Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Module:Message box/old

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. BD2412 T 02:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Module:Message box/old

This is for Module:Message box/old and Module:Message box/old/styles.css.

I believe the technical term for what we are looking at here is "a complete fucking mess". These are duplicates of the message box module that were created so Ilovemydoodle could mess around with the main module, which is in active use.

As best I can tell the background of these modules goes something like this:

• Ilovemydoodle decides that they want to change how some of message boxes look on the site for some inexplicable reason.
• They start using the main Module:Message box as a sandbox to screw around with making the boxes appear at different locations in the text.
• They copy the existing, working module to an /old subpage
• They modify some, but not all, of the existing templates to swap to the /old subpage, e.g. [1]

We now have a complete mess left over to fix, notably:

• We have two copies of the same module, both of which are in use.
• We have two versions of "omboxes", each of which looks slightly different.
• A module being used on hundereds of pages is being treated as a sandbox.
• The output of a long term, stable module has been changed without explanation or reason.

My proposal to fix this is thus:

• The changes to the main module are reverted, and we check that nothing important is relying on the modified form of omboxs.
• Any edits which introduced the /old subpage into use are reverted.
• the /old subpages are deleted, returning us to one module.

If, in the future, Ilovemydoodle decides they want to play around with a heavily used module they do so in their own sandbox (or even better, on the test wiki), not on live code. If they want to create a brand new type of message box they should create a new template, not hijack an existing one. — 192.76.8.85 15:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Vote closes: 16:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Delete, as suggested - and agree with other steps to fix the issues. ~ UDScott (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I did a comparison of the two modules and the differences are sufficiently trivial that {"nothing important is relying on the modified form of omboxs" already. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 05:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
• Delete or Keep but do something and don't dither!: I firmly suggest an admin closes this with authorisation for an Admin who is aware of of the issues. e.g. UDScott or Pppery to have a good faith attempt to fix the issues. This situation is a little unusual as admins Pppery and UDScott seem aware of the details of the problem but they've voted and therefore due to either best practice or ineligibility are unable to close the VFD. However I can see some admins who might close this are not minded to get involved the nitty gritty and to close on the basis that UDScott and Pppery are authorised to do the necessary at some point within a month. Thankyou. -- User:Djm-leighpark_(a)^talk 08:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not an admin here. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 22:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Special:Diff/3284893 resolves issue of these files being referenced from elsewhere. -- DeirgeDel ^t_a^c 23:03, 28 April 2023 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.