- 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 debate was delete the userbox, and speedily delete the category per C1. The argument for keeping looks to have been refuted by the simple fact that no one will use this. -- Core desat 07:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Template:User of Donian ancestry
A user box in the Template name space that is not even used, and has potentially very little usefulness. Only ever used by sockpuppets. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 23:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
-
WP:TFD is your venue for this.
bibliomaniac
1
5 01:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's a userbox, that's why it is here.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk) 01:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Graeme is right about venue, see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Introduction and Wikipedia:TFD#What_.28and_what_not.29_to_propose_for_deletion_at_Templates_for_Deletion_.28TfD.29.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 06:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's a userbox, that's why it is here.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk) 01:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - and
nominate the Cat at CFDspeedy C1 the Cat - I was going to say userfy but then I saw that the only thing that linked to the box was Category:Ancestors_of_Pier_Gerlofs_Donia. After I removed the box from the cat page b/c it was creating a loop, I started to wonder why we have a category for ancestors of someone and why anyone would want a userbox for that. Maybe that's why nobody is using it. :-)-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 04:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC) - Keep everything that's nominated for MfD. Obuibo Mbstpo ( talk) 17:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Why was this not simply PROD'd? Why waste time with an MfD. If somebody wants it, we'd keep it. If not, it would be gone with no fuss, no clutter, no addition to the list of deletion debates, no additional waste of editor time. I think this is the point that Mbstpo is making, and he's making it directly, by participating in deletion debates, the fact that his comment is the same doesn't change it. Every one so far should not have been filed. (I'm going down a list on
WP:AN/I.--
Abd (
talk) 22:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Abd, this baffles me. First of all, you can't Prod things in template space; second, even if you could it would now be inelligible as once something goes to an XfD it's no longer eligible for Prodding; finally, how on Earth could the fact that you think this is a waste of time and should've been Prodded an argument for speedy keep?-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 16:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Good. Being baffled is a sign that one has something to learn. Unfortunately, many will take it as a sign that one is being jerked around. You aren't. I'm ambiguous, sometimes, internally, and it shows in multivalent comments. Yes, I was incorrect about PROD, it is not used in WP or Template space. If we are going to have deletion process, we should have PROD, in fact, for efficiency. Used carefully. We'll address that later. Keep is not an irreversible decision. Technically, neither is Delete, but Delete creates an obstacle to reversal, it creates far more fuss, both for the deletion and then for later recovery for whatever purpose, than, say, userfying. We are generally invited to fix articles or files than can be fixed, even if they are under deletion consideration. Does this mean I could simply userfy this template? As a user template, it would then not be so eligible for deletion.--
Abd (
talk) 19:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly you could userfy it; however, it wouldn't change anything. That's the reason that we decided to take all userboxes to MFD - because someone could (and I think did) userfy a userbox while under discussion thereby removing it from TFD's jurisdiction. So now they all come here even if they're in template space. That and they really should all be discussed in one venue rather than some here and some there - substance over namespace. As I said above, I would normally say "userfy" for any userbox (and in the unlikely event this gets kept - I'm pretty sure it will be userfied), but this is completely unused and has other issues raised by the nominator. As an unused template it could probably also be disposed of by T3, which is the closest thing to Prod templates have. But at this point that would be silly as it takes 7 days and this process only takes 5.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 21:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Good. Being baffled is a sign that one has something to learn. Unfortunately, many will take it as a sign that one is being jerked around. You aren't. I'm ambiguous, sometimes, internally, and it shows in multivalent comments. Yes, I was incorrect about PROD, it is not used in WP or Template space. If we are going to have deletion process, we should have PROD, in fact, for efficiency. Used carefully. We'll address that later. Keep is not an irreversible decision. Technically, neither is Delete, but Delete creates an obstacle to reversal, it creates far more fuss, both for the deletion and then for later recovery for whatever purpose, than, say, userfying. We are generally invited to fix articles or files than can be fixed, even if they are under deletion consideration. Does this mean I could simply userfy this template? As a user template, it would then not be so eligible for deletion.--
Abd (
talk) 19:18, 16 March 2008 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 debate was delete the userbox, and speedily delete the category per C1. The argument for keeping looks to have been refuted by the simple fact that no one will use this. -- Core desat 07:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Template:User of Donian ancestry
A user box in the Template name space that is not even used, and has potentially very little usefulness. Only ever used by sockpuppets. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 23:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
-
WP:TFD is your venue for this.
