Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:55, 1 May 2006

April 30, 2006

Template:Infobox Television Black

Template:Infobox Television Black (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is an unused black styled version of {{Infobox Television}}. The DJ 19:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Template won't work properly without css coding. Never going to be used. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Chad-Sudan

I made this but now realise there is already Template:Chadian-Sudanese conflict, please delete it, thank you. --Horses In The Sky 17:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete and agreed, thanks for posting it. The only user to maintain the suggested page also placed it here, and as such, I'd like to grant his/her request. Logical2u 18:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Mexico infobox

Template:Mexico infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Mexico infobox is a single-article infobox that recalls another template, just as {{World War II infobox}} did. / / Brendenhull (talk • contribs) | 12:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete if not used except in one article. The rationale is similar to the United States info box, which is also not used. Nhprman 23:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Hell

Template:User Hell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a blasphemous template, more wikipedians would probaly take offence to it than would beleive in it.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) 14:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC):-

I disagree, Strong Keep. Religious and humourous userboxes are here to stay for the time being, until Jimbo Wales enforces his Febuary 20th decree. Please see the deletion review on this page for reasons as to why not to delete these. There is no discussion on this topic either, and this user is enforcing his personal beliefs. I see no need to delete these, and I encourage others to support freedom of speech and of personal beliefs on userpages, especially those considered humourous. Logical2u 12:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep unless a better rationale is proposed than "This is a blasphemous template"; the same rationale could be used to delete the Satanism, Atheism, or even Christianity (from different perspectives of what's "blasphemous") templates. Misplaced Pages is not censored to conform to any specific religion's beliefs, and its userpages even less so. A concrete and consistent userbox policy should be established before we start decreeing which usertemplates are or aren't acceptable, lest we turn Misplaced Pages into an arbiter of morality. -Silence 13:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep why it is blasphemous? The concept of Hell is an integral part of many religions.  Grue  14:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, what good reason is it for the template to go? Hell exists in all religions. What's wrong with it? --Terence Ong 15:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep
  1. Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) attempted to sneak this into Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 16 after closing next to Template:Joke new messages, and then added the template to the Holding cell to be deleted. Apparently "strict" means "dishonest". A severe abuse of process!
  2. This template was previously kept at Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/userbox templates concerning beliefs and convictions.
  3. This template is listed at Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Religion.
  4. This template is used by roughtly 150 users.

  --William Allen Simpson 16:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, not devicive or inflammatory. Crumbsucker 18:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, If it offends you, don't use it. Jamie Battenbo 19:22,`30 April 2006 (BST)
• Keep Per above. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per all above. But let me reiterate: if you don't like it, don't put it on your userpage. romarin 21:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, nothing wrong with it per all above. Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be going around proposing the deletion of all userboxes that don't suit him/her, as for {{User not-Drug-free}}. Amusingly, this user is so strict that he/she is the only one in the Category:Strict wikipedians. Now that's a category that should be considered for deletion if I ever saw one. IronChris | (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - I weigh in on this hesitantly. Generally, humorous Userboxes (and this IS kind of funny, I admit) do no harm, but it is a short leap from "User is going to hell" to "Rev.___ is going to hell" or "(insert world leader) is going to hell." All of this is not why Misplaced Pages exists, and it takes away from the mission of the project. Can I suggest cutting and pasting the template's text and placing it on your own user pages? Then, it's not a community issue, as ALL templates are, by their very nature. Nhprman 23:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep If this is deleted then I demand the deletion of all religious user boxes ever, they all offend me. This unsigned comment was added by Johnny Copper. Mistakes happen.

yeah t'was me, sorry everyone (Johnny Copper 23:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC))

• Keep. Blasphemousness is not a reason for deleting a template, but I cannot see how this is blasphemous. As an atheist, most Christians say I am condemned to Hell. Hence, Christians should be pleased I display this template in awareness of my grossly sinful condition. Mgekelly - Talk 23:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep unless every religion-related userbox is also deleted Mícheál 02:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete 'strict' does not mean dishonest (that is highly offfensive and I would like an apology), it is a relating to the fact that a siginificant portion of wikipedians are situated in the USA are are thus US style liberterians, also most Australian wikipedians are US oriented and thus are also of that type, shairng loose moral. I am a genuine middle class Australian with strict morals, for example, I am more serious about, in particular, vandalism that maybe deeply insulting, such as Nazi vandalism. In this case, I have no particular view on some belief related template, but if they are socially inapropriate, they are one of my most serious pet peeves.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) 02:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC):-(
  • Note that this is the nominator. --Rory096 03:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, obviously a misunderstanding of the rules of deletion. Misplaced Pages is not censored for moral beliefs. --Rory096 03:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Seriously delete "Misplaced Pages is not censored for moral beliefs." I consider this as being based on loose morals of US liberterians and US style liberterians elsewhere.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) 04:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC):-(
  • Note that this is Myrtone's third vote. "Misplaced Pages is not censored for moral beliefs." This means your beliefs along with everyone else's. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 04:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Hrmmm ... how about subst? This thing obviously doesn't belong in Template: namespace as it isn't encyclopedia-related. That's simple policy. But to avoid pissing off users, I could subst it everywhere it's used first. That seems like a good compromise. --Cyde Weys 05:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User not-Drug-free

