Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Archive 4

Fair use

Could we see a bit more self regulation in this area?Geni 12:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed. Re-iterating what it says at Wikipedia:Userboxes, "The use of copyrighted work as fair use is not allowed on templates". A significant number of the interests userboxes are using fair use images, mostly logos. I've removed a small number of these but many more need to have these images removed. Based on recent events, it's likely that such activity is going to result in problems. Therefore, I'm asking (despite the presence of the above quote) if there is any defense of these images being used on the userboxes? --Durin 21:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Images size, 45px vs 43px

I've found in many instances a 45px image does not center the image properly. (Usually they have a smaller right margin) These are two examples:

This user contributes using Firefox. This user is a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit.

I reduce it to 43px just to have it reverted at some point. I propose changing them all enmassed to 43px and then lock them down and throw away the key. Am I the only one that notices? At least I'd like to establish that 43px is an acceptable size if it improves the userbox. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• That is fine for iconified images. Howver, with pictures in userboxes 43px produces an ugly and un-needed colored frame around the picture. That's why I like to bump things up to 45px.--God of War 04:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

New RvB Userbox

I guess I'd like this one to be made into a real one (wear you don't have to put the big code, just the little code that the official ones have):

Tucker

Bow Chicka Bow Wow

HasBeenCorrected 18:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured Userbox

I brought this up awhile ago, but I feel like this project has come to a point where I can bring it up again. I want to start a Userbox of the Day Page featuring some of wikipedia's finest userboxes. It would work somewhat like WP:FPC except without all the messy sub-pages. Some examples for userboxes of the day. Please comment.--God of War 05:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This user is proud
to be a Wikipedian.

1RRThis user prefers discussing changes on the talk page rather than engaging in an edit war.

Seperate Help Desk Talk Page

Should we create a new help talk page, where wikipedians ask question and another answer it? --RaptorX 18:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo's request

Hmmm! A complaint about pushing a POV on the Userbox page. In any case, how is mentioning that Jimbo has asked us to consider removing polemical userboxes from user pages so outrageous that it is not allowed on the page that pushes using userboxes? -- Dalbury^(Talk) 23:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, once again the notice of Jimbo's request is removed from the page, supposedly for pushing a POV, but I haven't seen anyone say what that POV is. This was a referral to Jimbo asking individual Wikipedians to consider removing polemical userboxes from their user pages. And no one has bothered to answer my question above. I think that users who come looking for userboxes should be aware of Jimbo's request. I won't insert it again, but I am still puzzled as to why what I thought was a carefully neutral statement is seen as too POV for this page. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 23:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sam Korn's compromise wording works for me, and I won't contest it. --Aaron 00:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I won't try to insert my version again, and I'm also comfortable with Sam Korn's wording. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 00:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Polemical userboxes

NPUBThis user supports the summary deletion of polemical userboxes.

At the current point in time, this box would be itself polemical. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of divisive userboxes

Some people are trying to sneak a new line of text into the criteria for speedy deletion. It says divisive or offensive userboxes can be speedily deleted. There is no consensus or talk page discussion on this, only a brewing revert war. Now Tony Sidaway has used this brand new speedy deletion criteria to try and get rid of Template:User pacifist3 which is in the middle of an active TFD. Please voice your opinion on this before some admins go on a userbox deletion rampage.--God of War 18:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

By now, this idea of 'speeediliy deleting divisive userboxes' has turned into complete anti-NPOV orgy: User:MarkSweep has deleted several times (now irreversably...) Template:No_Marxism, while other so-called 'divisive' infoboxes continue: we have here Template:User_anti-imperialist, Template:User_anti-fascism etc.

I suggest keeping them, and I also recommend restoring my infobox and banning users who have bypassed legal limits of their power in wikipedia. Constanz - Talk 10:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, those who claim Template:No_Marxism may be deleted due to 'divisive or inflammatory' nature fall into ridiculous trap -- according to their way of thinking, a lot of infoboxes should be deleted, including all pro-Marxist ones (and its socialist-communist heirs), for being divisive (bourgois exploitators, the proletariat...) and inflammatory (Class war...). Constanz - Talk 11:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It's as though a million userboxes cried out in terror, and then were suddenly silent...Dr. B 03:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Long live the Rebel Alliance!!! The Ungovernable Force 11:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion

Policy proposal to move userboxes out of template space

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet, but this just cropped up on my radar. I'm really want to AGF, but I believe it is a deliberate attempt to sidestep the public debate going on here and formulate policy which doesn't reflect the consensus of the community as a whole. It would appear that only the anti-userbox activists and their acolytes are actually contributing to it. --Dragon695 22:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

(N.B.: While the following is minimally in response to Dragon695's above criticisms of WP:UUB, it is largely in response to the general issue of userboxes on Wikipedia. Any reference to you beyond the first paragraph should be viewed as a reference to the reader and not to Dragon695.)

You'd be well advised to continue assuming good faith. For the record, I'm a supporter of this proposal and I have contributed to the discussion (leading, indirectly, to a minor change in the proposal text); I'm neither anti-userbox, nor an acolyte of those who are. Now I wouldn't call myself pro-userbox, but I've been a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes for some time and have worked to cleanup a number of userboxes to help maintain policy compliance. Until now, I haven't backed a proposal on either side of the issue, primarily because I've tried to stay away from the contentiousness on this topic. (As an aside, I've been largely unsuccessful at this, and have found a disheartening number of dicks on both sides of this debate; I really think this conflict has done more to hinder the ability to assume good faith and to raise the polemicism in the atmosphere more than any userbox could.) Not that I was necessarily being included in Dragon695's generalization, but I wanted to make it clear where I come from on this issue before discussing my support of WP:UUB.

Enough about me. About the proposal: We're not against public debate, and we're not trying to impose a solution against consensus. We just want to offer a solution that might help to reduce the conflict before it escalates much further to the point of drastic action. The proposal was promoted, I believe, on the talk page of WP:UBP, so we're also not trying to be obscure about it. The proposal on userbox policy has served to help flesh out some of the related issues, and has also provided a place for people to sound-off with their arguments. IIRC, it originally offered debates over specific policy proposals, but that was abandoned in preference of more general, initial discussion of userboxes. WP:UUB (which stands for Use of Userboxes) suggests a specific solution: content created by users for use in describing themselves and/or other users ought to be in the User namespace (aside from a few exceptions, as noted on the proposal and discussed on the talk page). Aside from resident namespace, this proposal really doesn't make any further policy statements regarding userbox content; residing in the User namespace, userboxes would be subjected to the userspace guidelines and related policies like WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. The proposal wouldn't solve every problem, and it probably isn't going to satisfy everyone's concerns on both sides of the debate, but it does help fix a couple of issues:

1. By placing userboxes into the User namespace, it's more clear what policies and guidelines apply to them. The current situation, where userboxes are in the Template namespace, involves disputed userboxes being sent to WP:TFD which is probably better suited to discussing the deletion of article and/or project related templates. Since it's argued that userboxes ought to be less restricted than regular templates (e.g., userboxes need not be WP:NPOV or WP:CITEd), they ought not be judged by the deletion criteria for Templates. The lack of speedy-deletion criteria for templates has also meant that any speedy-deletions of userboxes (some justified, IMHO) have been officially outside of process. (Note that Jimbo has imposed a new speedy-deletion criteria for templates—seemingly created specifically to deal with the userbox-as-template situation—that says that templates that are intentionally divisive and/or inflammatory can be speedy-deleted; discussion is at WT:SPEEDY.) Having userboxes in User namespace places them under the more appropriate guidelines at WP:USER which are more suited for autobiographical/user content than the template rules.
2. Moving userboxes from the official and centralized Template namespace into the personal and decentralized User namespace also more clearly represents userboxes as being the statements of individual editors and doesn't represent any sort of (pseudo-)official position of Wikipedia/Wikimedia. This might also lend some legitimacy to the position of pro-userboxers who want to claim that userboxes represent an extension of their userspace, and that the content of userboxes ought to enjoy the same amount of freedom that has been traditionally afforded to regular user pages. This also might help to combat the problem, as claimed by some anti-userboxers, that having a centralized userbox template results in grouping people by 'bumper-sticker' ideologies. Moving from a single and established source for ideological userboxes to decentralized sources from individual users might encourage users to make more personalized userboxes to more specifically state their views. For example, instead of using the generic {{user liberal}} template promoted at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs (and thus linking oneself with the hundreds of other users of that template via Whatlinkshere), users might instead be encouraged to create their own userbox in their userspace that more accurately reflects their views (for example, "This user is a social liberal who believes in maximizing civil liberties and taking a moderate approach toward economic liberalism.")

Aside from the practical implications of the proposal, there's another reason (one I'll likely regret bringing up here) I support this proposal: the current situation is not sustainable, and (ultimately) neither is the position of the pro-userbox faction. I think (one of the few) positions which we can all agree on is that the level of contentiousness on this issue is unhealthy for the project. I'm sure both sides would like to see the divisiveness on this issue go away, but (perhaps not unexpectedly) each side wants the issue resolved on their own terms with minimal concessions. I've seen pro-userboxers who have argued that anti-userboxers want to take away their freedoms, and that we wouldn't have all this dispute and disruption of the project if anti-userboxers would just leave userboxes alone, and instead focused on the encyclopedia. On the other hand, some of the anti-userboxers (and I think Jimbo's note might be an example of this) argue that the existence of POV userboxes is what's fueling the conflict and causing much of the discord, and that removal of the POV boxes (either voluntary or compulsory) is what's needed to resolve this conflict. (Or, as Jimbo's note says, "This seems to me to be the best way to quickly and easily end the userbox wars.") Of course, if both sides essentially argue, "Division is bad for the project. However, if we can put our disagreements aside and accept my position as the best one, then we can put this divisiveness behind us—wouldn't that be nice?", then we're probably not going to make much progress toward a solution or anything resembling consensus ;-). If the userboxer wars (if they can be so-called) continue as is, I fear that the long-term status of userboxes will be unduly influenced by which side has the greater tolerance of incivility, the boldness to flaunt process and to maintain reverts, and the willingness to hit the other side harder with the mop. We cannot have a war of attrition on Wikipedia, and so the userboxer conflict cannot be sustained in its current state. Ultimately, it won't be.

The conflict won't be sustained because the position of the pro-userbox faction can't be sustained. I make this claim with neither malice toward pro-userboxers, nor with judgement against their arguments. Indeed, it's not that there aren't good arguments for the usage of userboxes—there are. Nor is it that there's strong consensus against the position of pro-userboxers—there isn't. The reason the pro-userbox position will not last is that those who exercise discretionary power beyond policy (usually exercising WP:IAR) tend to be predisposed against the pro-userbox position. I think the best and most prominent example of this is Jimbo. There's no question that Jimbo has the widest discretion in making mandates beyond policy; when the BDFL sets down a firm rule, it's going to be enforced heavy-handedly and will take precedence over just about anything else (even WP:IAR). If/when Jimbo comes down firmly against contentious userboxes (or, if he feels like it, all non-babelboxes), they'll be deleted en masse and there'll likely be nothing effective anyone else can say on the issue.

Now, obviously, we're not quite there yet. In fact, I think Jimbo's maintained a largely distant (if not entirely neutral) perspective on the userbox issue. His recent request to voluntarily remove contentious userboxes, while controversial, maintains a largely non-confrontational, civil, and fair-minded tone; he deserves to be applauded for that. He's also said (somewhere, I'm not sure where I saw him say this) that this request should be seen as a request for voluntary removal of userboxes, and ought not be interpreted as a policy statement or a mandate to remove userboxes from other users' pages. (An aside here for those unaware of the history of the userboxer wars: Jimbo initially expressed some concern upon running across Category:Wikipedians by politics. He made the statement, still listed on that category page, that he discouraged the use of the categories and related userboxes as they represent POV's that Wikipedians shouldn't bring to their Wikipedia editing. He made a similar posting to the project mailing list. On New Year's Eve, an administrator took his statement, derived a policy from it, then proceeded to begin deleting political userboxes in alphabetical order. This was, as far as I'm aware, the first instance of mass deletions of userboxes and was a major event in the beginning of this conflict.) Jimbo's sensitivity in clarifying that his recent request should be viewed as advice and not as a policy directive is something we ought to be appreciative for as well. While speaking softly, however, Jimbo's request carries a big stick: if people don't agree with his request, we might have "to go through a mass deletion (which is what is likely to happen if the userbox fad doesn't go away)". If a regular user said this, it might be fairly viewed as a pessimistic outlook; if an admin said it, that might be a threat, albeit a controversial one; when Jimbo says it, it's probably going to happen and it's likely not something we'll be able to discuss effectively after-the-fact. I have little doubt that contentious userboxes have a limited future as templates.

