Wikipedia talk:Userfying userboxes

Let's do it!! Ashibaka tock 02:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Then we can finally have a rationale for deleting attack boxes. — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm all for this. Template: and Category: have always been held to a higher standard than anything else (eg. compare the number of pages that have "fuck" on them in Template: and Category: vs. User: and mainspace). People have always been able to put (almost) anything on their user pages. Few people want to censor others, Template: just isn't the place for it. --Interiot 02:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be an addition to the policy that people should only create userboxes if they intend to put them somewhere on their own user pages; this would prevent Template:User pedophile and Template:User ku klux from happening again. But if this seems too nit-picky I guess not including it is okay too. Ashibaka tock 02:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

People should of course only create pages within their own user space. Creating pages in someone else's user space is already frowned upon. --bainer (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I like this common-sense proposal. I would also like to see some thought given to getting Wikipedia:Userboxes out of the Wikipedia namespace; it's another way the boxes may appear to be "officially sanctioned." —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This proposal would eliminate the need for the Proposed policy on userboxes, but I don't think there's any harm in keeping a centralised list of userboxes, as long as it is made clear that they are created and maintained by individual users, and do not necessarily represent the views of the community. --bainer (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As for Wikipedia:Userboxes, I think it's okay that it's not an official thing. Personal essays can be written on Wikipedia namespace, too. But if a large number of people share your opinion, we could move it to Meta (which is another place for unofficial ideas), although this would be chaos for actually providing a list of userboxes. Ashibaka tock 03:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As I noted below, there's no reason why an individual user can't maintain a list of userboxes, or host a list in their user space. --bainer (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've created the new userspace box User:Ashibaka/Userbox/Migration, and you can put it on your user page to express support for this policy. It will be the first userbox to returning to my own page! Ashibaka tock 05:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• I say do it if we still get to keep Wikipedia:Userboxes. Anything that will stop the constant deletion and wars over userboxes.Dtm142 21:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I support it, providing that there are still some userboxes that are as easy to put on a userpage (obviously encyclopædic ones) as there are now. - Ghelae^talk_contribs 19:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The substituted userboxes will be. For example, if you go {{User:Dtm142}} on your userpage, you'll end up with my userpage. They'll be just as easy to use as templates.Dtm142

Userboxes in userspace

I'm not sure if this is a good idea or not. But, in the case it does become policy, I've reserved User:Userboxes, so that userboxes may be placed in that userspace if needed. Ideally, what I would like to see is a dedicated Userbox: namespace, which could then be invoked by something like {{u:box name}}. The Userbox namespace would be treated like userspace; users would have the freedom there to do pretty much whatever they wanted as long as it didn't violate core Foundation policies (or Florida/US law - e.g. copyrights). Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This isn't about creating a new space for userboxes; it's about putting users' points of view in the space where they belong, that is to say, their own userspaces. So, your "User:Userboxes" is unnecessary. Userboxes without points of view, such as regional ones, will be kept in the Template space.

Let me flesh this out: Users expressing their own POV in the neutral Template space is causing edit wars and TfD traffic jams. Users expressing their POV on user pages happens all the time and hardly ever causes any problems. Ashibaka tock 05:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, many userboxes - even POV boxes - will be used by multiple users. How many {{User Republican}}s do we have on Wikipedia, after all? Therefore, it makes sense to have a central location for these. More esoteric boxes can be kept in the user's own space. Perhaps it would be a good idea to keep the most controversial boxes (but not run-of-the-mill "This user supports Party X" or "This user opposes Cause Y") there. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it's still easy! We have Wikipedia:Userboxes and any user can list a box he created there. Nothing would change except the location of the box. If someone doesn't like the way {{User Republican}} is worded, he can respect that user's control of his own userspace, and make his own box. It's the same as it is now, except without the edit wars! Ashibaka tock 05:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't make that big a difference to me. If it can stop all this unutterable silliness that has happened this year, then I'm all for it. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ashibaka, I disagree. I think Wikipedia:Userboxes should contain only non-POV language and geography userboxes, and possible non-POV interests (e.g., "user is interested in the politics of abortion"). A major source of userbox deletion wars is the practice of user Wikipedia:Userboxes as a notice board for pushing personal hobby horses.

I also don't understand (and maybe someone can explain to me) why there's any reason to want a centralized repository for userboxes. A userbox is just a kind of formatted text (with optional image)! It's not a big deal to have people code their own, either directly or using the {{userbox}} template. --Chris 20:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, there's nothing stopping an individual user from keeping a list of userboxes. --bainer (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Template-space vs. Userspace

First off, I have to say this looks to be a really good solution (if it sticks). I'm wondering, though, what sorts of userboxes would be allowed to remain in the Template namespace. The current proposal specifies that Babelboxes and regional userbox templates (such as Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location/United States?) could remain; I assume we could leave the four userbox formatting templates (like {{Userbox}}) in the Template namespace as well. Beyond that, Ashibaka suggests above that "Userboxes without points of view ... will be kept in the Template space." We might want to think about where the line gets drawn between Template-space and Userspace userboxes (not that this needs to be nailed down firmly at this point, but it is something that is deserving of some consideration in composing this proposal).

On one side, there's clear cases where we have obviously POV userboxes that need to be migrated to Userspace, such as those listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Political Parties and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs; moving these to Userspace might also encourage more personalization of userboxes, which would avoid the more centralized 'bumper-sticker beliefs' that Jimbo and others have argued against. On the other side, there's clearly POV-less boxes, such as many WikiProject userboxes which arguably contribute to the goal of building an encyclopedia and might deserve to remain in Template space. In the grey middle, we have userboxes for associations based on Wikiphilosophies, such as {{user wikipedia/Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians}} and {{user mergist}}; these are clearly POV, but some might argue they're more worthy of inclusion in Template-space than non-Wikiphilosophical-POV userboxes. There's also cases, such as indicating varying aptitude with programming languages (e.g., {{user perl-1}}, {{user perl-2}}, {{user perl-3}}, etc.), where the helpful standardization offered by using centralized userboxes in Template-space might be lost by moving to decentralized User-pages.

