This template has been marked for potential deletion, with no explanation given. I don't see an entry in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion either. What's up? Cheers, -Willmcw 23:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Will, I discussed this with the editor (Dan, User:Rdsmith4) who wants to delete it (because he feels it's hideous), and he's agreed to withdraw the TfD until after the arbcom case, as there is arbcom evidence linking to the Template. SlimVirgin 23:59, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
- If the TfD is withdrawn, then shouldn't the TfD tag be removed as well? As for aesthetics, it's a talk-page template, not part of the main space, so it's appearance is secondary. It is utilitarian, not hideous, and serves a useful purpose because the same issues are discussed by the same editors on multiple talk pages. -Willmcw 00:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, the tag should be withdrawn; I assumed he had done that. I agree it's useful and should be kept. If he reintroduces it for deletion, we can argue that, and I doubt anyone will oppose us, because why would they care? As you say, it's not part of the encyclopedia. SlimVirgin 00:54, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
- I've removed the tag. SlimVirgin 00:57, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
The template is much too long. It would be more useful if it just touched on the most significant guidelines. --Marvin Diode 00:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have edited this now. A lot of it was trivia. People can find their own talk pages. --Marvin Diode 15:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]