Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:31, 18 August 2014

August 13

Template:YSG Entertainment

Template:YSG Entertainment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigation template for YSG Entertainment, an article deleted at AFD. It has only five links, four of which are redlinks and three are deleted articles. There is only one remaining blue link. Created by User:Coal Press Nation now indef blocked for as promotion only account. SpinningSpark 23:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• delete, no parent article. Frietjes (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete: No parent (and it failed at AfD, so unlikely that another one'll be created) and mostly redlinks. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 04:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Lang-en-GB

Template:Lang-en-GB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It was used in Apheresis (linguistics) and Caramelization. I replaced them with plain link, "British English", so this template is no longer used in mainspaces, rendering it near-useless. George Ho (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep and reverse the WP:FAITACCOMPLI actions aimed at rendering it useless. Under-utilized templates are not useless, simply under-utilized.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  19:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and restore per SMcC -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and restore per SMcCandlish and IP comments.Skookum1 (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Unclear why it is particularly relevant whether the template is unused or massively under-utilized - six of one, half a dozen of the other. The issue should be whether it makes sense to have the template. Maybe I am missing something (and please tell me if I am), but it is not evident to me that this template accomplishes anything that a simple wikilink doesn't more simply accomplish. No wonder Misplaced Pages is having trouble keeping and attracting editors -- everything is becoming so damn overly-technical, including the use of templates instead of simple wikilinks. Maybe the ship on this has already sailed, so to speak, if the project is already littered with crappy templates like this one, but in my own opinion we should strive to keep things simple where we can. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I would just add that this template was created almost 6 years ago (as was the US version - Canadian and Australian versions were created 2 years ago). Given how under-utilized the templates all are after that many years, I think the project has made clear that the task in question is better handled through a simple wikilink. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing something. Having the ability (note: not requirement) to metadata-tag something as a specific variety of English, in cases where this may be especially relevant (e.g. articles on differences between English dialects) is useful, and I at least was actually using it for this purpose. It appears that the nominator and someone(s) else in two cases have been removing the templates where ever they were being used. They are not supposed to be used frequently, by design. The idea that these five templates, which are for very specific uses in very narrow circumstances, and won't be used or even noticed by anyone but gnomes, is somehow related to people quitting wikipedia is patently absurd psychodrama. You're abusing XfD processes to take an anti-template, anti-metadata WP:ADVOCACY/WP:SOAPBOX/WP:GREATWRONGS stand.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  10:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I would ask that you review WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and please knock it off with your condescending/insulting replies like this one and the ones below.

