The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 template's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I would have to agree with the deletion. No reason for the template at all. It just links to individual pages for each concert which themselves should not be on the site. --
Shadow (
talk)
17:00, 6 September 2012 (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 template's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
To expand on my deletion rationale, per
WP:USERBOX, the purpose of these is to directly (or even indirectly) help Wikipedians collaborate more effectively on articles. I can see the merit of userboxes that might be considered extremely esoteric (i.e., interest in a particular
Pokémon = good for seeking out users to improve related articles). However, tagging the group of the handful of confirmed users is hardly necessary to advance editing of the encyclopedia; if a user is an active editor with more than a handful of edits, he is not a member of this group anyway, seeing as how s/he would be autoconfirmed. Indeed, even the user who created this userbox is no longer a member of said group; thus the template is completely unused. Ultimately, it's almost as much of a pointless userbox as the autoconfirmed userbox (which at least admits it is a joke, and is around for historical purposes I would surmise). --Kinut/c20:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)reply
It's in line with all the existing templates for user rights, and it's in use, so I don't see that there's a compelling argument to delete. We allow editors considerable leeway with userboxes and this one pertains directly to editing, so in many ways it's actually more appropriate than most userboxes.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk)
08:42, 4 September 2012 (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 template's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.