Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:EWikist/Template:OldMessages

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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 speedily deleted per U1 by . Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

User:EWikist/Template:OldMessages


This is confusing, because it makes editors think they have messages on their talk page when they don't. It would be one thing to have this on one userpage, it's quite another when it's made as a template that anyone can easily use. The "1" (unnamed) parameter also allows the link to point to a different page than special:mytalk, which could make it even more confusing. Dynamic&#124;cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 01:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, partially on principle Tagged for deletion Um, please note that this template within my userspace. You might want to read the userspace guidelines and the miscellany for deletion guidelines. You have provided no evidence to support the validity of this deletion beyond your own opinion. Do you check with the creators of templates or pages to discuss their intentions before you submit them for deletion? This particular template was made to be humorous; thus it is found on the Department of Fun page.


 * To me, the way you present your reasoning for deletion feels a bit condescending. I am not particularly offended by this as I know you mean well, but do remember that you should usually have some policy or guideline-based reasoning for deleting something before you submit it. One thing that could help would be citing the areas of concern: You say that this template is confusing because it might mislead someone? You could have suggested that this is an instance of a "spoofing of the MediaWiki interface" (see WP:MfD). This would have substantially improved your nomination.


 * Just a few suggestions; no offense intended. Happy editing!  EW  i kist Talk 02:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:SMI: "The Wikipedia community strongly discourages simulating the MediaWiki interface, except on the rare occasion when it is necessary for testing purposes." This is obviously not "necessary for testing purposes." Dynamic&#124;cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 15:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This is true. However, the same could be said about many humorous templates, such as User:Pier Snake/Fun and User:Kayau/Disambiguation. The humor in these is directed at Wikipedians recognize the templates as light-hearted take on a rather mundane aspect of the encyclopedia. I'm not sure why you feel these kinds of things need to be deleted (see here).


 * If nothing else, this is in my userspace and it would be more appropriate to speak to me personally as opposed to putting my subpages up for deletion.


 * On a somewhat related note, you might be interested in reading Wikipedia talk:User pages/UI spoofing  EW  i kist Talk 19:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: The key distinction between your two examples and this page is that those pages do not violate User pages. Cunard (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The above examples were not intended to exemplify the same infraction--they were provided to illustrate the nature of the template in question; that is, that its humor is derived from lightly poking fun at Wikipedia.  EW  i kist Talk 22:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTMYSPACE, WP:UP, and User pages. WP:NOTWEBHOST states: "The focus of user pages should not be social networking, or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration. Humorous pages that refer to Wikipedia in some way may be created in an appropriate namespace, however." There is no evidence that this page has provided a "foundation for effective collaboration". Cunard (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment regarding this overall situation--I made this template quite a while back as a way of providing a humorous little box for Wikipedians who have visited the Department of Fun page to stick on their user page. By no means do I contest the deletion of it; I will happily put it up for deletion myself (as it is in my userspace) if that is the way the consensus flows. I just feel that the manner in which this template was submitted for deletion was not approached in the best way it could have and I wished point that out. I must point out: If this was such a big issue, why didn't someone just ask me about it? I seems like this request was created under the assumption that I would resist its deletion.  EW  i kist Talk 22:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Because you were an active editor, should have made an attempt to discuss this with you before he nominated it for deletion. Though he didn't, his nomination remains valid. I thank you for not contesting the deletion of this page. Cunard (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That was pretty much what I wanted to say here. As noted above, I tagged the page for deletion.  EW  i kist Talk 02:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Does that mean you want it u1ed? Dynamic&#124;cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 21:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I coulda' swore I tagged it a few days ago... Oh well. Thanks for pointing that out!  EW  i kist Talk  23:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and Cunard per WP:UP etc. -- Klein  zach  00:23, 22 September 2011 (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.