The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Ironically unused. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Unused and unlikely to be used. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned, mostly redlinks — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Deprecated, unused. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Deprecated, unused — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Unused in content namespace, deprecated. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete per prior discussion Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deprecated, unused — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Keep for now. The last TFD didn't close very long ago with the same result. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Deprecated, unused. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Creates an "invisible note" in the content; not any different from HTML comment markup which is much easier to pick out -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Used in one article; creates an line reference with [N] that includes a hover note; very non-standard referencing method; violates accessibility guidelines -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Reluctantly withdrawn. I agree with those who argue that it's a compromise among several bad options. However, the template still assists practices that unquestioningly violate the spirit of Wikipedia as an encyclopedic project. -- 78.34.195.112 ( talk) 21:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
This template is designed to serve a deeply unencyclopedic purpose: To mark results of matches which are still in live progress. Such results should generally not be included on Wikipedia. The template thus serves no encyclopedic purpose and should be deleted. 78.34.195.112 ( talk) 19:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned and unlikely to see much use in the future. If this particular issue comes up again then use the generic Cleanup template with the reason parameter filled in. RDBury ( talk) 19:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete per prior discussion Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Navboxes containing only redlinks, therefore unused and utterly useless. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 16:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Keep for now, and attempt to fix the problem. I would suggest asking for assistance at WT:WPT or WP:VPT. No prejudice against renomination if it turns out to be unfixable. RL0919 ( talk) 21:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The Encyclopedia Britannica now uses a url scheme based on reference numbers for articles rather than names, so the template with its simple code doesn't work any longer. De728631 ( talk) 14:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Ironically unused. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Unused and unlikely to be used. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned, mostly redlinks — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Deprecated, unused. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Deprecated, unused — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Unused in content namespace, deprecated. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete per prior discussion Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deprecated, unused — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Keep for now. The last TFD didn't close very long ago with the same result. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Deprecated, unused. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Creates an "invisible note" in the content; not any different from HTML comment markup which is much easier to pick out -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Used in one article; creates an line reference with [N] that includes a hover note; very non-standard referencing method; violates accessibility guidelines -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Reluctantly withdrawn. I agree with those who argue that it's a compromise among several bad options. However, the template still assists practices that unquestioningly violate the spirit of Wikipedia as an encyclopedic project. -- 78.34.195.112 ( talk) 21:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
This template is designed to serve a deeply unencyclopedic purpose: To mark results of matches which are still in live progress. Such results should generally not be included on Wikipedia. The template thus serves no encyclopedic purpose and should be deleted. 78.34.195.112 ( talk) 19:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned and unlikely to see much use in the future. If this particular issue comes up again then use the generic Cleanup template with the reason parameter filled in. RDBury ( talk) 19:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete per prior discussion Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Navboxes containing only redlinks, therefore unused and utterly useless. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 16:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Keep for now, and attempt to fix the problem. I would suggest asking for assistance at WT:WPT or WP:VPT. No prejudice against renomination if it turns out to be unfixable. RL0919 ( talk) 21:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The Encyclopedia Britannica now uses a url scheme based on reference numbers for articles rather than names, so the template with its simple code doesn't work any longer. De728631 ( talk) 14:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)