My fear is that this will come sooner, rather than later. For those unaware, tensions regarding userboxes have increased with the creation and deletion of a userbox identifying the user of the template as a pedophile. It was listed on WP:TFD, then speedy-deleted and restored a few times before Jimbo speedy-deleted the template himself. Jimbo then suspended the administrator privileges of five administrators who participated in the wheel war. While I trust that Jimbo is smart enough to keep cool, events like this can only hasten any impending plans for mass deletion of userboxes.

My hope is that we, as a community, can come up with a solution that will make such policy-by-fiat unnecessary. For me, I think that migrating userboxes to the User namespace might serve this purpose. You might agree with me that WP:UUB offers an effective solution; you might find some of the proposal questionable, in which case you might want to consider discussing your concerns on the talk page; you might think the proposal takes an entirely wrong approach, which is fine too. However, I urge you: Consider this proposal. Consider an alternate proposal. Consider something that can serve as a widely-acceptable compromise on this issue. The status quo (or lack thereof) regarding userboxes is not sustainable. Those pro-userboxers who wish to sustain their position will find themselves with little ground to stand on.

I'll close (finally!) with a request of my own à la Jimbo (though A request from Jeff admittedly just doesn't carry the same weight...):

If you don't want to remove your political/religious/etc. userboxes (as suggested by Jimbo), then I wonder if you might consider simply not linking to the existing userbox templates, and instead making your own in your userspace. You can use subst to include a copy of an existing userbox by using {{subst:user foo}} instead of {{user foo}}.

You can also use the {{Userbox}} formatting template to make your own userbox (use of this and related templates is described on Wikipedia:Userboxes). In particular, you're encouraged to take advantage of the versatility available in making your own userbox by creating more personalized and specific userbox content (rather than relying on the generic userboxes you used to use). You can use your own userboxes directly on your user page, or you can create a subpage for each userbox and use the subpages as you would templates. Keep in mind that your new userboxes, along with everything else on your user page, must comply with User space guidelines, as well as with our policies on civility and no personal attacks. If you choose to make a userbox as a subpage template, you'll also need to make sure it won't be speedy deleted under the criteria for speedy deletion of templates. If you need help with any of this, feel free to ask me.

Using your own user page for userbox content instead of using Wikipedia's template system helps to put user-related content back where it belongs. By using your own userboxes instead of the generic ones available, you can express yourself more specifically and independently. If you agree with my request, take a look at Wikipedia:Userfying userboxes, a proposed policy which seeks to migrate userbox contents out of the Wikipedia Template namespace and into the User namespace. If you want to show your support, you can add to your page {{User:Ashibaka/Userbox/Migration}}, which is—most appropriately—a userbox in the User namespace. — Jeff | (talk) | 10:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

(FYI, I included that request from a template, so I've said some things in there that I've also said above.) Thoughts on the matter, as always, are appreciated. — Jeff | (talk) | 14:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Jeffrey. I really like what you have said, and how you have said it. I personally have let myself become a little too involved in some of the discussions, but I think that WP:UUB is workable, and I support it. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 18:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I second/third/nth this proposal - I totally agree with everything said and am beginning to export all userboxes created my yours truly as of now. Hopefully more people will follow. Deano (Talk) 10:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

EU and UN

Please excuse, does anyone know why the anti-UN and anti-EU userboxes are not working anymore? Thanks,Salva 19:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Both were speedy-deleted. — Jeff | (talk) | 14:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Internet service providers

Can someone tell me what, if any, point these userboxes serve? Morgan695 22:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think they allow regular users/editors to break free of the NPOV for a bit. I see them as a harmless and socially acceptable way to blow off steam.Steppenvalve 19:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Specifics not blankets

Please consider my proposal, Wikipedia:Unacceptable userspace material, which is intended as a means to minimally quantify "bad" materials in userspace which the practice of including on userpages has a detrimental effect on Wikipedia, as opposed to making overbroad blanket restrictions. The goal is to maintain the liberal use of userspace while addressing concerns of divisiveness and objectionableness, avoiding template deletionism, and providing a defined standard on which compulsory userpage amendments can be based. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

As I've replied elsewhere, I see that leading to constant fighting over where the limits are, and hairsplitting to decide what goes and what stays. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 00:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Latest from Jimbo

I mentioned in my piece elsewhere on this page that we (the community) needed to work toward some sort of solution before Jimbo imposed a severe one by fiat. The latest two statements from Jimbo indicate that he's still not to the point of pushing harsh action, but I think it's fair to characterize his remarks as showing continuing discomfort about the current situation:

1. In an IRC chat, Jimbo was informed by User:Tony Sidaway that, over the past six weeks, the number of userboxes has increased from 3500 to 6000 and that the number of politics-oriented userboxes has increased from 45 to 150. His response was, "My only comment on the userbox situation is that the current situation is not acceptable."
2. In a posting on the mailing list, Jimbo further responded to this serious increase in userboxes with this:

Having said that, I heard today that the number of userboxes, and in particular the number of very problematic userboxes, has exploded. I think this is seriously Not Good For Our Loving Little Community.

I am not doing anything about it just yet, but I am willing to concede that my nonviolent social request that people knock it off and think about what it means to be a Wikipedian has not gotten very far.

As far as I can determine, and I am very much aware that I am here prejudicing the terms of debate, this is a cultural battle between wikipedians and people who have stumbled into this cool site they heard about on CNN where you can write whatever the hell you want and argue with people for fun.

So, there's still time to come to a solution on our own, but with as much polemicism around, I'm admittedly not as hopeful as I was earlier. — Jeff | (talk) | 10:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that'll bridge that divide, all right. Good work, Jimbo. —Andux^␅ 11:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

In many of these Jimbo comments, I am seeing rather too little 'good faith' for my liking. Ian13/talk 13:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" doesn't mean ignore plain evidence of deliberate provcation. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 14:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I hardly think any of the userbox argument has been 'fun' for anyone. I am also interested in what evidence of deliberate provcation exists and if it really is arguing for the fun of it. Ian13/talk 15:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes containing personal attacks on other Wikipedians and some of the userboxes created after User:Pedophile was speedy deleted were obviously (IMHO) intended to provoke a response (i.e., they were trolls) and clearly displayed a lack of good faith in their creation. Some of the responses to Jimbo's request that Wikipedians consider removing polemical userboxes not only failed to assume good faith on Jimbo's part, but were also clearly intended to provoke a response by heaping all kinds of abuse on Jimbo. And, if people really are arguing just for the fun of it, they are doing a poor job of it and need to go find some place else to have that kind of 'fun'. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 15:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

While your hurt feelings are regrettable, they do not meaningfully alter the force of Jimbo's comment. Phil Sandifer 14:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. Some guy sat infront of a metal box and glass screen, whacking little plastic squares won't annoy me. The moving electrons might though - should enough of them pass through my heart. Ian13/talk 15:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians need to have some identity. Jimbo's definition of a Wikipedian, just my impression, is someone who contributes a ton of information with no emotional leanings whatsoever. While Buddhists all over the world are celebrating this ideal, I just don't think it's a realistic goal. We're all living breathing human beings with thoughts, beliefs, opinions, passions, hopes and dreams firmly rooted in our personalities. We can't just ignore them. It's a physical impossibility. Humans are by nature POV. All we can do is turn the volume down on the POV and give it anger management. Denying users a certain level of induviduality actually hurts the community in my opinion. It's like taking all the hollidays out the school year. Sure, the kids may learn more and retain more but they are also miserable. Stick the fun in there and work is of higher quality and they tend to care more. I think the same holds true for Wikipedia or any other community of human beings. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 06:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would say, based on his comments on the wikien mailing list, that Jimbo is quite appreciative of the individual differences of Wikipedians. His concern, as I understand him, is the way in which userboxes are being used to express, not individual differences, but group solidarity for POV positions. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 11:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

And he is, not to put too fine a point on it, wrong. Voluntary disclosure of the POVs of as many editors as possible helps the encyclopedia maintain NPOV by keeping biases in the open and therefore easily countered. Rogue 9 14:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree the value of opinion boxes is that the editors are being honest about where they are coming from. When research papers are published it is vital to know any potential bias that contributers might have. Openly declaring POV means we have to be more careful to create Wiki content that is NPOV. Having said this, we don't need boxes that directly attack other people. --Hontogaichiban 00:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Encouraging non-template userboxes

In tackling the helpful statistics provided by Tony Sidaway (mentioned in the above section), I wonder if there's anything to be done that would help encourage people to use non-template userboxes on their own pages instead of creating new templates. Now, I'm not saying this as just another plug of WP:UUB—I've already stated my case for that. My reason for raising this issue is that, it seems to me, that a number of those 6000 userboxes might have limited appeal and usage. (I'm going to go checking the Whatlinkshere for some userboxes, so I'll have a better idea if I'm right on this.)

We ought to consider that a userbox that's only going to be used by a few people might not need its own template; instead, the userbox could be used inline using the {{Userbox}} formatting template. It's interesting to note that Wikipedia:Userboxes doesn't describe a userbox as a template in its introductory paragraph (though userboxes are obviously most commonly found in templates). Instead, it describes a userbox as simply, "a small coloured box that allows users to add small messages on their user pages." To our credit, it also says under the "Before making a userbox" subheader that, "If you wish to put your userbox in a template (and list it here), evaluate whether there is a need for your userbox." However, if there are indeed userbox templates out there that are barely used, those creating the userboxes might not be following this advice. It's probably true as well that there are cases where users have had good faith assumptions that someone might have some need for such a template, but the userbox ultimately remains unused.

I'm not necessarily advocating any kind of formal criteria that must be met before a userbox can be created. If it's expressed that userbox template creation should be used only where's there's a need and that userboxes of more limited appeal are best placed directly on a user's page, I would think that people could be trusted to use their common sense in deciding whether or not to make a new template. Then again, we have expressed something similar on the page, and that's not stopped us from creating an average of nearly 60 new userbox templates per day. Maybe, more prominent placement of the statement discouraging needless template creation might help the problem. Alternately, we could give a prominent placement to a statement encouraging people to use their own personalized userboxes directly on their own pages instead of using templates. I'm sure there's other solutions as well. I'm not bold enough to make the change right now, but I'm throwing this out to the community in hopes of ideas. Underused (or nonused) userbox templates are hardly the most pressing or important of concerns on the site right now, but slowing and/or reversing the growth of unneeded userbox templates might help to take a little pressure off the volatile "cultural battle" over userboxes. — Jeff | (talk) | 10:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you are correct. If people did consider a little more the need for a template, then I think there would be a few less. The problem is - how do we reduce the number of userboxes at present. Ian13/talk 15:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

We could run a bot to subst them all onto userpages and then delete all userboxes, allowing people to manually code them as they want. Phil Sandifer 15:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that although it would be good to remove quite a lot of these boxes, some are useful too and I personally would propose keeping them due to their high usage. Maybe keep all boxes with 100+ users and any babelboxes as templates? Ian13/talk 15:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I can tell you from experience that getting people to agree on what boxes should or should not stay in template-space is like herding cats. —Andux^␅ 16:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Untill people learn to respect our fair uses policies we are going to continue to need lists of who has got what.Geni 16:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Move NRA user boxes?

The userboxes Template:user NRA, Template:user NRA Life, and Template:User NRA Instructor seem to be improperly categorized under Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs. This is a non-profit, nonpartisan, multifaceted organization of approximately 4.3 million members engaged in broad activities such as law enforcement training, education, supporting wildlife conservation, and multimedia publishing. It seems more appropriate to list these in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Interests under “Affiliations”. Accurizer 16:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

My theory on userbox limiting

Ok I just had a realization; if someone has an absurd amount of userboxes, he does himself a disservice because people will usually automatically not look at any of them, or maybe just one or two. This is opposed to someone having say 4 userboxes, in that case someone will usually look at them all in one glance.

The reason for this IMO is that the human concious mind can usually juggle up to only 7 things in its short term memory, and people can usually only count up to 6 or 7 just by glancing say 6 stones. Any more than 6 or 7 and the mind seems to just ignore it all because it is beyond that threshold. Thus, the optimum number of userboxes for someone to have is 6 or 7. Beyond that, people will probably just pass them all over and read none of them at all.

The point of my theory is that maybe people should just be limited to 6 or 7 userboxes. This would cause less strain on wikipedia (people wouldnt be in like 50 catagories), also this would have a side effect of limiting so-called "polemical" userboxes, because people would think long and hard what userboxes to have since they are limited, thus eliminating pointless or uninformative userboxes.