These are just a few examples; those unfamiliar with just how many types of userboxes have been created might want to peruse the 30 or so subpages of categorized userboxes linked from WP:UBX. Many will probably be clear candidates to migrated to Userspace, while the migration of others will be more controversial. I know it's early in this proposal's history, and we're probably not to the point where we really need to be choosing which boxes can stay and which need to be userfied; however, if we can get consensus on this proposal (and I really hope we do) and we begin the migration process of removing userboxes from Template-space, we'll need to tackle these issues at some point. My thanks to those who crafted and those who continue to improve this proposal. Hopefully this help reduce some of the polemic and uncivil atmosphere that's formed around this issue. — Jeff | (talk) | 07:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it will turn out to be not a problem, as long as we make the migration voluntary. Anyone who wants to migrate a template they made can do it, and anyone who thinks it should remain there can keep it there. Templates will continue to go to TfD as usual. Ashibaka tock 12:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Good comments Jeff, I've edited the proposal to make an exception for {{userbox}} (if there are other completely blank templates, they can be excepted too). --bainer (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Could we keep WikiProject userboxes in the template space? - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 18:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why. Most WikiProjects have lists of participants so if you want to look for members you would simply go to the project page. Physchim62 (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

What, precisely, does this solve?

Okay. It's an interesting idea. Really. My question is, what is this going to solve? Are the concerns about vote-stacking magically going to go away because now the userboxes are in userspace? The idea that userboxes can't be personal attacks is already codified on Wikipedia:User page, if memory serves me right, and at any rate most people in this war agree that personal attack userboxes are a bad thing: the question is which userboxes are personal attacks.

I want to like this idea. I really do. I want a solution. But I can't see this making things any better. Please, somebody, convince me I'm wrong. Lord Bob 18:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This may not necessarily solve every problem with userboxes. What it will do is end the pointless discussion about what policies apply to userboxes - if they are in the user space, which is where common sense suggests they belong, then Wikipedia:User page is the basic policy that applies to them. That policy, which is an established policy, then goes on to describe how other policies (WP:NPA, for example) operate on user pages. There's no need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to userboxes. --bainer (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This solves everything. When a userbox is in template space, you can nominate it for TfD as offensive, or edit it as you like. If it is in user space, you will have to put it on MfD as a violation of userspace rules (this is rather infrequent because people know the civility rules of userspace), and people won't be tempted to edit them because they know who created them. Ashibaka tock 22:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

But my experience on TfD suggests that people accept that things like incivility and personal attacks are bad anyway. The problem lies in people disagreeing on what constitutes incivility or a personal attack. I still see a solution to the wrong problem here. Lord Bob 21:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Bob, I haven't really participated in the userbox issue until now, but I have noticed that many problems around userboxes stem from the disputes between users as to exactly which policies are applicable to userboxes. For example, Proposed policy on userboxes contains lengthy discussions about issues which have already been settled (at least to the extent of being regularly workable) elsewhere. The proposal aims to clarify this by having user page policies apply. --bainer (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I think I understand the idea here now. I'm not sure I agree with it, but understanding is the first step. Lord Bob 02:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

A few comments

Is there any reason the admins would not just move to deleting them from user space?

Not sure if this is a good or bad thing, but putting a userbox in one's user space basically gives one "ownership" over that box, meaning others who transclude it would want to subst it.

I think it's a decent proposal, but might need a bit of thinking about. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This is actually the case right now, except that instead of one person having control over a box, everyone has control and can make whatever changes they want. Limiting that to one person will make userboxes less risky to use unsubsted. As for the admin thing, deleting things from userspace is better-defined and hardly ever a stressful situation. Ashibaka tock 00:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

We've already had revert wars over a userbox substed into a userpage. I see no reason such a thing wouldn't happen with higher frequency once userboxes are moved out of template space. I understand that this would probably be less of a problem than what currently happens, but it's still worth worrying about - maybe more so because it affects those of us that have been here longer and acquired rather unusual userpages that could easily offend many, and have so far been off the userbox deleters' radar. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Been here since 2002 and my userpage didn't get that quirky. :) This policy would make no changes to userspace, and whoever removes content from people's userpages without a discussion first is being a jerk. Ashibaka tock 01:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

And Tony Sidaway and David Gerard are being jerks by deleting the userboxes. Hell, Jimbo is being a jerk. People will be jerks. Admins can be jerks without consequences. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If someone is rouge enough, they'll war over it wherever it is. No proposal can stop that. This is just about putting userboxes where they belong, and hopefully ending the pointless discussion about what policies apply to them. The circumstances in which content gets removed from user space are fairly well defined. --bainer (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes don't belong in userspace. They are templates. Templates belong in templatespace. User pages belong in userspace. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

They aren't necessarily templates. For those who insist on POV and identity userboxes, I would recommend handcoding them or using a generic template like {{userbox}}. I would discourage userbox templates in userspace, but I don't really see that it matters. Getting POV and other divisive userboxes out of public space (i.e., template space) does matter. --Chris 20:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Keith, any page can be transcluded into any other, no matter what namespace it is in. This is how AfD works, for example. Also, the reason why userboxes have been described here as belonging in user space is because in most of the debate so far, their supporters have mentioned attributes which are characteristics of user pages (they are personal expressions of users, for example) to justify various userboxes. --bainer (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, user-space userboxes have already been speedy deleted as attack templates. [1] --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because per WP:UP, policies like WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL apply to user pages (this template was one of a range of five anti-Semitic templates). As such, under this policy, personal attack userboxes would still be deleted. However, since WP:NPOV (a content policy) generally does not apply to user pages, non-neutral userboxes would not be deleted. --bainer (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the effect of this is a tightening of rules for user pages, as the censors look there for the userboxes. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary elevation of certain box types

I see no reason at all why regional and linguistic boxes are more worthy of templatespace than specialization or boxes for any other form of identity or familiarity.

And does it really make sense to start migrating chunks of templatespace to non-template spaces?

