Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/August 4 userboxes

Add links
Source: 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 debate was keep the hair colour userboxes, as they've been cleaned up to satisfaction of others (see the compromise below). Weighing up the reasons for keeping and deletion of the other userboxes, the rationales presented by those in favour of deletion were strong in comparison to some in favour of keeping all, so the others are delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: User:Affused with holy water/Loves beautiful women (edit | [[Talk:User:Affused with holy water/Loves beautiful women|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) undeleted per uninvolved admin's request on my talk page. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:UBX/redheads

This and the following were deleted by

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

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

Discussion
Amended slightly to cover the hair colours - I don't see how saying that one likes a particular hair colour is sexist. Neutral on the other ones. –
talk) 22:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I use a bright-line rule to determine the worth of a userbox. Fans of TV shows and music bands often write about them on Wikipedia, so those userboxes might help the project. Religious and political beliefs also influence what is written about. Preference in women? Not so much. (Though I agree to some sexuality userboxes too, because LGBT people tend to write about LGBT subjects). Sceptre (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahahah. Read what you wrote again. Carefully. naerii 14:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with the point about higher probabilities. I don't think writing about pizzas would be more common. Intriguing comparison, though.
    talk) 04:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Right, and some women refer to other women by nasty sexist epithets. Some women are victims of physical abuse at the hands of other women. What's your point? ~Eliz81(C) 01:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's yours? I don't see where abuse of women or sexual harassment fits into this at all. --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because some female editors used the userboxes doesn't mean it's not derogatory and sexist. ~Eliz81(C) 06:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do these userboxes imply that women are inferior or somehow not as good as men? And how are they insulting in any way, besides maybe the word "chick" (which I would think the majority of women do not find derogatory)? I'll answer for you: they're not. There is nothing wrong with a statement about what kind of person attracts you, and such statements do not demean the women (or men) they're directed at. I think the problem here is you don't like them, so you're claiming there's something inherently flawed with them when there isn't. There's valid arguments against these userboxes, let's not bust out the
BS "they're demeaning to women" one. It doesn't hold water. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I stand by my original delete comment, as well as the other numerous and perhaps better-worded rationales on this page. The problem here is that a lot of female editors, not just me, and even some male editors think these boxes have no place in userspace. Since you apparently have never been subjected to objectification and being picked apart and rated on your various physical attributes, perhaps you should consider yourself quite lucky. ~Eliz81(C) 19:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongy-wongy speedy-weedy delete - sexist, divisive, offensive, not conducive to building a community of editors, utterly inappropriate on a project like Wikipedia and garners a very poor image of the project in the eyes of the public. Would this be acceptable in the workplace to have anybody have this on their desk or on the door of their office?? So why here? - Alison ❤ 21:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Out of curiosity, how many cubicles have signs on them saying, "this worker has earned 7 awards", or "this cubicle has been trashed 12 times"? --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some of the former, none of the latter ... that I know - Alison ❤ 22:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. At a minimum the BBW, shemale, and sexy chicks have to go. The rest of it isn't appropriate either. Way to make everyone who is not a hetero male uncomfortable.--Thalia42 (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because Lord forbid men admit they're attracted to women. Honestly, what is wrong with us? And for the record, males also have different colored hair and females do tend to prefer them too. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because men can admit that they're heterosexual, but that doesn't give them the right to view women as objects. Naked pictures? "Sexy chicks"? I'm sure that relates to women as equals. If the preferences didn't include the pictures, I think you'd find fewer objections.--Thalia42 (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have a point on those particular userboxes, (and note I don't support keeping them), but specifying hair color preference? I don't believe so. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm wondering if these are considered any worse than any of the other stuff at

