Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User discouraged

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. There is a weak consensus for keep, with the only other viable close option being "no consensus", which would have the same outcome. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User discouraged

Unused. {{discouraged}} is available if needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to User:Status/discouraged. Has anyone ever used it, or is simply nobody using it now? It's a lot less intrusive than the big template, which people might not want to use for fear of attention seeking. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue — Use WP:TfD instead. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 18:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Soumya-8974: while that's true for other templates, the current guideline at WP:TfD is to discuss userboxes at MfD: Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Ritchie333 and nom; no transclusions, beyond maybe its creator. Recommend userification to the creator's userspace, or to anyone else's in this MfD. Soumya-8974, believe it or not, this is actually the correct venue, just like CfD should be the correct venue for the rcats. Else,

Keep and add to {{Wikibreak templates}} per J947. -- Doug Mehus T·C 20:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I don't see a good reason to delete or to keep at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If there is a policy/guideline somewhere that unused userboxes should be userfied, then we might as well do so, but otherwise I don't see why we would do that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Template:Discouraged because it's unused and a plausible redirect. I don't like the idea of keeping userboxes around that even the creator doesn't use (even if in userspace). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MJL I personally don't like the redirect idea because it's not even the same template; {{discouraged}} is a rather large, and intrusive, in my opinion, version. I would much prefer to see this userfied. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 03:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: I'd be with you if this template had any uses, but it seems 16/16 discouraged users prefer the bulkier version to the sleeker userbox. If you personally find yourself feeling discouraged about Wikipedia and longing for this particular userbox, then you simply have to copy the contents of Special:Permalink/900959584 into your userspace (with a note in the edit summary of course for attribution purposes). A redirect provides the best of all options in that regard. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: As usual, you speak much wisdom. I'll stick with my userfy, but I can see your rationale better now. Thanks again for clarifying! Doug Mehus T·C 03:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: Speaking of which, this is off-topic, but semi-related, if I want to copy userspace templates from English Wikipedia to Meta for use in my Meta Wikipedia userspace, what's the protocol on transferring? Is there a transwiki template I should be using, or should I just link to the English Wikipedia template in my Meta Wikipedia edit summary? Doug Mehus T·C 03:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: Per WP:CWW, use the edit summary Copied content from [[w:en:Special:Permalink/900959584]]; see that page's history for attribution. "w:en:" provides an interwiki link to this project. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: Thank you. Bookmarks Done. Doug Mehus T·C 16:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Template:Discouraged. I concur with MJL. --Bsherr (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (edit conflict × 2); no need to delete or redirect and the only consequence of userfying would be to bring even less focus to this userbox. People don't seem to know this exists, so add to Template:Wikibreak templates to increase usage. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @J947: So glad to hear you say that! I've been thinking the same thing lately...are all userboxes appropriately linked on the relevant userbox template directory pages? This seems like a reasonable alternative to deletion to consider, to give it another go. Doug Mehus T·C 16:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Presumably this template's usage will just be temporary; users either cease being discouraged or stop editing altogether. Just because there's no use now doesn't mean there won't be in the future. Note that the nominator has been, apparently boldly, replacing {{Discouraged}} with {{not around}} or removing {{Discouraged}} altogether. I've seen one instance where this activity was reverted. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I replaced it for users who have been absent for two years or more (in the case you cite, over five and a half years), and removed if from indef. blocked users, or on user pages (because {{not around}} is only for talk pages) of those long-since marked as retired. A handful of cases, in total. Having done so, I found it unused, so nominated it for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am seeing no consensus to delete here, a redirect or userfy can be done at any time and further discussed on a talk page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledgekid87 Thanks for your participation, as always. I see the same thing. It's, perhaps, even an outright "keep." Did you contemplate closing this MfD for us, or is closing not really your thing? Doug Mehus T·C 15:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed discussions in the past and have contemplated it for this one, but my mind isn't fully awake yet this morning. I think this is a non controversial close though at this point. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, fair enough. Yeah, it should be an easy close for an fairly experienced editor. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 16:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.