Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:How to fix bunched-up edit links
- 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 keep. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The template this corresponds to has now been deleted, so these instructions, which have been {{historical}} for a while, should now be deleted, along with the shortcuts WP:BUNCH and WP:BUNCHING and various others. (I suggest this because the template has been deleted, not the length of time it has been historical.)
Note one of the redirects is currently WP:STACK, but this shortcut is not used anywhere, so it can be deleted too, or redirected to where WP:Stack goes. Mark Hurd (talk) 07:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep the page as this was a problem for many years and is still of interest to understand how we got to where we are now. The redirects can however be deleted as they will not be of use now (unless still used in other pages). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'd agree except the template it is describing has been deleted, so it really explains nothing. Mark Hurd (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep and change emphasis from problems with bunched [edit] links (which has been solved) to problems with stacked-up images and right-aligned box-type objects such as infoboxes (which has not been solved). The
{{stack}}template still exists to fix this. A recent IP editor had a go at such rewrite, but was reverted. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)- I'd agree with this too, except {{stack}} and {{stack begin}} both have fairly complete documentation as is, and, according to {{historical}}, repurposing should be suggested at the Village pump. Mark Hurd (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. We shouldn't delete our history without good reason. This has dozens of authors, a long talk page, and a very long list of incoming links. I do wish that we didn't delete old templates, as it breaks old versions of pages, and makes it hard to understnad the history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - This looks like a valid piece of history, and shouldn't be deleted just because it is outdated. People could still be interested in it. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 19:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per above. This page used to be incredibly useful. Graham87 05:57, 8 August 2011 (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.