UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/2011 06

Recent Actions

The Republic of Digby

Content cleared by owner, might as well be a speedy --Bean 15:33, 12 June 2011 (BST)

1. Speedy: Page was blanked by the only guy who maintained it, Author Edit Only implied --Bean 15:33, 12 June 2011 (BST)
2. Scheduled - User has blanked the page and created a new group. Crit 7 by proxy.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 16:01, 12 June 2011 (BST)

Deleted as a crit 7 by proxy.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:05, 12 June 2011 (BST)

Lamportians

This page was already deleted. The only reason I haven't done this as a crit 6 is because the content doesn't match completely with the current version being more role-play than straight up recruiting(like the previous iteration). This is a term only used by a singular very small group. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 05:44, 25 May 2011 (BST)

• Obviously Delete - And I really want to do this as a crit 6 but am erring on the side of caution. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 05:44, 25 May 2011 (BST)
• delete - had potential but it's just kinda shit. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 06:02, 25 May 2011 (BST)
• Speedy - Content is similar enough, IMHO: Expanding it doesn't mean its's not crit 6. This should be a group page, it's not a "generic term".--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:14, 25 May 2011 (BST)
• Delete - But I don't think it's enough for a speedy. They've expanded on it quite a bit.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 13:42, 25 May 2011 (BST)

Deleted - This be unanimous.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 22:41, 8 June 2011 (BST)

Template:Wikipedia

A template which is literally identical to using the "Wikipedia:" prefix in a link. It saves precisely 0 bytes while using a template inclusion and increasing server load.--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 14:01, 20 May 2011 (BST)

1. Merge with Template:WP and then delete. Are all the transclusions truly due to {{unsigned}}? We should be linking to internal help about signatures, not to Wikipedia. ~ _{15:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)}

   Which I have just done. ~ _{15:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)}

   Mostly. I've used my bot to subst the template in on all non-protected pages, given that it's completely redundant.--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 15:38, 20 May 2011 (BST)

2. Speedy C1 - a template that merely uses a single wiki code command is "No content" in my books. --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed█ 15:12, 20 May 2011 (BST)
3. Speedy - as Spiderzed.--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 20:25, 20 May 2011 (BST)
4. Keep - You don't get to technicality off such a popular template. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:19, 20 May 2011 (BST)

   Popular? ~ _{21:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)}

   The bot changed all of the edits so that's not exactly an accurate revelation of how people use it. This is more realistic. People use this template because not everyone knows about the magic word, don't punish ill-informed users for being ill-informed? --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 03:44, 21 May 2011 (BST)

   Why not redirect the template to an explanation of magic words? The magic word is so similar to the template that anyone who uses the template should be perfectly capbable of using the magic word.--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 09:13, 21 May 2011 (BST)

   I was under the impression that the bot only subst'd {{Wikipedia}} when found in {{unsigned}} template calls. I may be wrong but still, I don't think the template is as popular as you're implying. And, yes I checked thegeneralbot's contribs. I so far haven't found any edits where {{Wikipedia}} was subst'd other than inside {{unsigned}}. ~ _{16:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)}

   That's because the use in unsigned made up the bulk of {{wikipedia}} uses. That said, nope, it didn't just remove the ones in unsigned, which explains why I can't find any of my old uses of it, despite the fact that I've used it frequently in the past. —Aichon— 07:04, 22 May 2011 (BST)

5. I support a merge with {{WP}}, but suggest retaining as a soft redirect, deleting only when we can get WP: implemented as an interwiki shortlink. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:41, 21 May 2011 (BST)
6. Delete -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 05:43, 21 May 2011 (BST)
7. Keep - It's not actually the same as just the plain link, since the plain link requires additional code to look the same. Quick example: {{wikipedia|example}} yields example while [[wikipedia:example]] yields wikipedia:example. Note the different outputs. I prefer the template since it saves some typing, and the code is cleaner. —Aichon— 09:18, 21 May 2011 (BST)

   You can use the pipe trick to get the same appearance; although there is slightly more code, there is far less of a drain on server resources. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:12, 21 May 2011 (BST)

