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 delete this version of the userbox only. This version is an unnecessary and copy-paste duplicate of a legitimate userbox and has been orphaned, so can be safely and properly deleted. Consensus was in favour of keeping it otherwise. Bencherlite^Talk 23:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:UBX/Esperanza returns[edit]

User:UBX/Esperanza returns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused userbox opening a festering sore and calling for something that will almost certainly never happen Guy (Help!) 16:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This userbox is actually in use on Ursasapien's userpage, although he has not edited since June 2008. I hardly think this userbox on a single inactive editor's userpage is "opening a festering sore," even though Wikipedia:Esperanza is exceedingly unlikely ever to return. The relevant guideline says that "userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive," but I think this neither sufficiently inflammatory nor sufficiently divisive to require deletion. I notice that this userbox was created by the now-banned Abd; however, I don't believe that's a compelling reason for deletion, either. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the compelling reason for deletion is that the whole Esperanza thing was horribly divisive and toxic, and inviting the battle to start again is a jaw-droppingly bad idea. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it's far from the only divisive and toxic Wikipedia debate; the inclusionist-deletionist split is comparable, except that that sore continues to fester. There's no prohibition on the expression of divisive opinions through userboxes, particularly when the opinion is about a Wikipedia issue. I agree with you, Guy, in that I think Esperanza is best left in the past, but I don't think you've provided a good justification for suppressing the expression of the opposing opinion by deleting this userbox. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with A Stop at Willoughby that just one use of this userbox is not likely to cause issues, but it may if its use spreads. In any case, I don't see a compelling reason to keep a potentially contentious userbox that is in use only on one inactive user's user page. There's really no reason to keep userboxes that no one uses (this one has existed for more than 3 years), except those that are part of a complete series (e.g. the country-of-residence or country-of-origin userbox series). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Tothwolf (below). The fact that this userbox is a copy-paste duplicate of User:Feureau/UserBox/EsperanzaReturns trumps other considerations, IMO. I have replaced the two transclusions of this userbox with the original userbox. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hadn't even realised this userbox was a duplicate until I began looking into its history, otherwise I would have tagged it as a CSD T3 like I did {{User:Abd/hold}}, which was the other duplicate userbox I found in User:Abd's userspace. The /hold subpage turned out to be a duplicate of {{User:UBX/Delegable proxy}} which Abd appeared to have copied to his userspace during another MFD. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per A Stop At Willoughby, and the following. We allow userboxes that express opinions that are not consensus as long as they do not threaten to violate policy. We need not agree with consensus and we are allowed to argue against consensus or attempt to persuade others to see our point of view. Also, the shutdown of Esperanza, while being something I supported, was far from clear consensus. If a user wanted to have a userbox arguing against other matters I would say allow it, same with a userbox saying they wanted to re-activate other projects. HominidMachinae (talk) 02:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - userbox expressing a legitimate, if uncommon, opinion. I'm normally the first to support deleting partisan userboxes, but I just don't see anything wrong with this one; it expresses an opinion on a matter relating to Wikipedia, and doesn't do it in a divisive or offensive way. Yes, Esperanza is probably never coming back, but if some users would like to see it back, why shouldn't they be able to say so? Are people really worried that an opinion about a debate settled in 2006 is likely to provoke argument today? Robofish (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Black Falcon. --Kleinzach 00:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close and delete as duplicate template under CSD T3 This userbox is acceptable per both Wikipedia:Userboxes and Wikipedia:Userbox migration. I moved it to User:UBX per WP:UBM during this MFD in which Guy had mass-nominated all of User:Abd's subpages (because "Abd is indef blocked") because this userbox is in use by another editor and is acceptable under current policy. That said, I am also aware that Guy and User:Abd have "issues" between the two of them and it might be best if Guy would let this go.

  Based on the edit history for {{User:UBX/Esperanza returns}}, User:Abd apparently copied this userbox to his userspace as {{User:Abd/Userbox/Esperanza returns}} in response to Guy's last MFD attempt of {{User:Feureau/UserBox/EsperanzaReturns}}, which like the first MFD, was also closed as keep.

  This means like another of the userboxes I found in User:Abd's userspace, {{User:UBX/Esperanza returns}} can probably be speedy deleted under CSD T3 as a duplicate of {{User:Feureau/UserBox/EsperanzaReturns}} and the remaining transclusion at User:Ursasapien updated to point to {{User:Feureau/UserBox/EsperanzaReturns}}.

  Further, we have numerous Esperanza userboxes, both templates and hardcoded on many userpages, most of which have been there for years, so the fears that "Esperanza fever" will spread and cause panic are quite silly. In addition to User:Ursasapien, other editors also use this userbox: User:Chickyfuzz14/Userboxes, User:Culverin/EA, User:Feureau, User:Inspiron7m, User:Jaycub912, User:Walter Humala, User:Why1991 which also means the deletion reasons that this template is "unused" or "only used on one user's page" are not valid. User:Tbone55 also has additional Esperanza userboxes in his userspace at User:Tbone55/wiki/UBX; {{User:Tbone55/wiki/UBS/Esperanza}} and {{User:Tbone55/wiki/UBS/EsperanzaResponce}}.

  The thing I find most silly here is many editors display Esperanza-related userboxes in a tongue-in-cheek fashion. I think most editors know a return of "the" Esperanza is rather unlikely (or at least in the form it originally had), but there is absolutely nothing wrong with linking to a historical page from ones userpage by way of a userbox such as this. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure how I missed this previously, but it seems Guy previously deleted this userbox out of process [1] just prior to the first MFD. See also User talk:Feureau/Archive/2007/Jan. Guy, just how many times are you going to try to delete this userbox? Just let it go. WP:STICK...WP:POINT...WP:REICHSTAG... --Tothwolf (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2011 (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.