Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 4

< January 3	January 5 >

January 4

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

The result of the debate was keep both. _→AzaToth 19:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User soup nazi and Template:User-grammar nazi

Whatever your view on userboxes, these should go. 1) Not funny. 2) Comparisons to Nazis are always in poor taste. 3) We will have users who suffered, directly or indirectly, under Hitler. 4) Godwin's law. 5) And least important - there are some issues surrounding the use of the Swastika in some European countries. --Doc ^ask? 22:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Hm. None of those reasons sound very convincing. We don't censor Wikipedia articles, so why should we censor Wikipedia userpages? As long as it's someone identifying himself as a soup nazi or a grammar nazi, rather than accusing anyone else of being such, it's not likely to offend, since both terms are heavily ingrained in the popular culture (though the swastika in "user soup nazi" is a bit unexpected; I'd have expected an image of a bowl of soup or something). Not being funny and not being in good taste are matters of taste, and not really grounds for deletion, even though I agree; nor do Godwin's Law or censorship laws in various European countries make any difference in this matter. And if the "I hate GWB" templates are appropriate, I don't see how this one, which doesn't even express an opinion (it's not like it says "the Holocaust wasn't real" or "I <3 Hitler" on it or anything), could be considered unacceptably inappropriate.

As for people who have suffered due to Hitler: although I think for the most part these terms are used just for shock value and humor (although they can sometimes be offensive when applied to other people rather than to oneself, e.g. calling someone a "grammar nazi" for correcting your spelling), not really anything attempted to offend anyone, if anything, I'd say that such jokes as "soup nazi" trivialize naziism, they don't trivialize the Holocaust. Mocking Hitler and demeaning and degrading the term "nazi" with silly, amusing phrases "soup nazi" and "grammar nazi" is not mocking or attacking victims of nazis, but mocking nazis themselves. The needless suffering it's caused and continues to cause is bad, but the concept of naziism itself, really, isolated from its historical context, isn't scary so much as incredibly silly. If racism and religious bigotry wasn't so dangerous, destructive, and widespread in modern society, I'd almost consider racists and bigots adorable. Like crazy people on the subway. -Silence 22:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

We don't censor wikipedia, because censorship damages content. We should remove sources of offence where to do so is content-neutral (else why not have an erect penis on the Mainpage). If people want to self-describe by comparison to mass-murderers, they are free to do so. The question is whether there should be a general template to facilitate this. --Doc ^ask? 22:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Except that we do censor wikipedia. Confer autofellatio. Silence argues at great length that people shouldn't find this offensive (by invoking highly semantic arguments like: it's not a "description" but only an "allusion"), but maybe Silence should stop and consider whether any people do find this offensive, which is the more germaine point here, according to our practices. By the way, I'm a staunch freedom of expression advocate, who thinks that takes precedent over people's sensitivities, so I vote keep, but I find Silence's counterarguments unconvincing, and expect the senstivity consideration to carry the day. -lethe ^talk 19:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• But the problem is that it's not self-describing by comparison to mass-murderers, it's using a term that very vaguely alludes to a mass murderer. Is even mentioning a term that is related to someone hateful off-limits, even when the actual template is certainly not supportive of that individual or his movement, and is in fact a parody of it? I think it's a tad excessive to say that we can't even use the word "nazi" in any template on Wikipedia, no matter what the context, intent, or meaning is. And if that's not what you're saying, then read Soup Nazi and grammar nazi, as they're references, respectively, to a very popular Seinfeld episode and to a very common colloquial term for people who are overly concerned with grammar, certainly not the direct references to Hitler you seem to think they are. My recommendation: keep both templates, and replace the swastika on the "Soup Nazi" with a more topic-appropriate image (like a bowl of soup or a clipped version of Image:Sein soup nazi.jpg) so it fits the joke properly. -Silence 01:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Putting that image in such a template would go beyond fair use and violate the copyright. BD2412 T 04:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom - Guettarda 23:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom.--Sean|Black 23:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm all in favour of humourous templates for user pages, but this crosses the line and is merely offensive and in extremely bad taste. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Both soup nazi and grammar nazi are widely recognizable terms and while I won't self-identify that way, I think deleting these amounts to taking political correctness a step too far. For what its worth, I thought the Soup Nazi character on Seinfeld was funny, and do find humor in making fun of Nazis. More than that though I think knowing that someone is a self-avowed grammar nazi would actually be useful as it describes one of the things that person cares about when editting. While some people may find these to be offensive, I believe that when it comes to userspace and things that belong in user space, we ought to favor freedom of expression over attempts to avoid all possible offense. I wouldn't object to removing the swastika however, as that is a bit over the top. Dragons flight 00:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I suspect that if the swastika is removed, someone else will put it back. BD2412 T 00:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both, especially the soup nazi one. It's in reference to "Seinfeld" (see Seinfeld#The_Soup_Nazi). The grammar nazi is a fairly well-known saying in the United States (and I suspect on the internet in general, especially on message boards, etc). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• No vote, but note that I've changed the swastika. ~~ N (t/c) 01:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both --Khoikhoi 04:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No opinion on the soup nazi one though. --maru (talk) Contribs 04:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both, American humor being considered. Iffer 06:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep – In poor taste, but that's not a crime. – ClockworkSoul 06:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Both of them. They may be funny to some Americans, but are actually very offensive towards many European users. And since I don't believe that Wikipedia should favour someone's pleasure over other people their feelings, I want them gone.SoothingR 06:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep now that the swastikas are removed; these are harmless. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP Hmmm. another tfd away from the official policy page on userboxes - but this one is more hidden so only you deletionist will find it and not the general populus of wikipedia that votes to keep these boxes.--God of War 06:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no official policy on userboxes, but there is on WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA with which you might like to refamilliarise yourself! --Doc ^ask? 11:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep They may be offensive to you, but you know what? A lot of what the rest of the world says about my president is offensive to me. Lighten up. Search4Lancer 08:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and it's not often that I find myself in the deletionist camp. As a serious grammar nazi I would however much prefer something along the lines of a Template: Orthographically Rigorous.... Sjc 09:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Then make that template too, and use it instead. I too am what many could describe as a "grammar nazi", being very concerned with grammatical consistency, yet I have no plans to ever use that template on my page because it doesn't fit my style of humor. Those who prefer that particular self-depracating way to state their grammar fixation should be permitted to do so, and those who don't prefer it, like you and I, can easily make other templates with a similar meaning for our own use. Deletion due to being needlessly offensive may be a valid justification (even though it doesn't apply well enough here), but deletion just because "As a serious grammar nazi I would however much prefer something along the lines of..." is purely a matter of personal preference and taste. -Silence 19:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Maybe - just maybe - this bad joke was funny once. But perpetrating what is obviously offensive to many in our community is against WP:CIV. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 09:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Someone get those deletionists a life, so they don't have to start up discussions everywhere. Is this a tactic to make it hard to track your attacks? Larix 10:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith.

It's getting difficult to assume good faith when the minority is repeatedly nominating large numbers of userboxes for deletion and then claiming that they are the true defenders of Wikipedia. - Cuivienen 15:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The reasons for deleting them are too week. --Bky1701 11:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I am not seeing a compelling argument for deletion - these are for use in the User: space. All in good fun. --Dschor 11:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't think that either one is very funny or in very good taste, but so what? Since when do my prerogatives as an editor extend to verifying the humor or good taste of someone's fracking user page? Does anyone seriously think that people with these userboxes are Nazis? Benami 11:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for offensiveness. --Pjacobi 13:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. — Matt Crypto 13:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Bolak77 13:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Pepsidrinka 13:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete grammar nazi, SS reference is highly offensive. Keep soup nazi; now that the swastika is gone it seems relatively harmless and clearly references a US TV show rather than the NSDP. Palmiro | Talk 13:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• I would agree with you if it was someone calling someone else a grammar nazi. Saying "You are such a grammar nazi" is potentially (though not necessarily) offensive; saying "You are such a soup nazi" will rarely be offensive, because it's so darned silly. However, saying "I am such a grammar nazi" or "I am such a soup nazi", which is exactly what the above templates do, is more goofy and humor-at-one's-own-expense than genuinely offensive. This really isn't that big of a deal. -Silence 19:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind the Nazi bit half as much as I mind the joke about being a member of the SS, which is in the poorest possible taste. That was the basis of my vote and comment. Palmiro | Talk 00:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Soup but Delete (or Rewrite) Grammar. The soup reference is too common an joke reference for any claims of offensiveness, and should be kept (at least until there is a consensus general policy on all joke-boxes). As much as I champion box-rights, even I find the grammar box (in its current form) to be in poor taste (If it had been funnier, I may have voted to keep, but it is not. There is a fine line between clever and stupid --Spinal Tap.) — Eoghanacht ^talk 14:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