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

  • relist individually. --Random832 (contribs) 00:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I believe there are some copyright issues here. The photograph in the brunette USB is of Sharon Shannon and the image page says "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed". It is not attributed. the blonde USB is of Ana Hickmann and it is from Flickr. Also are there not privacy issues in using pictures of living people totally out of context? I support deleting those two but Have no view on the others. --Bduke (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The images can be replaced with those of other women (or men). --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to fail to grasp how we handle attribution of images on Wikipedia. The image page is where that occurs. You do not see attribution commentary below pictures anywhere else on wikipedia. No licensing problem to worry about here. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could be right. I do find our use of images confusing, so generally keep away from them. The image of Sharon Shannon seemed to be different from others. I now see it is not used on any wikipedia article, even on Sharon Shannon. I still think it was a privacy issue to use it on a userbox, particularly one that is sexist. --Bduke (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If someone gets steamed up because they see that a particular user likes brunettes then I think that's a problem with that person being too sensitive, not the userbox. I'm not particularly "in favour" of these userboxes - I just think it's ridiculous that we're even considering deleting them in the first place. Of course, if you're mainly focusing on the "sexy chicks" or "big beautiful women" then I suppose that's a horse of a different colour. I agree the MFD should really be split so that we're not arguing at cross-purposes. –
talk) 03:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
True, it could always be that an editor could just be a little too sensitive. But seriously, why do we need to know which hair color on women other editors prefer? This isn't about a philosophic ideal, a religion, or a spiritual choice. If it were just about that, I'd suggest tolerance. We just see it differently I suppose. Synergy 10:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no slippery slope. We do not have to delete this to prevent the heat death of the universe. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, YOU think that are offensive and sexist. Thinking does not make it so. I think Korean food is disgusting and inedible. --mboverload@ 06:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, but that's what sp*z means, you m*ng :) (just using that to show an equivalent term that is also nowadays considered politically incorrect.) By using the term as an insult, you're implying there's something wrong with people with the condition as people, to the extent that you use it as a derogatory term towards the conventionally-cerebral. That's so g*y. :)Sticky Parkin 12:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you mean women by "people like you", yes? Because you will note that all the female editors here have spoken out for deletion. And maybe THAT should give you a clue about why the user boxes are a problem. If an entire (rather large) group considers them offensive, maybe they're offensive even if you don't see it.--Thalia42 (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there really one that says in so many words "this user is offended by gays"? I don't think that one would stay up.:) Sticky Parkin 23:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to my knowlegde. I menat that someone could be offended by a userbox stating the user were gay. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There have been, in the past. User:PatPeter made a bunch of 'antigay' ones which were speedied with ensuing drama - Alison ❤ 23:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Plain wrong. MBisanz talk 12:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete discourages female editors- the thing is not the content, so claiming we'd be offended by article space content doesn't apply, but that we want a collaborative atmosphere that encourages women being able to contribute to the project as well as men. Userboxes like this might make women think they're going to be 'pounced' on, or that they're editing alongside desperate teenage boys or something. Theses boxes are immature and for want of a better word 'unprofessional'. Sticky Parkin 12:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What, seriously? I honestly can't imagine any reasonable person cruising userpages, seeing a box that says, "This user likes blondes", and becoming offended...or worry that they're going to be hit on...or worrying that all of a sudden they're going to be stalked by rabid Wikipedians. I can't even see it making anyone mad. At most, it might get an eye roll or a chuckle. Some of you are reacting to these userboxes like they say, "This user believes women are property", or "If you're a woman, get in the kitchen and make me a sammich". --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I had put something like these userboxes on my door at work, if we worked in the same place, would you say the same thing? Sexism is banned in the work place, at least in my country. It should be totally unacceptable here also. --Bduke (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone put anything like any userboxes on their door, I'd think they were an idiot. However, if someone -told- me this in the workplace, I wouldn't care too much. Not that there's any real comparison between an office building and a volunteer, collaborative online project, of course. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is where we disagree quite profoundly. First, I think that sexist behavior is even more unacceptable in an an office building filled with volunteers rather than paid workers. Secondly I do think wikipedia is similar to an office building filled with volunteers, but online. Third, whether people are idiots is not the point. Idiots do not realy offend people. Sexist behavior does. --Bduke (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is not sexist. It does not, in any way, imply women are inferior, nor is it disrespectful. Being attracted to women doesn't demean them. And idiots offend me plenty. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, that's not the point at all. Sexism is not simply considering women to be inferior; there's the whole matter of objectification. Even the language in the userboxes shows that, "This user is into redheads." - that's redheaded women, y'know? People? Sounds trite but it's not. And there's noting wrong with being attracted to women but there's no place for going "phwoarr!!" on your talk page - Alison ❤ 04:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's fine to be attracted to women but there's no need to be sleazy and overly full-on about it, as these boxes are. Clearly these boxes are raising more than an eyeroll or chuckle, as can be seen here. Sticky Parkin 23:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The outside world doesn't give two excrements about user pages, much less their userboxes. This is simply "IDONTLIKEIT"--King Bedford I Seek his grace 01:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. I take many media (press, tv, radio) enquiries daily and people out in the real world do, indeed, follow discussions like these and look at user pages, so please don't try to tell me why I think these reprehensible 'user' boxes should be removed asap. They bring us into disrepute and make it appear that editors are little children who don't know how to behave in decent company. I don't see any reason why other WP editors should endorse publicly-accessible sexist behaviour by a few people who haven't a clue about their responsibilities. --AlisonW (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lolz @ Bedford taking on Alison Wheeler. What next ... - Alison ❤ 01:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consider what's actually being suggested by proponents of deletion. Is it seriously asserted that
This user is attracted to red hair.




