Misplaced Pages

:Miscellany for deletion/August 4 userboxes - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ned Scott (talk | contribs) at 08:41, 11 August 2008 (→User:UBX/redheads). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:41, 11 August 2008 by Ned Scott (talk | contribs) (→User:UBX/redheads)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

User:UBX/redheads

This and the following were deleted by User:Krimpet on August 4, and restored after a lengthy deletion review. They should have a proper debate, but they are indeed inappropriate and unhelpful to building the encyclopedia, and as the admin who restored them it is my sincere hope that they will not be around for long. The full list:

Chick Bowen 16:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep for the hair colors, and weak keep for the BBW. These are no more encyclopedic than many other userboxes. If we delete these, then we might as well start deleting userboxes stating where people eat or what they drink. BBW has a possibly improper image, and the use of "sexy" on the bottom three are possibly problematic, but the hair colors are innocent.--King Bedford I 16:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep all, though I don't think it's necessarily helpful to bundle them all together in a single MfD. I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about. That said, I have no desire to keep the one I created myself, and have tagged it for CSD G7 accordingly. PC78 (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep the hair colour ones - they're not divisive or inflammatory, and they're all residing in the appropriate place - userspace. The arguments to endorse at DRV smack of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Keep per the rationale in these prior MFDs: userfied userboxes are given a wide degree of freedom. Opening this can of worms could lead to most of userspace being deleted. We're here to build an encyclopedia, but having a little fun once in a while won't kill us. –xeno (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Amended slightly to cover the hair colours - I don't see how saying that one likes a particular hair colour is sexist. Neutral on the other ones. –xeno (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - unhelpful to helping the project. Food and drink userboxes, I agree may be useless too, but there's a higher probability of pizza-lovers writing about pizzas than redhead-lovers eating redheads. Sceptre 17:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I use a bright-line rule to determine the worth of a userbox. Fans of TV shows and music bands often write about them on Misplaced Pages, so those userboxes might help the project. Religious and political beliefs also influence what is written about. Preference in women? Not so much. (Though I agree to some sexuality userboxes too, because LGBT people tend to write about LGBT subjects). Sceptre 22:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Right, and some women refer to other women by nasty sexist epithets. Some women are victims of physical abuse at the hands of other women. What's your point? ~Eliz81 01:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
What's yours? I don't see where abuse of women or sexual harassment fits into this at all. --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Just because some female editors used the userboxes doesn't mean it's not derogatory and sexist. ~Eliz81 06:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongy-wongy speedy-weedy delete - sexist, divisive, offensive, not conducive to building a community of editors, utterly inappropriate on a project like Misplaced Pages and garners a very poor image of the project in the eyes of the public. Would this be acceptable in the workplace to have anybody have this on their desk or on the door of their office?? So why here? - Alison 21:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. At a minimum the BBW, shemale, and sexy chicks have to go. The rest of it isn't appropriate either. Way to make everyone who is not a hetero male uncomfortable.--Thalia42 (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Because Lord forbid men admit they're attracted to women. Honestly, what is wrong with us? And for the record, males also have different colored hair and females do tend to prefer them too. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Because men can admit that they're heterosexual, but that doesn't give them the right to view women as objects. Naked pictures? "Sexy chicks"? I'm sure that relates to women as equals. If the preferences didn't include the pictures, I think you'd find fewer objections.--Thalia42 (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm wondering if these are considered any worse than any of the other stuff at

User:ISD/Userboxes/Sexuality. A reasonable number of these are similar, I think. Things like "This user is a slut" and the 'Bear' series. Maybe not, I dunno. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 22:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

