[[Template:pedia]]
You shoulda discussed it before doing it, and clearly explained why you did what you did. You did neither, and you edit-warred on top of it. I cannot for the life of me fathom why you think that acceptable
Why would a technical move of an infrastructure template that is only called by other templates need to be discussed?
- Another editor (me) objected to the move
- It required you editing a shitton of pages to not make things broken.
Only 6 redirects if I remember correctly. And your objections were noted, but founded on erroneous assumptions (specifically that I had moved Template:pedia).
It makes a zillion times more sense for Template:pedia to have the text than whatever the hell had it yesterday, or whatever has it today.
Aliases exist at short (easy to type) and memorable titles precisely to allow the actual guts of templates to be located at more fully-descriptive and/or logical pattern-fitting names without inconveniencing editors. In this case, the guts were moved from one place to another, but you can still type {{pedia}} as always...
Well, I've been wondering about this. Since these templates are really meant to be invoked through {{projectlink}}, would it be beneficial to either (or both):
- Make
{{pedia}}invoke{{projectlink}}with the appropriate parameters? - Create shortcuts for both
{{projectlink}}and some of the parameters it accepts, so that{{projectlink|Wikipedia}}can be shortened to{{plink|w}}?
If we go for option 2, then it's not appreciably longer than typing {{pedia}}, and we could opt to get rid of it after a while. What do you think?
Because other editors interested in the infrastructure may want to raise objections. Like it happened there. This is not such a bad idea in principle.
Though if I edited a template used only on behalf of a single other template, I might have not bothered as well. We unfortunately lack a clear division between "public" and "private" infrastructure, changing of which can be considered equivalent to editing a single template. Which means (among other reasons) that we have to rely on editors' judgement about whether a change needs discussion. There have been repeated complaints about yours being unreasonably skewed in favour of not discussing things beforehand. You might want to remember that.