This template was considered for deletion on 2006 May 20. The result of the discussion was "Keep". |
This is a subpage of Xoloz's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
What is the complaint about the NPOV version of this template? -- Gmaxwell 07:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. The template serves an obvious purpose, of which one of the primary points would be not a page long. If the namespace is a concern, then delete this template and migrate the original one to the user space, and provide a redirect. Rexmorgan 07:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I get the joke, as does anyone else who wondered what broke their user page. While I am not amused, I can't say I'm above such a thing and so I appreciate the humor. But let's be mature here - we all know that such a change can't seriously be intended to replace the previous one. Templates are not articles, and design and intent must be taken into consideration when working within the space of each template. The replacement satisfies all NPOV concerns, as anyone can claim to be anything without any regard to fact or view. I hope we can act like adults and leave it be. Rexmorgan 08:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Well the template is protected now so none of us can edit it. I suggest we try a request for mediation. -- Cyde Weys 09:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there any other userbox I can use to show I am Christian without specifying a particulate church/denomination (which is too divisive in my opinion)? I do not want a whole article as a userbox. To make it more weird a Catholic crucifix is not a general symbol of Christianity. And I'm not sure which Christains (if any) prefer rotating symbols of their faith. Friendly Neighbour 11:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Why do you need to protect the userbox? Just to have it the way you want, Gmaxwell? I already said it is too long, and please be considerate to all of the users who use this template by soliciting their feedback before making such a radical change. Understood? 10:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granomerx ( talk • contribs) 09:17, May 11, 2006
Messing with the content in this way is going to annoy hundreds of people who include the template on their pages. I'm taking the bold step of removing protection and putting that content into the template. I won't engage in any more editing ont his template after that, but I urge others to stop playing silly games like this. -- Tony Sidaway 15:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I feel compelled to point out that once a consensus is reached, it seems very necessary to make the same change to all other userboxes in the template namespace. I think it is fair to suggest that Gmaxwell and Cyde undertake this project since they spearheaded the project to alter this one. Rexmorgan 19:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
For a moment I thought I'd accidentally logged into Uncyclopedia. Leave it at Tony's version. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 19:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Is that extra phrase necessary? If you have a "this user is Christian" userbox, aren't you claiming you are Christian? Why would this line be needed, it seems to me that it's redundant? Prodego talk 19:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
We are not talking an article page. We are talking a message that multiple users linked to their userpages (as the userbox policy allows them to) and some other users (who do not use it) want changed. The outsiders can always create their own template if they want. This is the fundamental difference between an article about a person/thing/idea (which can be only one) and a template where a dissatisfied user can always create a new one. There is simply no need for template compromises. Really. Friendly Neighbour 20:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Templates aren't fundamentally different from articles at all. Templates were originally made to be used on articles and most templates are used on articles. Something like Template:Christianity absolutely does have to be NPOV. What's fundamentally different from articles is userspace, but we're not talking about userspace here, we're talking about templates. -- Cyde Weys 20:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually (and I hate to do this now), but where, exactly, is it stated that all items in the template namespace must adhere to NPOV? I originally saw it on the proposed policy for userboxes page and have since assumed it to be true, but after further search I cannot find any Wikipedia policy or guideline that suggests this... Cyde or Gmax can you cite anything on this? Rexmorgan 20:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPOV ... since the primary purpose of templates is to be used in articles, they need to be NPOV too. Even all of the Wikipedia maintenance templates and such are written in a very NPOV fashion. -- Cyde Weys 20:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
OK people, might as well pack up and move on. Once a userbox has been speedy deleted by a sysop there's about a 1 in 1000 chance it will be revived. Just stick the code on your userpage. Rexmorgan 20:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I do not see how the "divisive" argument would apply here. If only because that would mean that joking around with a template for a while in the name of NPOV is not only allowed, it's encouraged, and as an added bonus the template will be deleted in the end. There are countless reasons why one might want a template deleted but I do not think this is one of them. I think it would be better to revive the template straight away. (I hasten to add that I do not mean to say that these editors/admins were joking around; just that this opens the door for others to do just that and get away with it.) AvB ÷ talk 22:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I've substed the template on all the user pages it was transcluded onto. So as far as I care, you kids are free to play with it as much as you like -- it'll make no difference. -- Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 23:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Now we just need to do this with the rest of the userboxes (to get them out of templatespace) and we're done! -- Cyde Weys 23:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
So you're saying that your antics today were not as disruptive as the presence of the {{ User Christian}} userbox, Cyde? Can you show me examples of where the encyclopedia suffered because of the presence of this userbox? JDoorj a m Talk 00:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I'll admit it, maybe things got out of hand, and I apologize if I caused any disruption. But here's a good example where the encyclopedia was harmed because of the presence of this userbox: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich (He used this userbox for vote-stacking purposes, first with talk page messages, and then later with Wikipedia email). -- Cyde Weys 00:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
If Cyde hadn't mentioned Jason, I would have. Jason drew me and other editors with this template into a number of conflicts. After realizing I could not support many of his actions I became involved in the ongoing vandal-fighting and subsequent user conduct RfC and RfAr against him. Since this user box had played a role, I immediately substed the template (like Ilmari Karonen did to all user pages with the template yesterday). Around that time Jimbo started an offensive against the use of political/religious/etc. user boxes. The net effect was a far cry from what he intended; this is still an issue and I expect more from Jimbo in the future. Cyde is definitely not alone in his opposition to user boxes.
