Template talk:Article templates

Requested move 5 March 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved as a technical request. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Article page templates → Template:Article templates – (also nominating all subpages ~~and the related editnotice~~) The word "page" is entirely superfluous. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ManosHacker: {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a strong opinion on this template, Pppery. The template was created by MSGJ after my request for the editnotice which does not exist now, so let's listen to his word on this. ManosHacker ^talk 18:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a central page somewhere on enwiki that explains what all these templates do. Template:Article page templates is a good a place as any, and it makes sense that this page has moved to join its subtemplates. Pppery: are you withdrawing this move request now that a suitable location has been found? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. This move request was never just for the central template, it was for all of its subtemplates too. My move request stands. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MSGJ and Pppery, Template:User sandbox+ page might be the one that contains all reference to the project. Article page templates could also have a page, I guess, but maybe not so much complete.
As for the Article page templates vs Article templates, I have asked Pppery a clear question: Do you find it better to use "Article page templates" or "Article templates" as the base?. This question accompanied my proposal (all pages of the project in a table) where I used "Article templates" structure I had been building for hours. Little before I published it, Pppery published his own version based on "Article page templates" structure. His answer to my question was: I myself started a requested move for this purpose earlier, so the answer should be obvious. I understood that he meant he was supporting "Article page templates" structure he had just proposed, so I made a new proposal and built the project on "Article page templates" structure, even if I had just built a more compact proposal based on "Article templates". As I have a deadline for delivering the project in about a week or so, and that means I have to port it in a bunch of languages too, I do not wish to change the base again and I think the admins will not be happy as well if I do. So I propose we leave it as it is, unless there is a strong opinion against it. ManosHacker ^talk 22:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we misunderstood each other there. What I meant to say was that this requested move should make it obvious I prefer the name without "page". The structure you suggested using "article templates" I disliked for other reasons. I was thinking that this requested move over whether to use "page" or not was entirely orthogonal to the rest of what was going on on Template talk:User sandbox+. Also, I don't see why executing this would be any more difficult that one pagemover using the "move-subpages" permission plus a couple of supplimentary edits to templates. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Pppery, I am sorry I misunderstood. I am not an admin and I cannot move pages without leaving redirects. If moves can be done without annoying the admins, let's do it. I have only copied the structure to Greek Wikipedia so far and not asked for deletions there yet. ManosHacker ^talk 22:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Post on WP:RMTR. Also, just to be clear "pagemover" in my above comment isn't a generic term for "someone who moves pages", but rather a user right. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.