Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:44, 21 May 2006

• ]

Archives
May 2003 – September 2004 September 2004 – December 2004 November 2004 – May 2005 May 2005 – August 2005 August 2005 – September 2005 September 2005 – November 2005 November 2005 – January 2006 January 2006 – March 2006 March 2006 –May 2006

Oft referenced pages

• Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy (talk)
• Misplaced Pages:Deletion log (talk and archives)
• Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators (talk)
• Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal (July 2005 proposal to expand WP:CSD)
• Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion/New criteria (Summary of suggested changes as of November 2005)

New image deletion criteria

In an effort to reduce the number of copyvio images on Misplaced Pages, I'd like to suggest the following new criteria for speedy deletion:

• CSD I6: Missing fair-use claim. Any image tagged only with {{fairuse}}, with no fair use rationale, may be deleted seven days after it was uploaded.
• CSD I7: Invalid fair-use claim 1. Any image with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a {{logo}} tag on a photograph of a mascot) can be deleted at any time.
• CSD I8: Invalid fair-use claim 2. Any image that is from a company that makes money off of providing those images (such as Google Maps) may be deleted at any time.

--Carnildo 03:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The first two seem fine (although you're going to hear massive screaming if you don't grandfather in existing {{fairuse}}-tagged images), but I don't think the third one is correct. My impression was that using, say, an example image from Google Maps on an appropriate article (i.e. Google Maps) could qualify as fair-use, regardless of what purpose the company produces said images for. —Kirill Lokshin 04:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kirill here.Voice-of-All 05:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, people are using arial photos from Google Maps to illustrate articles on geographic locations, and are using images from the Associated Press and other news services to illustrate current events. --Carnildo 06:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This would have to be opened up for wide community examination before it could even think about being made into a CSD. If someone is using an AP photo inappropiately but claiming fair use, remove the photo from the article in question with a note that it "may not be" fair use. The burden in on them to show that it is before they replace it, and we've already got a blocking policy to enforce that. I don't see that we need another CSD for this. - brenneman 22:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I6 and I7 are quite all right, as long as you make it to be images after some target date. I8 is not so good. Use {{fairusedisputed}} instead. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Every discussion we've had about what you're calling I6 and I7 seems to end up with "Yes, that's a good idea, just go slowly about it." Let's just implement them. Jkelly 18:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've created {{db-norat}} for CSD:I6 (no rationale), and {{db-badfairuse}} for CSD:I7 (bad rationale). A system similar to the current {{subst:orfud}} and {{subst:nsd}} will be needed to make CSD:I6 work. Additionally, {{subst:badfairuse}} can be used to notify people on their talk page if an image is tagged or deleted under I7. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure these should go into CAT:CSD. I think it should be a {{no license}} and {{no source}} type thing, where it gets deleted seven days after it's tagged as not having a fair use rationale, not 7 days after being tagged with a fair use tag without a rationale. This gives the uploader an opportunity to add a fair use rationale after it's tagged, like giving them a chance to add a source or whatever (except adding a fair use rationale can't really be abused by adding fake licenses or whatever ;)). --Rory096 06:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I just want to make sure we're on the same page here. If there is no rationale, the image is held for 7 days to add a rationale, then deleted if one isn't added. If there is an obviously invalid rationale, then it goes straight away. This parallels the lack of any license at all — if an image has no license, it's held for 7 days, but if it has a bad license (e.g. {{cc-by-nc}}), it's deleted immediately.

Is that OK with you or would you prefer bad rationale and no rationale to both be held for 7 days? Stifle (talk) 09:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I meant I6 (no rationale) being put straight into CAT:CSD if the image was uploaded more than 7 days ago. I'm saying that it should be something like being tagged for 7 days, so the uploader can be notified that it needs a rationale. --Rory096 09:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that where there is no fair use rationale provided, we must allow the uploader time to provide one - seven days after being tagged fits with other lag times. I don't think that we need a speedy deletion criteria for "bad" fair use claims, we should use {{fairusedisputed}} instead - if there is a backlog here then maybe that system should be strengthened, possibly along the lines of {{PROD}} - but that is not a discussion for here. Thryduulf 09:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, the fair use dept. is rather backlogged (if you don't believe me, check out Category:Fair use magazine covers and see how many of them are actually being used to illustrate articles on magazines, not a lot...) This CSD refers, in any case, to the most obvious things like a photograph from Getty Images being tagged as {{symbol}}. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Rory: Yes, that's how it's been implemented, although the categories and tags haven't actually been done yet. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

We absolutely need something like I7. It does not make sense to me to give 7 days (or whatever period of time) for someone to correct the license on an image after they have already lied about it once (whereas giving time for them to provide a license when they didn't bother to pick one seems reasonable). If you lie about the license an image is under, that image should be deleted immediately. Nandesuka 11:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that assuming good faith implies assuming that an incorrect license was a mistake rather than a lie. There's nothing wrong with giving an uploader seven days to correct a mistake. Angr (t • c) 11:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, there's something wrong with it. It puts the project at risk. Jimbo has already indicated multiple times that the Foundation lawyers are extremely concerned about the number and seriousness of copyright infringements in the image space. Putting the wrong license on an image is a substantively different act than uploading without one: it's an affirmative statement of either dishonesty or carelessness. Either way, such actions should never be allowed to jeopardize the encyclopedia. In this area, we really can't afford to assume any better faith than will be assumed by the various jurisdictions in which the project can be sued. Nandesuka 11:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Then why don't they stop being wishy-washy and prohibit fair use images altogether? German Misplaced Pages gets along just fine using only public-domain and free-license images. Angr (t • c) 08:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've redirected {{db-norat}} to {{No rationale}} (which was actually conveniently created in April by Carnildo), and also made various redirects, like {{norat}} and {{norationale}}. The {{subst:nsd}} type thing is {{subst:nrd}} (nr = no rationale). --Rory096 23:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, we need a warning template like {{image copyright}}... --Rory096 23:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That'll be {{Missing rationale}}. Stifle (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

See Category:Images with no fair use rationale. --Rory096 06:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed {{db-norat}} to match {{db-unksource}}. --Rory096 20:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed "before 4 May" to "after 4 May", which is what the policy has said. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

T1 and userboxes: how about a more precise wording?

I've noticed that quite a few userboxes have been speedy deleted citing T1, but there seems to be no consensus as to how T1 should be interpreted, and thus many users get annoyed at having their userbox deleted. I agree with the sentiment of T1, but speedy deleting these userboxes can often lead to divisiveness and inflammatory statements as well. What's the solution here?

Also, I'd be interested in seeing how Jimbo Wales's endorsement of this criterion was worded. It may provide some insight into this situation. -- T.o.n.y 14:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If criterion CSD:T1 were in a template, it would be speedily deleted under T1, and rightfully so. It definitely needs to be reworded, but "we" editors (or even "you" admins) cannot do so without more input from Jimbo. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that all of Jimbo's pronouncements on the subject can be found here. Do any of them prohibit rewording or qualification of T1, and if so, which? Septentrionalis 22:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing there supporting T1. Without Jimbo's suggestions, it wouldn't be present policy, as there has never been (visible) consensus supporting it. Hence, we have a policy created by fiat (and apparently not Jimbo's). The simplest solution would be to revert to the status quo ante T1 -- delete T1, undelete all templates deleted under T1 unless they violate WP:NPA, and do not re-delete as "unused" if they were ever used. Then, perhaps, a reasoned policy could be obtained by consensus. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, especially with userboxes and other templates used (almost) solely in the User namespace. While I can understand Jimbo's sentiment concerning userboxes, I also know that people in any community want (and possibly need) a channel for self-expression. It helps others in the community learn about each other and identify their reasons for being in the community and their motivations behind the work they contribute to the community. Userboxes provide an easy way in this community to express oneself and (for the most part) don't inherently create division or heated debate. Of course, they can be misused, but that goes for almost any tool available to editors here at Misplaced Pages.

However, I think that any changes made to speedy delete criteria should reflect the general consensus of the community. While Jimbo's (inferred) opinions have considerable clout in this community, he is but one person. I think we should put this up to a vote. -- T.o.n.y 18:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• First, Voting is evil. It is much too premature to attempt to put this question to a polarizing vote. But more importantly, before you all lock in on this chain of reasoning, I'd ask everyone to please reread the many archived discussion pages leading up to the decision. Jimbo did not impose this policy out of the blue. There was rampant abuse and dissension being created by some userboxes at the time. Now that they've been deleted, it's all too easy to forget the worst examples which forced us into this (perhaps draconian) solution. Many people would agree with the assessment that the community has not yet reached consensus on this issue. But it is not fair to imply that Jimbo was alone in his opinion. As far as I know, he doesn't even have an opinion except that we should all get back to the real work of creating the best possible open-source encyclopedia. Many, many users heartily supported his decision. In my own observation, they were doing more harm than good to the project. I don't miss them. Rossami (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree; the thing to do is to stop fighting the Userbox Wars, and go on from where we are. Genuinely divisive userboxes can (and should) be TfD'd; the editors they offend will vote to delete. They are no loss. Removing (or even modifying) T1 is enough. Septentrionalis 02:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind political, etc., userboxes being speedily deleted if we had a clear policy that allowed it. They are at best a waste of template space. Currently, however, we are seeing userboxes that are clearly not "divisive and inflammatory" being speedily deleted. An example was a userbox that said simply, "This user is a transhumanist". I don't see how this could be considered divisive in itself, since we are (generally) tolerant people, so we are not likely to be divided against each other merely by expressions of subscription to philosophical views that we may not happen agree with. In a tolerant community, such statements of ones's views are not met with the kind of hostility and active opposition that is implied by divisive. I realise that such a userbox, if in template space, could theoretically be used as an instrument for undoubtedly divisive activities such as votestacking, but it's not obvious to me that that theoretical possibility amounts to the userbox itself being "divisive". Even if the word "divisive" could be stretched so far, which is very doubtful, I don't see how the mere polite, non-provocative statement that "I am a transhumanist" could be considered inflammatory. As an absolute minimum, I think that T1 should be altered from "divisive and inflammatory" to read "divisive or inflammatory". That would capture any genuinely divisive userboxes as well as those that don't create particular divisions but simply arouse reasonable people to anger. I think that some indication should also be given that the word "divisive" is meant to be read in a broad sense to include any userbox (or other template) that lends itself as an instrument for factionalising etc, though I have no particular words to offer at this stage. Meanwhile, I don't think the current words should be interpreted and applied in an unnaturally broad way, as often seems to be happening. The words "divisive and inflammatory" are clear enough; they simply don't stretch as far as some of our colleagues would like them to. Metamagician3000 08:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see T1 say "all political, religious, or philosophical" rather than "divisive and inflammatory". I can make the argument that any political view is divisive. Not just Nazism. Simple change, and would get us out of a lot of divisive and inflammmatory discussion about whether something is divisive (a judgement call that's hard to make) and move it to whether something is political (a lot easier call to make). ArbComm has held that T1 is policy. I support that. Now get it to be clear, easily applied policy. ++Lar: t/c 14:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It could say both "all userboxes that express a religious, political, philosophical, or similar point of view, or are otherwise divisive or inflammatory". There will be grey areas no matter how it is worded, and deletion review would still be necessary, but this sort of language would put the issue beyond doubt with most userboxes. Metamagician3000 14:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Or better still, we could adapt Jimbo's own language: templates that "express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues, or which are otherwise divisive or inflammatory". How's that? Metamagician3000 14:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd support either of those formulations. I've mostly stayed out of the userbox debate because, frankly, I think most people's User pages are boring (including my own) and I never read them. But having read up on the issue I have to say: the more wiggles room we leave on this the worse it will be. Misplaced Pages is not a blog, and is not myspace. While people are welcome to write what they want on their user pages, within policy, there's no reason to waste our time weighing the merits of these various templates. Religious, political, philosophical, or similar...delete them all, regardless of whether or not they are divisive. That's my $0.02, anyway. Nandesuka 14:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree strongly with Nandesuka. People will wiggle but let us give them little room to do so. Agree with MM3K as well, (dude, your ID is too long!!! Grin) that Jimbo's wording is fine. It's far more precise and inclusive (of what we want to see deleted within process) than my suggestion. I'm not hung up on the exact wording. I just want it to be less wiggly than "divisive" which is just way too wiggly. ++Lar: t/c 14:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to lean toward that, as it's clear that the admins (possibly encouraged by Jimbo, but there's no public evidence that Jimbo agrees that it should be policy) will delete userboxes, controversial or not, by whatever means necessary, and that, although the majority of active Wikipedians may disagree, there's clearly not enough weight to overturn that fiat. Hence, although that policy is clearly harmful to Misplaced Pages, the wheel warring is worse. (Note that I am assuming good faith, just noting that those admins mistakenly believe that the deletion of userboxes is good for Misplaced Pages, and that this outweighs the violation of existing process.) However, all userbox deletions, unless the text itself is objectionable on a userpage, must be subst'ed and converted to Template:Userbox format. However, even Nandesuka's formulation leaves enough wiggle room for wheel wars. My counter-proposal would be to delete all userboxes except wikiproject boxes. Note: I would still prefer restricting T1 to those templates which would be considered "attack templates" — but that rational appropach is not going to happen. My more restrictive form is probably the best that can be achieved. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, your good faith is quite clear, but you're mistaken in your implicit claim that "violation" of process is a Bad Thing, that might or might not be "outweighed" by some particular Good Thing. I can't pin down a particular guideline or essay that taught me to see it this way, but "acting out of process" is part of the perfectly healthy and normal functioning of Misplaced Pages. That's how process evolves - someone starts doing something because it's the right thing to do, others see them and mimic them, because it's clearly the right thing to do, and eventually when someone suggests writing it into the guidelines, a bunch of people say "oh, I thought it was already there".

The trick is to let people do what they do, and try to document the best practices once they're identified and selected for. For whatever reason, the interpretation of T1 that's rising to the top seems to be that "all userboxes that express a religious, political, philosophical, or similar point of view, or are otherwise divisive or inflammatory" don't get to be publicly transcluded, and shouldn't even be here. I'd also say there are very good reasons for that, but I don't want to double the length of this post, and it's all been said several times.

I support rewriting T1 according to Jimbo's formulation. -GTBacchus 15:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No edit on this page can reflect Jimbo's formulation: He said nothing about speedying. What has happened, btw, to what Jimbo recommended: asking people to remove their political/religious userboxes, and so changing the culture one person at a time? Septentrionalis 23:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that the T1 criteria are too subjective to allow for speedy deletions. They are good as deletion criteria, but not so good for speedy deletions. Powers 12:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree. Deletion without discussion (i.e. a speedy) is an extreme measure, and should only be used in cases where harm would occur if the target remined in place for the duration of the discussion (copyvios, attack pages, etc), or where a discussion was held previously (e.g G4). As it stands, the speedy deltion of neutrally worded templates is proving to be more devisive than the original templates ever could be. Regards, MartinRe 20:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If I may try to add to the discussion, I would like to say, having recently come across a speedy deletion of a userbox I found funny, non-divisive, and non-inflammatory (unless one considers non-explicit references to sex divisive or inflammatory), that the speedy deletion of a userbox sufficiently unclear with respect to the criteria discussed here is extremely frustrating, disheartening, and alienating. On this end, not holding discussion thus feels like an abuse of procedure and seems in bad faith. I understand the dislike for userboxes, and I even sympathize with not wanting them in template space, but choosing speedy deletion over TfD, now, prior to reaching consensus on what is to be done about userboxes and after an initial deadlock on trying to reach such a policy? I fail to see the good faith in that. Just venting saying. ---Bersl2 07:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Change in T1

(Per GTb just above...)

I have so changed it to use the exact wording. See this version, under the Bold-revert-discuss paradigm. Revert me if you must but it's time we move to this level. ++Lar: t/c 16:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to remind everyone at this point that T1 refers to all templates, not just userboxes, and it has been used to justify the speedy deletion of templates that were not userboxes. Even if the language is changed to apply only to userboxes, Lar's new wording allows for the speedy deletion of Babelboxes (which up till now have generally been considered "good" userboxes) for levels xx-0 through xx-4, since stating which foreign languages one has chosen to learn (and therefore which ones one has not chosen to learn) certainly expresses "personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions" and in some cases even "viewpoints on controversial issues". Angr (t • c) 16:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but if so, it's a price to be paid that I'm willing to pay, and I suspect others are too. The wording could be revised to exclude those, but I think there's merit in using Jimbo's words as is. ++Lar: t/c 17:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you have to do unreasonable backflips to interpret "I speak language X" as "I am expressing a political viewpoint." So I disagree with you that this impacts babelboxes. If we wanted to be super-careful, we could specifically carve an exemption for them, but I don't think it's necessary. Nandesuka 17:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There are certain situations where saying "I speak language X" is practically synonymous with "I am expressing a political viewpoint". For example, if a user from Northern Ireland says "I speak Irish" or "I speak Ulster Scots", their political affiliations will in most cases not be difficult to discern. Likewise "I speak Greek" vs. "I speak Turkish" for a user from Cyprus. I don't want to "carve out an exception" for the Babelboxes; I want everyone to be aware that Babelboxes can be every bit as "inflammatory and divisive" as any userbox already speedied under T1. Angr (t • c) 20:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Xaosflux reverted with the edit summary: rv "When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus." Signifigant policy changes should be discussed (in depth) first.