   Pipes would work, sure, but that's why I mentioned less and cleaner code. Also, it doesn't produce "far less of a drain on server resources." When it comes to server load, the danger of templates is that if they are changed, every page they are included on needs to be re-cached. That's not an issue here since unsigned doesn't change. —Aichon— 07:04, 22 May 2011 (BST)

   It's been changed twice recently. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:38, 22 May 2011 (BST)

   "...frequently". Sorry, forgot to put that at the end of my last comment. ;) Anyway, two edits in three years (both of which had to be requested via A/PT) is nothing to be concerned with. To put things in perspective, in the same time period, your sig has changed 15x more frequently and is on more than 45x as many pages, yet none of us seem to object to it. :P —Aichon— 10:38, 22 May 2011 (BST)

   Actually, I object. I think we should get rid of templated sigs for precisely those reasons (added DB calls on every page load, plus cache invalidation of every page on which they are transcluded when they change), but while they are permitted by WIKI LAW, I'm going to keep availing myself of the convenience. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:40, 22 May 2011 (BST)

   Basically, yeah. This is why there was the request to delete Nosubst. This template is far less harmful though and more intuitive to the partially wiki-literate. It's a tool and you shouldn't take away tools that don't actually harm anything just for the sake of simplicity. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 03:02, 23 May 2011 (BST)

   Not sure how this template is more intuitive than the normal link; if they can find this template, they can find out how to use the link (which should be described in the help pages, anyway).--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:17, 24 May 2011 (BST)

   Wikipedia:wikipedia: for one. The fact that templates are easier to understand to a layman than magic words for two. We assume that most users can pick up and learn templates fairly quickly and magic words/parsers rarely. I'm actually not a fan of the template but I don't see a reason to remove the option just so we don't have to change them manually. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 03:41, 25 May 2011 (BST)

   Bah. If you really objected, your actions would speak for you and you wouldn't avail yourself of it at all. :P —Aichon— 03:57, 23 May 2011 (BST)

   So the Nosubst deletion nomination counts for naught?
   I have a policy discussion in the works, but I don't know how long it will take me to get to. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:33, 23 May 2011 (BST)

   So another policy will get passed by a group of individuals that give shit all about the wiki? Lovely. ~ _{17:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)}

   Whether it passes or not doesn't overly concern me. Which reminds me… ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:59, 24 May 2011 (BST)

8. Keep - u dont delete my contributions to the wiki without me having a say about it --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 20:37, 22 May 2011 (BST)
9. Keep - I prefer the template--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 20:40, 22 May 2011 (BST)

5 delete votes and 4 keeps. Merged (via move) with {{WP}}. Kept {{Wikipedia}} as a soft redirect. Fixed remaining links. ~ _{05:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)}

No reason to have a soft redirect when a standard redirect preserves functionality and doesn't make it harder to reach the new template page(the entire purpose of soft redirects)--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 07:05, 6 June 2011 (BST)

... this must be one of the most dumb moves since gen tried to pass an anti-goon policy with the goons active in the wiki. Creating a redirect in template:wikipedia to ]]template:wp]] just adds more server load to a template whose main reason for deletion was server load. Its just too dumb for me to understand it. The merge votes should've count as a kept in this case, ffs --hagnat 12:31, 6 June 2011 (BST)

You're right, since server load is the issue, we pretty much should have had this deleted lul -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 12:41, 6 June 2011 (BST)

Yeah, pretty much. I kept as a soft redirect per Rev's suggestion but Karek reverted back to a typical redirect. If people want to keep it as a redirect or just keep the template rather than delete it then that's fine with me. That was never brought up during voting but whatever. ~ _{15:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)}

It's a soft redirect now actually. It was just waiting on verification that all usage was gone. Also, not really server intensive in any way. Even the claims of the editing of it were edits done by the people claiming they were a problem. Anyways, now it's set to sit for a month or three until we can be reasonably sure people have gotten the message.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 09:19, 7 June 2011 (BST)

