The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete the template, but also no real consensus concerning which articles should be linked in the template. Clearly, simply having a blank template with no navigation is not useful. However, there seems to be a general consensus that in most cases one would not have links that don't lead to independent articles. However, since many of the aviators that would be linked in this template are notable for being involved in "first accidents", there is a feeling that we can ignore some guidelines in this particular case, but not in the general set of templates. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
empty template (policy is that only entries with an independent article are listed). Frietjes ( talk) 14:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Redundant to Template:Non-free use rationale video game cover. WP:NFCC-C#Rationale templates identifies it as "older style". It was substituted, not transcluded, so there is no need to merge. – Fayenatic L ondon 15:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
appears unrelated to WP:RFA. Frietjes ( talk) 19:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
probably used to post messages on user talk pages at one point in time. Frietjes ( talk) 19:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
redundant to {{
}} with |section=new
.
Frietjes (
talk)
19:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
unused and most likely replaced by a different template. Frietjes ( talk) 19:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
unused. Frietjes ( talk) 19:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
redundant to {{ oldid}}. Frietjes ( talk) 18:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
unused. Frietjes ( talk) 18:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
not used in any articles, and we already have many {{ colorbox}}/{{ legend}} templates. Frietjes ( talk) 18:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
unused. Frietjes ( talk) 18:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
unused. Frietjes ( talk) 18:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
unused outside of userspace. Frietjes ( talk) 18:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
redundant to {{ fact}}. Frietjes ( talk) 18:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was moved to Template:Rtl-lang/sandbox Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
old template test. Frietjes ( talk) 18:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was move Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
no longer used since Wikipedia:European Union collaboration is inactive. could move to a subpage of that project. Frietjes ( talk) 18:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
redundant to one of the many other quotation templates. Frietjes ( talk) 17:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep, there seems to be no strong objection to adding this feature to "icon". If that works, then feel free to renominate this template, since it would then be redundant. If that feature is not added, then there appears to be no consensus to delete this template (although it has almost never been used for some reason). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
old and could be replaced by {{icon|fp}}
or just add a new item to {{
icon}} if you really need it.
Frietjes (
talk)
17:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
appears to be part of an "expired" bot proposal (see also Wikipedia:Mirror threads). given that the op has been indefinitely prohibited from using automation tools (e.g., see block of User:Femto Bot), it seems as though this will not be used for an indefinite period of time. we could userfy them in case the restrictions are lifted. see also prior deletion of mirror me. Frietjes ( talk) 17:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The template provides a table used in a single article. The table has been easily replicated there. G. C. Hood ( talk) 14:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Another Maxtremus-template with all relevant links still in Portugese. By now, a useless template. Night of the Big Wind talk 14:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
NK Primorje was dissolved in 2011, current squad template should be deleted. ( talk) 13:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
NK Drava Ptuj was dissolved in 2011, current squad template should be deleted. ( talk) 13:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused template. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by RHaworth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused template, which looks like article content Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Should be deleted and Template:The Barnstar of National Merit should be moved. The latter is advertised at WP:* and thus this template is obsolete/redundant. mabdul 12:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was move to project space Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Insanely garish documentation which should be placed in projectspace and linked to rather than transcluded. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 11:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was merge, the editors expressing the opinion to keep the template appear to be objecting to removing the information from the articles, and the editors wanting the template to be deleted, appear to be objecting to "single use" templates. Merging the templates into a multipurpose infobox/sidebar would address both issues. If a merger turns out to not be feasible, or if there are still problems with the merged infobox/sidebar, that can be address either on the talk page of the merged template, or in a follow-up discussion here. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Quasi-infoboxes used on only one article each. Should be reformatted as a proper {{ infobox}}, stripped of cruft and substituted into the respective articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 11:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I have tried several times to use {{ infobox}} but each time I can't but all the information that are contained in the infoboxes listed above with the main {{ infobox}}. If you would explain how I would gladly switch them all over to the main infobox without losing content. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 10:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete, but there is consensus that this should be kept as a testbed, for helping to improve existing citation templates, and not deployed in article space. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Wikid77 and new 'fast' citation templates and the associated ANI thread. Fork of the existing citation system to optimise it, based on the author's personal research into page load times. Consensus is that the author should instead attempt to optimse the existing templates, rather than trying to boil the ocean by "fixing" individual articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 11:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
surname1
in an article which has been overhauled to replace its 150 existing {{
cite}}s with {{
fcite}}s? Who decides the threshold at which an article is converted? Why is adding surname1
directly to {{
fcite}} not practical? Considering the masses of paragraphs of rhetoric that have been generated in defending the new code, it seems extraordinarily difficult to get simple answers to simple questions such as these.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk)
13:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
|ref=
{{
sfnRef}}, which is common. You are trying to paper over the major deficiencies these templates have. Endless "Fixed, thanks", when it's not the case. The other day I tried about a half dozen articles and these templates failed on most of them.
