Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:MTR templates (2nd nomination)

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: delete. No prejudice against creating a redirect to the category, if desired. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:MTR templates

This is a completely unnecessary page and an even worse precedent. Any templates related to this are found in Category:MTR templates. There is really no reason to create project pages for this, especially when it has 4 entries (and is obviously out of sync with the category). Gonnym (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Unmaintained and redundant to the category. Most of the templates that were originally listed on this page have since been deleted [1]. I don't see the benefit in having editors maintain two parallel template sorting systems, and due to the lack of maintenance this is incomplete and therefore of limited use to editors. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or tag historical, as I said in the previous nom, it's been around a lot longer than the category in its current form. There are also a few incoming links to it. It could be made into a redirect or soft redirect, but there's nothing harmful enough on the page that its history needs to be made inaccessible to non-admins. Graham87 13:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares that it was around longer? What a strange argument. Gonnym (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've also checked the incoming links and literally none of those links are actually someone intentionally linking to this category and rather the links are from either database reports or deletion notices. Gonnym (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the page was created before the MTR template category shows that this page was once useful for gathering a list of MTR templates. We don't delete pages just because they are now relatively useless; we tag them as historical. Also re the incoming links, one exception is Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 October 29#Template:East Rail, but even I'll admit that's relatively weak. Graham87 06:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per the historical pages guidelines at WP:HISPAGES pages are kept and marked as historical to give context to historical discussions and to inform future discussions on similar topics. For what possible reason would keeping this as a historical page be of benefit? It hasn't ever been discussed anywhere, there are no incoming links worth worrying about, it's not an old policy that people might need to refer to and there are no useful discussions on it's talk page that might need referencing to. The process of marking stuff as historical is intended to keep stuff around when there's a need to continue accessing it e.g. keeping a record of discussions about problems that may be relevant in the future or to keep a copy of old policies that were cited in discussions, it's not supposed to be a way of hoarding rubbish in project space just because it's old. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In case people might want to know which templates have been used in MTR articles, especially in the past; this revision, say, has many more templates than the current one. There's no reason I can think of why people might want to know this in the short term, but we can't predict the behaviour and motivations of future readers/editors. The existence of this page and the MFDs may well be all the documentation we ever need re this topic, but we can't be 100% sure of that. It seems that consensus might be against me though in this case. Graham87 09:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a record of which templates were used in articles in the past - it's called the page history. A list of redlinks is vastly inferior to the page history for that purpose - all the list shows is that the templates existed, it doesn't show if or where they were used. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This project page has no value and is merely a glorified, redundant category. 192.76.8.70 provides a convincing argument as to why this shouldn't be marked as historical. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.