Template talk:SOP

Good idea?
I just noticed that this doesn't have a link from the Beer Parlor, well, shouldn't it be discussed? I'm always a bit dubious about these "only in" templates for things that "don't exist". Mglovesfun (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The only entry that currently uses is 19, which is actually linked in the discussion WT:BP. Yes, I agree that this template merits discussion and I think that defining sums of parts through this box is a good idea. --Daniel. 23:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

RFD discussion: October 2017–October 2019
Long unused, and hence marked for speedy deletion by WF. I thought I'd bring it here, instead — it does seem to have some promise as an improvement over. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , this might interest you. If not, it looks like it'll go. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed it does. Let's leave it here for, say, two or four more weeks. If we can't find real uses for it in that time, we can delete it. I think real examples of use would help focus discussion. DCDuring (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * How about fringe science? Try sticking it on there and see what you think. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * [[fringe science]] would be better addressed by or by a redirect to WP (unless that is forbidden). DCDuring (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per utramque cavernam 00:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The 2 or 4 weeks have gone by. Wanna delete it for me? --Mélange a trois (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Deleted. Benwing2 (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)