Anywayz, just a theory.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 19:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, you can always just break your userboxes up into categories of 6 or 7. :p --AySz88^-^ 20:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Userbox Deletion

Who deleted some of the belief userboxes? --Shanedidona 20:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

As well as a lot of politics userboxes. CG 20:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

So... you deleted some? --Shanedidona 20:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No, not me. I'm just pointing out to the fact that a lot of userboxes were deleted by User:Grenavitar by CSD T1. Unfortunatly a small part has been reverted which led to a lot of POV. example: {{User Israel}} was undeleted while {{User Palestine}} wasn't. I hope the Userbox policy will be finished soon. CG 21:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoda thunked that admins and deletionists couldn't be trusted to make unbiased decisions in the absence of a clear policy? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 01:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What does T1 Mean? --Shanedidona 01:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

T1 is a new speedy deletion criterion that includes divisive/polemical/inflammatory content. --Cyde Weys 01:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

T1 means that the admins can delete whatever the hell they please because anybody can stretch a subjective criterion. Rogue 9 14:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

For those not aware, there have been a number of userboxes deleted by a number of admins as part of a deletion spree based upon the aforementioned T1 criteria. (In my earlier comments on this page, I was under the mistaken impression that mass deletions might not happen until Jimbo formally backed them.) Deletions of userboxes (and subsequent recreations, etc.) can be monitored using this very helpful tool. I should also point out that User:Pathoschild has been going around and semi-automatically subst'ing in deleted userboxes, as part of his userbox project. He also has a practical and equitable policy proposal that I think both sides would be well advised to consider. — Jeff | (talk) | 02:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Is the fact that a userbox used a fair use image good enough grounds to have it deleted? Wouldn't the easy thing be to just remove the image? I have seen this as a reason for some of the deletions. Station Attendant 04:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It isn't part of the speedy deletion criteria, but I'm not surprised that it is grounds for deletion. If you read the actual Criteria for Speedy Deletion, the relevant criterion (T1) states that templates (including userboxes) can be speedy-deleted if "polemical or inflammatory". Inclusion of fair-use images is not covered under T1 or any of the general criteria for speedy deletion. Including fair-use images in user pages or related templates is—in case anyone's unaware—a violation of policy, and so they certainly ought to be removed from any userboxes. The "easy thing" would indeed to be to remove the fair use image (and I'd advise anyone who sees such images to do so). However, for those more concerned with mass deletion of userboxes than ease of modification, such considerations are not in play. Checking the logs, I do see that User:Doc glasgow has removed a number of band-related userboxes due to fair use images. Now, I'm fairly certain I've seen that user remove fair-use images from userboxes before, so I doubt it's a case of him not knowing the less destructive alternative. I'd suspect that it's more of a case that an atmosphere of on-going mass userbox deletions makes it easier for those pre-disposed to deleting userboxes to do so instead of taking more moderate and proportional action. In any case, I'd say you're probably not getting your band userboxes back in their old form. I'd advise you (and those in a similar situation) to instead make your own replacement userboxes for personal use on your own page. There's instructions on Wikipedia:Userboxes on how to do this. (Remember, though, that the fair-use criteria also apply there, and that you won't be able to use the fair-use images [or any others] that served as an excuse for the original userboxes' deletion.) — Jeff | (talk) | 06:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

POV Userbox Suggestion

I wonder if objections would be satiated if we make POV userboxes an explicitly bias-countering tool by rewording them along these lines (as an example):

• User (Sun):+ : "This user admits to having a pro-(Sun) POV." or "This user attempts to prevent his pro-(Sun) POV from entering articles." or "This user tends towards supporting (the Sun)."
• User (Sun):0 : "This user feels he has no bias towards (the Sun)."
• User (Sun):- : "This user admits to having a anti-(Sun) POV." or "This user attempts to prevent his anti-(Sun) POV from entering articles." or "This user tends towards opposing (the Sun)."

If desired, one could extend this to five types by adding these two:

• User (Sun):++ : "This user's pro-(Sun) POV discourages themselves(himself/herself) from editing articles about it." (or reword of this)
• User (Sun):-- : "This user's anti-(Sun) POV discourages themselves(himself/herself) from editing articles about it." (or reword of this)

Of course, not all userboxes would have to have the same wording, they would just need to somehow make it clear that the box isn't advocating/advertising the POV, but is expressing a possible bias in encyclopedia-writing.

Comments? :) --AySz88^-^ 14:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Edited 06:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC) to fix or clarify some wordings. --AySz88^-^ 06:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That all is fine, as long as it's done with non-transcluded userboxes. If anyone tries to create a template for something like that, I, for one, would support its immediate deletion. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 23:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Er, why would you object to putting them in templates?

(To anticipate one possible objection: I think this does fix the "What links here" problem, since anyone who actually wishes to inject POV probably would use the "no bias" userbox (if any userbox at all), so it'd be no use to anyone trying to votestack or form some sort of clique (i.e. it speaks to a rejection of cabals , so it can't be a proxy for them). Personally, I would punish any attempted abuse, not delete the userboxes.)

I think this sort of thing might be part of some compromise, perhaps? --AySz88^-^ 04:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This wouldn't work - many people may hold a particular view, but don't feel that it is a POV which affects their Wikipedia editing, therefore they would not add these boxes. Whereas, if people put ordinary userboxes (non-transcluded, vote-stuffing is bad) saying e.g. 'This user supports political party X' then other users can decided for themselves whether that view is affecting the person's edits Cynical 08:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with keeping the current style of userboxes ("This user supports party X") is that the userboxes are being interpreted as advocacy or the promotion of a POV in their editing, not as an anti-POV measure. (If people were recognizing POV userboxes for their anti-POV potential, this whole blowup wouldn't exist...) Banning transclusion might reduce vote-stuffing (though I don't see why the same problems wouldn't arise with, say, a search for the text of the box) but the existance of the current userboxes, whether in User or Template space, looks as if POV is accepted or encouraged within the workings of Wikipedia.

I'm not sure that I understand the first part of your post. Wouldn't someone that "may hold a particular view but [doesn't] feel that it is a POV which affects their Wikipedia editing" use a + or - box? Do the wordings need to be changed to make that more clear? --AySz88^-^ 18:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

In the context of the current proposal at Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll, I think it would change "Advocacy or POV declaring are specifically excluded." to "Advocacy is specifically excluded. Declarations of possible bias in the Template space should/must also discourage, or acknowledge the discouragement of, bias in encyclopedia-editing and other Wikipedia activities." --AySz88^-^ 21:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No more userboxes can be created

See the discussion here. Basically, while we haven't decided on how to deal with extant userboxes yet, we are all pretty much in agreement that no NEW ones should be created, as that will just make whatever ultimate solution we decide on harder to implement (because there'll be more userboxes to subst, delete, userfy, whatever). Thank you for understanding. --Cyde Weys 02:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"...the creation of any new userboxes is prohibited per new policy..." Can you point me in the direction of this new policy that's mandated such a moratorium? I was under the impression we were still trying to figure out what policy is to be implemented. While "pretty much" everyone might be in agreement of this at the DRV subpage, there are people discussing other proposals out there that wouldn't go so far against userboxes. The Pathoschild proposal (which will hopefully get a better name and shorter link), for example, is receiving support and recognizes some limited uses for userboxes. It would permit the creation and use of userbox templates that benefit the encyclopedia (as defined in the proposal). There would be a moratorium on creating userboxes that don't meet this criteria, but not the full moratorium you're claiming is policy.

I've partially reverted your changes to bring back instructions on how to use {{Userbox}} to "roll your own", since it's likely that any policy will prefer non-template userboxes over template userboxes in some situations. I've also restored some mention of content that still applies in user-space (no fair use images, no personal attacks, etc.) I'm not removing your claim of new policy, as I'm assuming that there's some policy statement mandating such a moratorium that I yet haven't seen. Thank you, as well, for your understanding. — Jeff | (talk) | 03:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The basic reasoning is "It's a Good Idea". It's something that the vast majority of people, even the pro-userbox people, can agree on. If you read Jimbo's statements it's very clear that he does not want the Template: namespace used for userboxes and their deletion is imminent. Given that, it makes sense that we shouldn't be allowing people to create more userboxes in the Template: namespace, which will just make the inevitable deletions more time-consuming and will piss off more people, as it's easier to see something just created get deleted than something that's been around for a bit. A moratorium on the creation of new userboxes is consistent with any finalized userbox policy that is likely to be made. --Cyde Weys 03:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

(Hope you don't mind, I moved your comment so it wouldn't split mine.) Have the vast majority of people agreed that we should have an absolute moratorium on userbox creation? I've read all of Jimbo's postings (that I'm aware of) on the matter, and while I agree that it's clear he wants POV-boxes out of template space (and I can't say I disagree with him), I don't think it's as clear that he wants all userboxes out of template space. His original objections to userboxes were based on the POV-boxes, and while the conflict's probably made him more critical of userboxes in general (and who could blame him?), I haven't seen anything "very clear" from him that he wants all userboxes gone from template space. He's said (yesterday), "...there is a strong consensus that having various sorts of advocacy userboxes is problematic, especially when they are promoted in the Wikipedia namespace..." (emphasis mine). On Saturday, he said, "I've become more and more convinced that the right thing to do is to take any and all userboxes which don't fit some very very narrow "practical" uses into people's personal userspace." His main problem seems to be with advocacy, and not with all userboxes. I certainly don't see anything there that would justify calling a moratorium policy. (While Jimbo certainly does have the power to directly mandate new policy, comments from the mailing list don't necessarily represent him stating new policy. As has been quoted elsewhere, Jimbo has said "...in this entire userbox conflict, I have actually done absolutely nothing. There have been no decrees from me, no mass deletions, nothing but a serious attempt to engage a wide variety of people in serious discussion.") In short, I don't see that Jimbo has mandated a moratorium against all userboxes ("advocacy userboxes" perhaps).

I also don't see that we can claim the moratorium is based on a "new policy" if it's only the case that it's claimed that it will be consistent with expected, but as yet nonexistent, policy. As I mentioned above, the Pathoschild proposal would permit userboxes in template space if they had some benefit to the encyclopedia. The terms used in the proposal (which admittedly might be too broad) would include WikiProject userboxes, geographical userboxes, and statements of general interest. If the Pathoschild proposal is the policy likely to be made (and I'm clearly biased in hoping that it is), a moratorium on all userboxes would not be consistent with it. In case anyone's thinking along these lines, the Pathoschild proposal isn't some strictly pro-userbox proposal. It has the backing of some of the more anti-userbox Wikipedians, such as Tony Sidaway. (I've also found that Doc glasgow contributed much of the text about a month ago; I don't know his current views on it, so I wouldn't want to represent him as a supporter of it). So, clearly, if it's your position that gets adopted into policy, then a full moratorium will be in order. If its something like Pathoschild, we'll have a moratorium on advocacy userboxes and other userboxes that don't serve the project.

Now, I'd really like to revert that statement off the main page that an absolute moratorium is part of "new policy"—that's not accurate language. However, I'm not all that taken to drastic changes without consensus if it looks like a compromise might be in order. I'm certainly sold on the concept of decreasing userbox growth. I'd think it appropriate to refactor the page towards the primary goal of specifying "how to make your own userboxes for your own user page", rather than "here's how to make a new template". (I talked a little about this elsewhere on the page under the header "Encouraging non-template userboxes".) The page should encourage user page userboxes when possible, but allow for (greatly minority) cases where template-space userboxes might be permitted (subject to future policy). I'd probably also think it appropriate to put out a moratorium against advocacy/belief-based userbox templates. I think Jimbo's statements are quite clear on this point (especially his comment on /Beliefs). With CSD-T1 being interpreted as it is, such templates are definitely going to be deleted, so it makes good sense to stop their creation as well. However, I don't think we ought to be stating such a moratorium on all userboxes (especially being so heavy-handed in claiming it's in enforcement of undefined future policy), when there's valid policy candidates with support from both sides that would not be consistent with a complete ban of userboxes in template space. Thanks for your time and consideration. — Jeff | (talk) | 04:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's too hurtful to keep the moratorium in effect for all userboxes for at least a few days until further clarifications are made as to exactly which userboxes might still be allowed in Template: namespace. It's been made quite clear that a lot of them are not acceptable. In the mean time people can just code new userboxes directly into their userspace. And I agree with you about refactoring this page to place the focus on userspace userboxes rather than Templatespace userboxes. --Cyde Weys 04:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's too hurtful, but it's unnecessarily heavy-handed—especially for users already angry at the speedy deletions. How about we use less firm language? As I said, I think most would agree that advocacy userboxes are out, so we can be firm on those. Instead of a strict moratorium on others, how about we "heavily discourage" them? Say, something like:

The Criteria for Speedy Deletion of templates, which allow for the deletion of inflammatory or polemic templates, are currently in active enforcement. Existing advocacy-based userbox templates are being removed, and any newly created advocacy userboxes will be immediately deleted as well. The use of other userboxes in templates will also soon be limited, as the template namespace is to be used to serve the goal of writing an encyclopedia. Until a policy is agreed upon to determine the use of userboxes as templates, the creation of new userbox templates is heavily discouraged at this time.

