Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Christianity/archivebox

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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. Marked as historical.  bibliomaniac 1  5  21:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Christianity/archivebox

 * – (View MfD)
 * — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 20:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Unused and unnecessary. The transclusion of on Talk:Christianity does the same job and is automated. Steel1943 (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. I normally would opt for archiving pages like this, but there doesn't look to be anything novel that would be worth preserving. Keep - per Smokey's claim that deleting this will hinder wikiarchaeology matters Sulfurboy (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not unused.  It was used from 2007.  It is required for the integrity of the talk page archives. Deletion serves no purpose but does some small harm.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, can you point me to where the talk page is currently reliant on it? I'm not seeing anything that isn't stored and indexed by Archives. If you see something that Steel or I missed, let us know, because at the very least I would change my vote and I would bet Steel would withdraw the nomination. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christianity&oldid=170953491
 * It is not in the archives because it is header code. Copy-archives serve a very good purpose, but they do not replace the page history as the authoritative talk page history, and deleting templates used in the history damages the versions that used the template.  So just leave these templates alone please.  Cleaning up old replaced templates by deleting them is damaging for wikiarchaeologists.    --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Good stuff. Vote changed. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't see how this argument holds water. We don't keep files that fail WP:NFCC when they are deleted just because they were linked in old revisions. We don't keep deleted articles that are linked in old revisions. And lastly ... we tend to delete templates (which is what this is, even though it's in the "Talk:" namespace) that are not used and are redundant in function to another template. In fact, for the latter, we even have a WP:CSD criterion for such templates: WP:T3. That, and being a bit of a self-proclaimed wikiarchologist myself, since there is another template guiding me in the direction of the archives on that talk page (specifically, Archives), I would have no need or desire to review this nominated page since the transclusion of Archives directs me to all the pages I would be interested in since they direct me to all the talk page archives. Steel1943  (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The common disregard for the functionality of old page versions is a huge complaint I have about the culture at TfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 20:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep for history integrity. I have marked it as historical to avoid confusion. --MarioGom (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2020 (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.