Template talk:Retired/Archive 1

Protection

Why is this protected? Dabbydabby (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

To prevent edits like this one probably. Ty 03:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

But that is an edit made by an IP. What about a semi-protection? Dabbydabby (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, we should get the protection level changed to semi-protection. 3 IP vandalism edits doesn't cons

Indented line

titute this measure to me. --.:Alex:. 09:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:HRT. —Animum (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Change please

{{editprotected}}

We need to fix the centering (extra space at the right), so change it to:

RETIRED

This, that and the other _[talk] 10:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

 Not done have you got any idea what that looks like on IE7? :D Happy‑melon 21:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, IE7 makes a mess of it. Any better way of fixing the problem...? This, that and the other _[talk] 07:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

For those who don't know, it looks like the E and D are bunched up together while the rest of the letters aren't. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Category

{{editprotect}} Please categorize this template by adding the following:

<noinclude>
[[Category:User talk header templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:Wikipedia]]
[[Category:Wikipedia-related user templates]]
</noinclude>

Regards. --Tombstone (talk) 04:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Ty 04:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved doc to {{documentation}} style page so anyone can edit it. --CapitalR (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel we should make a category called Category:Retired Wikipedia users. This is to make it easier to find retired users, and not only would it make it easier, but make it more efficient as well. If the category is made, I wish for this template to automatically categorize all editors using this template in the suggested category. Is this a good procedure?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

{{editprotected}} Please revert the edits if possible. I believe we should have some sort of discussion before switching it over (I don't particularly like this one anyhow). I'd be in support of another "epic change", as the old one wasn't 'good' either, but not to the proposed one. –blurpeace ^(talk) 07:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Support this reversion to the old template. The new one is ugly, and was done without discussion. We should follow WP:BRD now. Firestorm ^Talk 07:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to be as blunt by saying it's ugly, but yes, I do agree. The new one is no where near as good as the old one. –blurpeace ^(talk) 07:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. I must say though that I support the spirit in which the edits were made, but yes, the appearance left something to be desired. Let the discussion commence. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for being reasonable about my rash changes. I am glad that, at the very least, a discussion has started over how to change the template. Also, while you're at it, revert my edits to {{semi-retired}}. —harej (talk) 08:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

--MZMcBride (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I approve. I hope others do, too. —harej (talk) 05:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I made the border less dark, if you don't mind. —harej (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I support this one. Seems basic enough and gets the idea across. –blurpeace ^(talk) 20:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems okay to me, though I might have liked to see the word "retired" somewhere on it. Firestorm ^Talk 02:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Retired
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

—harej (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I reverted back to black. It's been in use for a long time quite happily (!) by numerous users. I suggest possible solutions: a) have two templates in use, so users can choose for themselves (it will be interesting to see which gets the most usage) or b) have an option to change the colour background. Users should not be deprived of stark solemnity, if they are inclined towards it... Ty 02:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There are parameters for changing the background color, font color, and border color, if a user desires doing so. While users are certainly allowed to bask in their stark solemnity, they can do so by changing the template parameters. We don't need to, nor should we, actively enable dramatics. I've updated the template documentation to incorporate the extra parameters. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you can't use the parameters to make the old template appear if you want the new one. For users who think the new version is very ugly (including myself), the old version is at User:Protactinium-231/Template:Retired if anyone cares. ²³¹₉₁Pa (chat me!) 06:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted. There is no consensus to move away from long standing usage. Other options can be programmed in, if the user wishes. Talk of "dramatics" is somewhat dramatic in itself. Ty 15:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There are several people supporting a newer version on this talk page. I see harej, Firestorm, me, and blurpeace. What kind of consensus are you looking for? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Protactinium-231 and I are opposing it. Furthermore, it is has been in use in its present form since June 2007 and is transcluded on over 1000 pages. Those users are entitled to keep the design they have used and not have a new one appear on their page. There are now as below two more users opposing the change to this, so there is certainly no consensus for it now. The obvious solution, per below, is to put the new design at Template:Retired2, so that users can have a choice. Ty 16:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I used to be Firestorm. Just dropping in to say that for those who have already transcluded the template, it should stay as-is. However, I like the idea of a less dramatic one to be an option for those who choose to retire in the future. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose new ugly look, the old one looks much better. The white one is ugly. Instead of pushing a completely new design, why not create template:Retired2. If you insist on changing this template, call a RFC first,and see what the community decides, this is a very popular template. Ikip 10:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• I support the black template per User:Ty...Modernist (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Add a link to Special:contributions

It is shocking how many people abuse this template, and are not actually 'retired' at all (i.e. not editing at all) while still displaying it on their pages. Considering that many readers are not even aware of how to check if an account is active or not, I propose a small change to the template to display the user's contributions page, by adding the line See their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/{{BASEPAGENAME}} last edits] to the template, as shown below. It works whether the retired tag is placed on the user page or talk page. The below example even works on this page, because weirdly we actually have a User named Retired (talk · contribs), with one edit to his name.

