Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates

Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates

Because there is no policy any longer, perhaps the best move is to delete the page. The only use of the page now a days is POV-puching and revert-warring, no good can rize from those ashes. _→AzaToth 16:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Archive. Like it or not, it's part of the Wiki history. It should be kept for the same reason we keep rejected policy proposals. --cesarb 16:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but permanently protect - agreed that the history is helpful, but further argument over this issue is fruitless. Slap a "historical" notice on the top and lock it. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 16:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Archive as above I would favor a move to Wikipedia:Conditional and nested templates to get active discussion to a properly neutral title, but that seems controversial. Simnply apply a rejected tag and protect, then start new discusuisons at a proper title with a link to the old page for context. Deletion would lose significant history. DES ^(talk) 16:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I second DES's opinion. Rename, archive, protect if necessary. >Radiant< 17:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as archive — Put {{rejected}} on top and permanently protect. Create a new page (at Wikipedia:Meta-templates?) for current guidelines. — Omegatron 17:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as archive — Put {{rejected}} on top and permanently protect. It's the best we can do with this crap. --Adrian Buehlmann 17:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • "permanently protect" - What has this wiki become? -- Netoholic @ 17:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep of course. This version was recently reviewed by Brion_VIBBER, and is obviously not "rejected" because there are active supporters of the basic premise, including developers Brion and Jamesday. The page has already survived one deletion attempt. -- Netoholic @ 17:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  Brion and Jamesday are capable of speaking for themselves.

  Neto asked me to take a look at [1]. I skimmed it quickly; it doesn't look terribly offensive, though I would play down the alleged "server load" and play up the "currently cache clearing of multi-level templates doesn't really work" a touch. [2]

  If the developers were "active supporters" of your premise, the talk page would be a lot shorter. — Omegatron 17:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  Archive, duh. We don't delete our history, however retarded it is :) Stevage 19:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)