Template talk:Obituary

I somehow magically found this template, and I think maybe you should replace "is thusly unsuitable" with "should be rewritten." Or perhaps, "should be rewritten." I realize this is a new template, so I'm going to hesitate on being bold for a moment in case you had anything in mind, but I'll make the changes if my comment sits here for a few days. Someguy1221 07:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I agree completley, although I was thinking "therefore is" to replace thusly, and that's probably what I'll do, but this is just as much your template as mine, so if you think the others are better I won't revert you if you make the change. Sorry about that - I neevr use thusly in my vocab, but I think I was listening to the radio as I was writing this, and a comment there got stuck in my head so I just wasn't thinking clearly. -- daniel  folsom  02:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I added to the template, so readers get some suggestion as to what should be done. I'm not sure if it's the most compact way to do it though, just my own thoughts on it.  Someguy1221 21:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, ok I agree with most of what you did, and feel free to revert me on this - but I almost feel like notability and tone of an article are entirely different things - I mean it'd be like saying "This article reads like an obituary ... When discussing on the talk page, please remember to remain civil - and don't revert more than three times". If a template is needed to cover everything then Template:Articleissues should be used -- daniel  folsom  21:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, good points. Someguy1221 00:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you think of what it is now - I'm kinda happy with that (mainly because if you click on reworking you can actually edit the article - I just remembered how to do that) - but I think it clearly states what needs to be done in acceptable language. Then again - I have a tiny brain, and it might be in chinese and I don't realize it.-- daniel  folsom  21:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I like it now, I just did a very minor change of wording on it. Someguy1221 00:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree - great job! - daniel  folsom  02:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)