Template talk:Prose timeline

This template was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

No consensus, 5 May 2023, see discussion.
Redirect to Template:Prose, 28 August 2009, see discussion.
Keep, 2 April 2008, see discussion.
Rename to Template:ProseTimeline, 31 October 2007, see discussion.

Template?

I don't really think it's right to even have a cleanup template for this topic, because the wikilink to proseline leads to an essay, not a guideline. Shouldn't templates only be used for actual guidelines? Anthony Rupert 12:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Style tweaks

I've made some tweaks to the infobox layout in the sandbox to bring this template in line with the contemporary ambox style. Just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why the change removing "or section"?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for ambiguity, because "section" can be specified as an attribute if required. It's been stripped from quite a few cleanup templates for this reason. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove "{{documentation}}</noinclude>" from the template. (Hint.) Gracenotes^T § 19:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks, matt br 19:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspace template links to an essay?

If the sentiment in the essay on "proseline" was shared by the community why is it not in the form of a guideline? Given that one must assume it is not the community consensus why is there a template to be used in article space linking to it?

My feeling is that article space templates should only link to established guidelines, so this guidance on prose/timelines should either be suggested for inclusion in the manual of style in some form or should only be linked to from talk pages. Have any proponents of this essay tried suggesting it to MOS? |→ Spaully ^τ 22:09, 23 June 2009 (GMT)

TfD - editprotected

{{Editprotected}} This page should not be protected at all, not even semiprotected. It is not used enough, and does not represent policy or guidelines, it is just a random essay-related pointless template. I am sending it to TfD again, but cannot tag it with the TfD template because it is protected, for no real reason. It needs {{tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tfd tag added. — RockMFR 23:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]