www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vintei/shop

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 debate was delete —Kurykh 03:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vintei/shop and User:Runewiki777/shop[edit]

I am nominating this and all related subpages. As per discussion here and here, there's no real purpose for these other than to encourage social networking and increase the bureaucracy of building user pages, templates, and other non-encyclopedia related materials. I say delete this shop and all related subpages as serving no purpose for the encyclopedia. Metros (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added User:Runewiki777/shop to this nomination which is the same in principle and practice as far as I can tell. Metros (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that seems to be irrevelant. Marlith T/C 00:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's totally irrelevant. I could write an article on my cat and you could give me a barnstar for it because you really like my article. But it can still be deleted at AFD for not being notable/useful for Wikipedia. Metros (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
section edit break 1[edit]
  • Strongest possible keep with the strength of Superman It helps teach HTML without spending three days and three nights reading the article. Not only that, but the staff and shop are amongst the site's most welcoming users. It's warm and useful, qualities Wikipedia could use more of. --Gp75motorsports REV LIMITER 14:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What good does HTML do us for articles on Wikipedia? Aside from tables in an occasional article, where we do you see HTML? Knowing how to make something a certain font color, a certain font size, or a particular font is not useful for anything but user space things. We already have Help:editing to help newcomers learn how to properly use wiki-formatting like wikilinks. HTML is of no use here. Metros (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edconx3)Templates. Templates are critical to Wikipedia and its articles. What if someone needs a template that doesn't exist? Granted, the need for new templates is getting smaller and smaller by the minute, but without HTML, what would one do to create a template?
        • They could always look at Help:Template or they can look at the formatting of templates used in other articles. Metros (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Templates generally do not use any HTML elements or attributes, especially templates that relatively new users deal with. –Pomte 20:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • So why is a "shop" up for deletion if it contributes to wikipedia just as much as Wikipedia:Requested templates and Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance). I dont see the point you are trying to make. Sirkadtalksign 21:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              So these shops are helping users to learn HTML and CSS for use in templates? I see this more as an excuse to save the page. Templates will never be prettyful with lots and lots of pretty colours and lots and lots of pretty colours that hurt people's eyes when they are editing at 3am in the morning. I don't see how new users need to come in contact with templates immediately when they become new. Requests on Requested templates are for completely valid, necessary templates – these templates and signatures etc requested on these shops aren't for use in the encyclopedia, and looking at some of the items in Vintei's shop, will never be used in the encyclopedia, due to the fact that all readers aren't all children who have a like for pretty colours, and readers don't all have high-tech monitors with high speed computers, et cetera (hence why Wikipedia:Accessibility is in place, and is not a guideline that should be ignored easily). The stuff Vintei sells here and everyone else who operates a shop "sell" stuff that won't be used in the encyclopedia, and help new users understand irrelevant HTML prettyfying code. These shops are pointless, and don't help the encyclopedia at all. Spebi 00:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              Shops can make completely valid and usefull templates, it is not solely for userpages or signatures, it is for almost every aspect of wikipedia. Sirkadtalksign 02:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              I'd like to see some examples of when CSS code that make user pages look like this and signatures that look like this are actually useful within the main namespace of Wikipedia. Spebi 08:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Encyclopedia first; my comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gp75motorsports/ChampionMart also apply. Keilana 15:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all other shops and admonish these users to do something useful. Avruchtalk 15:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, but maybe transwiki -- this and the other shops nominated are at worst harmless. However, getting groups together to experiment with wikicode and page layouts would be perfectly appropriate on Wikiversity, and most wikicode that works there will work here as well (some of Wikiversity's extensions are not enabled here, but not a huge issue), so if people want to use them on their pages they can just grab a copy and leave a link to the source. It doesn't remind me of Esparanza by the way: Esparanza was a pseudo-political organization, these shops are more akin to hobbyist groups. --SB_Johnny | talk 15:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Transhumanist already has a rather large selection of userpage design elements, and we also have a whole project already for this, at Wikipedia:WikiProject User Page Help. For non-specific requests, there are a multitude of resources already in place, Wikipedia:Reward board, Wikipedia:Bounty board, Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance), and the various Wikipedia:Requests pages that editors can request things like barnstars, or other items. I feel this "shop" is redundant and ultimately unnecessary. While I don't deny that many users like custom userpages, there are already two excellent resources available to them, as well as many editors who, with a simple request, are more than happy to create someone elements for userpages, create custom banners or barnstars, or do a complete design overhaul. Ariel♥Gold 16:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If they are going to delete the shop, delete ALL of them, and, please remember that shops are created to help users, not to earn money. Macy's123 19:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Private social groups like this distract from Wikipedia's core mission: building an encyclopedia. While help pages are a good idea, they should be centralized to places like Wikipedia:WikiProject User Page Help. When help efforts get fragmented into private spaces like this, users waste time answering frequently-asked questions, and bad advice can persist because of the lack of broader exposure provided by pages in the project namespace. —dgiestc 19:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Everyone knows that the goal is to build an encyclopedia, and shops were created to help users, not to earn money. Please listen to me: Wikipedia is not a web hosting service, nor a shopping mall. Macy's123 19:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • again i dont see the point being made here, it is like a wikiproject, we are trying to help people become more interested and familiar with wikipedia. It is not a "private social group". Sirkadtalksign
