Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Template messages/inline

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Coredesat 08:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Template messages/inline

I don't see a reason for this page. Inline templates are already listed on other sub-pages of Wikipedia:Template messages, which are already disorganized and redundant, this only adds to it. If the purpose is to search for templates based on style, there's a category for that - Category:Inline templates Rocket000 13:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete—What is that? Jonathan ^talk \ _{contribs — er} 02:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. There are no relevant incoming links to this page, so nobody is likely to read it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and fix - it seems likely that this is something that WP:ILT is working on, and it would be likely to be re-created later in more comprehensive form. The ideal way to do this would actually be to have each of its topical subsections be a subpage and then transclude those into both this document and each of the more categorical template messages pages, so that both the categorical ones and this format-related one will never be out-of-synch. See WP:ILT and you'll see that there are quite a number of such templates; it probably would be quite helpful for editors to have an explanatory list of them in the template messages pages. After this is fixed up, it should be linked to from Wikipedia:Template messages, obviously. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.