Template talk:Wikiblock

Are we ever going to use this? Javasca₧ would rather be hated for who he is than loved for who he is not 01:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No. I vote for deletion. --Sir Onion ^{Kneel before my vegetable might!} 02:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... who has ever been banned except Terry Koeckritz (and MC for a time)? Blue (pester) 04:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be hurting anyone just having it, and eventually you might want it.. then someone would just have to remake it? Dalek (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I note that the blocking policy it links to makes no mention of long-term bans. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I say burn it with fire. - π 02:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

DIE template! ^{An iron, yet caring fist} 02:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

A very similar thing was used on User:TK, which I've replaced with this template. I don't think there's any harm in having this. Blue (is useful) 02:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Then... we shall be merciful.^{An iron, yet caring fist} 02:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

We are not even using it there. It is a one off rarity due to the open hostility of the person. We do not have policy of blocking and therefore have little need for this template. - π 04:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay now we are, but one use does not make the template useful. - π 04:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

A template that has a small use and could be used in the future is certainly more worthy of its server space than some of the unused images we have floating round here. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 04:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually a single use template is a waste as the server has the generate the page by loading code from another page first. An unused image just wast storage space, which is cheap, embedding a template unnecessarily wastes CPU time, which is at a premium on a virtual server. - π 04:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Space is cheap, but some people really need to get an imageshack account. The code could be placed directly on TK's user page and this template deleted, but it could also end up on everyone's userpage as a joke template in short order. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 05:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

A joke block template is also unnecessary and a waste of server time, we don't block as a rule and on the occasions we do we can slap down any old code. - π 05:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

When did we start making deletion decisions based on unquantified issues of "server time"? Asterisk (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I was pointing out the problem with a single use template. - π 05:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok. But who ever loads that page? Surely there are hundreds of luzerboxen only used by one person? Now, a template intended for only one use is silly, I agree. But one that only happens to have one use is another story. Anyway, can't it be SUBSTed or something? Asterisk (talk) 05:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

SUBSTed would be a useful way of doing yes, we should SUBST a lot more stuff (I now do my reduced signature). - π 05:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Performance isn't a problem with this. Besides, our new server is actually faster than the old one, because it's a quad core xeon and we get to use the whole thing if the other virtual servers are idle. -- Nx / talk 06:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)