  • Delete This will make Wikipedia a MySpace page, disrupt Wikipedia, most(if not all) poeple come to Wikipedia for info, not good looking user pages...That is my opinion--Looktothis (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Wikipedia is not MySpace and doing unsightly modifications to userpages and ugly cluttering "custom signatures" should be discouraged whenever possible. This page does not help the encyclopaedia in any way and, at worst, hinders it. -Halo (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
section edit break 2[edit]
    • Comment - It helps users (specially newcomers) to familiarize with the encyclopedia. Macy's123 21:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. No it doesn't. It makes newcomers believe that all there is to Wikipedia is spinning barnstars, excessive signatures, and gaudy user pages. Metros (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Like i said above. "So why is a "shop" up for deletion if it contributes to wikipedia just as much as Wikipedia:Requested templates and Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance). I dont see the point you are trying to make." its just an easier way for them to do it. Sirkadtalksign 22:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Shops don't help contribute to Wikipedia. Many claim that it "helps new users get used to Wikipedia", but it doesn't. Wikipedia isn't solely about excessively colourful signatures, or about pretty user pages – it's an encyclopedia. I'm not going to play the "Britannica doesn't have spinning barnstars and colourful signatures" because other encyclopedias are different. Wikipedia is different, but not different to the extent where the whole idea of an encyclopedia is defeated. Shops and all those other things you and your friends make up to make the whole site look like MySpace are completely different to the village pump and requested templates – firstly, the village pump helps out users with their queries and questions about Wikipedia processes (not necessarily for new users, there are other outlets), and Requested templates is a place to request a particular template to be created by users who know what they're doing with them, and templates aren't made through these processes if they aren't appropriate for the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, it's an encyclopedia, and shops aren't helping new users to adjusting to Wikipedia – instead, they are getting new users involved in the whole excessively pretty signatures and flashy user pages. If there is a point to these, I don't see it. Spebi 00:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't believe that such needless customisation is part of the encyclopaedia since it doesn't have any practical article-space purpose, and too often detract from it with unnecessarily gaudy signatures and user/talk pages. This is in contrast with WP:RT and WP:VPA which can result in an improved article-space. -Halo (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The idea of a "shop" is not to make friends so i dont see how making one is starting a "social network"; you can stop using that point now because quite frankly it doesnt work. Sirkadtalksign 02:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh it is working, you see, because you are missing the point of the term social network. Many users join Wikipedia, not to contribute, but to hang with WikiFriends and make their user pages colourful, claiming that it is good for the encyclopedia because they are teaching newbies how to use irrelvant-to-Wikipedia HTML and CSS code. They spend more time "social networking" than they do "editing the encyclopedia" – this is why many users consider this page and a lot of other pages to be encouraging extensive social networking, and not enough encyclopedia contributing. Many believe that these shops encourage such extensive social networking. And that's why the term still works. Spebi 21:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, there is practically no contact between "workers" we simply help people when we are done contributing to an article, it is not like we only get on wikipedia to just check the "shop" and then get off. Sirkadtalk 22:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Transwiki. I say that we should be able to keep shops in some way or form, whether it be a wikiproject or hosted on someone's userpage. I don't know why there are so many delete votes when something like this passes. I mean look at their keep rationale, all of their rational apply to shops as well, if not more. If you think shops are a waste of disk space, what do you have to say to the huge lists of userboxes we have up? Although shops will probably be deleted anyways, I would like permission to have a wikiproject or a WP: page, where there is no competition. Thanks -- penubag  23:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replied below-- penubag  03:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible delete, and all other "shops", and give everyone involved a firm message informing them of the fact that we are not a social network. This is an encyclopedia, and I fail to see why these sorts of things where users can "buy" little codes for their user pages are actually contributing to the encyclopedia. Everyone knows you can just view the source and copy the code. Wikipedia = encyclopedia. Wikipedia != "shop" for little items to decorate pages. Spebi 00:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We already have places, in projectspace, for requesting templates and user scripts. Custom made signatures and userpages are not necessary and we definitely don't need an organized system to produce them at the expense of more important things. Mr.Z-man 00:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, people