Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Findbox




 * 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. Peter 09:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Findbox
Not really the most efficient way to add userboxes to your userpage. Probably better just to add the userbox directly. WOSlinker (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Extremely inefficient. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm a bit surprised that one would proposed deletion for something like this without even attempting a conversation with the original editor. I realize that jumping to a deletion request may make sense in many cases, but in this case, why would it hurt to start a discussion with the editor? What if the editor is aware that the template isn't the most efficient way to add a userbox, but believes it is an efficient way to find userboxes? Or maybe the editor agrees that it isn't efficient, but thinks there is some clever code in it useful for other things and neglected to save it elsewhere? And maybe you can respond to both of these points, but are you absolutely sure there is nothing the editor can say that would cause you to rethink the decision? I've looked at three MFD's today, all of which would be better handled by a note to the original editor, explaining why it seems like the page is no longer useful, explaining that one is considering an MFD, but wanted some feedback from the editor first. Yes, it would delay the deletion as much as a few weeks, but that is a trivial downside compared to an editor finding something they created nominated for deletion without any discussion. (I do understand that in one example, someone did make that attempt and that is a better model, but I'd still push a little harder to ensure that the editor is aware of the possibility before actually proposing for deletion.)-- SPhilbrick  T  15:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The original editor is no longer active and the template is hadly used anyway, so little point in trying to make it better. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Editor was around in February 2010 - we can surely afford to wait. Efficiency is not really a reason for deletion in itself. Collect (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2010 (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.