Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Userbox/BachHair
- 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 discussion was: No consensus. Defaults to keep. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Unused. ~ Rob13Talk 10:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Used here. Maybe if your argument was that it is not a meaningful userbox? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: This is more of a TfD argument than an MfD argument (which is where I frequent), but we never retain templates merely due to use in old page revisions. See, for instance, {{Persondata}}, which was formerly transcluded on hundreds of thousands (millions?) of articles. A template being currently unused is considered about the most airtight reason around for deletion. The template namespace is intended to host content actively transcluded around the encyclopedia. We even have a database report to help identify and eliminate these, which is where I found this template. As for your alternative rationale, I personally agree with it, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to police what users decide to denote in userboxes. ~ Rob13Talk 22:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- That TfD behaviour is one of the most frustrating things! Deletion of old templates is extremely frustrating to anyone looking deeper, at old revisions of pages. I wish you would stop it. Or discourage transclusions and subst everything. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: This is more of a TfD argument than an MfD argument (which is where I frequent), but we never retain templates merely due to use in old page revisions. See, for instance, {{Persondata}}, which was formerly transcluded on hundreds of thousands (millions?) of articles. A template being currently unused is considered about the most airtight reason around for deletion. The template namespace is intended to host content actively transcluded around the encyclopedia. We even have a database report to help identify and eliminate these, which is where I found this template. As for your alternative rationale, I personally agree with it, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to police what users decide to denote in userboxes. ~ Rob13Talk 22:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- 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.