who buy from these shops have more time to contribute to the encyclopedia while some other guy does their userpage for them. Marlith T/C 00:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How noble of those users to sacrifice working on writing the encyclopedia so that others can instead. Metros (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would also like to note that User:Phaedriel and User:Dfrg.msc offered Userpage designs at one occasion. Marlith T/C 01:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to clarify, User:Phaedriel offered userpage designs (it is rumored that she left Wikipedia), and also left this note: "I take great pleasure in helping other users in need, and I simply love to design Wiki pages. So please, if you want me to lend you a hand with your own user page, just give me a call and I'll see what I can do." This message clarifies that shops are created to help users, not to earn money. Macy's123 03:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • On only one occasion? Vintei and everyone else who have these "shops" offer on multiple occasions, and dragging unnecessary users into this dispute so they can share some of the blame isn't right. I know for a fact that Phaedriel hardly edits here anymore, and that requests for user page design were made via requests on her talk page and not another page to add the bureaucracy. I must note that both Phaedriel and Dfrg.msc didn't spend all of their time offering people designs (and a lot of time declined requests to their talk pages), instead they edited the encyclopedia a majority of the time. These shops offer specific little items that users can "buy" little items to dress up their user pages and signatures with little unnecessary things that half the time affect users with low vision, colour blindness, or other impairments, and don't comply with Wikipedia:Accessibility – we are not a shop, we are not a social networking site, we are an encyclopedia, and these don't help build an encyclopedia (rather, hinder other contributions with potential from editing and getting them involved in these things). Spebi 03:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

          • These shops offer specific little items that users can "buy" little items to dress up their user pages

            Huh? You dont buy anything, you request something and its made for you thats why calling it a "shop" isnt literal it is simply metaphorical. 76.104.254.42 (talk) 06:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Reminds me of Pokemon. Delete - Oh come on, the last thing we need is to "buy" HTML - a free coding language. I also reject Marlith's statement - it takes time to request something at the shop (it's taken me five minutes to work out what the heck it is, and I really should be working on my FAC), so you're still not contributing to the encyclopedia. And besides, it's a heck of a lot more rewarding to develop your own userpage... — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 00:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. First, it does seem to me that Wikipedia is getting an increasing puritan outlook. "Huh, that guy is having fun. Delete it". We should remember that we are all volunteers and telling people to get back to writing the encyclopedia does not help. However, I did look at this users contributions. They are:
Image talk: 5
Image: 46
Mainspace 230
Talk: 38
User talk: 355
User: 519
Wikipedia talk: 2
Wikipedia: 27
avg edits per page 3.23
earliest 21:58, 30 July 2006
number of unique pages 378
total 1222

It also looks like just over 400 edits are to his user page and its sub pages. Most of his time is on user pages. Nevertheless he has made over 200 main space edits. Deleting these sub pages is just going to piss him off and he will leave. I come down to sayinga weak keep for this. --Bduke (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak-Medium Delete previous comments have swayed me over to deletion. Marlith T/C 04:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

section edit break 3[edit]
  • Very Strong Keep does it matter that they are giving out sigs and userboxes? As long as they contribute and don't charge a price, it's perfectly acceptable. I'm alarmed by the recent trend as to deleting anything too usery, let's delete this subpage, let's delete that BJADON, and "NO YOU MUST NOT TALK TO HIM. I'm going to give you an indef block for another userspace." garbadge. You people are not realizing that it's okay to have a sig, and a good page, on the premisis you at least give a steady trickle of quality edits. They make the newbies feel welcome, and although it'd be a lie if I said the average user learned from sigs, there are uses in them, that we've all discussed before in a round-about way in 600 places. YДмΔќʃʀï→ГC← 12-23-2007 • 05:05:45
  • Opinionatory comment We as a society [of Wikipedia] are becoming very fickle. If I had put in something funny somewhere I can almost guarantee half of everyone reading this would have laughed, and the other half would have looked like they just ate a bag of warheads. I know too that putting this in my keep statement would have given it alot of controversy. There are times when you can tell a thing should be deleted, and that's the time the inclusionists win, and vice versa with the exclusionists. We should keep this because it's inconcequential (I know there's a spelling error there) and it does more good than harm (if it does harm at all) it's not like bandwidth is an issue, and it's not like having a little niche area keeps people from editing the encyclopedia. I know Wikipedia is not about fun, but about a greater cause of colectiveism. Being this deep into the project probably means you have your own signature from working the weird programming language used here so much, and I can tell you I felt left out by not having a signaure untill I realized the others' were in the same format. And hay! If usera who can do taska in x time does ax thing for userb who could only do taska in ay time where x < 3min and y > 3min; task a = programming and task b = writing then net editing time = up. YДмΔќʃʀï→ГC← 12-23-2007 • 05:05:45
