Forum:CT:User template

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:User template

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Bring back the user template; No consensus on number of redlinks pointing to a userpage before using the template; Amend Denial of Recognition policy; and do not subst the template. jSarek 02:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Okay. As you may have noticed, Darth Culator recently deleted {{user}}. Now, I'm not criticizing his decision. He gave his justifaction here, and I can see his logic. However, this has resulted in a backlog of new wanted pages. Therefore, I suggest we make a new, more Star Warsy (?) template to replace the old one. So: Agreements? Denunciations? Apathy? What do you guys think? -- SFH 22:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • If only Wanted Pages could be reconfigured to report the most wanted pages by namespace. Then, we could display wanted articles, and no one would care if userpages were redlinks or not. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The lack of the user template has rendered the Wanted Pages page worthless. It needs to be resurrected in some form and put to use. jSarek 08:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A goof on my part is partly responsible for this problem, so I'll try to be part of the solution.

  1. I posted a question here in regards to Silly Dan's question.
  2. Would it be desirable to create a template for userpages that have been indefinitely banned, such as "This user has been banned indefinitely"? If so, would it be desirable (or even possible) to have such a template be automatically placed on a banned userpage as soon as that user has been banned by an administrator? Jaywin 15:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

O.K...Since we have special pages with an active user list and with a user list, would it be possible (or even desirable) to have a Specialpage with a banned user list? This idea may be against the "Deny Recognition" policy, but I only suggest it since the banned user names are already on the user list, mixed in with the non-banned users. Of course, if this isn't even possible, it's a moot point anyways! Jaywin 01:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think that's possible, but yes, Wanted Pages absolutely stinks now. —Xwing328(Talk) 18:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, I see the logic, but I don't think it's particularly helpful.. Hmm. Perhaps we could ressurrect it (but more Star Warsy) with guidelines on it's usage, such as only place it on a users page if it's clogging up the wanted pages list. :P — beeurd talk 02:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion that is being looked into around the Wanted Pages issue. Jaywin 19:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Regardless of how we deal with banned users, the template should be resurrected. I think it should simply be undeleted, and if someone wants to edit it to be more Star Wars-themed, I doubt anyone would argue with that. And placing the same very small template on a user page of a vandal that goes on every other redlinked userpage for the purpose of REMOVING REDLINKS, and not because of anything having to do with their vandalism, does not seem to me to violate Denial of Recognition. At any rate, whether or not someone is able to program Wantedpages to split up into namespaces, the template itself is still useful to remove redlinks from recentchanges and talk/forums. We need it back. If you want to deny recognition to vandals, delete the links to their userpage, not a template that can be used on the pages of actual contributors. Wildyoda 03:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd prefer we bring the user template or some similar replacement back. It helps clear up redlinks to userpages, and I don't think it really has a big impact on denying recognitions on vandals like {{banned}} does. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 16:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is unorganized, let's just vote (Sikon forgive me! :-P)

This section is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This section is no longer live.
The result of the debate was to bring back the user template. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

(This is my effort to be efficient and make wantedpages useful again in an expedient manner.) I think people have now generally stopped giving their opinion on possible solutions. It's been 8 days since we got more than a simple agreement. So instead of confusing the original issue (of deletion and flooding Wantedpages) with any other issues (i.e. the issue of solutions for denial of recognition) let's put the original issue to a vote, get a clear consensus, and either restore the old template or just stop talking about this and find another solution. Wildyoda 21:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't forgive you. - Sikon 04:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't restore user template

  1. I have yet to hear a good argument other than "boo hoo, my wanted pages is too long." I say redlinked usernames in the RCs are useful. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 01:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • And I say plenty of crappy users create user pages and plenty of decent users never bother. It *may* help point out somewhat newer users, but plenty of users start their very first edit by establishing a user page. All in all, it's a very poor indicator of anything important about a user. Meanwhile, users who *are* contributing and getting involved in article talk pages are piling up on Special: Wanted Pages, rendering it useless - currently, only TWO of the fifty links on the first page of Wanted Pages are to actual articles. As far as I'm concerned, "boo hoo, my wanted pages is too long" is a far stronger argument than anything that's so far been offered in opposition. jSarek 01:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, it's not just too long. User pages are intermixed throughout the list; you can't scroll past them. But we should definitely avoid putting the User template on pages unless, say, 5 or more pages link to them, to avoid including the newest users. -LtNOWIS 01:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Suggestion: Culator, I doubt if anybody has a problem with implementing a use policy for the template. Although I'd personally rather not see redlinks in Special:Recentchanges, if a policy included a number of edits before use and/or not using on vandal pages or deleting the template from confirmed vandals (with no signatures that link to their page), then fine. Come up with a policy and CT it if that would solve your objections. Wildyoda 14:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Restore user template

(The old one- it can be Star-Wars-ified later if people want)

