Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Boxes

 __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 but rename. It appears most people think this page has some merit, but not in its current form. In my capacity as an editor and not the closer of this MfD, I've renamed the page to Too many boxes. If you dislike that, take it up with Requested moves as one would do with any rename. harej 01:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Boxes
Context might be way too confusing. Will not CSD, though. mechamind 9  0  00:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Userfy to creator's userspace. This is too incoherent to be a useful essay in WP space, but the creator is still entitled to work with it. Sebwite (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. "The problem" section summarizes the main point of the page quite coherently and succinctly, nothing confusing about it. I also found the tags at the top of the page rather ridiculous - they are meant for mainspace articles, not for projectspace pages. A perfectly harmless essay, nothing wrong with it. Nsk92 (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy to creator's userspace per Sebwite. -- Klein zach  07:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep satire to give a perfectly reasonable warning about box proliferation. As creator, I'm a bit disappointed the nom didn't bother bringing any concerns to me, or to the talk page of the essay, before nominating. It's been here for years without to me knowledge "confusing" anyone, perhaps the nominator is easily confused - maybe best if he doesn't read it any more. Does it need a warning (maybe in a nice easy to understand box)?--Scott Mac 11:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this will do? NW ( Talk ) 19:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just because you are confused doesn't mean the rest of us are; anyone who has had someone come by and try to add a useless infobox to an article they have worked on knows what this essay is about. NW ( Talk ) 19:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh, for a moment I thought you were referring to that hideous big begging box at the top with the ugly picture of Jimmy.--Scott Mac 20:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * DELETE, IF: I came to the page looking for information on info' boxes and found what looked like a child's playroom that hadn't been looked after in days. There needs to be more accountability. Just as you wouldn't walk into a public library make a mess and leave it, so also should editors of these pages aspire to the same considerations. Whoever is interested in rendering the page as something that is useful to the average inquiring reader please clean up the mess and do so, otherwise DELETE asap. This is a 'Wikipedia:' page. Gwillhickers (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wel, it isn't a page of "information on info' boxes" - it is a personal essay on the danger of over-regimentation and pointless boxes. People who like order and boxes won't obviously like it, and they are free to write their own essays.--Scott Mac 01:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I had no clue as to what the page was about and when I saw the mess, especially with that megalithic burn in hell image that was allowed to remain in place, so I moved along to the discussion page. No time to sort through someone's inconsiderate mess as no one seemed to care about the page to begin with. Also, the page needs to be renamed so readers have more of an idea what is trying to be accomplished here.  How about User box misuse, or Box overload. or something that reflects this theme.  As it is the existing title is not very definitive.


 * While we're at it, these types of problems will never go away so long as wikipedia puts a revolving door on almost every type of page and template. Some sort of criteria needs to be established before someone can breeze in from nowhere make a few edits for auto-confirmation, and then do whatever the hell he or she pleases. The problem is not just with boxes, it involves just about everything. Frankly, I am more concerned about people with no reading and writing skills, who rarely if ever contribute to the body of the text, or the soul of Wikipedia if you will, and who will come through 'on a mission to fight vandalism' using it as a license to run roughshod over the literature, with little to no knowledge about the subject. Again, the problem is not just with people misusing 'boxes'.  It's an overall editing policy problem that needs to be addressed. Correct that and most other things will correct themselves. Good luck with the effort. Gwillhickers (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * keep we allow wide latitude in essays. This is a good essay (although if one counts boxes appearing on my userspace pages I think it's well over N hundred ... and I'm scared to think what N is). ++Lar: t/c 18:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename The page needs to be renamed. 'Boxes' by itself is hardly definitive and offers not even a clue as to what the page is about. How about Redundant Boxes, or Frivolous and unneeded boxes. Gwillhickers (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing for delete, or rename? It's not completely clear. I'm not opposed to a rename if a better name can be found but don't think delete is at all appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 01:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, seems like an editors rant about boxes being common on Wikipedia, with a pile of un-cited quotes at the bottom and top. Sumsum2010 · T · C  02:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Either rename to a title expressing a value judgment such as Boxes are bad or something like that, or userfy. This page should not exist under this particular title, but it could exist under a different name. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * DELETE After trying to improve the page, it was undone and I was informed that the page is a "satirical essay". Therfore the page exists for the amusement of the creator and a few others who have nothing better to do with their time than to waste wikipedia resources. DELETE NOW. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's simply wrong, and an assumption of bad faith - indeed a personal attack.. You, without discussion, replaced an essay using satire, with something utterly different. It isn't written "for the amusement of the creator" it is written to make a valid point through satire. If you want a different essay, go and write one. There are lots of essays on Wikipedia I don't agree with, should I unilaterally re-write them all? Or vote to delete them because I can't impose my version? This vote looks like simple revenge. --Scott Mac 23:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And your position looks like you are trying to save a useless page simply because you created it. If you think lack of faith amounts to a "personal attack" or "revenge" then you have no objectivity in the discussion, esp since you have resorted to obvious personal attacks yourself, above. --- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you voted to delete on the grounds that your changes were reverted, and then accused me of misusing Wikipedia for my own amusement. That looked a lot like a fit of (not very objective) pique.--Scott Mac 00:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me sir, I originally nominated for page deletion because the page was and is quite ridiculous. I also stipulated 'Delete If' should the page get renamed and/or became something that would benefit wikipedia users. As it is, in spite of an introduction that barely gets the page off to a start, the page is just a place to vent and complain while others fill the page up with pointless 'celebrity' screed. And that burn in hell image really tops it all off. Efforts would be better spent on addressing the 'box' issue with the wiki'people who over see policy regarding boxes and editing overall. If the page is something more than self amusement it fails to show it. btw.. The next time someone saddles you with a 'box' that doesn't work, just undo it. If it comes back, then at least you get to talk TO the someone who is perhaps misusing a box. Enough. If the page is supposed to function in the capacity that you claim, please explain how the present page contents does this. Otherwise, delete. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * keep this is too awesome to delete. And per others, we allow wide latitude in essays. A point well made through humor. -- Ned Scott 09:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisted. Reading the above, I see "rename" as the apparent consensus, since the page name seems to be a focus of discontent, with even some keep comments allowing that a different name would be preferred. However, there is no agreement of any kind on what would be appropriate as an alternative name, which makes it hard for me to close it as rename without imposing some name of my own choosing, which I'd rather not do. So I'm relisting in the hope that some additional discussion will clarify the consensus. --RL0919 (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reasonable project-related commentary.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Tag as humorous, for the hypocrisy of including a box against boxes. Kayau HAPI   B-DAY   WP  15:01, 15 January 2011 (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.