Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion/userbox templates concerning beliefs and convictions

I'm going to refactor this so it's organized more like an RFA (sections for keep/delete). If this bothers anyone, speak now or forever hold your peace. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

:Please go ahead! --- Charles Stewart 01:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

::Complete. I had to lose some of the userboxes people were linking inline (they were screwing up the numbering). I also took the opportunity to reformat the threaded responses so they all used the correct indentation. Now to go take a break, that was a pain in the ass. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 02:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Close this topic! 150-some votes to keep over 20-some votes to delete. 15:2. Maybe this issue is solved?! --Shell 02:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

:It has only been out less than 24 hours. __earth 06:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• With almost 200 votes this should be statistically accurate to about 1/sqrt(200) * 100 = (+or-) 7% therefore, the only purpose this vote can serve is to further discussion about the role of userboxes in wikipedia and that is already being better handled at WP:UBP - it is time to close the voting.--God of War 07:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think with over 150 votes against deletion of the templates against 20 for in such a short time shows how much people are against deleting the userboxes. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Image:Flag_of_Germany.svg 13:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think the TfD should be allowed to run its course: WP:UBP benefits from the disucssion arising from this particular case, and while it is clear that the outcome will be an effective consensus to keep, further valuable discussion may still occur here. --- Charles Stewart 17:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oops: it's been closed already. --- Charles Stewart 17:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

If this discussion has given Wikipedia nothing else, it has afforded creative voting syntax. I am listing my favorite so far below. If you find others particularly entertaining, please add them. — Eoghanacht ^talk 14:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, Keep², Keep³, Keep^{. . .}, Keep¹⁴⁹ (courtesy User:Xaosflux)
• Duct Tape & Super Glue Keep

:I liked Delete them all and salt the earth after though I don't agree with the sentiment. - Cuivienen 03:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone give me a reason why this should not be rolled back to the closed version and protected? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

:No. If you do, consider copying the new content added across to the talk page. --- Charles Stewart 22:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

::That was what I think should be done. Additional warnings about editing should stay, along with additional pointers to the policy discussion, etc. But the new comments belong here.

::Is it appropriate for me to take such a step, since I participated in the discussion? (And, in fact, could be seen as pressing for exactly this result: closing the discussion in favor of the policy discussion.) Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 22:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I found many more userboxes to use from the list of proposed deletions. Take that! :D Rogue 9 23:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I am moving the following comments here from the project page. These were added after the discussion was closed, in violation of Wikipedia norms and policies. Divorced from context, these may not be all that useful, but you can still check the page history to figure out where they fit. Someone may have a better way to refactor this, if it matters.

Informative messages, such as links to the other relevant discussion(s), and reminders that editing the page is not allowed, have been left.

The page has been protected. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Strong keep. Inanechild 16:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

:::"Ironic" is a personal attack? Puh-leeze. Benami 21:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::There's no reason to use foul language, User:Kelly Martin, we all know the system would create redirects, but we wanted to clean the system and not create hundreds of redirects. TCorp 15:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

:::Well, of course: the ratio of keep to delete votes changed dramatically after Larix posted the TfD notices. He was right to bring this notice to the attention of the people who use userboxes, but I think the result would have been achieved more effectively had the notice been on the template's talk page: I think most people put templates they use on their watchlist, and it would not have introduced the same prejudging of the issue that finding your user page disrupted is liable to bring. --- Charles Stewart 17:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Qarnos has a point. If I may bust out some American lawyer-speak: Larix, by posting notice, satisfied Due Process (Amd V & XIV), but introduced the problem of a biased tribunal (Amd VI). I don't think that the solution would have been to deny notice. Rather, we should do what the Norwegian dude suggested at #SOLUTION to vote stacking - Userspace News Ticker and find a way to generate universal suffrage (Amd XV, et al.) --Mareino 15:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Mistree Selena Kyle fixed the userbox templates (but didn't put them on the talk page), but for the benefit of information, you can see what templates are used in a page by opening the edit page for it and looking below the text area. The TfD message is just an ordinary piece of text on that page, and can be cut and pasted as any other. --- Charles Stewart 17:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you want to delete ANY of the userboxes? Why can't we just leave them alone? They are optional and not required to be used on user pages. I do not see how some 2kb files with 2 lines of code are causing people to want to go through all of this. I like the religion userboxes, and I wish we could expand the userboxes of all categories. Heck, I support the use of userboxes even for those whose views I oppose (nazis, republicans, fundamentalists, etc) so why are we having this silly investigation on USERBOXES???--Zaphnathpaaneah 16:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

What transpires Jdavidb is that more people are trying to convince the other part that this proposal for deletion is not worthwhile rather than the opposite. Captain scarlet 16:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No i do not want any user boxes deleted. No I am sick of every other day of having my userboxes interfered with. No, I will not want any userboxes deleted tomorrow, next week, or next month. Leave it alone. What is the reasonsing of these people? They are USERboxes, a form of expression. There is no reason to regulate this to this extent. ENOUGH! --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Now I read the reason on the top of this page. Firstly, It is confusing. I cannot understand the process or the intention of the abuser. Secondly, there is no reason that the category needs to be associated with the user. Thirdly, EVERYONE has a belief, or a perspective that is not universally shared. I can be Catholic and be neutral regarding the history of the Spanish Inquisition or the doctrine of Indulgencies. I can be a trinitarian and acknowledge that the Trinity is not a word in the Bible. You have certainly seen me romp all over the Black and White people (racial) pages, fighting against POV as well as being accused of POV myself. As you can see I was able to find a neutral ground with many of the contributors. So let us regulate the abusers, not the system they abuse. --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify that. Every Wikipedian editor, moderator, and administrator has some "factional" views on some topic. I personally see a rediculous amount of POV in Mormonism articles (especially those related to racism) yet, little is done to regulate that. While on the other hand I see an enormous coordinated effort to maintain neutrality in issues regarding Israel&Palestine, U.S.foreign policy, and the Iraq War. Yet areas relating to humanities (anthropology, social/racial issues) and what not are filled with bias, which only is revealed by the absurd contradiction to "neutrality". I have seen glaring and impossible oversights by other contributors regarding racial issues. This shows me much more of a "POV" and a malicious intent, than the user's box! Who is going to seriously trust the neutrality on racial pages from a user who puts "This user is a Ku Klux Klansman" on his user page?

Finally, you guys obviously caught the Catholic~prolifer~manipulator so the process is working. Don't attack the userboxes. --Zaphnathpaaneah 16:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

If people haven't noticed by now this ended many days ago. If feel the urge to talk there is a place just for you: WP:UBP. Please stop firing this page up on my watchlist.--God of War 15:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)