Br'er Rabbit (
talk)
13:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Note to closing admin: The above discussion had been closed, incorrectly, as "no consensus to delete" but "not deployed in article space". I certainly did not consent to that position, so there was no consensus for "Keep-don't-use", at all, ever. Instead, I have worked out a compromise consensus to fix the noted problems before using the templates in article space, as also suggested by other users above.
Specifically, in trying to reach a compromise consensus, for various issues noted above, I have been expanding the Fcite templates to handle more parameters (such as author names 1 to 8, and journal codes) while retaining high-speed formatting of citations. Several other editors have emphasized the need for fast citations: many major articles, such as " Brazil", " Wikipedia", " Egypt" or " Israel" have often taken 20-45 seconds to edit-preview, rather than 7-12 seconds. While it is true that most readers rarely edit major articles, if editing remains so slow and tedious, then fewer editors would want to update major articles with such slow edit-preview delays. After a few prolonged snailpace edits, impatient editors will not keep updating. The misguided appearance as "forks" ( wp:CITEVAR) was due to glitches in the displayed format of Fcite parameters, which has been fixed this week in most cases. By supporting almost all major parameters from {Cite_web} or {Cite_journal}, then users of Fcite will no longer need to fear "reduced functionality" or other issues of disruptive usage. The remaining difference is that the Fcite templates do not support extremely rare parameters, such as "surname1=", "given1=" or "authormask=" which would slow operation for most usage. There are plans for the Fcite templates to warn the user when rare parameters are attempted. Again, as noted above, the reformat speed of major articles is a severe problem for editors, but also for readers who view articles with Special:Preferences, such as thumbnail size higher/lower than 220px (using 120px or 250px will bypass cache and reformat articles 10-50x slower). Hence, the Fcite templates, as fast-cite versions, will greatly improve the editing or special-viewing of major articles (likely 3x faster, as 3-10 second reformats). Meanwhile, smaller articles are not affected by such intolerable format delays, due to differences of only 1-4 seconds. I thank everyone in expressing concerns, above, which led to this new, compromise consensus. - Wikid77 ( talk) 10:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Broken utility template, used only in a couple of old welcome notices. The intended functionality is to allow for simple inclusion of a "new section" link to a user's talk page, but it doesn't work, and presumably there is some more broadly-deployed alternative out there now since this one has been abandoned. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 11:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused utility templates with no obvious productive purpose. If text needs to be reformatted in a certain case, the wikitext should simply be altered, rather than calling some convoluted parser function. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 11:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by ItsZippy ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Not a template, but an article created in the template namespace (as opposed to WP:AfC, which would have been a much better place to start a draft). My own impressions are that the content is well-sourced, that the page would stand a reasonably good chance if it were an article nominated at WP:AfD, and that a move to the main namespace may be appropriate; however, I would be interested to know other editors' thoughts on this. Super Mario Man 01:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Not a template, but an attempt to create an article in the template namespace. Non-notable company. Super Mario Man 01:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by Alexf ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
News link to a non-notable story; no foreseeable encyclopaedic use. Super Mario Man 01:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by Alexf ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Stub article, about a completely non-notable school, created as a template. Super Mario Man 01:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G6 by RHaworth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Article about a legal firm, without clear notability, created in the wrong namespace. Super Mario Man 01:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by IronGargoyle ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Transclusion of Template:Infobox describing a non-notable person. Super Mario Man 00:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by Alexf ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Article about a company with no clear notability created in the wrong namespace. Super Mario Man 00:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by RHaworth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Content limited to a substitution of Template:Self; no obvious potential for encyclopaedic use. Super Mario Man 00:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by Alexf ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Mal-formatted; contains only one repeated external link (which seems to be promotional). Not used in any article. Super Mario Man 00:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by RHaworth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Zero transclusions; function unclear; half-filled-in copy of fields from Template:Infobox rail line. Super Mario Man 00:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete the template, but also no real consensus concerning which articles should be linked in the template. Clearly, simply having a blank template with no navigation is not useful. However, there seems to be a general consensus that in most cases one would not have links that don't lead to independent articles. However, since many of the aviators that would be linked in this template are notable for being involved in "first accidents", there is a feeling that we can ignore some guidelines in this particular case, but not in the general set of templates. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
empty template (policy is that only entries with an independent article are listed). Frietjes ( talk) 14:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Redundant to Template:Non-free use rationale video game cover. WP:NFCC-C#Rationale templates identifies it as "older style". It was substituted, not transcluded, so there is no need to merge. – Fayenatic L ondon 15:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
appears unrelated to WP:RFA. Frietjes ( talk) 19:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
probably used to post messages on user talk pages at one point in time. Frietjes ( talk) 19:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
redundant to {{
}} with |section=new
.