  • Kill with fire per arguments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gp75motorsports/ChampionMart, mine and others, along with ArielGold's reasoning. The votestackers are advised to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NOT and stop posting hyperbole about indefinite blocks, mathematical proofs reminding me of sorting algorithms, and rouge admins. Wikipedia is not your own personal HTML playground, please don't treat it that way. Edit the encyclopedia. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 06:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment where are the votestacks? im not seeing them. Sirkadtalksign 06:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well then, Other stuff exists and Rogue don't benefit the encyclopedia, they seem rather funny, should we delete those? The answer: No. Should we take away your sig? No. This problem is being treated like a hypocritical 16th century congress would treat it. The way I look at it, there are two ways to solve this: accept the non-harmful, barely-useful scripters; or delete every single userpage along with preference page. Until userspace edits stop counting both sides who are for and against something with this trivial part of the encyclopedia will be at a standstill with never advancing lines. Does such a trivial thing warrant any attention? Does it negatively impact Wikipedia? How does it make us MySpacey besides having colourful signatures? Make friends with a shop keeper? If you ask for 5 things a day, but let's get real: I think people are just here to argue. YДмΔќʃʀï→ГC← 12-23-2007 • 18:38:30
        • "accept the non-harmful, barely-useful scripters; or delete every single userpage" - Why do we only have those 2 choices? Why is middle ground impossible? Its been said that there are already places to request the more important things like templates and user scripts. How is it helping new users to have even more forums to request things? I would think it would just cause further confusion, especially when they see the word "shop" and see that it is in someone's userpage. How do new users even find these shops? Are they competing with the village pump and requested templates? Mr.Z-man 18:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Don't be difficult, see WP:DICK. Let the users find the shops, you can just wander onto anything from anywhere. A prime example is one of the games on WP:FUN where you start at one article and find your way to a totaly differrent one. Heck, I've gotten to the AIDS article from the one on cars! Do you suggest we move their shops to "Come here to get signatures, userboxes and other free astetic things"? I don't understand why you have such a zeal for their deletion. YДмΔќʃʀï→ГC← 12-23-2007 • 20:03:45
            • See WP:CIVIL. I ask a few questions about the practicality of some of the reasons for keeping and you say I'm being difficult and call me a dick?! You say that the users should just find the shops, I say: How? Are they just supposed to click on random links until they find it? I'm suggesting we delete these because we already have forums for requesting templates and user scripts that are somewhat easier to find (and are in the correct namespace) and already fairly well known by experienced Wikipedians. Mr.Z-man 00:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you had read the whole MfD you would see that we have already talked about the other places to request templates and stuff and that shops are an EASIER way to do these things. please inform yourself by reading the article before you jump into a conversation. Sirkadtalk 02:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 100% agreement with what Yamakiri is saying. The goal of shops is not to gain friends or become a social hierarchy. "Shops" simply supply users with yet another valuable resource that may make it easier for them to comprehend rather then handing them a "wikimanual" and telling them to figure it out on their own. What is the harm? if users have great userpages it will just make them want to stay on wikipedia to contribute, what is the harm being done? Sirkadtalksign 06:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, that's exactly what I mean. You know the answers, and if you truely didn't (though you did) you'd have been able to read them elsewhere in this article. So what if there are forums, why can't both exist? Do you want your prescious WP space edits? See WP:Obvious... Did you ask that to be funny? Should we delete your post because (well, only one individual thinks to, but) it was funny? YДмΔќʃʀï→ГC← 12-24-2007 • 04:19:47
section edit break 4[edit]
  • Keep per my reasoning in the essay Wikipedia:Editors matter. These pages may be useless; that's irrelevant, as we don't need to worry about server space, and these pages are hosted in userspace and don't purport to be part of the encyclopedia. The key question here is not who can cite the most WP:ABCs, but whether deletion of these pages would be a net benefit to Wikipedia. If the pages are deleted, we risk driving away inexperienced users whose contributions to the project are valuable; thus there is a risk of harming the project through the deletion of these pages, and I can't see any conceivable way in which such deletion could benefit the encyclopedia. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, then let them declare it, rather than trying to drown the opposition in a flood of WP alphabet soup. To those who feel that shops of this nature are a bad idea (for whatever reason), WT:USER is the correct place to raise such concerns; if you want these kind of pages to be prohibited, then get consensus for it. The policy as it stands makes no such indication, and MfD is not an appropriate mechanism for trying to prohibit a class of pages which presently are allowed. WaltonOne 14:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Neutral I'm staying neutral on this one, although sometimes i do find it occasionally useful getting codes, as it's helping me learn new html coding and by memorizing the scripts on wikipedia and other wiki-sites. SKYNET X7000 (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet Another Comment I think that all delete votes with the reason "wikipedia is not a social network" should be taken out of the count because shops have nothing what so ever to do with a "social network". People who say this do not know the first thing about what they are voting for, also IXella007's vote should be taken out as well because this is not a valid reason for it being kept. (also there is a comment at the top of the page that says to read before posting, obviously people are not reading this page because it specifically says if you come here to vote delete because "wikipedia is not a social network" then dont vote because that is not even relevant to shops.) Sirkadtalksign 19:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, about that. I've moved your comment into time order rather than at the top of the page. It is your opinion and not a fact that everyone needs to be aware of. Metros (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no "counting", this isn't a vote. The closing administrator will read every comment and make the final decision based on what they have read. Administrators look for a consensus, and if the consensus is to delete the