When you are done accusing me of psychodramas or abuse, and are ready to discuss like a grown-up, please let me know. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Skeezix1000: WP:KETTLE. Instead of claiming aggrievement at being challenged on something, why not actually respond substantively to the challenge? Explain to us how it isn't position-pushing drama to hyperbolically claim that a handful of templates (that you characterize as "crappy", i.e. a slight euphemism for "full of shit", without any basis or explanation for such condemnation), intended and used (optionally) only for specific, narrow purposes in particular ENGVAR-comparison contexts, somehow constitutes the explanation for why "Misplaced Pages is having trouble keeping and attracting editors", and proof of "everything ... becoming so damn overly-technical". Just how high is that horse you're falling off of?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  22:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:KETTLE? Unclear how I have been uncivil to you. I expressed my opinion, which I am entitled to do. You are entitled to disagree, but not to insult me or impugn my motives. You accused me of being abusive and creating psychodrama, and now of being on a high horse. I am happy to respond to the one substantive comment you made above, once you retract your insults above. I don't engage in substantive discussions with editors who do not assume good faith or who cannot be civil. Regards. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm calling shenanigans on that. Your refusal to engage in reasoned debate about the actual TfD – because you feel insulted, pretend you can't see that you've been insulting (e.g. with "When you are ... ready to discuss like a grown-up"), and won't talk until your ego has been salved – just means you choosing a melodramatic way to concede the TfD. Would you like Orff's "O Fortuna" as theme music to go along with that?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  14:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delete I understand the need to categorize for foreign languages, but is it really necessary for broad language variations (not even distinct dialects!) to carry this template? You're telling me that aside from the two articles George Ho linked, there were zero articles using this template? Zero, zip, zilch, after six years? I agree wholly with Skeezix about this being one of Misplaced Pages's biggest current issues: we need to aim our efforts in simplifying the process and trimming useless fat like this. This one is a no-brainer. - SweetNightmares 14:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The first half of your rant, I addressed in reply to Skeezix1000 immediately above. As to the other half, what on earth are you on about? There is nothing "technocratic" (see definition here) about these templates, or about using language metadata in general (entirely voluntarily - there is no policy requiring their use, and their own documentation discourages their use except where especially pertinent. There are zero present uses of the template because the nominator and others have been removing it to make it seem unused. These templates have nothing at all to do with any "process" that needs to be "simplified"; see response to Skeezix1000 again; I don't like to repeat myself. The only "no-brainer" here is that your !vote here raises no cognizant policy issues and can safely be ignored by the closer.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  10:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I urge you to remain WP:civil when debating. Resorting to passive-aggressiveness, condescension, and personal attacks does nothing to contribute to the debate at hand or WP:RETENTION and only serves to discourage users from becoming active editors. Please consult the following links for more information Also, please do not strike out and insert text from other users' comments as you did when you moved the section here. Finally, I know what the word "technocratic" means, do you? The answer can be found on this page under the "What is a technocrat" section. - SweetNightmares 16:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@SweetNightmares:. See reply to Skeezix1000, above; much of it applies to your issues as well. I am remaining civil. It is not incivil to point out policy and logic flaws in an argument. Accusing others of "resorting to passive-aggressiveness, condescension, and personal attacks" is not civil. Nor is calling them "technocrats", which is really no different from calling them "fascists" or "communists" or some other form of exploitative governance by a privileged few; it's pure negative hyperbole intended to be personally insulting. So, see WP:KETTLE, closely. See also WP:REFACTOR; maybe reconsider next time you feel like lecturing someone on how things are done. Also, please use user talk for user conduct issues; your complaint doesn't belong at TfD.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  21:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per Skeezix. It wasn't a fait accompli that rendered it useless. It was its lack of purpose that rendered it useless. The complaint above about a supposed anti-metadata position being problematic begs the question in its assumption that the existence of this metadata is actually beneficial. And with respect, SMcCandlish, you should not be browbeating others for apparently failing to provide policy based reasons to delete when your reasons to keep amount to nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL. Resolute 14:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • There are any number of potential uses for distinguishing between ENGVARs, ranging from CSS styling, to using different voices with different pronunciation patterns in screen readers, to being clear on how to interpret IPA pronunciation markup, etc., etc. You assert that there is no and/or can be no use for such templates, but obviously there are. WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ITSNOTUSEFUL are actually valid arguments at TfD (alone among the XfD processes), where whether a template may be useful or not is actually a part of the decision process. I've not made any WP:ILIKEIT argument at all, meanwhile the bulk of the delete !votes are patently WP:IDONTLIKEIT-based, as they are simply opposed to templates with a technical purpose, as if somehow the actual cause of editorial decline. I mean, just go back up and read them. Not only are language metadata templates blamed for editor retention problems, if I defend the templates or counter-criticizes their critics, I too am personally labeled an editor retention problem! It's completely circular reasoning, a proposition that seeks to be its own proof and to insulate itself from any analysis. Also, "browbeating" is intimidation into taking an action (or refraining from acting) by the use of threatening verbal aggressiveness; look it up. Pointing out logical, policy and PoV problems with how some parties are using TfD isn't browbeating, aggressive, or any form of intimidation, even if I've leaned toward the WP:DUCK/WP:SPADE-calling side in addressing these problems (and I'm hardly alone in taking a serious-faced approach to addressing soapboxy deletion arguments).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  22:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is starting to heat up, and I don't see signs of cooling down yet. Look, maybe we should keep ourselves cool away from each other before we go any further. I nominated, you voted, and others voted already. You favor keeping it for future computer experts; I favor getting rid of it and making everything simple and neat. I cannot withdraw all the nominations I have done here just because of your conflicts with others (and me if you can count). I read your bio in user page, and I think you may have another COI here. If you want to generally discuss this more, go to WT:NOT#"Misplaced Pages is not a technocracy"?, which I started there. The main purpose is discussing specific templates. Please go to either WT:NOT or WP:VPP. --George Ho (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? In the same breath, you're going to to suggest that we need to cool down the conversation, and suggest that not only can I not count, but I have some unspecified COI (actually you suggest more than one of them, by throwing in that weasely "another"). You don't see signs of the discussion cooling down yet? Hmm, could it be because you're being hypocritically antagonistic?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  13:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

