RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Template:Historical article

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Keep. --LiquidTalk 21:22, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

Template:Historical article

This is basically a duplicate of Template:Gone, except for the fact that it says "Please do not edit it further", which I dislike because we should be able to perform maintenance work on it, etc.

Strong redirect to Template:Gone - As nominator. --Coolnesse 23:06, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Wait until Forum:Protection on historical items, npcs, etc closes before deleting this. Because, it may be handy if that thread passes. ʞooɔ 23:17, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - This template is used to prevent people from updating the page by changing things to past tense, commenting on the feature's removal, etc. Maintenance edits are exempted from this for obvious reasons. --Aburnett(Talk) 23:22, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - It's useful. But do reword it. ajr 23:27, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Historical articles should not be edited. Period. Maintenance work could count as an exception if it does not compromise the original content of the article. (Alright, that's my only keep for the next fifty years.) --LiquidTalk 23:29, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree. What about something like Orc (historical) or Sidney Smith? These pages are frequently edited, yet they are historical. --Coolnesse 01:10, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per above. HaloTalk 23:43, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat merge and redirect - I say we take the "This page is being preserved as a historical article." bit, add it to Gone and then redirect it to Gone. Matt (t) 01:18, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Strong merge - Furthermore, per this thread, no editor should ever be discouraged or prohibited from editing a historical article. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 01:21, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Gone. I really don't care about the maintenance aspect, except that it's obviously exempted. Common sense dictates that that phrase really is intended for the unfamiliar user who may be tempted to change something. That being said, I really don't see the need for this template, since {{Gone}} achieves the same effect. Therefore, (and per Psycho), I'd prefer this to be merged with {{Gone}}. --LiquidTalk 01:28, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you already posted... --Coolnesse 01:47, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
He is too cool to post only once. bad_fetustalk 16:13, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
Blush Whoops, didn't see that. At any rate, I prefer my second opinion. --LiquidTalk 01:44, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - It seems like something like this should be reconsidered, now that the thread has been closed. Most of the arguments that have been made to keep this template have been those that were used to support the thread, which failed. ʞooɔ 01:13, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Gone - How we decide whether an article is historical is a mystery to me. Surely anything that's been removed is a historical article? Real Nub 09:46, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Changed to Keep per Cook and Aburnett. Real Nub 07:58, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - There is a difference between gone and replaced by something totally different. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 02:54, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Please reconsider looking at the point of this and {{Gone}}. Historical article says to keep the articles in present tense, while Gone does the opposite. This would lead one to believe that we have to either keep the historical articles in the present tense or change them to the past tense. This is, at least, how I see the discussion as it goes. ----クールネシトーク 20:37, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - The template will be kept. --LiquidTalk 21:22, November 14, 2010 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.