Then we give the alternative of "rolling your own" later on the page. It's not perfect, but I don't think it's particularly harmful to present this as strong advice (with the warning further that restrictions are coming) instead of as a mandate. — Jeff | (talk) | 05:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for removing the reference to policy from the main page. I just saw that. — Jeff | (talk) | 05:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Debate over keep / don't keep userboxes have taken away soooo much time from editing, however, until a policy is implemented, or we get something like specific ruling from Jimbo or a Arbcom case of Everyone v.s. Everyone else ruling; a moratorium on userbox creation does not appear to have a consensus at this time. If I've cleary missed something SPECIFIC to the contrary of this, please reference it here. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 03:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a simple question for you: are you in favor of or opposed to the moratorium? --Cyde Weys 03:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Great loaded question. I am opposed to a moratorium of the creation of all userboxes. I totally support speedy deletion of inflamatory userboxes, but do not think we have either a clear ruling, or community consensus on what comprises "divisive". (e.g. Someone making a box that says This user is a male is gender divisive, but is it harming the community?). xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 03:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, this debate also seems to have a lot more to it then a polygon, but doesn't get to the pure "don't describe anything about yourself on your userpage". Some feel it is a good way to avoid being able to find editors with like ideals, but without spilling the beans I can think of at least 3-4 immediaet other ways to link to them. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 03:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen the latest comments from Jimbo? He's made it quite clear that template space should be for encyclopedic content only and that userboxes should be removed from it. In this light it makes sense to prevent the creation of new userboxes in template space. That's all the moratorium does. It doesn't matter whether the userbox is "divisive" or not, it just shouldn't be in template space. --Cyde Weys 04:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I would be fine with moving ALL userboxes to User: space somewhere, but do not agree that they should all be required to be transcluded. Many of the boxes are collaberated on by many editors, and I believe that they can contribute positively to community building. A problem is that there is currently no approved place within the User: namespace for placing these without running in to WP:OWN issues related to userspace and/or not having user space pages for non existant users, although I'd welcome a proposal to accomidate this. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There are a variety of proposals to deal with userboxen, but all the viable ones include removing userboxen from the template namespace. In this light it only makes sense to restrict creation of new userboxen in template space. If you read Jimbo's statements though he really doesn't like userboxes at all. They encourage a sort of bumper sticker mentality which gives a false impression about what Wikipedia is really about. --Cyde Weys 04:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Rather then go on about what we don't agree with, I'm hoping that by defining common goals we may get to an amicable solution quicker:

Quick recap on things that someone might agree on (?) :

• Many templates primarily for use in the user: namespace may not be approriate to be housed in Template: namespace
  • User: and/or Wikipedia: namespace may be a more approriate place for these items
• Templates that meet the community standards for Inflammatory or Personal Attacks are not approriate anywhere.
• Templates designed to express a point of view are generally inapproriate to be categorized.
• Templates expressing a skill-set may warrant categorization.

Endorsements:

1. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Anti-endorsements:

1. I cannot in good conscience endorse this policy. Cjmarsicano 05:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
2. If I read it correctly, the reason for Jimbo saying the first bullet point isn't because those templates are meant for the User namespace but because he feels those boxes are advocacy or advertising. I think moving them into User space does nothing to solve the primary problem. --AySz88^-^ 06:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Nearly all templates primarily for use in the User: namespace are not appropriate to be housed in Template: namespace.
  • User: or Wikipedia: namespace may be a more appropriate place for these items, although the better solution would be having them inline on the pages they are used.
    • The best solution is to use your own words, not silly colored boxes.
  • The only exceptions that currently come to mind are "This user is an admin" and "This user is a member of WikiProject _____".
• Templates that meet the community standards for Inflammatory or Personal Attacks are not appropriate anywhere.
• Templates designed to express a point of view should not include categories, period.
• Categories that are primarily used in the User: namespace should be deleted unless there's a very good reason for them to exist.

Endorsements:

1. Cyde Weys 04:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Agree with 1, 3 and 4, disagree with 2 because there are no "community standards" for what inflammatory userboxes are. Putting that into effect is essentially giving admins a blank slate. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 22:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Anti-endorsements:

1. I cannot in good conscience endorse this policy. Cjmarsicano 05:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
2. (copied from above) If I read it correctly, the reason for Jimbo saying the first bullet point isn't because those templates are meant for the User namespace but because he feels those boxes are advocacy or advertising. I think moving them into User space does nothing to solve the primary problem. --AySz88^-^ 06:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess I have to agree with AySz88 here. The best solution may be just to delete all userboxes immediately so that users don't have a chance to subst: them into their userpages. --Cyde Weys 06:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Er, I think that might be a bit too heavy-handed. I feel userboxes have an incredible potential for good if it becomes impossible for people to interpret them as advocacy / POV userboxes stop being advocates of POV (depending on your POV on userboxes :p ). (See above) --AySz88^-^ 18:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So you would irrevocably harm the project by making it more difficult for users to have userboxes displaying what POVs other editors should watch out for and neutralize? Rogue 9 14:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The project has been damaged by use of userbox template "what links here" lists and/or category entries created by userboxes, and continues to be so, including an incident just yesterday. On the other hand, I have asked for someone to cite any case where an article was improved by referals to POV userboxes, and no one has offered any case yet. I think it's clear that the greater danger is in allowing POV userbox templates. Using {{subst:Userbox}} is fine, but no templates or categories for anything POV and/or not contributing directly to building a quality encyclopedia. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 17:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I maintain that informing the userbase of xfD polls in progress, which we all are entitled to participate in, does not harm the encyclopedia. Rogue 9 14:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Every page nominated for deletion gets a notice template. If you have the page on your watchlist, you'll know. If you review the xfD pages regularly, you'll know. The problem is when a select group of editors is informed of an xfD, as that is usually an attempt to have a particular viewpoint prevail in the discussion. You have a right to participate in xfD discussion. I maintain that you don't have a right to be recruited as part of a select group. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 17:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, those who attempted to abuse the userboxes have been found out (User:Jason Gastrich for example) and any potential harmful contributions from them carefully watched by others, which probably isn't the type of benefit you're talking about, but a benefit nonetheless. It's difficult to mention any specific improvements since, to me, the main positive effect of userboxes is the make the user aware of their own biases, which is probably hard for other people to notice. Abuses, on the other hand, are a lot more visible. --AySz88^-^ 15:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

But, we only know about the ones who have been caught. We don't know how many have gotten away with it. And I strongly suspect that in most cases the POV userboxes reinforce biases, rather than leading the users of them to work to eliminate them from their editing. We have ample evidence of the dangers of POV userboxes as templates. The benefits claimed all seem to be theoretical. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 17:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

But then, "those who have gotten away with it" is theoretical too, no? :p As seen in the Jason Gastrich case, it looks like very few people can be notified (on the order of a couple) before someone he tried to notify cries foul, and that's not even a POV userbox, where more people are watching closer. I don't really think it's possible to do something like that without having someone getting suspicious of why a silent majority suddenly sprang up. In their current form, yes, POV userboxes tend reinforce bias in peoples' minds, but I think they can (again, see above) be reworded to make a positive intent clear and promote NPOV in encyclopedia matters. --AySz88^-^ 20:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

FOUL!?

• FOUL! Does that mean we can't create a userbox for Wikipedia:WikiProject Hello! Project then? This is ridiculous. You might as well say no more articles. --CJ Marsicano 04:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You are welcome to create the userbox for that WikiProject, just put it somewhere like Wikipedia:WikiProject Hello! Project/Userbox. Or a better idea would be to write the code on your WikiProject page and encourage the users to copy that onto their userpage. The bottom line is it shouldn't be in Template: namespace. --Cyde Weys 04:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • There are a number of projects that have userboxes already, and some of them are in templatespace. I'm not sure I see why these project specific userboxes (or messageboxes for that matter, there are MANY projects with messageboxes.. see my user page for usage, I have two there) have to go in projectspace exactly... could you elucidate? ++Lar: t/c 19:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
      • The general case for the deletion of the vast majority of userbox templates is that they don't help build the encyclopedia and/or are unencyclopedic content. This same claim can't exactly be made about the WikiProject userboxes, though, so I don't know if this rationale is so strong. I still think it'd be preferable for them to be moved into WikiProject space though because, at least to me, Template: should be mainly for templates that are used in main articlespace and WikiProject: is thus a good place for WikiProject-related templates that are exclusively used in User: space. --Cyde Weys 19:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I've been following all this discussion fairly closely for quite some time now, so you don't have to repeat all the claims about why or why not userboxes are or are not divisive, disruptive, etc... I guess my issue here is that you seem to have come up with some rather blanket provisions and are claiming them as policy without giving cites to where they are actually mandated as such, and without the consensus process having arrived at them as policy (independent of mandates). The consensus process seems to be coming to rest at a set of policies rather different than the draconian ones you are claiming are policy. ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Keeping manual userboxes up to date

A lot of userbox templates have been eliminated, under the hungry deletionism opened by WP:CSD#T1. In many cases these boxes have been subst'ed. In order to prevent rampant forking of common boxes, we should set up example code pages where the most up-to-date form of a manually generated userbox can be maintained. Those who want to use that userbox code can then put those pages on their watchlist so they can stay up to date with modifications. We could store those pages under appropriate subpages and sub-sub-pages of WP:UB. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

<sarc>Wouldn't it be a lot easier for others to just transclude them </sarc> -- xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 22:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yar, and it would even save space. Of course, WP:WINP, though not that that precept has affected the argument against UB templating. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why userboxes need to "updated". Presumably if a user puts userbox code (no more transclusions assumed) on their userpage they are happy with it, and if they aren't happy with it, they should modify it upon placement. Userboxes are about "free expression", right? Isn't it a good thing if everyone's userbox is slightly different? Why should they all have to be kept uniform and conform to whatever "updates" were coming down the line? A lot of revert wars were triggered by userboxes linked to by dozens, even hundreds of userpages, because one user would change its look to what they considered "best", which would change it on every other userpage it was used on, this upset other people, etc. It's pretty ugly. There's absolutely no reason userboxes should be standardized. Indeed, they should be as individualized as someone writing freeform prose on their page describing their beliefs. --Cyde Weys 22:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming you meant banned-from-Template-space advocate/POV userboxes, not stuff like the Babel boxes or Wikiproject boxes? --AySz88^-^ 21:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Retaining deleted UB templates

What is WP:UB doing in regards to deleted userbox templates? Are they being removed from the WP:UB lists? It would seem better overall in the spirit of this project to maintain deleted UBs on the appropriate pages, available as copyable source. We shouldn't let the arguments over what belongs in templatespace affect the ability to organize boilerplate userspace material. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

User:MarkSweep's mass removal of categories from templates

User:MarkSweep has just done a mass removal of category tags from Userbox templates [1]. Basically rending most of this user categorisation empty. What is the current view on this? --Salix alba (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That it should all be reverted, but would be too much work to do. POV-based userboxes will probably be replaced by interest-based userboxes, and the same for usercategories ("this user is interested in Christianity", not "this user is a Christian"—just like WikiProjects exist by field of knowledge, not by bias), or a similarly drastic change, so whenever a coherent userbox/usercategory policy exists, such vigilante action will no longer be necessary and all the problems being caused right now by such wide-scale actions can be reversed with the help of bots, etc. All of the changes can be fixed and reverted at any point in the future, so if MarkSweep likes wasting his time to push an agenda, I see no point in denying a fellow human being his chance at brief happiness. That's how I see it, anyway. :F Plus I'd rather the discussion on a userbox policy continue than have it be sidetracked by yet another rogue-admin-beatdown. There are more important things to do. Like, oh yeah, encyclopedia. :o -Silence 11:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding ("this user is interested in Christianity", not "this user is a Christian"—just like WikiProjects exist by field of knowledge, not by bias): Are you saying that stating one "is a Christian" is being biased? - dcljr (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Just my $.02, but I think that userbox categories should stay, for two reasons. 1. Wikipedians with similar interests may be interested in meeting eachother, so having UB Categories isn't too terrible. 2. For collaborations. For example, I have {{User AFOL}} (That's: Adult fan of Lego) on my userpage. I might sometime in the future want to build on an article such as Lugnet, so having a category Wikipedian AFOLs would be pretty helpful if I was looking for others to help with editing such an article. I feel strongly that Categories in Userboxes can really help the project. Reuvenk_[T][C] 00:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

MarkSweep deleted all these great userboxes. MarkSweep is also a vandal. He vandalized my userpage and insulted me on my talk page. He needs to get banned. The Republican 03:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

He has just deleted the Pimp userbox (which I made) because he said it was orphaned. I recreated it and can be found on my userpage. The Republican 22:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If you think Marksweep is wrong, find two other users that agree with you, I suggest arbitration, if that fails, please file a report with Arbcom. Masssiveego 01:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think userboxes should be kept, because if an administrator wants to delete the userbox, he/she should contact the creator of the userbox and tell the creator whats right and whats wrong. Then the admin should suggest ways to better the userbox not delete it! Userboxes show one's way of expressing themselves, and if that gets taken away, its like loosing the right to vote for your own government! Funnybunny 01:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm! -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

What? Is there something wrong about my user history? Funnybunny 03:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll let others decide for themselves. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 10:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I must admit, I spend most of my time editing my own userpage but not real articles. But, who else wouldn't, right? Funnybunny 21:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have your priorities out of whack. Please read Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 23:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least I have threee successful edits to the main part. Funnybunny 01:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Other languages

And what of the userboxes on the other wikipedias?--ikiroid | (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you ever make new user boxes?

well?