People keep claiming that 'Soup Nazi' is common cultural reference. Well, it is not one I have ever heard - and so all I saw was some poor-taste comparision between soup and Nazism. I wonder that voters may be guitly of US-popular-culture imperialism. In most of the world, when people see the word Nazi, they do not think about US sitcoms. --Doc ^ask? 14:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The Soup Nazi is worse than American-pop-culture imperialism, it is New-York-City-pop-culture imperialism. However, given that it is instantly identifiable to hundreds of millions of English speakers I think it qualifies as a common knowledge joke. Everyone who does not understand the reference (even if that means most other English speakers) can simply click on the link in the userbox to read about it. — Eoghanacht ^talk 14:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, 'New-York-City-pop-culture imperialism' = 'common knowledge'. I suddenly feel like an ignorant foreigner. --Doc ^ask? 14:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I should have typed: "Manhattan-pop-cultural-imperialism", but one of the joys of Wikipedia is the opportunity to expand your knowledge, such as the fundamental truth: Nothing important happens east of the East River, nor west of the Hudson. I don't believe it myself, but American media and advertisers keeps trying. — Eoghanacht ^talk 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong Keep - Stop the deletionism. Delete only the templates that are actually useless and stop wasting space on this page and the time of Wikipedia users. - Cuivienen 14:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Only templates that are 'actually useless' - OK, what 'use' are these to the goals of wikipedia? --Doc ^ask? 14:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Useless templates are redundant templates or templates not being used as templates (see Template:Cemetery for one such example). This template is for humor on userpages, a valid use. - Cuivienen 15:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Nothing offensive about it. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 15:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, by the precedent set by all the other meaningless userboxes here that nobody minds. If I may address the points of the nominator: 1) is not a valid criterion for deletion, and it is highly objective. I think most of the userboxes advertised as funny qualify as "not funny" to a greater or lesser extent by my standards, but I wouldn't think of trying to get them deleted based on this argument. 2) is also quite objective. I for one would disagree. 3) is technically correct, but I disagree with it as an argument for deletion here. While it is an interesting topic of discussion how offensive jokes should be allowed to be, this doesn't even come close to offensive enough to warrant such discussion, I think. 4) Godwin's law cannot be taken too seriously, and certainly is not a valid criterion for deletion here. 5) is obviously moot now that there is no swastika. EldKatt (Talk) 16:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak I'm going to hate myself in the morning keep- Tasteless yes, but it was Seinfeld, not Wikipedia, who came up with it, the terms are recognizable. Keep both. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 16:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Simply not funny but rather offensive. Cyberevil 16:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete on grounds of offence. Grammar nazi is an internal Wikipedia thing so the concept is acceptable as a box, Soup nazi obviously refers to a joke I have not yet heard, but both are expressed in terms that I think go beyond what is acceptable. David | Talk 16:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Grammar nazi is not even close to being "an internal Wikipedia thing". In fact, I'd say it's just about the most common usage of the word "nazi" in the modern English-speaking world that doesn't refer to literal nazis. It's practically ubiquitous as a pejorative, amusingly over-the-top term for obsessive grammarians. And voting to delete "Soup Nazi" just because you haven't heard the joke before is rather biased. Why should the arbitrary and random number of things you've happened to run into before in your life determine how you vote? My vote would be the same whether I'd happened to hear of Soup Nazi before or not, because my personal experience in this area is not what this vote is about. If "Soup Nazi" wasn't noteworthy, it wouldn't have an article! -Silence 19:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - the use of the word 'nazi' should not frighten people. I'm more familiar with 'spelling nazi' but 'grammar nazi' is a common term that I've heard both in Rl and on the Internet and 'soup nazi' - well, lots of people found Seinfeld funny. - Hayter 16:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, espousing your knowledge of languages or political beliefs or even your web browser is one thing, but this is pretty well boxcruft. Yes, we know. You like Seinfeld. You think capital letters are good. That's swell, but we don't need userboxes for everything somebody somewhere thinks is good. Especially when the templates are about as funny as a swift kick to the groin. Lord Bob 17:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yet political beliefs or web browsers--also irrelevant to the functionality of Wikipedia, unlike Babel--are okay? Out of curiosity, where exactly do you draw the line? Speaking for myself, I'd rather see all the genuinely useless humorous templates gone, not just the ones I dislike more. EldKatt (Talk) 18:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The same place I draw the line on notability of articles: I don't, and take it on a case-by-case basis. Lord Bob 18:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep pending a more complete userbox policy. I believe that one is now under discussion. Once it is accepted, then delete any uservoxes which are unacceptable under that policy, and only those. I might add that the "X-Nazi" form in sich versions as "Safety-Nazi", "PC_Nazi" ect, often to deride an opposing viewpoint, but soemtimes to deprecatingly describe one's own views (as apparently in this case) is considerably wider than Seinfeld, and the intended meanign should be clear to msot people. I personally wouldn't use such a designation, but if people want to so self-label, why not. I speak as a person who had relatives, albiet rather distant ones, who were Holocaust victims. DES ^(talk) 17:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. older≠wiser
• Very Strong Keep for The Soup Nazi and Rewrite before Keeping (the wording I just saw has me iffy) for the Grammar Nazi. I'd also like to remind everone of Mel Brooks' words on why he always made fun of Nazis in his films: "When you're made a mockery of your enemy, then you've won." --CJ Marsicano 18:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — Nazi here does not reference to national socialism, but more as a reference to the setereotype._→AzaToth 18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Soup Nazi, Keep Grammar Nazi.Gateman1997 18:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CIVIL. FreplySpang (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Soup Nazi, on the grounds that it is hilarious and not really offensive. Rewrite Grammar Nazi on the grounds that it is in extremely poor taste. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 18:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - none of the nom's reasons for deletion are convincing, especially for the Soup Nazi. The grammar nazi thing is a bit wierd, but neither are offensive and both are users' choices to use or not use. No one is forcing anyone to use them, but if you want to then it is your right to do so. Deano (Talk) 19:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly in favour of userboxes, but delete these. Inappropriate in my opinion. —Nightstallion (?) 19:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment No Soup For You! - anon
• Keep. No delete for you. --Stbalbach 19:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Offensiveness is subjective, there's no need to impose personal tastes on someone else's userpage. There are a significant number of people on this planet who find all pictures of people to be genuinely offensive (because allegedly idolatrous). We can't regulate for the vast variety of personal aversions out there. Craft your own userpage in whatever way suits yours. Babajobu 19:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; these don't belong in the template namespace. — Dan | talk 20:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. With or without Swastika, still bad taste. Garion96 (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, although I think that any swastika imagery should be gotten rid of. Self-deprecating humor is acceptable in userspace. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Don't censor. Stop the deletion inquisition. People have different senses of humor... Get over it. Don't be humor nazis Zachomis 23:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and my extend the following two userboxes: {{userbox:wiki-nazi-0}} {{userbox:wiki-nazi-1}} Robert Paveza 00:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This whole userbox debate is rapidly falling into a 'let's see how much we can degenerate the level of discussion' contest. Lord Bob 00:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Very Strong Delete I would have started this process if I knew how. I made comments on a couple of pages. Essentially, I particularly object to the term nazi, and pointed out how

it wouldn't be fun to have a "kkk-grammar" or substitute other hateful symbols. Dialogue is important, but comparing grammar usage to a genocidal regime is in poor taste, even if it was part of a major sitcom. Many people here claim its not offensive, but many people i know were stunned to here about it, especially after i was bragging so much about how great wikipedia is. It hurts and marginalizes some. Not allowing the use of a symbol that is oppressive is a tolerable curtail of freedom of speech, as it reminds some of hatred, murder and genocide. And we want those people contributing to wikipedia. I think the term for someone who is intense about grammar should remain, but i feel the use of the term nazi, both on wikipedia and in common day lexicon, is inappropriate.

