Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Template:20cen

Let's not get started with that. There are thousands of common expressions that could be abbreviated with templates like that, e.g. for George W. Bush but then the article source texts will become unreadable. Gzornenplatz 03:05, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Process issue: IMO this should proceed, but Templates should not in future be listed on VfD, and instead be treated separately as Redirs, Copyvios, etc. are. Discussion on Wikipedia talk:Votes_for_deletion --Jerzy(t) 15:35, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)
 * You're supposed to read the article, not the markup; it's easy anyway to refer to the article in the midst of editing, when confused by the markup. (Maybe i'm odd, but that's how i learned the markup, not via tutorials.) --Jerzy(t) 15:35, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)
 * Delete - it won't even work right in cases where having an abbreviation is useful due to the template inclusion limit. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 04:51, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Frankly, i may be the only one using, and it is only using it as transclusion that might boost use to point where it's a problem: think of calling it by transclusion as a public-service announcement ("You should Sup-case your centuries; here's how to make that easy") toward the point where the problem is real. Then the problem can be solved by starting to use the subst mechanism with the same template (see markup below). How about a __FORCE SUBST__ operator built into abbreviation templates once they become popular (and into the VfD template: read the Template:VfDFooter). --Jerzy(t) 15:35, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)
 * (Template creator, so is this not a vote?) Should be kept. Create a mechanism for alerting users to use it as, which will let it work just fine.  Avoiding the long, finicky syntax can alleviate the tendancy to code simply 20th century, without everyone having to copy the syntax into their own cut-and-paste library of some sort.  Also can be enhanced via parameterization to work with any century starting with 4th century, saving 15 other templates. --Jerzy(t) 15:35, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)
 * But "20th century" is perfectly correct. It is not a good idea to get unnecessarily fancy by superscripting the "th". Most people do not and will never do that anyway. Also, when it's part of an underlined link, the underline under the "th" will be superscripted too, breaking the line. Gzornenplatz 18:25, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Postdlf 04:11, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)