Template talk:fr-adverb

Usefulness?
The eagle-eyed among you will have realized that this doesn't do anything that wouldn't do. It has head and sot parameters, both of which infl also has. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Typing is rather significantly more simple than typing  . There's no real reason for this template to not exist, as  was never designed to handle everything. — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] Laurent — 14:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

RFDO discussion: July 2014–June 2015
This has now (and indeed long ago) been surpassed by. I would change all instances to,  does nothing that   doesn't already do better. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect: If two templates do the same thing and both are used in articles, one should be redirected to the other and neither should be deleted. Pur ple back pack 89  03:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, a redirect wouldn't work. —CodeCat 13:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 20:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep simply calls  - basically, it already is a redirect. I don't see what significant benefit is gained from deleting a widely used template (something like 3000 transclusions) to replace it with something identical but slightly harder to type. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Kept to keep my own life easier. --Type56op9 (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)