Template talk:Busy

Template:Busy
Swept from the pub:

Once again, I've created few more templates including the busy template without informing the community thus without the consensus. I thought maybe its not necessary to get consensus on creating even a user page template but I was wrong. Apart from this template, I have also created some others such as Template:User page, Template:Channel Template:Fromwp and Template:Outdent. If anyone oppose any of template listed, please comment below. Busy template is also nominated for deletion, see here. --Saqib (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2012 (CEST)


 * List all templates you create on Template index. --Globe-trotter (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2012 (CEST)

Template:Busy

 * Delete, undiscussed new template and doesn't add anything that an infobox couldn't; see also this discussion. Not used on any pages.  -- D. Guillaume (talk) 06:57, 15 October 2012 (CEST)


 * Given that these templates are only for use on user pages, and given that people can do whatever they want on their user pages, do we think that this policy was supposed to apply to this kind of template? --Inas (talk) 07:08, 15 October 2012 (CEST)


 * Probably the closest discussion was at Wikivoyage talk:Using Mediawiki templates, which didn't set any firm policies, but it seems most people were opposed to (a) template "bloat" and (b) userspace templates without a direct relation to travel.
 * There's also the usual consideration which applies to all templates: if it's not going to be used on a large number of pages and benefit from site-wide standardization, why create it as a template? -- D. Guillaume (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2012 (CEST)


 * Yes, I recall that discussion against userbox ugliness. However, I don't think anyone is disputing in this case that the userpage content is reasonable, are they?  Given it is reasonable, is there any reason not to have a shortcut?  I'd personally be in favour of keeping this template, but I appreciate the policy is for consensus for new templates, so..


 * Defer. Give the creator an opportunity to given the motivation for the template on the discussion page of the template concerned.  If no consensus emerges, then Delete as per policy.  --Inas (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2012 (CEST)


 * Comment This template can be used when a user is either busy or going away. Peter tried to tell that he's going away for few days by using Template:Disclaimerbox however perhaps he could use this busy template if it was available at that time. --Saqib (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2012 (CEST)


 * Keep. I assume it offers the trivial potential advantage over a customised infobox of saving our editors a modicum of time and, more importantly, of us being able to easily compile a list of editors that may not see site notices for a while so that they could be e-mailed instead. --W. Franke-mailtalk 01:24, 16 October 2012 (CEST)


 * Keep Eiland (talk) 10:30, 29 October 2012 (CET)


 * Keep. It would be churlish to remove something harmless that one of us is using on our userpage. Social networking is good and appropriate user space activity. --Rogerhc (talk) 05:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Harmless, and useful for user pages. – sumone10154 ( talk ) 03:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep -- A l i c e ✉ 08:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm opposed to templatespace bloat, but more generally templates need community approval. --Peter Talk 10:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Result: Deleted. Only one user is using the template currently, and it's easily replaceable with standard wiki markup.  LtPowers (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Mmmm, 2 "Delete"s, 5 "Keep"s and 1 "Defer" and yet the "consensus" is to delete. Why wasn't it tagged as an Experimental template? The new rules were followed (limiting its use to only one article) and then one of the deletion rationales is "Only one user is using the template currently" - seems like a bit of a Catch 22. -- A l i c e ✉ 00:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The "Defer" was back in October, and no action was taken here on the talk page to garner a consensus, so I treated it as a "Delete". Two of the "Keeps" cited no rationale, and so did not count.  The The remaining three "Keeps" were weak at best, and our policy is "guilty until proven innocent" -- we delete unless a consensus is formed to keep.  This is a template whose functionality can (and has been) easily be duplicated with a simple message at the top of a talk page.  LtPowers (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the cogent explanation. It might be an idea to provide an easily found explanation somewhere about how the process of consensus works here, emphasising that "Keeps" or "Deletes" are without value unless they give (or echo) a rationale - especially for all those arriving Wikipedians (who may be used to a somewhat different process)
 * As to the simple message at the top of a talk page, this may be more easily missed and will be unlikely to contain a category so we can "easily compile a list of editors that may not see site notices for a while so that they could be e-mailed instead" - as my "puppet master" pointed out. -- A l i c <font color="#00EEFF">e <font color="#FF3333">✉ 00:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A bare "keep" or "delete" is just as worthless on Wikipedia, by policy, so I don't see how that's an excuse. We have no consensus to use categories on user talk pages, and even if we did, a template is not the only way to include a category on a page.  Frank mentioned having a way to keep track of users who are busy, but failed to explain why that would be useful.  LtPowers (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)