Migrating userboxes to userspace would Babelize userboxes by splitting them up among individual users' userspaces. Which will mean worse things than we have now -- instead of userbox organization at Wikipedia:Userbox; it'll be spread, forked, and duplicated en masse across userspace. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

And the whole userbox controversy dissolves into formless chaos. Sounds good to me. The bitterness over userbox templates results from their hybrid character: they are stored in public space (templatespace) but are implemented in userspace. Each space has its own standards around freedom of expression, and people disagree on which standard applies. I say let strict Wikipedia standards (i.e., no POV or divisive identities) apply in templatespace, but I don't think we want to control people's actions in userspace to the same extent.--Chris 20:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Keith, the idea was lifted straight from the German Wikipedia, where all they kept in the Template namespace was the Babel and regional templates. I can't find a page where they discussed it, I found out about this when Jimbo explained it on IRC. As for Babelizing userboxes, there's no reason why there can't be a central listing of userboxes (possibly maintained in user space) and I'm sure there would be many users who would be happy to "host" many, if not all userboxes within their own userspace. --bainer (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What you propose is the only chaos I see. Where exactly do you propose userboxes be organized in userspace? Whose userspace gets to be the keeper of the boxes? You have no such place in mind, only a vague notion of some arbitrary person's userspace. You even admit that you believe there are "many users who would be happy to host many if not all userboxes" -- so, by your own assertion, there will be lots of people who will want to host userboxes. And will. And then there will truly be chaos, as everyone who wants to host userboxes does so, causing rampant userbox forking and a myriad of userspaces in which userboxes can be found. There will be no means of central organization -- as there is right now. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I could be wrong but I believe throwing it all into chaos is the point. Without organization most of the problams that people have with user boxes goes away --T-rex 04:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Instruments Excempt

I see no reason why instraments should be allowed to stay in the template space despite the others. Creating exceptions like this just opens the doors to going right back to where we started. I realize that these userboxes are very non-controversal (although I don't see how they help the encyclopedia), but I think we need to be against most exception (I do see the need to keep babel) --T-rex 20:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, Babel should have only ISO languages, and only the standard levels 1 thru 4. I guess regional userboxes will be OK, although I can concieve of possible abuses, so they would have to be watched. I think project userboxes should also be OK. If a project is involved in POV pushing, we should deal with the project; the userbox will be taken care of that way. There may be an argument for including programming languages that are useful in Wikipedia. At first, I included some programming language userboxes on my user page, but then I realized that my knowledge of BASIC, Pascal and plain ole' unextended C weren't much use in Wikipedia. Off hand, I can't think of anything else that should be allowed in template space. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 21:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the German Wikipedia had exceptions for Babel and regional templates. I've edited this proposal so that only Babel templates and blank templates (such as {{userbox}}) are excepted. Regional templates could get into problems where they are for areas which have disputed sovereignty, or disputed naming, so they can probably go into user space. Other types, like instruments, may be non-controversial but it's probably best to have as few exceptions as possible, for ease of use. --bainer (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, something along the line of This user is a resident of the Republic of Texas is entirely possible. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 22:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't quite understand the instrument exception either. Babel templates have caught on internationally becuase they are useful in writing an encyclopedia. Linked to categories, I can use them to find, say, a Farsi-speaking editor to tell me whether a new page in Farsi is junk or not. Regional templates can serve a similar purpose: "Does this village near Heidelburg really exist? I can't find it in German Wikipedia." or similar such questions. Other userboxes, say {{User OJ}} are simply useless for encyclopedic work, although if someone really has the urge to tell me on their user page that they drink orange juice I guess it does nobody any harm. Finally there are all the templates about which people feel strongly enough to fight over them at AfD... The logic of the German solution seems to be to treat the Template: namespace as part of the encyclopedia, so that only templates which can be shown to be encyclopedically useful are placed there, while retaining users traditional freedom over their Userspace within the long-standing restrictions of WP:NOT a webspace provider and WP:USER (neither of which are nearly as controversial in practice as userbox templates. Does this provide any philosophical backing for decision making? Does anyone agree with me? ;) Physchim62 (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with regional userboxes is that they could be put to pushing a POV. The same goes for any other category of userbox that might be argued to be useful for building an encyclopedia. We even have TfD fights over free-lanced pseudo-babel boxes. I think it would be best to limit templated userboxes to the real babel boxes and the generic (empty) userboxes, at least to begin with. Any other types of userboxes, if allowed in template space, would have to be carefully set up to prevent POV pushing. I also think that template space has always been part of the encyclopedia. Userboxes started as babel boxes, and as such were a genuine aide to developing Wikipedia. Some other userboxes crept in under the same rationale, and then users started adding some 'fun' ones. The increasingly blatant and confrontational POVs in userboxes are a recent phenomena. I certainly was surprised at the explosive growth in userboxes in the last three months. This incursion of POV into template space, under the guise of being protected because userboxes are used in user space, is a danger to the principal of maintaining NPOV in Wikipedia. I don't think it's a matter of changing the status of template space. I think it is a matter of pushing the POV stuff back into user space, where it belongs. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 03:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the "potential exemptions" section, since it's clear these will either,

1. cause NPOV problems,
2. be totally arbitrary.

The only exceptions now are the Babel templates (which perhaps should conform to ISO, but that's Babel's issue) and the true template templates like {{userbox}}. --bainer (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dalbury^^ in that babel should be all that is in the template space... like I said If you give a mouse a cookie... --T-rex 03:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think a better approach would be to formulate a list of what should be moved to userspace, rather than what shouldn't; e.g.:

• POV
• Endorsement of products/organizations/ideologies/beliefs unrelated to Wikipedia
• Humor

The above list covers pretty much all the controversial userboxes, while leaving blank, Babel, regional, and instrument templates in the clear, with no need for special exceptions. —Andux 04:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent experience suggests that it will be extremely difficult to draw these lines, and that it would be much easier to draw the line as narrowly as possible. --bainer (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What should be moved to userspace? Everything except Babel and regionals. Physchim62 (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

templates in user space

As a result of discussions elsewhere, I've realized that amoving templates to user space is a problem. A major concern with the current system of userboxes is that templates allow recruiting of like-minded users in POV pushing campaigns. Another thing is the question of just how one moves a template out of template space. I think the proposal should drop mention of templates in user space. Userboxes can be created and copied without resort to templates, and I think that is how we should go. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 11:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You just hit the "move" tab and in the "new title" box, type something like "User:Myusername/Userboxname". The software will sort out the namespaces. As for reusable userboxes, I don't think that's a problem per se, in that I think it's acceptable for users to have a userbox on a subpage which other users can transclude. --bainer (talk) 11:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