RETIRED

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia. See their last edits

Thoughts?

MickMacNee (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be against that, sorry. It's true that there are a lot of people who just can't stay away from Wikipedia, and this proposal would be like teasing them about it. I understand that you didn't intend it that way, though. Maybe we could make it optional. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm contemplating a wider Rfc on this template, as I've learned more about how it is and isn't used since posting the above. MickMacNee (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it necessary to use up editor time that could be more productively spent on, erm, editing articles? It's been in use for over two years with no great problem. When it was started the edit summary was "why not have a template instead of copying code?". It's just a convenience, and if editors want to use it, it's their decision. It has no great significance. No doubt they mean to retire at the time, and if they eventually don't or can't, no doubt they'll remove the template in due course. In the meantime, I guess it indicates intent - the spirit is willing... Ty 01:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There have been problems, it might be you just aren't aware of them. You might be of the opinion that general misuse is not that important in the grand scheme of things, but unfortunately there are always going to exist new users who don't know the insignificance of it, and by its appearance are no doubt fooled into thinking it means a user (or account?) has permanently retired, as described in the usage instructions. And it also appears in the numerous policies and guidelines about account names and socking etc, so it does have some formal status, if someone chooses to use it. MickMacNee (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

An example of the issues:

• Blocks and drama when other people attempt to place it on retired user's pages against their wishes, who either ignore the instructions that only the user can place/remove it, or pionty behaviour from people who think that if we have a template, it should not be optional
• Blocks and drama when other people attempt to have it used per the instructions, when someone has placed it on their page but are not complying with the usage instructions
• Disingenuous use by people who want to dial down the scrutiny when being discussed at ANI or the like, removing it when they return when the dust has settled (and in some cases not even removing it then, instead entering a semi retired state, again without changing to the appropriate template)
• Disingenuous use by people who have not retired, but have simply been blocked indefinitely
• Potentially disingenuous use by people who have not actually left Wikipedia, but have just changed username (without it being a WP:CLEANSTART)
• Infact, general confusion over whether the 'retiree' is the person or the account at all
• Widespread continuation of editing by 'retired' users who are actually just semi-retired (enough to make me simply doubt the claim whenever I see the template, and always have to reach for Special:Contributions to check properly, hence the original post)

I have wintessed all of these issues personally, and the last problem is widespread (just choose random people from What Links Here to see). I am sure there are more too, this was just a quick run down from experience. In short, yes this template is insignficiant, but it is optional too, and to my mind, if people actually 'opt in' and choose to use it, then the usage instructions that already exist whould be followed, or they should be removed and its meaninglesslness properly outlined to those people whe aren't aware of the realities and the flaky informality of it. If it is too 'harsh' to point this out to addicts who want to retire but can't, then maybe the existence of the template is also harsh, and they would do better not having it around as a temptation, and then they can inform others with a personalised message stating their intentions. MickMacNee (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Anything can be misused, and it is the misuse that needs to be addressed, as there are people who use it properly. Certainly the conditions of its proper use should be emphasized and enforced, if necessary with a bot that removes the template, should the editor make any subsequent edits. The use of {{Semi-retired}} would seem to be more appropriate for a number of users, and the alternative of this can be highlighted on the Retired template page (which it's not at the moment). Removing the template will not remove the problem, as it's easy enough for a user to put their own message, conveying exactly the same thing, and, if stated improperly, causing all the same difficulties you have outlined. Ty 16:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Goodbye templates

Are there any goodbye templates? thanks. Ikip (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Use by non-retired editors

Should this template be allowed for use by editors that aren't retired? Canterbury Tail talk 12:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It might be in poor taste, but users are generally allowed to do whatever they want in their own userspace. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 12:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I was thinking, just is confusing when you see users with the retired template who are very active. Canterbury Tail talk 12:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Users who want to return

I notice there used to be a template for those who come back from retirement, an Unretired template. Now it seems to be gone. Why was it removed, and why not reinstate it? It has a use. 68.236.155.129 (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

i agree. We should definitely recover the template before it gets creation-protected.

Use on IP addresses

I'd be curious to hear what the community thinks about the concept of IPs retiring. IMHO, they cannot as the IP address lease will eventually be released. Toddst1 (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess if a new user starts editing from that IP then they could remove the retired banner. Or maybe on an IP address user page there should be a little note at the bottom like below. Comments? meshach (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

RETIRED

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.  If you have this IP address and you want to contribute you may want to create an account.

In case anyone ever finds a use for it...

