Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Military ficton task force

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: Projectfy to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Military_fiction_task_force/Userbox - should the task force ever reactivate, no issue with this being there.. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Military ficton task force

Delete Unused userbox for defunct WikiProject. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No reason to delete. Was used. Nothing wrong with it. Busywork nominations are a net negative contribution. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was used. There is nothing wrong with it. Deletion will make redlinks in the userpage history. There is no need to delete. If clutter in template space is the problem, userfy it to the author's userspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: even if it is what you actually believe, calling another editor's work on the encyclopedia busywork and a net negative makes you look like a real jerk. I am sure you are not, and that you do not wish to convey that misimpression. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:UnitedStatesian. Even if? You doubt that I think this sort of nomination is busywork? You appear to picked a random, old innocuous thing, and have started a formal deletion discussion for it. Why, if not busywork? Your terse nomination statement gives no hint. Are you clearing out the records of Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Military fiction task force? Is your thrust coming from a clean-up of Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Or do you have an aversion WikiProject intersections?

Are you clearing out the unworthy contributions of User:Sadads? Why? Why mess with his contribution history and page creation records? You second word is actually in error. "Unused"? Incorrect, it was used.

I am aware WP:TfD has no regard for WikiArchaeology, and routinely delete old templates making old versions of articles unreadable. I guess they can argue that the templated content is not creative content belong to the page and so has not attribution need for record? I am also aware that CfD aficionados despise user categorisations, including userbox categorisation, because it is not "defining" of the user, and if the purpose is networking, fiding each other, and mutal awareness, they can user Special:WhatLinksHere. But that precludes the practice of Subst-ing the userboxing, which would protect their userbox-expressed self-declarations from people like you who would later wander in an seek the template deletion with a shallow, terse, rationale. Together, these things have created a circle of stupidity.

Why this userbox? How did you determine it was unused? For how long does it have to be unused for you to consider it ready for deletion? 1 year? 5 years? No time measure at all? You didn't give a time measure.

When this and the other userbox is deleted, what next. Are you going to continue through Category:WikiProject user templates? Is there a plan for the decision making, i.e. delete all unused as of the time you look? Will the justification be built upon lack of opposition in a small tests at MfD? If your plans are big, you should be proceeding through Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. They have an excellent set of rules that prevent busywork. Note, however, I will strongly oppose any attempt to delete once-used but now not-used userpage templates. These are for user-page self-expression, and deserve the same protection as any userpage content.

Now of course, some userboxes are not project-related, or not even suitable for polite company, and they, like any userpage, as Pppery notes, may be nominated for deletion. However, I expect nominators to put some serious rationale into their nominations. Not you, but some, nominate based on "doesn't seem useful", which is an appalling use of an important forum. You offer "Unused userbox for defunct WikiProject". "Unused" is wrong. Let's go with "userbox for defunct WikiProject". Is that a deletion rationale? It certainly is not mentioned at WP:Deletion policy, or WP:NOT, or WP:UPNOT. Maybe Wikipedia:Userboxes? Is it related to anything at Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes? Have you even ever posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes.

In the meantime, MfD is not for setting new policy, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with this userbox that was created to support coordinated contributions to mainspace.

On what basis do not not consider the nomination to be busywork?

Are you seeking to clean up template space? Have you considered userfying the userbox, or moving it to a subpage of the WikiProject (which is not for deletion even if currently inactive). Or improving the maintenance tools to separate userboxes from other old templates? SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SmokeyJoe, its a thing to clean up unused templates -- that was me in my early days and we never properly organized. Unfortunately WikiProjects don't have good ways to breath life into a working group, without active maintenance of the community. That being said, it does seem odd to delete community history even if its just documentation living in the backend. Sadads (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sadads, thanks. You made this. You put it on your userpage, and later removed it. That makes it part of your userpage's history. In template space, they like to clear out old templates. I suggest that you move it out of Template space, either move to a subpage of User:UBX, or put it in the WikiProject. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Userboxes should not be exempt from the process of being nominated for deletion (and potentially deleted) as unused that other templates are subject to. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy – doesn't need to be in template space, but there's also no need for deletion given its harmlessness. Since the creator seems to retain some interest in it, userfying is a reasonable ATD. (If this is userfied, the typo in the title might as well be corrected while you're at it.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2021 (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.