Cyde, I'll comment a bit further on your talk page. AvB ÷ talk 12:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Template:User Hindu does not get deleted, but Template:User Christian does? Ahhh the joys of our egalitarian wiki.
I've listed this template at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates#Template:User Christian. We can move the debate there. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 02:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised that you guys left the history in place. First, you vandalize a widely-used template to make a WP:POINT. Then it is deleted and protected without explanation, justification, or notification. There will never be a consensus to undelete it simply because the people who hang out on that forum hate userboxes. But the thing is, if it had been properly marked for deletion and taken to the proper forum for deletion, there never would have been a consensus to delete it, either. This is an abuse of admin powers. Your silliness was in bad faith and you know it. Shame on you. BigDT 18:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
To remind us of the consequences of our actions: The recent vandalism of this template was largely responsible for the departure of User:BigDT. TheJ abb erw ʘck help! 21:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Now that this template has been restored, I strongly recommend moving it to {{ user christianity}} and changing the text to "This user is interested in Christianity." to avoid another speedy-delete under the new T2 speedy deletion criterion. The exact same thing has been done for almost every other template on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion, as a stop-gap measure to prevent disruptive mass-deletions while T2 is still under debate. I think this would be a productive compromise, at least for ensuring that the debates are allowed to proceed unmolested by re-deletions or edit wars. - Silence 17:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
What is wrong with the title, "This user is a Christian". I've read the comments here, and am interested in what all the controversy is over. Christianity is considered one religion so please explain. Falphin 13:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
apparently so divisive that they needed to stay deleted, yay, thank jebus for the non-divisive nature of christianity, that it can be repeatedly undeleted-- 64.12.117.7 03:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
This template has just gone through it's latest tfd and has been deleted and/or restored 17 times. There are many ongoing disucussions as to what user template should or should not include (even if they should or should not exist). Editing of this template has gone beyond being bold and is closer to factionalization at this point. As there is no evidence of consensus of this template, I've protected it temporarily in the hopes that this discussion page will be used to come up with a better solution first. I plan on removing this protection in a few days. — xaosflux Talk 16:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
This user is a Christian. |
What I mean is the above, since T2 is under heavy debate (see
Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates &
Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion) and even disappear sometimes
[2] due to lack of consensus between the admins (See the
history page). I propose to retain the current version, mainly the wordings, until some concrete policy comes out.
Hunter 20:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
(By the way, I am all for the change to "This user is interested in", but certainly not for this reason.) Andrewski 01:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
And now this has been speedily deleted and the earth salted within 72 hours after the closure of TfD as a keep. Can anyone explain the justification for doing both? GRBerry 21:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I offer my thoughts in the form of a userbox:
{{subst:Userbox | border-c = #999 | border-s = 1 | id-c = #DDD | id-s = 14 | id-fc = black | info-c = #EEE | info-s = 8 | info-fc = black | id = [[Image:Face-sad.svg|45px]] | info = This user feels that [[Wikipedia:Process is Important|out of process]] [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletions]] subject to an administrator's whims rather than [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] damage Wikipedia more than any userbox ever could. | float = left }} |
|
BigDT 21:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Seeing that the template has been unprotected, I have created a warning label for it:
Template notes
|
I would suggest that we leave some kind of warning note like this on the template suggesting that the wheel warring not continue. I also suggest that we leave the "subst" suggestion on there. There are several reasons to subst it (1) one of the main concerns with the template is its use for vote stacking - this eliminates that concern (2) vandalism or deletion by admins will not cause your page to be changed if you subst the template.
