| | ::::::@MG: Sure, but how can you defend one "not categorized ''and'' transcluded nowhere in content space; not transcluded more than, say, ten times anywhere; with no documentation suppage or talk subpage; with no in-template documentation; ''and'' with no clear, currently valuable purpose"? They still have to go through RFDO, anyway, where, of course, no item is ''ever'' summarily dispatched. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small > 17:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC) | | ::::::@MG: Sure, but how can you defend one "not categorized ''and'' transcluded nowhere in content space; not transcluded more than, say, ten times anywhere; with no documentation suppage or talk subpage; with no in-template documentation; ''and'' with no clear, currently valuable purpose"? They still have to go through RFDO, anyway, where, of course, no item is ''ever'' summarily dispatched. [[User: DCDuring |DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring|TALK]]</small > 17:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC) |
| | :No they don't, if they're good (that is, useful) just use them instead of nominating them for deletion. I find that argument a lot like nominating terms for deletion because nothing links to them, even when they meet [[WT:CFI]]. [[User:Mglovesfun|Mglovesfun]] ([[User talk:Mglovesfun|talk]]) 10:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC) | | :No they don't, if they're good (that is, useful) just use them instead of nominating them for deletion. I find that argument a lot like nominating terms for deletion because nothing links to them, even when they meet [[WT:CFI]]. [[User:Mglovesfun|Mglovesfun]] ([[User talk:Mglovesfun|talk]]) 10:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC) |
| | + | :: The difference is that terms are meant to be looked up, which can happen without links, while templates are meant to be used, which can't happen without transclusions unless they are substituted. {{User:CodeCat/signature}} 11:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC) |