is "puerile and pointless... publicly-accessible sexist behaviour" but
pornThis user enjoys pornography.



which is not up for deletion, and is a sort of userbox that, by consensus, is permissible in userspace, is perfectly wholesome? It's fairly obvious which userbox would be more offensive to most of our readers. John254 01:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Nuke 'em all, I say. Neither of those are conducive to building an encyclopedia - Alison ❤ 01:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not against you Alison, but could we seriously stop lumping all this stuff together? I think judging each by its own merits is a very important concept and we should not abandon it to speed up the process. --mboverload@ 01:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested, actually, in how far userbox deletionism would be taken. Should we delete the entire contents of User:Allstarecho/SexualityUserboxes with the exception of gender and gender-identity boxes, which are necessary for the correct use of personal pronouns, since, after all, a user's sexual preferences and sexual politics are broadly irrelevant to writing an encyclopedia? John254 02:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See, it turns out that many, if not most of our userboxes serve only to identify personal demographic characteristics which aren't relevant to collaborative encyclopedia writing -- except for the fact that permitting editors a degree of personal expression on their userpages encourages users to contribute valuable content, instead of leaving Wikipedia in disgust. Please see Wikipedia:Editors matter for a more complete explanation of this issue. John254 02:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with personal expression, per se. Nothing at all, until it encroaches on others' editing experiences or the reputation of the project. It's just a matter of applying common sense to all this - Alison ❤ 02:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what exactly "encroaches on others' editing experiences or the reputation of the project" is precisely what we have a disagreement over. The outer limits of userboxes acceptability are clear --
User:UBX/straight or User:TAnthony/Userbox Gay) are acceptable, but userboxes which expresses desires for certain hair colors aren't. John254 02:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I now agree with Alison's position. However, I am still disgusted with the process and lack of process surrounding these boxes. If they were kept per DRV no admin has the right to delete them without a proper AfD. Only an executive decision by Jimbo or someone at his level should have that ability. However, this is all said and done now and these should be deleted - if only because I'm sick of the whole thing. --mboverload@ 02:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that is the issue here. Whilst we can enjoy what we do WP isn't something to create fun for editors - we are writing a scholarly text! "They're not offensive or demeaning" may be accurate in your view but, reading all the above, it is not a view that is agreed upon by all, possibly not even by a majority. You have it exactly right when you state "Admittedly they do nothing to build this encyclopedia" and that is the point of justification - or not - for a userbox. Many are finding these (and, indeed, some others) objectionable and they do nothing useful for the project. Delete them and move on. --AlisonW (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alison, I have to utterly and completely disagree with you. Unrelated to this discussion. There is nothing wrong with fun distractions at Wikipedia. This is not a PhD thesis. Wikipedia SHOULD be fun. Again, unrelated to this discussion. --mboverload@ 15:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should be fun for all, and there are plenty of other ways to keep it fun that don't disturb others. With all the options we have, we can afford to close a few that move us away from encyclopedia building and toward socializing in ways that make a lot of women uncomfortable. If the boxes could be used to help build articles, there would be a better reason for them. It's easier for editors to get along when we don't have them.
talk) 15:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm talking about intent. The basic purpose of WP is not to create 'fun' for editors; enjoyment/fun are a side-effect only and the sort of behaviour / POV engendered by these userboxes is not conducive to wider participation. --AlisonW (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen a lot of people saying these userboxes are offensive, but I've seen no explanation as to how they're offensive. I suppose you could argue they could be seen as reducing people to a single physical characteristic, in this case hair colour. But then, I don't see you or anyone else arguing against the "User identifies as straight" or "User identifies as gay" userboxes which also merely express someone's personal preference without condemning or belittling anyone. As for whether the userboxes are necessary or contribute anything to the encyclopedia, well, that's an argument about userboxes in general and not these ones in particular. My personal view is that if it's on someone's user page and it's not doing any harm, then let it be. I see my own user page as somewhere I can brag, rant, be creative, be childish, and let off steam, and I think my work on the actual encyclopedia is better for it. If some self-appointed arbiter had come along when I was just starting out going "You can't have this! You can't have that!", especially for reasoning as weak as I think this discussion has been, I probably wouldn't have hung around. That's a much better way of alienating people than merely commenting on hair colour. Reyk YO! 16:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many female editors need to say that they find these sexist, divisive and pointless before you will entertain the possibility that women (and yes, men too) find these sexist, divisive, and pointless? Making claims of oversensitivity and the fun police seems a moot point when this many women (constituting a minority of Wikipedia editors, I might add) have spoken up about this. Isn't it just possible that it is more offensive than some of you were willing to entertain initially? How many women have to outright say it's sexist before you'll believe us? ~Eliz81(C) 17:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Stickty Parkin, others. Sexist, divisive, pointless; create atmosphere hostile to women. I am revolted that despite multiple people stating this, somehow Reyk feels it is the "Fun Police" trying to stop "harmless" fun. If the userboxes created an atmosphere hostile to an ethnic group, would it still be the "fun police"? I know some great Nigger jokes, and some Jew jokes, and some Chink jokes. I guess I should make some "harmless" userboxes? KillerChihuahua?!? 14:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the claim that these userboxes are "Sexist, divisive, pointless, [and] create atmosphere hostile to women" has been repeated in various forms ad nauseam. What has not been explained, in any satisfactory manner, is why userboxes expressing sexual preferences are acceptable (we don't see users with torches and pitchforks clamoring for the deletion of most of the contents of User:Allstarecho/SexualityUserboxes), except that userboxes expressing preferences for women of certain hair colors are absolutely disgusting, and must be deleted forthwith. Irrational hatred, prejudice, and bigotry are never satisfactory reasons for deletion. If a Wikipedia administrator were to, say, nominate User:TAnthony/Userbox Gay for deletion on the purported grounds that it creates a hostile environment for heterosexual male contributors who would fear sexual advances from editors who displayed the userbox, the nominator would probably be summarily desysopped and blocked immediately. The real question here is not "do we delete these userboxes due to unfounded prejudice?" but rather "what sanctions should be imposed on the users responsible for the hatred expressed here?" John254 15:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a
    point, and in any case it has little to do with my argument. There's a big, big difference between offensive "Nigger" or "Jew" jokes and these userboxes. Those sorts of jokes play on hurtful and insulting stereotypes. But if someone says "I think redheads are beautiful", what's wrong with that? There is no stereotype that says people without red hair are bad or stupid for some reason (and yes, if someone made a "dumb blondes" userbox I'd oppose that). Your comparison is a poor one. Reyk YO! 16:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Since, as has been exhaustively explained in this discussion, Wikipedia is not a dating service, questions of what sort of userbox would or would not be "a very good seduction technique" are irrelevant here. Furthermore, the idea that any praise for female beauty, however restrained, necessarily "plays off a larger, more generalized stereotype of women as being treated primarily as sex objects for men" essentially condemns all male heterosexuality as harmful to women, to the extent that any male affection for a women not entirely platonic and chaste in character could be seen as treating women as "sex objects for men". This attempt to impugn all male heterosexuality would be entirely correct in the society described in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four; however, it is not compatible with the world in which we live today. John254 19:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're making way over the top exaggerations. Any praise for female beauty, however restrained?? No. There's just a time and a place for most things, and your Wikipedia user page isn't the time or the place to post a sign on that subject, just as, for the most part, your workplace isn't the place to hang up a similar sign. Save it for your home or car. This attempt to impugn all male heterosexuality [...] Way over the top. Not on
    talk) 19:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Essentially, you were arguing that male praise of female beauty was injurious to women, and did not limit the scope of that argument to Wikipedia user pages. Wrong on both counts. No satisfactory explanation has been offered to support the claim that userboxes espousing preferences for particular hair colors are [...] in the context of Wikipedia user pages [...] even merely inappropriate Done at 21:45 post. I'm saying userboxes about people's features that sexually attract you are a little inappropriate. You're exaggerating that into some kind of Orwellian dystopia, which doesn't get us anywhere.
    talk) 03:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Sure, no matter what we do, we offend someone. I'd rather keep the place more welcoming to women who tend to be offended by the user boxes than those who'd feel less welcome because they can't have these userboxes.
    talk) 21:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Quite, and the very instant you establish that it's okay to delete userboxes because someone's decided to be offended, you're going to get MfDs from evangelicals who believe that "This user is a Satanist" creates a hostile atmosphere for them, from 9/11 torchholders who believe that Islamic-userboxes create a hostile atmosphere for them, from conservatives who believe that ultra-liberal political user boxes create a hostile atmosphere for them, and from many, many others who find the mere expression of a sentiment utterly repugnant and unacceptable to their sensibilities. Hm. Rather like in this debate.
     RGTraynor  22:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • We're always responsible for how we act within the circumstances we know we have. We're not able to wall off the world. Just about everyone works around the sensitivities of others in some way.