I'll read the process here now that i found it, but for sure i am for deleting it. As a side note, as a new user to wikipedia i'm delighted by all the talk. Certainly a vibrant and interesting community, where so many users debate this issue. I'm impressed. Cool stuff! JamieJones 00:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I have heard of Soup Nazi (even have the userbox on my userpage) and "grammar nazi", and don't consider them offensive. Dralwik 01:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Let me start off by saying that I am very close to the Jewish community, and that I am considering the possability in becoming a Jew myself through cleansing in the mitvah. I would also like to point out that I just came home from a day at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C and that I have spent many personal hours on the study of WW2 and the Holocaust. I don't find these templates offensive, and I don't find them to be in bad taste. Even if I would find them to be offensive, or in bad taste, I would still oppose the deletion of them. It is not my job (or yours) to define what is and what is not funny. Are these templates advocating the harm of people? No, they're not. The mere mention of the word "nazi" does not make these templates the rallying cry for ignorant activity. Everyone has their little sick jokes- It is not our job to police that. Zachomis 02:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This userbox isn't exactly promoting racism or anything. Ashibaka tock 02:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - "grammar nazi" is a commonly accepted term. "nazi" is synonymous with "fascist" in this case. no offense should be taken to this. DrIdiot 05:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • While I don't believe in the offensive reasons myself, I don't think that "fascist" is a much nicer term than "Nazi". They're both used as fairly over-the-top insults, after all. Lord Bob 15:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I mostly meant they were by no means references to mass murder. Or politics at all. I'd like to add (this is irrelevant to your comment) that the Japanese raped/killed thousands of Chinese in WW2, but as a Chinese I hold no grudge and I'm not offended by mentions of Tojo or Japan. And even if I was offended, I would respect freedom of speech and would live with it. DrIdiot 21:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Are a bit wierd but not overly offensive. If we delete everything that causes offence, then we'd have hardly any userboxes left! We got to stop being to cowardly with these sort of things, and not delete something at the first sight of offence! - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 15:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Offensive, bad taste, unhelpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Smells like censorship. Bastique 20:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep --Valmi ✒ 04:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Extremely strong keep. Something should not be deleted simply for having the word "Nazi" in it. "Nazi" has become a popular term to denote someone or something very strict. A comparison to Hitler or Nazism should not automatically make something offensive, and indeed, the world may be better if people remembered Nazism more carefully than they do now. Cookiecaper 10:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteUgly word, ugly reality we needn't relive--MONGO 14:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Exceedingly strong keep If we're going to delete this, then we need to purge Wikipedia of all Nazi references so as not to offend any delicate sensibilities. This is a ridiculous suggestion. --BRossow 17:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• No delete for you!. Keep, the nominator violates Godwin's Law attempting to invoke it to remove these. I would be offended by someone mislabling me as a nazi, but if they mislabled me as a soup nazi I would not be offended, it's humorous. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 18:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep' Humorous inside joke. Slightly offensive to those who don't understand it. Dustimagic 18:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep echoing sentiments above passim. Grounds for deletion are unconvincing. Eusebeus 00:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but this really needs to be part of the ongoing discussion of the purpose/appropriateness of userboxes. These sentiments can be expressed without offending anyone. -- nae'blis _(talk) 02:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep – In poor taste, but that's not a crime. While they use the word nazi they do not refer directly to nazism. Thus I don't consider them an attack on anyone. -- Sneltrekker 14:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Poor taste is not a crime. helohe (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - for silliness and triviality - I don't suppose they are seriously offensive, but why risk putting anyone off with something so fatuous and peripheral to what the site is actually about? Staffelde 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. It has already been decided through TfD that censorship of someones view is not acceptable. Even if someone created a userbox identfying themselves as a real Nazi we should not object. That is their view and they have a right to express it on their user page, with a userbox if they wish. There's another important point here — if some user was a real Nazi i'd rather be warned about that before hand by their user page, wouldn't you? —gorgan_almighty 10:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep 1) Something simply cannot be censored because someone else doesn't think it's funny. 2) Something simply cannot be censored because someone else doesn't think it's in good taste. 3) Something simply cannot be censored because someone else may think it's offensive. 4) Godwin's Law has nothing to do with this. 5) The swastikas are now gone. There are no viable arguments here for censoring this userbox. Elrith 15:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Like Dustimagic. Gflores ^Talk 18:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Like Elrith and others. Boddah 18:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Completely harmless. Deville 00:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep for all (well, most) of the reasons listed above. Snurks ^{T C} 01:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The current icon for "soup nazi" is a bowl of soup. The offensiveness problem has been solved. - Scooter 03:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No delete for you! Swamp Ig 06:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep soup nazi (established American cultural icon). Delete grammar nazi, or delete references to the S.S. "Grammar nazi" is a common, though crude and IMO vaguely offensive term, but S.S. references are entirely uncalled for. --Fang Aili 15:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Unbelievably Strong Keep That the nom is unfamiliar with a well-known cultural reference, and unfamiliar with a common colloquialism, are nowhere near being valid reasons for deletion. And if anyone is going to be offended by that, we just can't be bothered to cater to people like that who are offended by everything (especially considering that any offensiveness is founded in unfamiliarity with these terms). I hope that citing Godwin's law was a joke on the nom's part. Yeltensic42.618 don't panic 16:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I also am pretty amused/disgusted that deletionists chide us to assume good faith when we observe that starting all of these TFDs left and right while policy discussions are still going on seems like a diversionary tactic, but they think nothing of banning userboxes and cats just because they assume that their only use is to rig votes. But I suppose such should be expected of a loud minority arrogantly claiming to be the "true Wikipedians". Yeltensic42.618 don't panic 16:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NSDAP's flag/Swastica from the user template, I did, twice. And I'll do it again. El_C 16:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There is no problem with the Soup Nazi template (clean up the soup image maybe, it looks ugly) and as long as the Swastika is removed from the Grammar Nazi template there isn't anything wrong with it, it is a commonly used phrase and Grammar Nazi has it's own WikiPage. Though, the SS-Division in bad taste, maybe that should go too. AyAn4m1 22:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Soup Nazi because it is a joke. Not everyone is supposed to get jokes, and not everyone will, but that doesn't mean we need to delete this one. I'm sure that at least a fraction of the millions (76 million Americans watched the finale, after all) of people that watched Seinfeld like me use Wikipedia and will get it. Those that don't should, IMO, go rent Seinfeld on the lovely new DVD release, read the Wikipedia blurb on the Soup Nazi or just ignore it all together. As for Grammar Nazi - a recognised and popular term, no Swastika, no reason to delete in my eyes. --Loopy ^e 04:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete divisive, ugly, ditract from the mission of building an encyclopedia -- Dalbury^(Talk) 03:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete jokes about Nazism have a very very bad taste --Angelo 04:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strongest possible keep. Content of userpages should not be censored. Nohat 19:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. In bad taste. AnnH ^(talk) 20:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. These templates have nothing to do with making an encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 20:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep for all the similar reasons listed above, plus I like 'em. What are you looking like that at me for? I do!--Gillespee 23:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep How many people stopped watching Seinfeld because of the "Soup Nazi" episode? --Peace Inside 23:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I mean really... --Falcorian | Talk 07:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless we add a new user box: "Member of Al-Qaeda - for spelling errors and mass murdering of Americans" -- 131.211.44.71 16:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • (ActiveSelective says:) You mean like this:

This user is a member of Al Qaeda for the elimination of spelling errors and Americans

File:WTC attack 9-11.jpg

• Strong delete -- ActiveSelective 17:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, wait for babel policy. _→AzaToth 19:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User en-5

Arrogant, non standard, horrible. The en-4 -> en-N should be adequate. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
-->Since this is an important policy decision, and policies are frequently not decided by TfD because that makes no sense, I have asked Cool Cat to draw up the corresponding policy proposal. --Fenice 08:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't the people who made up en-5 draw up a policy proposal first? Why don't we delete this and let the policy be made?