Xaosflux, are you reading this page? How has this not been discussed in depth? The very impetus for this particular edit was the emerging consensus at WP:DRV/U. Please state your objection to Lar's version. -GTBacchus 17:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I subscribe to 1RR so I will not revert back, I leave that to others. But I think the conensus was pretty clear. This broadening is, IMHO, a change whose time has come. ++Lar: t/c

I will not revert this again either, although I 'strongly disagree with it for the reasons I've listed below. Apparently someone else has already reverted it again, if it goes again it seems to be a demonstration that consensus has not been met. — xaosflux 17:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict note)I've reverted "Templates that express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues, or which are otherwise divisive or inflammatory. (Note that this criterion was established with an endorsement from Jimbo Wales and now uses his exact wording.)" <-- that change to T1. It is too broad, just because a template expreses a controverisal issue does not mean it has no use. We have plenty of articles about controversial issues, this would go so far as to mean a navbox between several related controverisal articls would be speedily deletable in my interpertation. This is a criteria for all templates, not about "userboxes" If this change is trying to be specific to "userboxes" the best place to establish it's change would be in a userbox policy, IMHO. — xaosflux 17:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

(double edit conflict) e.g. Template:Christianity is a "template that expresses an ideology", is it not? It doesn't support or condone it, but it expresses it. — xaosflux 17:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that I changed T1 from PART of Jimbo's wording to ALL of it. Arguably not an intent change, just a clarification that gets rid of the wiggle room that causes so much trouble. As for a userbox policy, been there, done that, got the tshirt, that dog don't hunt. People are speedying these things and I argue that the broadened T1 I put up is what they are using. I vehemently disagree with that because it's out of process, and yet I agree with their reasons for doing so. How to fix it? RfAr all of them for doing what is probably right? No. Change the criteria so it supports their actions. That gets to the right outcome and keeps us process wonks happy. ALL that said, I still dispute that this change doesn't reflect emerging consensus. If others agree I invite them to support this view with discuussion. (not votiing because voting is evil) ++Lar: t/c 17:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It might be helpful to include a link to his statement, but I do think the templates described (an infobox for example) would really meet it. If the template used in an article already expresses a view, it probably should be at least NPOV'd. Also, can we archive some discussion off of this page? Kotepho 17:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up on WP:VP, I forgot about it... as for Template:Christianity, it's used in mainspace. I doubt it would pass TfD much less CSD. Yes technically you could argue it expresses an ideology but I think it's a bit of a stretch. I don't see it as expressing, merely describing. No attribution to any person is intended. ++Lar: t/c 17:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Christianity is part of the encyclopedic content, and let's be honest, T1 isn't made to deal with encyclopedic content. --Cyde Weys 17:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Christianity doesn't express anything; it's a signpost to related articles. That's encyclopedic. "This User is a Christian" expresses something personal, and non-encyclopedic. There's no danger of confusion there - it's a red herring. -GTBacchus 18:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Concur with GTBacchus - there's a world of difference between "this is part of a series of articles on X" and expressing value judgements on X. The first is part of making the encyclopedia feel cohesive and nice. The latter is part of the messy stuff we've been dealing with. A good way to understand the difference is

1. Does the template talk about its author/user specifically?
2. Does the template invoke a value judgement? (this can get slightly fuzzy in some cases)
3. Is the template intended for userspace or for articlespace?
4. Does the template make the encyclopedia better (in a way unrelated to the "toss users a bone" argument)?

--Improv 20:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

T1 doesn't say anything about an exception being made for "encyclopedic content" (a concept not defined anywhere in Misplaced Pages AFAIK). Template:Christianity is a perfect example of a non-userbox template that has been made speediable by the new wording of T1. Angr (t • c) 20:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you suggest a different wording that still carries the power of Jimbo's words but does allow for commonsense exceptions (since you feel it's deletable under T1. I don't, really, but if there is a clarification that works and retains the wording strength... I'd support it)? ++Lar: t/c 21:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I can't. I don't think there is any wording that will uniquely capture the intent behind T1, because that intent is both subjective and arbitrary. And although I have objected to your new wording, it should be clear I was never a fan of the old wording either. The true intent behind it always seemed to be "any userbox any admin doesn't like", although it was always worded in such a way as to applicable to non-userboxes as well. And indeed the only templates I have ever argued should be deleted under T1 were used in article space. Angr (t • c) 22:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, no. How does Template:Christianity "express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues"? That's nonsense. It's a big table of "see also" references. How does Jimbo's wording spill over and make any encyclopedic template speediable - I just don't see it. -GTBacchus 22:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the confusion is a result of two different meanings of "express". The slightly broader meaning is to "show sign of" or "provide information about", but that's clearly not the one that is meant. The definition we want is closer to the "profess" meaning. I don't think that, provided precident is set properly by initial application of the expanded rule, we'll run into problems. I don't think the four clarifying questions I ask above are too far off the mark either. Even if what is encyclopedic is controversial in some areas, it is pretty clear that in this case, it's fine -- I don't think that anyone could say that providing bumper stickers are part of the goal of an encyclopedia. The vast majority of userboxen are simply that -- self-expression in the style of bumper stickers, and not helpful (often harmful) to our goals. I think the chance of confusing the Template:Christianity thing to "Template:User Christian" is negligible. If there is grey ground here, it's not particularly easy to see. --Improv 22:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the definition of "express" you choose, Template:Christianity expresses all sorts of personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, and viewpoints on controversial issues. It includes the Trinity as part of Christianity, though some Christians do not believe in the Trinity. The section on the Bible excludes the Book of Mormon. It lumps all of Eastern Christianity into "Orthodox Christianity" while splitting all of Western Christianity into "Catholicism" and "Protestantism"; there are lots of Christian denominations that would not consider themselves as belonging to any of those three. Sounds pretty inflammatory and divisive to me. Angr (t • c) 23:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It does not express any personal commitments such as "I am a Christian" or "I support Christianity". That is the kind of thing we don't want a template to say. Or at least I hope we can agreement that that is the sort of thing now considered speediable that should be expressed in T1. The words I suggested yesterday still seem to me to make the distinction we want, but I'm prepared to see better formulations. Metamagician3000 00:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

We all know what we mean - this is just words lawyering - but how about: User templates that express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues, or any other templates which are otherwise divisive or inflammatory. - that seems a reasonable clarification of Jimbo's words. --Doc 00:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I would happily support that tweak, it's a good clarification. ++Lar: t/c 00:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Doc's proposal is very good. Nandesuka 01:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Any change along those lines has got to be better than the current words. And if it is just wikilawyering about precise formulations in the future, then we can either shrug it off or continue to fine tune. Someone going to be bold enough to make the change or do we await a broader consensus? Metamagician3000 01:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I see it currently has "my" wording. ;) Well, I for one won't object if someone boldly tweaks it. Metamagician3000 01:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In for a penny, in for a pound. Tweaked. ++Lar: t/c 01:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Angr, regardless of whether I think these things are inherently deeply problematic or not with Template:Christianity, I do appreciate that that statement does provide enough information to move the conversation forward. I might guess that we should overinclude rather than underinclude, even if that means potentially offending people. If, for example, some followers of Orthodox Judaism were to say that Reform Judaism is not really Judaism, I don't think we should feel that it's getting involved in that struggle over the meanings of words to include a link in a Template:Judaism. A preference to overinclude when it comes to contention over definitional content will probably serve us well. --Improv 03:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

All right. Now we await the community's judgment as to whether we had adequate consensus here, and generally whether this will stick. I think we've done the right thing and that some wording like this should have been adopted from the beginning. Still, the events of the past few months have taught us what was needed. Metamagician3000 02:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

So, how does this proposal differ from the one roundly rejected in January, at ; Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/userbox templates concerning beliefs and convictions? Septentrionalis 04:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the resemblance. The intitiative taken here involves a change of policy not a vote on a bunch of userboxes under existing policy, and the circumstances are now quite different. E.g,. there's now been plenty of time for people to userfy and customise their userboxes and generally come to grips with the fact that sooner or later these sorts of userbox templates would cease to be accepted. Metamagician3000 06:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm reverting, as this actually covers something like "This user thinks that pink is for girls." (and that actually did get tagged as a CSD under T1), or even "This user's favorite color is blue," which expresses a personal belief. This is far too broad, and I don't see any real consensus for it. --Rory096 06:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted this back, but I don't want to get into a revert war over it. Just think, though, before you keep reverting, why would we want a userbox expressing either of those opinions in template space? If someone wants to tell us their favourite colour, by all means let them do so on their userpage (which could be by way of a customised userbox). But this is not what template space is for, and I'm still betting that there is now a rough consensus about that, at least among those who care about the issue and the project. Metamagician3000 07:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Templatespace is not articlespace, it's not like it has to be encyclopaedic content. We could have a Userbox: space too, but nobody wants that. --Rory096 07:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's do a straw poll or something.  Grue  11:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's not. Policy pages are not legislation - they are a record of what actually happens. T1 is being interpreted in this way, and a growing consensus is endorsing such deletions. So update this page to reflect consensus. m:Polls are evil --Doc 12:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• This wording is an improvement in one respect: it is much less subjective, so there will be greater agreement about when it applies.
• However, there was 88% consensus against deleting such templates in January. The discussion now underway at WP:UBD about Template:User Christian looks to be about even (and most of the advocates of the present policy have already voiced their opinions). There is no consensus on this policy; if it is forming, it has not yet formed. Septentrionalis 18:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because you and some other admins interpret it this way doesn't mean you have the right to change policy to suit your needs. This kind of proactive policymaking is unacceptable. I won't even comment such silliness as "growing consensus". There either is one or there isn't one.  Grue  20:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to reinforce my point that if T1 is going to be useful at all, it should not be restricted to userboxes: just today, User:Freakofnurture quite appropriately speedy-deleted Template:Axis of Evil (a box consisting of "Iraq (former member) – Iran – North Korea") under T1. Rather than using T1 to whack userboxes, let it do its useful work of eliminating inflammatory and divisive templates from article space. Angr (t • c) 20:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better to have separate criteria for templates in user and article space, so that we can draw each as narrowly as possible. I've edited T1 to say 'User templates.' Maybe we could have a T2 saying initially about the same thing, but 'Article templates,' and see how it develops. Tom Harrison 20:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I would endorse the view that there is no consensus for any version of T1 at this time, so that it should be completely removed from this page. I think it would be possible to develop a more limited consensus for adding language akin to "Templates used only in user space that describe a user, are inflamatory, and that express more about personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues than would help another editor to understand the using user's point of view." Then we could have a separate T2 that functions as Angr describes above "Templates used in the main space that are divisive, inflamatory, or inherently POV." 20:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GRBerry (talk • contribs) .

Endorse that a community consensus does not exist at this time. — xaosflux 21:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No, of course it doesn't, but that doesn't matter. Jimbo himself readded T1 after it had been deleted, and whether we like it or not, Jimbo's actions trump consensus at Misplaced Pages. Angr (t • c) 21:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The criterion Jimbo readded is not the present text, which is far more sweeping (and much more workable as a speedy criterion.) Septentrionalis 22:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and in the absensce of both consensue, or any update from Jimbo, I would suggest it remains as it was at that point, namely "Templates that are divisive and inflammatory." Regards, MartinRe 21:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You would honestly remove our only speedy deletion criteria? So no matter what someone puts in a template, it would have to go through the rigamarole of WP:TFD? What if someone made a template whose sole content was "Fuck all Wikipedians up the ass"; we can't speedy that? Don't be ridiculous. --Cyde Weys 22:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation. The general criteria would still apply. Do please try not to confuse this with straw men. Septentrionalis 22:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Such a template would of course be speediable under G3. Angr (t • c) 22:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Not that I'm weighing in either way, but the eight General criteria apply to Templates too... —Whouk (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Endorse all opinions that the General provisions apply to all pages, and would easily cover a template stating "F*** all Wikipedians up the a**" just as they would support removing someone typing that on their userpage. — xaosflux 23:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus whatsoever to support CSD:T1. But, Jimbo overrides any consensus as and when he wishes. I completely agree with the Grue above - there are several drastically bad userbox speedies happening, and it is getting worse. Stifle (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Then he should certainly be notified of any change; such as the one made yesterday. Septentrionalis 22:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It is being discussed on the English Misplaced Pages mailing list, to which Jimbo subscribes. It's up to him whether he wants to get involved any further or exercise the option of masterful inactivity. Metamagician3000 00:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What Jimbo actually wrote

I wonder if you might consider simply removing your political userboxes and asking others to do the same. This seems to me to be the best way to quickly and easily end the userbox wars.

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.

I think rather than us having to go through a mass deletion (which is what is likely to happen if the userbox fad doesn't go away), it will be better to simply change the culture, one person at a time. Will you help me?--Jimbo Wales 10:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I therefore propose the following language to qualify T1:

Unless there is some unusual circumstance, which should be noted at WP:ANI, deletion under this rule should be preceeded by

• Discussion with the author or transcluder of the template, or
• Modification to NPOV, e.g. changing This user supports X to This user is interested in X.

Templates which may or may not fall under this criterion should be sent to TfD.

Regards, Septentrionalis 05:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I would support such a change. Deco 07:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I also support this, particularly the last line (which I would italicise for emphasis) - I've seen too many DRV/U discussions where there is clearly no consensus whether the template falls under the speedy criteria or not, only to have the deleter say "it doesn't matter about consensus if I think it is divisive then it gets deleted". Having a devisive template discussed for a week is less harmful than a vitriolic deletion review. Thryduulf 09:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I would support qualifying language, within reason, the criteria should be fairly easy to apply without having to fire up your internal parser. As for Jimbo's exact message I am thinking that a footnote giving it might be the best way to show it. But consensus is, in my view,forming around making T1 more precise and having it state the broadness that we're seeing in practice. ++Lar: t/c 10:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am nervous about instruction creep with T1, but I think a big part of the problem with T1 is how its every use inflames the contributors using the affected template. It'd be nice if there were at least a friendly suggestion that it be used only as a last resort after more diplomatic means have failed, such as rewording the template or talking to the user. Deco 15:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not proposing to include Jimbo's words; although a linked subpage is an idea. Septentrionalis 18:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this suggestion is a very good idea. We will save ourselves a lot of angst in the long run if everyday users who happen to have these userboxes and haven't been following the debate (believe me, they do exist!) are politely informed about a template's deletion and the reasons for it before they notice a redlink on their user page and get upset about it. I would even support a further emendation, that any user page which still has a template transcluded onto it at the time that template is deleted under T1 should be subst'ed with the raw code of that template. If we're going to do this, let's not let it be New Year's all over again. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course; I should have thought of the subst requirement. (Although for I hate X boxes, this increases the necessity for discussion also.) Septentrionalis 23:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I am strongly opposed to T1. More broadly, I am strongly opposed to userbox deletionism. Those userboxes do not hurt anyone, they do not harm the project, and more importantly, they have no impact on the encyclopedia content. Whatever it is you think that makes them "bad for the project", it's in your head. More importantly, whatever it is you think "it means to be a Wikipedian" is entirely in your head. That remark smells of repressive dictatorial sentiment and does not earn you credibility. If you do not have the tolerance to let people decide for themselves what it means to them to be Wikipedian, then you are the wrong person to dictate any policies, rules or guidelines in defiance of community concensus. Now please stop this bickering and let the people who want their userboxes have them. — Timwi 19:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No. If you decide that what it means for you to be a Wikipedian is to participate in partisan politics at Misplaced Pages, for example, then you're just wrong, and have to go. You seem to be suggesting that Misplaced Pages is whatever each user decides it is. That's utterly irresponsible, and implies a complete abandonment of focus on the task at hand, which is writing a free, neutral encyclopedia. Oh, and that smell of repressive dictatorial sentiment - it's entirely in your head. -GTBacchus 19:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You have entirely misunderstood me, and misrepresented me accordingly. Firstly, just because someone puts a userbox on their userpage doesn't mean they "participate in partisan politics". That's ridiculous. Suggesting that having userboxes even allows people to turn Misplaced Pages into "whatever each user decides it is", is even more ridiculous. Furthermore, I never said any such thing. — Timwi 00:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Why the new T1 is a good idea

