Jump to content

Template talk:Retired

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dpmuk (talk | contribs) at 05:00, 3 December 2015 (→‎Template usage: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Conditions

Would it be at all possible to modify the template so that it can only be used by accounts that have a significant number of edits (say, >100)?

Because instances like this are just stupid.

I'm thinking that if such an account tries to use the template, they would instead get "this user is claiming to have retired but was never actually serious" or something.

I'm sure it's possible, and it's a good idea. I'd do it if I knew how. I deleted the above userpage. -- Ϫ 20:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There currently is no way to retrieve edit count of a user through template means so this cannot be done. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Add category

In order to categorize all user pages that transclude this template without the use of a bot, the following Wikicode should be added: 

{{user other | [[Category:Retired Wikipedia editors]] }}

I created the proposed revision of the template in a user subpage.

There's already a list at [1]. I'm not sure this category would be such a good idea because (although I haven't looked up the exact numbers) the vast majority of editors here are retired and most don't use that template to announce it. Tra (Talk) 02:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think this would be useful in a variety of ways. We could additionally have people listed by the year they retired. Although that won't provide a definitive figure, it could at least allow for some more meaningful analysis of editor retention.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fake retirements

User:PleaseStand has a nice little script at User:PleaseStand/User_info that, in part, tells you how long it's been since someone last edited. Is it possible to incorporate something like that into this template? I'm thinking about a simple text line underneath the template that says, "This user last edited ____ ago". WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's been asked before, and the conclusion was that it'd be unnecessarily confrontational to force that upon everyone. You can always just install the script if you want to see it for your eyes only. —Soap— 16:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have installed it, of course, but I think that even casual users and IPs would benefit from knowing whether the allegedly retired person is still editing (at least occasionally). "Retired, but last edited 3 days ago" gives you hope that your question for the user might be answered. "Retired, but last edited 15 months ago" encourage you to ask somewhere else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Javascript wouldn't work, and I thought I once saw a magic word that would show how long it's been since someone has last edited, but it doesn't seem to be on Help:Magic words or the mediawiki.org version of the same page, so maybe it's not possible after all. —Soap— 15:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Please remove the distracting extra line of whitespace from this template which currently renders as:


RETIRED


This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

causing it to render as:


RETIRED
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Thank you.—John Cline (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected I've reduced the protection level to semi-protection, as there were only 3000 transclusions. You should be able to edit it yourself now. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from mass messages

I just modified this template so any user talk page carrying it is in Category:Opted-out of message delivery, meaning they won't get newsletters, etc. Feel free to revert if this is a problem. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted because there are a few reasons that this should not be the case.
  1. The notion that a user has 'opted out of message delivery' when they have not is a bit misleading for the title of the category 'opted out'. They have not done such and to make the choice for them by applying it to their template is also kind of intruding on their personal settings. They assigned to get said messages on Wikipedia. To add the cat to their page without their permission is intruding on their decisions when they were active.
  2. People who are retired may login every once in a while and check their watchlist, or do other things. There's no way to tell if they don't make an edit. But seeing a rather silly WP:SIGNPOST or a newsletter about Sports (Don't know the name) may inspire these disgruntled, disillusioned editors to come back and resume editing; improving their wikihope. Small little things like that can influence whether they come back and become active.
  3. Some individual editors who's been blocked for long periods of time have deliberately removed themselves from the category, and again would be intruding on their choice. Tutelary (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made the ability to easily opt-out of message delivery by adding a |mms= parameter when set to "no" will opt the user out of message delivery. Please update the documentation as you see fit Oiyarbepsy. The idea is "do you want mass messages? yes/no" if "no" then opt-out. :) Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable. What about an option like {{retired|unsubscribe=yes}}? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems more verbose to me, but if you think it is clearer, I really don't care. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2015

Rrrglynn (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Retired[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also section

Is there a reason that User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/RED is linked in the See also section? I don't think it makes sense to have one user's custom "Retired" template linked to from this page. --Amlz (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template usage

I object to the statements that say this template should only be used if you plan to permanently stop editing. I see no consensus for this, been around for a long time, yes, consensus no. I suspect the reason it's stayed for so long without objection is that most people who see the retired template never actually look at the template itself. The statement that "retired" means "permanently stopped editing" seems to be backed by no policy or guideline. WP:RETIRED is an essay and I don't see any evidence of wide consensus there either. In the circumstances I think WP:UP which gives users latitude on what's on their user page takes precedence and we should not be so prescriptive here.