Pece Kocovski 23:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You can make all the userboxes you want on your user page (well, no personal attacks, no copyvio, no fair use images, no categories). Use {{subst:Userbox}}. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 01:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I hate to quibble with you, Dalbury; you seem to be on the right side. But let's be completely honest to Pece:

There is no established policy governing UBX specifically (at the time I make this comment). The community is groping toward a policy but the issue is extremely contentious with strong feelings on all sides. At the moment it certainly seems that you can create UBX within the limits Dalbury outlined but there are a lot of opinions that differ. It's up to you. John Reid 02:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• If you make a sacrifice to the gods, namely me, when the sun is at its zenith the wrath of the cabal may be avoided.--God Ω War 04:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Respect

Some respect would be nice. I think it is quite obvious that something like "This user thinks that niggers stink" should be speedy deletable. The question is where are the boundaries. In my opinion anything that attacks others rather than endorses something or represents legitimate criticism should be speedy deleted. That in my eyes includes "This user does not tolerate Marxism" or even "fascism" as long as we allow to have political party user boxes given that there are marxist and fascist parties around and we cannot set up double standards for them.

? ? ?

ROGNNTUDJUU! thinks that users who cross out flags show a lack of respect for those represented by them and therefore created this template.

02:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Debate

A heated debate is going on, which I am actively involved. It's about the Userbox redirect page. Some people want it deleted, because it is a "soft" redirect (whatever the hell that is). Some people, like me, want it kept for convinience, the benifit of new users, its part in userboxes in general, and its part of a vendetta to delete most userboxes, which users like MarkSweep are invovled in. Feel free to put a comment on the disscusion page or its entry on the RFD (under March 2nd). I'd also appreciate your comment on my talk page. Thanks. The Republican 00:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a cross-namespace link, which is deprecated because it breaks when Wikipedia is mirrored by other sites. This should be deleted as a technical problem, not because it has anything to do with userboxes. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 11:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

are there any warhammer 40000

userboxes?

Pece Kocovski 11:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I certainly hope not. Your userpage is provided to help you contribute to Wikipedia. It is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 12:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you try to rephrase that, it does unfortunatly sound a little uncivil. Thanks! Ian13/talk 14:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Warhammer 40,000 is a valid and noteworthy Wikipedia topic. As long as you are using the userboxes to help explain your interests in editing Wikipedia articles and get in contact with people who could help work on them, I don't see how anyone could conceivably object to that. See Wikipedia:Userboxes/Games for the page where such a userbox would be, if anywhere. And don't mind the somewhat-less-than-polite initial reception; userboxes are a touchy subject for many Wikipedians these days. Although it's orphaned and has only existed for four days, a little clever, in-depth searching (i.e. guessing) allowed me to find the userbox you seek: {{user 40k}} is a Warhammer 40k userbox. Enjoy! -Silence 14:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

How do you make userboxes?

Is there a page for that?

Pece Kocovski 23:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC) Just type in the url for the box you want like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Nameformybox The "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User" should remain the same. The rest is up to you.--God Ω War 16:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

whats an url? Pece Kocovski 23:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You really shouldn't be making new userboxes at this juncture. They're on their way out. And as for URL, this is Wikipedia, you know. You can find out here. --Cyde Weys 00:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If you do want to make a new userbox, you should probably be making it on your own userpage using {{Userbox}}, rather than making a new template. Instructions on how to do so are at Wikipedia:Userboxes—the project page that this talk page is attached to. — Jeff | (talk) | 01:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the UBX policy?

What happened to the userbox policy and its poll? It seems that activity has stopped. CG 19:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No consensus either way (61% support), so a new one needs to be drafted somehow. --AySz88^-^ 20:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It's already underway, it's just being done a bit differently this time. --Cyde Weys 20:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you give me the link? CG 20:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The actual policy isn't being done in the public eye until it is actually implemented, but here's an idea of what it may look like: Wikipedia:Proposed template and category usage policy. --Cyde Weys 00:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't being done in the public eye? Why? Is it classified? ;-) CG 17:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

We all know what happened the last time it was done in the public eye ... vote-stacked to death by Myspacers. --Cyde Weys 01:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Umm, any vote you reach in secret won't be valid.--God Ω War 01:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking this his user contribs, He might be talking about this page: Wikipedia:Userfying_userboxes.--God Ω War 02:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

<--

(edit conflict) I'm not sure I understand - I hope you're not talking about your own proposal as if it's an official policy in progress, and it's probably a bad idea to not be looking for others' comments especially as it seems people are finding problems with it. --AySz88^-^ 02:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

For reference

All the userbox policy proposals I'm aware of (with commentary):

WP:UPP → Userbox policy poll

Would have effectively banned transclusion (without substitution) of any templates except those which "declare a relevant skill, speciality, editing interest, or membership of a valid wiki-grouping."

WP:UBP → Proposed policy on userboxes

Same as WP:UPP, but would also ban images in userboxes.

WP:UUB → Userfying userboxes (formerly Use of userboxes)

Similar in effect to WP:UPP, but without the draconian limits on transclusion, so 'cluding templates from user subpages is fine as long as they don't violate policy.

WP:UUSM → Unacceptable userspace material

Largely restates existing policy and common-sense expectations of user conduct, with a few curveballs thrown in at the end.

WP:TCU → Proposed template and category usage policy

Cyde's proposal. Similar in effect to WP:UUB, but also covers categories. The present wording has one or two loopholes/ambiguities I'd like filled in, but it seems like it could turn out to be a fair compromise proposal.

—Andux^␅ 04:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Status of 02:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC):

• UPP: Rejected; poll closed.
• UBP: Rejected
• UUB: Rejected
• UUSM: Proposed
• TCU: Proposed

Both of the active proposals are similar to the three that have been rejected. Details are different but essentially all five are bans against UBX in template namespace. John Reid 02:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The missing principle of the anti-UB crusade

From WP:UP: What can I have on my user page?

Anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project. It's a mistake to think of it as a homepage: Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider. Instead, think of it as a way of organising the work that you will be doing on the articles in Wikipedia, and also a way of helping other editors to understand who they're working with. (emphasis mine) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

New series of userboxes

I created a series of "This user is glad to help in" userboxes here. I think that that's what userboxes need to do: offer easier way to collaboration and interaction between users. What are your thoughts before I templify them? CG 12:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best to delay creating new userbox templates until userbox policy is settled. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 13:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I like these, finally some userboxes which might help build an encyclopedia. Could possibly be more specific in specifying what fields you could help in. --Salix alba (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Be free to create and modify them. CG 09:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Help with a userbox

First off, I hope I'm asking this in the right place (I was directed here by someone in the Help area). I noticed that there currently is not a category for Wikipedian Insurance Agents. I created a userbox for this, and display it on my page, but am unable to find out how to both create this new category as well as how to link my userbox to it. Any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. --Mtgkooks 18:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

My own userboxes

Where can I promote my own custom userboxes (see User:Sarazyn/Userboxes)? --Sarazyn 19:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I need to promote me new ones too.

Here they are.

SU	This user is a Syracuse Orange fan. Go Orange!

DQ	This user eats at Dairy Queen.

ASU	This user is an Arizona State fan.

McDonald's

This user works at McDonald's.

DET	This user is a Detroit Pistons fan.

UT	This user is a Tennessee Volunteers fan.

• They are of course just a bunch of code, and not properly organized into proper templates either in the userspace or the template space. — natha(?)nrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 04:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I support these userboxes... but-- on the first one, the inside should be a different color than blue, so you can see the link. And on the 4th one (McDonald's) you should make the heading MD instead of the word McDonald's.. Just a suggestion, you can leave it if you want. --User:Domthedude001 18:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

45px?

Do all userboxes have to be 45px? I just made a userbox (my first one) and if it is 45px. While it is 45px, you can't see the image very well.

App	This user is a huge fan of The Apprentice.

If it is 90px it can be seen fine.

App	This user is a huge fan of The Apprentice.

Thanks.

Mr. Turcotte 01:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoops! I deleted this by mistake. Thanks for the advice God of War. Mr. Turcotte 14:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah well, just forget about it. This can be deleted. Mr. Turcotte 21:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

No moratorium

There is no moratorium, official or unofficial, on the construction of new UBX, either in template or user namespace. Claims will be made from time to time but the plain truth is that all debate on the topic has resulted in no consensus. John Reid 15:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Question on userboxe templates

Im looking for this solution for my own wiki project on my own server so please nobody give me the policies here, but I figured I would ask those who have made user boxes. I want to create a box that will allow a person to put in 7-8 variables and have them filled in. For an example look at tearstar.sytes.net/Observer/Wiki/index.php?title=Template:User_boxes for the template. The one I am having trouble on is the second one with all the variable, any help on this please direct to my talk page. Thanks P.s. I'd also like to make the image a variable for them to input if that is possible . . .Tearstar 01:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Ok I got it all to work except for the image in the box as a variable that they can input Tearstar 02:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Political and Religious Userboxes

OK, let's have a discussion. Things have been relatively calm in the Great Userbox War for a while, and I think we should keep it that way. Much as I want to get rid of polemical userboxses, I don't think it is fruitful at this time to try to remove those sections from the project page. I think it would also be politic to not create or promote any political, religious or other 'polemical' userboxes for the time being. Let's see if we can maintain a truce for a while, and try to calmly work on a policy that will be acceptable to most Wikipedians. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Works for me, leave them until a policy is decided upon. -Objectivist-C 23:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it these links should stay until a policy is determined. -- JamesTeterenko 01:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Colour

<span style="colour:#ffffff;"> and the like don't do anything. Trust me, only "color" works. I know there are a lot of people who like Commonwealth English like I do, but CSS doesn't acknowledge it. -Wilson 14:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how that's relevant. -Objectivist-C 14:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Line 111:

|-

|id-fc

+|The font <span style="colour:#090">colour</span> of the id box text

+|CSS colour value

It's relevant because it breaks the CSS.

-Wilson 16:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, I'd mistaken you for the person who tried to Americanize all the spelling on the project page. -Objectivist-C 19:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

I belive it would be a smart thing to do if Userbox and Userboxes would both redirect to Wikipedia:Userboxes. Oppose or support?

This would be a bad idea, because it would open up a can of worms and almost certainly be reverted in a very short time. The Great Userbox War has quieted down for now, and I personally would like to see it stay quiet. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 18:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Babel-like template

I am familiar with the Babel language template (I may be using the wrong words) where it's feasible to section-off the languages one speaks... Is there, by any chance, a similar template for one's ancestry? I have ancestors from several different countries and was hoping to make a neat section on my userpage.--Brian1979 11:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Request

There is no way I could get a Facist user box is there? MegaloManiac 17:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Also can someone create a WWE fans Userbox please? arsenalwwerulz 16:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"This user" vs "I".

How about reducing the verbiage to e.g.: "I want to be your friend.", "I'm interested in ancient Rome", and "My time zone is GMT+2."? -- Jeandré, 2006-05-01t21:13z

Nah. -Silence 21:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:CSD

Please see the ongoing changes to WP:CSD that may make most userboxes speedy deletion candidates. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If this newly-expanded criterion is accepted and implemented, do I have users' permissions to move most of the userboxes on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion to more appropriate names and functions? For example, {{User:UBX/muslim}} "This user is a Muslim" moved to {{user islam}} "This user is interested in Islam", with notices sent to the users' pages letting them know about the change so they can remove the box if it no longer applies. I suggested a change like this a while back, but didn't get any replies at the time, and now it looks like it'll help save a lot of time and effort on both sides, and will avoid any unnecessary religion-related conflicts. -Silence 13:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a constructive approach to me. Ian13/talk 17:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was going to go for it today, but now that it seems that the entire page is on TfD (and leaning towards "keep"), I suppose I'll have to wait until the debate's over to make such major changes... Unfortunate. -Silence 00:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Moving userboxes from Template space to User space

If it's such a big deal to have userboxes in Template space, why not simply establish a user account called "Template" and place userboxes on its subpages? An example of the comparable syntax is shown below.