• • Because of course this decision is final. I don't know how long you have been here, but any attempt to recreate template en-5 will be speedied within a few days. There are numerous precedents where it was decided to not delete because a proposal should be discussed first. What Cool Cat did is in bad faith and against the policy on top of this page. Obviously nobody cares. Cool Cat avoided a discussion with people who know something about the subject by bypassing the usual policy discussion and bringing it up here. It is much more likely for it to be destroyed by a bunch of regulars on TfD who enjoy destruction rather than having a serious discussion on the sensibility of this action with people who are actually using this template.--Fenice 14:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Your POV judgement that you find it horrible is a fairly weak argument for starting to delete a project that is as successful as Babel. If we delete level five what argument is there for keeping level 1?? No language evaluation system in the world has only four levels. The American Standard is 5 levels ILR scale (excluding natives) the European Standard is at 6 levels (TELC). As Babel currently stands (4 levels) it is pretty useless. The language skills of people within one of these levels differ enourmously. It is hard to categorize yourself in one of only four levels. For your information, and I think you should have done some research before just suggesting a user template for deletion: we have hundreds of these templates here, which deserve deletion according to your reasoning. The template you are so keen on deleting facilitates work and life on Wikipedia for about forty users who are in that category. This deletion request is obviously in bad faith.--Fenice 22:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Nice straw man argument, there.--Srleffler 23:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Nice straw man argument, there, Srleffler. (?) --Fenice 23:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • First place, en-5 doesn't help make it any easier to categorize yourself; if en-5 is deleted, en-4 or en-N should be used. For a system that can't use testing, I found it fairly simple to categorize myself; much easier than to decide whether I speak English at a "professional" level. And whatever happened to assume good faith?--Prosfilaes 23:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Your argument lacks logic: '...For a system that can't use testing...' - why shouldn't it be possible to use standard test results to categorize yourself - don't you want it to be comparable to standard tests or are you trying to claim that WP's Babel should be set in stone... or? I don't understand your argument. Or are you trying to argue that if we had levels comparable to standard test this will make people act in bad faith and make false statements about their skills. That would not be possible. Other users would notice anyway. --Fenice 23:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
        • You can disagree with someone without claiming their arguments is illogical, and claiming such does nothing to encourage calm discussion. We can't use test results, because serious testing is expensive and complex. I fail to see how it's relevant; en-5 has nothing to do with standardized testing anyway.--Prosfilaes 23:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Maybe I did not express myself clearly: many people already have some kind of test result, and can judge their skills on the 5-part ILR-scale or the 6-step TELC scale. Some people may have taken a TOEFL (Test of English as a foreign language), which ranks participants on a scale from 330 to 660 points. These scales give a realistic possibility of categorization. en-5 does have something to do with language skills and language skills can be measured by standardized testing. The wording is another issue (it is as of yet unclear whether 'professional level' means native or not.) And the wording can easily be changed, that's no reason to delete a Babel template.--Fenice 07:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
            • The wording is not another issue. We aren't arguing over whether we should go to a five or six step scale equivalent to a standard test. We're arguing over whether this template that refers to a professional level of knowledge should stand. Whatever it means, it doesn't have anything to do with the standard test scales. And I seriously doubt that even 25% of our non-native English speakers at Wikipedia have recently taken one of those three tests, nor do those tests extend across anywhere near all the languages Wikipedians speak.--Prosfilaes 09:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
              • Again I have problems following your logic if there is any in what you are saying. People want this box deleted because they believe the following: this box is being used by other native speakers to claim that they are better at English than other native speakers. (Which is of course not true, the box is being used by natives and non-natives.) If what people call 'offensive' as a reason for deletion is not in the wording where then is it, do you think? Is it the concept that unfortunately "we can all calculate, but mathematicians do it better"? Sorry but this concept is undeleteable. This will remain a fact (though disputed by the no-voters here), even if you delete the template. I respect your private opinion that for a reason you cannot name even after trying several times language skill evaluation has nothing to do with testing, but please, in return, accept the fact that the world sees this issue differently. And yes you are absolutely right, the tests that test English do test English language skills, and thus do not extend across anywhere near all the languages Wikipedians speak, like you say.--Fenice 13:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
                • I never said that language skill evaluation has nothing to do with testing; I said that this template has nothing to do with the language tests. If this box is being used by non-natives to claim that they are better than natives, that's just wrong. Mathematicians don't calculate better; they are notorious for calulating worse. Likewise, just because you write professionally, doesn't mean you're any better at writing English than the millions of us who don't. We don't need a Babel system that is inconsistent across languages, so using tests that test English doesn't help at all.--Prosfilaes 10:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
                  • This template evaluates language skills, which are evaluated by language tests. Also, your sentence: Mathematicians don't calculate better; they are notorious for calulating worse. And another example: right here on this page you are voting for it to become impossible for the Babel-level 5 to be on en-5 for the English language, Prosfilaes. At the same time you are saying here that the Babel system should not be inconsistent across languages? I don't think I am the right person for you to talk to about these psychotic statements. The discussion is also completely beside the point and will lead nowhere; this is Wikipedia and idiotic things like the deletion of this template do happen. Babel of course is not static and can adjust to this problem - we will have to have a non-standard scale for the English language, because obviously nobody seriously discusses this. I think a discussion with you about the logical breaks in your arguments makes no sense, sorry.--Fenice 10:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. What is the standard for a "professional" English speaker? Little known fact, I can contribute with a double secret level of English. Should I create Template:User en-6? Rhobite 17:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not really needed, as en-4 and en-N both cover it - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 17:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• It is an option to do some research before a drive-by-shooting on an established project: en-4 is near-native (which of course does not imply that that person is a linguist or professional writer, don't know what could have given you that idea). En-N is only for native speakers, not for people who write professionally and have some other native language. Shouldn't the people who vote here be required to do _some_ at least basic research on exactly what they are destroying??--Fenice 10:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Those who write professionally and don't have English as a native language are en-4, "near native". It doesn't imply that the person is a linguist or professional writer, but the argument that there's no need to put that in the Bable template is key to the opposition against en-5. What does a linguist know about how to write, in any case? They study the theory of languages at a level not useful for actual writing.--Prosfilaes 10:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• No, Profilaes. Just no. Those who write professionally are in en-5, not en-4. I don't understand how you could have possibly missed that since you are actually having a discussion on this topic for days. And it illustrates the point that your and my perception of reality and logic differ too widely for us to have a productive discussion. As mentioned on your talk page, I will not discuss any further because obviously this issue is already decided, there are more votes for deletion at this point and it is unlikely that more people will vote. Babel will have to deal with not being able to use the name user xx-5 for the English language. I am not available for further discussion and explanation, because this discussion cannot fulfil the aim of saving template en-5 or of initiating a policy discussion.--Fenice 12:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep No harm. --Thorri 17:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Again not really needed, breaking the standard for no good reason I can detect. :: Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 17:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — I think a level 5 is useful, I personally have problem with defining the step from expert to native. A professional level for me indicates that the person in question have learned the language to a native level, but it's not his/her nativ language. For example a translator could use it to define it's profession is the language. _→AzaToth 17:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • But all other language templates have four levels. Why break the standard for English? Not only that, this template implies that the user is somehow a better English speaker than most other people. Rhobite 18:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps there should be a lever 5 to the other languasges as well. Also, perhaps this user is a better English speaker that most other people, perhaps a professor in the English language for example. _→AzaToth 18:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment Changing all other language templates just to accomodate this one userbox is a bit much IMO - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 19:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• According to your reasoning we would have to delete half of en.wikipedia because other languages are not as complete as this one is. --Fenice 23:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, AzaToth, you have just illustrated one of the problems with this template. I believe it is not intended to represent English ability equal to native English level (but without being native.) It is intended to indicate that the user's ability to write in English exceeds that of a typical native speaker. Hence, the description "professional"—this is intended for people who are professional writers, and who therefore (claim) to have better command of the English language than the rest of us. There are all kinds of problems with this, as others have pointed out. The fact that the tag is prone to misuse and misunderstanding, as you have shown, is only one of them.--Srleffler 23:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• The wording can easily be changed, that is no reason to delete the template.--Fenice 07:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This would be useful if it was actually used by editors who write prose for a living, such as journalists, novelists, and certain academics and technical writers. As it is, however, I see this userbox adorning pages of 15-year old high-school boys who struggle with basic punctuation. Still, it is harmless, and no worse than putting a {{User vain}} on your user page. Owen× ☎ 18:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't use it, but professional editors and English scholars should. These users can then be consulted about stylistic and grammatical conventions. Primetime 18:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment #2: This template really doesn't belong on the en-x scale. Here's an alternate approach: let's replace it with a new userbox called {{User pro-writer}} which would be used in addition to the standard en-N box. Such a template could say, "User writes prose for a living, and would gladly help with stylistic issues in languages listed above". The box would be placed between the boxes for the languages which the editor writes professionally, and those that he can only use at an "amateur" level. This way it's also not restricted to English. A PD version of an icon such as this would be nice for the new template. Owen× ☎ 19:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Agree complete with OwenX's points. In it's current form it's useless and tries to change the Babel system. In a form of professional writer it would be useful. -- Sneltrekker 14:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment like any userbox this could be misused - but this has real potentional for use. Imagine writing a featured article and needing some help with the writing, as the standards have risen a bit there - you could theoretically do a lookup of people with these templates and ask for advice, etc.. OwenX has a point but I think seperating the two could be clunky as having prof. writing skills in one language doesn't neccesarily apply to another. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 19:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• What OwenX said. the wub "?!" 19:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as en-4/n is understood to have an average vocabulary and understanding of English. En-5 can help us track down people who can help punch-up prose for articles recently mentioned in the media. Level-5 should be implemented in all other languages as this would help Stewards find people to help with interwiki work and disputes. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Do what OwenX suggested - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 19:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. There's all sorts of xx-5. {{ubx-5}} is an example and is used on many pages (my own included).--HereToHelp (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• As above, delete en-5 but create a seperate identification for professional writers that's not part of the en-x scale. Oh, and we already have Category:Wikipedian writers. Dragons flight 22:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 23:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Though I couldn't resist a look to see what experts we have among us. Mark¹ 01:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Gene Nygaard 04:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. --Khoikhoi 04:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. A professional editor and English scholar, that's what I yam. I'd like to put my expertise, teaching experience, and compassion to use on Wikipedia. Halcatalyst 05:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • How does this help you? It doesn't change your editing, and I, for one, am more likely to look at en-5 and think you're a twit rather than someone who actually knows something.--Prosfilaes 23:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP Hmmm. another tfd away from the official policy page on userboxes - but this one is more hidden so only you deletionist will find it and not the general populus of wikipedia that votes to keep these boxes.--God of War 06:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but create a separate template to identify professional writers, per the suggestion of User:OwenX.--Srleffler 07:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-standard template. — TheKMan^talk 07:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-standard template per nomination. A template identifying professional writers, as others have mentioned, may be useful, but it should not masqueride as a Babel template. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonstandard template in the Babel-series. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Those who vote keep: prepare to have en-99 soon. If you need to emphasize it, an optional argument may be easily added to a template of your choice. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Week Delete and Comment As it stands, it is not well defined, and thus the reason for it is hard to tell. Is a “professional” level better or worse then native? What context is it “professional” in, translation, business, ...? --Bky1701 11:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am not seeing the problem with this - it seems to be a perfectly logical extension of the Babel box. Turning it into a non-language template would be the non-standard implementation. Leave as is. --Dschor 11:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep np with it Larix 13:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - It doesn't need to be sneering superiority. Create a new template that talks about being a professional in the subject of the English language - as in an English linguist or philologist. En-5 is the wrong place for this. - Cuivienen 15:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - It is a limited case, but a non-English professional translator would speak English at better than an en-4 level, but not be a native speaker (en-N). The en-5 template seems to cover that circumstance. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 15:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — Could someone define exactly what a native speaker is? I understand it to be ones mother tounge. For example, I'm a native speaker of Swedish, but I'm not a professional in it's grammar. _→AzaToth 15:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, I agree based solely on your confusion of its and it's! I kid, I kid ;) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)}