Obviously I have a reason for suggesting this. I recently had the template removed from my page because I edited. I was not aware that the template usage said to remove it and I suspect most users also aren't aware of this definition of retired - especially as the template doesn't link to any definition of retired. I think the definition of "never going to edit again" is at odds with the common usage of "retired" in the wider world. Retired people often carry on in the field they were in before, although normally at a lower level of activity. Additionally people regularly come out of retirement and I could give more similar examples.

As I say I suspect most users aren't aware of this definition of retired given that it isn't in any policy or guideline. However even if it were I think it is exceedingly unhelpful to have a definition that, in my opinion, goes against the common usage of the word as I would imagine the vast majority of users that arrive at user pages probably aren't aware of most of our policies and guidelines anyway. To me "retired" does not mean "never going to edit again" and using it in this way seems likely to confuse many editors. Hence I think we should leave the use of this template up to the user except in those cases where it's obviously being used to mislead or game the system. And to be specific I don't think having this template on your user page and still editing should be considered misleading.

A template that says "This user is never going to edit again" (more elegantly worded) is a useful template but it's my contention that a template that says "retired" neither is, nor should it be, that template. Dpmuk (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of retired is "Leave one’s job and cease to work" and "they have ​stopped ​working ​permanently". The template was created for users to include on their talk pages if they ceased editing. Going all the way back to 2008 the template documentation has included instructions to use {{semi-retired}} if one is going to only edit occasionally as opposed to cease editing altogether. To use the retired template when one is not actually retired is deliberately misleading to other editors and contradicts the entire purpose of the template, which is to inform others that you no longer edit Wikipedia. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I disagree with some of that. While I broadly agree with the definitions you give I don't follow that they mean that a simple "retired" should mean "retired from editing wikipedia". To use me as an example I have retired from being an admin and my copyright work and that's what I'm using the template to mean, hence I do not see it as misleading. I then state under it that I still edit occasionally. I see this as in keeping with the definition you give. If the template said "retired from editing wikipedia" that would be different but it does not. I also note that the definitions you give do not say "leave one's job and stop being involved in that field in anyway" which is what you are suggesting we use it to mean. As I say I think a template that says "never editing wikipedia" again is useful - I just don't think this template in it's current form can be that. Dpmuk (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any discussion of the documentation wording which appears to have been added by one editor in May 2012 (diff). It's rare to see such didactic language in a policy, let alone in the doc page for an entirely optional user page decoration. If someone is being pointy in various ways, and is using this template, it would be reasonable to conclude the template was being misused and some kind of resolution should occur, such as raising the pointy behavior at ANI. However, getting pushy with an editor merely because they have, perhaps temporarily, lost their enthusiasm is not helpful. If someone makes a comment or an edit, it is obvious they are not actually retired. Johnuniq (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"If someone makes a comment or an edit, it is obvious they are not actually retired." Correct, John. And therefore the template should be removed from said user's talkpage. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, at best it's obvious they're not actually retired from all wikipedia editing. In my example I am using the retired template to show that I am retired from being an admin and copyright work. I still maintain that "retired" nor any other part of this template implies that the editor will never edit wikipedia again. Dpmuk (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"This user is no longer active on Wikipedia" means you are no longer editing. But you are editing, so that template is not appropriate. What you should do is use another template, such as Semi-retired, whose description reads "This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia." That gives you a lot more wiggle room. Or, if all else fails, create one of your own, for example this one, which I constructed a few years ago:
HEMI-DEMI-SEMI-RETIRED
This here user is still pretty active on Wikipedia but has to sleep sometime.
←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't, and still don't interpret, "no longer active on wikipedia" to mean no editing whatsoever. Active to me means regular and consistent contributions. I see no consensus (yet) for your interpretation. I would be against such a consensus as it's obvious from the discussion here that "retired" means different things to different people and having it mean a very specific thing on wikipedia is likely to be more confusing to editors rather than less. Dpmuk (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you be honest and post the "semi-retired" template instead? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AGF, Bugs, AGF. He's already explained why he thinks the word "Retired" is more appropriate. He is not trying to deceive anyone (and he's not deceiving me.) —Steve Summit (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the words on the template are meaningless, then what is the purpose of the template? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I say I interpret those words differently to you. Please try to assume good faith and accept that. Dpmuk (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a thought experiment. Suppose I retire from my job, whole nine yards, cheesy party, awkward speeches, gold watch.
A month later I take a break from the golf course and come back to the office to say "hi" to my old friends. One of them says, "Hey, what about the frobnicator on the wibbitijib you designed? Was it supposed to grinkle or flex?"
Now, I could smile slyly and say, "Sorry, I'm retired, can't help you", but suppose I decide to answer. Do alarm bells go off? Does a functionary from accounting rush up with fresh W-2 forms for me to sign since I'm obviously no longer "retired" and must therefore, by some imaginarily strict logical system, again be "employed"? —Steve Summit (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for putting that part of my argument far more elegantly than I could. Dpmuk (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What problem is caused if a user displaying this "Retired" template then occasionally edits? Or, stated another way, what unfair advantage does he gain? —Steve Summit (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC) [edited 23:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)][reply]