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a battleground for social, moral, or religious issues. Userbox templates and user templates group Wikipedians into competing factions. This infrastructure has been used in the past to abuse our decision-making policies by vote-stacking. If you really feel it is necessary to proclaim your religion on your userpage, you can do it, but you don't need a template to do so. By letting these templates remain we are passively endorsing them and giving outsiders the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian. --Cyde Weys 21:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No one is saying that every template must stay, we are debating on whether there should be a discussion before deleting them or not. A speedy deletion is a deletion without any discussion and is an extreme measure, and not to be used lightly, which is why the crtiteria are so narrow. In my opinion a speedy deletion should only be used in cases where it would be potentially damaging to have the material there for the duration of the discussion, (copyvios, attack pages, etc.). All other cases are non-urgent, and should go to the appropiate *fd. The original T1 "Templates that are divisive and inflammatory" was fine, it allowed speedy deletion of templates that were the template equilavent of attack pages, which could be seen as harmful enough to delete right now. However, I don't think any of the recently deleted templates were potentially harmful enough to do the same, if anything the speedy deletion of them is proving more devisive than the orignal templates ever could be. Many userboxes aren't of much relavence to the enclyopedia, true, but WP:NOT is not a blanket justification for speedy deletion, either in article or template space. Regards, MartinRe 22:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. They should be deleteable, they should not be speediable. Reasonable editors may differ on when a userbox is harmful to the encyclopedia, far more often than they will differ on when an article is gibberish or makes no claim of notability (and so on down for the other speedy criteria.) Septentrionalis 23:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Our deletion process and protections exist to prevent encyclopedic content being deleted without discusson, unless it is obviously junk. Userboxes are not encyclopedic, they simply do not deserve the procedural protection and consensus requirements due to article deletion, because their deletion is at worst neutral to the encyclopedia. There have been literally hundereds of POV-celebrating userboxes, and thousands of others created int he last months, so if there is a consensus to get rid of POV userboxes, it would simply be impractical to use TfD. TfD is for debates over encyclopedic templates, we really don't want to clog it up processing myspace junk. --Doc 23:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Doc underestimates the advantages of TfD. It encourages discussion; it encourages civility; it requires consensus. All these are good things, which the present situation sorely lacks. It is also, quite often, faster.Septentrionalis 01:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

MartinRe, the problem is that if broad consensus is what T1 says it is (that all religious, philosophical, polemic, political, etc, userboxes do not belong in template space) but when any particular one is taken to TfD, it survives, then the process is broken. As surely everyone by now knows, I am a huge fan of process, when it works (which is almost all the time). But when the process does not work, it needs to be changed so that it will work. All these userboxes need to be speedied. With warning, with a chance for people to subst first, with consensus beforehand, but they must go. It has been long enough. That they typically do not survive DRVU suggests that the broad consensus is what it is being said to be. That they survive TfD suggests that TfD is broken. Further, there are times when consensus is not the only thing. At the root, the foundation, and Jimbo have some considerable say. And they want them gone. (I think I'm channeling Tony Sidaway here... yeesh!!!) ++Lar: t/c 01:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that there is a big difference between saying "political, etc userboxes don't belong in template space", and "political, etc userboxes don't belong in template space, and should be speedied". I agree that they don't belong in template space, but think this is not the best way to solve this problem. Even Jimbo suggested changing it one editor at a time, so I think a more gradual process would be more effective in the long term. IMO, It is more important to do something right, than do it 'right now'. I agree with the original T1, devisive/offensive templates are valid speedies, as the template equivalent of attack articles. However, the expanded T1 is proving to be very devisive, the fact that tfd and DRV/U give different answers is a clear indication that there is no consensus either way. I too am a big fan of process, and sometimes process gives different answers to what you might expect, but agreeing with processes only when it gives the answer you want is very risky, which makes decisions look arbitary, and gives potential legitimacy to rogue admins doing what they like, destroying the trust of the community in the process. I would strongly suggest that the speedy criteria remains restricted to material that does immediate harm, and to approach userboxes in a more restrained way. For example, one idea would be to do the following steps:

1. Separate userboxes from categories (reduces auto cat add used for vote stacking, and also allows them to be transferred to {{userbox}} format.
2. Convert all userboxes on the main pages to use {{userbox}} format, so new editors copying them in are already semi-subst'd. (I believe using the userbox template is the best way because it's simplier than raw HTML, and any text added is in user space, no edit wars over original template, as they are unlinked)
3. Require any new templates designed for user space to use the above method. (and new ones created differently speedied)
4. Gradually convert all templates to use the above format, and then delete the orignals when complete.

That I believe would end up with all the user POv, etc, out of template space, not as fast, yes, but I believe more effective in the long term. Regards, MartinRe 11:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to dissect Cyde's text piece by piece. (Is it even Cyde's? I thought it was from Jimbo. But that's irrelevant for the argument.) Timwi 00:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It's Cyde's; what Jimbo said is at Misplaced Pages:Jimbo on Userboxes. Septentrionalis 02:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a battleground for social, moral, or religious issues.

Misplaced Pages already has userpages, and userboxes do not add any additional potential of turning Misplaced Pages into a "battleground" than userpages already do. Timwi 00:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Template userboxes allow easy votestacking. User pages do not allow easy votestacking. ++Lar: t/c 01:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Userbox templates and user templates group Wikipedians into competing factions.

That is simply not true. But even if it was, it is doubtful that userboxes would do that any more than any other mechanism, including user-categories or WikiProjects, already does it. Timwi 00:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

User categories associated with these userboxes need to go too. We have not seen egregious stacking due to projects. Censure for users that do it should be considered regardless of how the votestacklist is developed ++Lar: t/c 01:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This infrastructure has been used in the past to abuse our decision-making policies by vote-stacking.

This is a strawman argument. Vote-stacking is a problem either way; forbidding certain userboxes doesn't solve it. Timwi 00:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This used to be my argument too. Not any more. Removing these userboxes does not hurt, and can help. As well as get rid of divisiveness in general. ++Lar: t/c 01:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Nor will it help; attempts to prevent clique voting by inhibiting communication will not work: There are too many ways to communicate, many of them off Misplaced Pages entirely.Septentrionalis 01:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not just about clique voting, it's also about presenting an appearance that encourages an unencyclopedic perception of Misplaced Pages and Wikipedians. When a newcomer sees a bunch of these boxes, they get the wrong idea about Misplaced Pages, that this is a place to be partisan. This is a place to try our best to rise above partisanship, not to fight or represent for our pet causes. It's an article of culture that we're not doing a great job at communicating. -GTBacchus 01:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jimbo that the desirable way to change a culture is to appeal to editors one at a time. The Userbox War debased our culture noticeably; and yesterday's antics suggest that Userbox War II would be no better. The way to encourage people to be reasonable is by discussion and consensus; T2 is neither. Septentrionalis 02:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If you really feel it is necessary to proclaim your religion on your userpage, you can do it, but you don't need a template to do so.

This is strictly correct, but doesn't mean you shouldn't use templates. Timwi 00:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't mean you should either. If there are other ways that don't have the downside, they should be used.++Lar: t/c 01:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

By letting these templates remain we are passively endorsing them...

It is doubtful that "passively endorsing them" is any worse than or even different from passively endorsing the idea of giving every user their own userpage where they can write what they want. Timwi 00:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

...and giving outsiders the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian.

Templates do not give any significantly different idea than userpages already do. "What it means to be a Wikipedian" is hardly something any single person can decide or define, much less impose on others, outsiders or insiders. But even so, the idea outsiders are supposed to get is that we are an encyclopedia; they are not supposed to be concerned with who writes it. Timwi 00:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Solution to votestacking

Why not just remove the categories from ubxen (which I think everybody agrees we should do anyway), and subst them, so whatlinkshere doesn't work? That allows us to keep the pre-made ubxen so people don't have to type too much stuff when creating a userpage (if you have to type everything out manually, doesn't that mean people would be focusing more on their userpage rather than the encyclopaedia?) and votestacking is unlikely to impossible. --Rory096 03:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

A reasonable proposal, but it won't solve votestacking. There are too many other ways to communicate. Septentrionalis 03:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well it won't solve votestacking, but it would stop it from being made easy because of userboxen, which is one of the main (and only really legit, IMO) concern regarding ubxen. --Rory096 03:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The other methods are no harder, starting with the (perfectly legitimate) method of having the Fooian Nationalists watch all the pages on Fooland. I can think of at least three others that would be more effective than that, but are no more trouble than userbox cats; but it would be WP:Beans to detail. This is the argument for non-partisan phrasing; if the Barlanders can join Category:Users who are interested in Fooland, it won't help with votestacking. Septentrionalis 14:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

True, but those don't really have anything to do with userboxen. --Rory096 22:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. It is much more reasonable than subst and delete comments which have another purpose in mind. This proposal is not designed to stop vote-stacking completely, but thats not really what the userbox debate is about, so at least it would clear that part up so that people can discuss the real issue with having userboxes in template space and we can also focus on the votestacking issue without having reference to this concept which is not causally related to the votestacking issue. Ansell Review my progress! 22:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

CSD:Tx

I may have gone out on a limb here, and will not revert this change if removed by any registered user, but it seems that Jimbo's addition of T1 is not really the problem here, it is an expanded definition for userboxes, and arguing over it may unintentionally damage the original intent. To that end, I've restored T1 to a version placed by Jimbo, and forked all of the user template related items to T2. This does NOT mean that I endorse this version, just that there seems to be a pretty good community consensus on how normal templates should be dealt with. — xaosflux 00:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The distinction is useful and should be kept. If we decide on one of them, we can always comment the other out. Septentrionalis 02:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I'm fine with this change into two criteria if it makes things clearer. I liked the note about things being speedied needing to go to TfD if they get undeleted, till this comes to rest, although I'd rather see them go to DRV. ++Lar: t/c 01:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I support T1 as a criteria for speedy deletion. I absolutely oppose T2 as a criteria for speedy deletion. I think we could craft a significantly more restrictive version as a criteria for deletion, but not as a CSD. GRBerry 01:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think both should be criteria for deletion. The problem with T1 is that reasonable editors will (and have often) disagreed on what it covers; producing much of the chaos now with us. Septentrionalis 02:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as T2 goes, the goal is WP:NPOV, not the elimination of userboxes. If doing something as simple as changing "likes/doesn't like" to "is interested in" eliminates the speedy deletion issue, then even attempting to have a speedy deletion policy appears to be the real issue in this case. Just clarify the usage guidelines for Userboxes with this type of syntax, put AWB on the case and be "done" with it. This is an opportunity for education on NPOV, don't make it a demonstration of intolerance. Rfrisbie 02:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It smacks a bit too much of instruction creep for my taste, but I'm going to treat the proposal with respect and not revert without seeing more discussion. It's obviously a good faith effort to advance consideration of the issue. Metamagician3000 03:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed some statements which appeared to be of a generic nature (xfd is always an option). I also think that the section "it would be civil..." is unnecessary and somewhat patronising. I think it should probably be removed. --Tony Sidaway 13:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

These are largely Jimbo's recommendations; if they had been generally followed, there would be less ill-feeling now. Please reword to adjust the tone. Septentrionalis 13:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I've done that since Tony's remarks - and I've tried to keep the intention intact.--Doc 13:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that's too weak; it's certainly weaker than Jimbo was. How about We recommend? Septentrionalis 14:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Things have moved on, the writing has been on the wall for a long time, etc., etc. I do not condone the mass userbox deletions that happened in the past, of which I was one of many innocent victims, or the shenanigans with the "User Christian" userbox. But there has now been ample time for people to adjust to the idea of not having these things in template space. I think we all just have to accept that concept and make it official. Jimbo didn't say to stop taking strong action forever.

I say that we should keep the criteria as simple as possible. I do hope admins will show some sensitivity and take action to substitute, etc., before deleting, when it is practical, to try to look after people who don't know about all these debates. That will have to be a matter of discretion, though; this shouldn't turn into a new nightmare with all sorts of procedural challenges to people who are essentially doing the right thing. We have to trust admins to administer this with good sense. Metamagician3000 14:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Metamagician3000 100%. The train has left the station. Current practice is that any userbox template that expresses political, religious, or similar opinions may be speedily deleted. The CSD need to reflect that practice. Any formulation which ignores this reality is unacceptable. Nandesuka 16:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this ("current practice is that any userbox template that expresses ... similar opinions may be speedily deleted") even true, and does it have consensus? I don't think it is true, but that's only my impression from the pages I watch. --AySz88^-^ 16:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

T2 is a special case of T1. As such, it either should be renumbered to T1.1 or the terms "divisive and inflammatory" should be inserted, notwithstanding Nandesuka's revert and justification of "current practice." Practice should follow policy, not the other way around. Rfrisbie 16:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No, policy pages are supposed to reflect practice, not the other way arround. --Doc 17:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Really? That's interesting. I'll go and speedy delete all articles relating to France now, and then come back and write a new speedy criterion A9 "Articles relating to France", shall I? Angr (t • c) 17:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You missed the part where we're editing an encyclopedia, and not myspace.com. Nandesuka 18:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't miss that part. We're discussing the userspace portion of the encyclopedia. Not one bit of information on anyone's user page has any relevance to the encyclopedia. Not yours, not mine, not Jimbo's, no one's. Either userspace is allowed to contain unencyclopedic information (that status quo since Misplaced Pages began), or the entire User: namespace should be deleted. Angr (t • c) 19:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought we're talking about templatespace, though. Userboxes, the ones we're talking about, live in templatespace. I have subst'd userboxes on my user page and I've been arguing all along that knowing my POV helps others help me be a better editor. But in templatespace, they're part of the encyclopedia. ++Lar: t/c 19:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Templates are not viewed by readers in isolation; they're seen on pages. Templates that appear on articles should be judged by the same criteria as articles. Templates that appear on user pages should be judged by the same criteria as user pages. There are already lots of non-userbox templates intended for user pages (see Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User namespace and Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Large/Licencing; the latter aren't userboxes despite the name). Presumably these are now all speediable under T2. Angr (t • c) 23:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

In less-inflammatory words... I'd say policy reflects consensus (or Jimbo's will) but consensus is not necessarily reflected by practice. Consensus needs to be shown for the practice first if you want to say "policy reflects practice". --AySz88^-^ 18:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Go to WP:DRVU and scroll down to achieves - notce how such speedy deletions are increasingly being endorsed by the community. It isn't just that some admins are interpreting T1 in this fashion, it is that the community is endorsing it. That's policy in the making. --Doc 18:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleting a template because it is divisive and inflammatory is not the same as deleting it because it characterizes a point of view. Using one argument to justify the other is unfounded. Rfrisbie 18:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the last two debates, my rough count looks like use athesist 13Del 17Undel, and user christan 20Del 22Undel, which is far from consensus to me, it's more like split down the center, and isn't devisiveness the exact thing we're trying to prevent?? MartinRe 18:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Which suggests that when consensus goes up against fiat, you get funny results. We've been asked to get rid of these out of templatespace for some time but DRVU sometimes comes up with funny results. ++Lar: t/c 19:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it might help if it was first easier for people to move it to user space. Yes, they can subst, but many of the templates subst to complex html, instead of using a userbox template. Also, if the the templates listed at WP:UBX were updated to user {{userbox|a,b,}} instead of {{User abc}} it might reduce the number of new users linking to the templates as they would then be cutting and pasting in pre-subst'd code. I agree that these need to move to user space, but I just don't think speedying them like this is the correct way. (not yet anyway!) Regards, MartinRe 19:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You should also look at the debates and see how much of a walled garden DRVU is, also DRVU does not show consensus as only a bare majority is needed. Kotepho 18:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Templates for CSD I6

Just thought you guys might want to know that you can use {{subst:frn}} for images without fair use rationales uploaded after May 4, and {{subst:Image fairuse rationale|Image:image name}} for their uploaders' talk pages. Johnleemk | Talk 08:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we've had some duplicate work. Rory096 got a little ahead of you, see the top of the page. Since he created them first and they are slightly more in line with existing tags, I'm going to boldly redirect some and propose the extra categories for deletion. I hope you don't mind. Stifle (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. The templates actually stemmed from a discussion at the talk page of the fair use wikiproject, which led me to believe we didn't have any such templates yet. Johnleemk | Talk 13:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

New proposal

The present state of WP:UBD demonstrates that there is no consensus for T2 as a speedy criterion. I suggest therefore we add the following to Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy:

Many Wikipedians disapprove od user pages templates that are frivolous or which express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues. They may be perceived as unencyclopedic, or as condoning partisan behavior. It is always in order to suggest that such templates be substituted into user pages; or to reword them in a non-partisan fashion (for example, replacing This user likes x with This user is interested in X). If this fails, they can be listed at Misplaced Pages:Templates for Deletion; a consensus shall delete them if they are harmful to the project.

and comment out T2.

(I chose this wording because:

• Mentioning votestacking is WP:BEANS.
• Technically, This user likes X is NPOV; it's a (possibly verifiable) fact. Rather than encourage that dilatory argument, I used non-partisan.

But improvements are welcome.)