I think we're both misinterpreting what a soft redirect is. They are just a short messages directing someone to an external site. I don't even think a soft (or even a "hard") redirect is warranted TBQH. It should just be deleted since that is how the voting concluded. If there is sufficient reason to keep it, put in a request at A/U. Otherwise, it comes off a lot like just a disagreement with the voting results and maneuvering things to turn this into a keep. ~ _{05:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)}

I just set it up in a way to make it clear that WP was the current version and this page is no longer in use as a template. Terminology be damned I guess. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 08:43, 8 June 2011 (BST)

That's all well and good, but it was voted for deletion??? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:34, 9 June 2011 (BST)

Yeah no, when 2 of the 5 deletes are merges and the other 4 votes are keeps that reasoning doesn't really fly. Especially when you actually read Revenants vote. That being said it's still going to be deleted, it's just going to be left as a soft redirect for a bit first because the template still exists. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 09:04, 9 June 2011 (BST)

My point is that it's funny when so many people vote but in the end it becomes a situational decision by one person pushing for what they want. I voted delete because I use the [[wikipedia]] code personally, but as a whole I'm indifferent. It's worth noting though that Merge got the least votes out of all the options, even if you aren't inclined to count them as implicit deletes (which you are) -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 09:25, 9 June 2011 (BST)

Meh, the only reason it qualifies is that last Merge vote that puts it over and since the vote in question specifically qualifies itself as situational upon the soft redirect it's really just common sense. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 09:34, 9 June 2011 (BST)

I wasn't quite aware that we were intending on deleting it eventually and this was transitional? Is that actually the case? Cause if it is, it makes more sense and has made me look like a dil to boot. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:21, 9 June 2011 (BST)

We are and it is.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 11:27, 9 June 2011 (BST)

I remember reading that but somewhere along the line I forgot. I'm a bit of a mess -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:51, 11 June 2011 (BST)

S'ok, apparently you're not the only one who doesn't have time to read s recent comments make oh so clear. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 17:29, 11 June 2011 (BST)

What are you guys doing? Let me run through the process for handling a Delete and Merge result, since it's very simple, but has apparently been forgotten:

1. Merge the two pages.
2. Fix all links to point to the new page, except where they were specifically being used to refer to the old one as opposed to the new one (e.g. discussions like here)
3. Fix all transclusions to point to the new page that it's being merged into
4. Delete the page

That's all you guys had to do, but for some reason, you got stuck between #2 and #3. Why did no one check for and fix transclusions before replacing the template with text telling people not to use it? And why was that text put in at all, when your job was to follow the vote's results and delete the page? We don't need text telling people not to use a page that's been deleted, since people don't use pages that aren't there. That's why you delete them. Why has this not been done? —Aichon— 21:32, 10 June 2011 (BST)

I did fix all incoming links and transclusions (although I think I must have missed the one transclusion in this vote). As for deleting it, that's what is currently under discussion. Pages have been kept as a redirect during a deletion before. I don't know that a redirect of this nature has been used before but I'm open to using them. I just want it made clear what is happening, since at first it seemed to me like maneuvering to turn a delete decision into a keep decision. ~ _{21:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)}

1. Not a standard case. 2. If you can't be asked to read any of the intervening discussion that has happened don't bother to comment. You're just wasting everyone's time at this point. Third, since I know you won't bother to read through any of it because of your "right-ness"(a common problem with users of this wiki), Template:Wikipedia is a long existing template that was implemented 5 years ago. Above and beyond that it's a popular template on wikipedia projects. If you don't want to run the risk of users recreating it you do it this way, which is also the only way it actually passes as a delete vote, having changed it essentially just saved the step of creating the soft redirect or redirect(since one is justified, the template still exists). Also, it's still getting deleted, now shoo. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 17:29, 11 June 2011 (BST)

*"Can't be arsed".--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 18:32, 11 June 2011 (BST)