• Delete or rename per User:OwenX. Appears to be attempting a reform of the Babel system's structure in its own sneaky way. Whether more levels are needed could be discussed, but in its proper place, and if it meets acceptance by consensus, it should be implemented in a proper way. Also, in this particular case it seems to imply that a "professional" speaker (in itself an ill-defined concept) somehow differs in skill or level of authority from a native or near-native speaker, which, I would argue, is patently false. The main (and probably sufficient) argument for deletion is that it poses as a Babel template but does not follow the standard form of Babel templates. EldKatt (Talk) 16:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Rename and revise as per User: OwenX. DES ^(talk) 17:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Rewrite text as the term "professional" has so many different meanings (is it someone writing or translating as a living? Is it someone holding a provincially-issued licence of some sort, in the same way "professional engineer" and "registered nurse" each have a specific legal meaning? Is it someone who knows just enough English to use it in the workplace when practicing some other unrelated profession? Or is it just a perceived level of linguistic quality somehow rated a little better than merely "unprofessional"? If the meaning is that this person's employment is that of a linguist, author or teacher of English, by all means say so. The current wording is too vague to impart any meaning beyond that of {{en-4}} and therefore useless. --carlb 18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. — Dan | talk 20:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. — Many native speakers/writers of English can and do write at a near-illiterate level. A way to distinguish the better practitioners is needed, even if English isn't their native language. However, I'd rather see the template in a less-provocative color than the shades of red that it now uses. Another color might avoid offending the tender sensibilities of certain users. --Quicksilver^{T @} 20:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - There is a distinct difference between being native in a language and taking college classes to learn the grammar.--God of War 21:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Look at all those people who contribute using textspeak, slang, "it's" in the wrong place, etc.. etc... They may be native speakers, but they definitely don't deserve the en-5 label. en-5 is a way to show people that you know when to use apostrophes, that you can spell correctly, etc.... You don't have to have written books to show that. Anyway, if it is deleted, people can just create a userbox on their own page, defeating the whole point of deleting it. Just look a second at all the people who have en-5 on their user pages. They can all contribute with a high level of English and spelling correctly. At least three people on the first page of the en-N category can't spell or, even worse, don't use proper grammar. After all, what's the point of deleting a userbox, why the fuss? If people want to put en-5 on their userpage, leave them alone... Nippoo 21:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Nippoo. Hi-cal usage isn't common even in native speakers; the en-5 suggests encyclopedia-caliber competence, which is to be desired. Add it to other languages, too, I've no problem with that; if you're de-5 (or Klingon-5, for all that), good on ya. Trekphiler 22:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If you're a professional editor, and want people to know it, why not write it in English on your user page? Why does it need to be in a stupid box? -- SCZenz 22:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Nonstandard (and sets a terrible precedent), pointless, arrogant (by what standard do we judge "professional", other than just how well a person thinks of his own writing?), inaccurate, misleading, wasteful, unreliable (with no consistent standard, we'll have some of our best writers and some of our worst writers listed together, making the template useless), ugly. Has nothing to do with the Babel templates, which deal with whether you're a native speaker of the language or one who's learning it at some level or another. A distinct template should be created for things like "user is a professional writer", "user has an exceptional grasp of vocabulary and grammar, "user is a copyeditor", etc., if necessary. The Babel template deal with how fluent you are in English, not how skilled you are; whether your prose is masterful or not should be an unrelated template. Also, I have to say that I couldn't agree more with SCZenz; very good point. -Silence 22:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• The non-standard-issue can easily be changed - what color do you want it to be? en-4 is yellow, so that would also be non-standard, should we also delete it? Why else could this template be nonstandard? Why would this template be more misleading than other levels? I personally beleive en-2 is way more misleading. It can mean anything. To some people intermediate means advenced, to others it means beginner. According to your reasoning we should urgently delete the native template because it does not identify a person who is learning the language (?) (I think, hope, we can assume that everybody who writes for WP is trying to improve his language skills -> so lets delete all babel templates?). And could you expand on your notion that fluency has nothing to do with skill?--Fenice 23:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this non-standard and unnecessary template, although, as are said often above, a seperate userbox and category to show that you're a professional writer isn't a bad idea. Lord Bob 00:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Escapes the purpose of the Babel project, I believe. Plus, there's a duality difficult to resolve: this "professional speaker" could be a "über-native", that is, a native who also possesses a "professional knowledge" of the language, or a "über-level 4", that is, a person who is not a native speaker but who has studied and understands the language on a "professional level", such as an English teacher/professor in a non-English speaking country. Those two should not even be mixed to begin with, since it's not quite the same thing. Since this is not essential to the project, we'd be better off leaving this alone — plus what Silence said. Redux 01:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• ...A duality difficult to resolve...says Redux. We can't list all articles for deletion that have dualities that are difficult to resolve. Doing that in this case sets an uncanny precedent.--Fenice 23:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Pretentious as hell, and completely misleading. I lost track of the number of grammatical mistakes and misspelled words on the user pages of people with this userbox. Yeah, I'm a copyeditor. FCYTravis 04:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• This bears some relevance in considering user:Silence's argument above, who dreams of all natives and copyeditors having no more need to learn and improve.--Fenice 23:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)]
  • If someone is going to be pretentious enough to slap an "English professional" userbox on their userpage, they'd better not have a single freaking mistake on it. FCYTravis 05:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete levels 0 to 4 plus -N should be enough. Why break the norm for one language?. CharonX 20:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• You are breaking a norm by suggesting to delete this. 'Normally' there are more evaluation levels for language skills, as I mentioned above.--Fenice 23:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• All of which are completley arbitrary. 4 sounds about right; I could decipher a message, I could communicate at a basic level, I'm pretty good in the language, I'm a native.--Prosfilaes 23:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• They would not have to be that arbitrary if they would correspond better to what is done in real life: have more levels. To me 'being able to decipher a message' is en-0, basic level is en-1, pretty good sounds more like advanced (en-3). The more productive users are the ones that categorize themselves as "fluent" or having "a working knowledge", both terms are often found on resumés and are non-existent in Babel as of yet -> we need more levels on Babel.--Fenice 07:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Being able to decipher a message is not en-0; that's I don't speak English. Adding more levels is just going to make it more confusing; if you don't know what the difference between en-2 and en-3 is, then making them en-2, en-3, en-4 isn't going to help. If you're fluent in English, you should be able to tell that that's en-4. And whether or not we need more levels is orthogonal to whether or not this particular level defined roughly as it is should stay. Arguing that this should stay because the Bable system needs to be more finely tuned is like arguing that User GWB should stay because the users from Green Water Bay need a userbox.--Prosfilaes 09:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• If you can 'decipher a message' you won't be able to contribute much and that is the criterion for en-0 (can't contribute). If you set fluency equal to current e-4, which is near native, we will need at least en-6 to cover the full spectrum. As to the Bay Water Green analogy, I have no idea what that is or where that is, but everybody here knows what English is. The analogy is faulty.--Fenice 12:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• You're changing the meaning of the template mid-game.--Prosfilaes 10:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Pretentious, unhelpful, offensive. If you're a professional who uses English, say that; there's a difference between that and "speaking English at a professional level".--Prosfilaes 20:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• If you have a problem with the wording, change it, be bold, click the edit button on top.--Fenice 23:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• It's not the wording I have problems with; it's the fact that the Bable tool is being abused to look down at the people who only speak the language at a "native" level. It's an elitest and linguistically absurd concept.--Prosfilaes 23:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The user template deletion craze is really going beyond comment. --Fenice 21:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per arguments above. --Fang Aili 21:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is ridiculous. Using that reasoning, we can delete every user template because it is "arrogant" and the user must be a "twit," right? Most languages have at least 5 levels, as the first comment noted. There is absolutely no reason to delete this, as it can be extremely useful in determining people who can help significantly with grammar. The argument that people with terrible grammar will use this is irrelevant, since someone could just as easily put a level 4 when they really speak at a level 2, and this would be apparent from the user page anyways. Using that reasoning, again, we can just delete all language templates because all Wikipedia users can be arrogant twits and lie, right? Wrong.

