Template talk:Non-admin closure (requested moves)

Add a "pmc" parameter?

In light of the recent discussion on Template talk:RMpmc and the TfD, I'm suggesting there be a |pmc=yes/no (defaults to no) be added to this template. If it =yes then the link will go to WP:RMPMC but the text will stay the same. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth, BU Rob13, IJBall, Xaosflux, Godsy, Andy M. Wang, Xeno, PaleAqua, Omni Flames, Steel1943, Epicgenius, QEDK, Jenks24, Music1201, Amakuru, and Tavix: Pinging all participants of the TfD and the discussion on the other talk page. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds like a good idea to me. Honestly, I'm not even sure why the TFD was closed as redirect because in my opinion there was consensus to keep but change the text. However, that's an issue for elsewhere. Anyway, also pinging Primefac. Omni Flames (talk) 09:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. It's good to have the alternate parameter in case anyone might need it, but the current text is also fine for everyone else. Kylo, Rey, Finn, BB-8, C-3PO, R2-D2, Poe, Han, Chewie, and Leia Consortium (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comments in Template talk:RMpmc#Appeaeance, Template:RMpmc's TfD discussion, and since this idea goes against the aforementioned TfD's closing result. If the proposed parameter is added to Template:RMnac, {{RMpmc}} might as well become a wrapper template for {{RMnac}} with the parameter forced ... which also seems to go against the result of the TfD since the result was "redirect". Steel1943 (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The close states The discussion about how to reword {{RMpmc}} is leaning towards "non-admin closure" as the text, with the wikilink pointing to WP:RMPMC so I'm not sure it is exactly against that close. PaleAqua (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• If that were the intent, then the TfD close should have had a different result than "redirect to Template:RMnac". In my opinion, this whole discussion seems like a way to sneak around the closing result and is essentially a WP:OTHERPARENT discussion. (I couldn't find a better link than WP:OTHERPARENT to explain my point, but it may not be the clearest. I attempted to find a better link to a policy page to explain what I am saying, but couldn't find anything clearer.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• See also User talk:Primefac#Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_20#Template:RMpmc. @Primefac: My reading on your close is that it's sort of no consensus on the exact target of the link but there is consensus that the wording should be the same, is that right? (edit conflict) PaleAqua (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• I saw that as well, but I'm still scratching my head a bit on what was the determination of the TfD consensus and what is "permitted" to be changed after that close. But, then again, the fact that there were 2 (now 3 discussions, including this one) occurring at essentially the same time regarding the same template didn't help with trying to form consensus on this whole matter either. (Essentially, the WP:OTHERPARENT issue happened with the two previous discussions, but I pretty sure that happening was not intentional by either editor who started those discussions.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

This isn't meant to be an other parent situation. I understand the template was obviously not going to be left the same after looking at and participating in the other two discussions, but now that the discussion at the TfD has closed with a rationale of "The discussion about how to reword {{RMpmc}} is leaning towards "non-admin closure" as the text, with the wikilink pointing to WP:RMPMC", this discussion almost feels required as a final discussion that will hopefully end this whole debate. -- Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Just curious ... how can this be the final discussion when Template talk:RMpmc#Appearance is still open and apparently has had participation since the TfD closed and this discussion started? (I'd close that discussion myself to "moot since {{RMpmc}} has been redirected", but since I was involved in the discussion, I'm not sure if I should/could.) Steel1943 (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Steel1943: Ah whoops! I didn't realise that was still open. I thought the closer of the TfD would close that too. Either way, the !votes on there support this, too. Should I just merge this into there (or vice versa)? Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: At this point, in my opinion, I would just close the other discussion to "moot" without merging anything from it here, but while referring to this discussion in the closing statement as a continuation of the closed discussion. The reason I say this is that adding the proposed parameter was not the reason for the discussion at Template talk:RMpmc#Appearance; that discussion was about how to word/link the "page mover" verbiage. The option to scrap the whole idea was not part of the opening statement provided by the one who started the discussion, so participants may not have even considered the choice of getting rid of the "RMnac/RMpmc" distinction altogether (even though I threw my opinion on there anyways and said the template should have been deleted.) You've already pinged all appropriate parties per WP:APPNOTE to allow them to participate in this discussion as well if they choose to do so (at least I think you didn't miss anyone), so besides the other discussion being closed and referring to this one, I'd say you've already done everything else necessary. Steel1943 (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Closed the other discussion and left a link to this page, in case people wish to continue the discussion here. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Neutral I'ld like to see RMPMC expanded a little bit and a clearer consensus on what exactly PM implies vs closing RM discussions. I'm not sure having a separate link is important to be honest. PaleAqua (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support. The opposition has stressed that this would go against the result of the TfD; however, it seems to me that, in light of the way that TfD closure was worded, and in light of the fact that even the nominator of that TfD has expressed in the closed discussion at Template talk:RMpmc#Please !vote (after the close of the TfD) that they agreed that a link to WP:RMPMC does not put unnecessary emphasis on page movers, this means that this proposal is okay with both the closer and the nom. Not crazy about having to add {{subst:RMnac|pmc=yes}} each time I close a discussion, and yet that can be improved by altering:

<small>[[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure|(non-admin closure)]]</small>

to this:

<small>{{#if:{{{1|}}}|[[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Page mover closure|(non-admin closure)]]|[[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure|(non-admin closure)]]}}</small>

This will allow any code in the first unnamed parameter to link to WP:RMPMC, such as:

{{subst:RMnac|pmc}}

The less we have to type, the better.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  16:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Question, why not have the links to RMNAC and RMPMC instead of the entire link? Would save a fair bit of code, and would mirror {{nac}} in its functionality. Primefac (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course, that would be great. I decided to give the entire direct links because that is what is already used in Template:RMnac, so the following is actually the suggested code:

<small>{{#if:{{{1|}}}|[[WP:RMPMC|(non-admin closure)]]|[[WP:RMNAC|(non-admin closure)]]}}</small>

That has the exact same functionality as the code I suggested earlier.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  18:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

To editor Steel1943: – Since this discussion appears to have died down, and since you opposed the idea above, I wonder if your misgivings about the parameter have been resolved? We may as well put this to bed one way or t'other.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  14:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I guess Steel1943 has left us for a time, so there are three supporters, one opposed and one neutral, 3–1–1. I'm going ahead with the parameter, and if anyone strongly disagrees and would rather discuss it some more, it can always be edited back to status quo.  Temporal Sunshine Paine  09:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: Added safesubst — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

To editor Andy W.: Good call!  Temporal Sunshine Paine  00:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be something wrong with the first example shown in the instructions for the use of the extra parameter. It shows "((subst:RMnac|pmc}}" instead of "{{subst:RMnac|pmc}}". Incidentally, is there a difference between what happens with "{{subst:RMnac|pmc}}" and "{{subst:RMnac|pm}}"? —BarrelProof (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Following up, I found and fixed what appeared to be a typo at Template:RMnac/doc that was causing that. It might still be a good idea to provide some guidance about when to use "{{subst:RMnac|pmc}}" versus "{{subst:RMnac|pm}}" versus "{{subst:RMnac|X}}". Perhaps we should reduce those three examples to one, since they all seem to produce the same result. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

RMpmc alias

Following a discussion on my talk page, I have reprogrammed the {{RMpmc}} alias to invoke {{RMnac|pm}}, and added the ability to display a different text, for example "(closed by page mover)" instead of "(non-admin closure)". As I was reminded of a 2016 discussion which had decided to keep a single text, I wish to check if consensus has changed. I have enabled the alternate text as a WP:BOLD experiment (with limited impact: few people have ever used RMpmc anyway) and I am launching an RfC at WT:Page mover to gauge support. We'll adjust the text accordingly once the community has made up their collective mind. — JFG ^talk 23:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Labeling page mover closures

This template is affected by an RfC opened at Wikipedia talk:Page mover#RfC: Labeling page mover closures. Please comment there. — JFG ^talk 23:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Page mover

@JFG and Amakuru: I saw the RfC closed as no consensus, but was wondering where we were on what the variable here should do. I used it (randomly because the close required a swap) here and saw the altered text. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Reading the discussion, I believe we should alter the optional variable-triggered text to "closed by non-admin page mover". This makes clear that the closer is a non-admin, as many discussants said that was important, while leaving the option for page movers to display their status accurately and transparently. This would imho well reflect the "no consensus" close. — JFG ^talk 08:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Slakr: as you closed the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Page mover#RfC: Labeling page mover closures, please could you comment on what we should do with the template? Personally I think the no consensus close means we retain the status quo, and that we should remove the "page mover" flag from the RMnac template. JFG favours a halfway house, as indicated above. As the closer of the discussion though, maybe you can make that call. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

If anything, the option should likely be removed from, or disabled in, the template. The main question was Should move discussions closed by page movers be labeled as such? (a change), and there was no consensus to support the change. --slakr^\ talk / 17:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

