Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User JS


 * 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. In response to Debresser, this has been continued for nearly a week, and has seen no further feedback. The consensus as it stands is to keep. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 12:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

User JS
In Category:User js there are two sets of userboxes: "User js" and "User JS". The "js"-templates call the user a "coder" or "programmer" of JavaScript. The "JS" templates call the user a "user" of Javascript. One of them should be deleted as superfluous. I propose to delete the "JS"-templates, for two reasons: 1. I think the text in the "js"-templates, using the word "coder" or "programmer", is more correct. 2. The "js"-templates are used by Usersprogram in the category page, but not so the "JS"-templates. Obviously though, all "JS"-templates will have to be substituted by their counterparts in the "js"-templates: JS-1 by js-1, JS-2 by js-2, JS-3 by js-3, JS-4 by js-4, but notice JS by js-4. To keep the users who tagged themselves in the same categories and with the same (almost indentical) userbox on his userpage. -- Debresser (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - there's certainly a difference between using JavaScript and programming it, so they are not at all redundant. The names might be a little too similar and the usefulness of the "user of JavaScript" userboxes questionable, but the former isn't a deletion reason, and the latter is true of most userboxes. Mr.Z-man 23:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that when I play "Elite" I also use JavaScript (or whatever language that game is written in), but that is certainly not what is intended by those who use the "JS"-templates. They most certainly mean that they are coders/programmers. So the template is both logically incorrect in its wording as well as completely redundant in its intend. Debresser (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Even then, why not just redirect them? Mr.Z-man 05:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect is also an idea. Technically, redirecting is the easiest solution. Note: This does not mean that I withdraw my nomination for deletion, which I think is preferable to redirecting. Debresser (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep absent a solid reason for deletion. The wording is different, and I can see where one who utilizes Javascript may not consider himself a programmer in it. Note that Category:User JS was deleted in March 2007. Collect (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Same argument as previous user. And same refutation. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment Not too much input. I even put up a notice here. Perhaps prolong the nomination with another week? Where more can I encourage users to participate in this discussion? Debresser (talk) 23:19, 20 May 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.