notification feature was discussed here; a discussion you participated in and seemed OK with. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for responding and thank you very much for your great work on this bot. Regarding a previous discussion that you mentioned, I was very glad a notification was created for implied multi-moves (i.e. when an RM target is an occupied title). But didn't that discussion end with a statement that said "when the target's talk page is a redirect, it does nothing"? Isn't that the case we're discussing here? The current behavior doesn't seem to fit that quoted description, although, as I said at Talk:The Buddha § Move discussion in progress, "I think having RM notices appear at redirect targets is desirable, although perhaps a refinement of the wording would be helpful." I came here, as suggested in that discussion, to suggest a specific refinement of the wording. Whether one of the involved pages is a disambiguation page or not, my point is simply that these are different titles, so the intermediate redirect is causing the bot's notice to land on a page that is not one of the titles directly involved in the RM proposal. Hypothetically, in some cases there might be no mention of the "Nightclub"/"The Buddha" title in the RM discussion that generated the bot notice at all. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

This bot keeps removing the link to a move's discussion. Is there a reason for that? M.Bitton (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the reason starts with an editor who submits a malformed move request by not using the {{subst:Requested move}} syntax despite our best efforts to provide detailed instructions on how to submit requested moves in the template documentation and instructions.
The reason continues with another editor who changes the section heading "to distinguish this RM from others in the usual way" by changing the section heading to the default heading that Template:Requested move would have produced had the editor not chosen to override that heading by making a custom heading by using the optional parameter |heading=Move request.
The reason continues when yet another editor decides to fix (theoretical) broken links by adding an anchor to the section heading:
== {{anchor|Move request}} Requested move 20 December 2022 ==
despite this not being best practice as documented at Template:Anchor#Basic format (that template should be substituted at the end of section headings). – wbm1058 (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Malformed requests

Did you remember to submit your request by using {{subst:Requested move}}? See "Bot considerations"

Just a little question I've had for a time. This hatnote accompanies malformed requests on the WP:RM page. Unless there is a way to point the proposers of malformed requests to this section, then maybe it should read:

Did the nom remember to submit their request by using {{subst:Requested move}}? See "Bot considerations"

(or something similar like "the proposer")

So whenever you have a few minutes to spare please consider updating this. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 22:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

When I added this section to the code on 13 December 2014 it simply said Did you remember to submit your request by using {{subst:Requested move}}? That was kind of a rhetorical question because I know the answer is most certainly "no". Eight years later we still commonly see editors starting requested moves who either don't notice or bother to read the instructions but rather just start a malformed request by copy-paste-modify from some other page they saw with an open RM. I realize now this admonishment is ineffective because rather than a network of insiders who should know better, RM is a place where new drive-by requests pop up almost daily, and malformed requests that aren't fixed by their creators via trial and error are actually fixed by regulars like you and me.
On 16 December 2014 I added See "Bot considerations" – which says "Please remember to use {{subst:Requested move}} – rather than manually format the request yourself – to avoid this issue." I should have simply replaced my original text with that. I'll just remove that redundancy to make that hatnote more concise. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much! and a slightly belated Happy New Year! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 13:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 Done by bot version 8.02 (see shortened hatnote here) – wbm1058 (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Remove an item from a multi RM?

I've got an open multi-RM Talk:AFL Grand Final#Requested move 11 January 2023 with a blatantly wrong item accidentally included (oddly, nobody has noticed, but it's embarrassing). Can I remove current7 and new7 Latin American Grand Final? Do I need to re-number the rest? Dicklyon (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I think I fixed it OK, removing from the discussion page and taking the notices off the article and talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 08:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you fixed it OK. Belated followup answer: Due to a longstanding design issue, you need to make changes in one... two places, as you discovered yourself. And, you do not need to renumber the items after you remove one from the midsection of a long multi-move list. I updated the bot to accommodate this type of change in September 2018, as this is something which happens from time to time. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

RM at Killing of Tyre Nichols

The requested move at Killing of Tyre Nichols was closed and reverted, but the SUBST command is no longer there. I don't know how to fix it. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Wikiexplorationandhelping: Is Special:Diff/1140719265 is what you were asking for? —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
CX Zoom yup, exactly. I appreciate the help. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

West Sound (Ayrshire)

Hello, when requested that the radio station West Sound Ayrshire to be moved to Greatest Hits radio Ayrshire, I may have put ‘the station changed it’s name on April 1, 2023 at 6am, when I should have put April 3, 2023 at 6am. The station launched this morning. My sincere apologies.DoctorStrange97 (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Alright. That's not a change the bot is going to notice or care about. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

RM 2023 Sudan Conflict

Can you stop deleting the Third Sudanese Civil War RM on the 2023 Sudan conflict article. Oddballslover (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Oddballslover: You refer, presumably, to this edit. If there is an ongoing RM for an article, RMCD bot ensures that the appropriate box appears at the top of that article. When an article is the subject of two ongoing RMs (started on 21 April and 23 April), this is very bad practice - the later one should not have been opened until the earlier had been closed. Closing an RM is not simply a case of adding {{subst:RM top}}/{{subst:RM bottom}}, it is also necessary to remove the {{requested move/dated}} and carry out all of the other instructions at WP:RMCLOSE#Closing the requested move. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
The bot was reporting this page as a malformed request. An option for resolving this is to refactor the multiple requests into an unspecified new name request where multiple options are considered in the same discussion. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Multiple move discussion 50-page limit

Attn Wbm1058 (talk · contribs). According to WP:RMPM, {{subst:requested move}} has no technical limit on the number of multiple move requests; and this edit shows that it handles 54 pages without problem. However, it appears that RMCD bot only looks at the first 50 listed - 1974 in video games was tagged, specified by |current50=1974 in video games, but 1973 in video games was not tagged, specified by |current51=1973 in video games. Similarly ignored were |current52=1972 in video games, |current53=1971 in video games and |current54=2024 in video games. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Redrose64: sorry, I'm not seeing any problem. Can you double-check this, and if you still see something missed, give me a more specific pointer to the issue? Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have checked part-way through the bot job. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Circular RM notice posted at talk page

At Talk:Β-Butyrolactone, RMCD bot placed an RM notice on the page where the RM is taking place. See [3]. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've found the 2023 variant of this bug!
Did you know that Talk:Β-Butyrolactone and Talk:β-Butyrolactone are the same page?
And Β-Butyrolactone and β-Butyrolactone are the same page, too?! Really. One does not redirect to the other, they are literally the same page.
Yes, I know they sure look different, and my bot thought they were different, too, which is why it posted that notice!
Now I have to figure out what rule the MediaWiki developers imposed to make them the same page, and add that rule to my wikititle function, whose rule-set keeps growing every year.
function wikititle ($targettitle) {
	$basename = preg_replace("/^(" . namespaces . "|)( |)(talk|):\s*/i","",$targettitle);
	$ucbasename = ucfirst($basename);
	$targettitle = str_replace($basename,$ucbasename,$targettitle);
	$namesp = str_replace($ucbasename, "", $targettitle);
	$trimname = trim($namesp);
	$targettitle = str_replace($namesp,$trimname,$targettitle);
	$targettitle = str_replace("_"," ",$targettitle);
	$targettitle = trim($targettitle);
	$targettitle = ucfirst($targettitle);
	$targettitle = preg_replace('/\s+/', ' ', $targettitle); #remove multiple consecutive whitespace characters & convert them into single spaces
	return $targettitle;
}

Now if only the f: team could add the complete wikititle function to their f:Wikifunctions:Catalogue! But, alas I'm not expecting that to happen anytime soon as that would be too useful. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I see that {{lowercase title}} changes Β to β. I thought my code using the ucfirst function was handling that, but maybe not for Greek letters? wbm1058 (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, here's the problem, per the Changelog documentation: "Only ASCII characters will be converted." – wbm1058 (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Stack Overflow: ucfirst() function for multibyte character encodings – wbm1058 (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 Fixed in bot version 8.04 – wbm1058 (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Repeatedly removing then adding template on talk page