BigDT 04:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Would someone volenteer to make a subpage for this on their userpage so that people can use the german solution? It will need to be watched, as a deletion of that page will mean that the german solution didn't work.-- Rayc 04:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
This user is a Christian. |
Later I'll use {{db-author}} to delete the page and then move the restored template to that page in order to preserve history.--
Hunter 17:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, here it is in its new home. Good Luck! :-) Rfrisbie talk 03:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
This template was considered for deletion on 2006 May 20. The result of the discussion was "Keep". |
This is a subpage of Xoloz's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
What is the complaint about the NPOV version of this template? -- Gmaxwell 07:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. The template serves an obvious purpose, of which one of the primary points would be not a page long. If the namespace is a concern, then delete this template and migrate the original one to the user space, and provide a redirect. Rexmorgan 07:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I get the joke, as does anyone else who wondered what broke their user page. While I am not amused, I can't say I'm above such a thing and so I appreciate the humor. But let's be mature here - we all know that such a change can't seriously be intended to replace the previous one. Templates are not articles, and design and intent must be taken into consideration when working within the space of each template. The replacement satisfies all NPOV concerns, as anyone can claim to be anything without any regard to fact or view. I hope we can act like adults and leave it be. Rexmorgan 08:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Well the template is protected now so none of us can edit it. I suggest we try a request for mediation. -- Cyde Weys 09:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there any other userbox I can use to show I am Christian without specifying a particulate church/denomination (which is too divisive in my opinion)? I do not want a whole article as a userbox. To make it more weird a Catholic crucifix is not a general symbol of Christianity. And I'm not sure which Christains (if any) prefer rotating symbols of their faith. Friendly Neighbour 11:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Why do you need to protect the userbox? Just to have it the way you want, Gmaxwell? I already said it is too long, and please be considerate to all of the users who use this template by soliciting their feedback before making such a radical change. Understood? 10:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granomerx ( talk • contribs) 09:17, May 11, 2006
Messing with the content in this way is going to annoy hundreds of people who include the template on their pages. I'm taking the bold step of removing protection and putting that content into the template. I won't engage in any more editing ont his template after that, but I urge others to stop playing silly games like this. -- Tony Sidaway 15:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I feel compelled to point out that once a consensus is reached, it seems very necessary to make the same change to all other userboxes in the template namespace. I think it is fair to suggest that Gmaxwell and Cyde undertake this project since they spearheaded the project to alter this one. Rexmorgan 19:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
For a moment I thought I'd accidentally logged into Uncyclopedia. Leave it at Tony's version. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 19:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Is that extra phrase necessary? If you have a "this user is Christian" userbox, aren't you claiming you are Christian? Why would this line be needed, it seems to me that it's redundant? Prodego talk 19:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
We are not talking an article page. We are talking a message that multiple users linked to their userpages (as the userbox policy allows them to) and some other users (who do not use it) want changed. The outsiders can always create their own template if they want. This is the fundamental difference between an article about a person/thing/idea (which can be only one) and a template where a dissatisfied user can always create a new one. There is simply no need for template compromises. Really. Friendly Neighbour 20:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Templates aren't fundamentally different from articles at all. Templates were originally made to be used on articles and most templates are used on articles. Something like Template:Christianity absolutely does have to be NPOV. What's fundamentally different from articles is userspace, but we're not talking about userspace here, we're talking about templates. -- Cyde Weys 20:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually (and I hate to do this now), but where, exactly, is it stated that all items in the template namespace must adhere to NPOV? I originally saw it on the proposed policy for userboxes page and have since assumed it to be true, but after further search I cannot find any Wikipedia policy or guideline that suggests this... Cyde or Gmax can you cite anything on this? Rexmorgan 20:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPOV ... since the primary purpose of templates is to be used in articles, they need to be NPOV too. Even all of the Wikipedia maintenance templates and such are written in a very NPOV fashion. -- Cyde Weys 20:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
OK people, might as well pack up and move on. Once a userbox has been speedy deleted by a sysop there's about a 1 in 1000 chance it will be revived. Just stick the code on your userpage. Rexmorgan 20:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I do not see how the "divisive" argument would apply here. If only because that would mean that joking around with a template for a while in the name of NPOV is not only allowed, it's encouraged, and as an added bonus the template will be deleted in the end. There are countless reasons why one might want a template deleted but I do not think this is one of them. I think it would be better to revive the template straight away. (I hasten to add that I do not mean to say that these editors/admins were joking around; just that this opens the door for others to do just that and get away with it.) AvB ÷ talk 22:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I've substed the template on all the user pages it was transcluded onto. So as far as I care, you kids are free to play with it as much as you like -- it'll make no difference. -- Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 23:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Now we just need to do this with the rest of the userboxes (to get them out of templatespace) and we're done! -- Cyde Weys 23:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
So you're saying that your antics today were not as disruptive as the presence of the {{ User Christian}} userbox, Cyde? Can you show me examples of where the encyclopedia suffered because of the presence of this userbox? JDoorj a m Talk 00:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I'll admit it, maybe things got out of hand, and I apologize if I caused any disruption. But here's a good example where the encyclopedia was harmed because of the presence of this userbox: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich (He used this userbox for vote-stacking purposes, first with talk page messages, and then later with Wikipedia email). -- Cyde Weys 00:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
If Cyde hadn't mentioned Jason, I would have. Jason drew me and other editors with this template into a number of conflicts. After realizing I could not support many of his actions I became involved in the ongoing vandal-fighting and subsequent user conduct RfC and RfAr against him. Since this user box had played a role, I immediately substed the template (like Ilmari Karonen did to all user pages with the template yesterday). Around that time Jimbo started an offensive against the use of political/religious/etc. user boxes. The net effect was a far cry from what he intended; this is still an issue and I expect more from Jimbo in the future. Cyde is definitely not alone in his opposition to user boxes.
