Template talk:Coxeter–Dynkin diagram

Requested move 20 February 2019[edit]

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 section.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure). Xain36 (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– Clarify name {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support because CDD doesn't intuitively refer to Coxeter-Dynkin diagram --DannyS712 (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per above, as can be seen at CDD. --Gonnym (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I don't support this move. There are many hundreds of these template instances in use, [1]. The reason for a short template is to have something easy to write for easily generating symbols. Tom Ruen (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The move has broken things at Coxeter_group Tom Ruen (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]