I noticed that the bot is repeatedly removing then adding the User:RMCD bot/multimove template at Module talk:Timeline. It has made 44 edits to the page so far today. – BrandonXLF (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Apparently an issue in all module talk pages, see https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Module_talk:NUMBEROFSECTIONS&action=history . Self edit-warring was stopped only when the module talk was redirected to template talk. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 07:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
The bot won't see the template on Module:Timeline because it looks for active transclusions and you can't directly transclude a template on a module page. However it should recognize a notice placed on Module:Timeline/doc which indirectly transcludes it from the module itself. Editors need to manually place and remove notices from module documentation pages; my bot won't do that. Previous discussion: Module and shared talk page support. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed by bot version 8.15 – the bot now posts notices on Module documentation pages, which appear on the Module via transclusion. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Case #1 (May 2020)

Case #2 (June 2022)

Leading /newline at a redirect causes the bot to think it is an article

See Special:Permalink/1101709746#Possibly incomplete requests and Special:Diff/1101711833 (removing the /newline). —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed in bot version 8.13 – I'm surprised that this knuckleball wasn't reported sooner, but I guess that's because that pitch is rarely used, hah! – wbm1058 (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Broken page WP:Requested moves

Houston we have a problem [4]. Yet again, I'd kindly ask for your assistance. No such user (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I seem to have fixed it. [5] – the bot apparently wants to copy over everything between the template and the first user's signature, right? No such user (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
@No such user: Yes, the bot copies everything up to the signature to the WP:RM page. We don't want move rationales to be so long that they overly clutter up that page. If the editor feels the need to collapse their reasons, they're too long. Move them down below the signature to a "supplementary rationale" section immediately below, and add a copy of the signature with the same date/timestamp if that's needed to clarify who wrote that section. In the case of this collapsed box I don't think it's necessary to add a copy of the signature to the inside of the collapsed box. The instructions may already be TL;DR and whatever we try to explain there someone will always find a way to keep doing stuff like this, so I guess we just deal with it as it happens. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
The {{collapse bottom}} documentation says:
The bot replaces newlines with two spaces when copying the rationale to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions, in order to consolidate each rationale into less space and enhanced clarity so that newlines only separate move rationales and don't occur within a single rationale. But after that, the bot adds back newlines before and after {{reflist-talk}} and {{Search for}} because those two templates are also required to be placed on their own line. I can fix this by making the bot handle {{collapse bottom}} similarly as {{reflist-talk}} and {{Search for}}. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I see that this issue was previously reported as Issue with hidden or collapse templates at WP:Requested moves/Current discussions, a discussion that I just archived. Multiple reports of the same problem bump it higher up on my to-do list, especially when I finally get around to diagnosing that it's an easy fix. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 Fixed in bot version 8.12 – wbm1058 (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Why are these requests malformed?

I cannot figure out why Talk:Anorthosis Famagusta F.C.#Requested move 10 May 2023 is showing up as malformed in Wikipedia:Requested moves#Malformed requests. It was originally unsigned, but a signature has been added, and the template appears to be fine – the reason given is "Pagename to be moved listed below template does not match name in template: Anorthosis Famagusta F.C.", but as far as I can tell, they do match. Am I missing something here?

There are also multiple batch RMs that are also showing up as malformed, and I don't understand the reasonings behind those either, but I think that is more because of a lack of knowledge on my part. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Skarmory: This edit by Paine Ellsworth (talk · contribs) fixed it. It seems that RMCD bot is case-sensitive. My guess is that 47.201.237.139 (talk) didn't use {{subst:requested move}} but attempted to use {{requested move/dated}} directly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
OK, if literally the only thing causing the bot to report an RM as malformed is that an editor typed {{No redirect rather than {{no redirect when they used {{requested move/dated}} directly, I suppose I can make the bot overlook that as simply a cosmetic difference. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 Done in bot version 8.11 – wbm1058 (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Requests for, and complaints about, enhanced notification services

Misplaced at wrong capitalization

A notification for a requested move from Neutron Star (short story) to Neutron Star was placed on Talk:Neutron star instead of Talk:Neutron Star. I fixed it manually, but you still might want to look into it. Paradoctor (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe I have observed this behavior before and assumed it was intentional. Not many people will be watching the Neutron Star redirect but many people will be watching Neutron star, which that requested move does apply to. Similar to how if you nominate a redirect at RfD, the default Twinkle options are to notify the creator of the redirect and the talk page of the current target of the redirect. I suppose RMCD bot should notify, in this case, both Neutron star and Neutron Star. I can't see why the RM notification at Talk:Neutron star shouldn't be restored? Skynxnex (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I've reädded it. Skynxnex (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
(Sorry for the late reply.) No problem with the readd, just with not notifying the actual target page. Paradoctor (talk) 06:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
The current behavior was introduced per this April 2017 discussion. I'd neglected to document that new behavior on the bot's user page, so now I have.
The initial report that prompted this enhancement was for the Pence redirect. Note that Talk:Pence is still a redirect and nobody was wanting the bot to post a notice on that talk page of a redirect. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Paradoctor, the talk page guidelines (WP:TPNO) say Do not attempt to impersonate another editor. It's OK to post a notice at Talk:Neutron Star but, if you feel that's important, please sign the notice with your own signature rather than the bot's signature. Please change the signature on that page to your own. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
@Wbm1058: Please do not assume intent where there was none. Fixed. Paradoctor (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I've got several other higher-priority projects in my to-do queue so any changes in the bot's notifications is low-priority for now – unless I see more requests from other users. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I saw an incident which pushed this up to high priority.  Done by bot v. 8.10, test move produced notices at both Talk:Neutron star and Talk:Neutron Star. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Notify talk page of target of redirect proposed to be moved over

I was under the impression that RMCD bot already did this, but apparently it doesn't. It notified of the RM at Talk:Black Breath (band) at the talk page of the redirect Talk:Black Breath, but not at Talk:Nazgûl, and it probably should have to avoid the mess now going on there. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I noticed the problem reported at Wikipedia talk:Move review#Black Breath. A lot of moving parts here. First, I'll need to restore a discussion structure that the bot doesn't reject as malformed, then I'll be able to trace what the code is currently doing with this special case. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Now I see that others have done that for me... wbm1058 (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
This complaint isn't about the move reversion - it's that the bot should have notified Talk:Nazgûl when I originally started the RM and thus obviated the need for the reversion. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Right.  Done by bot v. 8.10, which resulted in new notices being placed on 8 pages. In addition to the notice at Talk:Nazgûl#Move discussion in progress, the initial release of this enhancement resulted in new notices at Talk:Creep, Talk:Liberty Australia, Talk:Mordor, Talk:Help, Talk:History of Quebec, Talk:Lucid Dream (disambiguation), and Talk:Pillow talk (disambiguation)‎. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Pillow talk (disambiguation)

The bot is placing an inappropriate notice on Talk:Pillow talk (disambiguation). The discussion at Talk:Pillow Talk (Miki Howard album) affects only the Pillow Talk (album) redirect, not the dab page itself. Station1 (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Pillow Talk (album) currently redirects to Pillow talk (disambiguation). Pillow talk (disambiguation) will be affected because if that RM is successful, the currently incomplete disambiguation will no longer be incomplete. The disambiguation page lists three other albums titled Pillow Talk so if the RM is successful, then Pillow Talk (album) will no longer directly target the dab page which lists those three albums. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Seems to be the same situation at Talk:Lucid Dream (disambiguation). Station1 (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Lucid Dreams is currently an ambiguous term. If Lucid Dreams (Juice Wrld song) moves to Lucid Dreams, then that will no longer be an ambiguous term which redirects to the disambiguation, affecting the Lucid Dreams (Franz Ferdinand song) page by no longer directly targeting the disambiguation page where that song is listed. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

As I've expanded the bot's notification services to include more and more "edge cases" due to popular demand (here and here), I've begun to run into others like you in this section and another editor in this section who feel that these "edge" notices are a bit misleading and confusing. I'm open to adjusting the wording or adding further explanation in certain types of notices, if suggestions are presented here on the bot's talk page for the wording changes. I think anyone who looks a little closer at the requested moves should be able to figure out why a particular notice was posted, though. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

First, I don't consider this to be a major problem. I just assumed, wrongly, based on your last comment in the section above, that this was something new with version 8.10, and I just wanted to alert you. I think this comes down to the ambiguity of "affected". I take it to mean that the page would be directly affected, i.e. the page would be moved and bear a new title as a consequence of the referenced RM, whereas you apparently intend it to indicate the page would be indirectly affected, even if not moved. My opinion is that the notice should appear on the talk page of the redirect, in case anyone has the redirect on their watch list, but again, not a big deal as far as I'm concerned. Station1 (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RMCD_bot/Archive_3&oldid=1180087115"