• Tests (not languages) may have a level 5, but that doesn't mean that we should be that granular, and it espeically does not mean that we should have level 5 mean what en-5 does. Yes, they could put a level 4 when they speak at a level 2, but it's not really being an arrogant twit to say you're as good as most speakers. en-5 is misleadingly defined, since there's no linguistically accepted level of language knowledge beyond native, and there's no evidence that it's being used in a useful way.--Prosfilaes 00:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete a 4-level system is currently used for representing any user skill. So, an arbitrary fifth level does not fit in any way. --Angelo 23:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Significant difference between native and professional master in thr written form of a language. --Valmi ✒ 04:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It seems like some of those voting keep here do so because they desire more levels in the Babel system. Consider, then, that there are babel templates currently listed here for 232 languages. Do you think an effective way of introducing a reform in this system (where the 5 levels, including native, are the currently established way of doing things) is to create an extra template for English that cannot easily be found and hoping that people will therefore adapt to some new, non-existent standard? If you really wish to change the Babel standard, raise the issue in a place where it can be discussed and, if consensus is reached, implemented properly. Please realize that, currently, this template breaks the 5-level (or 4-level, depending on how you see it) system that Babel currently follows, and keeping this can't really result in anything but confusion. EldKatt (Talk) 10:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• I am not sure how you got the idea that there are currently 4 levels (en-1 to en-4), when we are here obviously talking about deleting an existing level en-5. As you can see the link above is still blue, so 5 levels do exist. Level en-5 was created months ago and about 40 people have it on their userpages. You are twisting the facts. You are right, this is not the place to change the Babel standard, which is currently en-1 to en-5. En-5 was created the same way en-4 was finally created because there was a demand for it. --Fenice 11:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Why, then, do no other languages have a level 5? Why does Wikipedia:Babel explicitly list and describe the four levels at the top? Wikipedia:Babel/Levels does mention it, but it is referred to as a proposal, not yet implemented. (Incidentally, I can't find any other references to this proposal, or it being discussed anywhere, which surprises me.) Please provide evidence of your claim that "the Babel standard [...] is currently en-1 to en-5", now that I have provided some evidence to the contrary. EldKatt (Talk) 12:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Some other languages have only three levels, some only one, see [Wikipedia:Babel]]. If there is no description of the fifth level it should be added and if en-5 is seen by some as just a proposal it should be discussed and not just deleted. I am saying it is standard because en-5 exists and is in heavy use. There is nothing more formal to that. From what you say I can draw no other conclusion other than there needs to be discussion, not deletion. The demand is there for en-5 and it it will be created again in some form sooner or later anyway. But if this deletion goes through and sets a precedent we will have to resort to calling it en-4.5 or something.--Fenice 12:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• If 45 users—compared to 108 for en-1, 799 for en-2, 1601 for en-3, 755 for en-4 and many thousands for en-N (is there an easy way of counting pages in a category?)—qualifies as "heavy use" by your standards, then there's not a lot we can discuss. I am still of the opinion that reforms of established systems (such as Babel with four levels) should be attempted in the proper place, to enable serious discussion and successful potential implementation. I am also still of the opinion that en-5 is not standard, as you have claimed. EldKatt (Talk) 15:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• yes, we have different notions of what is standard. It's nice however to see that someone sticks to the rules on top of this page and admits that this was not the right place to decide that policy.--Fenice 15:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, now that we have the exact numbers, again the suggestion: why not sacrifice en-1 with 108 users instead?--Fenice 15:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it has twice as many users as en-5. And more importantly, I don't see the point of having a system where "intermediate" is the lowest level. It evidently fills a gap satisfactorily. EldKatt (Talk) 20:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• As I said above, or was it below - the people on level en-1 will make nowhere near as many contributions as the ones that are on level 5. My rough estimate is that by deleting category en-5 you are chasing off about 100 times more edits than by deleting category en-1. Just imagine when these people discover this absurdly strange discussion here in a few weeks and find out that they are not wanted because their abilities are considered 'offensive'. Cool Cat, the user who initiated this stunt, is gonna have a good laugh. --Fenice 21:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• If they're going to be driven off by a deletion of one template, they don't have what it takes to survive at Wikipedia. And no one has said their abilities are offensive; they said this way of expressing them is.--Prosfilaes 10:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• The issue here—according to me as well as the majority of delete voters—has nothing to do with anything being offensive, as you claim. The issue is that it is non-standard. If this were named anything but "en-5", and thus made no claim of being part of the Babel system, a lot of those voting delete wouldn't mind it at all, as I interpret the discussion. (The notion that people would feel unwanted and leave Wikipedia because of a template being deleted is, to me, absurd.) EldKatt (Talk) 20:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. There are enough levels as it is and Wikipedia is not a translating agency. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course it is. Shouldn't users who vote here have some knowledge of what they are talking about?--Fenice 14:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Of course it isn't. Wikipedia does not take material in for translation; we don't even straight-forwardly translate Wikipedia articles between different languages.--Prosfilaes 10:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Very funny. I was really amazed that anybody could actually be so remote from reality, judging by your statements above, and I am now kind of relieved to see you are only joking, Prosfilaes. Very funny. --Fenice 22:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC) - Now watch Profilaes put all the translation pages up for deletion on the grounds that he feels offended by them.--Fenice 22:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
        • What are you talking about? EldKatt (Talk) 22:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
          • (*Whispering at EldKatt:*)Have a look at Profilaes userpage. He knows perfectly well that there are translations. He has a link to them on his userpage. --Fenice 22:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete en-4 is good enough.--MONGO 14:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I suggest deleting en-1 instead. Makes more sense, since people on that level won't contribute much anyway.--Fenice 14:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That's not a valid reason to delete en-1, and it's rather offensive. Even someone with en-1 can make suggestions and help clarify articles within their field of expertise. Making the facts right is worth a million minor grammatical fixes.--Prosfilaes 10:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Djegan 15:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep BRossow 17:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I recognise that there is a difference in being a native speaker of the English language and being able to write a text that is of encyclopedic quality. The problem is that it is difficult for many people to judge if their own writing style is truly "professional". Then again, the user page is there for whatever people want to say about themselves, so I can't see why this shouldn't be available to them to use. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 17:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I just ran across this discussion by chance, since I'd stopped following, or caring about, the Babel template discussions some time ago. This discussion, and the mentality behind the whole notion of xx-5, xx-6, what fits here, there, etc., is the straw that breaks this camel's back. Combined with the whole proliferation of absurd, stupid, juvenile userboxes that have crawled up out of the primordial Babel ooze, the only conclusion I can come to is that far too many people are more interested in process than content here. I am going to remove my own Babel labels since their meaning and usefulness have been debased and will only become more so in the future. Good work, Wikipedians. -EDM 20:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. What happened to Template_talk:User_en-5? There was some discussion there a few days ago.--Prosfilaes 10:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Change so it's not on the en-x scale. En-x is 1-4 and native. Let's not mess with that now that's it's nicely setup. Change to pro-writer or some of the other options above. gren グレン 13:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Babel is fundamentally a 5-step system: 1, 2, 3, 4, N. Period. There is no need to bloat it with en-5, en-6, en-0, en-666, en-2.5, en-π, en-i or any such nonsense. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, even en-4 is a somewhat non-standard extension. The original Babels at commons and meta only go up to 3. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That is a perfectly valid suggestion, Ilmari. Changes in policy can be made. The problem is that the standard way which would correspond to the instructions on the top of this page is to suggest a policy - Wikipedia: Policy proposal Guillotine Babel with an extension by Ilmari to also cut the feet off and have it discussed by the people who are interested. (I like your suggestion to delete en-0). Taking out one single brick of the building makes no sense whatsoever. There should have been an attempt to change the concept behind Babel and ban en-5 entirely from the English wiki. Now we will forever have users putting on en-5 on their pages and finding out that on en-wiki this is a red link because here on this page people could not cope with someone outing himself as capable of anything. --Fenice 22:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • You're the one who keeps pushing these new xx-5 levels without any consensus or policy behind you. I notice you've been creating more of these and editing the Babel pages to make it look like there's been an official change to the system. It's true that Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, but this is starting to cross over from "bold" to "sneaky". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• No need for personal attacks, Ilmari. "Sneaky" is one. And yes, I am obviously pushing xx-5. I am glad someone is reading the discussion. Bravo. --Fenice 06:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comments on somebody's behaviour do not equal personal attacks. (Your sarcasm above approaches it, though, but I don't see any need to discuss that any further.) Your swiftness in jumping to the conclusion that everyone is out to get you isn't really helping anyone. EldKatt (Talk) 16:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Looking at the diffs you provide: I cannot see a single one that proves that the policy has been proposed and not opposed for months. You are presenting a onesided picture of the story to discredit another user. Can I call you sneaky for that one, Ilmari? --Fenice 06:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• -->Here are the links Ilmari has omitted so gracefully: Proposal on talk page, one objection by user:EDM, others agree or don't mind:Wikipedia talk:Babel#New level descriptions. And: [diff]- this is a Proposal "Levels" with a link to it on top of the Babel page with no objections since then.--Fenice 06:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Reading that section on the talk page, I count one user besides the nominator (Ynhockey) supporting, one (EDM) opposing, one (The Dogandpony) indifferent and one (Bo Lindbergh) proposing en-∞ instead (with Cernen supporting him). This does not, in my opinion, consensus make. Besides, this TfD nomination itself shows that there in fact are multiple people who consider the new level needless. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Why not create a seperate template for "professional copy editor" or some such, outside of the babel language-level heirarchy? A user could be en-N or en-4 and add the "professional English" infobox as well. Obviously some non-natives are going to be more skilled at using a "professional" register than many native speakers anyway. ntennis 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• By the way, my vote for this template is Delete. And or the record, I'm against the user-4 category as well. A four-level system of beginner, intermediate, advanced, and "native or native-like" is plenty as far as i'm concerned. ntennis 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I have now invited people on the talk page of Babel to comment here. I know that this is something that is despised by some as vote rallying and have not done it so far. However, Ilmari has written on this talk page first and placed an attack against my person on the talk page of Babel (I removed the personal attack), so I guess that gives me the right to inform those who are competent and concerned with these templates about this discussion. And: ciao. If nobody responds to this invitation, I have done my job here on this page at defending Babel. Unless someone officially allows me to do more efficient 'vote rallying' I won't discuss xx-5 here any more. I have said my share. But I will watch and remove all future personal attacks agains me on this page. --Fenice 06:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. I'm the person who created that template. When I created it, on Wikipedia talk:Babel some people were favourable to the creation of a "professional" level template, others weren't. I created it expecting that, either consensus would be achieved that it's useful, and someone would make similar templates for other languages, or consensus would be achieved that it's useless, and it would be deleted.