Frietjes (
talk)
19:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
unused and most likely replaced by a different template. Frietjes ( talk) 19:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
unused. Frietjes ( talk) 19:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
redundant to {{ oldid}}. Frietjes ( talk) 18:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
unused. Frietjes ( talk) 18:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
not used in any articles, and we already have many {{ colorbox}}/{{ legend}} templates. Frietjes ( talk) 18:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
unused. Frietjes ( talk) 18:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
unused. Frietjes ( talk) 18:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
unused outside of userspace. Frietjes ( talk) 18:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
redundant to {{ fact}}. Frietjes ( talk) 18:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was moved to Template:Rtl-lang/sandbox Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
old template test. Frietjes ( talk) 18:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was move Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
no longer used since Wikipedia:European Union collaboration is inactive. could move to a subpage of that project. Frietjes ( talk) 18:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
redundant to one of the many other quotation templates. Frietjes ( talk) 17:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep, there seems to be no strong objection to adding this feature to "icon". If that works, then feel free to renominate this template, since it would then be redundant. If that feature is not added, then there appears to be no consensus to delete this template (although it has almost never been used for some reason). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
old and could be replaced by {{icon|fp}}
or just add a new item to {{
icon}} if you really need it.
Frietjes (
talk)
17:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
appears to be part of an "expired" bot proposal (see also Wikipedia:Mirror threads). given that the op has been indefinitely prohibited from using automation tools (e.g., see block of User:Femto Bot), it seems as though this will not be used for an indefinite period of time. we could userfy them in case the restrictions are lifted. see also prior deletion of mirror me. Frietjes ( talk) 17:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The template provides a table used in a single article. The table has been easily replicated there. G. C. Hood ( talk) 14:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Another Maxtremus-template with all relevant links still in Portugese. By now, a useless template. Night of the Big Wind talk 14:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
NK Primorje was dissolved in 2011, current squad template should be deleted. ( talk) 13:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
NK Drava Ptuj was dissolved in 2011, current squad template should be deleted. ( talk) 13:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused template. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by RHaworth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused template, which looks like article content Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Should be deleted and Template:The Barnstar of National Merit should be moved. The latter is advertised at WP:* and thus this template is obsolete/redundant. mabdul 12:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was move to project space Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Insanely garish documentation which should be placed in projectspace and linked to rather than transcluded. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 11:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was merge, the editors expressing the opinion to keep the template appear to be objecting to removing the information from the articles, and the editors wanting the template to be deleted, appear to be objecting to "single use" templates. Merging the templates into a multipurpose infobox/sidebar would address both issues. If a merger turns out to not be feasible, or if there are still problems with the merged infobox/sidebar, that can be address either on the talk page of the merged template, or in a follow-up discussion here. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Quasi-infoboxes used on only one article each. Should be reformatted as a proper {{ infobox}}, stripped of cruft and substituted into the respective articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 11:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I have tried several times to use {{ infobox}} but each time I can't but all the information that are contained in the infoboxes listed above with the main {{ infobox}}. If you would explain how I would gladly switch them all over to the main infobox without losing content. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 10:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete, but there is consensus that this should be kept as a testbed, for helping to improve existing citation templates, and not deployed in article space. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Wikid77 and new 'fast' citation templates and the associated ANI thread. Fork of the existing citation system to optimise it, based on the author's personal research into page load times. Consensus is that the author should instead attempt to optimse the existing templates, rather than trying to boil the ocean by "fixing" individual articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 11:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
surname1
in an article which has been overhauled to replace its 150 existing {{
cite}}s with {{
fcite}}s? Who decides the threshold at which an article is converted? Why is adding surname1
directly to {{
fcite}} not practical? Considering the masses of paragraphs of rhetoric that have been generated in defending the new code, it seems extraordinarily difficult to get simple answers to simple questions such as these.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk)
13:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
|ref=
{{
sfnRef}}, which is common. You are trying to paper over the major deficiencies these templates have. Endless "Fixed, thanks", when it's not the case. The other day I tried about a half dozen articles and these templates failed on most of them.