Cyde, I'll comment a bit further on your talk page. AvB ÷ talk 12:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Template:User Hindu does not get deleted, but Template:User Christian does? Ahhh the joys of our egalitarian wiki.
I've listed this template at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates#Template:User Christian. We can move the debate there. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 02:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised that you guys left the history in place. First, you vandalize a widely-used template to make a WP:POINT. Then it is deleted and protected without explanation, justification, or notification. There will never be a consensus to undelete it simply because the people who hang out on that forum hate userboxes. But the thing is, if it had been properly marked for deletion and taken to the proper forum for deletion, there never would have been a consensus to delete it, either. This is an abuse of admin powers. Your silliness was in bad faith and you know it. Shame on you. BigDT 18:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
To remind us of the consequences of our actions: The recent vandalism of this template was largely responsible for the departure of User:BigDT. TheJ abb erw ʘck help! 21:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Now that this template has been restored, I strongly recommend moving it to {{ user christianity}} and changing the text to "This user is interested in Christianity." to avoid another speedy-delete under the new T2 speedy deletion criterion. The exact same thing has been done for almost every other template on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion, as a stop-gap measure to prevent disruptive mass-deletions while T2 is still under debate. I think this would be a productive compromise, at least for ensuring that the debates are allowed to proceed unmolested by re-deletions or edit wars. - Silence 17:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
What is wrong with the title, "This user is a Christian". I've read the comments here, and am interested in what all the controversy is over. Christianity is considered one religion so please explain. Falphin 13:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
apparently so divisive that they needed to stay deleted, yay, thank jebus for the non-divisive nature of christianity, that it can be repeatedly undeleted-- 64.12.117.7 03:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
This template has just gone through it's latest tfd and has been deleted and/or restored 17 times. There are many ongoing disucussions as to what user template should or should not include (even if they should or should not exist). Editing of this template has gone beyond being bold and is closer to factionalization at this point. As there is no evidence of consensus of this template, I've protected it temporarily in the hopes that this discussion page will be used to come up with a better solution first. I plan on removing this protection in a few days. — xaosflux Talk 16:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
This user is a Christian. |
What I mean is the above, since T2 is under heavy debate (see
Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates &
Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion) and even disappear sometimes
[2] due to lack of consensus between the admins (See the
history page). I propose to retain the current version, mainly the wordings, until some concrete policy comes out.
Hunter 20:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
(By the way, I am all for the change to "This user is interested in", but certainly not for this reason.) Andrewski 01:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
And now this has been speedily deleted and the earth salted within 72 hours after the closure of TfD as a keep. Can anyone explain the justification for doing both? GRBerry 21:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I offer my thoughts in the form of a userbox:
{{subst:Userbox | border-c = #999 | border-s = 1 | id-c = #DDD | id-s = 14 | id-fc = black | info-c = #EEE | info-s = 8 | info-fc = black | id = [[Image:Face-sad.svg|45px]] | info = This user feels that [[Wikipedia:Process is Important|out of process]] [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletions]] subject to an administrator's whims rather than [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] damage Wikipedia more than any userbox ever could. | float = left }} |
|
BigDT 21:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Seeing that the template has been unprotected, I have created a warning label for it:
Template notes
|
I would suggest that we leave some kind of warning note like this on the template suggesting that the wheel warring not continue. I also suggest that we leave the "subst" suggestion on there. There are several reasons to subst it (1) one of the main concerns with the template is its use for vote stacking - this eliminates that concern (2) vandalism or deletion by admins will not cause your page to be changed if you subst the template.
BigDT 04:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Would someone volenteer to make a subpage for this on their userpage so that people can use the german solution? It will need to be watched, as a deletion of that page will mean that the german solution didn't work.-- Rayc 04:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
This user is a Christian. |
Later I'll use {{db-author}} to delete the page and then move the restored template to that page in order to preserve history.--
Hunter 17:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, here it is in its new home. Good Luck! :-) Rfrisbie talk 03:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)