Wikipedia talk:Proposed template and category usage policy

Please kill this page

This is just another anti-UBX proposal-of-the-month flavor. I'd do the merge myself but I'm so against it. Besides, Wikipedia:Userfying userboxes is dead in the water. John Reid 08:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Do not merge this proposal or "kill" this page. It stands on its own merits. I see you ended the debate on the other proposal (after it had a month or so to get comments) but please allow this one to gather comments before "killing" it. What should be dead in the water is the Userbox warring that takes up time, effort and resources from the main goal of editing an encyclopedia. More and more people are coming to this conclusion, and it's time for them to speak out on this issue in a clear, concise way. Nhprman 20:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Please, put this proposal out of its misery. To even entertain this proposal is implicitly hypocritical since its proponent has unilaterally decided to TfD userboxes which effectively circumvents the consensus-building process. Why try to build consensus for a proposal when, demonstrably, consensus doesn't matter? If he's doing the wrong thing, it's useless to discuss the proposal as it doesn't matter whether this is policy or not, and, if he's doing the right thing, the proposal becomes irrelevent.--Ssbohio 22:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Maintenance templates and categories

{{npa}} and even {{cleanup}} really aren't encyclopedic either; the same goes for Category:Imposters of Willy on Wheels to Category:Pages containing IPA. Why shouldn't they be moved into a meta space? I don't even think babel userboxes should be in template space, but like that is going to happen. Kotepho 21:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

But they are concerned with the functioning, maintenance and defence of Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 00:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

So? They should only be in the main spaces if they are useful to readers. Kotepho 00:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Category and Template space are not the same as Main (or article) space. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 01:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Sign with #~~~~

Endorse

1. I endorse this proposal. It's time for a clear, concise and easily understood policy on Userboxes that will end the foolish Userbox delete/keep/revert war that has been going on for months now. This does it, and should become official policy. Nhprman 20:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. It is nice to see an implicit admission that this is not now policy; but it is not, and no reason is given that it should ever be. As it stands, this is ill-defined. What does "related to the encyclopedia" mean? One editor will, in good faith, exclude {{clean-up}} and {{NPOV}} tags; another will call everything done here related to the encyclopedia. These are extremes, but there is a large amount of middle ground.
2. Probably much too broad. Given a middling definition in the spectrum above, it would be far more accordant with WP:ENC to declare that Templates and categories that are visible in article space must be related to the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis 04:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
3. This proposal is a compromise only respecting the views of one side, which is to say, no compromise at all. It manages at the same time to be disingenuous & offensive: It is disingenuous in that it pretends to be about preserving the "purity" of Category & Template space as necessary to maintaining the encyclopedic nature of the article space while, demonstrably, userboxes not in articles do not change article space, which leads to the conclusion that the reason for this proposal must be, at least somewhat, unspoken. It is offensive in that its effect is to say to each user: "All the things that make you you are valueless to this project. Your life experience, your faith, your beliefs, they're all clutter that needs to be removed from public view. You'll be welcome here only if you dispose of those extraneous bits of humanity that someone might see."--Ssbohio 22:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Has an exact relationship ever been defined between user space and category and template space. True, I don't like the votestacking possibilities of category and user interactions, however, I am in no way against the use of the current templating system for storing libraries of userboxes (subst and keep prevents votestacking to the highest degree possible inside a keep view). Ansell Review my progress! 23:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
   • Yes, it has been discussed on the tech list. Category and Template "space" are merely technical support structures. There are no plans for special "User Category" and "User Template" spaces. Bits are bits are bits. --William Allen Simpson 21:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Ssbohio. — Nathan ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 06:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
6. OPPOSE in as strong a way as I can without tripping over Wikipedia's policies. This proposal is an extremist position that would cast into concrete one admin's views on userboxes, and destroy any sense of community on Wikipedia. It is a nuclear bomb dropped onto a divisive issue. It would drive away large numbers of Wikipedians. Jay Maynard 01:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Very strong Oppose. Cyde, your proposal allows no personal expression through useroxes, leading users to resort to measures like the WikiStress/WikiMood meters. Userboxen should be kept as they allow you to express yourself. I like this proposal because it agrees with things you said yourself on userboxes: does not belong in template space, and other. Rather than deleting all userboxes we should keep them, and do something like that. It's like the neverending war of school uniforms, but you just don't seem to get that the WP community never intended for it to be a war and it is just because of userbox deleters that this issue is realized... Freddie^{Against Userbox Deletion?} 01:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
   • That's nice and all, but I really don't recall this thing ever being put up to a poll. --Cyde↔Weys 01:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose -- Category and Template "space" are just technical support structures, and anything that is acceptable in User "space" is acceptable in a Category or a Template. The proposed designation is artificial and irrelevant. Bits are bits are bits. --William Allen Simpson 21:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Far too broad and unhelpful. WP:MACK, despite its flaws, has much more potential for ending the userbox wars. This would be analagous to the Treaty of Versailles — far too harsh and punitive towards the "losers". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose —Ashley Y 05:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral/Abstain

1. While I stronly support userboxes, I'd be happy for them to migrate out of the main template space as part of a compromise that ends their deletion. Categories on the other hand are a more difficult issue. In general I think they should be kept. Eluchil404 17:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Rejected

Tagged as "rejected" (see above). -- Omniplex 01:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)