I'll excuse your personal (and hurtful, coming from you) attacks on me as a courtesy. First off, I'm aware of its history and would prefer it stay around (see my vote above). Second, as I'm sure you agree, failing to fix any transclusions was an oversight in need of correction, and leaving them while altering the template is never part of proper procedure, so a mistake was definitely made here. Third, I think that you're not giving Rev enough credit, since he's a smart guy, is well-versed in the rules, and says what he means. If he had wanted it to be taken the way you say, he could have said Keep with his comment, or else he could have said Merge on the condition that it be done as he described. Instead, he said Merge, which he knows acts as a Delete, and he phrased it as a suggestion, instead of as a comment on which his vote was contingent. Fourth, see Crit 6. That's how you stop people from recreating the page on this wiki. Anyway, I'm not going to stick around to argue it further, so you'll get what you wanted from me. —Aichon— 18:57, 11 June 2011 (BST)

Not personal, just frustrated. Sometimes even I tire of repeating myself and this would mke probably the fourth time this has been addressed. It's an unusual case and a close vote, it seems reasonable to try and do it in a way that has the least potential to cause issues(in this case phasing it out in steps). As for Crit 6, that's generally connected with vandalism cases historically. A situation that relies on it is less than ideal. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:44, 11 June 2011 (BST)

Dupilcated image

[1] Un-used duplicate of [2], 1 could be deletead?--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 16:03, 17 May 2011 (BST)

1. Scheduled - but I'll check with Schwan before deleting. ~ _{16:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)}
2. Speedy - Two days short of a scheduled. -- Cheese 18:50, 17 May 2011 (BST)

A. Schwan confirmed on his talk page that the image was unneeded, so I deleted it as crit 7 by proxy. ~ _{21:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)}

Template:Nosubst

Horrible hack that exists only to work around sensible software limitations. We should take the opportunity given by the new sig size limits to recognise this, delete this abomination, and have all users made to use proper signatures. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:26, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Just to be clear... this isn't going to break existing sig inclusions, is it. Just people who (attempt to) use it from now on.
I have long hated templated sigs, but then I also hate having to scroll through huge swathes of sig code if it's subst'ed into discussions -- boxy 11:37, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Correct.
And yeah, me too, but it's a bit “damned if you do, damned if you don't”, and templated sigs cause more problems than they solve, which is why they're prohibited by default by the MediaWiki software unless you deliberately circumvent that with a measure such as this template.ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:53, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Or change a one-line setting in the software....--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 12:09, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Sadly I feel its too late. If it was setup from the beginning, I'd have no problem, but deleting it now is just going to break loads of links. Rev should set up UDWiki 2.0 --Rosslessness 12:16, 2 May 2011 (BST)

It was set up in the beginning, by Kevan, and then hacked around by users. And it shouldn't change any links that use it properly: the rest can be easily fixed. What it will do is necessitate users to change their sigs. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 12:27, 2 May 2011 (BST)

No it wasn't. The mediawiki software didn't originally force substitution in signatures: It was added in an update and there wasn't originally a setting to turn it off, so we developed a workaround.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 12:33, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Whats the fix? --Rosslessness 12:37, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Mostly deleting it out of MrAushvitz's fucking sig. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 12:44, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Ah, thats why its used on so many of the old suggestion pages. Get on that, use your crazy robot. --Rosslessness 12:49, 2 May 2011 (BST)

1. Kill with fire. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:26, 2 May 2011 (BST)
2. Keep - Templated sigs are allowed by wiki policy; If you don't like it then change the policy rather than trying to delete the template that allows them.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:44, 2 May 2011 (BST)

   Mind to show me where a policy directly grants the use of templated sigs as a right? Can't find it in the sig policy, nor do I see any other applicable policy. -- Spiderzed█ 11:57, 2 May 2011 (BST)

   The section that says: What would be allowed - Anything that isn't? --Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 12:01, 2 May 2011 (BST)

3. Kill this is terrible, I assume, so down with it or something. --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 12:17, 2 May 2011 (BST)
4. Keep - This template is linked to lots of stuff. Who is going to fix all of the broken links if this gets deleted?--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 12:24, 2 May 2011 (BST)

   Me, if nobody else does, and before it gets deleted. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 12:34, 2 May 2011 (BST)

