The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 07:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Live (band) → Template:Live — "Template:Live" currently redirects to Template:Current - which doesn't make much sense. "Live" is distinct enough a name to shed the "(band)" qualifier. Wikkitywack (talk) 08:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Live (band) is about one band called "Live". Template:Live redirects to Template:Current, which is about any current event. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. "Live" is far too ambiguous; template names should be less opaque than that, and arguably even less opaque than article titles. Powers ^T 12:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose too. The word "Live" already has several meanings, so I think it is best to keep this template name the way it is, and reflective of the band's regular Live (band) page too. Plus, with the band pretty much broken up, the page and template aren't likely to change much anymore. --Mtjaws (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for consistency with the parent article, and because there is considerably less reason to identify a primary topic in templates than in articles. Ucucha 02:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose distinct like hell, even in music, even dealing with bands, this is not enough to distinguish this particular band from a live show. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• WHOA WHOA WHOA I don't necessarily approve of this either, I think... I might be willing to just say "my mistake" and be done with it. However, some of you seem to be hitting on the wrong point (especially 76.66.200.95 - I think your comment applies mainly to the band article or something, not the template. What else would a Template:Live be used for? Certainly nothing to do with music unless it was referring to the band...) - the reason I brought it up was Template:Live is currently synonymous with Template:Current (which, in retrospect, makes sense because "This article documents a current event" is pretty similar to "Happening live"). So the question is: Do people even know about this alternate way of expressing "current" - or can it be better used for the band Live's template? Wikkitywack (talk) 04:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • templates link articles, or format them, or add notices. A template of live shows, a template of live TV programs, a template for living people, a template for non-extinct species, etc, ad infintum. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. But all of these things you've mentioned would necessarily be called Template:Live something. The only template that could conceivably be called just plain old Template:Live is the band template - unless we agree that "live" is synonymous with "current" and is often used as an alternate, in which case I'd be cool with Template:Live (band). Wikkitywack (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the template should be consistent with the article name for the main article, if it is supposed to use the same name, which this one obviously is supposed to. Live is not Live (band), this template is not for use with the page called "Live". 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. Although it may sound noble to say "the template should be consistent with the article name for the main article", this simply isn't so when it comes to something like band names. For instance, Pussy Galore. She's a James Bond character with no use for a template. However, Pussy Galore (band) has a use for a template, so therefore we have Template:Pussy Galore. The page called "Live" is a disambiguation page. And again, all the things called "Live" on it would be included in other templates except for Live the band. Wikkitywack (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're applying standards for article naming. If our standards for template naming were the same, you'd have a point, but I don't believe the Template namespace has rules of any similar character as the main namespace. With templates, there are many additional considerations besides "is another template using this name?" When someone edits a page and sees ((Live)) written near the bottom, will they know what it means? ((Live (band))) makes that obvious; ((Live)) does not. Powers ^T 12:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Doesn't sound like you read my above comment (in response to 76.66.200.95's statement beginning "templates link articles...") ((Live)) is currently synonymous with ((Current)). Do people use this alternate or not? "When someone edits a page and sees ((Live)) written near the bottom, will they know what it means?" How could they not? They're obviously on a Live-related page! Wikkitywack (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course I read your comment. My point was that it doesn't matter if people use ((Live)) to mean ((Current)); even if ((Live)) didn't yet exist, a case could be made that ((Live (band))) is the best name for this template, and I believe that case has been made. Powers ^T 13:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay. If your case is what I quoted above, then I disagree. What about my case? Wikkitywack (talk) 07:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • 1) There is significant value in having the template name match the article title. 2) There is very little value in having the template name be just "Live" -- it doesn't affect the reader's experience at all. Powers ^T 12:29, 22 September 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.