Template space syntax	User space syntax
Template:User fish owner	User:Template/Fish owner
This user is a fish owner.	{{User:Rfrisbie/Fish owner}}

Considering the heated debate about userboxes, this would take one objection to them (inappropriate use of Template space) out of the mix. Rfrisbie^talk 17:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, such technically void solutions really defeat the purpose of why people object to the template thing. Userbox spacer accounts are, in my opinion, one of the worst possible solutions. Approving a new namespace would be better than that... Ian13/talk 17:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite, exactly what is the purpose of why people object to the template thing? (please ignore any fish metaphors ;-) Rfrisbie^talk 18:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I personally think the whole template thing is abit stupid too. Ian13/talk 07:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, creating a new namespace works for me too. Rfrisbie^talk 21:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This still allows votestacking via the "what links here" functionality. ++Lar: t/c 22:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It also allows collaboration. Why is this not a greater good? Rfrisbie^talk 22:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Votestacking is a trivial nuisance considering that Wikipedia is run by consensus, not vote, and considering that such crude mechanisms as gathering votes based on users with similar userboxes are always incredibly easy to identify, and are rare enough not to outweigh the potential benefits of userboxes for fostering community, openness, tolerance, and informative self-expression in userspace. I also think moving all userboxes to userspace would be a good idea, including Babelboxes, which are not fundamentally different from various other 'boxes as they, too, are intended solely for userspace. However, I don't see this as essential for the same reason that we don't need extra userspaces or anything for usercategories like Category:Wikipedians and Wikipedia-categories like Category:WikiProjects and so on: if a category or template is only used on such pages, then for all practical purposes, they are in that namespace (in that they are bound by its rules, not the rules of article-space and templates that appear there), since that's the only place they'll be seen. Whether or not they're in this or that namespace is more a technicality than anything, and a very weak justification for doing anything dramatic about them. There's no danger whatsoever of userbox tendencies spilling into article-space templates. -Silence 00:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

All good points, which I support. My only interest in making this suggestion was to help clarify the core issues about userboxes, at least for myself. My current working hypothesis is that a basic operational intent of the "deletion" advocates is to eliminate any form of automated groupings of wikipedians by "topic" as a means to frustrate automated votestacking tactics. Those who would support this intent would most likely oppose any efforts at enabling a "What links here" mechanism, regardless of the resident namespace. They also would oppose any mechanisms, automated or otherwise, to categorize wikipedians by the related topics. I also agree that simply defining any template that starts with the word, "User" to be subject to the policies and guidelines of userspace is sufficient, if automated groupings of wikipedians by topic is acceptable. To me, that's the rub (over using templates for userboxes) in a nutshell. The deeper issue seems to be over disputes about what constitutes expressing "legitimate points of view" vs. "biased points of view." But that's another discussion. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 02:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I just think that moving to a 'ghost' user template space is really pointless and stupid, I can't see what would be wrong with a seperate namespace though - but then some just want to go the whole hog and delete them all, holding back any constructive action. Ian13/talk 07:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree creating a "ghost" space is goofy. I just wanted to see if it would help resolve any issues. My preference is to keep userbox templates where they are and adopt a userbox policy that allows it. The last time I looked at the draft Userbox policy, that was the case. Rfrisbie^talk 13:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

A comment from a rather unexperienced user follows.

I've been reading the debate - not all of it, it's long, but enough I think to get the jist - with interest, and for my part I've "subst:"-ed the three userboxes that I presently use (using a HTML comment to record the names of the original source userboxes). Personally, I have absolutely no problem with the idea of moving userboxes to userspace in principle, but would like it to be done in such a way that:

1. There continues to be an informative and useful central source of information about userboxes, how to get them, and what to do with them (i.e. the Wikipedia:Userboxes page: not to say that this couldn't be improved somewhat.)
2. There continues to be a central repository of userboxes - or else a repository of repositories of userboxes.

I might be mistaken, but it seems to me that a possible way to achieve #2 while also transferring boxes to userspace is as follows. Create a category, "Users who have designed userboxes". Allow subcategories to be created: "Users who have designed userboxes about topic". Link from Wikipedia:Userboxes to the category index page. Write a page on "How to write a section or page in your userspace advising people about how to include your userboxes on their userpages". Put this page where it will be seen by those who are interested in creating userboxes and sharing them. Let people create userboxes in their userspaces, write pages or sections on their userspace advising people about how to use them, and add these userspace pages to the aforementioned categories.

Then the "Users who have designed userboxes" category would be the central repository as per #2. There'd be a problem with redundancy, lots of near-identical userboxes probably, but it's a compromise to consider.

But hey, if the intermediary step is to encourage people to use subst: then it seems absolutely plain to me where this should start.

• Q: How do people know what code to use for their userboxes?
• A: They copy and paste it from the Code column on pages such as, say, Wikipedia:Userboxes/Colours.
• Q: How do we begin persuading people to use subst: for userboxes?
• A: By changing the Code column on pages such as Wikipedia:Userboxes/Colours so that it advises people to use subst:.

End of comment. Zerrakhi 13:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Many of these and related issues are posted at Wikipedia:Mackensen's Proposal/Straw Poll. If you haven't done so already, please weigh in. Rfrisbie^talk 22:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I’ve added a partial list of discussions that might help formulate "The German solution" at Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates#The German solution. Please feel free to add other related discussions. Rfrisbie^talk 23:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Screen resolution userboxes?

I think it would be a good idea to have userboxes announce the display resolution of the user's monitor. This is actually a helpful information related to contributing to Wikipedia, at least in the same manner as announcing the browser and operating system. I myself have my monitor set to 1600x1200 and I often come up to pages where the image layout gets all messed up. However the page looks fine on lower resolutions as then the text fills more space between the images and they are not in danger of overlapping. The layout problem is especially related to the otherwise perfect template:chess diagram. So, I propose something like this:

1600 x 1200

This user has their display resolution set to 1600x1200.

--ZeroOne 20:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Note

I've created a proposal for ending the disagreements over userboxes. Comments are welcomed. Mackensen (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This is one of four proposals that have been cross-referenced. Are there any others? Rfrisbie^talk 03:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Alternative userbox proposals
  • Wikipedia:Userbox policy
  • Wikipedia:Mackensen's Proposal
  • User:Misza13/Userbox Gallery Poll
  • Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll (Failed to achieve consensus)

I don't know whether you can call it "active", but my own idea hasn't really been defeated, I think. --AySz88^-^ 04:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The failed proposal probably should be removed from the list. You always could add yours to the project page and the current proposals. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 04:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Modifying the Userbox template

It would be useful to add the following optional parameters to the templates Userbox, Userbox-r and Userbox-2, and then update Wikipedia:Userboxes to document this.

info-lcu	The colour used for unvisited links in the info box
info-lcv	The colour used for visited links in the info box

That way, people could more easily include links to relevant articles on their userbox designs without having to worry about whether the default link colours show up against their chosen background colour. Zerrakhi 10:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Religion and belief userboxes

I've proposed some a bunch of changes on Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Beliefs and Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Religion, in the hopes of preventing a big, wasteful battle over CSD T2. I've asked on a bunch of pages about this, but have gotten very little response, so I'll ask again here: is this a good idea, or no? And if the former, would anyone be willing to help in at least the mass-substing part, since that's the only part of the moves I won't be able to do myself? -Silence 16:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Matters of real concern

What really concerns me is that while the userbox war rages, the actual maintenence of userboxes as a dynamic resource is being neglected. Part of the problem is the absence of a coherent, documented process for submitting new userboxes. It is not necessary for the war to come to a resolution before documentation can be improved.

Here's a fundamental question. Are users welcome to modify the userbox gallery by inserting new userboxes and corresponding generation code, or not? (Note: some people occasionally use the term "userbox" when they actually mean "userbox template", but the terms should be used correctly and distinctly.) One symptom of a wider problem is that there exists almost no documentation whatsoever about Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/New_Userboxes, the processes governing it, or how it is of benefit to users. I'm not opposed to some sort of review process before userboxes are added to the gallery, but it's got to be documented.

It is, in my opinion, very important that such matters be clarified on Wikipedia:Userboxes. Failure to do so is a disservice to users, particularly new users. The quality of documentation advising users what to do with new userboxes they want to share is, frankly, pitiful, and the only reason why Wikipedia:Userboxes contains a section on "submitting your designs" at all is because I added it myself.

Zerrakhi 05:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
[Original comment replaced with digest summary by Zerrakhi at 18:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)]

Proposal - userbox namespace

The TFD rules have been time and time again inappropriately applied to userboxes ("unencyclopedic" and "advertising" keep coming up despite having traditionally been fine in userpages). I think there should be a separate namespace for templates intended to be used on userpages. Maybe even allow user subpages to be treated as templates (so that the "owner" of a userbox can have it in their own userpage space) --Random832^T 12:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Migration of usercruft into new namespaces. —Ashley Y 21:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of User:Tony Sidaway's change to the userbox page, 28 May

I did this change [2]:

"This page is an organized directory of userboxes. These are only intended to be used on userpages. Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia, and as a means to that end, an online community. Userboxes are to help us create the best encyclopedia we can."

To:

"This page is an organized directory of userboxes. These are only intended to be used on userpages. Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia. Please consider working on encyclopedia articles rather than userboxes."

The reason is this edit [3] in which an editor says:

"The introduction to Wikipedia:Userboxes states, "Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia, and as a means to that end, an online community. Userboxes are to help us create the best encyclopedia we can." When I initially read this statement, I felt confident userboxes were a reasonable tool to support collaboration and community building within the online community dedicated to building this encyclopedia. In that spirit, I added a few userboxes to my page (just as Jimbo has) and joined the related WikiProject."

In fact, Jimbo has never added userboxes to his user page, and when he has found them he has removed them [4].

It's pretty bad that we have new editors who think that being a Wikipedian is about getting some templates and sticking them to their user pages. I have accordingly updated the wording of this page. --Tony Sidaway 06:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I second Tony's changes. The previous wording was giving some Wikipedians the wrong idea on the status of userboxes and the status of their endorsement by the community (there is none). --Cyde↔Weys 06:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I object to the change, as I don't believe the rejection of userboxes has the consensus of the community. —Ashley Y 06:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop moving the goalposts. We're not talking about rejection, we're talking about acceptance. Userboxes really haven't been accepted by the higher-ups here, and that old intro text was misleading. --Cyde↔Weys 06:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus either way, and the box should reflect that. So now it has neither the original implicit endorsement nor the implicit rejection. —Ashley Y 06:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I also object the changes. Tony, I know you act in best faith, but please stop making unilateral changes to controversial issues. You said repeatedly consensus is important and that there currently is no consensus regarding userboxes. Blocking pro-userbox motions with this argument, while ignoring it in anti-userbox issues makes it a double standard. CharonX 23:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• So why not just merge the two versions into one, and thus lose no information? "This page is an organized directory of userboxes. These are only intended to be used on userpages. Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia, and as a means to that end, an online community. Userboxes are to help us create the best encyclopedia we can. Please consider spending your time working on encyclopedia articles rather than userboxes." -Silence 07:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely we shouldn't be aiming to dictate what Wikipedians do with their time. It is quite clear on the UBX page that they are unofficial and not endorced, why do we need to do more? "This page requires cleanup, but please consider doing something in real life first." Ian13/talk 09:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to point out that the sentence in question was added[5] by User:WAS 4.250 to {{WM UB}}, and from there it was apparently copied here at some point. I'm thinking that WAS 4.250 wasn't intending it as a misleading claim that userboxes enjoy widespread acceptance, but as a statement that the purpose of userbox use ought to be to serve in creating the best encyclopedia we can. Obviously there's a large number of userboxes right now that don't serve that purpose (such as humor boxes and political/belief boxes—at least in template form). I do happen to think that there's a reasonable middle ground of userboxes that come closer to serving that purpose of improving the encyclopedia—something like what was proposed in the (lamentably under-supported) Userbox Policy Poll from a few months ago. In any case, if the sentence is being (mis)interpreted to suggest wide community acceptance of all uses of userboxes, then perhaps it ought to be removed or rephrased. I do think there is some value, though, in prominently emphasizing that userboxes ought to be used to help us create the best encyclopedia we can. — Jeff | (talk) | 09:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The category I created: a new way to share userboxes

Following long periods of reflection and hesitation, I went ahead today with a plan to do something about the shadow that seems to be looming eternally over userboxes and their future. For the good of the community, I have implemented a means for people to design and publicise userboxes without guilt, and without even having to wait for any new policies to be decided.

