Template talk:en-pron

Template:en-pron
This seems like just a thin wrapper around. Not only is that not necessary, but I disagree with the way it shows the "description" on the headword line. Something like "first person singular" is really part of the definition, and it should be placed there. 22:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: Nom seems to be nothing more than an "I-don't-like" argument Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 19:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And your argument for keeping is nonexistent altogether. 19:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If a deletion rationale is invalid, an article is kept. Your deletion rationale is invalid, so this should be kept. I find it very disheartening how many templates are being deleted, when they should be kept or at least redirected Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 19:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why should we keep templates if there is no reason to keep them? 19:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Shame on you for using the fallacy fallacy. Also, the practice here is that unpopulated non-entry deletion discussions default to "delete". — Keφr 19:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless there's a clear reason that a template is harmful, templates should be kept or redirected. I believe that. Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 02:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Concern troll alert! — Ungoliant (falai) 19:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 02:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think Purplebackpack89 is trolling. I also don't think Ungoliant was entirely serious in this accusation. --WikiTiki89 02:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am dead serious. PBP isn’t trolling in the traditional sense, but he is definitely concern trolling. Things like voting keep just because CodeCat’s reason for RFDing the template was not liking it (which is patently wrong, as anyone who bothers to actually read the nomination can see) is pure concern trolling. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Concern trolling implies that his intentions are to disrupt Witktionary, which I don't think is the case. --WikiTiki89 13:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Insufficient deletion rationale" is an acceptable reason for keeping. I cannot fathom why people who vote "keep" are subjected to so much pressure from you and others. Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 21:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't "insufficient keeping rationale" an acceptable reason for deleting? --WikiTiki89 21:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn’t have anything to do with voting keep. It has to do with the absurd nonargument you gave. Giving no reason at all would have been better than your accusation that CodeCat nominated the template due to not liking it. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * CodeCat's rationale included "I disagree with the way it shows the "description" on the headword line". That's something he doesn't like. It's something that could be easily fixed without blowing up the entire template. I stand 100% behind my initial rationale, and 100% behind my belief that accusing me of trolling is inaccurate. Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 21:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And the sentence following that bit explains why she thinks it’s a bad thing. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The following sentence doesn't negate the part about it being fixable without deletion. Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 22:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It does, actually. Because if you remove the  parameter, you end up with a carbon copy of .  22:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But there's nothing wrong with that. --WikiTiki89 22:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? You think having two templates that do the same thing is ok? 22:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not? At the very least, one should redirect to the other in case entries still use it. Otherwise, you can potentially break entries or confuse users. Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 22:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, preferably one should be implemented in terms of the other to make sure they really do do the same thing. But yes, there is nothing wrong that. is easier to type than, and it is parallel to other POS templates. I already said this below, and msh210 added more reasons. --WikiTiki89 22:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep DCDuring TALK 20:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why? 20:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not? It isn't hurting anyone. I don't see much reason for anyone to waste time tidying and I have no enthusiasm for double-checking whether someone's tidying instinct is leading to loss of anything worthwhile, especially when tidying is the sole stated motive. If there were some compelling reason to wipe out easy access to the history of the project, much of which is embedded in templates, I could be convinced otherwise. DCDuring TALK 23:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per majority. Clearly notable. Harmless and funny. Meets WT:CFI and WT:ELE. The creator worked on this very hard. I like it and find it useful and interesting. It would be censorship to delete this. It contains valuable information. There must be sources somewhere. Vandals and sockpuppets will just keep on re-creating it. It exists and has a zillion Google hits. People are talking about it all over the blogs. It is on the news tonight and of interest around the entire globe. Wiktionary should be about everything. And we should not lose the editors' effort. — Keφr 20:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Is the actual motive for wiping this out to make any transition, even on an experimental basis, to something other than more difficult? DCDuring TALK 23:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To what do you want to migrate this? — Keφr 11:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep despite Purplebackpack89's flawless argument for deletion (am I committing "fallacy fallacy fallacy"?). This template is parallel to other English POS templates and thus people will naturally try to use it even if it doesn't exist. --WikiTiki89 00:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that it's not. Don't let the name deceive you, look at the code. It takes pairs of labels and forms, just like does. Like I said in the nomination, it's nothing more than a thin wrapper around, it just forwards on some of the parameters and doesn't do anything itself.  00:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You didn't contradict anything I said. --WikiTiki89 00:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Wikitiki89: people will try to use it (and wish to re-create it) to match other en-POS and langcode-pron templates. And per DCDuring. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "pron" may be mistaken to stand for "pronunciation", though. I think this template, if kept, should at least switch places with . — Keφr 10:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree completely, and the same for all languages' counterparts, with redirects kept, but that's not the issue here. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * RFDO kept: no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)