The reason why I created it was, a box for writers, teachers etc. of a language to show that they can help e.g. to copyedit articles in that language. Maybe the wording isn't the best possible one, if someone has a better idea, feel free to change it. (However, I disagree with the idea of making one category for professional writers of any language, IMO it's better to make a category for each language.)

Yes, this template may be deemed 'arrogant' or 'vain', and could be used by trolls, but even xx-4 templates used by non-native speakers have the same identical problem, haven't they? That's not a good reason to delete it. If someone makes inappropriate use of it, they are to blame, not the template... --Army1987 15:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Changes likes these to the babel system should be discussed on meta and not on a single language version of Wikipedia. If we follow this course, the babel system would mean different things on each language version of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. --Maitch 02:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • In case you don't know, there are some Wikipedias which don't have xx-4 levels. Anyway, levels 1, 2 and 3 would stay unchanged, and only a part of the xx-4 people will go to xx-5. --Army1987 20:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per babel standard. It is my opinion that a fifth level does not enhance the current classification system. There is an important distinction between levels 4 and N, but the only difference between 4 and 5 or N and 5 is occupation. If a user really wants to have something on their userpage that describes their occupation, they can create their own private userbox easily enough. ~MDD4696 03:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Rhobite --- Charles Stewart 15:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, since Wikipedia is planning to have a level 5 Babel template. --Terence Ong ^Talk 11:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, since it's not going to be like this. - ulayiti (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Babel-5 has special purpose DaGizza^{Chat (c)} 11:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, wait for policy. _→AzaToth 19:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Mozilla

(previous nomination)

Redundant to {{logo}}, used on about ten images. That Mozilla explicitly says "go ahead and use this" is irrelevant; we don't allow "by-permission" images, and they're in fact speedyable. Their license explicitly disallows commercial exploitation (see their faq), making all images with this tag speedyable for that reason also. On top of this, they don't allow derivatives of any kind, further cementing the case that this is an unfree image. The only way images currently tagged with this template can be used on Wikipedia is under a fair use claim. —Cryptic (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, unless it's more important to bureaucratically follow rules to the letter than it is to apply common sense. I've yet to read one logical explanation of why this setup is harmful or inappropriate, aside from "because rule X says this" or "rule Y says that." —David Levy 16:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the images are being used under license, which is a lot better than being used under fair-use IMO. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - litigation gone mad. Mozilla are not going to be unhappy about people using their logo are they? People should really read WP:Common Sense more often. Deano (Talk) 16:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Ian¹³_ID:540053 16:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Thanks/wangi 16:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Litigation has nothing to do with it. Our foundation issues aren't negotiable. —Cryptic (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 17:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete How is this any different from {{Permission}} or {{Noncommercial}}? See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-05-23/Noncommercial images and [1]. --Sherool (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It's different because everyone and their cousin knows (or should know) that there's no harm in displaying the Mozilla logos in this context. —David Levy 17:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No it's not, using images we have been given permission to use doesn't carry any legal risk either, but because such images are unfree (does not allow commercial re-distribition) it has been dictated from the foundation level that such images are not to be used anymore (or at least used under the fair use doctrine instead). I don't see how this should somehow not apply here. --Sherool (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

These images are intended for use on user pages. If they were to be added to related articles, that would qualify as fair use. What's the problem? —David Levy 03:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This discussion's outcome has been rendered moot by Crytic, who pre-emptively nullified the template by adding {{or-fu}} to the tagged images (despite the fact that no fair use claims have been made). —David Levy 17:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — Per David _→AzaToth 17:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per common sense. the wub "?!" 19:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No reason to start coming up with exceptions to image policy. Jkelly 19:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no image policy. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Image use policy, Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. See also links provided by User:Sherool above. Jkelly 20:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Ahh, for some reason I thought you were referring to WP:FU and WP:FUC, which are only guidelines at the moment. Sorry for the misunderstanding (and it was totally my fault). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm sorry to say this, but Cryptic is correct here. I have had some limited experince with trademark law. I can say it's not very intuitive. Copyright is even more complicated. If Wikipedia has a rule for that we must follow it. I assume that rule has been reviewd by experts and they know why. I'm not enough knowledgeable in this area, an expert sure could explain us in detail why this is so. One thing I think to understand is this: http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html states that if a web site uses one of their trademarks (implies also their logo) that site must write somewhere that that trademark is owned by the Mozilla Foundation. I do not know where that notice should go on Wikipedia. Fair use of the name for example "Firefox" in the text to describe it is ok without that notice. This is fishy non-intuitive ground. We should really follow the rules we have here. Adrian Buehlmann 20:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Neutral. Dumb me. Trademark notice is there. Problem is still with the policy. And doesn't the Mozilla License prohibit the making of a Wikipedia DVD? Adrian Buehlmann 23:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

