Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 17 May 19 >

May 18, 2006

[edit]
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 Deleted by ALoan. Kusma (討論) 22:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-notagsupplied

[edit]

Template:Db-notagsupplied (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Speedy tag created to support a test proposal that did not pass. Stifle (talk) 16:14, 18 May 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 Deleted --Cyde↔Weys 11:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This, in spite of the fact that there was no valid reason given for deletion, and a majority of the comments favored a keep. Bizarre. --70.218.57.144 06:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User chav

[edit]

Template:User chav (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Userbox is a possible NPOV violation, also might entice vandalism on related user pages. -- Masterjamie 17:10, 18 May 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 Deleted --Cyde↔Weys 11:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This, in spite of the fact that there was no valid reason given for deletion, and a majority of the comments favored a keep. Bizarre. --70.218.57.144 06:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amen to that. Treima 19:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User notchav

[edit]

Template:User notchav (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Like the above, userbox is a possible NPOV violation, also might entice vandalism on related user pages. -- Masterjamie 17:10, 18 May 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 keep Circeus 22:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User not censored

[edit]

Template:User not censored (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) While Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, there are nevertheless restrictions on what, when, and where certain content can be used. Posting pictures of nudity on userpages would normally not be accepted, so why should it be allowed just because it is in a userbox?--Conrad Devonshire Talk 20:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Masterjamie 20:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until WP:MACK or similar procedures work. If you have problems with the image, the classic one is the one used in the revision here. I think the drawing with the censorship bars actually conveys the message better than the breasts do. Kusma (討論) 22:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Conrad hates boobies! I realize what you are trying to do is what you think is right for wikipedia, but I think that there is a slippery slope in this box. I think people chose it for the shock value rather than the content. --mboverload@ 23:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI—That statement violates wikipedia's No Personal Attacks Policy. Please Refrain. Thank you.
  • Keep. Hadn't read about the user page nudity ban before. --StuffOfInterest 01:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unencyclopedic template. --Cyde Weys 02:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete "While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, some articles may [as in doesn't have to] include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography) and provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view)". Also, "Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech." Stating that you know that Wikipedia is not censored in no way helps with contributions, and provoking wikipedia members (who may be browsing through the userbox templates) is trolling as defined by wikipedia. Ok on user space- NOT on Template Space. (If I want to see nudity- I'll go to porn articles) Macwiki 02:33, 19 May 2006*Keep. (UTC)
  • Comment I have restored the old image (so there is no nudity any more) and added the TfD tag. Please see WP:TFD#How to list templates for deletion for instructions. Kusma (討論) 02:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In the original form there was no shocking nudity. The userbox has now been restored to that form.--God Ω War 03:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Template space is not censored. --Bsmntbombdood 03:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since the userbox has been changed to a different form, this nomination should end now.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 03:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose you're withdrawing the nomination for deletion? -MrFizyx 04:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Strong Keep. Posting pictures of nudity on userpages are accepted (admin Cyde does it to much applause). And anyway, that has nothing to do with this template. Usually accusations of censorship in deletion discussions are rubbish, but this is one nomination where it is surprisingly apt. The nomination was made with the stated intention to censor, and that is not acceptable at all. Loom91 06:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per God of War. —Andux␅ 11:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all in-policy UBX. If you want to edit that policy to reflect your concerns, please do so. TfD is not the right place to create or subvert policy. John Reid 13:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine with keep on template space if it is removed from list of userboxes, because that picture is Shocking in contrast to other things on that page. Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs (That is with the photo that was on it) OK to stay if image NoCensor.png is used instead. 