The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was keep Makes sense for these articles to have their own (smaller) template. Many other examples, including for association football manager templates.
WoohookittyWoohoo!04:27, 22 April 2008 (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 template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Delete. The main rationale for this is the initial nominator's point: this template does not handle the deletion of a Wikipedian's userpage in a way that is either sensitive or considerate–even if that editor has been indefinitely blocked. To address the technical concerns, a simple addition of the code [[Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages]] will suffice to have the userpage deleted.
Whilst I have not see any instances of the template being inappropriately used, and cannot speak for or against those concerns, I can see merit in that: the possibility of the template being used to, perhaps, cause hurt or drive an editor away is yet another argument in favour of deletion. In all, the arguments for redundancy to a simple categorisation in
CAT:TEMP have achieved rough consensus, and I am closing this discussion as "delete".
Anthøny12:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)reply
This template is no longer needed as admins either place a block tag on the page, automatically putting the user talk page into
CAT:TEMP, or users can manually add the cat without the text. The text is bitey and has been used against users that aren't even blocked sometimes. I would say that this template is more misused than used constructively. The talk pages should only be deleted if a user is indef blocked, and if they are, a block tag should add this page to the correct cat, or if needs be, a manual entry can be used. —
Ryan Postlethwaite15:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - per nomination by Ryan Postlethwaite, and the absence of a usage direction. Although I often delete CAT:TEMP pages, this template is already unnecessary because of the {{uw-ublock}} or {{uw-block3}} automatic inclusion of the page in the category.
Rudget (
review)
17:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - If there's already a procedure in place then having this secondary method will derail the processes and befuddle the mind :) . --
Pmedema (
talk)
19:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete Some might know that I'm trying to push towards not always deleting such pages (depending on the situation). However, even if I disregard how I feel about that, this template really isn't needed from a technical standpoint. It's just as easy to put in the category directly if one wishes to use it outside of a block template. --
Ned Scott05:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)reply
If the indef blocked templates are unnecessarily "bitey", then perhaps we could work on editing the text of those? -
jc3713:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)reply
But on the converse, since they're not indef blocked, why are we suggesting to delete their talk page? It would appear to be useful information, to me... -
jc3715:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Good question, it appears that
User:Cayman_Islands_Civil_Service_Collegeis indef blocked, but
User:Gorillapoop is not blocked at all. That's part of the problem, this tag is inappropriately used. It should be clear to anyone looking at the page that the user is indef blocked and if on investigation of the logs it is found that the user is not actually blocked, the tag should be removed. No problem with making less bitey tags but that's something to take up at
WP:UW or some such place.--
Doug.(
talk •
contribs)15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)reply
User:Gorillapoop has been unblocked after being tagged (good catch). The tag is just a easy way to populate the cat (since the nominator doesn't think this is a bad practice to do so by hand), while explaining what it means. This is definitely not a User Warning. --
lucasbfrtalk15:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)reply
I am pretty sure that
WP:UW covers everything at
WP:UTM, including block tags, but maybe a different project handles that, I just meant, toning down the tags or making a new, less bitey one is something that would be good to bring up with that project.--
Doug.(
talk •
contribs)16:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)reply
And the "useful information" people keep going on about is what, exactly? "Your only edit has been speedily deleted"? Because that's the only thing on 99% of such pages I put the tag on.--
Calton |
Talk10:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete unless this actually has some useful purpose that I'm not aware of. Having read the
WP:ANI thread about it, consensus seems to be against it.
Terraxos (
talk)
04:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. Perfectly ordinary housekeeping tag used for perfectly ordinary housekeeping tasks. Nomination seems to be part of some peculiar obsession to keep useless pages in perpetuity, because...well, no one's actually said, other than DISRUPTION! DISRUPTION! BOOGETY BOOGETY! --
Calton |
Talk10:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - There were 846 pages linked to {{temporary userpage}}, I have deleted 528 as either 1) duplicative to an indef blocked tag, or 2) placed on the page of a non-indef blocked user. All of these plus another 100 or so that are indef blocked and don't have another tag were tagged by one editor. I started this before this discussion ensued, but hopefully it will help with orphaning if that becomes necessary.--
Doug.(
talk •
contribs)17:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete: This tag is being inappropriately used, which caused myself and others to look at the reason that we even have this tag. Unable to come up with anything, there is no reason to keep it around. The purpose and use for this tag has been superseded by many indefblocked tags, such as {{
indefblocked}}, which automatically adds users to the category. -
Rjd0060 (
talk)
19:04, 13 April 2008 (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 template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was keep Makes sense for these articles to have their own (smaller) template. Many other examples, including for association football manager templates.