Combined with a {{tprod}} tag, which would be an in-line {{prod}} for templates, this should accomplish all the legitimate goals of T2. Please comment Septentrionalis 13:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the tl|prod idea is a good one - at the moment you can't prod a template - so I'd strongly support that. You will need to discuss it with folk on the prod page first, I think.) As for T2, I disagree. I don't think it is really a new criterion, it is an interpretation (all be it a broad one) of T1 - personally I'd not have split it off. Many of us have been interpreting t1 broadly for a while (and will continue to do so evenif T2 was removed). That broader interpretation is gathering increasing support - as can be seen by recent consensuses on DRV. CSD are not primary legislation anyway, they are a reflection of what actually generally happens - they are a record not a permission. --Doc 14:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This broad interpretation of T1 is causing unnecessary discord. Please stop. Septentrionalis 14:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur. At what point does "broad interpretation" become "bias"? Rfrisbie 14:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

All the same could be said for 'narrow interpretation'--Doc 14:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for speedy deletion should be objectively verifyable, needing minimal interpretation, thus, minimizing the likelihood of any form of biased interpretation. Rfrisbie 14:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's what T2 tries to do - spell out more clearly what T1 might mean. --Doc 15:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, it tries and fails. That's why I added the section below. Rfrisbie 15:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support. T2 circumvents due process on topics that are, by definition, controversial. POV in and of itself is not cause for deletion. In fact, in a userbox, it supports full and frank disclosure. Rfrisbie 15:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• What possible reason do we have for annealing layers and layers of "due process" around content that is in no way useful to the building of the encyclopedia? For templates in article space I agree. For templates in user space, give me a break. Nandesuka 16:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • To avoid the reality, and the appearance, of arbitrariness and oppression; and to keep a handful of users, on both sides, from making fools of themselves. Septentrionalis 23:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • How is it oppressive to ask users to type their opinions or affiliations on their user pages, rather than having them in templates? How does spending time and resources on maintaining blog-like content meant for personal use in template space advance the cause of building an encyclopedia? Answer: in no way whatsoever. Nandesuka 00:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
      • How is promoting and supporting collaboration being counter to the cause of building an encyclopedia? Rfrisbie 00:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
        • If you're unable to collaborate without a pretty HTML box stored in template space, you might want to look for a site more suited to what you hope to achieve. Nandesuka 00:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
          • You keep bringing up myspace, as if having userboxes on one's user page were tantamount to making them myspace pages. A faulty comparison at best -- and ironic considering you yourself have no fewer than three userboxes on your own user page "that express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues". Angr (t • c) 01:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
            • I have zero templated userboxes on my own user that meet that criteria. So I think your understanding of that phrase is simply wrong. If you're talking about the babelboxes, then I will claim that you're the only person in the entire universe who believes that "I speak French" is a "personal belief, ideology, ethical convinction, or viewpoint on a controversial issue." Nandesuka 01:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Of course I'm talking about the babelboxes, and of course I am not the only person in the universe, or even the only Wikipedian, who considers a statement of which languages you have considered worth learning to be a statement of a personal belief; and, as I already mentioned above, one which in many cases (perhaps not yours) can have clear political indications. I am not saying we should get rid of Babelboxes. I am saying we should get rid of the idea that it's possible to draw a clear line between userboxes that do and do not meet the criteria of T2. It is furthermore utterly absurd that only templates on user pages should be subject to this restriction. Templates are just a convenient way of storing information to be placed on other pages. Restrictions on the content of templates should be relative to the pages on which they appear. Templates appearing on articles should be subject to the same conditions as the articles themselves. Templates appearing on user pages should be subject to the same conditions as the user pages themselves. If you say "templates appearing on user pages must not express personal beliefs etc.", that is functionally equivalent to saying "user pages must not express personal beliefs". If you're worried that a colored box saying "This user is a Christian Socialist" makes the user page look more like a myspace page, then you must feel the same way about a plain text sentence saying "I'm a Christian Socialist". Whether the statement is written in a template, substed from a template, or written in plain text is completely irrelevant. Angr (t • c) 09:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

(de-indenting) You say: "If you say "templates appearing on user pages must not express personal beliefs etc.", that is functionally equivalent to saying "user pages must not express personal beliefs"". To which I reply "well, except that it really isn't functionally equivalent to that at all, in any way." So again: I simply think you're wrong. Kind of the same way that your claim that "I speak French" is "expressing a personal belief" turned out to be wrong also. Again: the entire point of expanding T2 is to avoid having to make these sorts of value judgments. No one (let me repeat that: no one) has suggested deleting babelboxes, except you in a sort of roundabout WP:POINT way, and I believe there would be consensus for carving out an explicit exception for babelboxes if that was a legitimate concern. But it's not a legitimate concern, it's a ridiculous example taken to extremes, and that's why no one has added that exception. Nandesuka 13:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're going to have to defend your statement "well, except that it really isn't functionally equivalent to that at all, in any way." If I have information about my religious and political beliefs on my user page, it's completely irrelevant how it got there and what the code looks like. People keep saying "template space is for encyclopedic content only", except that it isn't and never has been, as a glance at Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User namespace will show. That page is full of long-established, well respected templates without a shred of encyclopedic content, intended for use on user pages. As for Babel boxes, I have never suggested deleting them: I have always only pointed out that any attempt to write a policy banning any subset of userboxes will wind up applying to Babelboxes too, because it's impossible to draw clear lines as to what are "good" userboxes and what are "bad" ones. Angr (t • c) 18:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Tack on the words "this policy does not apply to babelboxes." There, done. Your concept of "impossible" is extremely unambitious. Nandesuka 18:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

And how do we define babelboxes? Is {{User en-5}} a babelbox or just a "fun" userbox? What about {{User AmE-5}}? {{User tlh}}? I amend my statment above to "it's impossible to draw clear, non-arbitrary lines as to what are 'good' userboxes and what are 'bad' ones." Angr (t • c) 19:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

T2 confuses POV for bias, making it inappropriate

T2 characterizes a "point of view" about a controversial subject. By inclusion here, it then appraises expressing such a POV as unacceptable, thus meeting a criterion for speedy deletion. This policy statement is inappropriate because it confuses POV with bias.

Some contributors to Misplaced Pages misuse the term POV, taking it as an antonym to "NPOV", implying that a particular article or passage is affected by an editor's point of view. This is not what the term POV means, and should be avoided. The term they are groping for is "biased". (Describing points of view)

In adition, T2 implies a form of objectivity that is not intended by the NPOV policy.

There's no such thing as objectivity
Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously? Neutrality, lack of bias, isn't possible.

This is probably the most common objection to the neutrality policy. It also reflects the most common misunderstanding of the policy. The misunderstanding is that the policy would have said something about the possibility of objectivity. It simply does not. In particular, the policy does not say that there even is such a thing as objectivity in a philosophical sense... (There's no such thing as objectivity)

Further, T2 pushes the boundaries of using Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete.

There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people on board who know about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of the biased material will not be induced to change it, we have sometimes taken to removing the text to the talk page itself (but not deleting it entirely). But the latter should be done more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased.

For reasons such as these, T2 is an inappropriate criterion for a speedy delete. Several less intrusive options are availiable, such as the example of replacing User likes X with User is interested in X. Beyond that, Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion should be used to guard against the potential for abuses of this policy through its biased application. Rfrisbie 14:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Too bad doing that can get you blocked. (See Template:User pedo)--70.218.62.240 02:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The following templates seem to express a POV:

{{test1}}

{{test2}}

{{blatantvandal}}

{{sockpuppet}}

etc., etc. These are templates expressing an opinion that are designed for user space. In the war against userboxes, let's be careful about the collateral damage we open ourselves up to. JDoorjam Talk 18:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• On the other hand, these are templates explicity in the service of the encyclopedia, with long histories, etc. Also, I think we usually subst those. Mackensen (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  On the contrary, these templates are opinion based to some extent, they desire to express ones point of view with regard to vandalism. Remember, there is a thin line between vandalism and content disputes, the templates are quite easy to misuse in content dispute cases, where they are "divisive and inflammatory". Also, I think the subst debate is entirely different to the debate about the purpose of userboxes, it merely transfers the argument to look as it the user coded the HTML, however, without knowledge at this deep level, the users intentions are completely identical. Ansell 07:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Does moving userboxes to userspace solve any problems?

I started a conversation about Moving userboxes from Template space to User space. Does this solve any problems discussed here, or is it just rearranging deck chairs? Rfrisbie 19:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

In my view it does. Especially if images and categories are removed at the same time and if users are asked to subst or use {{userbox}} rather than transcluding each other's pages. Those all cut off avenues for easy votestacking (yes, votestacking is still possible, but harder). ++Lar: t/c 19:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

So, is "votestacking" the underlying issue (or at least a primary one)? If so, does this potential threat outweigh the potential benefits of "community building"? Rfrisbie 20:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of the problems it solves are: a)makes it more difficult to vote stack as attached categories are removed. b)moves all potential POV text into userspace. c) removes the edit war possibility, as everyone's userbox is independent.

I think converting all the {{user ABC}} templates to {{Userbox|A|B|C}} would do a lot to help, as currently many templates are subst's to raw html, which makes users likely to revert the subst. I think if it was substs to userbox templates, it would not be as complex (it's wiki format) but yet would move it out of template space. Also, I think if we were to encourage this method, it would be better to re-write WP:UBX to use userbox format (except in cases of very offical templates), to try and stem the tide first, before trying to reverse it. Regards, MartinRe

Okay, since there's no technical reason why a userspace userbox can't be categorized, I assume deleting categories is another issue. IMHO, that seems to be getting closer to the heart of the issue, at least in terms of the votestacking concern. However, categories have a tendency to be more neutrally worded, e.g., "Wikipedians interested in bla, bla, bla" even when the userbox might say something with a more POV tone. From this perspective, they serve two highly useful (also IMHO) purposes for writing content - networking around a topic and community building. Attempts at wholesale banning of the communication functions userboxes serve through deletions of the boxes and categories out of votestacking fears is like trying to ban cell phones because terrorists use them. The potential costs of overly restricting these communication tools far outweigh the potential benefits of responsibly using them in an open environment such as this...IMHO. ;-) Rfrisbie 21:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

p.s. Moving userboxes from Template space to User space demonstrates that "moving userboxes to userspace" does not necessarily make userboxes independent. They still can be transcluded (if that's the proper term for it). Maybe it's just me, but looking for ways to handcuff the use of an available technology intended to facilitate collaboration seems a bit odd to me. Rfrisbie 21:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As it happens, I've been working on extra features for my userbox substing script. One of these is the ability to automatically convert ("un-subst") an existing userbox template back into a tidy {{Userbox}} call. It's not perfect yet, but it already works more than half the time — it should be able to handle any userbox that was originally created using {{Userbox}}, {{Userbox-r}} or {{Userbox-2}}, but a lot of userboxes have nonstandard modifications that have to be allowed for. I've got some plans for a more robust version which I'll try to implement after the weekend. (Pathoschild also has an AWB-based solution at User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes.)

Basically, I started thinking that it might make sense to start a project to subst all the userboxes "that express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues" in one pass. This would be much more efficient than doing them one by one, since the time required for script-assisted substitution scales proportionally to the number of user pages edited but is mostly independent of the number of boxes substed on each page. I have no desire to force this thing through in a hurry — but if the criterion I quoted above sticks, I feel it'd be better to subst the boxes before people start deleting them. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see userbox policy

This discussion is not about CSD; it's about userboxes. Please see Misplaced Pages:Userbox policy. You may wish to edit this policy to reflect your concerns or you might like to discuss it in the appropriate place. John Reid 23:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe, but I think it's about CSD criteria. There have been attempts to develop new CSD criteria and this seems the place to discuss that. ++Lar: t/c 03:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is the appropriate discussion page. That doesn't necessarily preclude discussion elsewhere, but discussion here is totally appropriate. Metamagician3000 10:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

"And" -> "or"_"or"-2006-05-14T00:47:00.000Z">

A couple of days ago there seemed to be clear consensus that userboxes that are divisive or inflammatory should be deleted. There is quite clear arbcom precedent to say exactly that. T1 used to say "and/or" before it was deleted in the last flurry of changes a few months ago, and I think that when it was reinstated the wording with "and" was not intended to mean that henceforth a userbox had to be both divisive and inflammatory, even though that is what it literally said. The intention was surely that divisive userboxes and inflammatory userboxes would be deleted. Often, the rationale for deletion of userboxes has, in practice, just been "divisive".

However, someone has changed the "or" back to "and" over the last couple of days. As far as I can see, no explanation was given as to why this was done. I have taken the liberty of changing it back to "or" to reflect:

• practice;
• the original aims of T1;
• arb. com.'s clear language;
• what seemed to be the consensus here.

Metamagician3000 00:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)_"or""> _"or"">

I think it should remain as "and" as per the diff referenced on the main page. Many things could be regarded as devisive, even {{user admin}} divides users into admins and non-admins. I don't think it's the division that's the problem, it's if there is hositily attached to it as well. That's why I think it should remain as "and" to allow the swift removal of anything that splits people into them/us in cases where this would create unnecessary tension. Regards, MartinRe 00:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I'd probably just simplify it to say inflammatory, as not all divisive issues are bad, but generally all inflammatory one are, even if they're not devisive. Regards, MartinRe 01:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreeded, or is MUCH broader than and. I don't mind removing divisive myself, but we should form consensus on chaning this policy first. — xaosflux 03:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted an and-->or back to and. This is the exact version that is in the citation where Jimbo added this. This section apparently is just starting to discuss this proposed change. — xaosflux 03:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I do not think "or" was the original intent of Jimbo's creation of T1. My logic goes like this: Interpretation of T1 should be placed in the context of the {{User paedophilia}} controversy at the time, with which "divisive and inflammatory" more probably meant the kind of backlash and division created in the community by the existance of the userbox. It probably doesn't mean "divisive" on its own, which could be interpreted horrendously broadly to include male/female or "I think the singular they is acceptable". (Unless, of course, Jimbo has clarified it since.) --AySz88^-^ 04:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well this unanimous arb com ruling seemed pretty clear on how the arb com interpreted the situation. Metamagician3000 10:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo did have the polemcial version around at one time (mailing list?), but polemic != divisive. I'd be fine with or if we were going back to polemical. — xaosflux 11:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I would almost say that polemic == "divisive 'and' inflammatory", but the latter is easier to understand for most people, as the former isn't a very common word, ime. MartinRe 12:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

"Polemical" actually seems like a weaker word than "divisive" to me. Anyway, I'll leave this alone for a while and get back to a mix of (1) editing an encyclopedia and (2) real life. Metamagician3000 12:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It is weaker, if you are referring to the breadth of it's scope, but that may be by design. — xaosflux 12:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, one of the boxes deleted as part of the referenced Template:User paedophilia controversy was the box Template:User pedo, which follows precisely the formulation suggested for alternatives to divisive and inflammatory boxes (i.e. "This user is interested in Pedophilia"). The creation of that template led to a two month ban for the[REDACTED] who created it - it might be nice to place a little warning to that effect along with the suggestion that such a formulation is acceptable. My 2¢. --67.168.249.84 23:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK the main problem with the pedophilia box was that it had a history behind it. In context, it was highly provocative, even though the words themselves were in a relatively anodyne form for such a sensitive subject. Anyway, I won't press the "and/or" issue, because I'm quite happy with the current (as I write this) formulation of TX. I'd just like to see it bed down. Metamagician3000 12:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)_"or""> _"or"">

Another idea

Another idea to throw into the mix before I hit the hay. Currently the discussion is about whether or not a template can be speedy deleted, or required to go to Tfd. However, because of the nature of templates, do we not have a middle option of "speedy subst+delete" that might be worth exploring? Would that option help reduce some of the tension as a half way house? So "really bad" templates get speedy deleted, "okay, not template space worthy, but would cause ill will if outright deleted" get substs to userspace, and all other go to tfd where the discussion can say delete, subst+delete, or keep. Comments? MartinRe 01:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I could support that if it included removing categories and images at the same time (both can be used for votestacking) ++Lar: t/c 01:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Substituting first is good practice, but not always practical if a very large number of people have a userbox. My feeling is that with a userbox like "This user is a feminist" the best thing to do is change the template to "This user is interested in feminism". But there will be many situations, and I think we have to leave it to the good sense of admins. Let's avoid instruction creep. And yes, I know that not all admins have always used good sense in the past, but most have been quite cautious.

Responding to this point specifically, it took me about 40 minutes to fix all the 300 or so pages transcluding {{User Christian}}. Anyone can do this with a tabbed browser (optional but recommended) and a bit of javascript. Also, the script can easily do multiple userboxes at the same time, and can be run by multiple users. At a guess, the time needed to subst all the religious and ideological userboxes, once the groundwork (deciding which boxes to subst, copying them to userspace, replacing the HTML code with a tidy {{Userbox}} call) has been done, would be measured in hours or days at most. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The main thing is to clarify what kinds of userboxes are not supposed to be in template space to stop the endless disputes when admins take actions that don't fall literally into the words of the old T1, with resulting inconsistencies, depending on the vagaries of how reviews go. We all know what kinds of userboxes Jimbo doesn't want to be in template space indefinitely. His views on this are widely shared, at least among the admins. It's time to ensure that formal policy is worded in a way that clearly conforms with this. That's what I'm trying to achieve, and what I think Lar, Doc, Nandesuka and so on are trying to achieve. I don't understand why anyone would be against this - as opposed to being against deletions that don't match the words of the policy.

I mean, if Jimbo steps in and says we are going too far in trying to get this policy change to stick, of course I'm going to back off and eat my tasty dessert of humble pie. But at the moment this seems like a necessary and overdue step. Once it is taken, admins should be able to act in sensible ways without too much controversy. If some admins then go on a wild spree to delete userboxes en masse without attempts at substitution I'll be disappointed in them, but I don't want a whole lot of instructions tying admins in knots. Keep it simple. Metamagician3000 02:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. I'm willing to get behind various ideas, even if they take things too far in the complexity direction, because I tend to go along with good faith efforts, but, as User:GTBacchus told me on my talk page yesterday, every once in a while it may be prudent to take a whack at all the exceptions, butifs, special cases, and etc and simplify back down to essentials. So sure, MartinRe, if you can get this to stick, fine. But I think going to how MM3K and I and everyone else were trying to get T1 to be worded (without T2 and all the special cases) is simpler and perhaps better. Jimbo said points of view in userboxes are divisive and asked us to get rid of them if we would. We haven't.