71.213.47.202 15:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep userbox templates. See policy UBX. TfD is not the right place to create or subvert policy. Templates do not have to be encyclopedic and not everyone has to get the joke (if there is one). Bastun 16:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Since when do we disallow nudity in userspace? --Rory096 21:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:UBX, Wikipedia:Userbox policy and T1. T2 is not valid at this time. JohnnyBGood t c 21:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 01:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Show me where this Wikipedia policy forbidding nudity in userspaces is, exactly. Beno1000 22:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep For exactly the reason that Beno1000 stated. Dakpowers | Talk 02:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For those that say that since there is no ban, we can post this...no. Just becaue Wikipedia isn't censored doesn't mean you should irresponsibly use sensitive material. I can say fuck all the time on Wikipedia, but should I add it to every sentence? The sensitive content should be generally restricted to relevant pages for the sake of decency -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. (sorry, cant log on so i put my traditional sig in)
  • Keep all right. Why ban it? There are millions of pages around pornography on this encyclopedia, and that user Cyde has trillions on his user subpage. And those images are real, so why delete this one? This one is a cartoon. Weirdy 07:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a cartoon. It's a real picture. We are not discussing censorship. We are discussing decency. We are not saying remove all porn and nude shots from Wikipedia. We are saying to use them conservatively. As I said before, I can say Fuck the bitch-loving cock-suckers all the time, but should I add it to my sig? Of course not. Plus the template isn't unencyclopædic and unWikipedic.-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 21:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's far more relevant to the encyclopedia than, say, the "This user needs More Cowbell" template that was kept a while back. True, it isn't exactly the most practical userbox, but until all of the 100% non-practical ones are gone, it's ridiculous to start deleting ones that are at least somewhat relevant. --Icarus 08:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if it's going to contradict itself, otherwise weak keep as a reminder of actual policy (i.e. Wikipedia, in fact, is not and should not be censored), but only if it uses a suitable image illustrating this concept. Otherwise the template is a waste of space. — May. 21, '06 [11:25] <freak|talk>
  • Incredibly Strong Keep. Wikipedia IS NOT CENCORED. Hezzy 18:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not as though the picture has any shock value. But Cyde has already said it's an unencyclopedic template, so no matter how many keep votes there are it'll probably be deleted anyway. Treima 22:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Perhaps change image, Not horrible not too POV it is a rule on Wikipedia which is uphelp so why not publicise it? Image could be changed if need be but I don't see a reason to. Mike Beckham 03:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Change Image. That particular entry on WP:NOT doesn't give a users a carte blanche to upload whatever image they want. If it did give users a carte blanche, then we would see images on Necrophilia and Mental Retardation, and it's generally preferred that we don't. --Shultz IV 03:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Wikipedia is not . Everyone's going to see breasts at some point *sigh* --Falcon9x5 12:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia isn't censored - • The Giant Puffin • 13:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no reason to delete it. If the picture is what is pissing most people off, then maybe alter it to another image, but deleting it entirely is fairly stupid. DemonWeb 15:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KEEP - say WHAT? (Ibaranoff24 17:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong KEEP - Wikipedia is NOT CENSORED! Why delete it? It's just a body part. mirageinred 20:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but change the picture to the former image as it is disruptive and unnecessary to illustrate the point being made. Pictures of breasts are appropriate on the articles on breasts, breast cancer, etc., but there's not a compelling, or even mildly convincing, need for it here. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 23:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dylan 05:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It isn't nudity for the sake of nudity, or outright pornography, as should be blocked in user pages. It's a statement, and a tiny picture of a pair of breasts. There is "sensitive material" elsewhere on the wikipedia, and a userpage seems like an appropriate place for it as it is not part of the main encyclopedia. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not for prudes. --Dragon695 01:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  02:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep. Personally, I don't care if the image is the Pioneer spacecraft line drawing with bars or the photograph of female breasts, but the template should stay. The point is important, and it seems to me that Wikipedia is the last place that the mental illness of thinking that certain body parts are somehow "evil" should be policy. Davidkevin 08:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I happen to prefer the Voyager line drawing, but then again I grew up on a steady diet of Carl Sagan books, so Voyager means a great deal to me. (-: A userbox which simply affirms policy should be the least controversial thing possible; the fact that it has stirred up debate says something, I think, about the ways Wikipedes think. Anville 22:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And by "Voyager", I mean Pioneer 11, of course. Anville 22:27, 24 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_18&oldid=1084290633"