WoohookittyWoohoo!04:27, 22 April 2008 (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 template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Delete. The main rationale for this is the initial nominator's point: this template does not handle the deletion of a Wikipedian's userpage in a way that is either sensitive or considerate–even if that editor has been indefinitely blocked. To address the technical concerns, a simple addition of the code [[Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages]] will suffice to have the userpage deleted.
Whilst I have not see any instances of the template being inappropriately used, and cannot speak for or against those concerns, I can see merit in that: the possibility of the template being used to, perhaps, cause hurt or drive an editor away is yet another argument in favour of deletion. In all, the arguments for redundancy to a simple categorisation in
CAT:TEMP have achieved rough consensus, and I am closing this discussion as "delete".
Anthøny12:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)reply
This template is no longer needed as admins either place a block tag on the page, automatically putting the user talk page into
CAT:TEMP, or users can manually add the cat without the text. The text is bitey and has been used against users that aren't even blocked sometimes. I would say that this template is more misused than used constructively. The talk pages should only be deleted if a user is indef blocked, and if they are, a block tag should add this page to the correct cat, or if needs be, a manual entry can be used. —
Ryan Postlethwaite15:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - per nomination by Ryan Postlethwaite, and the absence of a usage direction. Although I often delete CAT:TEMP pages, this template is already unnecessary because of the {{uw-ublock}} or {{uw-block3}} automatic inclusion of the page in the category.
Rudget (
review)
17:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - If there's already a procedure in place then having this secondary method will derail the processes and befuddle the mind :) . --
Pmedema (
talk)
19:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete Some might know that I'm trying to push towards not always deleting such pages (depending on the situation). However, even if I disregard how I feel about that, this template really isn't needed from a technical standpoint. It's just as easy to put in the category directly if one wishes to use it outside of a block template. --
Ned Scott05:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)reply
If the indef blocked templates are unnecessarily "bitey", then perhaps we could work on editing the text of those? -
jc3713:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)reply
But on the converse, since they're not indef blocked, why are we suggesting to delete their talk page? It would appear to be useful information, to me... -
jc3715:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Good question, it appears that
User:Cayman_Islands_Civil_Service_Collegeis indef blocked, but
User:Gorillapoop is not blocked at all. That's part of the problem, this tag is inappropriately used. It should be clear to anyone looking at the page that the user is indef blocked and if on investigation of the logs it is found that the user is not actually blocked, the tag should be removed. No problem with making less bitey tags but that's something to take up at
WP:UW or some such place.--
Doug.(
talk •
contribs)15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)reply
User:Gorillapoop has been unblocked after being tagged (good catch). The tag is just a easy way to populate the cat (since the nominator doesn't think this is a bad practice to do so by hand), while explaining what it means. This is definitely not a User Warning. --
lucasbfrtalk15:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)reply
I am pretty sure that
WP:UW covers everything at
WP:UTM, including block tags, but maybe a different project handles that, I just meant, toning down the tags or making a new, less bitey one is something that would be good to bring up with that project.--
Doug.(
talk •
contribs)16:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)reply
And the "useful information" people keep going on about is what, exactly? "Your only edit has been speedily deleted"? Because that's the only thing on 99% of such pages I put the tag on.--
Calton |
Talk10:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete unless this actually has some useful purpose that I'm not aware of. Having read the
WP:ANI thread about it, consensus seems to be against it.
Terraxos (
talk)
04:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. Perfectly ordinary housekeeping tag used for perfectly ordinary housekeeping tasks. Nomination seems to be part of some peculiar obsession to keep useless pages in perpetuity, because...well, no one's actually said, other than DISRUPTION! DISRUPTION! BOOGETY BOOGETY! --
Calton |
Talk10:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - There were 846 pages linked to {{temporary userpage}}, I have deleted 528 as either 1) duplicative to an indef blocked tag, or 2) placed on the page of a non-indef blocked user. All of these plus another 100 or so that are indef blocked and don't have another tag were tagged by one editor. I started this before this discussion ensued, but hopefully it will help with orphaning if that becomes necessary.--
Doug.(
talk •
contribs)17:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete: This tag is being inappropriately used, which caused myself and others to look at the reason that we even have this tag. Unable to come up with anything, there is no reason to keep it around. The purpose and use for this tag has been superseded by many indefblocked tags, such as {{
indefblocked}}, which automatically adds users to the category. -
Rjd0060 (
talk)
19:04, 13 April 2008 (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 template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.