Define "occasionally". Besides which, we have another template for that: "semi-retired". Any user who posts a "retired" yet continues to edit is basically acting like a jerk. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the user in question has taken suggestions to make his banner clearer, so that should fix the problem. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I disagree that it fixes the general problem. We may (and we shall have to wait and see if we do) have a solution in my specific case. However it seems clear to me that what constitutes retired is a grey area - some users such as you think one edit is enough to come out of retirement, others want more substantial editing (see for example the argument by scs above). Given this I think the wording on this template that suggests even one edit takes you out of retirement needs modifying as there appears to be no consensus for such a strict interpretation, especially as people as using it as a reason to edit people users pages (which goes against WP:UP).
As an aside I accept in my case "retired" was causing enough confusion that the template needed changing. However I can imagine cases where that is not the case (e.g. the example given by scs, especially if it's a minor edit).
So I have two concrete proposals:
  1. The template be modified to have a parameter that more easily allows the modification of the template for cases similar to mine.
  2. The template documentation be changed as follows:
    • Add a sentence that the template can be modified if a user is only retiring from certain roles.
    • Replace "Retiring" so the text reads (change in bold) The default retirement template implies that you will not resume editing at any later date. If there is any significant chance that you might eventually return, then it is preferable to announce an indefinite {{Wikibreak}}.
    • Remove entirely the sentence "Editors should promptly remove this template from their user pages if they resume editing for any reason." as there does not seem to be consensus for such a strict interpretation. (I would not be opposed to a drastic change to this sentence to reflect what has been discussed here although my preference is for complete removal).
I want to also make clear that I would not use these changes as an excuse to restore the default template to my pages. However I think my situation has highlighted some problems with the current template that need fixing for other users. Dpmuk (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"No longer active" means exactly what it says: If you're editing, you're active. If you're not active, you're not editing. But you've got the fix for it: You make the point that there should be a parameter to allow the user to modify it. That's what I accomplished with my hemi-demi-semi thing, except that was a custom text box, which shouldn't be necessary for the average editor. The default should still be what it is now, so as not to break the countless other occurrences of the template throughout wikipedia. The template already allows the default to be overridden with a statement like the one you put on your page. The colors can be changed too. And the strict rule could be softened to say that removal should only be required if the default wording was used. Then everyone should be happy. I recommend using something other than black for "not-quite" retired, as black equates to "death". See examples below. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retired
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of December 2015 due to being elected president of Sealand..
RETIRED PERMANENTLY
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of December 2015 due to wife telling me to stop..
Retired
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of NOW!!!.
Retired
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of December 2015 unless I feel the urge..


Ha, after all our disagreements over the last couple of days there's almost nothing there I disagree with. Still don't agree with your view of active, although I do accept it's a valid view, but I think it's obvious we have to agree to differ on that and take the differing views into account when changing the template. I would add that the "strict" rule should be written in such a way as to not suggest that user's should just remove it from another user's page without discussion, if only to try to avoid misunderstandings such as my case. I really like the colour idea, maybe we should have two default colours, one for the default or currently existing alt message one if the message is changed to something else. Dpmuk (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we get agreement on making changes and no one else comes forward I may be able to make the changes - my template editing skills are very rusty and I'm about to move to a new job in a new country - so I'd prefer someone else did it but I probably can if need be. Dpmuk (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment after edit conflict. The reason parameter is close to what we're discussing but not quite it as the first bit of text of that line remains. Shouldn't be hard to add a new parameter to change the whole line. Dpmuk (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take my challenging words personally. :) And, yes, the template could easily be changed to modify the entire sentence. Regarding the rules: It should be modified to say something like, if the template is confusing, TALK TO THE USER! And maybe cite the user page document (wherever it may be) in support of not just whacking something from another user's page. There are times when it's necessary. This isn't it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, which is what I was trying to achieve when I edited the documentation although I will admit to my implementation being less than ideal! Dpmuk (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Retired&oldid=693536380"