The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
This seems like a WP:HOAX to me. It's at best original research. There's no concept or term found for this that appears outside wikipedia or webpages that duplicate wikipedia. All the included articles does not make a mention of this. Cold Season ( talk) 23:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was deleted by DeltaQuad, so the result is delete! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Entirely unnecessary hard-coded example of text. Suggest substitution and deletion of the template. Then if there is interest, there can be separate disclaimers for the individual sources but I think it should just be subst and deleted right now. Ricky81682 ( talk) 20:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Following the deletion review, I'm relisting this for discussion. This was last discussed in detail years ago, but I think it's worth another look. The template links to nine different US references and one in India. As the RFC shows, there is consensus for using new templates for each of the citations with the *ultimate* intent of deleting it (it will likely be around for years in the holding cell or kept as historical), so call it a merger if you want instead of a deletion.
Currently, zero parameters exist and each reference goes to the main or generic search page and not to any subpages (which seems to have been considered an intentional feature not an oversight). Prior to this documentation change, all citations to GR|r2 were identified as obsolete. Instead of being able to easily find the approximately 37k references, we are left trying to parse through the entire dataset (see here) with massive errors. This is not a productive use of resources for very little gain.
I want to list it here given the speedy keep closure from before. This may be a bad idea but let me try to make suggestions to emphasize my point. Afterwards, I propose having another RfC (or maybe one per citation) to discuss each citation but I would to discuss substitution.
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Following the guildelines, this template, used on a single page, is being used to store article content. Suggest substitution of the template onto the page. Ricky81682 ( talk) 20:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a template of a WikiProject attempt that has been marked as defunct, and its scope is now covered by another WikiProject/Taskforce. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture/Historic houses task force#Template:WikiProject Historic Homes. ELEKHH T 14:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Not sure of the need for this navbox. this template already covers the current season's competing teams. This template covers only those in the initial season. Unclear why readers would need to navigate based on this criteria and it just seems to add to Navbox clutter within Thai football clubs as demonstrated here. Fenix down ( talk) 09:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
This seems like a WP:HOAX to me. It's at best original research. There's no concept or term found for this that appears outside wikipedia or webpages that duplicate wikipedia. All the included articles does not make a mention of this. Cold Season ( talk) 23:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was deleted by DeltaQuad, so the result is delete! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Entirely unnecessary hard-coded example of text. Suggest substitution and deletion of the template. Then if there is interest, there can be separate disclaimers for the individual sources but I think it should just be subst and deleted right now. Ricky81682 ( talk) 20:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Following the deletion review, I'm relisting this for discussion. This was last discussed in detail years ago, but I think it's worth another look. The template links to nine different US references and one in India. As the RFC shows, there is consensus for using new templates for each of the citations with the *ultimate* intent of deleting it (it will likely be around for years in the holding cell or kept as historical), so call it a merger if you want instead of a deletion.
Currently, zero parameters exist and each reference goes to the main or generic search page and not to any subpages (which seems to have been considered an intentional feature not an oversight). Prior to this documentation change, all citations to GR|r2 were identified as obsolete. Instead of being able to easily find the approximately 37k references, we are left trying to parse through the entire dataset (see here) with massive errors. This is not a productive use of resources for very little gain.
I want to list it here given the speedy keep closure from before. This may be a bad idea but let me try to make suggestions to emphasize my point. Afterwards, I propose having another RfC (or maybe one per citation) to discuss each citation but I would to discuss substitution.
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Following the guildelines, this template, used on a single page, is being used to store article content. Suggest substitution of the template onto the page. Ricky81682 ( talk) 20:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a template of a WikiProject attempt that has been marked as defunct, and its scope is now covered by another WikiProject/Taskforce. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture/Historic houses task force#Template:WikiProject Historic Homes. ELEKHH T 14:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Not sure of the need for this navbox. this template already covers the current season's competing teams. This template covers only those in the initial season. Unclear why readers would need to navigate based on this criteria and it just seems to add to Navbox clutter within Thai football clubs as demonstrated here. Fenix down ( talk) 09:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)