    talk) 00:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment To be clear, User:Dark Tichondrias/Userboxes/User Shemale Attraction is currently deleted like User:UBX/TranswomenSexy is, so I struck it out at the top of this page. Joeblow179350 (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All of the arguments that these userboxes do not help in building an encyclopedia are true. However, neither do userpages in general (except for sandboxes and the like). In fact, this discussion certainly does not seem to be helping the encyclopedia one bit. A userbox declaring what someone likes and dislikes (even though it involves real people) does not strike me as sexist or demeaning. Those who have such a userbox are declaring that they like something and such as a like would seldom be demeaning. The problematic ones have been deleted already, no need to remove neutral ones. Captain panda 23:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's really, really, really not sexist to have a preference for a certain hair colour on your ho. This is the most po-faced and unwittingly funniest MFD I have ever read. It's also not objectification to say you prefer "beautiful women".
    ☄ 09:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong keep - It is stating a preference. I think cheese is tasty (OH MY GOD YOU ARE PREJUDICED AGAINST EVERY OTHER FOOD EXCEPT FOR CHEESE), I kind of like computers (MY NAME IS STEVE JOBS I AM GOING TO SUE), and I am preferential to having a carpet (WE ARE A WOOD FLOOR MANUFACTURER, HERE COMES SOME CLASS ACTION SUIT), blah. Keep, for the love of all that is holy/sacreligious.  Asenine  12:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep — Letting productive contributors have some harmless fun is a net benefit to the encyclopedia. Nothing else matters. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the userboxes based on hair color...neutral on the others. -- Lyverbe (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Everyone has their likes and dislikes. A person cannot like everything. They may like this, dislike that, etc - it is their personal preferences and others are expected to respect it. As long as people don't say "I despise blonds/brunettes", I do not see any offense or disruption. The "pointless" and "having nothing to do with creating an encyclopedia" arguments are unreasonable. As user Captain panda said, userpages and subpages in general do not improve the encyclopedia, either. Doesn't mean they all can be deleted. --PeaceNT (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I personally don't have great feelings either way about the userboxes, it's clear quite a number of users find them offensive. While other users are going to be offended by the deletion, IMHO it's better to remove userboxes which cause excessive offence when they serve no real purpose. Indeed, while sexual preference, gender, political opinions, religion, etc userboxes and information tell us a bit about a user which can sometimes help us to understand where the user is coming from in am argument, I don't really see these userboxes as likely to tell us anything useful about a user except in the rarest of instances. I will of course reverse my decision if other editors are satisfied with the compromise Nil Einne (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I were involved in talk page discussion with a user, the last thing that I would do would be to visit their userpage with the hope of using the demographic information provided as guidance in formulating a response -- per our verifiability and neutral point of view policies, we are writing articles on the basis of the information reported in reliable sources, and characterizing significant positions in disputes rather than trying articulate our own views on the subject matter and resolving disputes by trying to formulate some agreement as to the ultimate truth. As described in editors matter, userspace content, including userboxes, improve the encyclopedia not by directing talk page discussions, but by permitting editors a degree of self-expression that encourages them to contribute. If we deleted every bit of userspace content that a few editors found to be offensive, we would have little userspace (and few editors) left. John254 01:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, even if there were some great utility in using editors' demographic information to inform our interactions with them, it is absolutely impossible for these userboxes to simultaneously be horrible and offensive expressions of misogyny -- as proponents of deletion allege -- and yet not "tell us anything useful about a user except in the rarest of instances". John254 01:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In any event, since you state that you "will of course reverse my decision if other editors are satisfied with the compromise", and since at least one of the proponents of deletion has characterized the compromise version as satisfactory [9], it would appear that reconsideration is therefore warranted. John254 16:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Serves no constructive purpose. If an editor really wants to say that he or she likes a certain hair color, typing "I like [insert color here] hair" won't cause serious injuries, as far as I know. —Animum (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This userbox is no more or less offensive or "unencyclopedic" than any other userbox. It's a userbox on a userpage after all, and no claim of encyclopedic content is being made. Whoever nominated this for deletion is attempting to do nothing more than control people's thoughts and expressions. I absolutely HATE all forms of thought police and think you clowns should mind your own business, express your own thoughts in your own ways and leave others alone to express their thoughts freely. If you prefer blondes, brunnettes, bald headed people of others, then get your own userbox to express that thought! Sf46 (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as if we needed another reason to delete userboxes... Prodego talk 07:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument proves too much, since it would justify the elimination of all userboxes, an action which the Wikipedia community clearly does not support, and which would cause a major disruption, encouraging many productive contributors to leave. Please see Wikipedia:Editors matter for a more complete discussion of this issue. John254 13:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, since you have userboxes on your own userpage, should we send that to MFD? John254 13:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise?

