Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User wikipedia/Content Creator

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 speedy delete pursuant to CSD G7. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User wikipedia/Content Creator

Note: copied across from TFD as it's been pointed out that userboxes need to come here even if they're in Template namespace. I've copied across the comments, as I assume they all still apply. ‑ iridescent 20:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do I really need to explain why this is a Really Bad Idea? The idea that "content creators" are some kind of special group somehow distinct from the general editor base is not one that should be encouraged, and adding a "Content Creator" userbox serves no useful purpose (any genuine content creator is perfectly capable of adding some examples of the content they've created to their userpage, if they feel the urge to boast). Please, lets nip this in the bud before it has a chance to spread onto userpages. ‑ iridescent 15:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that this is a false dichotomy that we don't want to encourage. I see that we also have Template:Content Creator topicon and Category:Wikipedian Content Creators, as well as the page Wikipedia:Content Creator itself. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I think all four should go, but they're probably different enough that they need to be treated individually. ‑ iridescent 21:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Splitting editors into classes can only hurt collaboration. Alakzi (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why {{WikiFauna}} is a navbox listing only one item. —Keφr 10:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Awful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I think that all these pages/heads need to be cut off otherwise they might grow back. If Wikipedia:Content Creator isnt deleted and just the userbox then later we might have to deal with a new userbox coming out of that. Wikipenguin 8 (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All. Completely silly userbox and/or cat. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. The factionalism that this seems to suggest does not get deleted along with the userbox. We still have all kinds of other stuff like {{User deletionist}} and {{User anti-anon}} (and {{User:UBX/MFD}}!) and yeah, WP:OTHERSTUFF, but jumping on new attempts at user-faction identifiers doesn't help with the factionalism problem. Userfy it if you must. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What helps then? Alakzi (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Create a different userbox expressing a subtly different variation on the same view and wait for faction fission? :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- ^ Wikipenguin 8 (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because userboxes are stupid, and this one can be replaced with {{User exo}} anyway. —Keφr 10:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting to note that half a day after the creator of this userbox and the corresponding material posted a vacation notice on his userpage, it was nominated for deletion. The timing issue aside, after reviewing the related info, how is this any different than a userbox where a user expresses interest in any particular aspect of Wikipedia? I have seen userboxes where the user states their affinity for copy-editing; others where users express their fondness for reverting vandalism using this or that particular tool; others where users indicate their interest in particular projects. And the list goes on. This particular editor (we are all editors, no matter our particular interests) wants a userbox that expresses his desire to create content. He has been editing for nearly four years, and apparently, he has an edit count that reflects that fact. I didn't check, but I suspect we would find little participation at MfD, TfD, AfD, and the like. So why not allow editors to use such a userbox? Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 07:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Protest Keep per my comment, despite the writing on the wall. Even if the sock-vote is given no weight, I doubt enough support will be found to overcome the delete votes above. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 07:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The template was created by User:Joshua Jonathan; there appears to be no "vacation" or similar template on either his user or user talk page, and he edited both on 10 August - the day the template was first nominated for deletion - and on 13 August, when he posted to this discussion, in the first after Etamni's . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone familiair with India-related articles wil know what I mean. And yes, I actually do write a lot of content. But alas, if this one is overdone, tnan just delete it. Or rename it. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I envy the WikiGnomes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So, basically all editors are equal, but some are more equal than others? No thanks. Canuck^{89 (what's up?)} 04:56, August 17, 2015 (UTC)
- The userbox makes no claim remotely like this, and neither does the project namespace page. And you are replying directly below the creator of the latter. I think you people are looking for something that simply is not there. —Keφr 07:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Holiday is over, the tent is drying in the garage, and now it's time again for addictions. I've been thinking it over, and "WikiWriter" would be a better term. So, I'll move the top-icon and the essay to my userspace; and the category and the userbox can be deleted right-away. Let me explain a little bit why I created this top-icon: because I like the top-icon of the WikiGnomes. I wanted one too. And what I do most is writing, impriving articles with content, often a lot of content, using a lot of sources. So, that's why I see myself as a "WikiWriter." Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, I've copied the topicon and the explaining page to userspace, and tagged the pages, category and userbox for deletion. Cheers, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:18, 17 August 2015 (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.