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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Efn → Template:Explanatory footnote
• Template:Efn/doc → Template:Explanatory footnote/doc
• Template:Efn/sandbox → Template:Explanatory footnote/sandbox
• Template:Efn/testcases → Template:Explanatory footnote/testcases
• Template:Efn-ua → Template:Upper-alpha explanatory footnote
• Template:Efn-ua/doc → Template:Upper-alpha explanatory footnote/doc
• Template:Efn-lr → Template:Lower-roman explanatory footnote
• Template:Efn-lr/doc → Template:Lower-roman explanatory footnote/doc
• Template:Efn-ur → Template:Upper-roman explanatory footnote
• Template:Efn-ur/doc → Template:Upper-roman explanatory footnote/doc
• Template:Efn-lg → Template:Lower-greek explanatory footnote
• Template:Efn-lg/doc → Template:Lower-greek explanatory footnote/doc

– Per WP:TG, "[t]emplate function should be clear from the template name, but redirects can be created to assist everyday use of very popular templates." "efn" is a clear violation of this guideline, therefore, the names should be expanded. Apologies for the longer nomination. HouseBlaster^talk 01:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One advantage of the current naming scheme is that they all start with the same string. The proposed set of strings breaks this helpful pattern. If we must do this, I would rather see a pattern like Template:Explanatory footnote/Upper-Roman and Template:Explanatory footnote/Lower-Greek. Also note the capitalization; Roman and Greek are proper nouns. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Using a slash would make them subpages, but we could do something like Template:Explanatory footnote (upper-alpha). They are pseudo-dabs, after all (if lowercase Greek was our only option, we would probably call it Template:Efn / Template:Explanatory footnote).

Regarding capitalization, I went with lowercase because the technical ref names follow that pattern (e.g., <ref group="lower-greek"> instead of <ref group="lower-Greek">). HouseBlaster^talk 03:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If the move is to take place, Greek and Roman should be uppercase as they are proper nouns, even if they're not capitalized in <ref> tags in wikicode. Graham (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's short and neat. The name was chosen as a parallel to ((sfn)). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, the redirects would remain for common use. We talk about/link to WP:NPOV, but the page is really at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Similarly, ((tl)) is used way more often than the target page, ((template link)). I would support expanding ((sfn)) to ((shortened footnote)), and if this RM is successful I will propose that move. HouseBlaster^talk 16:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If these are renamed, there is a danger that more people might understand them and use them. I suspect a lot of people don't know what "Efn" stands for. On the other hand, I suppose the redirect already exists. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Some of these new names like "lower-greek explanatory footnote" are a bit long. Is there a reason for having separate templates for efn-ua, efn-lr, efn-ur, and efn-lg that essentially does the same thing minus displaying different alphabets? Could it be feasible to, without disruption, merge four templates into efn (or explanatory footnote) in order to minimize the length of these names? AlphaBeta135talk 21:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @AlphaBeta135: There is no need to use any of the six-character templates names, all of them are merely wrappers for ((efn)) with one parameter (|group=) forced and some aliases made invalid. For example, using ((efn-lg|content of footnote)) is exactly the same as using ((efn|content of footnote|group=lower-greek)); the |name= parameter may also be used with exactly the same meaning and behaviour. However, these short forms do not recognise the |group= parameter (because it's forced), and the content of the footnote must be in the form of an unnamed (positional) parameter - the aliases |reference=, |content= and |text= are all ignored. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The quote from WP:TG reflects one of several factors that are relevant in template naming. Another is the principle that a template's title should be the name that's recommended for use when transcluding. In most cases, these two principles pull in the same direction (if you a see a template used somewhere, you should be able to figure out what it means without looking it up, so an explicit and verbose title is best). However, these diverge for the case of the small number of frequently used inline templates. Such templates should be used under their brief names, because these are easier to remember and to type, and because they don't clutter the wikitext. That's the same reason you have ((sfn)) and not ((shortened footnote)), or <ref>...</ref> instead of <reference>...</reference>. The current naming is not a violation of WP:TG, as the template names are still intuitive and clear (it's just that potentially clearer longer names are avoided because of the need for brevity). Also, as pointed out above, with the current naming scheme, the relation between the templates in this family is a bit clearer. – Uanfala (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]