Wikipedia talk:Mackensen's Proposal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Shortcut:
WT:MACK

Contents

[edit] Commentary (partially) from DRVU

(moved from DRVU)

    • Comment I would agree with that as a compromise, as I said above, however, enforcing it without conensus is still troubling. I think it needs to be brought up for discussion before being unilaterally done. There is one other problem. Suppose I make a userbox that says, "This user hates Mackensen" and place it on the page. With templates, the answer is simple - speedy the template. But if there are no templates to delete ... that's a problem. It is now a content dispute, rather than a page where an administrative delete can end the issue. This is an extreme case - it would obviously be removed from the page and the user would be punished if he insisted on creating it. But what about something less severe - like "This user opposes George W Bush's dictatorship". As a template, that would possibly be deleted under T1 and certainly would not survive a TFD. But as just another element on a page, it's just a content dispute. So my one question would be this - what process will replace TFD as the controlling process for deleting an errant userbox? BigDT 21:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      • No, that's a personal attack and always has been. That's called incivility. Let's not worry about these things. They can be dealt with on an individual basis. We're all good people, and we're all here to build an encyclopedia. With luck such a thing should never come up. With Bush, that's always been allowed on a userpage, just not in a template. A non-issue, as Cyde said. Mackensen (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      • This isn't as big of an issue as you're making it out to be. If someone puts "I hate Mackensen" on their page I'll just remove it and block them for personal attacks. It's quite simple, really. As for content on pages - if people want to make themselves look like buffoons by adding divisive opinions to their userpage, that's their prerogative. Keep in mind, people are already allowed to put these opinions directly on their userpage (rather than having to use templates), and many people have already done so. I really think that this is a non-issue. --Cyde Weys 21:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Maybe I should clarify, Mackensen and Cyde, I wasn't referring to the copy of it on the user's page itself. If someone creates a userbox that is "questionable" and adds the generation code to Wikipedia:Userboxes, that's a content dispute rather than a deletion question. Obviously, they can have anything that isn't an attack on their own user page - I'm referring to the list of publically available userboxes on Wikipedia:Userboxes. There needs to be some kind of procedure in place. If that procedure is debate on the talk page, that's fine - it just has to be something more or less thought out. BigDT 22:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
          • No, that's not a problem because it is not in the template space. That is to say, most things which were speedied under T1 would be perfectly acceptable as subst'd code on a user's page. Mackensen (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
            • But what about as subst'd code on Wikipedia:Userboxes itself? That isn't user space. BigDT 22:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
              • I think Nphrman below has the right idea. I've no opposition to such lists, indeed they're inevitable. The key point is to stop the transclusion. Mackensen (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Mackensen is clearly right on the ball here. The best way to end this silliness is for everyone to just cool down, and compromise, and Mackensen has outlined a great procedure for doing that.--Sean Black (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • What a horrible idea. That destroys all point of userboxes, like Babel ones and so on. I strongly oppose this proposal. I also think that those people who can't stand userboxes are in minority even among admins. Your generalisations are completely off the mark. Grue 22:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry that you don't like it. I thought that the purpose of userboxes was self-expression and identification. This alters that not a whit. What would you propose? What would you do? The present situation is clearly unacceptable. Mackensen (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Why?
  • Support-- This is a great idea, as elegantly and eloquently stated by Mackenen. It most certainly does not "destroy" userboxes, it SAVES them in User space, and prevents them from EVER going through a deletion review again (the notable exception being the very few vicious or heinous boxes that attack or threaten.) Like Mackensen, I think putting a POV Userbox on your User page is generally a bad idea, but I'm willing to not interfere with other users who want to use them. I fully expect someone to create a "Userbox Central" where text can be copied and pasted onto User pages for various boxes. But the social networking, gang-editing, "club-creating," vote-stacking culture of Wikiepdia must come to an end. Templates must be tools for editing the encyclopedia, and nothing more. As for the debate, I've been APPALLLED at the ignorance of users who have been treating the deletion process as an attack on their "favorite" boxes. Perhaps the nominators didn't explain what they were trying to accomplish as well as Mackenen has, I don't know. But we all need to calm down, examine the facts, and come to a consensus quickly on this. The User box wars SHOULD END NOW. And this is a great way to do it. Nhprman 22:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - If I were inclined to "network" or "votestack" based on userboxes, why couldn't I just google ... look for site:wikipedia.org "This user is a whatever" or something along those lines. BigDT 22:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh, you could, but then you'd have to work for it. Mackensen (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A few thoughts that, in my mind, need to be a part of the proposal:
    • 1. Any userbox that has already been deleted or is deleted in the future in accordance with the implementation of this proposal needs to be subst'd on the subpage of WP:Userboxes. Right now, there are a bunch of redlinks from where userboxes have already been deleted. Those that were not hateful need to be replaced.
    • 2. There needs to be some kind of copy/paste code (kinda like I have done for sumofpi on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Humor or the religion boxes on User:BigDT/Religious User Boxes. It's not pretty and I'm fully open to better ways to code it. Also, there should be a version of the {{userbox}} template that could be used to generate a userbox for posting on Wikipedia:Userboxes.
    • 3. Out of process deletion of userboxes must STOP until the proposal becomes policy. I absolutely, positively, reject the notion of administrators imposing policy, rather than implementing it based on consensus. BigDT 22:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • 4. There needs to be unilateral universal agreement that this represents a compromise and that six months from now, you guys aren't just going to delete the {{userbox}} template itself along with Wikipedia:Userboxes. In other words, this needs to be the final step, not a slippery slope.
    • 5. There needs to be an agreement on standards for what can go on Wikipedia:Userboxes. As it has been pointed out, "This user hates George Bush" is permitted in user space. We need to agree in advance, though, what can go inside of Wikipedia:Userboxes itself, and I would think that "This user hates George Bush" would be inappropriate.
    • 6. This needs to be a community consensus that is voted on, not something that you guys implement just because you can.

