Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Template:Clickurl and Template:Click


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Weak delete.  Cbrown1023   talk   23:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Clickurl and Template:Click
These two templates were created about a week ago and since then are only seeing use on some user pages (just one in the case of Template:Clickurl, and three in the case of Template:Click). These templates are apparently intended to superimpose text over an image, which is something I don't foresee us ever using in a main-namespace page, and I'm not too keen on having templates exclusively for user pages. —LrdChaos (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 15:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no use. --Aphaia 15:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. ~ UDScott 15:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ordinarily, I'd rather not prevent modest use of simple templates (not like Fabartus's!) for user purposes. These functional decorations aren't nearly as fancy as what some Wikipedians do with their user pages. But the three current users of this template and their activities thus far worry me a little about whether they're here to do Wikiquote stuff or just for social networking and fun with wiki editing. Sir James Paul, some may recall, has, in the past, been stubbornly uncooperative and refused to follow basic Wikiquote (and Wikimedia) practices. (I'm not aware of any current reason for concern, and I don't think this alone should be treated as such.) Eric Wester‎, besides creating these templates and adding them to his user and talk pages, did a spate of welcoming new users for 10 minutes last week, and hasn't edited since. (It's a little odd, but not really a problem in and of itself.) But The geek worries me the most, having apparently copied over a Wikipedia user page with tons of user boxes that don't exist here. I'm concerned that we might have to deal with an explosion of user boxes from users who aren't really here to work on Wikiquote, which is a problem we don't really need. But this may be much ado about nothing, to quote the Bard. Of course, we could ask them about this. &#9786; ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm reluctant to delete, as I can't see that anyone is doing anything really harmful here. Should we delete everything that isn't positively useful?--Cato 21:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As multiwiki vandals, I don't think we need to hunt them down aggressively, but I think it good generally that we discourage such activities of peripheral users and when we find them eventually, we're going to remove such attempts. --Aphaia 09:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused, Aphaia. Are you saying that any of these three are vandals? Sir James Paul is stubborn, but I don't recall anything that he's done as being vandalism, just refusal to accept basic practices. As for the other two, I didn't spot any user activity from these names on en:WP or Simple English WP or WQ (which I checked because of the Sir James Paul connection). But I wasn't thorough, so am I missing something? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for confusion, I referred only a general case: not partuicular individuals. I just replied Cato this would be sort of things we would rather like not to be too much proactive. --Aphaia 17:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless it has an use in the mainspace. I'm in favor of allowing people to personalize their user page within reason, but I'm against developing extra tools such as this that are mainly for this purpose. Stopping it now before it gets out of hand is best, I think. Otherwise, such tools will multiple, I fear. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:26, 5 September 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.