Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 31

< January 30	February 1 >

January 31, 2006

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

The result of the debate was RENAME....but to what I am not sure. Someone else can decide that, but the outcome of this debate is a 'keep'. -Splash^talk 01:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Humornotaccepted

"This page is humor and not policy"; well duh, if pages are humoristic (which is generally obvious) they are not policy (which is generally obvious from the lack of a {{policy}} tag). Hardly in use, and generally shouldn't be used either. R adiant _>|< 15:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh... What an awlful name for this. Rename and Keep--God of War 19:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Template:Humor. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a reasonable tag for pages which are parodies of policy pages, and which might be mistaken for policy pages by soem user. The name might be improved. How about {{policyparody}}? In any case, Keep. DES ^(talk) 16:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename to HumorIntent or something like that. Sct72 04:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and keep - is {{officialhumor}} taken? -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per others, but keep. I realize that was a bad name for a template (it was my decision). However, it still makes sense to have it because some may take parodies as "policy" (to prevent anyone from assuming bad faith when such faith should be good). A merge could work too, but this should not be the name. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above. Useful template. - Liberatore(T) 18:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Ding, ding. -Splash^talk 01:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User pacifist3

This user thinks pacifists make good target practice.

Delete — Absolutely offensive and unnecessary userbox. Definitely needs to be deleted as per Jimbo's "no polemical userboxes" statement. Cyde Weys 00:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because they are great target practice. --Daniel 00:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously, WTF is your problem? Do you even realize what you are saying? You're advocating shooting innocent people!! --Cyde Weys 02:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Do you really think people are going to read this template then go out shooting people. Have a sense of Humor!¡!¡!¡! - seriously you guys need to relax with this userbox deletion nonsense.--God of War 02:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - It's funny. Laugh. —Andux 03:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Offensive. 84.59.67.92 03:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we already know this nomination is going to end with no consensus, so why bother even doing it? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Offensive and insulting. Advocates violins. May open Wikipedia to legal action if advice followed. Herostratus 04:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If anyone thinks this is actually going to induce people into shooting or throwing or projectile rages at pacifists, please get a clue and calm down. This is why pacifists make good target practice, they get so worked up over nothing, its easy to spot them. :-)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pookster11 (talk • contribs)
Keep - Absolutely innocent and hilarious user box. Definitely needs to be kept per Jimbo's complete statement. --Dschor 08:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what you mean by his complete statement. Do you mean the one where he said the following? "Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian" He went on to plead for people to remove them, lest mass deletions should ultimately prove necessary[1]. Since then, when asked about a partial quote of the abovem he has clarified that "I think most of the userboxes should be deleted, but I am hopeful that instead we will slowly reach a cultural shift in which we educate people what's wrong with the ones that are bad." [2]. Well I'm trying to do my bit by educating you (if that's the right word) about why this kind of userbox is bad. It's bad because it divides us, as Wikipedians, into two groups: pacifists and those who mock the non-violent aspirations of pacificists by joking about killing them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thats a scary comment, and while I doubt Mr. Wales meant it in the way your portraying, its a rather fascist and one sided way of looking at the topic. Are you proposing that those who disagree with you have no point and are in fact either mistaken or simply haven't come around to you "enlightened" point of view yet? If you could please explain it would be helpful, especially as you seem to be an admin. I find the statement that "someday everyone will agree with you and until then they're just foolish" rather disturbing. pookster11 01:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is "fascist" the new buzzword these days? How come all of a sudden I see people using the word "fascism" to describe anything they sort of disagree with? It's ridiculous and it's a disservice to people who suffered under real fascism. If fascism was out to get you, you'd know it. Until that happens, please step down off the rhetoric. I don't think the word means what you think it means. --Cyde Weys 02:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fascist as in the use of authoritative force to impose a singular ideology, in this case an admin stating, implicitly, that his/her view on the current issue is the correct view, and soon all of the unenlightened will come around to that view. pookster11 05:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo has implicit authority over this project so when he takes a side in a conflict like this we should all be concerned.--God of War 04:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm an ultra-liberal pacifist and I've got no beef with others freedom of speech. --Dragon695 08:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm a pacifist myself, but it doesn't stop me from being amused by this userbox. -Chairman S. 13:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's mockery. Perhaps it should be edited to say the same thing without using Wikipedia's public template space to deliver a harsh statement attacking people for their political beliefs. I definitely think that it's a good example of why Jimbo Wales is thinking in terms of mass deletions of such boxes, should we not be able to agree, as a group, to limit our abuse of template space for personal ends.. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree (shockingly) with Tony Sidaway. "Antipacifism" is not a real ideology, and the template is an intentional jibe. If it's a joke, it's in poor taste enough to not be worth keeping. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 13:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, a "real idealogoy". What makes an idealogy real? If it is listed in a textbook does that make it more real? please explain yourself.--God of War 04:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Freedom of speech and opinion - • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 14:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, it's funny but it strikes me as intended to be hurtful rather than a serious way to gain understanding of a user's feelings about matters likely to affect the user's editing. Not all funny jokes are worthy of retention. Stuff like this userbox weakens the case for userbox advocates. IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 15:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Freedom in Userspace. Larix 15:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lar. Funny does not equal helpful. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Think before you delete userboxes. Why can we keep {{User GWB}} but not this? Ashibaka tock 20:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yawm, how many more of these userboxes arguments do we need, come on people calm to down and relax a bit. --Horses In The Sky 20:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably just enough until they are banned by decree. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, uncivil. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inappropriate use of Wikipedia resources. Jkelly 22:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's politically incorrect to be sure, but it's far from the only one avaliable. -Loren 02:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This template makes good target practice. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 03:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think it is one thing for a userbox to make a positive statement about the user's belief (e.g. Template:User freedom) and another thing to make a statement of violent opposition to the beliefs of others. I definitly support POV in user boxes and on user pages (just look at my user page, if you don't believe me), but I am not sure about this one. Yes, it is amusing, but if that's all you're looking for, go contribute to the Uncyclopedia. ~~The only reason I hesitate to vote to delete it is that~~ I don't want to give strength to those who want a mass userbox deletion. Cmadler 12:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Hauker and Mícheál. Also, either it is meant to be facetious or it is meant to advocate violence. If the former, it is simply in poor taste. If the latter it should be removed. I hope and believe that it was intended to be facetious, but as I can not read the mind of the creator, I am forced to consider the possiblity that violence was intended. As free speech is not absolute IRL, so much more so in Wikipedia. ("Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia, and, as a means to that end, an online community.") No one in this discussion has suggested any way, however small, in which this template advances (or could advance) the online encyclopedia. Cmadler 13:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't agree with it, but it's about time we saw userboxes the same way we saw schools last year. Hopefully those who oppose get the message in regards to this debate; this is a marginal box, and it's not close to gaining consensus for deletion. Karmafist 12:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a good contrast to bring in, but I don't agree with the parallelism. The people who wanted high standards of notability for schools mostly found it easy to look the other way when they lost AfDs. Those claiming harm from attack, divisive and poll-stacking userboxes find it harder to remain cool about the harm. This issue has been much fiercer than the schools issue, and I don't think there is much chance it will work out in much the same way as that did. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 03:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "See userboxes the way (some people) see schools" made me want to throw up my Subway sub. Needless, stupid and irrelevant box. Marskell 18:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Sorry to inject POV here, but maybe you should consider a different brand or type of sub sandwich vendor? Some brands or types are quite a bit easier to keep down than others. HTH HAND (in particular that was supposed to be funny AND helpful, unlike the box, which is merely funny, as I opined above) ++Lar: t/c 18:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd suggest that when vomiting is induced by terror or incredulity it matters little what you've actually eaten. If I came to Wikipedia to discover, for instance, that WP:SCH had become a policy page my stomach would almost certainly empty reflexively. Marskell 19:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Charles Stewart --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 01:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some userboxes are tongue-in-cheek. Get used to it. Sct72 04:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and buy the nominator a sense of humor. Rogue 9 07:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Humour? Well, I personally think its a personal attack, and I'm said to have a pretty good sence of humour (please do not buy me another, I wan't people to be able to take me seriously too - thanks). Ian13|talk 21:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Oh, I thought it would be worth mentioning, I have not voted delete because I am against userboxes (I made the WikiProject!). I especially do not vote because of Jimbo's statement, which if was quoted in full, makes it quite clear just to ask people to stop using them, not enforce deletion of the sort. I strongly dislike negative POV userboxes, and I am quite happy about all others (non-specific etc.). Just thought I would clarify that. Ian13|talk 21:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the other card-carrying pacifists above I do find