While it may work technically, my concern is that templates allow recruiting for POV pushing, and I think any policy on userboxes has to address this issue. Moving templates to userspace doesn't do so. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 11:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That is not the issue this proposal is intended to resolve. The point of moving userbox templates to userspace is to place them squarely under the jurisdiction of WP:UP, neatly sidestepping the issue of which policies apply in template-space. Concerns about POV-pushing should go in WP:UBP. —Andux 12:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sidestepping it is. I can't support it then. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 12:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As we say back East, light dawns on Marblehead! - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Just subst

Of course it would be easier to just subst the damned things. Then people can customise as much as they want and we don't need a bureaucracy devoted to shuffling userboxes. Actually customising the boxes rather than just throwing them together might make for nicer user pages (see User:Essjay) and people might learn some useful HTML and formatting tricks while they're at it. Violations of policy can then be dealt with on a case by case basis, and userbox content can be treated the same as any other content on a user page. Half the fun has always been finding interesting boxes and creating your own, and since they are by default under the GFDL everyone has the chance to steal bits off everyone else. We can still have Wikiproject Userboxes as a place to show off boxes, and allow people to easily copy/paste common ones. Why clog up template and user space, and have this whole stupid argument when you can just copy and paste? the wub "?!" 12:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! -- Dalbury^(Talk) 12:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Subst would solve a lot, but even getting people to subst in templates is a chore; even with subst: added to all the userbox example code, I still see new userbox templates being created without it. —Andux^␅ 12:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Userbox code can be cut and pasted anywhere. Tenplates aren't needed. A good example is

<div style="float: left; border: 1px solid {{{1|#000}}}; margin: 1px;"> {| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: {{{2|#fff}}};" | style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: {{{1|#039}}}; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|12}}}pt; color: #fff;" | '''{{{3|DO IT!}}}''' | style="font-size: 8pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: #039;" | {{{4|This user supports the [[Wikipedia:Use of userboxes|proposed migration of userboxes into userspace]].}}} |}</div> , which produces

DO IT!

This user supports the proposed migration of userboxes into userspace.

And anyone could still use {{Userbox}} to create a custom userbox for their page, and that could also be cut and pasted to other pages. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 13:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As I say on my own userpage: substing userboxes will lead to stale boxes. The benefits of templating is that the central template can be improved, and thus the improvements to the template are transferred to all places they are used. Substing cancels that very Wikian benefit. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Just make a new namespace?

Now this doesn't really bother me, since all my userboxen are safely subst:ed in my userspace. But MediaWiki allows custom namespaces (we already have Portal and Portal_talk) so why not just get the developers to create a User_Template namespace and stick them all in there? -- Gurch 16:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Errm, because the vast majority of userboxen are not encyclopedic! Play around in your userspace if you must, after having read WP:USER, but Wikipedia is NOT a free webspace provider. Physchim62 (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That's the whole point, the User_Template space would be subject to the same rules as userspace, i.e. no fair use images, relaxed NPOV, content doesn't have to be encyclopediac and so on. There's no danger of this making wikipedia into a webspace provider, stuff would still be subject to deletion - probably through MfD - if nobody was using it or if one user decided to dump a whole load of personal junk only useful to them in there -- Gurch 16:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Politically that's a wonderful solution, but I doubt that it would be seriously considered, as creating a new namespace is a pretty significant thing. On the other hand, it would create the "missing link" -- a templatespace that people don't try to argue is encyclopedic. (Even though Template: is not. No one has been able to show any templates containing encyclopedic content. They are purely administrative and organizational, not encyclopedic.) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think a namespace is a great idea. But for the sake of convenience, perhaps it ought to be Ubx:. {{Subst:User:Blah/Blah}} seems a bit too long compared to {{Ubx:Blah}}. --Nintendorulez [[User talk:Nintendorulez|talk]] 17:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Solution in search of a problem

This seems to be an ill-conceived solution. What real problems does it intend to resolve and how?

I'm also skeptical of the following statements:

• "Jimbo thinks it's a good idea." Where has he commented on it?
• "The German Wikipedia did it, apparently" Apparently?
• "users are generally agreed to "own" the pages in their userspace" Agree by whom?

--Tony Sidaway 18:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• How does this make anything better? Right now the userboxes are neatly categorized. This would just disrupt that. THe userboxes would still be there and Wouldn't go away. However, I would support a move from Template to Userbox. Like Template:User Example to Userbox: Example--God of War 04:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• The main benefit is that it would force individual users to bear responsibility for particular userboxes. My suspicion is that users will be less likely to create offensive or disreputable userboxes if they are inextricably linked to their own pages. (On a similar note, it may be useful to require that anyone creating a userbox template include it on their own page.) —Kirill Lokshin 16:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• I will be more than happy to host every single userbox on wikipedia from my user page. Template:User Pro Bush or Template:User Death to america. I don't care. Everyone has the right to freedom of speech.--God of War 22:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to cite the legal basis for your claim that everyone has to right to freedom of speech on the private property of the Foundation? -- Dalbury^(Talk) 23:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That first point sounds reasonable. Perhaps it would tend to make trolling boxes more obvious. I don't think it answers the main objections, though. Specifically:

• The userboxes would still be subject to viral transmission.
• They would still have links (whatlinkshere information) and could still carry category information, enabling abuse.
• They would still (to borrow Jimbo's words), be "attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and...give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian."