...The more we ignore you, techno-nerd, the better. End of story. --George Ho (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

SMC, over- or under-citing policy neither proves nor disproves one's argument. Regarding my being a "conspiracy theorist," you are out of line. I agree with George Ho: it's time for each of us to step away; we've voiced our opinions and are obviously not going to convince each other. - SweetNightmares 23:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I know when to back off; that's why I left for a couple of days.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  13:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

SweetNightmares, I advise you only once to ignore or not reply to this guy, especially for a couple more days, okay? Peace. --George Ho (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep and promote usage: such templates are useful for tracking their use cases. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the British English template for those who don't want to spell out "British English". To me, "British English: colour" "American English: color" is easier to type, memorize, and grasp than just {{lang-en-GB|colour}} {{lang-en-US|color}}. Both systems result the same, but must we favor (or favour) templates over simple spelling? And must we continually encourage templates and discourage simple spelling, especially per MOS:ACCESS (which I discussed in its talk page)? I brought up the "technocracy" issue in WT:NOT, so join there if interested. Must we rely on templates rather than easy spelling? --George Ho (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

It is also doing lang="en-GB" encoding (unless another "anti-technocrat" has deleted that, too). And much of the point of these templates is regularization and automation. This one in particular helps prevent colloquialisms like English English, as one example. As noted in one of these five related TfDs, someone's already planning to use at least of them to establish frequency of usage. Etc. Peter coxhead gives more rationales below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  13:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep (and the other "Lang-en-XX" templates nominated below, and revert their removal). I suggest that those wanting to delete these templates read Template:Lang#Rationale. The two forms {{lang-en-GB|colour}} and ]: colour aren't equivalent. The first form clearly marks the span over which the unexpected language variant extends (unexpected because this template isn't used to mark a whole article), so a screen reader or a spell checker can take the right action. The template provides metadata, not data; it would still be useful for this reason even if the "British English" weren't made visible. The second form is just text for human readers.
  The argument about over-technicality would be valid if editors were required to use such templates. But they aren't. You don't have to use them in text you write yourself, and if a later editor adds them, or you find them and don't understand them, just leave them alone. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Peter, thank you for the (civil and friendly) explanation. That's helpful. The first part of your explanation makes sense. With respect, I am not sure I buy the second part. Over-technicality, both in terms of wikicode and in our layers and guidelines, is one of the reasons the project is having trouble attracting novice editors. The problem doesn't hinge at all on whether or not we are required to use the template. Article text full of complicated wikicode can be offputting and it can seem hard to edit - not sure "just leave it alone" is a great answer. Now, having said that, we can't/shouldn't do away with templates that are helpful, necessary, etc. I was simply stating that where a template doesn't accomplish much (which you seem to be saying is not the case here), we should strive for simplicity (in fact, for a lot of good reasons above and beyond novice editors). Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Skeezix1000: Again, see WP:SOAPBOX, WP:ADVOCACY and WP:GREATWRONGS. Singling out these five particular templates for attack, as some kind of trial balloon, for larger, more general anti-"technocracy" campaign, is a patent abuse of TfD process.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  13:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I am going to ask you again to review WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY. Your (incorrect) assumptions above my motives are just baffling. I have no plans for an "attack" - I was merely concerned about what seemed like an unnecessary small group of templates which didn't seem to help the project. Please stop the steady stream of insults and accusations. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Skeezix1000, I advise you only once to ignore or not reply to this guy, especially for a couple more days, okay? Peace. --George Ho (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Peter, indeed. For some if not all of these ENGVARs (and more, probably, e.g. Irish, NZ, etc.), having {{lang|en-XX}} as well as {{lang-en-XX}} variants

• Keep — While I believe everyone was working in good faith, this is actually not redundant to a plain link, (though it is designed to appear that way to a certain extent,) and it is not unused. I fail to see how it harms the encyclopedia or breaks policy in any way. There is no valid deletion rationale. —PC-XT+ 19:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