It's time to be crisper about this. Stuff that helps people transition is goodness but is not the main point here. The main point is that while it's OK to have a point of view (any point of view), having it in a box in template space is divisive, and it has to go, per Jimbo. He asked. Sooner or later he will tell us instead I think. I'd rather we took care of this ourselves if we can.

I expect there are some people raising their eyebrows at my taking this stance at this time, because back at the time of the New Years deletions I was pretty adamant about how the out of process deletions were a bad thing. I still feel that way and there is no inconsistency, but it's clear to me now that when policy or process fail to give the right result, the policy and process have to be changed or fixed, because constantly just invoking WP:IAR over and over in the face of incorrect policy or process is NOT the way to go. ++Lar: t/c 03:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I also agre that overuse of IAR is not the way to go, and I also would like userboxes out of template space, but I feel that most of the solutions try and do too much in one fell swoop, and that doing in it in steps, while not as quick, will work better overall and end up in the same place, but without as much chaos. When policy and process give the wrong result, the problem is people, and that can't be changed quickly. I think the first step was done ages back, namely specifying every template designed for user space was prefixed with user, and I think the next step is to first stop the increase of those being created before we try and reduce it. In that light, I would support the speedy deletion of a) any template designed for user space without the prefix user and b) the sppedy deletion of any user templates created after X day which do not have clear use to the enclyopedia (to allow more {{user aid}} style, which I assume people believe are fine. Any new "userboxes" created must be created using the userbox template, and may be added to WP:UBX in that form only. All templates existing prior to that date (including those on UBX), either get speedy deleted if covered by the old T1 (devisive and inflamitory) or go to tfd, where the only results are "use to project, 'officalise' in section of UBX", "delete" or "de-cat, userboxify, subst, and then delete". UBX should be monitored to ensure that those "project useful" templates are in an appropiate labeled sections, and any others are re-edited to user userbox format. (e.g. by tagging templates with "userboxify this on ubx by X date or it will be removed from there". At that point, there may be still many userboxes on user pages, but they will all be in userspace, and I believe that without a central and simple place to create {{user is XYZ}} the number used will slowly wither away. And I think it'll be that allowing to wither away rather than abrupt removal that will allow it to work. For better or worse, people are seem to get attached to, and value more anything you try and forcibly take away. Think of a large group of people as a child with a toy, try and take it away to tidy up, and the child will throw a tantrum and claim it's their favourite. Simply ignore them and they'll eventually throw it away in boredom. Both end up at the same point, but the latter case, while not as quick, is handled without screams. Regards, MartinRe 09:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

PS so, if anything, I support a harsher speedy delete than proposed now (delete everything without a claim of "usefulability", (A7 for templates? :) albeit applied only to a subset created after an agreed date. Regards, MartinRe 09:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Votestacking is simply not enough of an argument here. There are tons of ways to locate editors besides userboxes, and most of the methods can be used for as much good as bad. It's like saying that automobiles should be outlawed, because you could use them to run somone over. — xaosflux 03:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I oppose bundling categories with templates on this issue. The potential benefits of collaboration facilitated by the use of wikipedian categories by topic far outweigh the potential costs of any form of aoutmated wikipedian groupings used to facilitate votestacking. Rfrisbie 03:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Templates are merely transclusions

Templates are part of "omni-space". Templates are merely transclusions. If there are objections to substance contained in templates, then the same substance should be removed from User:space. If there is no objection to substance, then there is no reason to remove the transclusion of that substance. Bits are bits are bits. --William Allen Simpson 15:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Bits is bits, and policy is policy. The critical issues revolve more around which policies apply. They are different for mainspace and userspace. The question then becomes which policies apply to which templates. Since transclusions are not "inherently" substantive, it makes sense that templates that are restricted to specific namespace(s) should be subject to their corresponding policies. In the case of userboxes, for example, they should be subject to userspace policies. Rfrisbie 16:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There's a number of things that we wouldn't allow in one namespace, but would in another. This sounds like you're talking about the userbox thing, so here's what I think about that: We wouldn't have a Misplaced Pages: page about wombats, and we shouldn't have a template page either. Anything on this encyclopedia exists to further to encyclopedia. Jokes and humor are fine, but keep it confined to userspace where people won't be the impression that these templates are what we're about. Snoutwood (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The argument "Anything on this encyclopedia exists to further the encyclopedia" can lead to the entire deletion of User: space, and possibly Help: space, Misplaced Pages: space, and MediaWiki: space as well. Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. Angr (t • c) 18:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that is a matter of concern, since there's no definition of what "furthering the encyclopedia" does or does not include. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

About the first post: I agree that templates which are used (or meant to be used) in User space are already governed by User policy, and other spaces by their policies - however, there is one difference with Template space that I know of: things controversial or borderline as to whether they are detrimental to the project probably shouldn't be allowed in Template space, since wide proliferation of those things is undesirable in favor of better alternatives. But that doesn't really change the point - in the end, the "it doesn't benefit the encyclopedia" argument (and some other arguments, probably) still doesn't really fit in here, since the argument is really about whether it should be used in User space and is about changing userspace policy, not the templates. If that argument has any weight, one should change the userspace policy to disallow such things.

I don't see a reason why that wombat box would be deleted. Since the wombat userbox is meant for userspace, if the joke is agreed to be acceptable in userspace (and I don't see any reason why it would ever be thought of as harmful to the project), there is no reason why a template would be unacceptable. Any such template would be used on userspace, where they've already been determined to be acceptable.

Especially with these joke templates, which I don't think can be construed as damaging to the project, whether or not those are within Template space seems meaningless to me, since there's no reason why having it in Template space is any worse than having it in User space. What good would it do to move these to User space if there is no reason why having it as in Template space is bad and most would agree that it would be acceptable in User space either way, and why not allow the harmless templates since they're not damaging the encyclopedia?

Also, saying that there would never be a Misplaced Pages: page about wombats is probably not correct, since one never knows the context in which one might be appropriate. And, you know, there's already one about tigers.--AySz88^-^ 20:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Wombat! Rfrisbie 22:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Any speedy deletion criteria specifically targeting userboxes are premature

Clearly, the use of userboxes is controversial. In addition, previous attempts at establishing a policy about their use have been unsuccessful, e.g., Misplaced Pages:Proposed policy on userboxes. Further, many attempts to speedy delete specific and even classes of userboxes have proven to be controversial and divisive. Thus, attempts to create speedy deletion criteria specifically targeting userboxes, such as the current T2, violate their own principles. If the underlying principles of T2 were applied to itself, it would qualify as a candidate for speedy deletion.

A fundamental problem with any attempts to target userboxes with speedy deletion criteria is that these criteria currently have no basis in a broader userbox policy. Until such a policy is in effect, speedy deletion criteria specifically for userboxes fail to have the guidance of policy-level consensus, exacerbating the likelihood of provoking exactly the type of divisiveness it purports to eliminate.

Because of these inherent pitfalls in the current situation, any attempts to develop speedy deletion criteria specifically targeting userboxes are premature. In the meantime, speedy deletion criterion T1 is in effect for all templates, including userboxes. If a userbox violates T1, it can be dealt with accordingly. Consequently, I propose the following.

• Delete T2.
• Hold a moratorium on developing userbox-specific speedy deletion criteria until such time that an approved userbox policy is in place. After the policy is in place, determine whether any additional speedy deletion criteria are necessary, and then proceed accordingly.
• Work toward developing consensus and approving a userbox policy. A current proposed policy can be found at Misplaced Pages:Userbox policy.

Thank you for your good faith consideratrion of this proposal. Rfrisbie 00:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that many people are trying to rush in their point of view into policy claiming current practice dictates it without thinking about a long term solution that has consensus to start with. Ansell 12:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely agree with this, 100%. See also User:Misza13/Userbox Gallery Poll and WP:MACK. Please, admins, hold off a bit and see what the rest of us can come up with! TheJabberwʘck 04:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Abosultely agree. No userbox should be speedied unless it meets the general criteria for speedy deletion, until we've got together a proper policy on it. Stifle (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to object in the strongest possible terms to any modification of userboxes using T2 as the basis since this is a new and heavily disputed guideline. Specifically the efforts of Clyde need to be stopped for the time being at least until this issue is resolved here as he is systematically changing the meaning of several dozen userboxes without discussion. JohnnyBGood t c 00:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of User:Tony Sidaway's revert of an edit by User:Matt Yeager

Matt_Yeager (talk · contribs) edited T2 from:

Templates designed for user pages that express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues.

to:

(Proposed criterion) Templates designed for user pages that express divisive and inflammatory personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues.

I have reverted this edit for the following reasons:

1. templates are already being routinely speedied for expressing "beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues." This is largely just an interpretation of T1. Examples of such speedy deletions that were endorsed at deletion review include the deletions of the "No Marxism" template, the "Communism" template and the "against Saud" template.
2. the repetition of "divisive and inflammatory" appears to be an attempt to weaken the clause, and doesn't really make much sense.
3. the inclusion of the term "proposed criterion" is prejudicial. WP:CSD is the place for speedy deletion policy. We don't put mere proposals there (they would be discussed on the talk page).

--Tony Sidaway 12:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The proposal is so broad that it encompasses everything. There are administrators who would take everything to be included in the category. You shouldn't justify your policy decision based on current practice, there has to be an objective reason why we should outlaw any expression of POV on user pages, and NPOV policy is not it. The inclusion of proposed criterion is perfectly fine, otherwise this debate is a foregone conclusion, and it most certainly is not a foregone conclusion. Maybe the proposal should be deleted and developed here since it is actually still a mere proposal. The repetition of divisive and inflammatory is what I think defines a scope for the whole proposal, it deserves to be there. Ansell 12:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand the purpose of these CSDs. They don't "outlaw any expression of POV on user pages" at all. They merely limit and hopefully effectively erradicate the ongoing abuse of template space, categories, whatlinkshere and the transclusion mechanism to promote partisan views.

This principle has already been well expressed in past debates. The thesis that we shouldn't based written policy on current practice is simply fatuous. That's what policy on Wikpiedia is. --Tony Sidaway 12:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy should not be made up by practice followed by someone saying its current practice therefore we must make policy fit it. That ignores the idea of consensus in the community. Ansell Review my progress! 07:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

At this moment the King, who had been for some time busily writing in his note-book, cackled out "Silence!" and read out from his book, "Rule Forty-two. All persons more than a mile high to leave the court."

Everybody looked at Alice.

"I'm not a mile high," said Alice.

"You are," said the King.

"Nearly two miles high," added the Queen.

"Well, I shan't go, at any rate," said Alice: "besides, that's not a regular rule: you invented it just now."

--Alice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll. Angr (t • c) 08:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Per definition, current practice has consensus. (as there is no opposition to that which is already there). Misplaced Pages essay/guidelines/policy are said to be "descriptive not prescriptive", ie, current practice is to be written down.

This also explains things like Ignore All Rules. If you disagree with current practice, get consensus and apply a new current practice. Kim Bruning 10:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

In actions which any wikipedian can take, I would agree that current practice must have a decent level of consensus, but where the actions can only be taken by a subset of the involved parties, current practice may only by definition have consensus in that group. (ie, admin powers of deletion etc.) Ansell Review my progress! 10:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This is why I am dismayed at the low efficacy of Requests For Adminship. We've gone from the wiki with the best user/admin ratio (due to adminship being "no big deal") to the wiki with the worst user/admin ratio (due to high influx).

Even so, actions like deletion can certainly be taken by anyone, you just need to know how, it just looks at tad funny. :-) Kim Bruning 11:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there also a method for people to be able to review deleted content without admin privileges. I know that would be helpful with deletion review comments, particularly speedy deletions ;-) Ansell Review my progress! 11:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, at some point there was community consensus that that should be made impossible, so it was. It's a tricky situation because it can also get us into legal trouble. <scratches head> Even so, that was years ago, and nothing is supposed to be binding forever. Perhaps you could come up with a proposal? Kim Bruning 11:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't quite think it appropriate to do that just yet. Instead I made up Reduce confusion by following policy, an essay into why following policy can save wikipedians time in general. Have a look and comment or improve on it. Ansell Review my progress! 00:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of User:Tony Sidaway's removal of the "recommendations" section from T2

On reflection, I have removed the following subclause from T2:

(We recommend such options as: requesting users remove the template in question; attempting a more neutral rewording of the template, - e.g. replacing User likes X with User is interested in X; and substituting the template before deletion.)

Firstly, rewording a template that says (say) "This user is pro-life" with "This user is interested in the ethics of abortion" doesn't really resolve the problem; there will probably be a number of separate templates around each reflecting a separate view, and the best way to tackle this is to remove the templates completely.

Secondly, substituting alternative text is problematic because it does not reflect the transcluding user's intent.

Thirdly, speedy deletion is for the removal of obviously unsuitable material (such as that which asserts a political point of view) Our reason for using speedy deletion to do this is because userbox adherents tend not to be acculturated Wikipedians, they tend instead to be imbued with a "myspace" ethic, a belief in their unassailable right to express their partisan opinions using electronic bumper stickers in template space. At this stage we're well aware that asking the users to remove the templates (which I might add is not a recommendation in the case of any other class of speedy deletion) is likely to achieve nothing except dumb intransigence. If we're to remove these unsuitable templates, we should do so as expeditiously and unapologetically as possible. While there may occasoinally be room for doubt as to the encyclopedic value of an article, a userbox template by definition can never have encyclopedic value, so there's even less reason to pussyfoot around the issue that in the case of, save, CSD A7. --Tony Sidaway 12:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Why does NPOV apply in this case when it doesn't apply to the content of user pages? Considering you use it as your reference for neutral above. Sorry, you removed that section :) Ansell 12:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That is an extremely dangerous precedent, 1, to call userbox enthusiasts as unaccultured in your view, and 2, to delete things quietly because it might cause a fuss, if there is such a huge fuss to be caused then maybe an actual userbox policy should be formulated to fall back on when the inevitable cruch comes to the few who are being so hasty in deleting something on the basis that it is not encyclopedic in their view. Ansell 12:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"Speedy" and "quiet" perfectly describe the way in which many thousands of articles are speedy deleted every week. It's how speedy deletion is meant to work. You might think this "hasty", but it works well. --Tony Sidaway 13:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The articles in question are being deleted in this way using well-defined criteria with community consensus. It is hasty to delete things based on criteria that may appear on the CSD page even though heavy discussion is still in order as to their exact wording. The lack of the "well-defined criteria with community consensus" puts them outside of the typical speedy situations. Ansell 13:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Template speedies are also taking place regularly and, although they're more frequently challenged, the number of successful challenges is actually quite low. Thus the speedy criteria for templates are now well established. --Tony Sidaway 12:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'll support this, I think there's processes established that allow challenging contentious speedies, and Tony's right on the broad point that speedy deletioin should really be just that. Speedy. Steve block Talk 13:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

T2 Clarity

Some contention on this issue may be the result of a lack of clarity due to all the conditional in the statement: "Templates designed for user pages that express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues." Does this mean:

• (Interpretation a) Templates ... that express (personal beliefs or ideologies or ethical convictions or viewpoints) on controversial issues.

OR

• (Interpreation b) Templates ... that express (personal beliefs or ideologies or ethical convictions or viewpoints on controversial issues).

The latter is much broader. — xaosflux 12:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the difference. Could you give examples of where a template would seem to fall under the second, "broader" criterion but not the first? --Tony Sidaway 12:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The question is about the scope of "on controversial issues": does it modify "viewpoints" alone, or does it modify "personal beliefs", "ideologies", and "ethical convictions" as well? For example, "I think orange juice tastes good" expresses a personal belief, but not a personal belief on a controversial issue. If T2 has interpretation (a), a template saying "I think orange juice tastes good" is not speediable; if T2 has interpretation (b), such a template is speediable. Angr (t • c) 13:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a good example. We'd obviously delete a template that said "I think orange juice tastes good" for its sheer fatuousness. As a communicable sentiment of supposed relevance to the encyclopedia, it's well below the event horizon. --Tony Sidaway 14:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you'd obviously delete such a template. I don't see that it's any more fatuous than "This user understands that no user on Misplaced Pages 'owns' any of its pages and welcomes the assistance of others in making this page perfect" (which should be blindingly obvious to anyone who's read WP:OWN), yet no one has ever deleted {{User page perfect}}, or even nominated it for deletion. But that's not the point; I was merely trying to explain the difference between the two interpretations of T2. Angr (t • c) 14:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Another attempt to explain the different interpretations:

1. Templates ... user pages that express (personal beliefs or ideologies or ethical convictions or viewpoints) on controversial issues.
2. Templates ... user pages that express (personal beliefs) or (ideologies) or (ethical convictions) or (viewpoints on controversial issues).