Color me stupid but can we come to a compromise? This is a community, after all. --mboverload@ 02:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about we ignore the childish requests for censorship and continue on with our lives? LFOD (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are beyond "MY SIDE" or "MY SIDE" now. If we don't come to a compromise then we will all be left with a bad taste in our mouth. Without a compromise whichever way the closing admin goes will be seen as a betrayal. --mboverload@ 02:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has absolutely nothing to do with preference in hair colo(u)rs or body sizes and/or shapes, but with idiotic political correctness censorship. Should we now label bin Laden a freedom-loving freedom-fighter? Oh wait, we already are... LFOD (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you consider something just fine doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot who is into political correctness. And name calling rarely helps a discussion. Let's just all agree that quite a few women, and a number of men, find these user boxes to be offensive. Now let's see if we can reword/change them to eliminate this problem. That is, after all, the definition of compromise.--Thalia42 (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely straw-man you just built there, Thalia. LFOD (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me quote you, "This has absolutely nothing to do with preference... but with idiotic political correctness censorship." That would be YOU accusing those of us who are opposed to these user boxes of idiotic political correctness censorship, yes? Or did you mean to say something else?--Thalia42 (talk) 05:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|---> Compromise on Hair Color boxes

What if we changed the text of the haircolor boxes to “This user thinks redheads are beautiful”? I personally think that is kind of complimentary. Would this be acceptable to anyone? --mboverload@ 02:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was also going to suggest using a two-icon userbox, with one female picture and one male picture. Possibly with a parameter for switching to one or the other? -- Ned Scott 01:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be a good idea, provided that existing usages aren't broken -- it should default to the current form with the female image. John254 01:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Further compromise versions
This user considers blond hair to be attractive.
This user considers brown hair to be attractive.
This user considers red hair to be attractive.
Good? –
talk) 13:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
At the risk of repeating myself above, that would break existing usages of the userboxes, by suggesting that the editors who placed them on their userpages find the stated hair colors to be attractive in both genders, even if that was not the intended meaning. Users who place
WP:BLP violations -- I would expect a similar response to be implemented against Thalia42's proposed edit. We don't make statements about other editors' sexual orientations by editing their userpages -- neither should we do so by means of this sort of modification to userboxes that other editors have previously transcluded. John254 14:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
With all due respect, that's a little farfetched John. I think the point of these compromise versions is not to objectify women, or, at least, to objectify both genders equally. I think we should accept this middle ground and move onto more pressing matters. People will interpret the display of these userboxes based on any existing gender-preference statement, or in line with societal norms in the absence of such a statement. –
talk) 14:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
In the absence of other information about the user's sexual orientation, I do believe that the two-picture box is a statement of bisexuality. We can hardly "interpret the display of these userboxes" "in line with societal norms" when there no longer are any norms in some places. The two-picture box is fine as a parameterized option, but we shouldn't be editing hundreds of other people's userpages to display it by default. John254 14:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt any reasonable person would interpret the display of these boxes to mean the user is bisexual. It could be modified to read "...an attractive quality in their chosen gender preference(s)" but I really think we're getting silly here. If you like, I can AWB-spam all the users who are using these userboxes letting them know and suggesting they re-evaluate their decision to display the userbox. –
talk) 14:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