When you said "unused", do you mean "useless"? George Ho (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I was saying there were use cases in the field where the template had benefit shortly before the discussion, which I consider current enough to call the template used. Technically, though, it could now be considered only potential use, since its mainspace usage has been at least suspended. —PC-XT+ 08:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. I've looked over previous voters' comments here, and I can't see how the claimed advantages are significant in light of what I'm reading in the template's documentation. If we need metadata in a specific chunk of an article, it would seem simpler to me to have some sort of metadata tracking template that could be added in text — something invisible, comparable to the templates listed at {{Z number doc}}: just put it at the start and end of UK text and instruct bots to consider the enclosed text as en-GB. Using this template makes the code harder to understand, and after reading the discussion up above, I don't see a huge benefit in tracking this kind of metadata anyway. In other words, delete because it doesn't seem to be particularly useful, and if it is useful, we can do the same thing more simply a different way. Nyttend (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: You may have missed part of the discussion (it's hard to track because the nom made them all separate TfDs instead of a group). Peter coxhead and I were just talking about the invisible metadata in this (just above, actually) and, yes, clearly "{{lang|en-XX}} as well as {{lang-en-XX}} ... variants are called for, to do the metadata markup without adding the 'British English: ' or whatever before the marked up content." The need to use of a different, in the {{lang|en-XX}} form, in some contexts rather than one of these, in the {{lang-XX}} template series, is not a reason to delete this template, any more than need for a navbox sometimes mean delete all infoboxes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  20:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Lang-en-CA

Template:Lang-en-CA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Absolutely useless, as "]" is more memorable and familiar to type than this template. George Ho (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep and reverse any WP:FAITACCOMPLI actions aimed at rendering it useless. This was definitely used before. Under-utilized templates are not useless, simply under-utilized.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  19:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and restore per SMcC -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 08:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to tell you; this template has been unused before I nominated this template. --George Ho (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

So what? If you're so concerned about that, then get to work applying it. Deletion is not a solution.Skookum1 (talk) 08:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, normally it could be but: A) We have evidence that the nominator among probable others, in a what seems to be a nascent campaign (now being shopped to the Village Pump as well as WT:NOT) against metadata templates as the tools of a "technocracy" to be overthrown (or whatever; they tell me it's not a conspiracy theory, but I can't tell the difference) have been removing the templates from use to make them appear unused and useless. B) These templates are part of a series, and it's natural for some of them to remain underutilized for some time; e.g. some of the top level {{lang-xx}} templates are hardly used at all. (I'm sure you already understand this, but I want it on record in the TfD, as both of these points apply to all five of these templates.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  14:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep and restore per SMcC.Skookum1 (talk) 08:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reasons set out in the identical deletion discussion at the Lang-en-GB template - trying to consolidate the discussion. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per above argument about British English. This template is two years old and nothing linked to it. Let's stop turning this website into a technocracy. - SweetNightmares 14:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • How about you stop trying to turn XfDs into WP:SOAPBOX platforms for whatever on earth you're talking about with regard to "a technocracy"?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  10:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per my comment in the British English template discussion above. Resolute 14:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and promote usage: such templates are useful for tracking their use cases. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep as per my comments above. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep for now or userfy — While the template is unused, it is not necessarily useless. It is not redundant to a plain link, (though it is designed to appear that way to a certain extent.) I fail to see how it harms the encyclopedia or breaks policy in any way. If this was created prematurely, I would not mind userfication until it is needed in an article, but I haven't heard enough reason to support deletion, yet. —PC-XT+ 21:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Lang-en-emodeng

Template:Lang-en-emodeng (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was used in only Glossary of nautical terms, Builder's Old Measurement, and English wine cask units. I replaced it with HTML formatting, like "Early Modern English". Now it's nearly useless. If that link is not always memorable, at least a reader can click or type "History of the English language" to search for past English languages, like Early Modern one. The template's redirect is {{lang-en-em}}, and it must be also deleted. George Ho (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep and reverse the WP:FAITACCOMPLI actions aimed at rendering it useless. Under-utilized templates are not useless, simply under-utilized.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  19:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and reverse per SMcC.Skookum1 (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• 'Delete for the reasons set out at the discussion involving the Lang-en-GB template. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per discussion at lang-en-GB. WP:Overcategorization and too technocratic. - SweetNightmares 16:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Having the ability (not requirement) to use language metadata is not "technocracy"; I don't think that word means what you think it means. Also, you've not cited anything relevant in WP:OVERCAT that could apply here (hint: nothing does). I.e., your !vote here raises no policy-based arguments at all.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  10:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per comments at the British English discussion above. Resolute 14:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and promote usage: such templates are useful for tracking their use cases. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep as per my comments above. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep — While I believe everyone was working in good faith, this is actually not redundant to a plain link, (though it is designed to appear that way to a certain extent,) and it is not unused. I fail to see how it harms the encyclopedia or breaks policy in any way. There is no valid deletion rationale. —PC-XT+ 21:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Lang-en-AU