page, then yes, the page will be deleted, or kept, depending on what the outcome is. It is extremely rude to ask that opinions different to yours be "taken out of the count" – the very reason we have these debates is to come up with an agreement on how to act on the page, not to discount the comments as you see fit simply because you don't agree with them. That's not how we operate. Spebi 21:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think all votes by people with needlessly colourful signatures should be ignored because they clearly have no taste to begin with, but whether I believe that or not is thankfully moot and irrelevent. By "Wikipedia is not MySpace", we mean that the goal of Wikipedia is to co-operatively write an encyclopedia and that's pretty much it - anything that falls outside that, notably (ab)using markup to needlessly customise your user page should be discouraged and falls under the first criteria of WP:NOT#MYSPACE. "Helping new users" doing things that don't help the encyclopaedia falls under that. The MySpace comparisons aren't based around "social networking", but needless time-wasting uglification of personal pages that doesn't help the project. -Halo (talk) 05:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second Sirkad's comment above about not posting. It makes next to no sense that shops make social networks. If this were true, then how come I can't go into Home Depot or Walmart and make about 70 more friends? It's the same principal. YДмΔќʃʀï→ГC← 12-23-2007 • 20:13:21
    • You're kind of missing the point. Social networking doesn't just involve being friendly to each other. These shops are encouraging users to spend more time social networking rather than working on the whole purpose of the site, which is to write and give away a free encyclopedia. Those who spend too much time "working" at these shops, asking others to be their "wikifriends", and to spend more time prettyfying their user pages rather than working on the whole principle is the site, is considered to be an overload of social networking. Spebi 21:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


      • No, you are wrong, by going to "shops" people are having other, ESTABLISHED USERS, make their userpage for them, these established users already have the code, they just have to put in the right colors and text, there for, by going to these "shops" it is SAVING time that they can spend editing wikipedia. Also, i never have, nor will i EVER ask ANYONE to be my "wikifriend", i dont know where you got that idea from. As such, you can please...Like i said 10 times before this stop saying that they are "social networks" as they are not, the only thing we say to the "customer" is "okay, and Here you go" so stop using that point. (I am going to change my signature so you dont have to warn me, just havnt gotten to it yet.) Sirkadtalksign 22:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral "Confused" I'm sorry that i have posted the previous comment, it was not my intention to cause an argument, in the future I'll be quiet about such votes on deletions. SKYNET (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've responded on the user's talk page, he didn't do anything wrong as far as I can tell. YДмΔќʃʀï→ГC← 12-23-2007 • 21:15:42
section edit break 5[edit]
  • Comment During the building of the Panama Canal entire temporary towns were built to house, feed, doctor and entertain the workers. While France was attempting to build it they did not build these towns. They just sent more and more workers down there to die from Yellow Fever. As a result France's attempt was a failure. Yet America succeeded. Why? The workers stayed. We are building a project like the Panama Canal. Should we burn shops and level userpages, what will the users do? Leave. We might as well end up like France.
I've moved the big purple box that was here over to the talk page If you'd like to cite previous comments, simply link to them. –Pomte 22:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marlith 22:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep You people just don't get it. Having these shops aren't going to kill enclyopedia building. Its purpose is so other users can recieve stuff such as signatures or userboxes without having the stress of making it themselves. It's to promote happiness. You people are too parinoid about fun stuff stopping mainspace editing. Personally, I created my shop to help people. When I was new, I spent a great amount of time learning how to make userboxes and how to make signatures. When user:PMC created a signature for me, I was estatic. I wanted to help others achieve the same feeling I had; Which is why I want these shops to be kept. RuneWiki777 00:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it won't kill encyclopedia building altogether, however, these "shop" things are distracting people from editing the encyclopedia. Although I do appreciate humour and really can't stand it myself when people try to rid Wikipedia of it all, this is going too far. When you joined Wikipdia, RuneWiki, did you feel estatic about contributing to an encyclopedia, or were you more interested in prettyfiying your user page and making colourful signatures? The important thing is is that we should be getting new users excited about contributing, not colourfiying. The purpose of Wikipedia is to write and give away a free encyclopedia, not to solely promote happiness and to allow other s to "work" for other users to create little HTML codes for their user pages. Another thing I don't see the point of is the fact that these shops are being claimed that they are taking the stress off other users by creating pretty signatures for them. This doesn't make any sense at all – why is there any stress in the first place? There is no deadline to have a pretty sig and it won't make you any more popular if you don't have one (in fact, having a colourful but annoying too-long signature or overloading user page can unintentionally make other editors not take you 100% seriously). Spebi 05:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking stress off of users? huh? where and who said that? I feel like this discussion should be over as i feel i am repeating myself for the 1000 time. "shops" do not replace contributing to wikipedia, the shops are in addition to the contributions we make to wikipedia. the point is to help new users get a userpage and signature, quite honestly i dont see what is wrong with helping new contributers to the site as new contributers are the backbone to wikipedia and making wikipedia a less welcoming place is not going to keep these new editors here. Sirkadtalk 06:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Right above my last comment. I don't just