That's quite unnecessary and counterproductive. Stating that one finds a certain hair color attractive in both genders isn't necessary to avoid objectifying women. As a rule, we don't edit other people's userpages, or userboxes transcluded therein, to change their substance, as is being done here -- we shouldn't perform this editing even on the userpages of people who are too busy to immediately respond to notices. To start placing weasel wording like "...an attractive quality in their chosen gender preference(s)" on other people's userpages is grossly insulting. John254 14:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then stop building straw men. They're just pictures. The statement is gender neutral. If people are going to draw ridiculous conclusions, that's their problem. And people who transclude userboxen should be aware that they are subject to change. If they wanted to avoid that, subst: is always an option. –
talk) 14:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, transcluded userboxes are subject to change -- but not substantial changes in meaning, since we shouldn't be putting words in people's mouths. Pictures obviously have significant meaning. If the old userboxes are so politically incorrect that we can't have them at all, then we should delete them, and recreate them in your "compromise version" at different page titles, so users who display them know that they're getting. (Though, of course, there's obviously no consensus that a gender-specific hair color userbox is unacceptable in userspace.) John254 14:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that what this whole MFD is about? (well, at least the hair-color focused parts) –
talk) 14:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Indeed. If there is a consensus to delete the hair color userboxes (which is unlikely), we have the code right in this MFD discussion to recreate them, at new page titles, in your compromise versions. If there's a consensus that gender-specific hair color userboxes are acceptable (which seems most probable), we can parameterize the current userboxes to display pictures of either, or both, genders, leaving the current form as a default, to avoid breaking the existing usages. John254 14:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with John254. There is a difference between tweaking a userbox and changing it to say something different to that when it was transcluded. This is particularly true now with the constant tweaking that is going on - each change can slightly change the meaning and the result changes Chinese whispers style to something quite different to what was intended. Compare the current revision to the version current most of yesterday, for instance. Instead of simply stating a redhead etc is beautiful they are now 'attractive'. This reintroduces an overt sexual element that had been absent. While this will probably hold for most users with these boxes there are invariably going to be those who admire beauty in a fairly platonic non-sexual manner.
talk) 15:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Fair enough - I'm addressing this concern about the pictures. FYI the original version was that the user was "into (x) hair color" which I doubt will be unacceptable no matter whose picture we display - but "attractive" is actually closer to the original meaning than "beautiful", in my opinion. –
talk) 15:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
'Original' is a difficult concept because the boxes are being added and removed all the time - I only became aware of this debate because I was hunting around either yesterday or Monday for userboxes to add to my page, so what's original for me when I added a box mid-debate? Sure I'm aware of this debate so I can keep an eye on the box - I have one subst'd in and amplified a bit as a safegurd anyway - but it does show the problems of determining what is 'original' when if is being constantly altered, potentially allowing a user to add a box when it has temporaily deviated from it's long-term usual meaning.
As for attractive vs beautiful, yes I agree with you - attractive is closer to the historical meaning but I'd suggest we avoid this constant modification of the live template to avoid introducing potential problems. There's no reason draft versions of it can't be posted here for discussion. If/once consensus has been reached, then we are in a position to make what alterations are necessary to the live box.
talk) 15:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Problematic, I suppose - anyhow, I've used the paramater "original" as a switch for the female-only display version because, although "female" also works as a switch, I wouldn't want to put words into people's mouths setting their switch to "female", per the arguments above against this. –
talk) 15:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Further compromise versions part 2 - #switched parameters

