Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Nutcase


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

The result of the discussion was procedural close, wrong forum. (NAC) &mdash;  neuro  (talk)  17:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Nutcase
This template, when used, announces to those who view the user's page, "I am not responsible for what I do", and amounts to blaming others for the "mistake" of treating the user as other wikipedians. Even if only intended as a joke, the joke is still, "Don't expect me to behave appropriately." -- Tb (talk) 08:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly humor. In fact, I find it hard to think anyone could not know it was humor. Collect (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but so what? Is there a special exception for humor?  In the case of categories, a category created solely for humor value is not allowed.  Here, the joke is a harmful one.  Tb (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To whom the harm? Collect (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought I had said that. It's harmful to create the idea that wikipedia editors should not be expected to behave appropriately, and it's harmful to provide a pre-set template for them to declare "don't expect me to behave appropriately." Tb (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you really suppose that someone is going to disclaim responsibility for malfeasance because he/she gave us notice of his/her disposition to behave inappropriately by transcluding the template? Or that someone is going to resist from collaborating with another Wikipedian because the latter uses the template and thus can be expected to be inclined to impunious disruption?  I think myself to possess a vivid imagination, but even I cannot foresee a scenario in which the harm of which you speak should ever come to pass, and so even as there may be no real utility to the template, the idea that some harm will follow from its being taken seriously cannot (or at least should not), well, be taken seriously (at the very least, if our environment is such that one might really understand an expectation of appropriate behavior is vitiated by the use of a humorous template, we have much bigger things to worry about).  Joe 03:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an incremental thing, but I agree that it's not a huge deal. Since joke categories, even of user pages, are explicitly disallowed, I assumed that things in the Template namespace were under similar conditions. If joke templates are ok, even though joke categories are not, then my objection is fairly thin. Tb (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep nominator needs a sense of humor, and to stop reading into things. travb (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Harmless enough of a joke. Also trout the nom for lacking a sense of humor (kidding). Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind if the consensus is to keep the template. But given that "humor" categories are prohibited, it's not wild for me to make the mistake to think the same might apply in the Template namespace.  And, let me remind, harmful things do not become OK just because they are funny.  This may not be so harmful all told (I certainly agree), but humor is not some kind of free-pass from the normal standards which ought to apply.  Tb (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's absolutely fair. I would say only that it is true that whilst the community generally disfavor humor categories, there has never been a consensus that humor templates should necessarily be treated similarly (even as it might be said that they are better situated in userspace, as perhaps this one might be).  To be sure, though, were one to apply to the instant case the general rule that might be gleaned from our practice vis-à-vis humor categories, he/she would well think deletion to be appropriate, and so I can say surely that I fully understand why you nominated this one; apologies are probably due for my previous incredulity (which stemmed, I suspect, from my being myself only a few almonds short of a full nutcase).  Joe 04:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep because some of us just might really be nutcases :) Themfromspace (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong forum this is a template and should be taken to TfD. In userspace and project space, the usual concerns of MfD, humour is allowed but templates are generally either encyclopedic or matenience.  Speedy closing this a reopening a TfD seems the best way to get a proper consensus.  Eluchil404 (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a template for userspace only; it would be inappropriate to use it in an article of course. If it is not appropriate do discuss removas in MfD, then it certainly should be deleted, because the template is certainly inappropriate for use in article space, as I think nobody would challenge.  Is there a separate template space for user pages?  Tb (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since any page can be transcluded template style, many user templates are put at user subpages and then transcluded from there. My point is that whcih XfD discusses a page is usually based on which namespace it is located in not which namespace it is used in.  Eluchil404 (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a template like this one is most similar to a userbox--in all but the graphics--which are supposed to be descussed here, "regardless of what nampsace they reside in" WP:TFD. I would likely get a better hearing there, though.  Supposedly a template is supposed to meet NPOV and "what wikipedia is not", and since wikipedias is not a jokes site or a social networking site, this template would not qualify.  Note that I'm not saying users can't have a silly notice if they think it's necessary; just that having a template is a mistake.  Especially a template without "User" prefix.  So far, there may be consensus against my proposal, but only on the grounds that jokes should be exempt from the rules, afaict.  Keep in mind, this is not the User namespace.  I'm reluctant however to move this myself, since that would rather look like forum shopping.  Tb (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong forum - this discussion should be closed and sent to WP:TFD. I would note that I don't have a problem with the template in question myself, but this isn't the right place to discuss it. Terraxos (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2009 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.