Template:User not-Drug-free (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I don't consider this template as socially appropriate, get rid of it!Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) 14:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC):-(

• I disagree, Strong Keep. If we allow "User drug-free" on wikipedia, why shouldn't we allow this? Otherwise it seems like repression of free speech. Logical2u 12:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages is not a forum for unregulated free speech. But as long as we are all pretending it is, you are right - both pro and con boxes should be deleted. Nhprman 23:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

If we delete both, yes, I agree with that. At the moment though I only put this here because it was in the same place as User-Hell above. I find offence with singling out on specific aspect of it. So if drug use and no drug use boxes are to be deleted, I agree to delete them both as divisive and sometimes too much of a politcal statement. Until that point becames the issue, I want to stand next to my earlier statement that for the time being these should be saved in that the user proposing for deletion hasn't really explained his terms nor followed proper procedure in deleting them. _{However, now I feel unvalidated and all sad and stuff.} I guess what I'm saying is, I disagree with the procedure used to nominate this template, and this current debate should be closed for no delete, but I would vote the other way given the drug related ones for deletion. More explanations: Yes, isn't it socially appropriate? How can we know? It IS part of society. Is dividing wikipedia down the middle appropriate? Probably not.Logical2u 23:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC).

• Um, I don't understand. What about this template do you not consider acceptable? Drug use is an extremely common social behavior, and no more or less "appropriate" than any of the other self-identification templates. Keep in lieu of an explanation. -Silence 13:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it tells us more about the user, why should we delete it?  Grue  14:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, what is wrong for the user saying that he/she is drug free? --Terence Ong 15:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep moved here from out-of-process attempt at deletion on
  1. Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Holding cell (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and
  2. Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) itself.

     --William Allen Simpson 17:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, not devicive or inflammatory. Crumbsucker 18:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; nothing wrong with it. Not drug free isn't divisive, inflammatory, provocating or insulting. In fact, it doesn't even specify "illegal drugs" (which in any case would be impossible considering the variations in laws between countries). IronChris | (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep There is nothing socially inappropriate about this userbox. If you don't like it, don't put it on your userpage. romarin 21:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all such templated Userboxes about divisive political and social issues, including this one. This encyclopedia isn't the place for political or social debates. That said, I'm not sure the nominator has gone about this the right way, procedurally, and his rationale ("socially unacceptable") is bound to unleash the very debate we're seeing here - a debate which is, itself, inappropriate and not what WP is all about. I do have to add that "it is so socially acceptable" isn't a very good debating point FOR keeping this template. Nhprman 23:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - It doesn't seem to be espousing a viewpoint. —Cuiviénen, Monday, 1 May 2006 @ 01:52 UTC

"I am not drug free" is not a viewpoint? It doesn't provoke? Isn't it meant to? Sure it is. It's a template in order to meet other people who are also not drug free (and the anti-drug template is designed to work the same way.) Unfortunately, social networking is not why we're here on Misplaced Pages. Nhprman 03:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If you think that, then ALL userboxes can be seen as aiming to meet other like-minded people, not just this one. I have this template, and I can assure you that I have never even spoken to someone else who has it, nor do I intend to. And no, it is not aiming to provoke. It is a fact, just like being drug free is a fact, believing in god is a fact, liking chocolate is a fact. In this respect, it is no different from any other userbox. IronChris | (talk) 04:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe that ALL Userbox Templates have the potential to draw us away from our primary goal here (editing an encyclopedia.) The fact that these are TEMPLATES allows for that social networking to take place. Even if you don't engage in it, many others do, and use these Templates to defend or delete friendly or unfriendly userboxes and form mini-tribes here. All, according to WP policies, is a distraction and not our primary mission here. On the other hand, if this message was simply written on your User page, very few would ever care. But create it as a template, and it becomes a legitimate community issue and ends up in debates like these. Nhprman 04:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - If it's deleted, we will just continue to use the content, and continue to make the statement. The userspace itself is not encyclopedic at all, it's for personal viewpoints and personal information. Trying to sterilize Misplaced Pages will only serve to waste time debating rather than contributing. --_{Avillia 03:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)}
• Speedy keep, obviously a bad faith nom. " socially appropriate?" --Rory096 03:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Seriously speedy delete "If we allow "User drug-free" on wikipedia, why shouldn't we allow this?" Because one is more socially acceptable than the other, and I am getting a bit upset at other wikipedians behaviour towards me and my strict morals, In the real word there do exist social classes in some societies where this is perfectly normal and ani-moral judement (as is, unfortunaty, almost universal among wikipedians) can itself be a form of moral judgement.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) 04:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC):-(