From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus, default to keep all. (Closing in conjunction with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Scepia/teen and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Scepia/teen2.) While some editors have raised potential concerns with Wikipedia:Child protection, others have pointed out that policy does not explicitly forbid underage users from disclosing their age, and that all of these templates indicate age groups that include some ages above 18. Deryck C. 15:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

User:Octane/userboxes/User iGeneration ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Violates Wikipedia:Child protection.See also Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 6 #Umbrella categories:Wikipedians born after 1992. Proud User ( talk) 00:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

There is no prohibition or even discouragement of open declaration of being a child in the policy, nor anywhere else I can see. Indeed, the notion is probably flawed. Children are easy to spot if you are looking for them, this userbox probably helps protect the child by letting more people know. A better fix might be to add a link to the essay Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply

*Keep - I'm not seeing any child issues here?... – Davey2010 Talk 02:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply

*Delete -I was born in this generation however I'm well over 20 which is why I'm kinda confused on it, Anywho I'm assuming this is used by kids more than people of my age (which yes is over 5! ). – Davey2010 Talk 11:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Davey, you do realise that 5 ! = 120? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
SmokeyJoe .... Why doesn't that surprise me ? .... I really don't get this Gen Z crap at all ....., – Davey2010 Talk 02:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. @ Davey2010: See Generation Z, also known as the iGeneration. It contains birth years roughly from 1996 onward. In other words, they're almost all underaged. Similar to the other MfDs, we should not be encouraging children to self-identify as such. ~ Rob Talk 03:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
If that's true, shouldn't Wikipedia:Child protection state it? It doesn't. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus, default to keep all. (Closing in conjunction with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Scepia/teen and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Scepia/teen2.) While some editors have raised potential concerns with Wikipedia:Child protection, others have pointed out that policy does not explicitly forbid underage users from disclosing their age, and that all of these templates indicate age groups that include some ages above 18. Deryck C. 15:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply

User:Octane/userboxes/User iGeneration ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Violates Wikipedia:Child protection.See also Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 6 #Umbrella categories:Wikipedians born after 1992. Proud User ( talk) 00:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

There is no prohibition or even discouragement of open declaration of being a child in the policy, nor anywhere else I can see. Indeed, the notion is probably flawed. Children are easy to spot if you are looking for them, this userbox probably helps protect the child by letting more people know. A better fix might be to add a link to the essay Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply

*Keep - I'm not seeing any child issues here?... – Davey2010 Talk 02:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply

*Delete -I was born in this generation however I'm well over 20 which is why I'm kinda confused on it, Anywho I'm assuming this is used by kids more than people of my age (which yes is over 5! ). – Davey2010 Talk 11:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Davey, you do realise that 5 ! = 120? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
SmokeyJoe .... Why doesn't that surprise me ? .... I really don't get this Gen Z crap at all ....., – Davey2010 Talk 02:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. @ Davey2010: See Generation Z, also known as the iGeneration. It contains birth years roughly from 1996 onward. In other words, they're almost all underaged. Similar to the other MfDs, we should not be encouraging children to self-identify as such. ~ Rob Talk 03:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
If that's true, shouldn't Wikipedia:Child protection state it? It doesn't. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.



Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook