Pigsonthewing asks for feedback for a suggestion that microformats contradict WP:NOT. Most editors think it is not a contradiction to WP:NOT if Wikipedia articles contain invisible microformats, but that it is not OK at all if pages contain additional wikicode just to make that possible. In other words, microformats may only be implemented within templates that would be used anyway, where they don't bother anyone.
Paradisal sends three inline microformat templates to TfD. Result: No consensus. (Two are deleted in October 2009 as unused/redundant. One is currently used in a single article.)
Adambro reports Captain scarlet to ANI for an announced intent to free Wikipedia of microformats. Pigsonthewing points to WT:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 11#Microformats as indicating support for microformats. Hit bull, win steak comments: "The consensus on that page seems to be in favor of microformats, but the discussion isn't exactly extensive, so it wouldn't hurt to hash out the pros and cons in more detail." llywrch comments: "I agree with HBWS on this. Until I saw this discussion, I had never heard of Microformats, let alone knew they existed; [...]." Neil suggests taking the discussion to the VP. Finally, everyone but the two main protagonists stops commenting.
In this case regarding two users who were maintaining mutual attack pages in user space, Folantin comments: "This really is an unusual case: a Pigsonthewing ANI which doesn't involve microformats. Mabbett's campaign to push through microformats in the face of any opposition has caused untold friction around Wikipedia and has been the origin of many incidents appearing on this page, including the classical music infobox debates."
After Pigsonthewing edit-warred to put infoboxes into articles of classical composers, where by consensus of the relevant WikiProjects they were not desired (details on the evidence page), Pigsonthewing gets his second 1-year Arbcom ban.
In the course of this discussion about a user with two previous Arbcom bans, Moreschi comments: "What you might not realise... Is that Andy Mabbett has been trolling Usenet for ages. He's [...] an old usenet troll with the stubbornness levels of a moody ox. Google Andy+Mabbett+troll, or just 'Andy Mabbett'. It's usually microformats and technological stuff, occasionally birdwatching."
Pigsonthewing claims that a recent change to the Coord template has broken the microformats it creates. The change had consensus and nobody can see the problem. Previous discussion was at Template talk:Coord/Archive 6#Non-consensual changes.
Pigsonthewing complains that JJMesserly is damaging microformats. Guy and Sandstein comment that Pigsonthewing seems to have ownership issues. The discussion ends with Pigsonthewing claiming that Guy is lying.
In connection with an editprotected request, TheDJ asks the community whether Pigsonthewing's claim of consensus for microformats in navigation boxes is correct. One user is confused, another user argues there is no relevant information in navboxes. Only Pigsonthewings argues for them.
Pigsonthewing proposes that inline templates such as convert and lang should use microformats in the same way that coord already does. Nobody responds.
Big RfC started by SebastianHellmann who wanted to get support for DBpedia editing templates to add their metadata support. Several editors mention microformats in the discussion, but the relation is not clear.