  • relist individually. --Random832 (contribs) 00:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I believe there are some copyright issues here. The photograph in the brunette USB is of Sharon Shannon and the image page says "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed". It is not attributed. the blonde USB is of Ana Hickmann and it is from Flickr. Also are there not privacy issues in using pictures of living people totally out of context? I support deleting those two but Have no view on the others. --Bduke (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
You seem to fail to grasp how we handle attribution of images on Misplaced Pages. The image page is where that occurs. You do not see attribution commentary below pictures anywhere else on wikipedia. No licensing problem to worry about here. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
You could be right. I do find our use of images confusing, so generally keep away from them. The image of Sharon Shannon seemed to be different from others. I now see it is not used on any wikipedia article, even on Sharon Shannon. I still think it was a privacy issue to use it on a userbox, particularly one that is sexist. --Bduke (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't really like the idea of spreading this out further, but I do think that there really does seem to be two "classes" of userboxes here: the "hair-color" ones (where there seems to be a general leaning towards keeping) and the other ones (a general trend towards deleting). Maybe they should be split into two MFDs? --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
    • As nominator I have no problem with this, if someone else wants to take the initiative and do it. (I think my two actions thus far in this dispute have been enough for me, though.) On the other hand, folks can just make their positions clear in their individual comments, as they're now doing. Chick Bowen 03:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Definitely delete the 'sexy chicks', 'transwomen' and 'BBWs' userboxes - to many people, they are tasteless and offensive, and are of no obvious use to the project. Preferably delete the hair colour ones as well, but they seem much less problematic (although they're not serving any useful purpose either). It may be appropriate to relist these userboxes as two separate groups, as UseSatsui suggests above. Terraxos (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep/ Let's stop walking on eggshells and policing user space and get back to building and maintaining an encyclopedia. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not one of these userboxes are conducive to the atmosphere that this project was enabled for. It sets the tone and precedent for more garbage we will eventually allow into userspace. Alison has it right (sexist, divisive, offensive), and its just too sad to see so many editors in favor of them. Also Xeno, I'd like to point out that the MfD's you provide do not establish grounds for retaining. Both of them demenstrate what the user likes, while not describing another person (as these userboxes clearly do). Let me ask the questions that no one has yet: are these userboxes more likely to offend than others? Are they likely to inflame users already in debate? Do they go beyond personal choices and step into an area that is questionable? I say yes. Delete them all, again. Synergy 03:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
If someone gets steamed up because they see that a particular user likes brunettes then I think that's a problem with that person being too sensitive, not the userbox. I'm not particularly "in favour" of these userboxes - I just think it's ridiculous that we're even considering deleting them in the first place. Of course, if you're mainly focusing on the "sexy chicks" or "big beautiful women" then I suppose that's a horse of a different colour. I agree the MFD should really be split so that we're not arguing at cross-purposes. –xeno (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no slippery slope. We do not have to delete this to prevent the heat death of the universe. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, as I did before, per my original rationale - this is a freaking encyclopedia, not a dating site. krimpet✽ 04:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all - Wikipedians by attraction? (Even if we ignore the implication of sexual attraction.) My eyes are drawn to all sorts of visual stimuli. If I walk in a room which has a shelf of books, I tend to go "check them out". So while that's an "attraction", it's (obviously) not sexual (depending on the content, I suppose), and I would presume that my inclination of enjoying the company of books would be fairly useless for a userbox. There are those who just must go check out a Camaro if they see one. Or a roller coaster. Or horses, for that matter. But being atttracted to something may or may not have anything to do with being interested in collaborating about it, or in any way would even indirectly help other Wikipedians in collaborating with you. (Compared to those who list - for example - a political or religious bias on their userpage for presumably just such reasons.) - jc37 05:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sexist, divisive, pointless, and I'm gobsmacked that we're actually having to have this discussion. When did so many people on Misplaced Pages take leave of their senses? Rebecca (talk) 05:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep all The userbox wars are over, people. We have a hand full of users who are way to easily offended at some humor userboxes. There is nothing here that is greatly offensive or disruptive. -- Ned Scott 05:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
No, YOU think that are offensive and sexist. Thinking does not make it so. I think Korean food is disgusting and inedible. --mboverload@ 06:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, no, Ned. The fact that Misplaced Pages has a debate about something is evidence that the issue is divisive. That much should be self-evident, I would have thought - Alison 07:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It's divisive because people like you are being a spaz about it. Stop being a baby and go work on an article. Getting your feelings hurt because someone likes blonds is absurd. -- Ned Scott 08:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I did not give a clear opinion earlier (I had just woken up|). I have to agree with Rebecca and Alison. These useboxes would be unacceptable in the workforce these days. They should not be acceptable here. Also the internet is already quite blokey enough, without us trying to make it more so. --Bduke (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete All. As stated previously, these are offensive and utterly devoid of merit. Misplaced Pages is not a dating service, nor a place to make others uncomfortable by expressing your (irrelevant) preferences. — Werdna • talk 08:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • If people are made uncomfortable by these expressions, then they will likely be made even more uncomfortable by our uncensored article space content. They're only offensive when you lack a sense of humor. -- Ned Scott 08:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)