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. I've attempted to carry out all the moves, but feel free to leave me a message if there are any issues still outstanding. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ln → Template:Namespace links
• Template:lnt → Template:Namespace talk links
• Template:Lc → Template:Category links
• Template:Lct → Template:Category talk links
• Template:Ld → Template:Draft links
• Template:Ldt → Template:Draft talk links
• Template:Lf → Template:File links
• Template:Lft → Template:File talk links
• Template:Lh → Template:Help links
• Template:Lht → Template:Help talk links
• Template:Lp → Template:Portal links
• Template:Lpt → Template:Portal talk links
• Template:Lm → Template:MediaWiki links
• Template:Lmt → Template:MediaWiki talk links
• Template:Lw → Template:Wikipedia links
• Template:Lwt → Template:Wikipedia talk links
• Template:Lmd → Template:Module links
• Template:Lmdt → Template:Module talk links
• Template:Lttxt → Template:TimedText links
• Template:Lttxtt → Template:TimedText talk links
• Template:La → Template:Article links
• Template:Lat → Template:Article talk links
• Template:La-abbr → Template:Article links abbreviated

– I will start by acknowledging a previous RM in 2018 on this issue, but I don't see anyone in that discussion who actually cited WP:TMP and it has been 5+1⁄2 years.

Per WP:TG, Template function should be clear from the template name, but redirects can be created to assist everyday use of very popular templates. I doubt that there are any editors who can guess what (to pick an arbitrary example) Template:Ln does without having read the documentation / seeing it used, so the current name is a clear violation of the guideline.

Using opaque names is no problem for experienced editors, but makes it slightly harder for newbies to learn what templates do (WP:BITE). The current names of these templates might not be the most pressing or largest problem facing Wikipedia, but it is certainly a problem worthy of a solution (in other words, this is not a solution looking for a problem).

Using obvious names also makes it easier to remember the names of these templates (see WP:TPN: Template names are easiest to remember if they follow standard English spelling, spacing, and capitalization (also see the naming conventions for articles)).

Of course, redirects would be kept and per WP:NOTBROKEN would not be bypassed to use the longer form.

Pinging participants at the previous RM: @BD2412, BrandonXLF, Crouch, Swale, Dreamy Jazz, Gonnym, JohnBlackburne, Locke Cole, Primefac, and Steel1943. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support. I know it's more customary to have templates' titles be more descriptive these days, but the templates have been at these names for quite a while ... leaving me to believe moving them may have some sort of WP:SURPRISE factor. Steel1943 (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indeed template names are supposed to say what they are and not normally require people to know what the appreciation is for similar to using ((citation needed)) instead of ((cn)) as the title. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as to all, per User:Crouch, Swale. Redirects are cheap, but good, descriptive template titles are priceless. BD2412 T 23:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, obviously. To answer the opposition from last time (and hopefully assuage Steele1943 as well) the old names will still be available as redirects! No one actually uses ((Template link code)), they use ((tlc)). Similarly, if this goes through, they will still be available, but for someone who doesn't use these all the time (*cough cough* me) ((article links)) is the intuitive template name rather than ((la)) (which I still never remember when I see it in the wild). Primefac (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Primefac: Yeah, I know how redirects work and their incredible usefulness as they are my primary focus on Wikipedia 😂 ... but some I've interacted with in the past think redirects' very existence is WP:COSTLY, which is whatever. 😅 Anywho, minus my perceived WP:SURPRISE-titling factor, I'm more in the realm of "IDC" on the title of these templates these days. Steel1943 (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  True, and those are the people I was primarily targeting with my comments! Primefac (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2024 (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.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 21:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Lt → Template:Template links
• Template:Ltt → Template:Template talk links

– For the same reason as the above move (in a sentence, we should use descriptive names for templates while keeping redirects for everyday usage).

There is a slight issue with the proposed name: ((Template links)) already exists as a redirect to the (separate) ((Tfd links)). However, it is only used 14 times (and at least one of those is not a real transclusion which would need fixing); we can always bypass the redirects in those 13 pages. I would also argue that there is a WP:SURPRISE factor to consider: ((Lt)) should follow the same naming convention as the other namespace templates.

Pinging participants in the earlier RM: @Steel1943, Crouch, Swale, BD2412, and Primefac. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 21:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No objection. I would consider this a speedy solution, or one to be done boldly, in keeping with the previous outcome. BD2412 T 21:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thought process is that if we are going to be "fixing" redirects (including in user talk archives), we should get explicit consensus beforehand. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 21:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the current names are meaningless. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• No objections here. Primefac (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like a WP:JUSTDOIT situation. Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]