Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User hate Among Us

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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:  keep. No consensus that this actually violates UBCR. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:User dislikes Among Us

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

This userbox violates WP:UBCR, but since it has no transclusions, maybe changing it so it has a positive preference is a better idea? JsfasdF252 (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. "This user hates daylight saving time", "This user hates snow", "This user hates COVID-19", "This user hates vandalism", and yes, "This user hates Among Us" are perfectly acceptable userboxes in my view. WP:UBCR is meant to prevent inflammatory stuff like "This user hates Israel", "This user hates blacks", "This user hates transgenders". Let's not flippantly apply it. — Goszei (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: Per Goszei Dr Salvus 22:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep there's a difference between criticising a game (which is acceptable), and criticising people and their beliefs (which would be unacceptable). This is clearly in the acceptable category. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: The WP:UBCR rules only disallow fear and hatred against people and groups of people (stuff like This User Hates Chinese/Jews/Gays/Women/People with Tourettes Syndrome etc.), not video games (which Among Us is) or inanimate objects. The template does not say 'This user hates players of Among Us and wants them gone' or something like that and criticises the game and only the game. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 08:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as UBCR doesn't appear to encompass the "context examples" being implicitly cited here (in that context examples suggests not to use negative preferences which is what this nomination) as part of it. See: the context examples and content restrictions are two seperate level 2 headings. I believe the UB guideline as written is meant more of a suggestion not to use the words "hates" or "dislikes" or "loathes" in that those words tend to create violations of the UBCR as being "inflammatory or substantially divisive"; which is why it states "potentially divisive". While admittedly Among Us can be a divisive video game (I am personally a Space Station 13 player for life and will never play a single game of Among Us so long as I live; I'm putting this UBX up) it's by no means substantially divisive in the kind of topics UBCR is actually meant to ban (e.g. anti-country/race/religion/person/etc). Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 08:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, per a very broad interpretation of WP:UBCR and an interest in reducing the temperature of Userboxen in general. I'm really not a fan of Userboxen criticising little slices of popular culture/current trends/media/etc - they're needlessly divisive, inflammatory and generate excess hostility between users. -- a they/them &#124; argue &#124; contribs 10:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep — WP:UBCR is about polemical content, which this is not. —  csc -1 04:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. While seemingly harmless and minor, I really don't like the trend this can set.  Do we really want a sea of "User dislikes XYZ"?  That sure seems more likely to add strife than collaboration.  Obviously a user is free to mention whatever facts they like on their user page, which can include dislike of a game, but we don't need standardized templates to help them with this.  If Among Us is too silly or anodyne to raise alarm bells, what about something like "User dislike Gone Home" (a game that was criticized by GamerGate)?  "User dislikes Kingdom Come: Deliverance" (a game criticized by some leftists)?  "User dislikes Beitar Jerusalem F.C." (a traditionally all-Jewish football/soccer team)?  You can pretty easily recreate all the clear UBCR banned infoboxes by just using the appropriate pop cultural touchstone.  Best to avoid that by saying no, we don't do that here, sorry.  SnowFire (talk) 04:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to assume someone who has a userbox exclaiming their dislike of Kingdom Come Deliverance does so for political reasons (even though it's entirely possible). The point of userbox regulation here isn't to be thoughtpolice and preemptively ban userboxes because someone possibly put it up for the "wrong reason"; it's to restrict userboxes that are divisive or inflammatory to the point where they seriously harm the editing environment. The focus should be on the actual effect of the userbox and how the dislike gets interpreted. If there's a userbox where someone dislikes Beitar Jerusalem F.C. most people are going to see that as being (divisive) commentary on the Israel/Palestine conflict even if the user who posted it didn't intend it that way. Same with Depression Quest (possibly Gone Home) is going to get interpreted as being about Gamergate. But for a userbox like dislike of Among Us (or ROBLOX to give another example) people aren't going to interpret this as being a polemical or inflammatory statement on ethnicities or politics. Same with hating the Boston Bruins or the Yankees or many other pop cultural icons. It's entirely possible to be flexible and ban userboxes that are clearly implicit references to politics/religion while allowing userboxes that hate things that aren't. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 06:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. Let's assume we rank "User hates XYZ" on "divisiveness."  Some will be like a 5/100, who cares level stuff ("User hates Fighting Baseball").  Some will be obviously troll bait 95/100 ("User hates Depression Quest").  And some will be borderline, hard to say examples - "User hates Pussy Riot" or some such.  A statement about their music?  About Russian politics?  About the Orthodox Church protest?  About LGBT rights?  Call that a 50/100.  In the unfortunate event where this kind of userbox becomes popular, we'd have to adjudicate all of that.  So back up a second: what benefit are these userbox providing?  Absolutely none, in my opinion!  Nobody's entitled to a userbox.  They are allowed when they are fun and harmless, but this isn't some sort of free speech abrogation, your user page is not yours, it's Wikipedia's, and the purpose is to enhance editor collaboration.  Positive statements are fine.  Negative statements just add strife.  For example, if you say you're a huge fan of Space Station 13?  That's awesome!  If you say you hate Among Us despite never having played it?  Come on, I'm not even an Among Us fan and yet I think less of you now for such a petty statement.  Why would we let editors get angry at each other over such pointless provocations?  So basically keeping "I hate X media" is a minor harm as is, and it can become a major harm if we don't churn up MFD with nominations of borderline cases.  I'd rather nip this in the bud.  We don't do hate/dislike userboxes, period, sorry.  SnowFire (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. This userbox does not seem offensive. "I hate X game" or "I dislike X game" are not particularly offensive statements, in my opinion. – Novem Linguae (talk) 05:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Harmless. In response to User:SnowFire, if something is obviously an implicit reference to some political/religious controversy, then that's a completely separate issue. This userbox is clearly not an instance of that. Partofthemachine (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep its Among Us, not GamerGate. SK2242 (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2021 (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.