Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Regregex/User computer age 30


 * 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 keep. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 05:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing instructions

User:Regregex/User computer age 30
Not even sure if it's possible to contribute with a computer that is older than 30 years old. Only being used on User:Jnivekk. Otterathome (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see how that userbox is hurting anyone, as it's not improper in anyway. I disagree with your rationale that having only one link to it is grounds for deletion. - T'Shael, The Vulcan Overlord  16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC 21:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong/speedy keep - no reason given for deletion. Many userboxen make factually loose claims such as "This user...uploads material directly to the Internet by using the awesome power of his mind." Why did you nominate this? It's not harmful in the least. –xenotalk 21:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - If browsing via Lynx, one certainly could. Is there an actual reason why you think this should be deleted? → ROUX   ₪  21:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep 30 years in octal is doable, 30 years in hexadecimal is impossible, 30 years in binary is undefined, and 30 years in decimal is improbable. Since when are we the userbox accuracy police? Jclemens (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nom note also note we already have these too which also serve the same purpose:--Otterathome (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - No reason given for deletion. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Nice userbox. Plus it promotes respect for old computers. Very Green. Good for the planet. Dr.K. logos 21:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Older computers are actually remarkably inefficient. It's the newer computers that draw less power. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 23:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. But think about the energy and materials we would save if multiple generations of new computers were never produced because everyone kept their old ones for decades. Dr.K. logos 23:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Question At the top of Deletion policy, it says Redundant or otherwise useless templates template is being used on 1 user page. And on WP:UP there are many other reasons that apply. If none of these reasons are actually true then may I suggest they are removed?--Otterathome (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That applies to templates in template space, not userboxes properly in userspace. And without pointing out what part of UP#NOT applies, I'm not sure what you're driving at. I would suggest you find a more useful activity, such as patrolling articlespace for BLP violations and such rather than worrying about harmless userboxen. –xenotalk 21:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I must agree with xeno and second his suggestion. - T'Shael, The Vulcan Overlord  16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC 21:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't know users had to do other activities before nominating things for deletion, could you point me to this guideline?--Otterathome (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that these nominations of harmless userboxen are counter-productive. –xenotalk 21:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am trying to clean up unused userboxes, so I can't see how it is counter-productive. That argument could be used in any deletion discussion if you don't agree with a certain page being deleted, so it's a WP:NOHARM argument.--Otterathome (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Deletion doesn't space. Focus on cleaning up templatespace (i.e. per WP:UBM), not userspace. –xenotalk 18:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They take up space on the page lists, userbox directories and contribution lists.--Otterathome (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Who cares? → ROUX   ₪  21:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Users browsing the userbox listings and anyone looking at page/contributions lists.--Otterathome (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as no actual reason for deletion is furnished. Collect (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- I think that we could also combine these templates and use a type that allows for the precise age of the computer to be punched in to gain the result. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, a switch command could easily accomplish this. –xenotalk 15:13, 3 July 2009 (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.