BigDT 22:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree absolutely with every point that you have made, with one exception: replace "unilateral" with "universal." Otherwise, I assent to all of this. Mackensen (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I also think these are great points that are a good first step towards a thorough policy on Userspace-based Userboxes. I would certainly support the end of deletions and focus ONLY on Mackensen's proposal and your ideas here for implementing such a policy. It would refocus the debate on moving the Userboxes into user space and the benefits of that move, rather than on defending individual boxes based on the merits of their content, which completely misses the point and does not address the problems. - Nhprman 02:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't all of this discussion go on WP:UBP WP:UPP WP:UUB Wikipedia:Userbox policy or User:Misza13/Userbox Gallery Poll or Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes/Proposals? Kotepho 22:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    No, I think this is the place. This is where people will see it. If a critical mass develops I'll write it up someplace else. Those who are interested in this topic will see it here and hopefully contribute. Mackensen (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    I love this proposal, I really do--but it is not different than a myriad of others. WP:UPP had 61% approval, so it is probably a good place to start. Go through and read the different attempts at policy, particularly the opposes and write up a proposal and throw it in WP:CENT. "I think this proposal is great so I'll force it on everyone!" does not help the encyclopedia or the community. Kotepho 23:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not planning on forcing this. I want support. I want as much support as can be found. I want a solution that people can live with and abide by. And I want that solution to be as simple and benign as possible. Mackensen (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Further comment. Ultimately, what gets listed at WP:UBX ought to be up the WikiProject guys, with the understanding that transclusions are not permitted and that personal attacks are frowned upon. Mackensen (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This issue is not just about having a box on a userpage. I agree it is about template space. It's also about category space. At an even more basic level, it’s about automated groupings of Wikipedians. “Userbox deletionists” are against it, “userbox preservationists” are for it. A central argument by many deletionists is that removing automated groupings (e.g., “What links here” & categories) inhibits “factionalists,” which is good for the project. A central argument by many preservationists is that these automated groupings support “community building” and “collaboration,” which is good for the project. At this core level of Wikilosophy, most members of both groups are in agreement. The rub comes at the operational level in deciding what to do about these automated groupings, and so, the fur flies.
  • In an open society like Wikipedia, its members will possess a wide and diverse variety of points of view. In fact, this is necessary to write a balanced and unbiased encyclopedia. Consequently, the success of the project fundamentally and necessarily depends on collaboration and community building. Factionalism, on the other hand, impedes the progress of this effort. However, repressive attempts to eliminate factionalism, invariably fail to remove the intended target. Quite the contrary. The original factions typically are motivated to close ranks and push their agenda even harder. In addition, wide-scale repressive tactics intended for a minority faction that are indiscriminately imposed upon the general population only serve to factionalize tremendously more members at a systemic level. This scenario currently is playing out at Wikipedia. The extent to which it continues will play a major roll in determining the basic health of this online community and, ultimately, the overall quality of the project. For this reason, I wholeheartedly urge editors, and particularly administrators, to err on the side of collaboration and community building. Rfrisbietalk 22:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Forgive me, but I don't understand the nature of your objection to my proposal. Mackensen (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      • In a nutshell, I'm opposed to eliminating userbox templates and categories that group wikipedians because they intentionally eliminate the automated "What links here" and category groupings of wikipedians. If that were not the issue, transcluding vs. substituting would be irrelevant. I consider these listings to be the best reasons to put userboxes in template with category markup coding. This facilitates collaboration and community building. Factions should be dealt with based on explicit biased behavior in editing articles, not with universal sanctions on the usage of Wikimedia software tools. Rfrisbietalk 00:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia's mission isn't meant to facilitate community building. At the risk of assuming bad faith, I also have a problem with noting other Userbox