Wikipedia talk:TheTrueSora's UBX Proposal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please use this space to discuss issues related to the proposal itself. Please note that I have offered to do the programming required to make the Userbox: namespace usable, if non of the developers would like to do so. // The True Sora 01:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)'
[edit] First question
Is what this proposal proposes even legal by a "whatever-space" standard if there is one? Homestarmy 01:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know of one, but if there is one, I don't see why it would be. I have, by the way, volunteered to do the coding within the MediaWiki codebase to achieve this, if the actual developers don't wish to do so. // The True Sora 01:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
wikitionary] Even if there were high "straw poll" numbers to create a "userbox:" namespace, you'd have to persuade the developers to create it. It isn't going to happen. --Tony Sidaway 01:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Tony, like I said above, the MediaWiki software is open source- I could do the programming myself. // The True Sora 01:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Just because you could easily create a patch doesn't mean the devs would incorporate it into the main code. They're not going to add something that was developed for an isolated issue such as userboxes; it's bad software design. You could create an extension though, and if consensus supported it, they might enable it on en for us. ~MDD4696 19:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that it won't get added if the developers don't want it. That said, has anyone really asked them? I've only seen second-hand statements at best. Jay Maynard 01:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Take a look at Wiktionary. They have a Portal: namespace, which is not in the default code- and from all the developers I've talked to, it'll take about 2 lines of code- hopefully, the developers won't mind that much. // The True Sora 01:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that it won't get added if the developers don't want it. That said, has anyone really asked them? I've only seen second-hand statements at best. Jay Maynard 01:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Just because you could easily create a patch doesn't mean the devs would incorporate it into the main code. They're not going to add something that was developed for an isolated issue such as userboxes; it's bad software design. You could create an extension though, and if consensus supported it, they might enable it on en for us. ~MDD4696 19:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Support
- This proposal is head & shoulders above any other I've seen. It doesn't leave the userboxes in Template: space as the inclusionists want, but it doesn't kill userbox templates wholesale, as the deletionists want. Community & diversity are preserved, while article space is sanitized. It comes closest to the middle ground, in my view. Thanks, Sora!--Ssbohio 23:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. I want to keep the userboxes, but we dont seem to be able to do this in Template space, so Userbox space is the only way forward. I can't see this will cause too much of a problem, some redirects will fix everything - • The Giant Puffin • 18:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Question
I assume this proposal allows POV userboxes? - • The Giant Puffin • 12:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Of course; if it didn't, it wouldn't exactly be a compromise, would it? // The True Sora 13:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Some folks in this debate seem to think "compromise" means "do it my way". Jay Maynard 13:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- It allows userboxes that express a point of view. As in, "this user thinks that [insert belief here]", or "this user is an [insert ideology here]", or something like that. Obviously there is a limit to what a user can say; as mentioned on the proposal page, a userbox that states "this user wants to kill all [insert group of people here]" would be eligible for deletion – Gurch 13:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
