Forum:Signature Orphanage

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Signature Orphanage
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 5 July 2010 by Calebchiam.

The Signature Orphanage has become a permanent repository for signatures which are not used and will never be used. To prevent this, I propose we delete all signatures which are still unused 30 days after they have been added to the orphanage. This could be kept track of with a simple table, like this:

Signature Link Added Check uses
kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png Link 1 day ago Uses
kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png Link 30 days ago Uses

We could use templates to make it really easy to add new signatures, by providing a name and a date (using 5 tildes):

{{OrphanSig|Signatures/Psycho Robot|~~~~~}}

If this were passed, the signatures in the July '09 section and below would be deleted immediately, and the others would be kept and it would be assumed that they were all added that day. I think this will make the signature orphanage more useful and keep signatures which will never be used from staying on the Wiki forever. Also, I'm not totally sure about the 30 day time span, so if anyone else has any other time limit in mind, then let them be heard. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 18:19, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - As a general principle I don't like the fancy sig templates and never use them, so this isn't going to impact me at all and is sort of a "I don't care" kind of attitude toward the whole thing. This said, how is this going to impact archived discussion pages? As long as this doesn't impact helping folks to know who has posted what in old (indeed ancient) discussion pages, I don't have any real objection to wiping out older sigs on a page like this. I know that most sigs are simply "subst:"ed anyway, so this shouldn't necessarily a big deal. --Robert Horning 18:55, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

If a signature template comes back as unused, then deleting it will have no impact at all. If it is used anywhere, it is used in an untemplated form, and deleting teh template on which its based won't do a thing. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 19:04, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
Or you could replace the template by a picture of it (on imageshack or something) if really needed... Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 06:32, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
That wouldn't be necessary. If a signature template is subst'd on a page, it means that all the code is copied onto the page. You can delete the template, but the code will still be there, unaffected by the deletion. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 06:34, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
That's true. I thought you also meant unsubsted sigs. So you would leave all template sigs (that are actually used as a template) on, but delete the subst ones (since they aren't linked to, but just 'copied')? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 06:38, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 06:57, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
Okay, then I understand it. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 21:06, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Question Why? We don't have a limit on space for them right? I am not arguing I just want to understand why bother deleting them if they aren't hurting? If they are, ok then, bam away.--Degenret01 07:50, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

The same reason we delete unused images, they're just useless and its not a good idea to let a huge amount of unused signatures build up, because if we ever do have a more pressing reason to do so, it'll be a pain to delete them all. I guess to answer your question with a question, why not? Lol kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 07:54, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
Unused images are deleted to discourage people from uploading pics we can not use, that is totally different really. Why not? Because there is tons of real stuff that could be done instead of deleting things that aren't in the way. I am just picturing it as a game of pick up sticks because you can't think of something better to. --Degenret01 08:14, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it had that little merit. my first experience with the signature orphanage was when I was going through and replacing all our skill cape images (they were taken from, and I had to replace a zillion skillcape images in unused signatures in the orphanage. It was annoying but not that bad. I don't really see why deleting images is that much different than deleting templates. Surely its not bad to discourage people from creating templates they're not going to use kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 17:37, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good - This is basically saying that if you make a signature template and after 30 days you still haven't used it, it going to be removed. This is just an extension of clearing out pages like Unused Templates giving a 30 day grace period for signatures. Removing unused pages, files, and templates are certainly some of the less interesting tasks around the wiki, but do help to keep things fairly tidy. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 20:33, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Makes it neater, the Orphanage wouldn't be so clogged up anymore. --Nup(T) 12:48, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

Question No offense but you seem to just love the delete button a little too much. Whats next, everyone sandbox they haven't used in over 30 days? Seriously, if it isn't in the way, there is no reason to mess with it. I am all for plowing the streets after a snowstorm, but unused fields get ignored. It is an extremely pointless task you wish to set yourself.--Degenret01 13:57, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

Question - What is you delete someone's signature, then they come back and start signing with it? You'd have to undelete it again. Sort of a waste of time. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 21:49, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

Weak support - Although 30 days doesn't seem long enough. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 18:56, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

{{RFC}} C.ChiamTalk 03:38, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure - Discussion has died, and there is consensus to implement the proposals. Can someone who knows how to do this actually implement it? --LiquidTalk 21:13, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that consensus has been reached. There are a couple of supports and a couple questions identifying concerns that haven't been addressed. Endasil (Talk) @  00:10, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, if you say so. I'd say that this thread has reached a rough consensus, but you're more experienced than I am in this field. The main concern that I see is that deleting them is pointless. But, if that's the case, then deleting pretty much everything (save offensive material) is useless. --LiquidTalk 00:13, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree just by looking at supports, but when concerns aren't addressed it could be that the previous supports are nullified by the "new information". In this case I (as a normal editor, not as a sysop) would like an answer to Oli's concern of "what happens when the user comes back or posts on a discussion forum for the first time?" There are a lot of editors that edit a lot and are consistently active but never (at this point in typing I found out my basement had flooded and spent two hours cleaning up) talk in discussions. What if they all of a sudden decide to post? Do we need to unfairly go through an undelete process? Also, if it's just a question of making it easier to do small changes on all signatures, we could just revert those unused signatures to the default [[User:Username|Username]]/ Endasil (Talk) @  02:34, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment/Oppose - Sorry for keeping this going, but I really fail to see how it hurts to keep the old ones... If someone can find a reason for me, then I will support. I have read all of the above comments, but none are really enough to warrent this. Like they say; if it isn't broken, don't fix it. Ajraddatz Talk 16:55, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Comment/Proposal - If this discussion fails (I still weakly support, see above), I think we should keep the table and the "Uses" and "Link" parts. But that's only if the consensus is not to do this. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 20:23, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Request Closure x2 - Liquid has already asked for closure and no true consensus has been reached. Close this discussion and let it be brought back with new arguments. 222 talk 05:36, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - We shouldn't deleted things just because they haven't been used in a while.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 09:59, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Request Closure x3 - Same as what I said a week ago. 222 talk 00:54, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for Signature Orphanage. Request complete. The reason given was: complete

ʞooɔ 09:18, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - The Signature Orphanage will not be implemented. C.ChiamTalk 12:41, July 5, 2010 (UTC)