69:
didn't intend it to be this way. It seems more of a "make my collection bigger" thing now: this page proves that. I find having a page transcluded onto an autograph page to be wholly unnecessary, and when this it's this large, a bit over-the-top. I apologize my explanation isn't very good, but I've never been very good at that. ;-) ·
68:
I'm sure this deletion will be heavily contested--it'll probably fail. However, I don't see the need for this page. It further encourages autograph book pages, adding them into signatures, asking for autographs, etc. I admit I was among the first to have an autograph book (and I still have it), but I
379:
You keep asking how they help build an encyclopedia. But you also link to
Knowledge (XXG):Esperanza. I think that is your answer, no? Anything that builds a spirit of friendliness and co-operation and helps people get to know each other as human beings seems to me a good thing. Unlike divisive
342:
Doesn't seem to be using an inordinate amount of disk space. I see signature pages (and other such "fun" things) as tools for collaboration. It helps people get to know each other through trivial things. I think it serves more of a purpose than a detriment (in fact, I can't see a detriment.)
667:- While I don't mind autograph pages, the idea of transcluding them arbitrarily to each other's lists seems like a rather bad idea. It would seem to be similar to editing other's comments, since the "signatures" will end up on pages that the authors never intended. -
648:- not hurtful but not very useful. It was an interesting idea to start with, and it's nice to know the Jimbo Wales is in favor of the concept. However it is unnecessary and (to some extent) defeats the purpose of signing people's autograph books.
92:
Your right AO it has become an, as you say, "make my collection bigger thing". But, at the moment I'm not quite sure where to go with the
Universal Autographs. I guess it also defeats to purpose of personally signing someones autograph
477:
I initially intended to support keeping them when I went to this MfD, but after some consideration, I have decided that one autograph book really is enough and we don't need to have two of them in one userpage.
220:
problem if kept; but still, if there are concerns with it, then just delete it. If result ends up being delete, then I ask the closing admin to please subst all the transclusions before the deletion.
393:
Because of this I think it should be kept. I only feel pages like this should be deleted if it stops editors from making "proper edits". By this I mean
Wikipedians who spend all day
439:
page, except that it's meant to make autograph books larger--and without cooperation and friendliness at that. If this isn't what this page is for, I must be missing something. ·
257:
Yes, but I'm not sure if all the users who are transcluding this page to their autograph books would want it to be deleted; so I'll leave it for the standard process for now...
531:
There are no reasons to delete it. It might not serve an encyclopedic purpose but it serves to encourage interaction between contributors and that can only be a good thing.
586:
I can see the issues, and like autograph books, and think DaGizza is right, but unfortunately I do not see any reason why we should not just delete all autograph books.
549:
17:
671:
658:
640:
624:
592:
578:
555:
523:
507:
489:
469:
453:
423:
359:
322:
303:
287:
268:
252:
231:
206:
177:
154:
135:
107:
83:
56:
497:
There is no point in having two signature lists where names will be repeated let alone one. Knowledge (XXG) is better off without it.
638:
435:. Anyway, my point isn't that we should delete all autograph pages, I'm against that too. However, I don't see a point for
386:
198:
375:
542:
172:
130:
62:
686:
36:
563:
Unuseful bad thing. And who cares what Jimbo said about it, as long as it isn't a policy Jimbo isn't a God-King... :/
193:
685:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a
484:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a
416:
432:
292:
Yes, but they wouldn't update... Subst just right before deletion if consensus ends up being "delete".
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below.
240:
633:
601:
479:
166:
124:
54:
636:
573:
504:
410:
159:
It helps to find other autograph books and as Jimbo Wales has said, they are a good thing.
380:
userboxes, the autograph books seem to just be about saying hello and being friendly. --
191:- In a sense, I agree with AO, it does kinda defeat the purpose of an autograph book...
654:
441:
310:
296:
275:
261:
224:
160:
142:
118:
97:
71:
49:
587:
565:
534:
498:
516:
398:
381:
464:
247:
668:
345:
679:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
308:
I've notified everyone with the template of this discussion. ·
372:
273:
We can "subst" the ones on user pages, so they keep them. ·
216:
AO makes a good point, though I don't think this page would
652:
delete per above. Thanks AO for telling me about this. --
397:
signing autograph books and editing their own pages. —
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
369:Even Jimbo himself said Signature books are good;
689:). No further edits should be made to this page.
140:How is it useful? What purpose does it serve? ·
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion
7:
236:It's in your userspace, tag it with
632:doesn't help build an encyclopedia
63:User:TomasBat/Universal Autographs
24:
431:Well, Esperanza was deleted...