But I think it's good to see people recognising and trying to address the problems and I welcome this sign that some kind of movement is being attempted. --Tony Sidaway 16:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the problems you mention can be solved by any means short of eliminating transcluded userboxes entirely; and, given the current atmosphere, anything short of a decision by Jimbo (or perhaps a general ArbCom injunction against them?) isn't likely to produce that. —Kirill Lokshin 17:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, unless everyone shows much greater restraint than we've seen recently, I think it will take eliminating transclusion of userboxes to solve the problems. I am in no position to predict what Jimbo might do, or even say what he might be capable of doing on this issue, but I think some of the userbox promoters are either deluded in thinking that Jimbo does not have the power to shut down userboxes, or are simply trying to provoke a crisis. And before anyone cites AGF, I would point out that some users have made it quite clear that this is more about them asserting their freedom to do and say anything they want than it is about building an encyclopedia. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 19:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Regulating, not eliminating, transcluded userboxes, is what we do now, with a large degree of success. The worst ones are gone; personal attacks on editors, highly inflammatory statements, attempts to draw parallels between political opponents and nazis, they're gone. Anti-jew and Anti-scientology, both gone. I think we're doing quite all right here, but some people will always say "but you haven't eliminated all userboxes." Well why on earth should we? Many are harmless, and can be ignored, and a very small number are actually useful to the project. We're doing all right dealing with the really bad ones and there's no need to move good boxes out of template space or to pretend that moving bad ones into userspace makes any real difference. --Tony Sidaway 14:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If by "large degree of success" you mean wheel-warring and desysoppings, bloodbath TFD and DRV listings, and the creation of anti-Jimbo movements, I shudder to think of what you'd consider failure ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 15:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Some people did a bit of posturing and got into block wars and other nonsense, but this isn't representative of what has happened over inflammatory userboxes. The really bad ones tend to disappear without much serious complaint. UDUIW is a bit of a joke. More posturing, an attempt to erect a Supreme Court and try Jimbo Wales. Bizarre but harmless. --Tony Sidaway 15:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Object per Tony. Pointless makework. It doesn't matter where something is; if it stinks, it stinks. Delete content that does actual harm, no matter where it is. Delete content that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia if it's in article space.

It's irrelevant whether the box codes are stored in template space or user space. The only important points are Where do these boxes appear? and Who put them there?

This is indeed a solution in search of a problem; an attempt to create a large piece of work so that some users can amass spurious brownie points shoveling harmless stuff from here to there. John Reid 06:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Templates in user space - TfD or MfD

I moved the section below to here because we need to sort it out, and not argue about it on the proposed policy page.

1. As long as userboxes are used as templates, they will be subject to submission to TfD, negating any supposed reduction in such nominations.
   • This is incorrect. Content on user subpages goes to WP:MFD, regardless of whether is is used as a template.

So if templates on user pages nominated for deletion go to MfD instead of TfD, won't that just be shifting the arguments to another venue? I don't foresee any real lessening of nominations of templates for deletion. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 13:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

User subpages go to MfD: can't you just see the processtrolling that would go on if it were otherwise, and in both directions (Ah, but it's a template! Ah, but it's a user subpage!). Physchim62 (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

How about that Userspace for Deletion idea that was floated a while back? That would take the load off TfD and MfD. —Andux^␅ 04:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Why this is a good idea

1. Seeing that it is not in the template namespace, people will be less reluctant to edit the code on their own page
2. It encourges users who create these userBoxes to be personally responsible for their content
3. user boxes would be "owned" by someone so that problems can be addressed with a single person rather then a group
4. Recently template Muhammad Cartoons went onto votes for deletion because it had limited usefulness. User coffee and User swedish fish and the like are less usefull, and moving them out of templates removes the double standard
5. User pages will continue to look the same
6. dublication is more likly, and as a result will limit the size of the list in "what links here"
7. there is no longer any legitamate claim for the use of fair use images in userboxes

--T-rex 17:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not

The User namespace is for User pages. Sub-pages are for that particular user's personal use. In other words, a user is can tansclude a sub-page containing a personal template, but it should not be used by anyone else. This is an end-run around Template namespace intent and deletion policies. -- Netoholic @ 10:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes migration--don't try it

I appreciate that some people may be keen to get ahead and perform a migration to user space, but I urge them not to start. Userboxes may still be as much a problem in userspace as in template space, and if they're deletable from template space they'll probably be deletable from userspace (except in some very few exceptions).

Netoholic is right to state that user pages are generally for a user's own use. If they're used as templates by people other than the user, then they'll be treated as templates. In particular, creation of copies of templates that already exist is pointless, they'll be deleted or redirected as clones should be. And copies of deleted templates made anywhere on Wikipedia with the intention of their being used as the original templates where will also be deleted. Until such problems are ironed out and we decide whether there is a case for migration of some templates, it probably isn't a good idea to undertake any such migration. --Tony Sidaway 14:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

UserBoxes need to be migrated to your own user page. Creating a central directory of them defeats most of the propose for doing this. So I agree partially with Tony --T-rex 22:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony, userboxes will of course be deletable in user space, although the debates over their deletion will hopefully be determined by the existing precedents on user page content. Generally speaking, there is a longer history of discussion and agreement about what is and is not acceptable on userpages, or at least more than there is on what is acceptable on userboxes in the template namespace. --bainer (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Userfication

In support of this new policy User:Boxes has been created. To avoid creating templates in a new namespace, everything in this page must be subst. Hopefully this will be the compromise we can all agree on. Under the new arrangement Whatlinkshere does not work because everything listed here has been subst. Also, this page does not have the aire of oficial sponsorship of the Wikimedia foundation. This is made clear by the boilerplate at the top of the page. Hopefully people will accept this as a reasonable solution and stop the userbox wars.--Boxes 02:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV vs POV

I feel that the simplest policy that would solve most of the problems is one that essentially treats the UserBoxes group/space (whatever namespace that may end up in) as an encyclopedia of UserBoxes - the group/space, as a whole, should be NPOV. Within the group/space, any POV can be illustrated. This will ensure that all POVs are given equal treatment - for example Pro-UN and Anti-UN both get a POV UserBox, and the UserBox group/space as a whole remains essentially NPOV because all POVs are given fair weight. Such a policy is easy to explain and easy to follow. Rexmorgan 06:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Babelboxes?

Will this policy apply to babelboxes as well? I don't think there's anything wrong with them and they are an easy way of locating speakers of a certain language. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned in the section entitled "policy", the only exceptions to the proposal will be the language usage templates (the "babelboxes") and blank templates such as {{userbox}}. --bainer (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Why?

This is quite possibly going to make a total mess of the whole userbox system. The Userboxes page will consist of a load of templates all situated within a huge variety of locations. What is the aim of this? All of the userboxes will be exposed to the same deletion criteria (inc. T1). You are asking users to move templates somewhere within the 'User:' area, rather than keep them under 'Template:User'. This will make them hard to find and as I understand this has no community backing. You would have just as much right to move all protals into the 'User:' area as you do templates.

I have seen this page constantly refered to as "policy" and used as arguments to userfy in TfD etc, and it isn't policy at all. I think all supporters of this should thik about thetechnical side of this, and also think about getting some community backing before you create alot of work for others. I think it is very unlikely they will all stay where you move them, and that you will make them hard to collect and find.

