(Speaking without my admin hat) I see two problems with this. First, the shortcut anchor will exist only for as long as the RfC remains open; when the {{rfc}} tag is removed the anchor will vanish as well. We have a number of closed RfCs which have shortcuts that are effectively permanent (see for example WP:ENDPORTALS, WP:MOSNUM/RFC, WP:UP/RFC2016) and these use a normal shortcut box without problem. Second, Legobot (talk·contribs) (which maintains the lists of open RfCs) is known to choke if it encounters parameters in the {{rfc}} tag that it is not expecting, so please ensure that Legoktm (talk·contribs) is willing to amend the bot before implementing any additional parameters. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
Alternative: move to Template:Request for comment. Template:AfdTemplate: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Since this request hasn't been closed yet, I wish to ask the closer that if they close this discussion as consensus to move. They please don't move this right away but wait until the bot's code is changed accordingly. Those two actions will probably need to be coordinated for a flawless transition. ---CX Zoom(he/him)(let's talk|contribs)15:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Template-protected edit request on 30 September 2023
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