5. keep as above--    bitch  12:31, 2 May 2011 (utc)
6. Keep - just because I think General has a better option of dealing with this- it would also allow more comfortable transition period for those of us who do used the damned templated sigs. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 12:47, 2 May 2011 (BST)
7. Keep --Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 12:59, 2 May 2011 (BST)
8. Keep -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 13:08, 2 May 2011 (BST)
9. Kill -- Honestly ok with this. Can we get rid of the signature policy next? Maybe replace it with something that simply says your sig can't impersonate other users, break pages, and needs to show who you are and leave it at that? --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 13:41, 2 May 2011 (BST)
10. Kill Having looked at it, seems fair, as long as rev wipes out the linked list. --Rosslessness 13:52, 2 May 2011 (BST)
11. Keep --Arthur Dent BIN LADEN IS DEAD!!!!! 14:31, 2 May 2011
12. Keep It works fine. Has for years. Old folks coming back to the wiki will have to deal with some shit the first time they try to sign. Would be pretty off-putting I think. ~ _{22:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)}
13. Delete -- boxy 07:42, 3 May 2011 (BST)
14. Delete -obsolete --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 15:41, 3 May 2011 (BST)
15. Keep - The only way I'll be okay with a delete if there is a code length limit on signatures. So steal from WP, basically. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:56, 10 May 2011 (BST)

    With the software update, signatures are now limited by the software to 255 characters. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:41, 11 May 2011 (BST)

    The Goon's signature (and probably others) still manage to be ridiculously big. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:33, 11 May 2011 (BST)

    They're subst'd in. If they were using {{nosubst}} and signing using e.g. {{SUBST:Nosubst|Goonsig|Revenant}}, they'd be breaking the template transclusion limit on every page they posted on in short order. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:40, 11 May 2011 (BST)

    That's not what I'm talking about; I'm talking about how long the code for their signatures are. It's very long. If templated signatures want to be deleted, it's better suited for policy discussion, provided a reasonable alternative is included (so no long signature codes, it makes me angry). --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:44, 11 May 2011 (BST)

    I'm not sure you're understanding me, so I'll give you a demonstration… the invocation {{Goonsig|Revenant}} gives ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||, which is the same as what specifying {{SUBST:Nosubst|Goonsig|Revenant}} as your signature results in. In contrast, using {{SUBST:Goonsig|Revenant}} as your signature results in… ||||||||||||||||||||||||

    I think what AHLG is saying is that without {{nosubst}}, all code heavy signatures will add heavy amounts of code to pages when signing. The inclusion sizes don't matter to too many people as long as they don't have to wade through umpteen lines of code when they want to contribute to dicussion. My biggest issue with this deletion request is that it is being passed off as sensible software limitations. I don't believe sensible is the right word. Minimal or default software limits is more descriptive. Its like saying that the "if" templates are a crappy hack job because the software has sensible limits on parser functions. The wiki software sucks. It's vanilla. So what if there exists a hack to make it suck less? It's rare that anything is broken because of templated sigs. ~ _{05:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)}

    It's really not as rare as it would be without Nosubst. Not to mention that with Nosubst gone it would mean that actually useful templates won't be excluded from pages like A/VB and A/M. It actually opens up possibilities for us that we currently have to code around.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 05:50, 11 May 2011 (BST)

    When I say rare I mean extremely rare. The only instance of page breakage in recent history was A/VB and it was due mostly to the whole of A/VB/Bots being transcluded. And then it only became a problem when we came under heavy bot attacks. That problem was easily solved by no longer transcluding A/VB/Bots, which was largely unecessary to begin with. It could also be argued that it was the size of the regular non-sig templates causing it to break. If any other possibilities will arise by deleting {{nosubst}}, I fail to see what they may be. ~ _{06:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)}

    It actually really can't because the sig templates were actually being called multiple times in the inclusion chain. While it's easy enough to noinclude them and thus limit the amount of data being called through them superficially, that also compromises the purpose of signing needlessly. We shouldn't have to adapt how pages work because some users want to use a feature actually disabled by the software itself. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:04, 11 May 2011 (BST)

