Template talk:en-pnoun

Template:en-pnoun
This template is pointless and should IMHO either be deleted or entered as a soft redirect, so it cannot be used directly. We have a standard template. By soft redirect I mean something like this: "Soft template redirect: see ." In any case, the template should never be used directly. --Dan Polansky 13:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's just a redirect in order to save a few characters. I don't object to it strongly enough to want to delete it. NB it was used but MglovesfunBot bypassed it to . Mglovesfun (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The template was created by Daniel Dot on 31 March 2010. Daniel Dot has started to use the template directly in the main namespace. We don't need template mess in the main namespace. --Dan Polansky 13:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How messy is a harmless, shorter redirect for a major template? Not messier than the possibility of using either or, I suppose. Or  and . We have also  as another fully functional redirect (even with its own talk page, that perhaps may be merged with the talk page of the standard named template). I oppose deleting , for consistency with the other functional redirects that are not being proposed for deletion here, among other reasons. --Daniel. 13:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Like Daniel. says.... Mglovesfun (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * delete. I would have thought this meant "en-pronoun". It is way too confusing for a redirect. -- Prince Kassad 14:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to (or  ?). Help prevent RSI. DCDuring TALK  15:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What? Are you thinking that having a long template name makes us type like User:史凡 soon? -- Prince Kassad 15:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * hurtz 2 much. cnt nsr. skype me. DCDuring TALK 16:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ok>>rnm2!!!-- Prince Kassad >voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 17:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (unindent) I have turned into a soft redirect; it was used in 5 pages. The main namespace should always contain only one template name. I see no problem with a template redirect that helps memory, but it should not be used directly in the main namespace. --Dan Polansky 07:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your edit, by turning usable again. As a result, that unintuitive error message was deprecated by me, and the redirect's ability to "help memory" is properly working once more. --Daniel. 05:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There are other such template redirects:, , , , , . They have been created by Michael Zajac. Their use is nothing like common practice.
 * They do not need to be really deleted; it would suffice that they use soft redirect in order that they cannot be used directly in the main namespace. But is so poorly named that it can be deleted anyway.  --Dan Polansky 08:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As noted from previous messages of this discussion, may be renamed to  avoid the possible confusion between "proper noun" and "pronoun". I have then created the template with the new name. --Daniel. 05:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. DCDuring makes a sarcastic or ironic remark in reference to, which was redlinked few days ago, and you go create that template. Not only that, you use that sarcastic remark in a justification: "As noted from previous messages of this discussion...". Why don't you create ? That is even shorter, and will save you a lot of typing. Or what about , on the model of ? Isn't this "intuitive" and "user-friendly", per your understanding of "intuitive" and "user-friendly" anyway? --Dan Polansky 08:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Initial &lt;pn&gt; is pronounced /n/ in English, so clearly this is a rare misspelling of . Or maybe it's for plural nouns? Where there's inconsistency between different parallel templates, I'm all for patching over inconsistencies by creating some duplication (e.g., supporting both pos= and head= so that editors don't have to remember which templates support one and which support the other), but where there's currently no inconsistency, I don't see the point in introducing some! —Ruakh TALK 06:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)