Template:Lang-en-AU (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is not at all used by pages. It is useless, as "]" is easier to memorize and to type than just... {{lang-en-AU}}. George Ho (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep and reverse any WP:FAITACCOMPLI actions aimed at rendering it useless. This was definitely used before. Under-utilized templates are not useless, simply under-utilized.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  19:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and restore per SMcC -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and restore per SMcC.Skookum1 (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reasons set out in the identical deletion discussion at the Lang-en-GB template - trying to consolidate the discussion. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per above argument about British English. The fact that this template is "under-utilized" is evidence that this type of overcategorization is getting to be too technocratic to be useful. - SweetNightmares 15:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Already addressed above with regard to both this absurd abuse of the term "technocracy" to push an anti-template, anti-metadata soapboxing position, and the fact that these templates seem to be unused because people have been deleting them to make them seem unused. They would never be very frequently used, and you (and Skeezix1000) cannot, with any hope of being taken seriously, simultaneously maintain that they should be deleted because they are not being used enough for whatever arbitrary amount of use you'd like to see, yet also be deleted because you don't think they should be used, because they're part of some kind of "technocrat" conspiracy. Even a small child could see through a Catch-22 that silly.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  10:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per comments at the British English discussion above. Resolute 14:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and promote usage: such templates are useful for tracking their use cases. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep as per my comments above. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep for now or userfy — While the template is unused, it is not necessarily useless. It is not redundant to a plain link, (though it is designed to appear that way to a certain extent.) I fail to see how it harms the encyclopedia or breaks policy in any way. If this was created prematurely, I would not mind userfication until it is needed in an article, but I haven't heard enough reason to support deletion, yet. —PC-XT+ 21:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Lang-en-US

Template:Lang-en-US (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was used in moustache and bachelor griller. I replaced them with the link (American English). Therefore, this template may be useless because it's no longer used in mainspace pages. George Ho (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep and reverse the WP:FAITACCOMPLI actions aimed at rendering it useless. Under-utilized templates are not useless, simply under-utilized.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  19:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and restore per SMcC -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and restore per SMcC.Skookum1 (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reasons set out in the identical deletion discussion at the Lang-en-GB template - trying to consolidate the discussion. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per above arguments about UK English. Overcategorized, too technocratic. - SweetNightmares 15:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Skeezix1000's and Sweetnightmares's essentially identical, non-policy-based soapboxing arguments have been addressed above already.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  10:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per comments at the British English discussion above. Resolute 14:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and promote usage: such templates are useful for tracking their use cases. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep as per my comments above. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep — While I believe everyone was working in good faith, this is actually not redundant to a plain link, (though it is designed to appear that way to a certain extent,) and it is not unused. I fail to see how it harms the encyclopedia or breaks policy in any way. There is no valid deletion rationale. —PC-XT+ 21:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Govinda (actor) sidebar

Template:Govinda (actor) sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A side bar template with three incoming links and only three links is a bit of an overkill. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Expand into navbox: He seems to be quite the notable Indian actor, so expanding this template into something like Template:Jeff Foxworthy would probably be the best course of action. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 07:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
• delete per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete: Better as in-context links in the article, or at worst in "See also". There's not enough for a page-bottom navbox. Also, as noted, this has already been deleted once, perhaps in slightly different form.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  10:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:British Columbia New Democratic Party/meta/color

Template:British Columbia New Democratic Party/meta/color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Previously deleted unused template. 117Avenue (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• speedy delete Frietjes (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  10:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy delete (I just tagged it T3.) —PC-XT+ 20:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)