And what, may I ask, do you plan to do with the thousands of redirects that are left from the moves?

Thank you for your time. Ian13/talk 12:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Not that we're trying to make a mess (and not that I should be using 'we' here, since I'm speaking only for myself and not all those supporting this proposal), but I've viewed it as a benefit that some Userboxes would be decentralized, and that users might be inclined to make their own Userboxes rather than use ones from a centralized source. I'm seeing this as being more of a benefit with POV-boxes, as decentralization might help combat the problem of what some consider to be their 'viral nature'. Beyond that, the problems with managing redirects and keeping an up-to-date and centralized repository will depend on just how many Userboxes are to be migrated and where they are migrated to. I believe the proposal currently excepts only Babelboxes and blank user formatting templates (like {{Userbox}} and {{User infobox}}) from migration, but the proposed criteria have been more inclusive of other non-POV Userboxes in the past.

As for deletion criteria, I believe that this policy proposal was proposed before Jimbo mandated the presence of T1. Part of the proposal's appeal (to me, at least) was that it put user opinion in the user namespace, where it would fall under the wider latitude afforded by the Userspace guidelines. I suppose the existence of the T1 criteria, along with recent clarifications regarding regulating Userspace content from the ArbComm, does negate some of that appeal. (For those not aware, T1 currently provides for the speedy-deletion of divisive and inflammatory templates. While not currently listed explicitly, the criteria have in the past clearly stated that this would apply to templates in any namespace; I think we can safely assume that admins would view this as implicit and wouldn't hesitate to apply T1 to templates in userspace.)

If there are people who are claiming this is policy, then they're wrong. While editors should certainly feel encouraged to promote this, it ought to be made clear that this is only a proposal and perhaps that we encourage the optional migration of userboxes to Userspace in the meantime. I find TfD's atmosphere to be harmful to my health, so I've generally tried to stay away there and don't know if there are people claiming this as policy there. If there are people claiming something along the lines of Userfy per WP:UUB, maybe it should be better viewed (and communicated) as an alternate suggestion and not a mandate based on a proposal. If you're referring to the recent notices posted on the WikiProject and WP:UBX, then I could see that they were (unintentionally, I'm sure) misleadingly suggesting that this proposal was being implemented as something with the force of policy. I think you and Dalbury's edits have brought the notices in-line with a more accurate portrayal of the proposal's current status.

As for my general answer to "Why?", those interested can wade through my long rant essay at Wikipedia talk:Userboxes. — Jeff | (talk) | 14:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The main benefits as I see it are:

• Avoiding the whole NPOV-in-template-space debate.
• Reducing the load on WP:TFD (admittedly, by shifting the load to WP:MFD, but TfD has much more to deal with, comparatively, even without userboxes).

However, while I think it's probably a good idea to put new userbox templates in userspace (as I've already been doing), I do not support any sort of en masse userfication of existing boxes at this point. —Andux^␅ 14:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both for your clarification. Ian13/talk 16:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Some comments: Usefying userbox templates does not address what I see as the main problems with userboxes:

1. The use of userboxes (by category or 'what links here') to recruit like-minded editors in campaigns to insert POV into articles, AfD and other discussions.
2. The promotion of splitting Wikipedia into warring POV camps.
3. Trolling by the creation of deliberatly confrontational and divisive userboxes.
4. The collossal waste of time, effort and talent spent on creating useless and unused userboxes.

I also do not see how moving templates to userspace reduces the load on TfD. Templates are templates. It's not 'Templates in template space for Deletion', it's 'Templates for Deletion'. Even if we agree to redefine what goes where, it won't reduce the total load of deletion debates, it will merely suffle them around. And the load on TfD is triffling compared to AfD. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 18:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:TFD explicitly covers only, and I quote, "pages in the Template namespace" — the definition of templates as any page intended for transclusion is for WP:CSD. —Andux^␅ 19:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this is space. Having to create seperate userboxes for everyone who wants them takes up lots of space. We do not need to "Userfy" userboxes. The Neokid - Wikihalo Guiding Director talk 18:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Er, we're not going to create seperate userboxes for everyone who wants them. The intent is for the creator of each userbox to create it as a subpage in their own user space; everything else would (from a technical standpoint) be exactly the same as it currently is. Besides, wiki is not paper. —Andux^␅ 19:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I know about "Wiki is not paper", but we need to keep the size down if we can (size costs money). I thought it unlikely that the userboxes would be kept by everyone, but what will probably happen is that instead of bothering to add a parameter or something like that people will just copy it and modify it so it fits them. Without strong regulation, this whole idea could all go haywire. I think that it is best to keep the Wikipedia:Userboxes and all of that but to just slowly make the regulations stricter and stricter so that the entire thing is eventually forgotten and destroyed. Userboxes seperate our community and alienate people from both eachother and from the goal of improving the encyclopedia. There are already people who work full-time on creating and modifying the userboxes when they could be improving our hundreds of stubs for example.

Here is an extract from Jimbo Wales's talk page (WP:JIMBO):

I wonder if you might consider simply removing your political/religious/etc. userboxes and asking others to do the same. This seems to me to be the best way to quickly and easily end the userbox wars.

Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian.

I think rather than us having to go through a mass deletion (which is what is likely to happen if the userbox fad doesn't go away), it will be better to simply change the culture, one person at a time. Will you help me?--Jimbo Wales 10:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Although not all userboxes are bad, we only want them if they help. The Neokid - Wikihalo Guiding Director talk 20:41, 16 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)

And once again, I see that leading to constant fighting over where the line is, and and having to split hairs to distinguish between almost identical userboxes that will go or stay. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 00:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

A similar proposal

There's another proposal out there for consideration which shares some similarities (as well as some potentially controversial differences) with this one: User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/Policy. (I guess it's not technically proposed as policy right now, but it has some support.) Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes. [ed: aforementioned proposal has now been elevated to an officially proposed policy, and is now at the link listed. 02:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)] Like UUB (the proposal this discussion page is attached to), the Pathoschild proposal (which I'll refer to as 'the other proposal') would limit the use of template space, and would have all other userboxes in user space. The other proposal draws the line of template-space inclusion at those userboxes that will have a reasonable amount of use and that will (under a liberal interpretation) benefit the ultimate goal of creating an encyclopedia (see page for examples given); I think this is more inclusive than what UUB has currently proposed.