bibliomaniac
1
5 01:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's a userbox, that's why it is here.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk) 01:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Graeme is right about venue, see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Introduction and Wikipedia:TFD#What_.28and_what_not.29_to_propose_for_deletion_at_Templates_for_Deletion_.28TfD.29.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 06:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's a userbox, that's why it is here.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk) 01:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - and
nominate the Cat at CFDspeedy C1 the Cat - I was going to say userfy but then I saw that the only thing that linked to the box was Category:Ancestors_of_Pier_Gerlofs_Donia. After I removed the box from the cat page b/c it was creating a loop, I started to wonder why we have a category for ancestors of someone and why anyone would want a userbox for that. Maybe that's why nobody is using it. :-)-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 04:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC) - Keep everything that's nominated for MfD. Obuibo Mbstpo ( talk) 17:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Why was this not simply PROD'd? Why waste time with an MfD. If somebody wants it, we'd keep it. If not, it would be gone with no fuss, no clutter, no addition to the list of deletion debates, no additional waste of editor time. I think this is the point that Mbstpo is making, and he's making it directly, by participating in deletion debates, the fact that his comment is the same doesn't change it. Every one so far should not have been filed. (I'm going down a list on
WP:AN/I.--
Abd (
talk) 22:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Abd, this baffles me. First of all, you can't Prod things in template space; second, even if you could it would now be inelligible as once something goes to an XfD it's no longer eligible for Prodding; finally, how on Earth could the fact that you think this is a waste of time and should've been Prodded an argument for speedy keep?-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 16:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Good. Being baffled is a sign that one has something to learn. Unfortunately, many will take it as a sign that one is being jerked around. You aren't. I'm ambiguous, sometimes, internally, and it shows in multivalent comments. Yes, I was incorrect about PROD, it is not used in WP or Template space. If we are going to have deletion process, we should have PROD, in fact, for efficiency. Used carefully. We'll address that later. Keep is not an irreversible decision. Technically, neither is Delete, but Delete creates an obstacle to reversal, it creates far more fuss, both for the deletion and then for later recovery for whatever purpose, than, say, userfying. We are generally invited to fix articles or files than can be fixed, even if they are under deletion consideration. Does this mean I could simply userfy this template? As a user template, it would then not be so eligible for deletion.--
Abd (
talk) 19:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly you could userfy it; however, it wouldn't change anything. That's the reason that we decided to take all userboxes to MFD - because someone could (and I think did) userfy a userbox while under discussion thereby removing it from TFD's jurisdiction. So now they all come here even if they're in template space. That and they really should all be discussed in one venue rather than some here and some there - substance over namespace. As I said above, I would normally say "userfy" for any userbox (and in the unlikely event this gets kept - I'm pretty sure it will be userfied), but this is completely unused and has other issues raised by the nominator. As an unused template it could probably also be disposed of by T3, which is the closest thing to Prod templates have. But at this point that would be silly as it takes 7 days and this process only takes 5.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 21:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Good. Being baffled is a sign that one has something to learn. Unfortunately, many will take it as a sign that one is being jerked around. You aren't. I'm ambiguous, sometimes, internally, and it shows in multivalent comments. Yes, I was incorrect about PROD, it is not used in WP or Template space. If we are going to have deletion process, we should have PROD, in fact, for efficiency. Used carefully. We'll address that later. Keep is not an irreversible decision. Technically, neither is Delete, but Delete creates an obstacle to reversal, it creates far more fuss, both for the deletion and then for later recovery for whatever purpose, than, say, userfying. We are generally invited to fix articles or files than can be fixed, even if they are under deletion consideration. Does this mean I could simply userfy this template? As a user template, it would then not be so eligible for deletion.--
Abd (
talk) 19:18, 16 March 2008 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.