Shouldn't the "correct/official" meaning be made explicit in the policy language? FWIW, so far in practice the broadest (second) interpretation seems to be favorite. Jimbo's exact words read as version #2: "It should be noted that use of is strongly discouraged at Misplaced Pages, and it is likely that very soon all these userboxes will be deleted or moved to userspace. Their use and creation is not recommended at this time." AvB ÷ talk 17:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think something along the following lines would be much clearer:

Templates, insofar designed for user pages, that express viewpoints on controversial issues, personal beliefs, ideologies or ethical convictions.

or even:

Templates that are designed for user pages and express one of the following:

• viewpoints on controversial issues
• personal beliefs
• ideologies
• ethical convictions

AvB ÷ talk 17:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It still seems silly to isolate templates this way. Either user pages are allowed to have "viewpoints on controversial issues, personal beliefs, ideologies or ethical convictions", or they aren't. If they are, those viewpoints etc. should be expressable by means of a template, which is nothing more than a convenient tool for holding text. (And as the page Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User namespace shows, templates have never been restricted to article space.) If they aren't, then the speedy criterion should be U2 rather than T2 and say "User pages that express viewpoints on controversial issues, personal beliefs, ideologies or ethical convictions." Angr (t • c) 17:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No one is trying to censor viewpoints expressed on user pages. Rather, the point is that the use of templates to express personal beliefs in this way does nothing to advance the cause of editing an encyclopedia, and does a few things to hurt it. T2 is clearly intended to read the second way (since a major goal of the recent refactoring was "remove guesswork and the likelihood of bias from these speedies." Nandesuka 18:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I still don't believe that using templates to express persnoal beliefs hurts the encyclopedia in any way. Nor do I believe that anything at all in userspace, regardless of how it's presented, advances the cause of editing an encyclopedia. If editing an encyclopedia were really all we were interested in, we wouldn't even have userspace. For the encyclopedia, it's useless. Userspace is just for users. Angr (t • c) 18:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better to have waited for WP:MACK to take hold rather than reigniting the embers of the userbox war with another pointless, undiscussed can of kerosene. Cynical 15:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite. However, currently a minority of people are enforcing this issue much more tightly than Jimbo wanted or, I suspect, the community supports, while most other admins are staying the hell away from it. The result is that because most actions taken with regard to T1 and T2 are theirs, they appear to have more support than they actually do. I oppose this move in the strongest terms possible. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Most definitely, and I'd like to see some of you admins participating in the discussion there rather than here. TheJabberwʘck 00:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for new fancruft CSD criteria

Here's the proposal: any article should be speedy deletable that is written as fiction rather than about fiction, such that it lacks real-world context and fails to reference what specific work of fiction the character or subject was portrayed in. This reference must be more specific than a general reference to a fictional world (such as Star Wars). A contributor should be able to at least note what novel, video game, film, or comic book a character came from; otherwise, they're obviously just copying a fan site or fan reference guide (which should not themselves count as sufficient works of fiction).

The articles that this targets pose two problems: 1) articles that fail to do more than summarize fiction are worthless to this project; 2) articles that merely repeat "information" presented in fan reference material (such as Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe) are likely copyright infringements. See, for example, The World of Kong, an encyclopedia of creatures set in the fictional world of the movie, but which exist only within its own pages; in addition to an article about the book itself (which is appropriate), someone has created individual articles for most of the beasts, which collectively constitute a copy of the book that directly competes with it. This is not a fair use.

This has been a recurring issue, and was again just raised on the village pump. Postdlf 18:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Support! -- Malber (talk · contribs) 18:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent criterion for regular deletion, but not for speedy deletion. It's too vague, and too easily fixable within five days. Angr (t • c) 19:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong support in principle, and as a CSD. The details need wordsmithing to clarify exactly what counts. I would support a fairly expansive version myself, in which an article has to show real-world notability for the specific subject of the article, not just the work of fiction or game it's part of. So a minor character or location in a work of popular fiction wouldn't qualify just because the the work was popular, and of course any character from or summary of fanfic would be right out (not to mention the fact that authors tend to view fanfic as infringing or threatening their IP rights). Please don't call it fancruft, though; I love that expression, but it's too polarizing for official use. · rodii · 19:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I am open to a speedy along the lines proposed, but I would want an assurance, such speedies could be easily undone, if somebody comes forward willing to fix the problem (e.g. add in missing info and/or merge into an appropriate article in context). There's nothing at all wrong, with giving a summary of fictional material. The problem is only when the entire article is the summary, and there's a lack of context for it. --Rob 19:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with that. Postdlf 20:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Support in that case. --Rob 20:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

CSD is for material that's irredeemably garbage, not for enforcing vague (and quite obscure) stylistic guidelines. What benefits, exactly, would there be to deleting this stuff immediately, rather than in five days (or, even better, just adding the missing elements)? And would these hypothetical benefits outweigh the price—measured in numbers of contributors leaving after everything they've worked on is suddenly deleted—that we would pay for implementing such a policy? Kirill Lokshin 20:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Shhh. Don't use rationality and good points - you'll only confuse them. Phil Sandifer 21:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This proposal is a non-starter. Speedies are only for obviously unencyclopedic material. Lack of notability cannot ever be a criteria for speedy deletion (A7 only allows it when there is no assertion whatsoever of notability - which is different) --Doc 21:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. But I do think it would be a good idea to expand WP:FICT to say that any article on a fictitious person, place, or thing must discuss the topic's relevance to the real world. Any character/place/object for which no significance in the real world is claimed should be at most mentioned in a larger article, but may not have an article of its own. Failure to meet the criteria of WP:FICT is, of course, a valid reason for either of the five-day deletion processes (WP:PROD or WP:AFD). Angr (t • c) 21:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

An article about a fictional subject that lacks any real-world references, and instead only describes fiction as if it were real, is lacking in meaningful context, so in that sense this is an elaboration of A1. An article about a fictional subject that does not assert the specific work(s) of fiction whence it derives utterly fails to assert its notability—the fictional counterpart to A7. That's what I had in mind, not the more "expansive" version Rodii urged in which notability is judged. And I believe an article on a fictional subject that does not exist outside of an encyclopedia of fictional subjects is perhaps unavoidably a copyright violation, and should be treated as inherently non-notable, so such sources should not count to satisfy the "work of fiction" requirement. In my proposal, the simple statement "X is a fictional character appearing in the (novel/film/video game/manga/cartoon/flip book) Y" would suffice to make an article survive this CSD criteria. I think that's far more objective than A7, and not obscure or vague in the slightest. Postdlf 21:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "X is a fictional character apprearing in the (novel/film/etc.) Y" without any reference to the real world should not be speediable, but I do think it should deletable after five days for not meeting the criteria of WP:FICT. I also think an article that says only "Xantor is the King of Perfidion. He ascended to the throne after murdering his brother Myopsius" is already speediable for lack of context, so there's no need for a new speedy criterion. Angr (t • c) 23:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support. This is an important and positive step to help keep the project on-topic. Hopefully all affected information will be made available on other wikis though... --Improv 21:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• "On topic"? What? You seem to be saying "on topic" is "anything I'm not personally interested in." If you can't accept the fact that articles about fictional characters, some of which you may not have heard of (gasp!), belong on in an encyclopedia, you shouldn't be editing. Full stop.--Sean Black 18:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose. No, no no no no. No. No! Terrible idea, horribly divisive, doesn't fit into anything normal, and can easily be dealt with via {{prod}}. Kill this before it spreads. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • How is it divisive to insist that an article about a fictional subject at least mention what work(s) of fiction depicted it? Postdlf 22:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • {{sofixit}}. An article that doesn't contain references to its source material needs to be expanded and articulated, not cut off at the knees. Oppose this as unnecessary scope creep. -- nae'blis _(talk)
      • You've equivocated "source" as the references for an article with "source" as I have used it, the work(s) of fiction that are the only context in which the fictional subject exists. Postdlf 22:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, notability requirements are evil. (I've linked to that a disturbing number of times today.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No one who has voiced opposition to this proposal has addressed the issue I raised of articles about fictional subjects that are only depicted in fictional encyclopedias. My suggestions are that 1) "articles" about such subjects are unavoidably copyright infringements, 2) the lack of any depiction outside of such a fictional reference work should make a subject inherently non-notable. No thoughts? Postdlf 22:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts, then:

1. This doesn't seem at all obvious to me; if you can get someone with actual legal expertise in copyright matters to comment on this, fine, but let's not base deletion policy on wild guesses about copyright law.
2. How do you propose to determine whether a subject has been depicted only in an encyclopedia of fiction rapidly (and reliably) enough for this to be workable as a shoot-on-sight criterion? Kirill Lokshin 23:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

1. I actually am a lawyer, and my suggestion isn't a "wild guess," but I've also posted that issue on Misplaced Pages talk:Copyright to get more comments; hopefully my explanation there will be more clear.
2. Absent CSD criteria requiring an article on a fictional subject to mention in what work of fiction the subject originated, this would have to be an AFD criteria, unless someone has a way to make it work. Postdlf 23:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Fair enough; my apologies for not realizing that. (I'd still be interested in a more detailed explanation of how discussing something that appears in an "encyclopedia" of fiction differs, in terms of copyright, from discussing something that appears in a work of fiction itself, as it seems rather counterintuitive.)
2. If it can't be made to work as a CSD criterion, why are we even discussing it here? Just write it into WP:FICT and go from there. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 23:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

1. We'll work on it. It is conceptually difficult.
2. It's part of why I want that as CSD criteria. Postdlf 23:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I think many articles on fictional subjects that don't mention what work of fiction the subject originates in are speediable under A1 (little or no context). Angr (t • c) 23:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I would think that a general reference like "appears in Star Wars" would be enought to avoid A1, no? Kirill Lokshin 23:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and if by "appears in Star Wars" you mean the 1977 film, it would pass what I'm talking about too. I don't think that a general reference like "exists in the Star Wars universe" would fail A1, however, but it would what I have proposed. Postdlf 23:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"Appears in Star Wars" is mentioning what work of fiction the subject is from, so yes, it's enough to avoid A1. Not enough to avoid PROD/AFD, though, if there's no mention of the character's relevance to the real world. Angr (t • c) 23:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been my impression that such AFDs tend to end up merging the article somewhere, which has the advantage of maintaining comprehensive coverage; we can wikify the name of a random minor character mentioned in Luke Skywalker and likely wind up at some meaningful "List of Foobars in Star Wars" article. Deleting the possibly-not-notable stubs outright would seem to prevent this (or force us to avoid mentioning minor details in more notable articles). Kirill Lokshin 23:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Your original proposal was in NO way clear that you were talking about fair-use violations with regards to fictional encyclopedias. Not everyone reads every page; going to VP helped some, going to WP:Copyright helped much more. That all being said, I don't think your proposal covers anything not already covered by WP's copyright policy. If it's copyvio, it's copyvio, and should be excised without prejudice. If it's "fiction written as fiction" (like Project Quicksilver is from time to time), then it needs to be clarified/sourced/placed in a framework. -- nae'blis _(talk) 23:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The copyvio issue was one of the problems I wanted to address, but not the only issue. Sorry if I've been unclear. I was hoping for a discussion so we could all clarify these issues, not an immediate vote. Postdlf 23:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If we're talking nothing but a novel, then discussions about its characters would be fine copyvio-wise. As soon as any encyclopedia or similar copyrighted source appears (or looks as though it might reasonably appear), then we immediately have to be on guard, because we're competing for market and our usage is nontransformative. (Which, I think, illustrates that the transformation requirement is a bit incoherent, but then, that's probably just me.) In such a case, I would limit our articles to only major topics within the fan universe, unless in theory we can get the go-ahead from the copyright holder(s) (probably unlikely, but you never know).

Excellent work at deflating my ardent anti-notability-requirement-ness, Postdlf. You're the first to put a dent in it that it probably won't recover from.  :) Applicable only in certain cases, though. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the absolute worst proposals I've ever read. I cannot support it under any circumstances. It's completely unnecessary- If something cannot be used legally, then it can't be used legally, that's already covered by other policies. Everything else is just attempts to get rid of articles that could easily be improved (by simple cleanup, merging, etc etc etc) for no reason other than "it's fictional and I haven't heard of it, therefore it can't be notable". No.--Sean Black (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. CSD is absolutely the wrong process for this. Vague things such as fancruft can and should be dealt with under Prod and AfD instead. CSD is meant to be the narrow process; if you want to delete something that you find is not currently deleteable, CSD is the wrong end of the scale to start fitting it in. Henning Makholm 07:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. More than once I have seen articles tagged for speedy deletion as patent nonsense when the only thing wrong is that they fail to mention in which game/book/movie/play they are in. Usually a Google check can find the context giving an opportunity to add that at the beginning of the article. Shooting down such articles without checking if they can be easily saved might cost us some good content. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. This issue should be dealt with in the context of the WP:FICT guidelines, not CSD. As for the concern about reproducing content from "fictional encyclopedias", I think this is a red herring: some works of fiction (Dictionary of the Khazars comes to mind) present themselves as reference books. That doesn't mean that they're really reference books, or that the copyright concerns of an article discussing characters or elements from the books are any different from any other work of fiction. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion going on at Misplaced Pages talk:Copyrights#Copying fictional encyclopedias for why the concern about reproducing content from encyclopedias of fiction is not a red herring. Angr (t • c) 20:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose needing cleanup or attention is simply need a good reason to delete an article. Add the relevent tags, and it should improve over time, or you can fix it yourself. We shouldn't delete something just because it needs work. --W.marsh 20:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment If an article is ONLY brand new fictional content I'd be OK with speedying it. That's how I read the key sentence in the start of the proposal "any article should be speedy deletable that is written as fiction rather than about fiction". But unless you are an expert on that fictional milleau I don't think you should be the person speedying it... tag it with PROD instead, or put it up for AfD because you are not competent to decide if it's just poorly sourced, or if it really is new fiction. Articles ABOUT fictional characters or situations are perfectly encyclopedic if properly cited/sourced and grounded in some discussion of why the character is important, and the milleau itself is important. Many of such stub articles ought to be merged back to the mains though. Consider this category: Category:Kushiel's_Legacy which has 40++ articles in it!!!! That series, (although I love it dearly... I want an anguisette of my own... but I digress!!) in my view, deserves maybe 5 articles or so, and all the one/two line stubs about various houses need to be merged... ++Lar: t/c

• and with that comment in mind Oppose. CSD's should be something ANY admin can apply. Deciding if a stub is meaningful in a particular fictional context takes jugement not every admin can make. So... not a good idea. ++Lar: t/c 21:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as above, it is definitely a consensus issue to determine whether something is valuable if it comes from a fictional context. Real-world comments are the limit of the average admin. Ansell Review my progress! 06:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

A9 and WP:LIVING

I have added A9 based on Jimbo's recent comments to the mailing list and existing practice. When we encounter a biography of a living person that is unsourced and negative in tone, we should revert if there is an NPOV version in the history; otherwise, the article should simply be deleted. AFDs in such situations make matters worse because the potentially libellous content gets spread around the wiki. As with other speedy critiera, admins are welcome to rewrite an article instead of deleting it if there is sufficient solid information available to do so. In my experience, A9 reflects existing practice among many admins and it deserves to be codified. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Since right now we have an unused A4 entry, why not make it A4 rather than A9? --Nlu (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think its best not to re-use old numbers, in case of historical discussion. --Rob 16:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I dislike the focus on being negative in tone. Often, people put in defaming stuff, but then use weasel wording, to present neutrality (e.g. suppose an article says this, without any citation: "Some people say he did such-and-such bad thing, but many others insist he is totally innocent. Nothing has been proven."). It's not relevant whether the article is generally nice or mean (that's easily fixable), its important whether the negative pieces are sourced. We don't want people to "save" articles, by merely making them neutral (but failing to give sources). I propose:

A biography of a living person that has negative unsourced claims, must have the all unsourced negative claims removed immediately. If doing this removes all content, or removes any claim of notability, then the article should be speedy deleted. Before deleting, see if an acceptable (e.g. sourced) version exists in history. --Rob 16:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this not just a duplicate of A6? Stifle (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like it. Maybe A6 needs slight clarification for this, but seems clear enough already. Petros471 16:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree: let us merge this into A6:

Attack pages. Articles that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject (e.g., "John Citizen is a moron"). This includes biographies of a living person that are negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no NPOV version in the history to revert to.

