- 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. There are concerns expressed about re-targeting WP:PASTE which belongs at RFD not here. MFD is for discussions on the deletion of the page itself. As to the page itself, there is no consensus between the views for keep, delete, archive, merge and even redirect on the page itself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Copy and paste (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
An essay of quite unclear purpose. This is more of a "how-to" guide than a WP:ESSAY on aspects of Wikipedia editing. However, the information therein is, as far as I can tell, quite outdated, because editing tools do not look like this anymore (as far as I can tell), so it is not even useful.
I stumbled here hoping that WP:PASTE would lead me to information about copy/paste moves in Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#Before_moving_a_page, and I would like to retarget WP:PASTE there. At this title, I would expect an essay summarizing how to use copy/paste functionality from WP:COPYVIO, WP:MERGE and WP:MOVE. The current page should be deleted or, at least, replaced with a redirect to Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources (where WP:Copy-paste and WP:COPYPASTE redirect already. No such user (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep by author: The essay is about the "Copy and paste" box which has appeared on some Wikipedia edit-screens for over 10 years. The page is indeed an essay explaining that the box has been used to paste text into edit-windows, but some skins did not show that box during edit. The shortcut (as "WP:PASTE") refers to usage for paste-ing text into a page, but meanwhile the rejection of move-by-paste in page "wp:Moving a page" could have shortcut wp:NOTPASTE for users to hint at "not-paste" as a way to move a page (the exact opposite of "PASTE"). As for outdated, well, the essay shows the way the copy-and-paste box looked, as it appeared for years, and the Greek letters have been the same for many centuries, hardly outdated for paste during edit, but the essay could show links to some newer paste-tools. Hence, keep essay, keep redirect WP:PASTE as during past 5 years. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not against userfication, but as that box does not appear anymore (at least not using default Vector skin), the advice is useless and misleading now. Keeping outdated help pages (what this essay effectively is) in a software is actively harmful. Up-to-date information is covered in Help:Edit toolbar, which has something to be desired (as it instructs ther reader to "See below" and there's nothing ), but IMO how to use "Special characters" toolbar is so self-evident that it does not even need a dedicated help page.
And, btw, Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:PASTE reveals grand total of 8 pages, two of which are this MfD. No such user (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That copy-and-paste box still appears for some cases with monobook skin, or other skins, so links could be made in other pages which need to explain the data. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree with the nom. Both being outdated and being out of the way is a problem. If it reflected the status quo, I might have suggested merging into an appropriate page in "Help:" namespace. Author's comments shows that page now has a trophy status. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The information is not "outdated" because that copy-and-paste box still appears in some cases with monobook skin, and again it shows data presented for over 10 years. I have no objection for help-pages to refer to the essay to note the structure of that copy-and-paste box. However, even if the contents were outdated, we don't delete pages on Wikipedia when they are outdated, but rather update them as appropriate. To delete an essay requires a valid reason. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's only true about articles in the main namespace. If it has validity, merge with Help: namespace, else delete. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Archive. "Trophy status" is a needlessly rude allegation. Page appears outdated, so it should be archived with a helpful link to the current best advice at the top. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, the information is not "outdated" because that copy-and-paste box still appears in some cases with wp:Monobook_skin but not some other skins, and it shows the data as presented for over 10 years. To provide newer information, then add links to new tools, such as from wp:Toolbars, into that essay. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2016 (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.