Probably the biggest difference between the other proposal and UUB (and the one that might be the most controversial for UUB-supporters) is that user-space userboxes should be used in-line rather than as transcludable templates—the argument being that user-space templates bring up the same disadvantages as template-space templates, and so ought to be treated the same. The other upside to this is that (non-template) userboxes would clearly fall under the user page guidelines (as well as the interpersonal policies on civility and personal attacks), and would not be subjected to the speedy deletion criterion (CSD-T1) that says that templates cannot be polemic or inflammatory. CSD-T1 has been interpreted broadly to justify a recent speedy-deletion spree of any userbox which expresses a POV; userbox templates (even in user-space) would be subject to this as well. The other potentially controversial point is that those userboxes not included in template-space can't use categories.

I still think UUB would make good policy, but I think the Pathoschild proposal will have wider appeal because it deals with the concerns of those who are against the template-nature of userboxes. I mention this proposal here, because I think that having that wide appeal is important in getting some policy into place sooner, rather than later. I doubt the group of admins that's currently trying to purge POV userbox templates is going to be content to confine their activities to the template namespace. With consensus (or lack thereof) regarding template deletion in any namespace being a non-issue, anyone holding out hope for re-implementation of userbox templates in userspace should realize that this is not going to be permitted. — Jeff | (talk) | 05:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userfication

We have had no general policy on userfication of material in general. I've started Wikipedia:Userfication to address this. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject userboxes and exceptions

So, what about userboxes for Wikiprojects? They are clearly part of the community building to encourage making an encyclopedia. And it would feel strange to put them in user space since they are not personal but more "property" of their wikiproject. Should we put them under the respective wikiproject? Like this? {{Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/userbox}}

And what does "instrument userboxes" mean? Wikipedia:Instruments or what? And why are they listed in the suggestion as an exception? And why should alma mater userboxes get an exception? In that case it would be natural to add an exception for professsions since that much better can indicate expertise in a certain area, then for membership in organisations since that also indicates certain knowledge, then for...

Note, I have not yet come to a point of view in these matters. There are so many good (and bad) arguments for and against all sides.

--David Göthberg 02:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll for a proposal that has moved further along than this, and that would allow project userboxes to remain in Template space. That proposal would allow userboxes that advance the development of Wikipedia to remain in template space, but would ban userboxes that announce a point of view from Template space (while still allowing epression of personal viewpoints on user pages. Instrument userboxes are for musical instruments. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 12:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Respect

Even in the user space some respect would be nice. I think it is quite obvious that even in the user space 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.

02:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments moved from project page

Problems

1. Moving a template from template space to user space is a book-keeping procedure and has no overall effect on the appearance of the encyclopedia's userpages.
2. The template transclusion mechanism would still provide the same viral effect as now.

(How are either of these "problems"?) Ashibaka tock 20:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Transclusion is a problem, because it allows anyone to use "what links here" to assemble a POV-pushing group. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 23:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Pre-policy migration

Users may opt to migrate their userboxes right now, although this is not a policy. They can do this by moving templates they created into their own userspace, and editing the necessary pages on Wikipedia:Userboxes.

• Comment there are two users (User:Userboxes and User:Boxes) which seem to have been created to host userboxes. Should we migrate the existing ones to either of those? Lefty 01:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No. That's a hack, not what this proposal is about. Ashibaka tock 19:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply to Comment (though maybe this should be on the talk page). Both pages have spawned trouble in one form or another (I think an RfC or an RfArb came from one.) If userboxes are to be hosted anywhere (and they'd have to be so neutral that the most zealous applicants of CSD-T1 couldn't touch them), they're probably going to have to be hosted in individual user's namespaces instead of a pseudo-user namespace. — Jeff | (talk) | 01:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The way to keep userboxes safe on user pages is to not make templates for them. You can customize the {{subst:Userbox}} at Wikipedia:Userbox#Userbox types and use it on your user page. Just don't put templates in user space. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 03:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, how do I migrate my templates, please? Her Pegship 20:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Use subst:, as in {{subst:Userbox}}. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 23:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not the same thing as migrating templates. (Although it's a valid alternative to migrating them.) --Tifego 18:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't like it

The exceptions are too broad. Let's examine this line:

Only userboxes which provide a clear benefit to the encyclopedia should be placed in the template namespace. This includes boxes which state a user's editing interests, skills or expertise, WikiProject affiliations, etc., and userbox creation templates such as Template:Userbox. All other userboxes belong in user space.

That is waaaay, waaaay too broad. "Editing interests" leaves it open to basically allowing every current userbox to continue existing merely by changing the wording from "This user is a _______" to "This user is interested in ________". It doesn't solve anything. A proposal that would solve things would be to limit template: and category: to encyclopedic content and encyclopedia maintenance only. See Wikipedia:Proposed template and category usage policy. --Cyde Weys 01:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

My impression is that interest and skill userboxes are widely accepted; most people only take issue with boxes expressing beliefs/affiliations unrelated to Wikipedia. Your policy, incidentally, is worded in such a way that it might be taken to ban Template:Userbox itself. —Andux^␅ 02:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This proposal also doesn't cover categories at all, which should be held to the same standards as templates. Non-encyclopedic and non-maintenance categories really shouldn't exist. Many users do browse through categories finding random articles to read and having it interspersed with random user categories is very counter-intuitive. There should be a strict separation between encyclopedia content and userpages, and that distinction should be drawn exactly at User:. User categories make absolutely no sense. --Cyde Weys 01:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Nothing would be "interspersed"—user categories fall under the Category:Wikipedians heirarchy, which is kept strictly separate from normal encyclopedic categories. —Andux^␅ 02:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem, they don't. I've seen userbox categories scattered all over the place. If they all did start with Wikipedians then that would be one thing, but they don't. And there's really no need for them anyway. Here's an example: some admin speedily deleted the category "Seniors with Senioritis" which was created as a category for a joke userbox and the deletion was strongly contested! That's absurd! --Cyde Weys 02:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

POV and humor categories probably do need to go, but there's no reason to throw out interest and skill categories along with them; even if they're miscategorized or poorly named, it's easy enough to fix. —Andux^␅ 02:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I still don't agree with user categories but I am willing to compromise on them provided that they all start with "Wikipedians". They most definitely should not be scattered about randomly in category space. --Cyde Weys 03:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

POV userboxes

This might sound crazy, but I think the userboxes which are POV (such as saying you like or dislike something) do actually provide a clear benefit to the encyclopedia. When a user is honest about what their views are on their userpage, it gives other editors more clues as to what their intentions behind edits could have been, and what sorts of biases they might be likely to (perhaps unintentionally) introduce. And it can be enough to stop a user from accusing another user of some bias upon realizing what their actual views are.

