Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ANNAfoxlover/Autographs/Best Signatures


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

The result of the debate was Delete. To argue that the page makes people obey WP:SIG is a bit of a flawed argument, as denying someone some form of award isn't really much of a deterrent. People should obey WP:SIG because it is a guideline, not because of some award. A few of the users commenting on the page have previously got into trouble regarding using Wikipedia as some form of social networking site, and pages like this simply prove a distraction for these users. Signatures are for identification, not for autograph contests. Autograph books are one thing, autograph contests are another, and are clearly inappropriate. --Deskana (talk)  22:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

User:ANNAfoxlover/Autographs/Best Signatures and User:ANNAfoxlover/Autographs/Best Signature March 2007
This "contest" for "best" (i.e. most outrageously colourful and excessive monstrosity of a signature) is linked to from Department_of_Fun and already has several customers. Loud signatures are distracting and annoying, and Wikipedia is not a competition or a social networking site. I advocate deletion.

Note: I'm not nominating the user's "autographs book", just the "Best Signatures" page. kingboyk (00:13, 22 March 2007)
 * Wait a minute. The main purpose is to make signatures follow WP:SIG, not to make signatures the most colorful. It's to find the best signature, not the most colorful. It's to find the one that follows WP:SIG perfectly, while still being as friendly as it can be.   A•N•N•A   foxlove r   hello!  21:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete with prejudice.--cj | talk 00:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per nom.  Majorly  (o rly?) 00:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, not a speedy deletion candidate, but definitely crosses a line here. Wikipedia isn't a social networking site, and these are completely useless to the project. --Core desat  00:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Speedy keep for the following reasons
 * First, this is not a speedy deletion case, see WP:CSD.
 * Second, this is user space.
 * Third, if burdensome sigs are such a problem, then we should have a policy limiting the number of characters that can be used in a sig, and banning templated sigs.
 * Fourth, putting a sig like this on a user page does not mean the editor is using that signature throughout Wikipedia in general.
 * Fifth, these kinds of pages help to develop and sustain a community of people who will continue to contribute to the encyclopedia.
 * Sixth, this particular exercise encourages Wikipedians to develop knowledge of font and color uses, which have numerous applications in articles.
 * Cheers! bd2412  T 00:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't a speedy keep candidate. Also, this sort of thing is discouraged by the user page guidelines. --Core desat  00:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Conceded, "speedy" crossed out, as this was not a bad-faith nom - but I see nothing in the user page guidelines which discourages a collection of signatures or a signature contest. User signatures are certainly connected to the activities of participants in the encyclopedia. bd2412  T 00:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To be more specific, WP:UP. This is essentially a game. --Core desat  00:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is arguable, and the rule is not an absolute (it notes that this criteria is to apply with particular strength to persons who are not active participants in the project, and no evidence of that has been brought here). bd2412  T 01:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition to the more stern guidelines at WP:UP, borderline items are usually decided upon by the community, when it comes to deletion. Grace notes T  § 02:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. We don't need contests like these, but certainly a contest is something not allowed on a user page. —Doug Bell talk 00:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fostering community is fine, and I'm all for it, but not at the expense of encyclopedia building, which is the case as evidenced by the disproportionate amount of time spent editing these and related pages compared to the article namespace. — PSUMark2006   talk  |  contribs  00:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The editor who created this page has also made hundres of edits in article and image space in the few months that she has been involved, a good record of contribution that should be encouraged. I don't see how deleting these pages would accomplish that. Cheers! bd2412  T 01:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I should have probably worded my comment more along the lines of the fact that the number of edits spent in this area could be better spent in the encyclopedic namespaces. Thanks for calling me out on that so I could clarify myself. — PSUMark2006   talk  |  contribs  02:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep in this particular case, because it is not a collection of most outrageous signatures, but actually an attempt at what that ed. considers good-looking ones, and mentions some that violate WP:SIG. Some of the most prominent and active WPedians have signatures that try to be colorful in the literal sense. In fact, almost everyone is this discussion has sigs. that took at least minimal modification. DGG 03:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. it's on a user page, not a top-level article and it is part of the Department_of_Fun. I say better creativity here than vandalism on a page that matters. That being said I need to figure out how to make a pretty sig. Valley2city 05:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep "best signatures", weak delete the other one. The first page seems harmless to me, it's one user's opinion on other people's signatures, in their userspace. The other one crosses slightly into the illusion of a contest, although it could be argued as being passable. Grand  master  ka  10:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, bad idea.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as BD said it much better than I could have said it, particularly point 5. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 18:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * delete Per above. I've got nothing new to say. --James, La gloria è a dio 02:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete does little to support the project (vs, arguably, autograph pages themselves). And the above comment that it helps users learn font & color usage overstates the need for such skills in writing good encyclopedia articles (honestly, I've yet to see an actual article that needs such skill). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Sigs are there to identify, not attract. Open the edit page and look at the reams of code that make up those sigs - we shouldn't be encouraging that in any way. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I created this page not only for Wikipedia Department of Fun, of which I am a member, but I saw that many users were starting to make their signatures very disruptive (see the sig of Da.Tomato.Dude). For users to win the contest, they would have to follow WP:SIG perfectly. It is not a contest for which signature looks the best, it's to make sure signatures follow WP:SIG. I created this page so users would not have disruptive signatures.   A•N•N•A   foxlove r   hello!  19:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * These pages make no specific mention that following WP:SIG is a condition of participation, and I see no evidence of any educational or policy enforcement to support your claim that their purpose is "so users would not have disruptive signatures". Their mere existence begs the opposite. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you have more experience than me, than I shall add it right away.   A•N•N•A   foxlove r   hello!  20:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, userspace means many thing, comunity spirit, even sig code may increase html skills.Also there's currently no official policy on this.-- Emperor Walter Humala  · ( talk? ·  help! ) 21:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per the nominator; ANNAfoxlover really needs to focus more on the encyclopedia than user subpages. Acalamari 22:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So you wanna punish her, just because she doesn't contributes that much? -- Emperor Walter Humala  · ( talk? ·  help! ) 00:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't punishing her, it's deleting a page in her userspace.  Majorly  (o rly?) 00:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, she's contributed quite a bit for the time she's been involved. Has it occured to you that telling someone they can't engage in some harmless community-building in their userspace might drive them to make no contributions to the encyclopedia? bd2412  T 03:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I do not want to punish her. I do not punish users at all; that is uncivil. Also, I did not nominate the pages for deletion. Acalamari 16:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia isnt myspace, and loud sigs are distracting. Mine, according to some users, even crosses the border. ~Crazytales (Hasta la Pasta!) 19:26, 26 March 2007 (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.