Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User ref
- 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. ✗plicit 23:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- Template:User ref (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 02:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Userbox related to long-obsolete tool User:Cyde/Ref converter. The related category was just deleted per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_25#Category:Wikipedians_who_convert_reference_tags. – Fayenatic London 16:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Strong Delete: This is already long-obsolete. CastJared (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and CastJared. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 06:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. It doesn't matter that the thing is obsolete. It suffices that User:Cyde/Ref converter is marked as historical. Active users have the userbox. In truth, these users are official converts to <references/> (a historical tool): They were interested in improving references using this method when it was current, and this is a part of who they are on Wikipedia. They get to keep it as a badge. The purpose of a userbox is satisfied.—Alalch E. 20:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Alalch E.'s comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 02:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: Fixed. A trivial fix only was needed. There is no good reason to delete historical Userboxes and break userpages that are using it, and old Userpage versions that used it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: as stated above, it doesn't matter that it's obsolete, the statement is still valid, especially since the fix done by SmokeyJoe. Just because something is obsolete doesn't mean references to it should be removed. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2023 (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.