Also, disallowing POV statements (political, etc.) on user pages could make it more likely for users to try to introduce those views into articles. A lot of people feel the need to express their views somewhere, and it's better to channel those views into userpages (and contained in userboxes) than as POV claims or vandalism elsewhere on Wikipedia. --Tifego 19:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This has been covered before. POV userboxes have been used to recruit editors in attempts to impose a POV on articles and deletion discussions. That is a known danger. The benefit you claim has not been demonstrated. Many of us see POV userboxes as encouraging POV-pushing, as a way of bragging about one's biases, and therefore encouraging editors to apply those biases to their edits, which is inimical to the spirit and policy of Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 22:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

See the big green box on my user page for views on this. --bainer (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree, except... I don't agree with the implication that using a box made by somebody else corresponds with getting the viewpoint it expresses from that person/box. I choose ones that happen to match what I would have said, and make my own when I can't find any box for a certain view I have. I think the inclusion of categories in such userboxes in unhelpful, however. I don't see a practical use for being able to search through all catholic/vegetarian/adult/whatever wikipedians. --Tifego 01:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

POV userboxes encourage factionalism and turn Wikipedia into a warzone between various factions. I've already seen this happen on four occurrences (Catholic "Alliance", Jason Gastrich AFDs, FSM DRV, and UPP). And all four times POV templates were being used for vote-stacking purposes. It's not possible to deny this; the facts are all there, in plain sight. And let me echo Donald Albury: I've heard much of these supposed benefits of "disclosing one's biases", but in practice, none of it has ever been demonstrated. --Cyde Weys 00:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay rights in Iraq. That's where I saw it for the first time. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 00:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. I only found WP:UPP because of the attempt to pre-apply it on my user page. I assume that some of the other Oppose votes were for that reason, as well. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• In response to "I've heard much of these supposed benefits of "disclosing one's biases", but in practice, none of it has ever been demonstrated": It's not the sort of thing that can be demonstrated, because there's no basis for comparison, and the benefits I mentioned are only a relative absence of things happening. I'm not convinced those benefits exist, but I'm even less convinced that such userboxes are causing ongoing harm.
• In case there's confusion about what (I think) we're talking about as POV: Religion, sexual orientation, gender, eating habits, favorite things, and political feelings are all pretty much equally POV, right?
• I'm not sure I understand about the userbox templates being used for vote stacking. Was that only a problem because of the userbox categories and/or the "what links here" feature? If not, I'm not sure how anything proposed so far would have prevented that from happening. (There's no way to force a template to be subst'd or disable categories and what links here for specific templates, is there?)

--Tifego 01:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a way to "force" a template to subst'd -- a bot using "what links here" to subst them. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

User boxes should be allowed to include a POV no question asked. If you want to move them or delink them fine, but do not censor them --T-rex 03:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Poll

All possible arguments have been made. Time for a poll so we can move on. John Reid 23:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Per request, I hereby clarify: This poll is to examine support for Wikipedia:Userfying userboxes, a proposed policy. John Reid 05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Count: (1/10/1) ending 02:00, April 8, 2006 (UTC)

Endorse

Sign with #~~~~

1. Support - I started this proposal, so I probably should support it. It did go in some funny directions, which may have killed it, but I still support the central thrust of the proposal, which is to treat userboxes like user pages, not like templates or project pages or any other type of page. That was the fundamental purpose of this proposal and I think it may have been lost amongst the musical instrument userboxes. --bainer (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Sign with #~~~~

1. Oppose As someone said in the discussion above, there is quite a vagueness in "contributes the encyclopedia". For instance, some would argue that stating one is of a certain religion is POV, while others would argue that it indicates knowledge in a certain field. And besides, moving the templates to the userspace only moves the problem, the POV presented by userboxes, to a different arena; it does not eliminate it. joturner 23:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. But you didn't say what this poll is about, so I'm not exactly sure what I'm opposing. –T_if_eg_o^(t)_{23:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)}
3. Oppose, would only move the problem, or perceived problem. Wouldn't solve anything. Just make it more cumbersome to deal with. --Mmounties (Talk) 00:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose. As others have said, this only move the problem, it doesn't address the fundamental problems with userboxes. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 01:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. (Agree with User:Tifego, for the most part.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose -- I've commented above. John Reid 21:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

   Seriously, was this not an April Fool's joke? Or will we have to wait until the 8th to find out? –T_if_eg_o^(t)_{21:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)}

   Okay, apparently it was not a joke. In that case I stand by my vote for the reasons I mentioned somewhere higher up on this page. I still think the call for a poll should have been worded more clearly (to at least suggest that the poll is about the policy, especially because much of the talk above is not specifically about the policy).[done] –T_if_eg_o^(t)_{00:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)}

7. Oppose, per the above. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 09:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose - Far too vague, as explained above. Chairman S. ^Talk 10:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose - Not sufficiently explained. Celcius 00:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

   Question - Is the vagueness referred to in these last 2 votes the vagueness of the voting condition, or the vagueness of the policy itself? I assume the latter, but it's hard to tell if that's what everyone is thinking here. –T_if_eg_o^(t)_{05:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)}

10. Oppose Userboxes should be stored centrally to aid searching and consistency. Waggers 13:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Sign with #~~~~

1. Meh. I feel that more work is needed before this proposal is ready for a vote. —Andux^␅ 06:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Closing

This poll seems to have played itself out. I suggest that the proposed policy has been rejected by the community. John Reid 20:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The German Solution

Please see Wikipedia:German_userbox_solution, which is basically the exact same thing as this policy. It was mentioned by Jimbo in May as the "middle ground" of the userbox debate. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 18:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It was initially mentioned by Jimbo on IRC in February, that led to this proposal. The German userbox solution is much more well-rounded and developed though, I highly recommend it. --bainer (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)