Template talk:Retired

Stylizing Template:retired and Template:semi-retired
I didn't create these templates, and the former has existed for a while (the latter was created recently by ), but I'm interested to hear the community's opinion if we opted to design these templates similar to how Commons designed them (see c:Template:Retired and c:Template:Semi-retired) instead of the simplistic Wikipedia style. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 08:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Heads up that linking in this style in the header makes it difficult for some tools to link directly to it. the Example style breaks some things versus the Template:Example style. (See an above thread where I did the same.) I changed it if you don't mind. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I don't mind. Thanks for the fix, ! -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 09:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The three versions (the original blue, the current black and the Commons one) demonstrate that a retiring user cannot know what such a template will look like after they left. Thus the template should perhaps be regarded not as a message from the user, but as one from the community (in most cases based on a statement from the user, of course).
 * For a message from the community, it makes sense to use a (uniform) template. What kind of message do we want to convey with the design? I personally prefer the one on Commons, which looks much more friendly, especially as contrasted with the current black one, but it is unnecessarily wordy, as bans are few enough here that we don't need to explicitly address that issue. One point to keep in mind is that the template shouldn't offend anybody who got the template put on their user page by somebody else (after them having declared their retirement elsewhere) or who put the template there when it looked different.
 * –LPfi (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm with you on the bans, but I'm leaning in favour of mentioning the ban bit as "This is not indicative of breaking any Wikimedia policies." seems quite harmless and I presume most passer-by users have no idea how many bans a wiki issue (I, for one, frequently lurk Meta-Wiki and have zero clue how many are issued on a monthly basis). Otherwise I fully agree with you and think some of it should be mentioned in the documentation as a disclaimer for clarity. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 10:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I prefer the look of the Commons versions.
 * Not a big issue, but maybe we should consider if "of their own volition" is always applicable. If an editor is semi-retired because they are in hospital or in prison, then it probably isn't of their own volition. Similarly if retired is added because another editor has heard of an editor's passing. Or are there alternatives to use in these circumstances? AlasdairW (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Accounts of deceased Wikimedians are globally locked, for the record. SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 00:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The "retired" template is on just 13 pages. Four of them are blocked/glocked.  That means that just over 30% of current users of this template were breaking policies, and should therefore not have a message indicating that they weren't.  Eight of the 13 (just over 60%) made less than 50 edits total.  The only account that I'd find that template even remotely useful for is @Saqib, who is active on other projects and therefore easily reached with a ping.  In short:  No practical need to have this template at all.
 * The "semi-retired" template is one one user's page. That person made an edit today.
 * If we see this template less as a means of self-expression (see meatball:Goodbye and w:en:WP:YDOW) and more as a practical thing (namely, those of us who are here need to know whether you're still around), I suggest that we get rid of the rarely used and mostly misleading templates, and instead install the m:User:SMcCandlish/userinfo.js and and m: MediaWiki:Gadget-markblocked.js gadgets, default on. Then we'll spot blocked users every time there's a link to their user pages, and the top of every user page/user talk page will have a note about how long it's been since that user's last edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I cannot really see what the gadgets do, but I think having detailed info shown by default is a privacy issue, and it may have annoying effects on the project culture. Also, we might – just might – want to give some weight also to "global" status/activity, which it seems the gadgets don't care about. –LPfi (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Global activity is apparently difficult to detect, though I agree that it would be good to have.
 * What the UserInfo script does is replace the line that says "From Wikivoyage." under your =User page title= with simple public information from Special:ListUsers and Special:Contributions. In my case, right now, it says "An autopatrolled, 9 years 9 months old, with 4,193 edits. Last edited 3 minutes ago. From Wikivoyage."  I find that the "Last edited" line is the most useful, as it lets you know that I'm probably online (or that I haven't been around for years, or whatever).  Other editors seem to think it's most useful for noticing that someone is a newbie (e.g., if it says "with 2 edits").  See File:Userinfo Screen Shot.png for a screenshot of what it looks like on a narrow screen.
 * The MarkBlocked script is useful in discussions and in page histories. It adds strikethrough to links (e.g.,  WhatamIdoing ) and makes the link a lighter color so that you can see at a glance whether you're about to reply to someone who has been blocked locally. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If a bread at a bakery is stale, you don't stop making bread at all; instead, you work to fix the issue. A similar analogy here should also apply, instead of outright claiming that there isn't a practical need to have a template to have it all. The solution to this is to simply restrict its usage for users who are not banned, blocked or locked (with a policy explicitly allowing any user in good-standing to remove such a template if misused). Also, I agree with LPfi about the privacy issue. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 09:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would add to that list "users who have made very few edits". Several of our "retired" editors have made exactly two edits: to create their userpage and then to replace it with this template.  They haven't "retired" from Wikivoyage; they were functionally never here in the first place.  At which point there are so few uses of it that the template's contents could be placed directly on the (two? three?) users' individual pages, rather than putting it first in the Template: namespace and then transcluding it.
 * Try this: remove the template from all the user pages that are blocked/glocked, and from anyone who hasn't made, say, 50 edits.  See how long the list is after that.  Then ask:  Do we need to use a tool designed to make it easy to repeat something across "many" pages ...when there aren't even "a few" pages to post it on? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)