Most attack pages are high-school kid biographies anyway. Kusma (討論) 17:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Moving this to a6 is good. But Jimbo's comment (that spurred this), goes well beyond that. We've always speedied blatant attacks. But when somebody writes an unsourced article that would be ok *if* sourced, we have in the past just tagged it as {{unreferenced}} and then hoped for sources to be added later. So, to me the reason for a revised speedy criteria, is so we can delete those articles on site. What you suggested, could let those articles survive, by people fixing the tone, without providing sources. --Rob 17:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I see A9 as dealing with cases more subtle than attack pages. Historically, attack pages are usually opinionated, juvenile, or both. I added A9 to deal with articles that read like they are factual and which, if sourced, might actually be OK. I don't have a problem with folding this into A6 as long as it's clear. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't this open the door for the speedy deletion of articles about people who do not wish their article to appear in Misplaced Pages? Becasue the subject does not want it to appear, it would be impossible for any article on the subject to be non-negative. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No. There's no prohibition writing biographies that contain negative information about people. But those negative claims must be well sourced. --Rob 18:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yet the article's subject could then question the veracity of the cited sources. Unless it's an obvious personal attack, whether or not something could be interpreted as negative is subjective. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Questions as to the accuracy, veracity, or propriety of various sources are generally resolved by one's looking at WP:V. Joe 18:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand Uninvited's argument that this wording is "more subtle" than the existing wording of case A6 and I agree that such articles are inappropriate but frankly the very subtlety of the distinction concerns me. Candidates for speedy deletion must be bright-line issues. They should be immediately identifiable by any admin acting in good-faith. I'd rather see this folded into A6. Rossami (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed CSD for articles requested to be deleted by its subject

* A biography of a living person with a low degree of verifiable notability and where the subject has requested that the article be deleted.

Rationale: Misplaced Pages may be an encyclopedia, but it is not a newspaper. Legal issues are not problematic if the article is neutral and well sourced, but articles about living persons who request them to be deleted should be removed out of politeness to the subject. No one should have to have an article on the 'pedia if he or she does not want it there. Think of it this way: Say you, as a private person, did something highly embarrassing that gained yourself 15 minutes of fame. Your actions would be notable and verifiable enough to have a bio stub created. Now, for the rest of your or Misplaced Pages's lifetime, you would have to monitor this article about you. Future employers would be able to Google your name and see what you did even long after your actions have fallen out of pop-cultural reference. However, you would have no recourse since the article is notable and verifiable. Out of common courtesy, you should be able to request you article be removed. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree. This isn't a reason to delete, let alone a reason to speedily delete. If Bill Clinton turns around and says "I don't want an article about me on Misplaced Pages" (as if a politician would turn down coverage) then, well, tough. If the person in question doesn't believe they are sufficiently notable, they could propose deletion in the normal way, but the fact that they are the article's creator is irrelevant. —Whouk (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, of course, with Whouk. See, e.g., Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (3rd nomination) for a discussion of why a subject's desire not to be the subject of a WP bio is wholly immaterial to our goals of writing a verifiable encyclopedia, such that such desire should be altogether ignored. Joe 18:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Infinite abuse potential. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, bad idea for above reasons. Also note that if an article on a living person was seen as a problem by the foundation, it could be deleted or edited via a WP:OFFICE action. Friday (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

To comment on the expanded rationale - first off, if you made any news source online, Googling your name is still likely to bring whatever incident this is up. There doesn't just need to be an article about you for this to be the case - you could be mentioned on a Misplaced Pages article. But a "15 minutes of fame" otherwise forgotten doesn't scream notability. —Whouk (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

True, that the online sources could still exist, but that is not Misplaced Pages's responsibility. And online news sources tend to evaporate after a time. Misplaced Pages articles are likely there for perpetuity. Notability is a sliding scale from Bill Clinton to Brian Peppers. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll add to the pile-on in complete opposition; I can't see anything in this suggestion worth keeping. The kind of politeness and common courtesy urged above have no application on Misplaced Pages, where creating a neutral and comprehensive resource requires us to compile information that many people would rather we didn't. A value greater than this "politeness" is the acceptance by an individual that once he has become a notable subject of study and discussion, he has no right to prevent true and noteworthy information about himself from being disseminated. This policy would eventually result in Misplaced Pages only having flattering articles on living people, whether because all the individuals about whom unflattering facts are known have requested the removal of the articles, or because Misplaced Pages contributors self-censor to avoid having a topic they are interested in draw the ire of its subject and be deleted. Postdlf 19:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If your only claim of notability is those 15 minutes of fame, you shouldn't have an article at all, even if you are mentioned in the news and regardless of whether those 15 minutes have been embarassing or whether the author requests deletion. - Liberatore(T) 19:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should have a graded scale for notability so as to avoid articles on people who do not want to be notable. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If a biography can be deleted as a form of courtesy, that means that the article was not necessary in the first place. Therefore, the person is not notable, and the article should be deleted regardless of subject's request. However, I know that we will never get rid of the clutter of "unncessary" articles of Category:Living people, so count this as a Support if the proposal is modified to take into account a "degree of notability". - Liberatore(T) 19:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Based on my work with m:OTRS, I can say with confidence that there are a significant number of people who are legitimate topics of encyclopedia articles who would just as soon have their Misplaced Pages article deleted. We get such requests about once a day and they are routinely refused. I don't think we want to change that. One of the things that people not involved with answering the mail and phone do not realize is that there is a huge volume of requests for intervention that are turned down. A frequent one is people writing to us claiming some minor error in their article and based on that wanting us to replace the article with a piece written by their publicist and lock it against public editing. When we refuse this is usually followed up by a request to delete the article. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Malber, could you add any refactored proposal as a new line rather than editing the original proposal? Currently it makes it appear to anyone new to the discussion that the comments are above are on the proposal at the top when they're not.

On the subject of your revised proposal, I'd like to reaffirm my opposition to what the article's subject wants one way or the other. Issues or verifiability and notability need to be taken on their own merits. And, if you have to weigh all these things up carefully, the decision isn't a speedy one at all. —Whouk (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Noted. Since the consensus seems to be swinging to oppose, and the question of notability is subjective, perhaps this should be taken to WP:DP. I feel that semi-notable people wishing to remain private should have the right to opt out of inclusion. I don't think this is unreasonable and isn't necessarily contrary to the stated goals. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 22:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am also in a pile-on oppose to this. People don't get to choose whether they have an article or not. If they're notable, they get one. If they're not, they don't. Unless the page is an attack page, it shouldn't be going anywhere, at least not without an AFD. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm also opposed to this. What it will mean is not that the semi-notable are removed, but the semi-notable notorious. People who get 15-minutes of fame for doing something good will not be asking to be removed. It will be the small-time embezzler, etc., who wants to run for mayor. The last thing[REDACTED] needs is to build in a systematic bias towards good-stories. Bucketsofg✐ 19:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

(Yet another) proposal

Would anyone mind if I added another criteria on images: Vandalism-only images, that is, images that were used to vandalism the article, either by parodying the subject; like, quite a popular one, Bill Gates. What do you think? Kilo-Lima| 20:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Not necessary. Images can be removed from articles as nonsense vandalism. The images are then orphaned FU images and can be flagged for deletion as such. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism-only images can be immediately speedied under G3. No need to wait for the 5-day orphaned FU grace period. Besides, the original image might not have been fair use. Angr (t • c) 21:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned templates

A proposed new criterion:

Templates that are intended for use in user: namespace which are either not transcluded at all (orphaned) or are only transcluded by one user or on a list of templates. If the content is acceptable for a user page, the deleting administrator should "subst" the template before deletion.

Comments? --Tony Sidaway 15:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

(1) I don't see any reason to limit this to userspace-intended templates. It should apply equally to any unused template. (2) How can the admin seeing whether this speedy criterion actually holds quickly determine whether or not it's being widely substed? Angr (t • c) 16:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a good question. In general, however, user: namespace templates are not intended to be substed, so I don't think there is necessarily a problem with that. Perhaps a subst-only template could be placed in a suitable category so that its intended usage is obvious. --Tony Sidaway 16:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If WP:MACK passes, then most User: namespace templates will be substed, and it will be a very big problem. Angr (t • c) 16:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought the whole idea of substing under WP:MACK was so that they could then be deleted. Isn't it the intention that userboxes be removed from template space and should be propagated solely by code copying? --Tony Sidaway 16:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Not just userboxes, all templates intended for userspace, except the ones that have to be updated regularly. Come to think of it, if WP:MACK passes, this criterion will be almost moot, because the only any templates intended for userspace will be things like {{Signpost-subscription}} and {{Pic of the day}} that are widely used and have to be updated regularly. Angr (t • c) 17:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedily deleting orphaned templates is not a good idea. Only unused templates should be deleted. Whether an orphaned template is unused (nobody uses it for subst) is non-obvious, so it should not be a speedy deletion criterion. "Intended for use in the user namespace" is also not a good way to classify templates, they should be classified by content, not intention. Kusma (討論) 16:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that they should be classified by content. So how about "orphaned non-encyclopedic" templates can be speedy deleted. We're not putting the encyclopedia in any kind of risk of damage by getting rid of unencyclopedic stuff. --Cyde↔Weys 16:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Determining what is and isn't encyclopedic has always required discussion. Neither articles nor images are speedied for being unencyclopedic; rather, they're taken to AFD/IFD where they can be discussed. The same should continue to apply to templates (regardless of their intended destination namespace). Angr (t • c) 17:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. However: One could argue that all userspace templates are inherently unencyclopedic - but then we've just gone full circle. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it necessarily applies to all templates ... as there could be a reason why some template is only temporarily not being used (an editing dispute for instance). But deleting user templates poses no risk to the encyclopedia, so substituting and deleting them sounds like a good way to get them out of template space where they don't belong. --Cyde↔Weys 16:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose this for:

1. Destorys historical versions of pages
2. Makes it much harder to use a template, subst'ing it in is easy, finding the code and c-n-p is hard
   1. Even if noone wanted it substed this now makes it qualify for this (suppose the subster could be blocked for disruption)
3. Too much instruction creep for "user template" lets get a user template policy in place first.

• — xaosflux 19:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose completely. Don't speedy orphaned templates - an orphaned template might still be useful, but just not currently in use. We have to evaluate it for usefulness, and since that's subjective, TfD is necessary. Don't speedy templates used by only one user - they might legitimately use a template that nobody else knows about to organise information in a useful way in both article and user space. This kind of proposal in my opinion overlooks the point of templates, which is as a tool for organizing information - readers do not browse our templates looking for things to be offended by, and I see no reason why we should artificially restrict the purposes for which templates can be used beyond the ordinary restrictions placed on content. Deco 19:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, why put people's backs up by speedying their templates which are harmless? Stifle (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Please think twice before proposing new criteria

We seem to be in the middle of an influx of CSD proposals where the proposer appears to reason directly from "X is a nuisance and should be deleted" to "We must have a CSD item for X". Folks, even when the premise is true, the conclusion is usually not. CSD is not, and should not, be the first recourse for cleansing Misplaced Pages of unwanted things. We have regular XfD processes for that. CSD is for things that not only deserve to be deleted, but that can be deleted with a minimum of fuss and red tape because the outcome is not in doubt anyway. The perfect argument for a new speedy criterion would be something like "There has been many X's passing through XfD for some time. They all consistently end up deleted without any substantial discussion. Conducting and concluding poll on X's are a significant drain on the available manpower for XfD. We should streamline the easy cases to free up resources." But some of the proposals above seem to be fueled instead by "There are many X's on Misplaced Pages. They are harmful and/or do little good. We must do something about them!" Henning Makholm 20:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

XfD processes are looking pretty broken right about now. --Cyde↔Weys 20:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think people are thinking they can make policy without making policy. If you're tired of articles about, say, noodles, but you know that you have no chance of getting a WP:NOODLES adopted, it's easy to think "if only we could just speedy articles about noodles!" and voila, the idea of CSD N1 is born. · rodii · 20:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we don't need more criteria. I don't think we really even need the ones we have, honestly. I think most speedies are done by common sense rather than the letter of the rules anyway. The inability of written policy to adequately cover what can be speedied has been pointed out many times before. Friday (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Funny that the response to a broken XfD process is to break the CSD process as well. This could be part of a more ambitious scheme to remove editors from the deletion process altogether. Watch out - soon only administrators will be able to weigh in on deletion. You heard it here first. --71.36.251.182 22:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't need many more CSDs. {{subst:prod}} is a perfect solution to most of the articles that shouldn't be there. The kind of new CSDs that work are things like {{nn-band}}, because literally dozens of band articles were hitting AFD daily before the criterion came in. That one worked. I don't know if there have been any CSDs since that have been neither instruction-creepy or discord-causing. Stifle (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

And note that {{nn-band}} as a CSD came at the end of a long process of discussion and consensus-crafting, not at the beginning. It was a solution to a problem that was widely recognized and processed upon, rather than an first reaction to a perceived problem. Proposing a new CSD as a quick and dirty policy proposal smacks of "premature closure" to the problem-solving process. · rodii · 01:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Revocation of CSD:T2

I move to revoke CSD:T2 forthwith, as it does not appear to have the support of the community. All templates deleted under CSD:T2 will remain deleted but can be taken to DRV normally. Stifle (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Second the motion. This criteria is not supported by consensus, and is open to abuse. It should be removed. --70.218.62.240 02:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

To revoke it, you'd have to stop administrators deleting userboxes that express controversial opinions. That isn't going to happen. --Tony Sidaway 02:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this an admission of a cabal. The definition would imply that you would never tell the truth. But the behavioural aspect fits. Admins doing what they want without regard to consensus. Kind of like WP:IAR has become king. I dont mean to sound like a troll, but if there is such a strong dislike of T2 how will Misplaced Pages really justify its image as "not making the internet suck". Kind of sounds like irony to make it suck for people again. Ansell Review my progress! 10:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I move that this section be renamed "Vote to determine whether this is an encyclopedia or a MySpace-style social website," because that's essentially what it is. —David Levy 02:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the administrators need to reflect upon the massive waste of time that needless deletion causes, and weigh it against the supposed benefits of removing userboxes. There is no tangible benefit to the deletion of userboxes. None. On the other hand, deletion causes massive strife and waste of time on the project. Kelly Martin's experience should have been a lesson to all - but instead she is being taken as a hero. Not so. T1 and T2 are meant to divide and inflame the community, and do so to a much greater extent than any userbox ever could. --70.218.62.240 02:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that "there is no tangible benefit to the deletion of userboxes." Frankly, the types in question are among the greatest threats to this website. They drain resources, fuel conflicts (aside from those pertaining to their deletion), facilitate vote-stacking, and convey an inaccurate impression of what Misplaced Pages is. (Newbies are signing up to "create profiles" and socialize.)

In short, these userboxes "divide and inflame the community." Fortunately, with the bad ones gone, the primary dividing line will lie between those who are here to build an encyclopedia and those who aren't. The fact that it would be easier to bow to your demands and rename the site "WikiMySpace" doesn’t mean that we should. —David Levy 04:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, we must recognize that Stifle is correct to suggest that T2 itself is profoundly divisive, such that it may not command the support of a clear majority of users, even amongst only those who have been with the project a good while. I don't know that we ought to suspend speedy deletions currently undertaken pursuant to T2 (even as, for reasons I've expressed elsewhere, I am generally opposed to T2), but, irrespective of one's thoughts about T2, he/she ought to understand that there does not seem to exist a clear consensus for the continued operation of T2. One must observe, of course, that the vitiation of deletions under T2 doesn't necessarily result in our maintaining templates that are generally seen as divisive; we'd simply act with less celerity and more deliberation. Joe 05:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

T2 gives formal expression to a practice that will continue to be followed even if someone deletes it from the project page. The practice is needed, and the policy should reflect it. Policy should follow (needed) practice, not the other way around. However, policy should also be updated so that it is transparent and genuinely does match practice and provide useful guidance as to what the accepted practice has become, and so it can be used as the immediate explanation for individual acts. Rather than explaining acts in terms of a contrived reading of T1 (which literally says that a template must be divisive and inflammatory, as if it is okay at Misplaced Pages for a template to be divisive as long as it is not also inflammatory, or inflammatory as long as it is not also divisive), it is better to have a policy that explicitly spells out what we are trying to accomplish here. What we are trying to accomplish is to get politically, theologically, etc., controversial userboxes out of template space. That aim is not negotiable. Jimbo himself has announced it, and no one has ever put a strong reason against it. I see no point in continually disputing whether this aim itself is a good idea. Once the aim is accepted, the only question is how policies should be worded to reflect and support it. Those of us who initiated the creation of T2 say it is better to have the aim stated clearly in the policy, rather than relying on a construction of T1 that does not literally say this at all, and was perhaps written with other aims in mind (though I'm not sure of the last point and don't especially rely on it). Deleting T2 would just produce unclarity, contrivance, and inconsistency as admins do in an ad hoc way what they have good reasons to do, but with no clear policy reflecting their reasons.

I strongly support the acceptance and retention of T2. Metamagician3000 03:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

(Aside) "T1...which literally says that a template must be divisive and inflammatory, as if it is okay at Misplaced Pages for a template to be divisive as long as it is not also inflammatory, or inflammatory as long as it is not also divisive...." I think the "and inflammatory" restricts "divisive" (i.e. "divisive" like in the pedophilia templates, not "divisive" like male/female). "Inflammatory" alone is probably too weak, as plenty of things can be inflammatory to some person or group of people (and I think people have been making the argument that all the belief userboxes are all currently "inflammatory" because of the debate over them). I don't think the phrase is as ridiculous as you interpreted it to be.

It is not obvious to some(most?) regular users that belief userboxes are harmful - it is a conclusion from what I think are at least two non-obvious assertions that would have to be learned through experience: that templates cause proliferation rather than just aid existing use, and that belief statements are only tolerated in userspace rather than accepted as "about me" (which in turn assumes people know that userspace isn't intended for "about me" anyway). I would say that a consensus acceptance of T2 as a speedy criteria would require some education, explanation, and agreement about why T2 would be necessary, the intended use of userspace, effects of such templates, etc. for some amount of time. (Certainly, some people would want to more evidence that certain assertions are true.)