Br'er Rabbit (
talk)
13:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Note to closing admin: The above discussion had been closed, incorrectly, as "no consensus to delete" but "not deployed in article space". I certainly did not consent to that position, so there was no consensus for "Keep-don't-use", at all, ever. Instead, I have worked out a compromise consensus to fix the noted problems before using the templates in article space, as also suggested by other users above.
Specifically, in trying to reach a compromise consensus, for various issues noted above, I have been expanding the Fcite templates to handle more parameters (such as author names 1 to 8, and journal codes) while retaining high-speed formatting of citations. Several other editors have emphasized the need for fast citations: many major articles, such as " Brazil", " Wikipedia", " Egypt" or " Israel" have often taken 20-45 seconds to edit-preview, rather than 7-12 seconds. While it is true that most readers rarely edit major articles, if editing remains so slow and tedious, then fewer editors would want to update major articles with such slow edit-preview delays. After a few prolonged snailpace edits, impatient editors will not keep updating. The misguided appearance as "forks" ( wp:CITEVAR) was due to glitches in the displayed format of Fcite parameters, which has been fixed this week in most cases. By supporting almost all major parameters from {Cite_web} or {Cite_journal}, then users of Fcite will no longer need to fear "reduced functionality" or other issues of disruptive usage. The remaining difference is that the Fcite templates do not support extremely rare parameters, such as "surname1=", "given1=" or "authormask=" which would slow operation for most usage. There are plans for the Fcite templates to warn the user when rare parameters are attempted. Again, as noted above, the reformat speed of major articles is a severe problem for editors, but also for readers who view articles with Special:Preferences, such as thumbnail size higher/lower than 220px (using 120px or 250px will bypass cache and reformat articles 10-50x slower). Hence, the Fcite templates, as fast-cite versions, will greatly improve the editing or special-viewing of major articles (likely 3x faster, as 3-10 second reformats). Meanwhile, smaller articles are not affected by such intolerable format delays, due to differences of only 1-4 seconds. I thank everyone in expressing concerns, above, which led to this new, compromise consensus. - Wikid77 ( talk) 10:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Broken utility template, used only in a couple of old welcome notices. The intended functionality is to allow for simple inclusion of a "new section" link to a user's talk page, but it doesn't work, and presumably there is some more broadly-deployed alternative out there now since this one has been abandoned. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 11:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused utility templates with no obvious productive purpose. If text needs to be reformatted in a certain case, the wikitext should simply be altered, rather than calling some convoluted parser function. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 11:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by ItsZippy ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Not a template, but an article created in the template namespace (as opposed to WP:AfC, which would have been a much better place to start a draft). My own impressions are that the content is well-sourced, that the page would stand a reasonably good chance if it were an article nominated at WP:AfD, and that a move to the main namespace may be appropriate; however, I would be interested to know other editors' thoughts on this. Super Mario Man 01:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Not a template, but an attempt to create an article in the template namespace. Non-notable company. Super Mario Man 01:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by Alexf ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
News link to a non-notable story; no foreseeable encyclopaedic use. Super Mario Man 01:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by Alexf ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Stub article, about a completely non-notable school, created as a template. Super Mario Man 01:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G6 by RHaworth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Article about a legal firm, without clear notability, created in the wrong namespace. Super Mario Man 01:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by IronGargoyle ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Transclusion of Template:Infobox describing a non-notable person. Super Mario Man 00:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by Alexf ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Article about a company with no clear notability created in the wrong namespace. Super Mario Man 00:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by RHaworth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Content limited to a substitution of Template:Self; no obvious potential for encyclopaedic use. Super Mario Man 00:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by Alexf ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Mal-formatted; contains only one repeated external link (which seems to be promotional). Not used in any article. Super Mario Man 00:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by RHaworth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Zero transclusions; function unclear; half-filled-in copy of fields from Template:Infobox rail line. Super Mario Man 00:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)