proposals on the front page of this proposal, and question your motives for posting them since you oppose changes to the templates so strongly. It tends to imply (incorrectly) that this is just one of several proposals, when one of them is a proposal in utero, another of the three is a failed proposal. Why should other proposals be posted so prominently on the front page of this one? Nhprman 05:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia's mission may not be to facilitate community building, but if community building helps accomplish Wikipedia's mission, shouldn't we build communities? Writing gramatically correct English isn't Wikipedia's mission either, but it certainly helps us make a better encyclopedia. If I want to find someone who speaks Russian, it's much easier to do that with the current system (what links here) than if I need to do a search. RCS talk 16:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support this is a very good idea; I applaud Mackensen for stepping up with the idea, as lots of people have thought about this but not much action has been taken, resulting in the "power struggle" between the two sides. My userboxes themselves were converted to reside on my userpage only, and not take up template space. Mopper Speak! 23:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Though I would suggest that certain userboxen that have legitimate administrative purpose ("I am an admin", "I speak native Turkish", etc.) might remain in the template namespace--if for no other reason than easier and more convenient access. "Legitimate administrative purpose" doesn't include user self-expression; only things which serve the purpose of enabling improvement to the encyclopedia. I keep several non-controversial userboxen (which I wouldn't like to see vanish), some of them whimsical (but none of the offensive); I wouldn't object at all to them being substed rather than transcluded; and I don't much care where they live. --EngineerScotty 23:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Many users have proposed very similar ideas in the past. Personally, I think such a measure would be excessive and would cause more inconvenience than it would solve in the long run (as well as wasting more time than templates do, thus distracting users from editing the encyclopedia even more, without solving any substantial problem), though I respect your attempts to diffuse the situation peacefully. In my experience, the threat of vote-stacking, though a legitimite concern in a few instances, is largely a scarecrow (exacerbated by a failure to assume good faith of userbox-users) used by anti-userboxers for the sake of justifying their mass-deletion: their true concerns are much more based on their irrational terror that letting users explain their beliefs in a systematic way will "turn Wikipedia into MySpace". If they really cared all that much about potential vote-stacking methods, they'd have done away Category:Wikipedians and its subcats long ago, which is a much easier (and much older) method of contacting similar users than userboxes' "what links here" device. (Heck, I don't think most userbox-users are even aware that the "what links here" page exists!) The substing idea would also still cause problems and controversy if we continued to ban certain topics from userpages even when not a transcluded template, such as "I'm a pedophile" or "I think homosexual intercourse is a sin". That sort of hypocrisy, turning Wikipedia into a moral arbiter of what is or isn't decent and good, is unacceptable.
  • However, I would not oppose including some userboxes as raw code (rather than templates); that's actually a very good idea, to satisfy the users who want to add the stuff to their page, while removing any "danger" of them connecting to one another for some nefarious scheme. I simply think that your idea of substing them all is a very bad idea: why not subst the ones that express a POV, but keep templated the ones that express an unbiased interest? The concerns, after all, are of users factionalizing based on their personal ideologies, not of them contacting one another based on what articles they happen to be specialized in. Not all inter-user networking is bad: when it lets users with a shared interest get together easily to improve Wikipedia, it's a very positive organizational force. -Silence 00:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • My reasons are simplicity and practicality. The difficulties over T1 demonstrate the impossibility of determining what is acceptable and what is not. Frankly, it's a not a judgment that should have to be made in the first place. Your userspace is yours; do what you like with it. Template space belongs to the encyclopedia. No one, by the way, is proposing banning certain topics from a user page. Let me be clear: this proposal does not modify one iota the rules for content on user pages. It neither seeks nor imposes restrictions in that regard. No one has proposed anything like that here; quite the opposite–I already suggested retrieving the code from deleted templates.