In addition, the often-repeated statement that such userboxes will somehow transform Misplaced Pages into Myspace (and its somewhat less-confusing predecessor, "Misplaced Pages is not Myspace") definately doesn't help people understand why belief userboxes are being frowned upon, and I don't think it's helpful; please stop repeating it. --AySz88^-^ 04:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Why? It's an apt description. —David Levy 04:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to call your attention to the large support for "an immediate moratorium on the speedy deletion of userboxes that are 'designed for user pages and express viewpoints on controversial issues, personal beliefs, ideologies, or ethical convictions,' but are not "divisive and inflammatory," until such time when a userbox policy is adopted" at Misplaced Pages:Mackensen's Proposal/Straw Poll. Λυδαcιτγ 05:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The contentious templates will die. Really all that is under debate is whether the people who want to continue to abuse Misplaced Pages as a myspace or livejournal site want to be bloody about it. --Tony Sidaway 00:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the answer to that was obvious, and the debate was now focused on what we ought to do about it. Kirill Lokshin 00:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I am wondering, Tony, if what you say is based upon your own opinion of what you want Misplaced Pages to be, or a consensus that you perceive to exist. Please help me understand which, if either, of these is correct, and moreover, why getting dozens of people's backs up by speedying their mostly-harmless templates is a good thing. Stifle (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't just his idea of what[REDACTED] is. If you look at the top lefthand corder of the page, under the jigsaw ball, where it says 'WIKIPEDIA', now read the words underneath 'THE FREE....ENCYCLOPEDIA'. --Doc 00:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of how you feel about the userboxes (and you and I are in agreement on them), it certainly doesn't deserve this sort of attitude. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it doesn't. It's true there are lots of userpages that seem to confuse Misplaced Pages with MySpace or LiveJournal. I encounter a lot of them when deleting images with no copyright tag. And you know what? Not a single one of them has a single userbox on it! That's right, not one so far of the MySpace-type user pages I've found. In my experience, userboxes are used exclusively by people who actually contribute to writing the encyclopedia. Angr (t • c) 09:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Give that man a barnstar. The "Userbox wars" are antagonizing a lot of genuine contributors. The one point I agree on is that they can be used for votestacking. The solution: Take the categories out of them. There is no other problem with userboxes - people will put what they want on their userpages anyway, and unless it's a fair use image or a ridiculous case of WP:NOT a free webhost, it will stay. The logical extension is wanting it to put them in a userbox. It doesn't harm anyone, so why are you stirring up trouble? Stifle (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You're forgetting about the "What links here" link. —David Levy 15:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That is 150% correct. The "Userbox lovers want Misplaced Pages to be MySpace" argument is blatantly false and anyone who uses that argument should be refuted publically. There are many users, some admins, who have loads of userboxes and also want to help build Misplaced Pages, and have made many significant edits. --D-Day) 16:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The belief that Misplaced Pages is both an encyclopedia and a MySpace-style site is half-correct. A Wikipedian's only reasonable expectation is that this be encyclopedia. Anything else is gravy, not an entitlement (no matter how many positive contributions someone makes). This isn't about being mean by forcing everyone to do nothing but contribute to articles; it's about not tolerating activities that impede such efforts.

Of course, no one said anything about deleting all userboxes. It's possible to "have loads of" them that aren't problematic. I don't think that anyone is arguing that it's terribly harmful to include a small amount of personal content on one's userpage, provided that it doesn't interfere with the goal of writing an encyclopedia. Whether you agree or disagree, the assertion is that some userboxes do interfere with this goal, and these are ones that should be deleted. —David Levy 17:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Where did I say anything about Misplaced Pages co-existing as a MySpace along with an encyclopedia? --D-Day) 17:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You noted that many userbox enthusiasts also make valuable contributions to the encyclopedia. I don't dispute that, and my point that this doesn't automatically entitle them to also use Misplaced Pages as a social community. To be clear, however, I condemn the latter activity only when it interferes with the former. —David Levy 18:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't implying that userboxes were meant for social networking. All I'm saying is that the argument that Wikipedians who support userboxes want to turn Misplaced Pages into a MySpace or LiveJournal is simply ridiculous and untrue. --D-Day) 18:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, I wasn't implying that userbox enthusiasts don't also serve as fine editors. My point is that Misplaced Pages shouldn't be treated as a MySpace-like site to any extent that interferes with the goal of writing the encyclopedia—even by users who also author outstanding articles. —David Levy 19:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how many of the userbox enthusiasts also make constructive edits, and I don't particularly care. Misplaced Pages isn't an encyclopedia/social network/soapbox/vote-stacking facilitator. It's an encyclopedia...period. If someone's willingness to make encyclopedic contributions is contingent upon the availability of unencyclopedic pursuits, that's too bad. Making a handful of (or even numerous) good edits doesn't entitle a user to also make bad ones. —David Levy 15:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If that were true, that Misplaced Pages is exclusively an encyclopedia, not also a community, then we wouldn't have userspace at all. We might just as well delete User: namespace altogether, because nothing on anyone's userpage helps build an encyclopedia. Userspace is there for the users, not for the encyclopedia. We also wouldn't have meetups—they don't help the encyclopedia either. Wikimania never would have happened either. But Misplaced Pages is a community in addition to an encyclopedia: read Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians, where it explicitly says "Some people might think that Wikipedist would be a more appropriate name, as an encyclopedist is someone who contributes to an encyclopedia. ... The ending of Wikipedian, though, suggests being part of a group or community." Angr (t • c) 17:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't know where you got the idea that "nothing on anyone's userpage helps build an encyclopedia." Even some userboxes assist in the encyclopedia's authorship.

Secondly, I acknowledge that userpage content of the harmless variety indirectly benefits the encyclopedia by fostering community spirit (which leads to increased participation and better articles). I advocate the speedy deletion of userpage content that isn't harmless. Your assessment of what is and isn't harmful might differ from mine, but that's another matter. —David Levy 18:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I say nothing on anyone's userpage helps build an encyclopedia because there is not one single userpage whose deletion would harm the encyclopedia. The encyclopedia doesn't need user pages. Users do. I would advocate the speedy deletion of userpage content that was actively harmful if I believed it existed, but I don't. I've never seen anything on a userpage that was harmful to the encyclopedia. Nor anything on a userpage that was helpful to the encyclopedia either. Everything I've ever seen on anyone's userpage has been neutral to the encyclopedia. That's the nature of userpages. Angr (t • c) 19:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree with you. I've already cited ways in which I believe some userpage content harms the encyclopedia. On the flip side, someone might seek the editing assistance of a user who speaks Spanish, lives in Australia, or is knowledgeable in the area of Egyptian culture (as three random examples). Userpages (and userboxes) can contain information that enables users to contact one another in a manner that benefits the encyclopedia. —David Levy 19:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Expressing your personal opinion on matters not related to Misplaced Pages is a de facto unwikipedian act. Insisting on using a userbox to do the same thing is yet another Wikipedian act. The idea that the myspacers and the userboxers are disjoint sets is simply preposterous. --Tony Sidaway 17:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, Tony, but that doesn't make it true. If it weren't POINTing I'd add a hundred userboxes to my user page right now just to prove you wrong. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You cannot prove the statement wrong by adding userboxes to your user page. --Tony Sidaway 17:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, since the terms "myspacers" and "userboxers" aren't really defined, you're right, I guess. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

To be sure, Grm is an excellent exemplar of Angr's point supra; Grm has a page with several userboxes (though most are largely jocular in nature and in any case not necessarily descriptive of Grm, he avers), but we also learn from his user page that he has helped promote four articles to Featured Article status, accumulated sundry barnstars, and uploaded 59 images. And, of course, he serves the project as an admin here and at Commons. Not only oughtn't we to state categorically that those who approve of userboxes in template space fundamentally misunderstand the project, but we oughtn't, IMHO, even to conclude that the majority of those supporting userboxes in template space (or expression of POV at all on one's user page) are less-than-valuable contributors. Joe 18:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I simply observe that Grm's userboxes have nothing to do with producing an encyclopedia. He's a good example of a myspacer, someone who promotes tha abuse of Misplaced Pages as a social forum. --Tony Sidaway 19:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Posting simply to note my support of T2. My support is based upon reasons expressed above, namely that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia rather than a tool for personal expression. Where the personal expression aspect infringes civility, good faith or user page guidance, I feel they should be deleted, and I feel that's the spirit in which this policy is enforced and meant to be enforced. I think we have adequate processes in hand to examine such deletions, and so see no need for the revocation. Steve block Talk 18:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy creep

It's dismaying to see CSD creep like kudzu into debates on policy. Speedy is for non-controversial deletion. If there's an active debate on the merits of an issue, speedy is inappropriate. Please settle issues in the appropriate place; then bring the results here. John Reid 07:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe this is historically correct. Certainly I find no suggestion of this in early incarnations of this project page. More recently speedy deletion has been used to accelerate controversial deletions that are necessary for the smooth running of Misplaced Pages. It's unlikely, for instance, that most "fair use" speedies would succeed if every single one were put to a straw poll. Similarly we need to deal with the excessive proliferation of highly contentious user templates, but straw polls on these tend to fail. --Tony Sidaway 00:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Are the inevitable debates about this really worth the potential benefits for all of the two or three really controversial vote-stacking incidents that happen every week/month. Could we not just leave it to an admin to decipher the problems when they close an AfD. Is that not what this is all about. Stopping people from votestacking. The difference to the server from transcluding, or even from just pushing out plain HTML from these things is low. If as the user in the above says that Userboxes are used by actual editors, not the "social-networking" types than how do the few people pushing this speedy criteria actually justify their actions. Ansell Review my progress! 10:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Past experience has shown that speedying during a deletion debate has only made things worse. --D-Day) 16:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Some speedies as prods?

I floated this a while back, but WP:PROD was broken. Now that it's essentially in working order, I'd like to revisit it:

We should be prodding, and not speedying, articles that would fall under A7: "Non-notable" people, groups, bands. The best way to improve such articles would not be to speedy them, but to allow as many eyes as possible to see them and possibly fix them. Many such articles that would already qualify are being prodded already, and can often be rescued and improved upon. As speedies are simply a quicker way of prodding - i.e., they're allegedly for non-controversial issues, this merely extends the issue, doesn't bite newbies who don't understand our guidelines, and will ultimately make for better articles.

I also think it would be beneficial to do this with A1 and A3.

Thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If you do newpage patrol, you really get a better grasp of how much stuff well, basically needs to be deleted under A1, A3 and A7. Of course, I apply them rather rigidly, along the lines of "There's truly nothing here that would be used in a good article or even a stub, so no point in keeping it". There's just dozens of "Gina Smith is the most beautiful girl in the world, she sits in homeroom with Daniel Jones." kind of articles created every few minutes, watch newpages for a while if you don't believe me. Do we really want to keep these around for 7 days? There'd be probably 10,000+ of them after a week, many of which would get the prods removed and fall through the cracks and mess up other areas of maintenence.

In other words, applying the CSDs ridigly, we do need them and they really do only get rid of stuff we'd have to rewrite totally if we were writing an article there, so they do no harm. The problem is not everyone applies them rigidly. --W.marsh 14:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I've done it. But that's A1, and if that needs to stay speedy, I certainly wouldn't protest in order to fix the other two. But I disagree that it does no harm. I've worked on a number of articles thanks to prod that I would have never considered creating or looking at, and I'm sure A7 has plenty like that, too. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be liable to significantly increase AFD again, because people would just deprod their article-that-should-be-a-userpage and require an AFD.

It is important, however, as W.Marsh says, to apply the criterion strictly. If the answer to "could this conceivably be of any use in the encyclopedia?" isn't "definitely not", then we should be thinking about changing speedy to prod. Stifle (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Refinement of G2

G2 currently says:

Test pages (e.g., "Can I really create a page here?").

I propose to qualify this with:

This excludes speedy deletion of test pages created by logged-in users in their own user space, except with the consent of the user in question.

Any objections? Arbitrary username 20:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Does that happen a lot? And while it is polite to ask before deleting even a test page in user space, does its deletion do any harm? Kusma (討論) 20:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the deletion may do harm: the user may be in the middle of testing something! I've no idea whether it happens a lot, but just think it would be good for the criterion to contain a safeguard against it being used to disrupt other users' tests. Arbitrary username 21:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I would think that no admin would be careless enough to delete a sandbox user subpage without first checking to see who had placed the tag there, and asking the obvious question if that person turns out not to have been the user who created the subpage. Kirill Lokshin 22:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the exclusion does any harm. User subpages that can be speedied should be at the user's request, which is a different criteria. Maybe a simpler wording is "Test pages (e.g., "Can I really create a page here?") outside of the user: namespace." -- nae'blis _(talk) 01:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No need. Nobody's going to speedy userspace pages anyway. I credit most admins with some common sense. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Stifle and the others are, I think, correct. First, where a subpage is being used for at least a tangentially encyclopedic purpose, no one is likely to tag it for speedy (except, perhaps, a vandal or other user with whom one has had a serious conflict); G2 wouldn't apply in such a case, and an admin coming to the page would surely observe this. Joe 18:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

CSD G1

CSD G1, is rarely used properly. For example let's say I wrote an article on why the sky is green, backed up with pseudo science, such as that 'reflections from lettuce cause it to be green'. It is 7 sentences long, and well written. Would you:

1. Speedy delete it under G1
2. Prod it
3. Send it to AfD

If you would do 1, YOU ARE WRONG. CSD G1 refers only to patent nonsense, and that article would not be patent nonsense. In fact patent nonsense is a useless CSD, as the things that it would include are already included under CSD G2 and G3. Should the patent be taken out, leaving only nonsense? The only downside I see is that this gives admins more power to interpret the policy. However, this interpretation is already available in speedy deleting under CSD G3. What do you think, are there other reasons not to do this I haven't thought of?

Prodego 15:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the thing shouldn't just be deleted as rubbish. It's possible to be too pedentic about these things, you know. --Tony Sidaway 15:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Because people don't always have good judgement as to what's rubbish. I've seen at least one article written by an advanced physicist AfD'd because it looked like pseudoscience; in fact, it was on a notable topic and had been written at too technical a level. -- SCZenz 15:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely here. This is why I don't think we need to lump these things as "patent nonsense". However this doesn't mean that we don't delete complete rubbish when we see it just because it doesn't fit some handy category. If we make a mistake, it's reversible. --Tony Sidaway 15:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

But if so, it should have a category. This page is a list of every reason something can be speedy deleted, correct? Prodego 15:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean a speedy deletion criterion? Not really. Some trash that should be deleted doesn't have a matching criterion. It's just trash. Such deletions are not to be performed lightly, but I believe they are necessary. Prod (Proposed deletion) may be appropriate for borderline trash, but an article of the kind you list above is obvious bilge and it would be a waste even to tag it for prod. Even well written bilge should be deleted. --Tony Sidaway 15:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that makes sense; I've run into blatant and deliberate rubbish just this morning. However, I worry that although mistakes are reversible, they may never be caught in the case of speedy deletion. That's why I tend to favor following the CSD pretty strictly; so that something that could be controversial (even if the deleter doesn't think so) has a chance to be reviewed. -- SCZenz 16:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Prodego is altogether correct; if we are to make something eligible to be deleted speedily, we ought at least fairly specifically to enumerate what precisely should be so deleted (and why). When patrolling new pages, I often find pages almost exactly as that which Prodego describes, and I find differentiating between patent nonsense and other unencyclopedic but not speediable content to be exceedingly difficult. But I can't abide Tony's suggestion that admins simply use their discretion here: first, because process is important, and it would be good for us to delineate exactly what obvious bilge should be deleted (and how we might identify such bilge); and, second, because admins aren't, on the whole, supposed to act discretionarily (rather, they act, in most cases, ministerially). I certainly understand for myself the difference between that which is nonsensical (even if well-written) and that which is only unencyclopedic and thus ought to be PRODded or AfDed, but I'm certain that others view the dichotomy differently, and it would be to our advantage to have a consistent criterion, though I fear that any we write will invariably be nebulous and invite discretionary deletions in any event. Joe 18:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the key of our difference is "admins aren't, on the whole, supposed to act discretionarily (rather, they act, in most cases, ministerially)" I don't believe this to be true. I'm a sysop because I've got a brain and I'm expected to use it. I don't think it's possible to delineate all the instances in which administrator actions are beneficial, and so we have discretion and our written policy follows behind at a much more conservative pace. --Tony Sidaway 18:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is easily one of the most abused speedy policies. People use it for good content poorly written, content they don't understand and content they disagree with. Admins don't always have good judgment as to what's rubbish and what isn't and unfortunately many times when this happens it involves a new user so you get BITE thrown in as well. More than just about any other criteria, G1 one should be followed pretty close to the bone. That's one of the reasons Prod is such a good idea, it takes the pressure of off having to interpret speedy criteria in cases where it doesn't quite fit. Rx StrangeLove 18:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)