Template talk:Rfc

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

The result of the move request was: to be moved to Template:Request for comment. To be moved once necessary code change is done. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:Rfc → Template:RfC – According to Wikipedia:Requests for comment, this is the correct capitalization. A redirect should be left, and the old title can be used as usual by bots, scripts, humans, etc. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 01:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support as per nom. Wikipedia:Requests for comment also uses 'RfC'. Kpddg ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Correct capitalisation, a bit like AfD vs Afd. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Alternative move to {{Wikipedia request for comment}}, and use the 3LAs as shortcuts instead; it will give the template a proper name -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  That won't work, unless you can persuade Legoktm (talk · contribs) to amend Legobot. This is because Legobot searches for two opening braces directly followed by the three letters "rfc", case-insensitive. Anything else, and the RfC will simplay be ignored. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  That sounds like it should support {{RfC Wikipedia request for comment}} then? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose {{RfC Wikipedia request for comment}}, title is repetitive and over-descriptive. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 04:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping. Pull requests welcome. Legoktm (talk) 06:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  So what would you say about my suggestion of {{Wikipedia request for comment}} ? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  I have no opinion and really don't care. Legoktm (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Alternative: move to Template:Request for comment. Template:Afd was moved to Template:Article for deletion in 2010, and Template:Requested move appears to have always existed under this title. In either case, the templates' name typically are (and should be) the same as actual process name, with obvious shortcuts like Afd, Rm, Rfc, etc. existing for ease. In fact, I believe that we should also consider titling most of these processes such that the same title is used for the connected Wikipedia/Help/Template/Category namespaces. Again, obvious and appropriate shortcuts and redirects will continue to exist. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 20:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  @CX Zoom: I refer you to my post of 22:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  Am I missing something? I mean, he did invite pull requests right? ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 20:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yes. If you write the appropriate change to the bot's code and test it satisfactorily, Legoktm will incorporate it. Otherwise, it's no-go. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  Support with no preference regarding Template:Request for comment. Sure. I can tweak the code and open a PR if consensus is determined that this is the preference. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support full name "Request for comment", consistent with how Template:Article for deletion and Template:Requested move are titled. Gonnym (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support First choice: Template:Request for comment if coding can be updated, second choice as proposed. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)