    • I'm troubled that will you suggest administrators don't assume good faith you do the same. Believe me when I say that there are those of us very much concerned about the possibility of vote-stacking because it represents such a threat to the concept of consensus. Mackensen (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I would add one more thing. This is a compromise. You aren't expected to like all of it. I certainly don't. In my mind the best compromise is the one which does not give any faction everything it wants. As Thiers said of the French Republic: it was the system which divided the French least. Mackensen (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support. First of all, categorization along lines that might be conducive to vote-rigging is Evil. Obviously this wouldn't apply to Babel boxes, boxes declaring oneself to be an [insert rank here] and nothing else, or boxes declaring your membership in a totally content-neutral wikigroup such as WP:RCP or "This user assumes good faith", but anything else should be substed. (Images would still provide linkbacks, though, hmm . . .) Second of all, there's nothing inherently wrong with expressing a political view on your userpage, as others have argued. And finally, from a tactical voting perspective, this just might be able to get enough consensus to end this insane deletion wars. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolute support. I supported the original subst'ing compromise that the "userbox inclusionist" hardliners originally rejected. To me, this is in the same spirit as that policy. I think Mackensen's wrong in that this will displease everyone to some extent, though - this makes me perfectly happy. I can't stand some userboxes, and I dislike them being in template-space, but I honestly can never be bothered enough to do anything about them - not even take a stand at DRV or TfD. It matters not one whit to me whether userboxes stay or go. What matters to me is factionalism and vote-stacking, and userboxes which promote these practices should go no matter what. This proposal would allow us to come to easier compromises on such issues. Johnleemk | Talk 03:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Thanks for the note on my talk page, Mackensen.
I think that this is the best way to go. My only additions at the moment(and I know I'm repeating what others have said) would be that:
  1. There must be a page (or pages) containing userbox codes, likely at WP:UBX.
  2. I think that the Babel boxes should an exception to the policy. They should remain in the Template: namespace. However, I believe they should be the only exception, so we don't get arguments over what else should stay in Template space.
  3. This policy must gain community consensus before it is implemented.
That's all I can think of to say for now. I'll add this page to my watchlist, and I hope something comes of it. —MiraLuka 03:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm not convinced that this would solve any actual problems. Vote stacking will still be possible, but will require slightly more work. Finding someone who's fluent in Spanish will also be slightly more work. Maybe I don't understand this aspect of the alleged problem, but I don't really know why the template namespace needs to be cleaner, nor have I yet seen evidence that it is dirty. Also, this proposal doesn't preserve all legitimate uses of userboxes, for example locating users who speak a given language. RCS talk 16:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, it does. Please read through all the discussion below. Babel boxes will probably be kept. Also, we're not voting yet. Mackensen (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Of course, exceptions such as allowing Babel boxes begs the question of who decides whether a specific class of userboxes is "worthy" of template space. Which skills and backgrounds contribute to such a high degree that they should be exempt from template exclusion? Rfrisbietalk 17:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, it does, which is why the fewer exceptions the better. The best answer is that Babel boxes predate all other boxes. Of course, Phil might be able to give use a solution that allows substing those as well without losing the essential linkage. Mackensen (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
          • That presumes a ban requiring exceptions in the first place. Without a ban the community can decide what's important. Rfrisbietalk 18:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
            • And it seems to me that such a process is going on right here. Mackensen (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support provided it applies not just to userboxes but also to Babelboxes and the other templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/User namespace. Any attempt to decide which templates are acceptable in userspace and which aren't is doomed from the start. This proposal has to apply equally to all templates intended for userspace. Angr (t • c) 22:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose the proposal has the main effect of making it more difficult for users to find a nice graphic to illustrate something about themselves. The current userbox system allows people to share a badge with an informal group of people who have the same characteristic. Lighten up a bit: this is a charitable, collaborative project made up of individuals with many characteristics, not a boot camp. Elroch 01:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basic tenets