    Yes, the sigs were called multiple time but so were the non-sig templates due to the fact that the whole of A/VB/B being transcluded. In the case of the templated sigs, it was a template call ({{nosubst}}), inside a template call (the template sig which themselves sometimes called on other templates) inside a template call (the transcluded A/VB/B). Similarly, with the non-sig templates, there were template calls ({{usr}}), inside a template call ({{vndl}}) inside a template call (the transcluded A/VB/B). The points I'm trying to make are that a) we've taken steps to correct page breaking on A/VB and b) it really wasn't necessary to transclude A/VB/B in the first place. Whatever value that A/VB/B added to A/VB was superficial and it is actually a lot simpler to just include links to it from MediaWiki:recentchangestext and MediaWiki:blockipsuccesstext and be done with it. ~ _{14:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)}

    Vapor: Not at all. There is a wiki software setting to enable unsubstituted template signatures. Kevan has it set to the default, which is to disable them. When I described this as a “hack workaround”, that was the literal truth. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:19, 11 May 2011 (BST)

    That's not entirely accurate. Kevan hasn't set it to anything: When the wiki was first set up the setting wasn't available and templated signatures were allowed; a software update disallowed them and the setting to change that was only introduced later. We are forced to use this sort of hack due to the difficulty in getting Kevan to change the software.--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 09:09, 11 May 2011 (BST)

    Yeah, I'm not disputing that it is a hack, I just don't agree that it is a worthless hack. I really don't believe Kevan made a conscious decision to turn off unsubstituted signatures way back when. Just like I don't think he intentionally set the max characters for raw signatures to 255. He likely just ran the update without any customization. I think we can reasonably leave {{nosubst}} in place and any sigs that happen to break pages can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, as it has been done in the past. ~ _{15:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)}

    What I am saying is that when I hit edit there is a heck of a lot of code to wade through. Here is a sample from A/BP. Removing templated signatures encourages code use, which wouldn't be so bad if some of the signatures (irrespective of the manner in which they are placed) are really code heavy. But besides any of that, what we are really talking about is the issue that templated signatures breaking similar templates and other templates on pages. A/VB is a good example, as are talk pages. A simple solution may be to not use templated signatures on just these pages if such a problem arises, and it rarely does, do as what Vapor said just above. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:32, 11 May 2011 (BST)

    It's been a while since I checked but I'm pretty sure that template signatures trigger a few different DB searches every time they're included on a page. All changing this does is force the search to happen once when the user signs instead of every single time someone edits the page for every single time the template appears on it. On top of that signatures larger than 255 characters have to call a template in their code so that can actually be sorta policed easily enough. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:04, 11 May 2011 (BST)

    So, it is to say that after I sign at the end of this comment, the code is merely substed in instead of as a template? Meaning that the code length isn't an issue for whatever is added in the corresponding preferences section. It's still an issue though to how long the code is at the end result. The issue for me hasn't to do with me wanting to keep this more complex templated signature, I'm fine changing this I just find the heavy code sigs cumbersome when I go to edit. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:40, 11 May 2011 (BST)

    I'm saying that without {{GoonSig}} the goon's sigs wouldn't be possible because it's a template call made in Preferences that's substituting the template. We can police that because the template has to exist for them to call, like your sig. I'm also saying that your sig makes the server do a lot more work then, say, mine. Something on the order of 3-5 times the work with one inclusion of your sig. More every time a user uses a template signature. Mine adds to this page's DB content and gets called as part of the Page's call then run through the wiki-markup and sent to the browser so it can act on the html, yours adds to the actual processing of the page before we see it because it has to be interpreted by the wiki markup and then search the DB for the page you're referencing in the signature which then also has to be run through the wiki markup each and every single time someone loads the page for each and every time someone signs on it with a template signature. In the best case scenario it's done once per signature per page and referenced from that, at worse it's done once for every time you sign. Hopefully that answers some of the question because I'm kinda confused about what you were trying to say.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 23:07, 11 May 2011 (BST)