make stuff up to back up my arguments, the only reason I mentioned the "stress" stuff is because RuneWiki said something about it in his comment in which I replied too. I believe like I'm repeating myself, as well. "Shops" don't replace contributing to the encyclopedia completely, merely, they encourage some users to spend all their time "social networking" in the form of using Wikipedia as a social networking site by spending too much time talking to their friends and making silly HTML codes for use on user pages – some users make the whole place look like Neopets. If you do contribute to the encyclopedia as well as participate in shops, good for you, I have nothing against you. I am against to this page, as I see this is a page that will detract from the whole purpose of the site. Spebi 08:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Proposed_loosening_of_WP:MYSPACE. In addition to arguments raised there, these pages contribute to efficient running of the encyclopedia as well as adding ambiance. Sarsaparilla (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is this going to be the next "userbox" debate? I don't think that having something like this is a crime; as long as the editor maintains other activities on the encyclopedia that aren't related to userspace, then I say let them have it. Sure, if they only edit their userpages, then that's a concern. I'd advise Vintei to try to edit in other areas, though. Master of Puppets Care to share? 00:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel like this discussion should be over as i feel i am repeating myself for the 1000 time. "shops" do not replace contributing to wikipedia, the shops are in addition to the contributions we make to wikipedia. the point is to help new users get a userpage and signature, quite honestly i dont see what is wrong with helping new contributers to the site as new contributers are the backbone to wikipedia and making wikipedia a less welcoming place is not going to keep these new editors here. Sirkadtalk 06:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And as has been said "1000 times," we need to have newcomers learn how to use the encyclopedia and not "get a userpage and signature". Metros (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the 1000th time it seems you've missed the point."Shops" do not contribute to developing the encyclopaedia, which is the goal of Wikipedia, and therefore do not belong here. In my view it's as simple as that - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and nothing else, and if something doesn't directly contribute to the encyclopaedia shouldn't be on the site -Halo (talk) 07:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Centralize. The functions already exist in project space and involved users should spend their time at those locations. Don't feel that you've lost ownership or the ability to carry them out if they get deleted. If you think the shops are somehow an improvement over the project space pages, then improve those project space pages. Some editors here are showing a serious lack of comprehension about the reasons, so I won't try to beat a dead horse, but merely advise reading the policy and arguments here for their sentiment rather than literally. Understanding what this debate is actually about will help your encyclopedic contributions in the future. –Pomte 08:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia and users that wish to have help in designing userpages can do it elsewhere. Captain panda 13:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Your comments aren't valid since you have a fancy signature and a fancy userpage and you are voting that shops must be deleted. Macy's123 review me 16:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • ....What? We decide validity of arguments based on that these days? A user can have a signature and user page that are "fancy" without using a shop, you know. Captain panda is entitled to hold this opinion regardless of what the user page or signature looks like. Metros (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see no revelance between Panda's sig and this discussion. I would suggest that we move the shops to a different website. Perhaps on a different Wiki. Marlith 16:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How many times do I have to say that shops aren't social networks? Macy's123 review me 16:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • By social networks, policy means anything that has to do with other editors that in anyway may be distracting to editors and lower their mainspace contribs. Please see my above comment. (It is that blue box above) Marlith 16:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with your comment, but this "shop owners" will need to find a web hosting service Macy's123 review me 17:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, because if that is the case, then userpages in general are "social networks" they distract the user from making contributions because they are trying to get thier userpage JUST RIGHT! Shops help them by doing it for them. The shop owners take practically no time to do this because they already have the code, all they have to do is just plug in the right colors and text (which i already said, so im repeating my self AGAIN.) "shops" save everyone time and energy, ultimatly making time for valuable contributions. Also, I dont see how moving it to a new wiki will do ANYTHING AT ALL, the shop owners will still spend the same amount of time working there and with a well placed hyperlink newcomers will spend the same amount of time there as well, leaving shops inside of Wikipedia makes no differance what so ever. OLE! Sirkadtalk 17:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Moving it to off-wiki will make it go with policy. Marlith 17:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • First off, its not against policy in the first place, and second, moving it off site wouldnt solve anything anyway because they would still be using it exactly the same amount of time, so what would be the point of moving it? Sirkadtalk 17:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The point being this is an encyclopedia, and it's irrelevant what you do off-wiki. You're right, user pages definitely have the potential to distract from making contributions in general, except those that merely list what the user has contributed or is planning to contribute. Shops save everyone time and energy doing things they shouldn't spend any time and energy doing anyway. –Pomte 22:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Exactly, you are proving my point. If people are going to do these things anyway then we should have valuable resources like this to save them time and energy so they can contribute more to the encyclopedia. thanks. Sirkadtalk 23:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