  1. Subst or turn all of Template:User ... into Template:Userbox format on user pages
    Exemptions or none?
  2. Delete all userboxes from Template:
    Ditto
  3. Maintain a list of userboxes with examples and the code at Wikipedia:Userboxes (or something)
    Who cares where

[edit] What this solves

  1. Prevents some methods of vote stacking
    Do we disallow images? categories?
  2. Cleans up the Template: namespace
  3. Preserves the use of userboxes
  4. Reduces edit warring over template wording colo(u)r/layout/category as each user's subst:d template can be modified without affecting anyone else.

[edit] On the tenets

I approve of the list that Kotepho has created here. I suggest that the use of images falls within the standard user page guidelines: no fair use. Mackensen (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If an image is used, even substed or in {{userbox}} form the user page will show up on the images listed under the image page. As such, it could also be used for vote stacking in the same sense as whatlinkshere or categories. I don't particularlly like the vote stacking argument, as no matter what it will happen and it seems like sticking your finger in the dyke when the water is already cresting over it. Kotepho 23:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The inability to do something perfectly is not a reason to do nothing, however. -- nae'blis (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Vote stacking is bad. Does it happen often? I don't think so. Is it normally noticed or otherwise does not do a lot of damage? I think so.
We think lots of things that aren't necessarily true. "Most vandalism is reverted in 5 minutes or less", and yet my Watchlist is full of vandalism 42 minutes, 10 hours, 2 days old. True, I tend to watch the less-watched pages, and can't/refuse to be here 24/7 to monitor against the chance of vandalism, but it does happen. I happen to think that most vote stacking/organizing happens relatively invisibly. IRC commentary, for example, has a huge impact on RfAs. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Does getting rid of categories/images deter vote stacking? yes. Are there benefits to having the categories/images? yes, in some cases.
There is some benefit, I'll grant you. There's also some risks. Is it necessary to the project, and unable to be done transparently through WikiProjects? Maybe. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Will the denial of images/categories cause people to not support this proposal? Maybe. Do we want this policy have wide support? yes.
I may be elitist, but I don't think having everyone on board for a proposal is absolutely necessary. I'm in the admin camp on that aspect of this; some people truly seem to be more interested in the social networking aspects than the encyclopedia-building aspects of Wikipedia. "Consensus" doesn't require unanimity, in the Wikipedia sense (which is why I wish they'd stop using that term); it also requires a good-faith effort. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
It is all about weighing risks, rewards, and opportunity costs. I don't have a solid opinion one way or the other yet. Kotepho 23:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
As long as userboxes have images and/or categories, I can't in good faith support them, ESPECIALLY the polarizing ones. Does babel/location boxes having categories harm the project? Probably not, in most instances. Maybe this proposal goes too far, for some, but it avoids taking sides, and supports some personal expression on userpages. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As mentioned above, I would exempt babel-boxes from this process; they serve a legitimate administrative function within Wikipedia. (Only serious babel-boxes corresponding to real natural languages which are spoken here on Earth--{{user Klingon}} and such doesn't count.) --EngineerScotty 23:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I strongly support allowing babelboxes to remain. As it is it is they are pretty standard across many projects, so it would seem unreasonable to have them not work like they do elsewhere here for little reason other than a zero tollerance policy. Kotepho 03:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "If Babel boxes remain as templates, why not other boxes?", some will argue. I think it's a can of worms to say keep one group but not the other in template space. If all are not moved over to User space, there will be a fight over what stays. That said, I don't feel strongly on this one way or another. They were the first Templated Userboxes, they could very well go back to being the ONLY ones in template space. - Nhprman 04:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Klingon, Esperanto, programming languages, and any other artificial languages should remain. User boxes that are for skills related to editing an encyclopedia (such as Template:User degree/MHA should remain, too. Ardric47 04:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I said this above, but I'll put it here too. I think that Babel boxes should be allowed to stay, but I think that those should be the only ones. That way, we'll have a bright line to point to, otherwise we'll have to deal with arguments over whether or not a specific box contains information related to editing Wikipedia. —MiraLuka 04:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
*But do you see what Ardrick47 just said? He has several "exceptions" that would also be saved as template Userboxes. How does it get decided, without seeming arbitrary? Nhprman 04:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC) I simply didn't read the response correctly Nhprman 05:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I saw what he said, I was responding to it. As I said, we need a "bright line" unless we're willing to deal with debates over every single userbox (like we have now). Even if it is arbitrary. —MiraLuka 05:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A second category for exemption: Wikiboxen which are used to specify membership in a WikiProject; i.e. {{User WP CS}}. --EngineerScotty 05:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

