Wikipedia talk:Classes in Ambox

Suggested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was moved. Discussion has gone stale, but there's a narrow consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ambox CSS classes → Classes in Ambox CSS – The page is badly named. there are no such thing as "CSS classes". I've moved it once, but was reverted on the spurious grounds that there were "too many double redirects". That's not a valid reason to keep a bad page name; and most incoming links are from a handful of templates. An alternative new name might be simply Wikipedia talk:Classes in Ambox. Relisted again. Jenks24 (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Relisted. BDD (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC) Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Oppose of course there are things such as "CSS classes"; ambox-notice is a CSS class. CSS classes define CSS in a discrete package. As for this page, I suggest calling it WP:Ambox CSS. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with renaming - The IP above obviously didn't take the time to read the article referenced above. In spite of being widely used, if it's wrong it should be avoided here. Perhaps the simplest solution is to remove CSS from the title: WP:Ambox classes. —capmo (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Ambox classes" works for me. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

Even according to the web page cited, the current name is commonly used. Agree however that the existence of redirects is not a good argument. Andrewa (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.