Module talk:Annotated link

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: Moved. There appears to be a consensus on moving this to the proposed title, and as such applying common sense, it would not been good to keep this request open unnecessarily. However, moving the module requires technical help which has been sought at relevant venues, at RMT and the WP:RFHM respectively. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC) (Modified closing statement at 16:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]

• Module:AnnotatedLink → Module:Annotated link

– Match name with template. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This module is not {{annotated link}}; that template invokes this module, just as any other template could and indeed might. This module may and in fact probably will be required by other modules. This module and {{annotated link}} are separate entities and the renaming of this module to fall in line with that template is nonsensical. I however don't disagree with the proposed new name but consider changing it pointless. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 07:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The template is just a wrapper for the module, both should be titled the same. Also WP:TPN. Gonnym (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any reasonable argument ever existing against the proposed new name and need to edit the documentation after some changes, so can we cut to the chase and move it before I do the editing work? I can move it, but it may be desired to let this procedure run its course. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 13:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Super. As an editor who rarely moves pages, and having been surprised before; will a redirect be left behind? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 15:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, moving modules does not leave a redirect. You have to either manually create one (using the wikitext return require("Module:Annotated link") or update all uses (of which there aren't very many). I'd be happy to do either for you if you don't feel comfortable doing it yourself. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling it wouldn't be as simple as it should be; erring on the side of caution pays off. I created a clone at Module:Annotated link and switched the template use it, requested protection (already applied thanks to Favonian) and will work through tidying up the references and links (some done). I'm sure that's not the right way, but it worked i.e. nothing broke. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 18:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closer: since the move target already exists (now) and is a functional, protected module in high use, and I am the only significant editor of this module (other than when User:Favonian protected it) and the replacement, and the development history is not vital for understanding the function, it might be best to close as not moved, and I'll tag it for speedy deletion with {{Db-g7}} (pretty sure) once I've orphaned it. Right now, because of this move discussion, this module shows up transcluded all over the place where it shouldn't be, which really isn't helping. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 10:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I requested a history merge. If that's declined (sometimes people there don't like history merging one-author pages), feel free to G7. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]