:*Hmm...now I think I agree with that. The line moves... —MiraLuka 05:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I was right the first time. The line needs to be drawn somewhere. Those boxes can be placed, along with their coding, on the WikiProject's page. —MiraLuka 06:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This proposal's "bright line" of deleting/subst'ing ALL Templated boxes should NOT move. Any Userbox category can have a seemingly good excuse for keeping it in the template space, but the decision to keep one category and not the other will be arbitrary. This would also take MONTHS of "voting" to hash out among all the various interest groups vigorously defending each category of box, just like we're seeing now with individiual boxes. LET'S NOT DO THAT because it will junk this proposal. - Nhprman 06:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see any strong arguments for their inclusion versus thousands of others. They can just as easily be subst'd or made a subpage of the wikiproject, but I do not think people have objections to their categories (which is mostly the same as the participants list anyways...). Kotepho 06:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of Above Basic tenets

  • I think there would have to be no exemptions - otherwise we are right back here in six months
  • We need to have agreement that, though it is desirable to remove templates as an issue of server resources, this is not an attempt to do away with the use of userboxes - just the storing of them as templates.
  • "No out of process deletions" needs to be a basic tenet. (1) That way, some administrator who doesn't like userboxes can't come along and start wiping out sections of Wikipedia:Userboxes. (2) Until this proposal is the law of the land, userbox templates should not be deleted except as legit speedies (not things some people wish were speedies) or as a result of a TFD process.
  • This isn't a basic tenet, but it's an integral part of the process - we need a template that will display the userbox and the code used to generate it ... kinda like you see on User:BigDT/Religious User Boxes. Just showing a bunch of userboxes where you have to wade through source code isn't useful and there needs to be a standard format for the revised Wikipedia:Userboxes page. BigDT 23:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I didn't list the deletions as if this proposal passes there would be nothing out of process deleting them (if the rest is followed). The TFDs, DRVUs, speedies, all of it really isn't helping and I do agree they should probably stop (w/ the caveat of those that are actually divisive and inflammatory or attack based. Kotepho 23:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding deletions, it would be my hope that they would stop. I'll be voting keep, pending WP:MACK on all further speedies. Even if they don't, this proposal would bring those boxes back. Regarding the common code, what you've got there looks good, providing it is subst'd as well by the user. Mackensen (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
How is
{{Userbox
  |id-s     = 14
  |id-fc    = black
  |info-s   = 8
  |border-c = #999999
  |info-c   = #eeeeee
  |id-c     = #dddddd
  |id       = noth
  |info-fc  = black
  |info     = This user is a '''[[nontheism|nontheist]]'''.
}}
substainally different than
 <div style="float: left; border:solid {{{1|{{{border-c|{{{id-c|#999999}}}}}}}}} 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: {{{2|{{{info-c|#eeeeee}}}}}};"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: {{{1|{{{id-c|#dddddd}}}}}}; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}pt; color: {{{id-fc|black}}};" | '''noth'''
| style="font-size: {{{info-s|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc|black}}};" | This user is a '''[[nontheism|nontheist]]'''.
|}</div>
besides one being uglier? There is even some code (javascript and AWB) to convert from the html subst'd versions to {{userbox}}/{{userbox-r}}/whatever. What are your objections to people having the {{userbox}} version? Kotepho 23:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I see now. There's no real problem with that, although if Template:Userbox isn't protected already it needs to be. Mackensen (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional Comments

