Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:1ne/Title


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 keep, no consensus. ~ crazytal es  56297  O rly? 22:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Non-admin close reviewed by admin, switched to keep outright. Xoloz 16:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

User:1ne/Title
See discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Template tampers with page title - since participants in that discussion seem to be divided what would be the best course of action, I'm proposing this for MfD now. For clarity, I think it should be best not to use this type of template. Francis Schonken 08:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Previous discussion: Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 30


 * Delete my version (User:Daniel.Bryant/Title), regardless - even if this results in "keep", I would like to see my version usage be changed over to 1ne's, the original and most populus version. On the opinion of all three, I currently stand as a weak delete, as it is kinda misleading. I'd also like to take this chance to apologise for semi-endorsing this template's usage by creating a version in my userspace - my opinions on this have now changed, and I would have had it deleted anyways had I remembered that it still existed - I forgot all about it laying dormant in my userspace. Sorry to all the users who find this template, and hence my actions by creating a version in my userspace, disruptive - it was not deliberate, I assure you. By the way, Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 30 (which is a TfD on the version currently located at User:1ne/Title [the contents were userfied as a result of the discussion]) is of interest, and hence added it to this MfD at the top, below the nom. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 09:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Your version has been Speedy Deleted as author request as per above, all inbound links were updated to 1ne's version. — xaosflux  Talk  15:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 21:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep (I use this on my userpage). The template should definitely only be used on user/usertalk pages, because it doesn't always work and isn't very portable; however, it's no worse than other nonportable coding that people use on userpages, and there doesn't seem to be a basis in policy or guidelines to delete this. On the other hand, it's a pain to maintain (check the history of the 1ne version)... --ais523 15:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, definitely. The template page already says that it should not be used in articles ever, and it's neat and useful in userspace. Our userpages are supposed to be editable, and as far as I can tell this isn't against policy (nor should it be). Why should it be deleted? Voretus  talk  16:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, userspace.  Grue   20:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep (Also use it on my page) Like ais523 said, we should only use this on userpages, or else it would be confusing. I don't see anything wrong with this... Thanks -  The   RSJ  [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px]] 23:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I use it myself, as a joke title on my userpage. As long as nobody uses it offensively or in a way that would be abusive, I don't see a huge problem with it.  There's a clear warning on the template page saying not to use it on articles - anybody avoiding this guideline should be punished, or at least warned.  Userpage URLs aren't that long, so it's easy to see the real title of a page anyway.  If anyone has a large problem with it, remove it from the problematic pages, but those who don't abuse it should be allowed to keep it, for some WikiHumour. Agentscott00(talk) 02:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, restrict to userspace-- E d Trick?  or  Treat?  04:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Faking the software interface undermines trust in the software, and is normally removed on sight. --11:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Improv (talk • contribs)
 * I think ED is right, but it could be used on articles, like Ebay that should be spelt ebayChris5897 (T@£k) 14:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, it can't be used on articles because it doesn't always work right for users of different skins. For userpages it shouldn't matter. Voretus  talk  15:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. No different than allowing nicknames in sigs. For those claiming it can be abused, it is no more abusable than, for instance, all of the test templates that are routinely abused by vandals to issue spurious warnings. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 19:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, as long as the template is only used within the userspace.-- TBC Φ  talk?  20:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll refrain from voicing my opinion as an "interested party" so to speak, but if you could provide diffs showing this "abuse" it would help. For the record, I use it solely on my talk page where it simply changes the title to Talk:Glen :: Please signoff " ~ " before saving - harmful? Gl e n 11:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep-Its only for user space.-- HamedogTalk|@ 10:13, 4 November 2006 (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.