Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Qif

I'm just reporting that – according to the what links here of qif – namespace main of this wiki is free of qif (no page in main depends on qif). Lots of templates that now use #if have been added to Category:Templates using ParserFunctions. --Ligulem 21:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have all the templates been tested and shown to be working properly? I didn't know there was a workaround or fix for the {{{1}}} bug yet. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The mediazilla:5678 comment sounds like fixed, but on my Meta test page it's still broken (ignore test case 3, that's subst'ed and can't reflect later fixes). -- Omniplex 01:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a correction made for the numbered parameter problem, but it was causing new problems with table markup and was reverted back out. Ergo... '#if:' isn't in a final / stable form yet. It would have been nice if people had respected the 'trial' nature of the new features or the consensus on this MfD to wait until the trial was over (rather than using this as one last harrah for the 'avoid using meta-templates' nonsense), but... they didn't. So now 'qif' is nearly entirely replaced and the developers will just have to be very careful with corrections to #if: to try to avoid breaking any of the tens of thousands of pages which were prematurely linked to it. --CBDunkerson 12:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This could have been prevented by not releasing ParserFunctions on the hot site. Since it was released, it can be used. BTW I see not much problems. #if: is such a trivial thing and I haven't had any bickerings when converting templates. Besides, I carefully checked what I converted and I only had one template with the {{{1}}} bug in the else part (for which I found a workaround by using a front end. See template:harvard citation). Using stuff is the best way to test it and assure it actually works. --Ligulem 13:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]