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.
This template does not reflect the high standards of respect and conduct we owe one another, especially to newer editors who are new to Wikipedia. The fact this is a template meant to be transcluded implies to other users that this is acceptable behaviour. It is one thing to describe yourself, but to describe sexualized fantasies about your wife implies that Wikipedia is a boys club. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Noting for context that this userbox was recently highlighted by Depths of Wikipedia. The guideline at Wikipedia:Userboxes § Userbox content notes that userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive, and are only acceptable if their content would be appropriate elsewhere on a user page. The user pages guideline, in turn, notes that user pages exist to make collaboration among editors easier, and are expected to have content that furthers that purpose. It also notes that content is prohibited which is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense (e.g. racist ideology). The best argument for keeping is the same as the one for highly politicized userboxes: It allows editors to reveal their true colors. So, for instance, if I see an editor behaving in a way that seems rather sexist, but I'm not entirely sure, and then I go to their user page and see this, I now have a useful piece of information to help inform my impression of that editor and decide how to interact with them. The nominator's argument for deletion, which dovetails well with the guidance above, can be weighed against that. ((u|Sdkb))talk 21:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, not inherently offensive. While some cultures keep sensuality hidden, many do not, and this fits with many Userboxes that are barely tangentially related to the project, through editing interests, like politics and other personal interests. Before deleting swathes of such Userboxes, hold an RfC on userbox policy, and when nominating Userboxes, advise all users transcluding them. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe Wikipedia should be censored. If someone wrote they like to wear lingerie...whatever sure. But this kind of sexist other'ing, where presumably a man share's what his family relatives does/wear for their sexual pleasure is not conducive to Wikipedia collaboration nor humor. The benefits of these jokes is outweighed by the kind of alienation it causes by implying that men edit Wikipedia and women sit around, looking pretty. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This userbox has 24 transclusions. The transcluders should be heard from. You should notify them. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I alerted all users who made an edit within the past year ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thank you. I think notifying stakeholders should be required, and definitely is best practice. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The userbox says "This user appreciates nice lingerie on his wife when he sees it." The notion that this is a "sexualised fantasy" or "sexist other'ing" or implies that women should "sit around, looking pretty" is extremely idiosyncratic and should not be entertained further. Cjhard (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is the opposition from the Anti-Sex League? No, but the userbox is not offensive or demeaning. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the above. If this was about a women that the person did not know, I would agree. Men are allowed to appreciate what their wife wears and women are allowed to appreciate what their husband wears and, furthermore, I do not see why a person can not show that appreciation. Bduke (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as seems harmless; not grossly offensive. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 20:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite weird to talk about your private affairs sure but otherwise harmless --Lenticel(talk) 02:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is talking about a man's wife, I don't see how it can be taken any other way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mainly because I am not supportive of any sort of preaching on morality and such. On top of that, as we all know, Wikipedia is not censored... Just for the record, I would support keeping this userbox, even if it is about a woman that the person did not know. — Sundostundmppria(talk / contribs) 15:21, 23 January 2024 (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.