Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:James Cook/Archive box

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: Delete. Ruslik_Zero 20:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:James Cook/Archive box

No reason to keep a subpage for an archive box; wasn't being updated; have converted it to a standard one –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What is the harm of this page, or why should it be deleted? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: It's a subpage that's (no longer) being used, and should never have been used in the first place. I almost tagged it as WP:G6, but since I was the one who made it obsolete, I figured sending to MfD would be a bit more transparent in case someone wasn't okay with what I did. To elaborate on my original motivation for this, it was someone's random hack to have custom date ranges on both the talk page archive box, and on archive boxes for the archive subpages themselves. If you take a look at this, you'll see that no one was updating it. And why should they be? There are bots and templates that handle this stuff automatically, rather than forcing everyone to remember to update millions (well, however many actually have enough discussion to warrant archiving) of talk page archive box templates. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as per nomination by User:Deacon Vorbis. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Archive, don’t delete, these things, little mistakes. It is the wiki way for mistakes to be kept in the history. Perfection in every action is not required, and the history shouldn’t be censored to make it appear that way. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: Archive how? We delete unused/inappropriate templates all the time, and this is no different. It's a subpage that was just meant to be transcluded, but with no purpose anymore, but with the negative effect that it can clutter up orphaned talk page archive reports. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, forgot to sign this part; repeating ping to SmokeyJoe, apologies if it double pings. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We? Deletion of inappropriate templates is good? Deletion of unused (never used? No, once used now “no longer used”) templates is one of my peeves about the TfD crowd not caring about the look or functionality of page history versions. If you are deleting things because they make maintenance reports look bad, really?! Fix the maintenance reporting. Deletion should be the last resort. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. to the actual template. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: That would be a fairly off-the-wall WP:XNR that serves no purpose. This isn't being used anymore and simply clutters up orphaned talk page archive reports. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Deacon Vorbis: [Thank you for the ping] It makes the page history more readable. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to be used actively by the user. Maybe the user should've put the archive box in their User space, but I see no problem to having templates in one's User talk space as I have templates in my User talk space. I see no benefit to deleting and I'm confused by why MJL wants to redirect here? Doug Mehus T·C 14:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: This page is not in the user talk namespace. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete. It was improved, it is unused, it has no meaningful history, it is not needed. - Nabla (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete, as per User:Nabla. Absolutely no purpose in keeping this. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.