My scheme for userbox publicisation keeps the userboxes entirely within the designer's userspace, and makes them available to the community through a new category I have created, namely Category:User pages displaying original userboxes and corresponding code. I have documented this on Wikipedia:Userboxes, and I did it all to meet a need which I perceive to exist. I hope for this category to complement the central gallery on Wikipedia:Userboxes, but to be gentler on the conscience of userbox designers, who can know that they are placing their designs where new users can find them while not in the process troubling anyone, cluttering template space, or imposing their own aesthetic tastes upon public resources.

In my opinion the wiki process is not well adapted to pages on which people share the produce of their own creativity (such as userboxes). Even if there were no userbox war, I would not be entirely comfortable about contributing directly to the gallery, because who am I to impose my aesthetic tastes on others by submitting my creative effort to a gallery that belongs to everyone? I am not, philosophically, at ease with that. Disputes about article content can be settled by more or less objective criteria such as verifiability, but I believe creative works are best shared either on a space that the creator has control over, or on a space governed by a centralised process of nomination and review.

My solution offers people an alternative that they can take advantage of right now without having to wait for other people to make a decision. It offers a means of sidestepping the userbox war, without sidestepping userboxes. It offers a mechanism by which people can design and share new userboxes, and simultaneously keep the peace. That is the contribution I have made, following long periods of reflection and hesitation. I offer it; and potentially, others will endorse it and it will grow. Zerrakhi 19:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, you don't know what sort of userboxes are available there until you click on a userspace and browse. Ian13/talk 19:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the way is open for people to create subcategories to handle that to at least some extent. Zerrakhi 04:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The StuffOfInterest draft

I've tried not to get too deeply involved with this debate over the last five months but it is hard to see everyone thrashing about with nothing but destruction resulting. To that end, and after looking at too many policy proprosals and polls in the past, I'm ready to offer up my own suggestion. I'm not looking to start another poll (yet) but would like to get some feedback on what people think is or is not possible given the current state of the community.

1. A library of userbox construction code using the {{Userbox}} constructor template will be created in Wikipedia:Userboxes. If people want to use a userbox they can copy the constructor code to their user page.
2. The library will not be restricted on contents as long as the boxes do not represent a personal attack. It is OK to say you are for or against something. It is not OK to say someone else can not be something.
3. All add/changes/removes to the userbox list will go through discussion pages in the library area so there are no edit wars on the actual library pages.
4. Where possible, all userboxes will be substitued to the library code by automated bots.
5. Userboxes will come out of template space. All userbox related templates other than the {{Userbox}} constructor template will be deleted after they have been placed in the library and substituded on user's pages. If a template is only included on one user's page it can be subst'd and deleted without putting it in the library.
6. If a user wishes to share a userbox by turning it into a sub-page of their user page and thus allowing it to be transcluded on other user's pages this is allowed providing it is transcluded on the providing user's page and not part of a library being kept in a puppet or repository account. It may also be listed in the Wikipedia:Userboxes library with both code and a link to the transclude page.

Note that the last item (6) is based on what I've heard of the German Wikipedia solution. It lets people continue to use common code, gets the code out of template space, but doesn't require any new "spaces" to be created.

Anyone think it could float? --StuffOfInterest 22:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

How does this proposal address the following classifications? Rfrisbie^talk 23:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Categories → Category:Wikipedia administration → Category:Wikipedians

Category:Categories → Category:Wikipedia administration → Category:User templates

My feeling would be that category space, like template space, should be used only for encylopedia related content. As an example, I see it being acceptable to have Category:Wikipedians interested in atheism but not Category:Wikipedian atheists. If you are looking for someone to help edit an article with an atheism theme then you would look for someone interested in it not just someone who practices it. If one exception is to be made for a holding category named "Category:User templates" I can accept it if the community does, but it seems more like a big bag verses having the boxes categorized in the Wikipedia:Userboxes heirarchy. In general I'd much prefer to keep the category fight separate from the general userbox fight to avoid complicating things even further. Handle one issue at a time. --StuffOfInterest 23:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see these as seperate issues at all. Many deletionists are opposed to transcluding userboxes from anywhere because of the "votestacking" argument. Many oppose categories for the same reason. Many inclusionists support them for their utility in supporting collaboration. Category:Wikipedia administration is not for encyclopedic content, it's for the project. Category:User templates already exists as well. Just as now, it doesn't replace Wikipedia:Userboxes. It serves the same role as any other category, providing a network of relationships that is more diverse than a list article. Rfrisbie^talk 00:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately vote stacking is one of the arguements being used to oppose any transclusion. The fallacy of their reasonining is that it will never work. You can always do word searches on user pages to find those expressing a desired belief. Preventing vote stacking has to be done through policy. When an admin finds a user doing a mass petition then they should be able to revert out the entire batch of edits. Guess I'm preaching to the choir here. Just trying to get the various arguments down in writing to make it easier to reference later. --StuffOfInterest 00:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I would support this proposal (and I agree with StuffOfInterest on the categories), but I've also supported many of the other compromises, and none of them have passed. :( —MiraLuka 23:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I know the feeling. I've voted on perhaps half a dozen different policies for userboxes with very different contents in the hope that something would end the debate. Unfortunately, none of them seem to get past about the 60% mark. My hope here is that with Jimbo's implicit endorsement of the German solution, combined with a path for saving the box designs while getting them out of user space, can maybe someday get us to a working solution. --StuffOfInterest 00:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Just for reference, it was this edit on 27 May where Jimbo stated:

"There is a middle ground, I agree. The middle ground is to let people do as they will in the user space, and merely use reason and argument to teach people over time why one ought not use Wikipedia userpages for political or other campaigns.... while at the same time saying, no, really, the template namespace is not for that, that we do not endorse this behavior. This is the solution that the Germans have put into effect with great results."

And in this edit, CharonX explains how the German solution works with:

"Ok, here's the way it was organized on the German Wikipedia: There are almost non "userboxes" in the template (in German Vorlage) space, except for the standard "This user speaks XYZ" boxes and similar. All POV, interest, etc. boxes are part of the userspace - distributed amongst various userpages. I have grabbed a userpage at random of an admin called Davidshilling, note the userboxes? Click at the Babel-Vorlagen link and you will see a few userboxes. Any user may use these boxes on his or her page (he even provided a nifty copy&past link for that). If you check his userpage and view the source you will also see that some of the displayed boxes originate from other users' pages. Basically the German Wiki kept allmost all userboxes outside the template (Vorlage) space, inside the userspace. And since they are inside the userspace they are allowed to be POV, controversial, or whatever (yes, I firmly believe that there will be an editor found that feels offended by other users stating that he enjoys eating junk-food). A major collection of German userboxes offers the user Libro."

This is where Item 6 came from. --StuffOfInterest 00:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the solution for the userbox issue. It removes POV from template space. And it protects userboxes from (over)eager admins (T1 and NPOV does not apply). I have taken the first step and created an userbox archive subpage on my Userpage. Feel free to use any userboxes there in the usual manner (check my signature) CharonX talk Userboxes 19:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll probably start doing the same in the next few days. Several months ago I converted most of my userboxes to included code to avoid any deletions. It won't take much to convert these into subpages and transclude them back to my main page. I'd suggest also linking your new subpages from the Wikipedia:Userboxes index of boxes to make them easier to find.

To take things a step further, if someone has a spare bot hanging around, maybe it could scan the people who were linked to the old "User Christian" template that was deleted today and replace the references to the one on your subpage. This would be a first step towards user to user linking and may defuse the issue on the particular box (and other religion boxes) sooner rather than later. It is just plain sad to see how many times that box has been deleted and restored.

Ideally, I'd like to see an organized, concensus based approach to migrating from template space to user space but if we won't have cooperation then we can at least have a grass roots effort between users to get things moving. --StuffOfInterest 00:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition to linking from Wikipedia:Userboxes (or instead of it), there's also the category mentioned in the section directly above this one. Just throwing that out there. —MiraLuka 00:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Userboxes

I have resurrected User:Userboxes, as it seems using this for userboxes this abides by existing policy, even as the policy endorsing this as a solution to the userbox controversy was rejected. —Ashley Y 23:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Boxes is a better place.--God Ω War 05:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Boxes has been blocked, and the block notice complicates things. —Ashley Y 06:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it a good idea to have a mass archive such as this regardless of where it resides? My fear is that people will be tempted to factory mass create userboxes they have no intention of using themselves. This will leave the archive full of boxes which nobody has any intention of ever transcluding. At that point it really does become pollution. When people have actually bothered to go through TfD on userboxes I tend to check the number of inclusions. If a box has no inclusions I'll vote to delete it. If a box has only one inclusion I'll vote to subst and delete. If a user has to take ownership of the box they create (as in making it a sub-page of their own account and including them themselves) then they are less likely to take time creating a bunch of boxes they won't bother using. --StuffOfInterest 11:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I’ve added a partial list of discussions (including these two) that might help formulate "The German solution" at Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates#The German solution. Please feel free to add other related discussions. Rfrisbie^talk 23:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If this gains momentum, it sounds like a good idea. If the account ownder wants to reliquish WP:OWNership of their pages. I'll indef block it,but not put a banner. Let me know if you want something like that on my talk page. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review

It seems a lot of people don't know about Wikipedia:Deletion review. Many userboxes have been deleted ostensibly under T1, and then that deletion brought up for review, and this process continues. If you feel strongly (either way) about this, go make your opinion heard. —Ashley Y 00:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This assumes that ordinary, non-admin voices are listened to there. I flatly believe they are not. Jay Maynard 01:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel they are. People do generaly pay attention to non admins. PArticularly those with a well reasoned case.Geni 01:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed they are. Everyone is listened to, a consensus is formed, and then the consensus is promptly ignored. Angr (talk) 08:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Restructuring of userspace archives

Having all userspace archives of userboxes lumped together into one category really isn't satisfactory. I have therefore changed things, while it's still feasible to do so, to create seperate categories for pages displaying ORIGINAL userboxes (that is, invented by the owner of the userspace) versus pages displaying an archive of existing userboxes in accordance with the German solution. The category structure is now:

• Category:User pages displaying userboxes and corresponding code
  • Category:User pages displaying original userboxes and corresponding code
  • Category:User pages displaying a themed archive of userboxes and corresponding code

Could we please see a migration of userpages into appropriate subcategories? Of course, a page can belong to more than one subcategory if applicable. Zerrakhi 20:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

umm, saying the "structure is now" is a little presumptuous. Where was the concensus established? --StuffOfInterest 21:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Dividing things up works for me. Even though they're a tad wordy, I picked the third option for User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Pets. Rfrisbie^talk 22:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with StuffOfInterest. I fail to see what was "unsatisfactory" with the category. —Mira 23:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you know that panicky feeling you get in the pit of your stomach when you get superglue on your fingers or spill coffee on an encyclopedia, when all you can do is run to the kitchen to get a damp cloth to wipe it up? I felt precisely that emotion upon seeing how the category had evolved to make the word "original" in the title a misnomer, and I felt responsible for that, on account of having started the spill by creating the category. This action cost me considerably, incidentally, because I effectively lost an entire night's sleep wiping up what I regard as spilt coffee before it irretrievably damaged the paper. So by the time I'd finished and wrote the above, I was really, really, really tired!! (I still feel a bit queezy.) Zerrakhi 09:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

this user

I remember the days, long gone now, when seeing "this user" notices on userpages (styled after "this article" templates, implying that the Wikipedian is a product of Wikipedia just like Wikipedia articles, I suppose) gave me a chuckle here or there. I really find them just jarring by now, whatever happened to using the first person? But then, whatever happened to using your own words and your own imagination when describing yourself? If you even must describe yourself down to the last detail just to edit encyclopedia articles? Well, never mind me, I'm just an old Wikipedian stumbling in here muttering to himself before wandering back to where he came from, viz. article namespace (that's the articles with no "User:" in their titles, you can find it e.g. by browsing Category:Fundamental). dab (ᛏ) 17:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This user thinks that everyone should be allowed to refer to themselves in whatever person the choose to. This user also wishes you happy editing! ;-) Misza13 ^{T C} 20:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Trying to understand discrepancy, I want to solve this in one way or another:

Please read what is stated in the following talk page (it's short and I will paraphrase afterwards): Template talk:User Loves Azerbaijan. Nagorno-Karabakh is a highly contentious area that's been fought over between Armenia and Azerbaijan (home of some very nationalistic users, I am neither one). Here is the relevant summary adapted from the pretty well written article:

The region has been a source of dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan since the final years of the Soviet Union, it is currently under Armenian military control, as a result of the subsequent war the took place between both countries in the aftermath of the dissolution Soviet Union, the NKR is a de facto state because its sovereign status is not recognized by any country or international organization in the world. Armenia and Azerbaijan have been holding peace talks mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group, where, among other issues, the future status of the region is being discussed.

