Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Derekleungtszhei/sign
- 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 no consensus. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Transparent attempt to evade user signature length limits by transcluding this. Added bonus that it also breaks the policy on images in signatures. Really should not exist. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Already remove the image. Derek LeungLM 00:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - seems to pass muster now; issues dealt with. Achowat (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is now of a reasonable length but there's no guarantee it won't again become a problem. And if the signature will never again be too long surely this is redundant, highly discouraged by the guideline and prone to future abuse (not necessarily by the owner - what's to stop another user editing it so e.g. the links go to somewhere else or the popups are offensive messages?).--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm generally not a fan of deleting something because it "may be an issue in the future". If it becomes an issue, we can address it at that time. Achowat (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is now of a reasonable length but there's no guarantee it won't again become a problem. And if the signature will never again be too long surely this is redundant, highly discouraged by the guideline and prone to future abuse (not necessarily by the owner - what's to stop another user editing it so e.g. the links go to somewhere else or the popups are offensive messages?).--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- perhaps the owner could indicate whether he thinks this is needed anymore?--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- We don't use templates for signatures. That alone would sink this, though I'm curious as to what Achowat actually understands "speedy keep" to mean. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- WP:SIG#NT specifically refers to the transclusion of templates, which is not what's happening. "Speedy Keep", at least in this context, means that the Miscellany in question has been fixed to confirm to the Nominator's wishes and it can be closed without issue. It'd be like if I had a sub-page of essay drafts that was MFD'd because of the essay "Jimmy Wales on Wheels (shortcut [[WP:JWOW]]) that puts forth the argument that Willy on Wheels was a massive Jimbo conspiracy. If I removed the JWOW draft but kept all the others, I would consider this a situation for "Speedy Keep". Achowat (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, no. SIG#NT forbids transclusion, but it also thoroughly discourages substitution. So a templated sig will never be in the spirit of our sig guidelines. Speedy keep is a process on Wikipedia which covers very specific cases (none of which are applicable here): it is not a catch-all variant of "strong keep" for those who dislike having discussions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think, if you look around the more contentious MFDs out there, that I am one to definitely prefer conversation over quick action. I am a little hurt by your comments, but looking at this MFD in a vacuum, I can see why you'd think that. You're right, this is not a "Speedy Keep" situation. My comments were more to suggest to the nominator that, since the WP:SIG issues had been dealt with, withdrawal should be considered. Achowat (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- My apologies for the harsh tone. Nevertheless, I don't think that the modifications have rendered the nomination invalid. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Given the "thorough discouragement" of substituted templates at WP:SIG#NT (which I was foolish for not checking), I'd agree with you that we should continue discussing this. Achowat (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- My apologies for the harsh tone. Nevertheless, I don't think that the modifications have rendered the nomination invalid. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think, if you look around the more contentious MFDs out there, that I am one to definitely prefer conversation over quick action. I am a little hurt by your comments, but looking at this MFD in a vacuum, I can see why you'd think that. You're right, this is not a "Speedy Keep" situation. My comments were more to suggest to the nominator that, since the WP:SIG issues had been dealt with, withdrawal should be considered. Achowat (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, no. SIG#NT forbids transclusion, but it also thoroughly discourages substitution. So a templated sig will never be in the spirit of our sig guidelines. Speedy keep is a process on Wikipedia which covers very specific cases (none of which are applicable here): it is not a catch-all variant of "strong keep" for those who dislike having discussions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- WP:SIG#NT specifically refers to the transclusion of templates, which is not what's happening. "Speedy Keep", at least in this context, means that the Miscellany in question has been fixed to confirm to the Nominator's wishes and it can be closed without issue. It'd be like if I had a sub-page of essay drafts that was MFD'd because of the essay "Jimmy Wales on Wheels (shortcut [[WP:JWOW]]) that puts forth the argument that Willy on Wheels was a massive Jimbo conspiracy. If I removed the JWOW draft but kept all the others, I would consider this a situation for "Speedy Keep". Achowat (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2012 (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.