section edit break 5[edit]
  • Comment. I think this raises a larger question of personal freedom (used here not with political connotations but under the more generic definition of "the power to act or speak without externally imposed restraints"). Should users be allowed to do what they want in their own userspace, or should it be subject to the community's judgment of whether that activity is productive or useful? Current policy is the latter, and as a result we end up with debates like this one, to decide exactly what crosses the line of acceptability. Is there any hard evidence that the presence of the shops diminishes the total number of useful mainspace edits? If such evidence does not exist, should we ban the shops anyway, based on the possibility that they might? Does curtailing users' freedom have a negative impact on our encyclopedia's ability to achieve its goals? And in making decisions based on rationale involving these underlying questions, who should shoulder the burden of proof – the shopkeepers or those who want to delete the shops? I think the problem with leaving it to the community is that, as in politics, it ends up being based at least partly on arbitrary whims, conjecture, etc. when it would have been easier, simpler and fairer to just eliminate the regulation and free the market. If one doesn't like a shopkeeper's wares, one is free to not buy it and even to advocate against that product; but to take it upon oneself to shut them down is anticompetitive in the marketplace of ideas; leads to less freedom of choice, not more; and as we saw in communist Russia, causes stagnation. If the shop is not fulfilling a perceived need/demand then in time it will have a tendency to die on its own. Taking another economic example, should we have banned Beanie Babies on the grounds that they consumed finite resources while serving little useful function other than being a fad that diverted people's attention and money from useful purposes? Yet we have seen the US economy thrive precisely because of the relative lack of controls we place on consumers, opting instead to let the marketplace decide over time what is truly important and worthy of our productive resources. And in the end, the decisions the free market makes – because each person can choose for themselves based on their own unique wishes, desires, needs and preferences – are better than what could have been imposed by any central authority or community consensus. So I ask the Wikipedia community, what policy will you support? The current one, which is based on principles analogous to those that led to the Soviet Union's economic stagnation and collapse? Or a new policy which will be based on principles of liberty, tolerance and free enterprise, in which all have a chance to pursue life, liberty and happiness without interference from others (even if that happiness is the result of a gaudy new signature), following the same economic model that has made the United States the world's principal superpower and beacon for the rest of the world to seek after in their rush to emulate our success – a level of success that, despite the existence of some of the same intellectual brilliance, raw materials and other factors of production in countries like communist China, they have not been able to attain because they lack our freedom? Sarsaparilla (talk) 19:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the fuck? Wikipedia is not, nor analogous to, a country - and frankly I think that's so painfully obvious it's not worthy of an entry in WP:NOT or any deep explanation. Wikipedia is neither America nor Soviet Russia (or analogous to either) and I think many of us will be thankful for that, although you may not see why especially considering your skewed view of the prior. And, food for thought, I'm sure most companies in America ban toys within company grounds, therefore the entire success of capitalism relies on restrictions on "personal freedoms" similar to Wikipedia's. -Halo (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire. What about the work hard play hard philosophy that pervades so many American companies, especially those with young demographics and that are seeking to keep the atmosphere light and the creative juices flowing by hosting some playful diversions? Consider Brulant, which according to the Environment tab encourages "an impromptu Nerf gun war in the hallway, a company-wide Whirlyball tournament, great liberties taken with Photoshop, or game of chess, a mocha and fresh baked cookies in the kitchen." Or Corporate Executive Board, USA, which has on-site happy hours for its marketing staff in order to encourage bonding and as a payoff for the long workdays in the closing weeks of the year? Or how DC law firms have been putting in bocce courts on their roof (See A Playful Change of Venue)? That work hard, play hard mentality is part of what makes America so great, and which will undoubtedly enable us to continue our success into the 21st century. If only Wikipedia would follow the corporate world's lead! Vintei, please make me a signature that incorporates red, white and blue flashing stars. This country rocks! USA! USA! USA! Sarsaparilla (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ha! I love this point of view, its different and witty. Love it! Cheers! Sirkadtalk 22:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you're being loud in the library and others say, "please be quit, this is a library," would you make a similar rant about freedom? Perhaps you'd like to spend time contributing to the articles you link to instead. –Pomte 23:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I found the overall discussion of laissez faire to be relevant to the discussion. A library, by the way, is another good analogy to use while we're on the subject of this proposed deletion. Consider how in the past, it was expected that people remain almost silent while using libraries. Today, in most libraries the norm is that people are allowed to carry on conversations at normal tones which better facilitates collaborating on projects, social interaction, etc. which are viewed as legitimate activities important to the users of the library that therefore no longer frowned on or prohibited in those spaces. The needs of those who want to concentrate is accommodated by having separate quiet study areas. Similarly, at one time it might have been viewed as inappropriate to carry on activities such as signature-making on Wikipedia, but hopefully by this point we can be more accepting of other people's interests not to mention appreciative of the importance of giving artists a