Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template sandboxes X21-X52

 __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. ‑Scottywong | [soliloquize] || 14:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Template sandboxes X21-X52
I am nominating this for deletion through MfD because these are not templates; these are template sandboxes, and thus do not belong in TfD.

These sandboxes only have 1-10 edits to them on average.

I do not have the time and effort to add MfD tags to these template sandboxes, and Twinkle will not do them for me. I also do not want the pages blanked accidentally by a bot...

I think having 20 template sandboxes is enough. The template sandboxes x1 to x20 all serve their purpose for the rare scenario where you need to test a deletion template or a warning/block notice. Having 30 more template sandboxes is unnecessary. We rarely ever have to test deletion and block templates. It makes no sense whatsoever that we need to create 30 more template sandboxes for something that we rarely do. Courtesy ping the creator of these pages. Aasim 12:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep all Id someone had proposed creating these, I would probably have said that there is no need. But they exist. Deleting them will save no server space, prevent no harm, and do no good. The nomination wastes server space and volunteer time. ThEre is no policy-based reason for deletion, and none appears in the nomination statement. If the nominator cannot be bothered even to add an MfD template to each page, why should anyone be bothered to do the deletion? If someone does use one of these or has it on a watch list, how will that person know it is up for deletion. What purpose would such a deletion serve? None that I can see. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I just added the tags an hour ago. I nominated these pages for deletion because of lack of use in the past six months and because we already have 20 sandboxes.  It is not helpful to just add more areas to test.  Of course, a nomination for deletion does not guarantee its deletion, but I do not see a use for having 30 more template sandboxes when even the original X1-X20 barely get used at all.  Aasim 14:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have struck my comment about the lack of tags. But "not being used" is not a valid reason for deletion. "Would not be used" is a valid reason not to create more of these, but oncfe they are here, it is far better to just ignore them than to nominate them for deletion. What benefit will deletion gain? Deleted pages still take up room on the servers, indeed a bit more room than if they were not deleted, because the deletion log entry is also stored. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If the page is not used, or only used in extremely rare circumstances, then there is no point in having it. Of course, if we get this influx of editors that are interested in template editing we can always undelete it, I am not concerned about storage, but I do not think having 52 template sandboxes is going to be any more helpful than having 20.  In fact, only template sandboxes X1-X20 are monitored by Cyberbot I, the issue with other template sandboxes is if vandalism or personal information or attacks are posted there and no editor notices and it is not removed by the bot.  Look at the page information for X52.  There are fewer than 30 watchers and the page has gotten less than four views in 30 days.  X1 has gotten many more page views and has a good few hundred watchers.  There does not seem to be a point in having public pages that no one will ever use.  In fact, as soon as we hit X10 we are under 30 watchers.  Aasim 18:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I created these because at the time I needed to test and fix how XFDcloser was behaving when there were 50+ nominated pages in an XFD discussion. I don't have to any strong opinion as to what should happen to them now. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 23:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , understood. I know you are an admin, but have you heard of [//test.wikipedia.org/ Test Wikipedia]?  I have tested a bunch of my scripts there before putting them on English Wikipedia :) Aasim 23:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, testwiki is what I am using now to develop and test the next major version of XFDcloser :) - Evad37 &#91;talk] 23:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep all. User:Evad37 is a respect template coder, he knows what he  is doing, he is not making trouble, do not interfere with his testing.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment So, what about Template:X53 (fifty-three), Template:X54 (fifty-four), Template:X55 (fifty-five), ..., Template:X100 (hundred), ..., Template:X1000 (thousand), ..., Template:X2019 (last year), Template:X2020 (this year), Template:X2021 (next year), ..., Template:X10000 (ten thousand), ..., Template:X100000 (hundred thousand), ..., Template:X1000000 (million), ..., Template:X1000000000 (billion), ..., Template:X10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (googol), ..., Template:X99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 (the largest theoretically possible suffix is 10254-1, with two hundred and fifty-four nines, so in particular, googolplex is way too large, but not googol)? The fifty-third template sandbox was deleted by Bradv at 01:19, 23 April 2020. If we really wanted to, we could have a bot keep on rapidly creating those template sandboxes forever every yoctosecond without ever getting "too tired", until there are 10254-1 template sandboxes. But that would mean that Special:Statistics would then (eventually) show ridiculously large numbers. Also, Template:Please leave this line alone (template sandbox heading) would then have to be modified to only show links to a limited number of preceding and following sandboxes, to keep the sandboxes to a reasonable size. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify? Are you arguing WP:Other stuff exists or WP:PERFORMANCE or Slippery slope?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this user is making a point talking about how pointless creating so many template sandboxes is. I think the point is we keep the number of template sandboxes to a minimum so it does not create a huge mess to clean up.   you can definitely clarify that.
 * On a side note, I am seeing all these "weak keep" arguments. The purpose of template sandboxes is to test code before creating a template.  And yes, I know, this user is an admin and is a good faith editor.  In fact, they are a veteran editor who is known for their XFD closer script.  I have nothing against this admin, I know we all make mistakes, and forget to clean up after testing sometimes...
 * If there is consensus to keep these templates, I won't care, but at least it is good that we have this discussion in the first place. If  deletes the pages themself, I won't care either, and if there is consensus to delete, I won't care.  I still think we can wait 7 days and see how this plays out, maybe we come to a consensus as to how many template sandboxes we should have.  Maybe we don't.  However it goes, at least it is good that we are having this discussion and those pages won't be nominated for deletion for a while should the page be kept.  Aasim 04:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you should have asked the user first. I don't think you have a valid deletion rationale.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - I don't understand the purpose of the template sandboxes, probably because I don't need to understand their purpose. I don't understand the purpose of the deletion, and deletion of stuff being used by a real editor should have a purpose.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Salmo trutta is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep all WP:NOTPAPER I think we should encourage others to play in the sandboxes. Lightburst (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wrong venue Should be at TfD instead. Nevertheless, Delete all as clearly excessive; the vast majority of these have no edits other than their initial creation and Awesome Aasim's addition of MfD tags, which is akin to being unused, and unused templates are routinely deleted at TfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I listed this here because they are not templates; they are sandboxes. Anyway, it does not matter as much because MfD is also for pages where there is a dispute as to the correct deletion venue.  Aasim 01:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom; unneeded now. ◊ PRAHLAD balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 21:23, 10 June 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.