  1. Wildyoda 21:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. I miss the wanted pages Enochf 21:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. SFH 21:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. jSarek 22:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 22:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. LtNOWIS 01:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Adamwankenobi 01:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 08:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Unit 8311 17:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. I'd rather see a stub user page than have a shitty time making new, needed articles. - Jinko 22:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. Jaywin 11:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  12. Until we have something better, this is a must. --Steinninn 09:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  13. Sorry Culator. We can't have user pages in the way of actual articles. I propose we add the template to any user page with 3 or more. That gives us plenty of space for articles to show. Plus users that sign their name 3 times on three different pages would then know how to do so and would not be considered "new users". -- Riffsyphon1024 10:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  14. {{SUBST:User:Jasca Ducato/Sig}} 19:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  15. - breathesgelatinTalk 03:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • Can we call this a consensus yet? jSarek 22:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, but we should work out some rules for use (i.e. "only create user pages if they appear in the first 50 wanted pages and don't belong to indefinitely blocked users" or something.) —Silly Dan (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

User template usage policy

Here I go again, but since Sikon won't forgive me anyway and since this has already become a nuisance again, so let's hammer out a policy.

I recently placed the newly-restored {{user}} template on a userpage that was a redlink in Special:Wantedpages. Turns out the user in question is a permabanned vandal and the page was almost immediately deleted in an effort to deny recognition and to not risk offending anyone over template usage again. Now the way I see it, {{user}}, placed on both user pages of people who do not want to bother making their own user page, and on the pages of vandals who have happened to leave a trail of redlinks and rather than ONLY on vandal pages means that we are not distinguishing vandals from anyone else, and therefore this use should be exempt from attempts at denial of recognition. In fact, I would have never visited the userpage in question if it hadn't had several redlinks and appeared on Special:Wantedpages. Therefore it seems like even LESS recognition to me to place {{user}} on userpages regardless of contributions of the user to get them out of wanted pages, the only place they are likely to be seen except in maybe archived discussions where people pointed out vandalism to help stop it. So here a couple of possible entries to a policy that have been brought up. Let's see what everyone thinks, write a policy, and be done with this thread. If anyone has anything else they'd like included in a policy, write it in or discuss. Wildyoda 20:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Certain number of redlinks before use

No, any userpage with redlinks pointing to it can get the template

  1. Like candy. jSarek 22:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Havac 02:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Because 3-0-1 (at the moment) is more consensus than 2-1-1 (and I would have rathered this in the first place). Oh well, I can be agreeable with someone. Wildyoda 00:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

3 redlinks or more in talk/recentchanges

#Wildyoda 20:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC) I don't really care about this, but to show Culator I can be agreeable. :)

Higher number of redlinks (suggestions welcome)

  1. If they appear in the "most wanted pages" list, however many that is. As of 02:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC), that's 7 links. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. I think 5's a nice, easy number. Right between the suggested 3 and the 7 it currently takes to make the front of the list. *EDIT* Though on second thought, this should just be a guideline. No need for instruction creep or strict rules here. —Xwing328(Talk) 04:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Amend Denial of Recogition policy

  • (See Forum:Deny_recognition)
  • Instead of deleting user pages of vandal-only accounts after a month of ban, {{user}} may be placed there. No categorization of vandals, no specific reference to them being vandals, and NO REDLINKS OR WANTED PAGES links to ever bring anyone to that userpage.

For

  1. Wildyoda 20:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC) (For reasons stated in my rant above)
  2. Leaving them on Wanted Pages for any editor using that page to see gives them *much* more recognition than giving them a user template does. jSarek 22:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Havac 02:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. If we have to have the template back then seems logical rather than using it for everybody except vandals. Green Tentacle (Talk) 09:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. —Xwing328(Talk) 04:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Against

Comments

  • Vandalism-only accounts shouldn't have links to their user pages: their forum comments and talk page contributions are usually excised. The indefinitely blocked users appearing on the Wanted Pages list are mostly people who were blocked for reasons other than regular vandalism (for example, wasting everyone's time with off-topic Senate Hall questions and bothering other users, or contributing for a while then getting blocked for edit warring over images.) —Silly Dan (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The vandal page on which I placed the template that started me on this whole policy thing was an account created by a banned user to get around the ban, who was subsequently banned again (now if that wasn't a run-on sentence I don't know what is). There were several links to his page in some old forum threads. Most of the time, you are right, there shouldn't be links at all. But in the odd case that there are, like that, or when somebody links to a userpage when they are reporting vandalism and it stays on an archived talk page, we might as well be able to point to a policy that allows us to get rid of them in wantedpages rather than wondering what to do about it later. Wildyoda 00:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

To subst or not to subst

Another contention that has come up is whether or not to subst the template. I am of the opinion we should not - as I said in response to a user on my talk page, "it's better to be able to modify all the user templates at once if need be by simply editing the template. Furthermore, should MediaWiki ever fix the Wanted Pages code so that "user" is no longer needed, having it as a template instead of as subst'ed text will make it easier to find the pages that are in need of deletion." jSarek 22:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

For subst'ing

Against subst'ing

  1. jSarek 22:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Havac 02:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Green Tentacle (Talk) 09:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Because why not? (As long as nobody jumps down my throat when I forget and habitually subst it the first couple days) Wildyoda 00:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. To subst or not to subst, that is the question, eh? —Xwing328(Talk) 04:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy Comments