| Revision as of 16:46, 16 March 2008 editDeirdreAnne (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,821 edits No need to nominate the cat← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:18, 16 March 2008 edit undoAbd (talk | contribs)14,259 edits →Template:User of Donian ancestry: what *can* we do to be more efficient?Next edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| *'''Speedy Keep''' Why was this not simply PROD'd? Why waste time with an MfD. If somebody wants it, we'd keep it. If not, it would be gone with no fuss, no clutter, no addition to the list of deletion debates, no additional waste of editor time. I think this is the point that Mbstpo is making, and he's making it directly, by participating in deletion debates, the fact that his comment is the same doesn't change it. Every one so far should not have been filed. (I'm going down a list on ].--] (]) 22:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | *'''Speedy Keep''' Why was this not simply PROD'd? Why waste time with an MfD. If somebody wants it, we'd keep it. If not, it would be gone with no fuss, no clutter, no addition to the list of deletion debates, no additional waste of editor time. I think this is the point that Mbstpo is making, and he's making it directly, by participating in deletion debates, the fact that his comment is the same doesn't change it. Every one so far should not have been filed. (I'm going down a list on ].--] (]) 22:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *:Abd, this baffles me. First of all, you can't Prod things in template space; second, even if you could it would now be inelligible as once something goes to an XfD it's no longer eligible for Prodding; finally, how on Earth could the fact that you think this is a waste of time and should've been Prodded an argument for speedy ''keep''?--]<sup>(] <small>•</small> ])</sup> 16:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC) | *:Abd, this baffles me. First of all, you can't Prod things in template space; second, even if you could it would now be inelligible as once something goes to an XfD it's no longer eligible for Prodding; finally, how on Earth could the fact that you think this is a waste of time and should've been Prodded an argument for speedy ''keep''?--]<sup>(] <small>•</small> ])</sup> 16:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::Good. Being baffled is a sign that one has something to learn. Unfortunately, many will take it as a sign that one is being jerked around. You aren't. I'm ambiguous, sometimes, internally, and it shows in multivalent comments. Yes, I was incorrect about PROD, it is not used in WP or Template space. If we are going to have deletion process, we should have PROD, in fact, for efficiency. Used carefully. We'll address that later. Keep is not an irreversible decision. Technically, neither is Delete, but Delete creates an obstacle to reversal, it creates far more fuss, both for the deletion and then for later recovery for whatever purpose, than, say, userfying. We are generally invited to fix articles or files than can be fixed, even if they are under deletion consideration. Does this mean I could simply userfy this template? As a user template, it would then not be so eligible for deletion.--] (]) 19:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:18, 16 March 2008
Template:User of Donian ancestry
A user box in the Template name space that is not even used, and has potentially very little usefulness. Only ever used by sockpuppets. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- WP:TFD is your venue for this. bibliomaniac15 01:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's a userbox, that's why it is here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - and
nominate the Cat at CFDspeedy C1 the Cat - I was going to say userfy but then I saw that the only thing that linked to the box was Category:Ancestors_of_Pier_Gerlofs_Donia. After I removed the box from the cat page b/c it was creating a loop, I started to wonder why we have a category for ancestors of someone and why anyone would want a userbox for that. Maybe that's why nobody is using it. :-)--Doug. 04:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC) - Keep everything that's nominated for MfD. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Why was this not simply PROD'd? Why waste time with an MfD. If somebody wants it, we'd keep it. If not, it would be gone with no fuss, no clutter, no addition to the list of deletion debates, no additional waste of editor time. I think this is the point that Mbstpo is making, and he's making it directly, by participating in deletion debates, the fact that his comment is the same doesn't change it. Every one so far should not have been filed. (I'm going down a list on WP:AN/I.--Abd (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Abd, this baffles me. First of all, you can't Prod things in template space; second, even if you could it would now be inelligible as once something goes to an XfD it's no longer eligible for Prodding; finally, how on Earth could the fact that you think this is a waste of time and should've been Prodded an argument for speedy keep?--Doug. 16:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Good. Being baffled is a sign that one has something to learn. Unfortunately, many will take it as a sign that one is being jerked around. You aren't. I'm ambiguous, sometimes, internally, and it shows in multivalent comments. Yes, I was incorrect about PROD, it is not used in WP or Template space. If we are going to have deletion process, we should have PROD, in fact, for efficiency. Used carefully. We'll address that later. Keep is not an irreversible decision. Technically, neither is Delete, but Delete creates an obstacle to reversal, it creates far more fuss, both for the deletion and then for later recovery for whatever purpose, than, say, userfying. We are generally invited to fix articles or files than can be fixed, even if they are under deletion consideration. Does this mean I could simply userfy this template? As a user template, it would then not be so eligible for deletion.--Abd (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)