this quite offensive and I would rather not — "ha ha" — be used for target-practice. If the text said Buddhist monks rather than pacifists would it still be as "funny"? Would it be "funny" to say that vegetarians or Jews should be left to starve in a house full of bacon? People are free to post things like this on their user pages if they want to but there is no reason to use the template space for it. I would speedy-delete this but unfortunately the attack SDC is still limited to articles. But please respect those of us with an impaired sense of humour enough to delete this. We should not be using the Wikipedia printing press to churn out stickers advocating violence against any groups of people, however funny you find it to be. - Haukur 22:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a harmless hyperbolic matter of opinion...and people are entitled to their opinions. -- AmeriCan 11:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Absolutely offensive, not harmless and not funny, and as per Haukurth. --Perfecto 15:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hilarious Boddah 18:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Death to all opinion-expressing userboxes. --D e ath phoenix 20:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Anyone who honestly takes offense at something as silly as a userbox created by and used by people they never have met or ever will meet needs to step back and re-evaluate their lives. Internet. Serious business. TKarrde 22:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Let's find out who these creeps are. A quick click on "What links here" at the template page will give us a rundown. Keep the box and we'll keep track. Kelisi 00:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No sense of humour, eh? :) --Angelo 01:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per, inter al., AmeriCan, Larix, and Dussst (even as I am not in particular accord with the message of the template, inasmuch as I am largely a pacificist in disposition and surely a pacificist in belief about the proper role of governments/nation-states as military actors). Joe 03:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per a lot of aforementioned people. I even have this on my page, right next to my User:pacifist template.Thethinredline 13:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepIf you don't like it then don't use it!!! Sure, it's ofensive to some people (retards), but so is the "user thinks Bush is a sock puppet of Cheney" template. If this is deleted I will go out and propose the deletion of every single template that's pro Liberal.--Holocron 15:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, you may want to review WP:POINT before you do that. ++Lar: t/c 17:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't worry, I was just joking. :)--Holocron 21:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a joke, for goodness' sake! Aw crap, I guess I'm going to remove mine, if people are so damn idiotic that they take this seriously - people need to get real. Where is this statement of Jimbo's? Someone send me a link please? Cal 17:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all reasons above. The tone of the previous comment ("damn idiotic", "people need to get real", etc.) shows exactly why this kind of userboxes should not be created, let alone stay. - Liberatore(T) 18:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 19:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is clear this will not reach a consenus, an should therefore the proposed deletion should be dismissed Thethinredline 22:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's just a joke. Nobody's actually going to go aout and kill people because they saw this. Rory096 23:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 22:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cyde. Michael Slone (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under CSD T1. --Doc ^ask? 16:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. I disagree with the content but can see the obvious dark humor in it. Recommend speedy delete of CDS T1 policy instead. --CJ Marsicano 18:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep Jwissick ^(t)^(c) 01:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG delete would anyone be sticking up for this if 'pacifists' was replaced with 'jews' or 'gays'??? Mícheál 04:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To be honest, I probably would (and I'm a Jew myself), but the humor here is in the irony, since pacifists don't believe in violence, and so those would not really be humorous. Plus, people might actually take those seriously and actually do it, while everybody knows that this is a joke. --Rory0 96 17:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Like Rory said, its funny because of the irony. Gay people don't go around demoting violence, and neither do Jews. If you take this seriously then maybe the deletion of this template isn't the only thing you need to worry about...--Holocron 15:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The proletariat cannot be trusted not to take this at its word. Pschemp | ^Talk 05:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote of confidence is underwhelming. Anywho, I recommend CSD T1 for immediate speedy deletion on the grounds of being inherently and irreparably subjective. Rogue 9 08:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm far from being a pacifist myself, and I understand the irony that makes this different from an example like Mícheál's above, but judging by this TfD, it's a pretty divisive template, and it's just not funny enough to warrant this kind of argument. - dharmabum 00:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to add this is obviously a free speech issue. People should be able to put whatever they want on their user pages and if others are offended by that...so what. Freedom of speech isn't about not offending people, it's about expressing your beliefs. Even if it's in a hyperbolic and tongue-in-cheek way. -- AmeriCan 21:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is not a free speech issue. Wikipedia is hosted on private servers. The Foundation is not bound by any constitution or law to allow freedom of speech. The Foundation and the community may, and do, restrict speech in the interest of producing an NPOV encyclopedia. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 22:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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