    It should be noted, however, that to say it is "3-5 times the load" is somewhat misleading because the queries take somewhere in the range of 0.003 seconds.--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 23:36, 11 May 2011 (BST)

    I'm talking about actual stress on the server. Also should mention that that's actually not necessarily the case, especially on larger pages about these parts and larger signatures for that matter. The number of queries can have an impact in speed, and a notable one at that. Here's an example Suggestions/RejectedDecember2005 vs User talk:Karek. The first has no expanding templates due to file size, the second takes longer to load. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 05:36, 13 May 2011 (BST)

    I might be missing your point, Karek, but those don't seem to be good examples of pages breaking/server strain due to templated sig calls. Both have giant walls of text which cause them to be so large. When that happens, templates stop working properly. I can't find even a single attempt to call on a templated sig in your first example nor is there any extraneous template usage (just {{prejection}} it seems). In your second example, nothing seems broken despite lots of templated sigs and it didn't seem to load any longer than any other page; not for my anyway. ~ _{06:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)}

    It was a comparison of text size vs number of calls and their effect on speed. Largely irrelevant now that I've archived my talk but here is that archive. Should have the same visible effect. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 14:43, 13 May 2011 (BST)

    I am a also talking about server load, hence my comment that a database query takes very little time. Yes, more queries do have an impact on server load but it is not generally a major problem: In fact, a few large queries are a lot heavier on the server than lots of small ones. So, yeah, lots of massive template inclusions will hurt the server but so will lots of massive walls of text on a single page and most signature templates aren't that largem.--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 08:45, 13 May 2011 (BST)

    Unless we want to ask Kevan for some performance stats to settle this, can we stop waving our wiki-peens? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:54, 13 May 2011 (BST)

    I would prefer to call it a "reasoned debate" .--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 14:36, 13 May 2011 (BST)

    ^This. Although we could probably move it to the talk page or {{Nosubst}} talk page or something. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 14:43, 13 May 2011 (BST)

    Seconded, although keep the current discussion points here so for perspective voters. ~ _{14:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)}

16. Keep - after some serious pondering. I'd vote delete in a heartbeat if it had been that way all the time, but pulling it away now will cause a lot of issues for rarely active users. Adding substings to sigs occassionally, while not fun, is the lesser evil. -- Spiderzed█ 17:02, 11 May 2011 (BST)
17. Keep - I'm with Vapor and Gnome on this one.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 23:42, 13 May 2011 (BST)
18. Keep - What problem is this fixing? Transclusion limits on high-traffic pages? If so, just ban templated sigs on the pages in question. Otherwise, I'm with AHLG. I do NOT want to read "lol" followed by 14 lines of code before I can see the next comment, which is what this would cause to happen far too often. —Aichon— 08:49, 15 May 2011 (BST)

Kept. 12 Keep votes and 6 Delete votes. ~ _{05:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)}

Federal Stafford Loan Program

Oh, I guess this is how pages are deleted? It was some sort of weird spam. -Susan Bakersfield 03:22, 14 May 2011 (BST)

Got this one when clearing out the bots. It's best to report them there (although it gets done here anyway). Thanks -- boxy 07:55, 14 May 2011 (BST)

Smart Revive Policy

The Smart Revive Policy was created in error and is effectively the No Random Revive Policy. It appears that Obsdark didn't read the No Random Revive Policy, and just looked at the old title of the page. There is only a few pages that link to the Smart Revive Policy and those could be redirected to the No Random Revive Policy. I also updated the No Random Revive Policy to merge in any of the needed information from Smart Revive Policy. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 02:07, 27 April 2011 (BST)