little freedom and thus attracting artistic talent at Wikipedia in accordance with WP:EM, and we can simply accommodate those users who have no interest in such activities and want to concentrate on article-writing by having the shopkeeping take place in private userspaces where it won't bother anyone. Sarsaparilla 00:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wikipedia is an encylopedia. There is no free speech and no free enterprise. People aren't donating money so we can all have fancy userpages and signatures and shops to design them or to support our HTML artists. We report information. Mr.Z-man 01:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, but they have given their money, and now it is up to us. You can't just ungive money, and then, they don't know what happens with their money. They gave their money to the encyclopedia, and didn't specify it's purpose. Don't speek for people you don't know either, it's some fancy term that's synonymous with illegal. YДмΔќʃʀï→ГC← 12-25-2007 • 02:25:15
  • Okay! Who here has read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead?! Marlith 05:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK, guys who want this being deleted, here's one: just you don't need help, doesn't mean that other users need help. Maybe, just maybe that they can figure out the "wikicode" themselves, but I'm sure that newcomers are not always familiar to wiki-mark-up. So why don't bring on the experts? We are experienced in this field and we help people, and you may also be experienced, but you don't want to help people. So stop barking. Seriously.-- Vintei  Talk  16:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what section of the shop can people ask for help with wikicode? I do help users with things like wikisyntax (not over-elaborate HTML), but I do it on the Help Desk. Mr.Z-man 17:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And there's plenty of people who are experienced with wikicode over at the wikification project since that's our task, to properly format wikilinks in articles. Metros (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right on the main page...its painfully obvious. Sirkadtalk 18:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Huh? I see places to request barnstars and userboxes, where do I go to ask for help in formatting a citation or starting a new article? Or how to put an infobox in a page or change the title of a page? Mr.Z-man 19:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh please. These shops don't teach "wikicode" at all! In my opinion, the shop was made so it could be dominant, spread throughout wikipedia and eventually be so big that the shops will be backlogged and stuff like that. Thus making the shop owners so popular that everybody will respect them. Making them BIG PEOPLE. This is my crazy conspiracy shop theory. Clever eh? RuneWiki777 03:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Effects of eggnog. Dangerous.[reply]
  • Keep. Doesn't seem harmful. Apologies for a plain pseudo-profound statement with funny capitalisation, but Encyclopaediafirstness is a State of Mind that Comes From Within and has nothing to do with Alleged Existence of Stuff on the User Page. Let's see where this develops. Part of me says "we'd bloody well need a Wikimedia User Community Wiki for this stuff", but I'm unfortunately a person with a few more emotions left and there's no User Community Wiki in existence, works or even being proposed. And this little thing isn't going to be the small tip in the scales that forced us to create things like that. We've survived worse. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Torch both as per User:MER-C - I reiterate: useful contributions come first, THEN come fancy userpages and sigs and boxen. There are plenty of ways for newbies to do things like this, and it really isn't what WP is all about. If that's all they're here for, then they should move to MySpace or Facebook. ♠PMC♠ 02:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question- So if I offer helping people make sigs, that's not allowed? or does it have to be a subpage dedicated to that before it gets deleted? I have a userpage2 just with ASCII art and facts and if I offered to design ASCII art for a user, should it be deleted? How far does it go before it get's deleted? I can list 10 users that have sig shops and others, but I don't see theirs deleted. -- penubag  03:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You're not the only one that makes sigs. Even though if this gets deleted, Codesnippets can still help you develop something, just without an order. This kinda alleviates the social networking-ness in this site, that's why it was started in the first place. —BoL 03:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
section edit break 6[edit]
OK: Laziness is not a justification for leaving junk all over the encyclopedia. WP:NOT is policy. "Shops" are childish and reflect badly on the project. Spinning barnstars and bright red and blue signatures are annoying and tacky. Professional websites value contributions regardless of the contributor. Flashing, stolen HTML has already made MySpace hurt everyone's eyes. Bureaucracy is bad. Role-playing is something best left to other websites. The whole affair looks like a bunch of kids trying to set up their own club where they can be in charge. That's why I care. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 02:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ROFL!!! You're talking about the bureaucracy! And even if the other lies are true, *drumrole, the key phrase* "it doesn't affect any of us". Are shops childish because you don't have one? Because they're repetitious? These are opinions. And unsupported ones at that. If I may, are you a Democrat or republican?YДмΔќʃʀï→ГC← 12-28-2007 • 02:34:17
  • Strong Keep - I'm so sick of people stepping up on other's subpages. I just spent like half a day changing up my userpage because I was ready for a change. I would much prefer having someone else do it for me while I write, but I didn't even know this existed. Bad times. If they're more inclined to do this than write an article, then let them. The time they spend updating a writer's userpage, the more time the writer has to write, no? Not to mention the whole NOTMYSPACE thing is getting way over played. Some of us socialize while we work. If you strip us of that, you'll lose editors, period. We don't get paid for this, so we don't stay if it's not fun or otherwise satisfying. That aside, this isn't even a matter of socializing. They're providing a service, albeit one for the userspace rather than the mainspace. Big deal. Lara❤Love 03:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Vintei/shop&oldid=1221377227"