The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was speedy keep by WP:SNOW, nominator rescinding nomination. (non-admin closure) <RetroCraft314 talk/> 16:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Nee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The use of "née" contradicts MOS:MULTIPLENAMES and should therefore be removed and/or phased out. <RetroCraft314 talk/> 20:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - the template could be substituted before deletion, but I'd rather see all the instances of "née" replaced with "born". While we're doing cleanup, we might as well clean it all up. Happy to do a bot run or some assisted-manual edits to help. Richard⁰⁶¹² 10:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Richard0612: I'm not sure exactly where you have to go to get permission/consensus to do something like that, but considering that the policy pretty clearly states that it should be changed, you should be able to. <RetroCraft314 talk/> 17:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well if the template is deleted as a result of this TfD, it will have to be substituted/replaced anyway. So that's one half sorted. As the replacement text is against the MOS, I don't see the harm in replacing it while you're making the edits anyway. Richard⁰⁶¹² 20:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • !vote struck on the basis of new evidence below. Richard⁰⁶¹² 07:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. The template née does not contradict MOS:BIO and is frequently used throughout articles to indicate someone's maiden name e.g. "Bill Jones was born in Los Angeles, the eldest son of John Jones and his first wife, Mary (née Stark)." The MOS you are referring to was wrongly inserted WITHOUT consensus by the same person who proposed changing the style and then invented the shortcut MOS:MULTIPLENAMES! The discussion he/she started had very few responses. This is not how MOS is changed, and we certainly don't wipe out a widely used template based on this one person's whims. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. I agree with what the user above said. It seems that there was a frivolous alteration to the MOS that should not be taken lightly. Contrary to one person’s spurious beliefs, there is absolutely nothing wrong with né or née; they are used all the time both within and outside Wikipedia. Rovingrobert (talk) 06:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I assume the nomination to delete this template was based on good faith that née really was "banned" in the MOS. @Rovingrobert: and others wandering by who may be interested, I have started a discussion on this topic on the MOS:BIO talk page here - this needs to be addressed properly. Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Consensus needed on birthnames (ie née). Thank you. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep. Nominated on a false premise. wumbolo ^^^ 15:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 May 28. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Librivox_book (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 May 28. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Shaye (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 May 29. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Extended_periodic_table_(by_Aufbau,_50_columns,_compact) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 May 29. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Extended_periodic_table_(by_Aufbau,_50_columns,_period_8) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Sif (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and horribly hacky. Use ((str find)) instead. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete horrifying Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused and an abomination against sense and sanity. Richard⁰⁶¹² 10:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Alarm clock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Entirely redundant to ((show by)). ((3x|p))ery (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).