This is an archive of past discussions with User:RMCD bot. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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)
@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)
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)
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}}talk22:13, 1 April 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)
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)
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)
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:
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.
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)
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)
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)
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. Ellsworthed.put'r there00:18, 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. Ellsworthed.put'r there03:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
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. Ellsworthed.put'r there11:51, 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. Ellsworthed.put'r there16:36, 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)
@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)
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. Ellsworthed.put'r there17:08, 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. Ellsworthed.put'r there17:21, 19 August 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)
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)
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)
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.
Hi, I see that there were a couple of problems with your RM edits.
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).
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)
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)
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)
{{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)
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)
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)
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 --Pitlane02talk08:34, 13 May 2013 (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)
@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)
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)
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)
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 there13:44, 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 there03:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
Latest update ran in 15:34, this means updates will be posted every 30 mins. rather than every 15 minutes, until the workload is reduced. wbm1058 (talk) 19:17, 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)
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.
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
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.
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)
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#654515:45, 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#654517:51, 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?
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
It looks like there's a malfunction with some multi-page moves, e.g. at Talk:Shiloh Hills, Spokane. @Wbm1058: Are you awake right now? I hate to block the bot, but I'm not sure of any other way to stop it as an emergency halt measure. —C.Fred (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I've blocked the bot based on the continued problems after the ANI thread above was opened. Obviously just a hiccup, so whenever the bot op, or anyone else, thinks the problem has been dealt with, feel free to unblock without checking with me first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I did this, and it looks like it made RMCD bot stop this rubbish. @Floquenbeam:, you can unblock, commenting it out fixed it. It was one piece of code on one talk page that triggered this meltdown.לילך5 (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Ugh, horrible timing on my part then. If I'd done it earlier I wouldn't look dumb, if I'd done it later I wouldn't have done it. If you think this has solved the problem, I'll unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:09, 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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, 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".
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)
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 ==
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:
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.
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)
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)
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.
functionwikititle($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+/',' ',$targettitle);#remove multiple consecutive whitespace characters & convert them into single spacesreturn$targettitle;}
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)
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)
{{collapse bottom}} needs to be placed on its own line, with no characters preceding it on that line.
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 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
