This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale.
Requested move 25 June 2016
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: No consensus to move the article has been established within the RM time period and thus defaulting to not moved. (
closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201talk 17:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Moving templates is a largely pointless practice that benefits no one because they are editor-facing and thus do not need to be titled according to things like our MoS.
Jenks24 (
talk) 09:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Jenks24:Wikipedia:Template namespace#Template names may be a reason to move. Though I'd add that if this template had
many thousand transclusions, a template move might be unnecessary server strain. But then again, TPROT level templates have been moved to more English-conformant and readable names over the years, including those with close to millions of transclusions. (This one has only 29). I say, move, but don't feel strongly either way. —
Andy W.(talk ·ctb) 00:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)reply
I understand that other people feel differently to me about this issue, it's only my personal opinion and that's why I didn't oppose. I think in cases like this, where the template is readily identifiable at either title, starting a RM is a waste of admin/page mover time and I will continue to discourage the practice.
Jenks24 (
talk) 06:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Neutral – @
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Like
Jenks24 I don't see the benefit of making minor changes to template titles. However the target name is free so you can move the template yourself if you wish. —
JFGtalk 09:31, 6 July 2016 (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.