672:22:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
659:23:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
641:01:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
625:11:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
593:11:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
579:09:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
556:08:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
524:04:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
508:04:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
490:03:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
470:15:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
454:13:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
424:12:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
384:13:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
360:18:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
323:01:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
304:01:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
288:23:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
269:17:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
253:15:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
232:23:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
207:22:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
178:06:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
155:16:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
136:15:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
108:02:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
84:02:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
57:01:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
44:The result of the debate was
1:
218:cause much of a/any serious
706:
682:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
600:, silly and not funny.
194:Dihydrogen Monoxide
117:Useful good thing.
536:Marco Alfarrobinha
546:
422:
391:
390:
219:
697:
684:
657:
621:
619:
617:
615:
613:
590:
568:
554:
540:
537:
521:
520:
487:
482:
463:per nomination.
452:
419:
413:
408:
405:
402:
373:
354:
351:
348:
321:
301:
300:
295:
286:
266:
265:
260:
245:
239:
229:
228:
223:
217:
175:
169:
163:
153:
133:
127:
121:
106:
102:
101:
96:
82:
52:
34:
705:
704:
700:
699:
698:
696:
695:
694:
693:
687:deletion review
680:
653:
611:
609:
607:
605:
603:
588:
566:
553:
535:
532:
518:
517:
485:
480:
440:
417:
411:
403:
400:
358:
352:
349:
346:
309:
298:
297:
293:
274:
263:
262:
258:
243:
237:
226:
225:
221:
202:
173:
167:
161:
141:
131:
125:
119:
104:
99:
98:
94:
70:
66:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
703:
701:
692:
691:
675:
674:
650:
649:
643:
627:
595:
581:
558:
547:
526:
515:per Jackrm. -
510:
492:
472:
458:
457:
456:
389:
388:
385:
377:
371:
370:
363:
362:
357:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
210:
209:
200:
185:
184:
183:
182:
181:
180:
111:
110:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
702:
690:
688:
683:
677:
676:
673:
670:
666:
663:
662:
661:
660:
656:
647:
644:
642:
639:
637:
635:
631:
628:
626:
623:
622:
599:
596:
594:
591:
585:
582:
580:
576:
575:
570:
569:
562:
561:Strong delete
559:
557:
552:
551:
550:contributions
544:
539:
538:
530:
527:
525:
522:
514:
511:
509:
506:
505:
502:
501:
496:
493:
491:
488:
483:
476:
473:
471:
468:
467:
462:
459:
455:
451:
450:
447:
444:
438:
434:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
420:
414:
407:
406:
396:
383:
378:
374:
368:
365:
364:
361:
356:
355:
341:
338:
337:
324:
320:
319:
316:
313:
307:
306:
305:
302:
291:
290:
289:
285:
284:
281:
278:
272:
271:
270:
267:
256:
255:
254:
251:
250:
242:
235:
234:
233:
230:
215:
212:
211:
208:
204:
196:
195:
190:
187:
186:
179:
176:
170:
164:
158:
157:
156:
152:
151:
148:
145:
139:
138:
137:
134:
128:
122:
116:
113:
112:
109:
103:
91:
88:
87:
86:
85:
81:
80:
77:
74:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
681:
678:
664:
651:
645:
629:
602:
597:
583:
572:
564:
560:
548:
533:
528:
512:
503:
499:
494:
474:
465:
460:
448:
445:
442:
436:
433:WP:JIMBOSAID
399:
394:
392:
366:
344:
339:
317:
314:
311:
282:
279:
276:
248:
213:
192:
188:
149:
146:
143:
114:
89:
78:
75:
72:
67:
45:
43:
31:
28:
584:Weak Delete
382:Jimbo Wales
214:Weak delete
189:Weak delete
115:Strong Keep
241:db-userreq
90:Undecided:
655:Shruti14
299:TomasBat
264:TomasBat
227:TomasBat
162:Djmckee1
120:Djmckee1
100:Dspradau
51:xaosflux
634:Jaranda
589:Laleena
567:Majorly
481:Captain
93:book.--
665:Delete
646:Delete
630:Delete
598:Delete
519:Bagel7
495:Delete
475:Delete
461:Delete
446:ndonic
404:acĸrм
315:ndonic
280:ndonic
147:ndonic
76:ndonic
46:Delete
604:: -->
500:Gizza
486:panda
466:Alpta
367:Keep:
340:Keep:
249:Alpta
16:<
669:jc37
620:<
574:talk
543:chat
529:Keep
513:Keep
437:this
418:sign
412:talk
395:just
174:Sign
168:Talk
132:Sign
126:Talk
48:. —
415:|
577:)
409:(
387:”
376:“
246:.
244:}}
238:{{
205:)
165:-
123:-
618:t
616:n
614:a
612:i
610:d
608:a
606:R
571:(
545:}
541:{
449:O
443:A
421:)
401:j
353:.
350:V
347:.
318:O
312:A
294:♠
283:O
277:A
259:♠
222:♠
203:O
201:2
199:H
197:(
171:-
150:O
144:A
129:-
105:♠
95:♠
79:O
73:A
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.