Default (no paramater set, or set to "both")

This user considers red hair to be attractive.
This user considers brown hair to be attractive.
This user considers blond hair to be attractive.

Female (current transclusions paramater set to "original", "female" or "females" also works)

This user considers red hair to be attractive.
This user considers brown hair to be attractive.
This user considers blond hair to be attractive.

Male (males also works)

This user considers red hair to be attractive.
This user considers brown hair to be attractive.
This user considers blond hair to be attractive.
Good now? –
talk) 16:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I like your edits, but the redheaded man is too creepy for words. Use This? It's a generic attribution license. If you want I can convert to something that looks like an illustration.--Thalia42 (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, that would be cool. What about illustratifying this one:
talk) 15:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
|---> Compromise on Loves sexy girls

What if we changed the text to "This user thinks women are beautiful? Would that be acceptable to anyone? --mboverload@ 02:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. John254 02:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest "This user loves beautiful women" to preserve the userbox's meaning. John254 03:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's wrong with it as is? LFOD (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What's wrong with the userbox is that it's at MFD, with a substantial disagreement amongst established users as to whether it should be deleted. Resolving disagreements of this nature on Wikipedia necessarily involves compromise, not doctrinaire adherence to "delete everything" or "keep everything as it is" positions. John254 04:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's the value of having this user box in the first place? You figure there are large groups of hetero males out there who consider sexy/beautiful women to be unattractive? I think compromising on the hair color ones is fine. But Wikipedia is not a dating site. There is no appropriate rewording that does not objectify women.--Thalia42 (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I now understand that it is immoral, sexist, and degrading to have a preference in the colo(u)r of a woman's hair, but it is absolutely fine to concern oneself with the gender of an individual. LFOD (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This compromise, and my comment were not about hair color. Keep it on topic please.--Thalia42 (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't respond to someone that takes a compliment as an insult...? --mboverload@ 15:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's the compliment, and to whom is this supposed compliment made? I do think that classifying women by their sexual attractiveness is not appropriate in a work setting or at an encyclopedia. --Thalia42 (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Thalia, I guess I just have some mental block on understanding your position. Maybe I'm just a horrible, horrible insensitive women hater. To me this is about as exciting as saying "This user thinks Republicans are neato". I also disagree with your "work" analogy. Hell will freeze over when I let Wikipedia become a corporate america cubicle farm with HR watching over our backs all the time. --mboverload@ 06:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree with your "classifying" comment. I think you are reading too much into this. Where is the classification? Redheads are beautiful. Does that mean that blonds are not? No - you're filling in meanings where none exists. I already modified the boxes to what I think any reasonable person would find acceptable. Again, people objecting because people are complimenting them is beyond me. --mboverload@ 06:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I ask you again, what is the compliment, and who are these people being complimented? Personally, I consider references to "sexy girls" to be inappropriate. I'm sure you think that makes me the PC police. But the question was asked about our opinions and feelings about these user boxes. And my statement is that it makes me uncomfortable that hetero men firstly refer to women as "girls," and secondly discuss their sexual attractiveness in such a context. Also, as per above this is about the "sexy girls" user box, NOT about hair color. Please keep your comments on topic.--Thalia42 (talk) 08:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|---> Compromise on Big beautiful women

What if we changed the text to "This user thanks that women of ALL sizes are beautiful"? Would that be acceptable to anyone? --mboverload@ 02:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would involve a serious change in the userbox's meaning. We should either retain the substance of this box or delete it, not put words in the mouths of the users transcluding it. John254 03:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Does anyone want to make the new one? --mboverload@ 04:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one is using this particular userbox. I'd say let it go, into the cold black yonder where userboxen go to die. –
talk) 16:43, 12 August 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/August_4_userboxes&oldid=1140158506"