As far as the halfway house(?), I dunno; one of the main criticisms was more or less "page mover," as a whole, being nothing different from non-admins with regard to its importance in closing discussions, as having the flag didn't confer any sort of consensus-assessing-level community trust. If in doubt, I'd suggest another RfC if there's continued disagreement but you feel the question/circumstances has/have changed. --slakr^\ talk / 18:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Given the formulation of the question, there was indeed no consensus to mandate page movers to label their PM status in the close; however there was also no consensus to forbid them from mentioning it. Hence my proposal to keep the |pm= parameter as a voluntary option, while specifying in the text that it's still a non-admin closure. — JFG ^talk 04:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I have supported this ever since the page mover user right became available. It is easy enough for editors to find out (if they don't already know) that page movers are not admins if that is important to them. And I support that letting editors know that a close has been made by a page mover might be useful and helpful to editors who are involved in the page-move discussion. So yes, I agree that the parameter, which I always use myself, should stay enabled in this template. I see no reason to make the statement longer by using the non-admin distinction; however, I would as usual go along with consensus on that. I do think that a community consensus is needed before any further definitive change is made to this template.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  06:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Question: do non-admins who are not page movers close RMs? This is a serious question. I think I have a rough familiarity with all of the regular RM closers, and I can't think of one who doesn't have this ability. I also regularly monitor WP:RM/TR, and to my knowledge, I'm the only non-admin who ever posts there requesting the implementation of an RM, and thats only ever on pages that are move protected. If we don't actually have non-page movers moving pages, then I don't see the point of having this parameter since it can be assumed any non-admin is a page mover. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

To editor TonyBallioni: the first sentence in the "Non-admin closure" section of the closing instructions tells us, "Experienced and uninvolved registered editors in good standing are allowed to close requested move surveys." I renamed a lot of pages before I became a page mover, so being a page mover is not prerequisite to moving pages. I think we can safely assume that there are experienced non-admins who are also non-page movers who close RMs. Hope this helps.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  09:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they can according to RMCI, but I'm asking if any do anymore now that we're over a year into the extendedmover permission. My experience is that we really don't have any active non-admin non-page movers who make RM closes on a regular basis. If that is the case, I'm not sure what the point of the parameter is since all NACs are effectively done by page movers now. TonyBallioni (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

To throw out an incredibly-vaguely-related corollary, at the CUOS elections the question of whether a non-admin could be a CU came up, and the point was made that just because no non-admin CU had ever applied didn't necessarily mean that they couldn't apply. Just as most RM closers (currently) are PMs doesn't mean we might not get a new (experienced) editor closing RMs next week. In other words, I concur that being PM should not be a prerequisite for closing RMs. However, we're starting to get away from the original point of the thread, which was the language itself. While I'm mostly neutral on the issue, I do agree with JFG that simply having the option means that no one is required to use it if they don't want to, but the option is there for folks who think it would be worth mentioning. Primefac (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

We may or may not have non-admin closers who aren't page movers, but the distinction is irrelevant anyway. Experienced non-admins and experienced page movers have exactly the same standing in the community when it comes to closing discussions, because page mover is a technical ability, not an indication of community approval for RM closures. That's why there should not be a pm flag on the rmnac template, and it looks like slakr has said above that we should indeed remove the flag.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, my point above was more of the point that now since the overwhelming majority of non-admin closures are done by page movers, it strengthens your arguments on this, Amakuru, at least in my mind. I would be open to merging the NAC and Page mover closer section at RMCI to help make it more clear for people who have questions that most non-admins who close RMs have the technical ability to implement. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why the pm flag should be removed just because it's a technical distinction. In my humble opinion, that is precisely the information that the flag should convey to discussion participants, that the closer has the tools to rename the page without bothering an admin. That information can be helpful for some participants.

Also, it would be interesting to see how it was determined that "the overwhelming majority of non-admin closures are done by page movers". I've seen that asserted but no stats have been presented.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't really see the point in removing an optional parameter. The RFC was closed as "no consensus", which generally means "stick with the status quo". However, I don't think the status quo was that page movers should be prevented from identifying as such; the status quo was that it was not established practice either way; I don't think there was a prior consensus that they couldn't identify themselves. I, personally, think they shouldn't, but that view has also not been backed by consensus as yet.--Aervanath (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, this conversation is now many months old, but we had an RFC and the result was that we should stick to the status quo, that page movers should identify as non-admin. The wording at WP:RMPMC also clearly indicates this. I have therefore amended the template to reflect this, clarifying that the user is still a non-admin even where the pm flag is used. Thus it now reads closed by non-admin page mover per JFG's sensible compromise suggestion above, allowing people to identify as page mover if they so desire.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Thanks for bringing closure to this discussion. — JFG ^talk 06:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 April 2019

Propsed removing non-admin in "closed by non-admin page mover", i.e. simply "closed by page mover". Page mover is obviously non-admin, no need to mention again. B dash (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Given that there was at least one RFC about this change, I think a discussion would be better than putting in a new TPER. Primefac (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)