Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Machocarioca

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep and archive. There is no need for deletion. bibliomaniac15 05:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Machocarioca

It's almost housekeeping in a sense - the page is exclusively image warnings, and we don't need 350 templated warnings making the page larger than ANI. I can't blame the bot, it can't differentiate between an active user and a departed user without becoming entirely useless. Will ^(talk) 16:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Seems like blanking the page is more in order than deleting it. What value is added by deleting this?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  Saves server space. It's cheap, but not free. Will ^(talk) 17:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  Actually, no, it'd still be on the server for admins to view as deleted contributions. Once its on wiki's database, its nearly impossible to remove it. But a blanking would probably be appropriate. MBisanz ^talk 21:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Large size is not a valid reason to delete a talk page -- something we should almost never do anyways. Blanking/splitting is fine. --JayHenry (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I am currently going through the backlog of images, nearly 100% of them have a fair use rationale & source, they are just missing backlinks to the article they are used on. It's appalling that so many of them have already been deleted. The page is getting smaller as I delete the tags I've resolved. English peasant 00:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Update: I have so far looked into 178 of these Betacommand warnings, it has been impossible for me to create a proper Fair Use rationale on only 4 images so far, only 268 more messages to go through although many of them have already been deleted. English peasant 01:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - as English peasant seems to be working on it. But the warnings should certainly be removed as they are dealt with; and those related to already-deleted images can probably be deleted. (Also, this is the perfect example of why it might be a good idea to have automatic archiving of Talk pages once they reach a certain size.) Terraxos (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There are lots and lots of user talk pages that look like this at the moment, though; this one is merely the worst. For example, I just found User talk:Stormwatch (approximately 180 warnings). I'm not sure what can be done about them other than simply hoping that other users will notice the warnings and deal with the image problems, if the user in question doesn't do so themselves. Terraxos (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per JayHenry. If there is a problem with the page's length, archive the older warnings and place a notice on the user talk page accordingly. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.