Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Octane/userboxes/User iGeneration

 __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: no consensus, default to keep all. (Closing in conjunction with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Scepia/teen and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Scepia/teen2.) While some editors have raised potential concerns with Child protection, others have pointed out that policy does not explicitly forbid underage users from disclosing their age, and that all of these templates indicate age groups that include some ages above 18. Deryck C. 15:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Octane/userboxes/User iGeneration


Violates Child protection.See also Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 6. Proud User (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Does not.  The CfD is irrelevant.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no prohibition or even discouragement of open declaration of being a child in the policy, nor anywhere else I can see. Indeed, the notion is probably flawed. Children are easy to spot if you are looking for them, this userbox probably helps protect the child by letting more people know. A better fix might be to add a link to the essay Guidance for younger editors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

*Keep - I'm not seeing any child issues here?... – Davey 2010 Talk 02:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * *Delete -I was born in this generation however I'm well over 20 which is why I'm kinda confused on it, Anywho I'm assuming this is used by kids more than people of my age (which yes is over 5! ). – Davey 2010 Talk 11:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Davey, you do realise that 5! = 120? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * .... Why doesn't that surprise me ? .... I really don't get this Gen Z crap at all ....., – Davey 2010 Talk 02:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. See Generation Z, also known as the iGeneration. It contains birth years roughly from 1996 onward. In other words, they're almost all underaged. Similar to the other MfDs, we should not be encouraging children to self-identify as such. ~ RobTalk 03:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If that's true, shouldn't Child protection state it? It doesn't. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep we generally have a wide acceptance for userspace hosted userboxes. I don't see the existence of this userbox as violation of Child protection.  I do support the deletion of the referenced category, and I did just execute the closure of 2 related userboxes in the Template: namespace.  —  xaosflux  Talk 01:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Xaosflux. 1996 is 20 years ago, so it's possible to be in that generation and not be a child. -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:24, 21 July 2016 (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.