The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Unused and would be better off placed directly into article instead of as a template that would only be used at most once. WOSlinker ( talk) 21:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Template not in use. Priority for college football articles ought to be assigned via Template:WikiProject College football. Jweiss11 ( talk) 18:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete after replacement Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Used on 34 pages. Similar to Scref, but adds a hover link to show the citation. Nice feature, but it only works for the very few uses of this template in an article and requires that the hover text be included in the template markup. The script User:Blue-Haired Lawyer/Footnote popups adds this feature to all Cite references and compliant templates. This template can be replaced by standard footnotes. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
How is this useful? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
This is a dangerous road that we don't want to go down. I would rather have too many good references than not enough, and the more specific the citation the better. While loads of *irrelevant* citations are a bad thing, there's already a template for that at Template:Verify sources. Too many good citations is not a problem, and we should be encouraging the use of more citations, not less. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 19:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was move to userspace Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
This doesn't make much sense. Yes, it's supposed to be funny, but it's more nonsense than humor. It's only used by 5 users (1 blocked), and the creator and last editor are both blocked, so it doesn't look like it will be improved anytime soon. It also could be confusing. Dynamic| cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 01:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Unused and would be better off placed directly into article instead of as a template that would only be used at most once. WOSlinker ( talk) 21:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Template not in use. Priority for college football articles ought to be assigned via Template:WikiProject College football. Jweiss11 ( talk) 18:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete after replacement Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Used on 34 pages. Similar to Scref, but adds a hover link to show the citation. Nice feature, but it only works for the very few uses of this template in an article and requires that the hover text be included in the template markup. The script User:Blue-Haired Lawyer/Footnote popups adds this feature to all Cite references and compliant templates. This template can be replaced by standard footnotes. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
How is this useful? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
This is a dangerous road that we don't want to go down. I would rather have too many good references than not enough, and the more specific the citation the better. While loads of *irrelevant* citations are a bad thing, there's already a template for that at Template:Verify sources. Too many good citations is not a problem, and we should be encouraging the use of more citations, not less. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 19:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was move to userspace Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
This doesn't make much sense. Yes, it's supposed to be funny, but it's more nonsense than humor. It's only used by 5 users (1 blocked), and the creator and last editor are both blocked, so it doesn't look like it will be improved anytime soon. It also could be confusing. Dynamic| cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 01:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)