These images are intended for use in the user namespace. As Kelly and Tony have reminded us in recent days, this is not part of the encyclopedia proper. —David Levy 03:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. As per above. Mozilla allows us to use these images. The reason they are under fire is because of Wikipedia's red tape, not Mozilla's. This is an example of ignoring the rules.--HereToHelp (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Agree woth the reasons given by User:HereToHelp. As for where the "trademark is owned by the Mozilla foundation" should go. The image description page seems sensible to me. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. If the K-Meleon logo, (which is in the same boat as Firefox's) gets its logo rightfully ripped from its template, so should the other non-free Mozilla logos as well. LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 10:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Two wrongs don't make a right. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Is this about the image or the template? --Improv 15:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as per above. — Matt Crypto 16:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, survived previous TFD.Gateman1997 18:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the nomination says it well -- sannse (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with Comment: We may have reached a solution to this jam at Template_talk:User_browser:Firefox. Maybe it can be used here? If not, delete this (regardless of how this discussion goes, license issues are non negotiable). --Improv 21:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete again, we can't use this tag in any manner consistent with our image policies. JYolkowski // talk 02:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There is absolutely no reason not to allow this. Except for "the rules." Some people get so caught up in the rules that they forget why the rules are in place. In this case, there's no harm in letting this exception fly. So I say, keep.
• Keep per arguments above. And I'm sure the Mozilla folks don't care. --Fang Aili 21:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Last I checked we weren't commercially exploiting anything, so why do we give a damn that they don't allow allow commercial exploitation? Rogue 9 06:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Because our licensing model allows our content to be reused by others for commercial purposes. If that's too complicated for you, because Jimbo said so. --Nick Boalch ^?!? 10:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Again, we're talking about user pages. And Jimbo also endorsed WP:IAR. —David Levy 22:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • That's an ingenuous claim. Firstly, these images are being used in the main namespace. For example, the very first image listed on Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Mozilla, Image:Firefox logo 305x150.png, is used on two articles, Mozilla Firefox and History of Mozilla Firefox. Secondly, if the images are intended for community use only why don't the pages (or the template) say so? --Nick Boalch ^?!? 18:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
        • You say that "these images are being used in the main namespace." In fact, only the one that you cited as your "example" was mistagged in this manner. (I corrected it.) The template was created specifically to tag images used exclusively on user pages, and this is explicitly referenced in the template: "It is believed that we have permission to use this for promotional purposes; e.g., on a user page." —David Levy 22:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
          • 'e.g., on a user page' and 'only an a user page' are, of course, very different things, as I suspect you are well aware. --Nick Boalch ^?!? 22:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
            • This is a summary of Mozilla's policy, which doesn't single out user pages. If you believe that the template's wording is ambiguous, you're welcome to modify it. (I won't bother, given the fact that this debate's outcome has been rendered moot by those who insist upon following every rule to the letter.) But again, the template was created with user pages in mind. It makes absolutely no sense to apply it to images contained within Mozilla-related articles, because that qualifies as fair use. —David Levy 22:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
              • For clarity it would need to be changed to the effect that images tagged with it could only be used on community pages. However, note the precedent of {{CommunityUseOnly}}: images tagged as non-commercial only are liable to be deleted on sight even if used only on userpages. --Nick Boalch ^?!? 22:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Mozilla Foundation allows special usage and, considering the popularity and scope of their products, this will be applicable enough to be at least marginally useful. If there's a rule against this, ignore all rules. Cookiecaper 10:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, retag the images with {{logo}}. --Nick Boalch ^?!? 10:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, pointless. We may well have the right to put these images on userpages. However, we also have a policy saying that we won't. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per JYolkowski. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 22:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It's worth nothing that I've seldom seen such a blatant misunderstanding of ignore all rules as has been exhibited by various contributors to this debate. --Nick Boalch ^?!? 22:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • By all means, please enlighten us. —David Levy 22:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Note the first sentence of the first paragraph. Note the first sentence of the second paragraph. Note the first sentence of the third paragraph. --Nick Boalch ^?!? 22:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Encyclopedias don't write themselves. The community spirit is the glue that holds this site together, and every little bit of needless bureaucracy chips away at the community spirit. —David Levy 22:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
        • While I agree in general with your point about community spirit, I look at this particular instance from a rather different direction. Mistagging images in order to get round a fundamental Wikipedia policy, just in order to use them in silly userboxes, is hardly helping to get the encyclopaedia written. --Nick Boalch ^?!? 23:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
          • No, but bureaucratically forcing people to stop displaying a harmless image on their user pages contributes to an atmosphere less conducive to productivity. Instead of arguing that userboxes are insignificant, how about explaining why we should follow a rule purely for the sake of following the rule? Or do you believe that there's another reason why the Mozilla images shouldn't be used in this context? —David Levy 00:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
            • No, the only reason is that as a matter of policy non-free images 'are not acceptable for Wikipedia', except under an appropriately reasoned claim of fair use [2] [3]. If you don't agree with this policy, then fine, but in that case suggest changing it and persuade the community that it's in the interests of the encyclopaedia to do so, rather than mistagging images and disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. --Nick Boalch ^?!? 12:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
              • If I were to enforce the rules in question (or other rules) to the letter (in a manner defying common sense) as a means of demonstrating the inherent absurdity, that would be an example of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. I've done nothing that I did not believe to be in the best interests of community and the encyclopedia, and I resent your claim to the contrary. —David Levy 17:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
                • Sorry, that was poorly phrased and wasn't intended as a personal attack: I was trying to suggest that mistagging images in this way amounts to a WP:POINT violation; I have no idea if you personally have been involved in doing that. --Nick Boalch ^?!? 20:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
                  • This "mistagging" is a policy violation committed in good faith (as an application of WP:IAR). Whether you agree or not, some of us honestly believe that this is a sensible approach. It is not an example of the misguided tactic described at WP:POINT (in which a user deliberately acts in a manner that adversely affects Wikipedia, purely for the sake of proving that it was a bad idea). —David Levy 20:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
                    • I don't consider that to be the only relevant application of WP:POINT, since both its key points 'Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point' and 'State your point, don't prove it experimentally' have much wider applications. What has this been if not an attempt to prove a point experimentally rather than debating changing the relevant policy and getting appropriate consensus? --Nick Boalch ^?!? 20:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
                      • We aren't attempting to disrupt Wikipedia, nor is it our goal to prove a point. We believe that the logic behind our stance is self-evident, and that our actions are a simple application of common sense (and should be uncontroversial). You're entitled to disagree, but that doesn't change our motives. Are you suggesting that every application of WP:IAR (which this is, even if you feel that such a measure is inappropriate in this context) is a WP:POINT violation? —David Levy 21:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
                        • No, I'm suggesting that disrupting the encyclopaedia (for any reason) then pretending it's justified by WP:IAR is a WP:POINT violation. I don't think we're really getting anywhere with this discussion, though, since each of us thinks our viewpoints are self-evidently correct and neither of us seems likely to persuade the other :). I should note for the avoidance of doubt that, regardless of the outcome of this TFD, I intend to speedily delete the images tagged with {{mozilla}} when this debate has concluded. --Nick Boalch ^?!? 13:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
                          • We've expressed an opinion contrary to yours, so the only logical explanation is that we're "pretending" to believe what we say, for the purpose of making some sort of point?! Aside from tossing the assumption of good faith out the window, you seem to be implying that no rational person could genuinely disagree with you on this issue. I find that very troubling. Also, how have we disrupted the encyclopedia? As for the images themselves, go ahead and delete them. I've long since given up hope of actually being permitted to use them. In fact, you might as well delete this template too, given the fact that it's been nullified. —David Levy 17:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
                    • There is no way this is an application of IAR. IAR necessitates that the good of the encyclopaedia be affected. This template doesn't fall under that criterion. [[Sam Korn]] 20:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
                      • I disagree. Userboxes aren't part of the encyclopedia proper, but bureaucratically taking them away from people adversely affects the editors' morale, thereby indirectly affecting the encyclopedia's quality. For the record, my user page merely contains one Babel box and an administrator box. I've never added a template containing a {{Mozilla}}-tagged image (or any other userbox). —David Levy 21:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
                        • With this attitude no wonder there's such opposition to IAR in the community at present. It is abused so often. [[Sam Korn]] 21:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
                          • My "attitude" is that a rule should be followed when it serves a logical purpose, but should not be followed purely for the sake of following it. I advocate ignoring rules only when the encyclopedia somehow benefits (either directly or indirectly) AND the aforementioned lack of logic exists. Please cite a logical reason (aside from "because the rules say so") why users should be prohibited from placing Mozilla images on their user pages. What harm does this cause? —David Levy 21:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
                            • Consistency. I am a fan of IAR, but not of it being abused, and certainly not of it being abused (or indeed used) in copyright matters. Copyright is already confusing enough to contributors without inconistencies creeping in. [[Sam Korn]] 21:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
                              • By its very nature, WP:IAR necessitates inconsistency. (The only way to achieve consistency is to unconditionally enforce every rule.) As no copyright violation is occurring, I view this as a harmless (and yes, beneficial) exception. You're entitled to object to this particular application of WP:IAR (just as anyone may object to any application), but that doesn't mean that it's being "abused." —David Levy 21:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
                                • The fact that there is inconsistency doesn't justify more. No copyright violation, no. But Wikipedia does have copyright policies, and those are some of the most vital. If we pick and choose when we apply them, we are inviting trouble and may soon find ourselves the targets of a lawsuit. Inconsistency about article content is vaguely acceptable, and about internal policies is also acceptable. However, this is a key, global policy, on a par with NPOV. Selective application of this policy could be disastrous. IAR is abused. It is meant to avoid rules-lawyering and slavish application of policy. It is not intended to allow us to pick and choose when we use policy. That is what you are doing. [[Sam Korn]] 21:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
                                  • WP:IAR is based upon the axiom that we should abide by the spirit of a rule, not by the letter. It addresses the fact that we sometimes encounter situations in which enforcing a rule doesn't make sense, typically because its author(s) didn't envision such a scenario. I believe that this is true of the Mozilla images; a rule is being applied in a manner that adversely affects Wikipedia, purely for the sake of following the rule. To what type of lawsuit are you referring? —David Levy 22:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, because this template is analogous to a cannabis prescription in the United States. Regardless of this debate's result, a higher authority will step in and override the template's use. —David Levy 17:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Issues about Wikipedia infringing copyright are to be considered with utmost seriousness, but this template is not infringing copyright. If Mozilla has a problem with it (I doubt it at the moment, but they may change their mind) then they will no doubt politely ask for it to be removed. At the moment it's not doing any harm and it gives information about why we're using an image with an unorthodox copyright status. (Also, am I missing something or is the IAR debate above becoming somewhat irrelevant?) David | Talk 18:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not so much about infrinding copyright as it is about core wikipedia copyright policies based on our goal of creating free content. Images used with {{permission}} are not allowed, and I have a hard time seeing this template as anytong other than a "with permission" template. --Sherool (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak keep it might be relevantly useful, even if it would be much better to use the {{logo}} one. --Angelo 04:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.