Talk:Perchance it is not dead but sleepeth

Omicronpersei8 has flagged this page, adding in the edit summary: (If this is a template, why is it in the mainspace?)

As far as I can see, this is an acceptable use of templates, as quoted in the wikipedia help page, section 12 in particular

Help:Template

The wikitext of a page may (partly or fully) consist of tags for the inclusion of component pages. The "templates" are not necessarily in the template namespace, and may be more or less self-contained pages by themselves. An advantage of putting the components in the template namespace is that they are then included in the list of templates used on the composite page, all with links, on its edit page. On the other hand, the component page may, by itself, be of a nature that it belongs in e.g. the main namespace, while the prefix would suggest otherwise; also the prefix would clutter the pagename.

However, if I have got this wrong, please explain how I can best incorporate this information into the pages to which it links.

If anyone else would care to comment, please do...

Regards Lynbarn 09:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I am rescinding my {{notability}} tag for now. For one thing, I guess I just have a bit to learn about templates. This article does, however, read like an advertisement to me, and the context is hard to understand, even when imported on other pages. I just want to make sure this article is

1. In the right namespace,
2. Acceptable in having its own page, and
3. Written in the expected tone of Wikipedia.

I don't and never did intend to put the article up for deletion, but these points concern me -- the last two more so. If I am simply not understanding something or seemingly just being difficult, please let me know. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

As discussed above, I believe the namespace used is appropriate and in keeping with wikipedia guidelines on the matter

It is not possible to have sub-pages to articles, therefore the only alternative is for them to have separate pages. This one is intended to link articles of historical interest in the L&B to others with a more up to date content. As such, it is not, I agree, a full article in its own right, and I have therefore added a template to indicate this.

I Whilst I agree the content is somewhat esoteric, it does record a contemporary view of a historic event which, through the power of a few words, has been the inspiration to several thousands of L&B enthusiasts over the past 70 years, and potentially to many thousands more spurred on to save, restore and reopen other heritage railways at locations throughout the world, so I believe it is acceptable on notability grounds. I will however put further effort into getting the style more in keeping with wikipedia.

Regards, Lynbarn 09:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)