1. Keep - this is a filibuster vote – Nubis ^NWO 02:14, 27 April 2011 (BST)
2. Speedy crit 1 though voting speedy seems kind of pointless due to the above "vote". ~ _{03:09, 27 April 2011}
3. Delete - Technically crit 1, but seeing how Nubis is reading from the dictionary, it'll have to wait it out. -- Cheese 13:50, 27 April 2011 (BST)
4. Delete Unneeded and inferior copy of an established tactic. -- Spiderzed█ 14:24, 27 April 2011 (BST)
5. Speedy - Criteria 1.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 14:41, 27 April 2011 (BST)
6. 'delete this is a busterfily vote -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 17:07, 27 April 2011 (BST)
7. keep As a Redirect. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:25, 27 April 2011 (BST)
8. Keep - redirect -- boxy 07:44, 3 May 2011 (BST)
9. Keep as the boxman --    bitch  06:31, 11 May 2011 (utc)
10. Keep - Redirect it--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 22:19, 11 May 2011 (BST)

5 to 5. Kept as a redirect. ~ _{06:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)}

The living

Not really much in the way of content here. I'd like to have the page deleted so that I can use the name (with a capitol L). *Clint Clintstone* ^Talk 10:35 21 April 2011 (EST)

1. delete - never got off the ground etc. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:46, 22 April 2011 (BST)
2. Keep - This is both history, a group that existed(and we don't delete disbanded groups just 'cause), and also a page stuffed full of content when context is shown. We killed crit 12 for a reason. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 03:52, 22 April 2011 (BST)
3. Keep. Its well linked. --Rosslessness 11:04, 22 April 2011 (BST)

   My arse. it has like 8 and you made half of them years ago and only because they mentioned the dead? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 12:07, 22 April 2011 (BST)

   Sorry, its referred to as part of the did you know section of the wiki, I don't know why Clint doesn't just use The Living --Rosslessness 12:28, 22 April 2011 (BST)

4. Keep. As Ross. You don't have to get rid of that page to create The Living. And we could also add a disambiguation notice on top of the page to refer to the older/newer group respectively. -- Spiderzed█ 12:47, 22 April 2011 (BST)

   This^. Especially since they're both unique pages and the stats page links by caps(like the whole wiki). --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 13:42, 22 April 2011 (BST)

5. Keep - As Above.--
   
   | T | BALLS! | 13:46 22 April 2011(UTC)
6. Delete Just another of those "exists only on paper" kind of groups with no real content, the kind of which we deleted hundreds of. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 13:59, 22 April 2011 (BST)
7. Delete - this page doesn't stop you using the capital L space... and anyway, afaik, this one is just a reactionary page to The Dead... puppy tears, and all that, y'know -- boxy 15:08, 22 April 2011 (BST)

   He'll find it difficult to do as that The Living is now in use. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 21:38, 25 April 2011 (BST)

8. Keep -- Asheets 16:15, 22 April 2011 (BST)
9. Keep SHUT THE FUCK UP!. i loled.--
   
     bitch 16:19, 22 April 2011
10. Delete - get out. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 17:50, 22 April 2011 (BST)
11. Keep - this is a filibuster vote – Nubis ^NWO 23:57, 23 April 2011 (BST)
12. Keep - Sure, why not - Serious Post Please do not silly. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 15:27, 24 April 2011 (BST)
13. Keep - We're already deleting the living from the game, why not have a reminder they once existed here? --Laughing Man 15:44, 24 April 2011 (BST)
14. Weak Keep - As Karek and Ross, but weaker. Linkthewindow  Talk  16:18, 24 April 2011 (BST)
15. Keep - As Karek and Ross. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 21:38, 25 April 2011 (BST)
16. Keep - As Spiderzed.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 17:40, 26 April 2011 (BST)

Kept with 12 Keeps and 4 Deletes. ~ _{06:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)}

Bookmarks

I wanted to make a page under my username, but instead made this. I already remade the page under my user-name, here, so I would like for you to delete this page (somebody else may want to use Bookmarks in the future, and I don't want to waste space).--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 02:33, 1 May 2011 (BST)

EDIT: Also requesting a Speedy Delete, if that is all possible.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 02:34, 1 May 2011 (BST)

Scheduled – Speedy, Crit 7 by proxy. All gone. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:56, 1 May 2011 (BST)

Archive

e Deletions Archive

2005 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Q3 Q4 2013 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2014 Jan-Jun Jul-Dec Years 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020