Thus the problem, there are clearly two sides to this debate: Armenia believes the area they conquered should be allowed to be independent (the rest of the world is holding on this), the Azeris say they want the area back/reunified --the whole story is a bit of a political mess engineered by Soviet rule (it's earlier history is also brought up in the Armenian SSR article). There are two sides and, unsurprisingly, an attempt for two userboxes. I don't think political userboxes should be permitted on Wikipedia, but at the same time I would like to see an even-handed either/or campaign. So here's my though: Either "This user dreams of a Liberated Azerbaijan" should be undeleted or "This user supports the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh" should also be deleted. Am I crazy to think this? For full disclosure I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Azeri, but my work there has remained neutral (and is listed there and on my userpage). What should I do? --Bobak 22:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

(I want to preface my comment by saying that I'm largely ignorant of the underlying political controversy, and that my advice below is based only on what I view to be a good practice for political userboxes in general.) I think probably the best thing to be done here would be to apply the German userbox solution and move such userboxes into userspace. If someone wants to recreate the pro-liberated-Azerbaijan userbox, that should be done on a user subpage of one of the userbox's supporters. (For example, if Baku87 wanted to recreate it, that userbox could be placed at User:Baku87/User Loves Azerbaijan). I don't know if the pro-independence userbox is still out there or if it has been deleted, as a Google search for the phrase "This user supports the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh" turned up a lot of subst-ed copies, but no userbox template. If it hasn't been deleted, then I think it too probably ought to be moved to a user subpage of one of its supporters. That way, both sides can continue to have a userbox (if they so wish) in such a way that makes it clear that such advocacy is entirely by individual users and has no official connection or endorsement by Wikipedia—because it's on a user subpage rather than in the actual template namespace, the userbox has increased distance from the encyclopedia proper and Wikipedia isn't put in this position of needing to ensure that both sides of a conflict are equally represented in userbox templates. — Jeff | (talk) | 08:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

My Opinion on Userboxes

Until now, I haven't aired an opinion on userboxes. So here it is.

I believe most userboxes aren't beneficial to the encyclopedia, though I would class babel, status (Admin, MedCom, ArbCom, and such), as well as membership userboxes should be excepted.

These three exceptions benefit the Wikipedia in various ways. It makes it easier for users to identify who to contact for help, hence improving the Wikipedia.

Going around speedying userboxes is in my opinion disrupting the Wikipedia, perhaps to the exten of breaching WP:POINT. By speedying these userboxes you are creating more disruption than userboxes themselves. The reason for this is the DRVs and controversary which follows.

I oppose any placement of these in special namespaces as they serve no benefit to the Wikipedia whatsoever, which IMO doesn't grant a new namespace. IMO, they should be in the [[User:]] space.

To summarise, most userboxes are bad - but as is the way this is handled. Computerjoe's talk 21:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Requesting WP:RFF userbox.

Hello. I created Wikipedia:Requests for feedback. This is a page where new Wikipedians can seek feedback on their edits and articles they write. They can then use the feedback to improve their editing skills as well as the article.

WP:RFF was never meant to be "just another new initiative". I hope to make it an integral part of Wikipedia. I am sure many serious newcomers would like feedback on their edits/articles, and RFF will be the place to go.

To make RFF successful and an integral part of Wikipedia, we will need links to RFF from high-exposure pages, as well as several editors who will regularly patrol RFF to give feedback.

Therefore, I am suggesting we make a userbox for RFF. The image could simply be the letters RFF. The text could be "This user regularly reads and responds to Requests for feedback" or something similar.

Hopefully someone could help me find a better wording, and add the userbox.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a start. Rfrisbie^talk 14:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Userbox}}

This user regularly reads and responds to Requests for feedback.

Cool, thanks! Now how do I get it listed on the appropriate official list of Wikipedia userboxes? Appropriate as in, there are userboxes for computers, languages, religion, etc. This would be under Wikipedia, of course. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I added it to Wikipedia:Userboxes/WikiProjects#Wikipedia. Rfrisbie^talk 15:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirect "Userboxes" here

Well? Good idea or not? THe article named "Userboxes" has been deleted, so I can't do it my self. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizrdwarts (talk • contribs) 12 June 2006 17:17 (UTC)

Not. Cross-namespace redirects are generally discouraged. The reason you can't edit the Userboxes page is that it has been protected so that it cannot be made into a redirect again. —Mira 23:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Any reason how come? Wizrdwarts T|C 21:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Erm...because cross-namespace redirects are discouraged as self-references. Think of the page "Userboxes" as an encyclopedia article. Should articles take us here? —Mira 22:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There are still plenty of other cross-namespace redirects on Wikipedia, though, including Wikipedia is not paper, no personal attacks disambiguation, and npov. -Silence 22:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If those were brought to WP:RFD, I would "vote" to delete them. I'd imagine the userbox redirect was deleted, and not these other ones, due to the controversial nature of userboxes themselves. —Mira 22:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

How to make a userbox

The direction on how to make a userbox are far too complicated.can someone please explain them in an easy way Dermo69.

What is complicated about them? Just use the {{userbox}} template and fill in the parameters as illustrated. Simple as soda. DJR (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No it is to complicated.Ive tried following the template but it just came out bad>:( Dermo69

Images in Userboxes

I haven't been able to find any information on how to put an image in the right or left section of a userbox. Is there a page on that? If not could someone explain it. I would not be using fair-use pictures, but non-copyrighted from places such as flickr. Thank You! Alexbrewer 22:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

All you have to do is insert an image into the "id"/"info" form of the userbox creation template. You have to deal with table syntax if you're using substed templates. There are examples on my user page -- getcrunkjuice 22:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ancientanubis complains the removal of the images in his userboxes {{User Straw Hat}}, {{User Full metal alchemist}}, {{User NERV}}, and {{user Ghostintheshell2}} because he claims that he legally owns the images. Here's the replies he gave me:

first off, i dont mean to sound rude when i say this

but from what i can tell, you've changed 4 of the ones i've made

1. One Piece
   • the image that i used here i uploaded my own copy
     • granted on further investigation i notice that there was already a copy on wiki but has been removed for reasons that i dont quite understand
       • again, here's a link
2. Ghost in the Shell
   • the image that i used for this one was provided on wikipedia, so i dont see why it was removed
     • here's a link
3. Evangilion
   • the image i used for this one was a one that i found online, i stated where i found it, and even though i forgot to do the copyright box when i uploaded it, i have sense fixed it
     • granted again, there is also a image of this already on wikipedia here i decided not to use this as it had a white background and i wanted a black for the one i was goin 2 use
4. Full Metal Alchemist
   • yet again, i clearly state where the image was found, and how i had edited it to remove some thigns that i didn't want on it
     • what i didn't mention was that it was an off shoot from a projet i did for school
       • what i did was outlined the entire picture of this and then cleaned that up, then proceeded to add actual picture's into it so that it looked realistic (yet agian, you can find a link here to see that), from all this i filled one in black for use as a buddy icon on an online game i play

so i appologise if i am missing some small detail hidden among a moutain of text but can you please tell me why these 4 templates had to be changed

thanks, --Ancientanubis 23:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

well first of, what is it you consiter to be "free use", i mean if i were to draw something in paint and then said anyone could use it... would that not be free use???

nextly(is that even a word[lol]), IMHO the ones that i edited(besides the NERV one) were some what pathetic them selves and i felt that it was a discredit to those shows to have them like that(i apologise if they are of your design, its just how i feel), the one piece one for example, yets it shows a jolly roger but i personally felt that it didn't capture the actual feel for the show so i changed it to something that did

so sence i feel that i'm fighting a battle that is already lost then let me ask you this, is there any way that i/we/who ever can work to make these box's soemthin a lil more respectible??

--Ancientanubis 16:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What can we do about this matter? - ???? | talk 23:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

First, be sure he knows that they are not "his" userboxes. Second, give him the link to WP:FAIR and explain that fair use images are only allowed in articles. If that doesn't work, find an admin. —Mira 04:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you already did some of that... —Mira 04:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy against false userboxes?

I've been trying to find a native Russian speaker on Wikipedia, and all I'm finding are idiots who flood their user pages with every single user box, including all the babel boxes. For example, User:F 22, and User:Dfrg.msc. Is there a policy against these blatant and misleading uses of babel boxes and other user boxes, and if not, should there be? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-20 12:17

No and no. —Mira 04:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that deserves an explanation. The problem is that such a rule would be unenforceable. How would a user prove they speak a language at the level they say they can other than by another user talking to them in the language (and even that might not work). —Mira 04:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

True, it would be virtually impossible to enforce such a policy for obvious reasons. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Why should we tolerate polemical userboxes?

You can have your own ideological, nationalistic or political views but why should anyone to be allowed to use userboxes to create a divisiveness? I would get rid of all support this-oppose that boxes if I could. This is common sense. It's not about freedom of speech but about this not being a blog but an encyclopedia! TheCooler 19:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

1. A discredited version of WP:CSD#T1 included the term "polemical". The stated version, apparently due to Jimbo, is "divisive and inflammatory".
2. Why should we tolerate editors who delete information from the encyclopedia, even if it is "polemical" boxes (transcluded or not) on user pages.

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I would ask, how is a userbox different from a statement, other than it is a statement in a colorful box? We allow users to place their ideological, nationalistic, and/or political views on their pages. And the deletion of userboxes has been far more divisive than any userbox on its own, as your actions have shown. —Mira 04:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like some honest opinions here. From what I see and read, Wikipedia is not censored. OK, Lets say I, (being a conservative) read an article under recent events, and it details the shooting of an abortion doctor: [Doctor shot at his home], and lets say I condone this (I really don’t, this is just for argument sake). Lets say many other conservative Wiki users feel this way too. And, lets say someone creates a userbox under the religion and or philosophy section that says “This user condones the protection of the un-born by any means”. And it becomes very popular. Would this be considered a "polemical" box? After all, this is only a belief. It is no different than the users box that says “This user believes in the death penalty”, meaning the execution of criminals to protect society is OK to them. Here also this is only a belief. Were do you draw the line. Who decides the line and where it is crossed? Is it Jimbo? After all, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Is the list of what is polemical on paper, or is it a flavor of the day based on an admin’s feeling? I’m not trying to stir up stuff, I just find it interesting that many users are getting their pages censored. Again, honest opinions here are welcome. JungleCat 17:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

In response to MiraLuka's question, I would say a colored box is rather different from a statement on a user page, because it turns a simple opinion into a badge. Iconography and images are extremely powerful, and affixing a badge to one's user space is a rather stronger statement than just putting text there. It helps encourage proliferation of partisan badges: "If their political party has a badge, mine should too!" It gives the impression of officialness, down to the use of third person: "This user is a Fooian" as opposed to "Hi, my name's such-and-such, and I'm a Fooian".

Replying to Junglecat, I don't really see censorship of content, just complaints about the form in which that content is presented. Jimbo was pretty clear that, although we think partisan user page content is probably a bad idea, we're not going on any warpath against it, but we are going to keep talking about why it's inappropriate, and the more official-looking it is, the less appropriate it is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this sounds too much like censorship in the grey areas - especially when it is not dealing with articles, but instead dealing with a user's page on display. I know I am not the only one who feels this way. I do appreciate your response on this. JungleCat 18:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Which grey areas are you referring to? What exactly do you see being censored? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask you this – Would a "protection of the un-born by any means" box mentioned above fall into a "polemical" box category? Can you honestly answer that? There will be others like it. You say "we are going to keep talking about why it's inappropriate, and the more official-looking it is, the less appropriate it is." So you see, the grey areas are the ones that need discussion. If it is not clear, how can one person go around and edit userpages? Was it truly discussed? (Again I know, not a democracy…) JungleCat 18:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Whew... that would be a pretty iffy userbox. I wouldn't be surprised if it were deleted in any form just based on WP:UP#What can I not have on my user page?. You ask though, "If it is not clear, how can one person go around and edit userpages?" Doesn't that question apply to editing any article, anytime there's the slightest question about NPOV? It's very often not clear. Part of writing an encyclopedia is exercising your judgement, and practicing at being less and less biased. When it comes to things like userpage policies, it's through lots and lots of individual edits, and the reactions to those, that we'll eventually feel out where we're comfortable drawing the line. We sure aren't going to be able to draw it without the benefit of all the experience we're acquiring now, and will continue to acquire.

As for "Was it truly discussed?".... Here we are, discussing it, right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. It has been discussed! Cheers! JungleCat 20:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)