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: No consensus. Let me succinctly list the rationales for closing this as moved or not moved:

• For: slight numerical advantage in !votes, "superscript/subscript" is clearer;
• Against: "sup/sub" is already clear enough (c.f. HTML), 60,000 transclusions is a lot.

The transclusion count is what, to me, signifies that we need a clear consensus to move, because while redirects are cheap, "cheap" does not mean "free". With my template editor hat on, high-use templates should be touched very sparingly, and I don't think the balance is pushed down far enough to justify moving. Sceptre (talk) 06:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sup → Template:Superscript – Trying to call ((Superscript)) should work, and it makes sense to host the template at the more complete title. I could move it myself, but requesting here out of caution since it has 60k transclusions and I wouldn't want to mess anything up. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 07:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This should probably be discussed somewhere, if it hasn't already, to be on the safe side. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• If this proposal is successful, then Template:Sub should likewise be moved to Template:Subscript. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Sounds good to me as long as ((sup)) and ((sub)) continue to work as expected. — SkyLined (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, and move Template:Sub likewise to Template:Subscript per WP:TMPG: Template function should be clear from the template name, but redirects can be created to assist everyday use of very popular templates. These move will leave the commonly-used redirects, but make the function clearer from the name. -- Netoholic @ 17:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The choice of a template title works to set a recommendation, a preference for how that template should be used (otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it, would we?) Titles should be transparent and maximally explicit, except for inline formatting templates that are typically used several times in any given stretch of text. In that case brevity is paramount, and the the template's name should be as short as it can be while remaining meaningful. That's why ((sfn)) isn't at ((short footnote)) and <ref> is not <reference>. Here, ((sub)) and ((sup)) are just about right. The template's function is still clear from the short names, which also match what's done in many non-wiki mark-up languages. – Uanfala (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I disagree with Uanfala, as do WP:TG#4 and WP:TPN. Having templates with clear names is a process which is actively being moved to as it makes it easier for anyone looking for a template to find it - whether in categories, search bar (and even in wikitext). In this situation, the redirects aren't proposed to be deleted, so their concern over the wikitext is irrelevant to this discussion as it doesn't change it. --Gonnym (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To make the point again, the choice of a title also entails a recommendation for using the template under that title: at the very least the template's documentation should reflect the title (we should avoid using one name in the title and a different name when giving usage examples in the documentation); it's this documentation that new users will follow when learning to use the template. We shouldn't be choosing a title whose use we do not want to encourage. As for WP:TG#4 and WP:TPN, I really don't see anything relevant there. WP:TG#3, however, is probably what you were referring to: Template function should be clear from the template name. As I've already tried to argue, ((sup)) and ((sub)) are already clear enough. – Uanfala (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree that ((sup)) and ((sub)) are clear enough by themselves. I suspect the average user would not be able to tell you what these do without context. — SkyLined (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I guess this is open to debate. "Sub" and "sup" are ubiquitous in markup languages like HTML or even the extremely simple Markdown. Yes, probably many editors will not be familiar with this convention, but in most cases the function of this template is clear from the context. What else could "sup" mean in a string like The lake has an area of 24 km((sup|2))? Of course, "sup" can never be as explicit as "superscript", but that's the trade off for the concise and clean syntax that the short name enables. I really don't see how anyone could argue that we should be writing ((superscript)) instead of ((sup)) - it's indicative that for the 16 years since the creation of this widely used template (> 60,000 transclusions), no-one has ever tried creating ((superscript)) as a redirect to it. – Uanfala (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand the arguments you are making but I fail to see the logic and disagree with your conclusion. Let me address each one:

1. Why should we settle for having it be clear in "most cases" when we can have it be clear in all cases? It seems to me that improved clarity is a good thing, and this proposed change will do that.
2. Why can't we "argue that we should be writing superscript instead of sup"? The former is literally the English word for it and the later is only known to people who are familiar with these markup languages. Such abbreviated names are common in programming and markup languages because early computers had limited resources and it was hard to edit text on them. This is no longer the case with modern computers, so I disagree that brevity should be preferred over clarity.
3. You seem to argue that this cannot be changed just because it hasn't been changed in the past 16 years. That is a good example of an is–ought_problem and I don't think it is a valid argument.

— SkyLined (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think template renames belong at WP:TfD. Naming conventions do not apply to templates. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, and move Template:Sub likewise to Template:Subscript (note that the redirects would still exist). And moving template renames to WP:TfD is a terrible idea (just a way for template editors to avoid wider oversight so they can come up with even more obscure template names), and if this is ever a proposed for a wider audience I'll be sure to oppose. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the persuasive arguments of Uanfala. The current template names follow standard markup/html terminology. No need to reinvent the wheel. —В²C ☎ 10:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning oppose. I'm not seeing a problem that can't be solved by redirecting the full names to the existing short ones. BD2412 T 01:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]