Something I quickly threw together a long time ago. It's based on one of the standardised templates, but I could never be bothered getting it implemented in it. It also has another option that slightly resembles the monochrome "This user has left Wikipedia" userbox. It is very broken however. If anyone ever wants to ever use it, fix it, make fun of it, whatever; then go right ahead and do it. I want nothing more to do with it. I just didn't want to waste it. --.:Alex:. 08:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

{{User:.:Alex:./Sandbox5 | type = retired | textstyle = color: white; font-weight: bold; | text = <div style="text-align: center;"><div style="letter-spacing: 20px"> RETIRED</div>This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.</div> }}

I've <nowiki>ed the example in this comment, because it somehow manages to break the layout of this talk page. Might be interesting if you or someone else manages to fix it, though. --ais523 11:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from ais523, 28 October 2010

{{edit protected}} (Nice to see there's a fancy new wizard for these {{editprotected}} requests!) After checking that my suggested fix doesn't break in Internet Explorer or the Webkit-based browsers (I don't have them handy on this computer to make sure), could an admin please replace this template with its sandbox? The change is the addition of an invisible character &zwj; to the start of the text in the template, in order to get the text centering right. (At least on Firefox, the centering is calculated including the spacing after each character; thus space after the final D is counted, but not before the initial R. This means that the text is oddly skewed to the left, without the addition of an invisible character at the start to balance it.) --ais523 11:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, using zwj for that purpose doesn't seem appropriate. Also has 0 effect on the problem in Webkit, because it just ignores the zwj char when used this way. I made an alternative suggestion in the sandbox. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That seems to work in Firefox, at least, so it's probably better than my fix. I wonder if it works in IE6, which has a bizarre interpretation of the box model? --ais523 13:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Is the sandbox version ready to deploy? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

done. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

How does one "retire" from a hobby?

This is a dumb term to use, and if it wasn't so widely used I'd AfD TfD this. -- œ^™ 11:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hear hear! hare j 04:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

True. It would be more apt saying:

TIRED

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

in my opinion.—John Cline (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe add rounded edges?

I thought maybe some rounded edges might look nice. Not sure what you think. I think it looks nice. Here are a few styles. (Enclosed my post inside an emphasisbox just to

RETIRED

RETIRED

RETIRED

I also thought the spacing should be changed to be more, not sure what you think either. The font size has been reduced, and the spacing increased.

RETIRED

I also don't entirely like the outside border, which, I personally would want it to be like this:

RETIRED

What changes do you like, and not like. Idofen (talk | contribs | January 25)

So you want to use CSS3 (Border-Radius)? Note that Internet Explorer 8 (or older) and some old modern browsers are unsupported... --yuta*ﾟ (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

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.

• shrug* DS (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

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. -- œ^™ 20:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

Seems reasonable. What about an option like {{retired|unsubscribe=yes}}? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

@Technical 13: It's broken though. Index No. 2019-974044 (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

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)

I had the same question, particularly when User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz has been banned. The See also link is not relevant to this template. --Peculiar Investor (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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 Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thank you for putting that part of my argument far more elegantly than I could. Dpmuk (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

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)]

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Like it was stated above, when you retire you leave. It's just common sense that the "Retired template" (Or any exact duplicate with the word "Retired" ) on it should not be used on the userpage of any user that's still editing. KoshVorlon 18:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

But it's equally common sense that after people declare their intention not to do something any more, they may occasionally do the something from time to time.

If I saw someone with that big black RETIRED template on their user page, but then noticed that they'd made a few edits since then, I'd smile and think to myself, "Guess he couldn't quite walk away after all." But I wouldn't be confused about the situation, or angry at him for "misleading" me.

Do people really expect that if a retired editor notices a mistake on Wikipedia and wants to correct it, they must (a) delete the RETIRED template, (b) make the edit, and then (c) reapply the RETIRED template? (It'd be easier to just log out and make the edit anonymously. Perhaps that's the right thing to do, if this template's documentation is accurate and is intended to be applied strictly.)

I ask again, what unfair advantage is gained, what problem is caused, if a retired editor makes an edit now and then? —Steve Summit (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The template was originally created in June of 2007, with the simple instruction to use if you're fully retired, and to use "Semi-retired" if still editing occasionally. It was that way for almost a year, and then a user named CapitalR, with no apparent discussion on this talk page, created the rule instructing other users to remove it if it's being used erroneously.[1] That user is still active, although his one edit today was his first since March. Should he be summoned here to provide an explanation and/or other input? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The CaptialR edit was the inclusion of the doc subpage -- the addition of the any user can remove was done here [2]. In any event, no one has provided any reason to be all bureaucratic about the template usage. The way I've always interpreted that template is that, if I go to a user page to post a typical / required notification, and there's a retired template, I skip that step. (e.g. If I'm going to request a page be unprotected, and go to the protecting admin's page to discuss.) It provides no "advantage" in interaction. It's always been that way is a cop-out, not a reason to do something, and I don't consider it "misleading" when Wikipedia software tracks edits on both a user and page level, and makes those records easy to find. NE Ent 10:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

People shouldn't use this template if they are still editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.138.243.243 (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)