  • If everything is subst-ed, then there won't be a list of what "templates" exist, will there? I don't have a problem with that, except for the more "legitimate" ones—chiefly languages, including programming languages and artificial languages like Klingon, and skills (unless I'm not thinking of something). Ardric47 01:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • There won't be a list of templates, but they will be posted at WP:UBX BigDT 01:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I assume the goal of prohibiting transclutions of userboxes is to prevent automated groupings of Wikipedians. By this logic, does this proposal prohibit Wikipedian categories? By this logic, does this proposal prohibit Wikipedian lists? By this logic, does this proposal prohibit user pages? Policing factions and other vandals who actually damage content should be the focus of deletions, not tools for collaboration and community building. Rfrisbietalk 04:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • My understanding is that it does not prohibit Wikipedian categories, but just breaks the link between a userbox and a fixed category, so that a user can add the userbox and/or category independently of each other. (There have been a few edit wars about which category to attach to some userboxes, which this proposal would stop) MartinRe 18:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
      • That seems reasonable. No prohibition on categories per se, but a separation of categories from boxes. Again, this gives users flexibility and, admittedly, requires them to show additional initiative. Mackensen (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
      • If that's the case then it should be made explicit in the policy that userboxes may use markup codes to link to Wikipedian categories and that categories about Wikipedian interests are allowed. Otherwise, many deletionists will use this as license to delete categories as well. In addition, any locations that show users how to subst userboxes also should show them how to include and customize category codings. 18:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't think that's exactly what MartinRe meant. I think what he meant was that users would be free to categorize themselves, and free to add userboxes, but not free to include the categories within the userboxes. A small point, but important. Regarding categories, as they would no longer be attached to templates they wouldn't fall under any CSD criteria that I can find. Mackensen (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
        • My point was to split the forced relationship between userboxs and categories so that any user can choose whatever userboxs they want and choose whatever categories they want, but one should not dictate the other. In other words, (i.e. Userboxes can not link to categories, but userpages are free to link to whatever cat's they want. I would agree with the latter point, it would be nice to add to WP:UBX in the line of "Userbox X details (people who use this may be interested in adding themselves to catagory Y, or catagory Z)", which should cover most options, without making membership of a specific category a requirement for the usage of a userbox, as it is now. Regards, MartinRe 18:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Mackensen, I fail to see the distinction or the justification for a user being prohibited from placing one or more categories within a userbox, if they so chose. It might be six of one – half a dozen of the other about whether a user chooses to put them in a box or at the bottom of their page in one place. I see no rationale for regulating that. My concern about protecting Category:Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedia userboxes with this policy is that I’ve seen several advocates for deleting templates advocate for deleting their associates categories as well. For example, what happens to Category:Wikipedia userboxes? Does that get deleted? What about all the categories, like Category:Wikipedians by lifestyle? The war just moves to a new front after an emboldening victory here. Having no CSD criteria is moot, the war just goes to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, unless Wikipedians are allowed to self-classify, whether the code goes in a funny little box or not . Rfrisbietalk 19:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Ah, I think I see what you mean. I have no objection, if, on the user's page, they have {{userbox ABC [[CAT:ABC]]}} to keep whatever categories they choose in the same place as the userbox. (Have I understood correctly?) What I was suggesting is that in the original source, where any new users would see it, that there is no category included there (although some may be suggested). What the current situation is with many boxes, it says "If you use box X, you must be in category Y". What this proposal is trying to do is change this to be "If you use box X, you may be in category Y". or may not, it's your choice. Regards, MartinRe 19:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
              • MartinRe, I can support what you and I are saying about templates with no problem. What I oppose is the collateral efforts by some to eliminate all forms of automated wikipedian groupings. First, "What links here," then caegories, then... I think there's a userbox for that somewhere. ;-) Rfrisbietalk 19:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Template - can anyone make this work?

Check out this template:

User:BigDT/TestTemplate

On the left, it shows the code that the user should copy and paste to his or her user page. On the right, it shows the userbox itself. So, something like this:

{{subst:User:BigDT/TestTemplate|id=Hk|info=Virginia Tech is going to win the ACC|border-c=#900000|id-fc=#A00000|info-c=orange}}

... would generate this ...


{{subst:Userbox
|border-c = #900000
|border-s = 1
|id-c = #DDD
|id-s = 14
|id-fc = #A00000
|info-c = orange
|info-s = 8
|info-fc = black
|id = Hk
|info = Virginia Tech is going to win the ACC
|float = left

}}
Hk Virginia Tech is going to win the ACC

That generated output can then be added to WP:UBX. Everyone's happy. There's no more transclusion of templates and the userbox generation code is right there for anyone who wants it.

Here's the problem: how do you stop it from wikifying the parameters?

For example, if I do this:

{{subst:User:BigDT/TestTemplate|id=Hk|info=[[Virginia Tech]] is going to win the ACC|border-c=#900000|id-fc=#A00000|info-c=orange}}

... then Virginia Tech in linked instead of a nowiki version [[Virginia Tech]] ...

{{subst:Userbox
|border-c = #900000
|border-s = 1
|id-c = #DDD
|id-s = 14
|id-fc = #A00000
|info-c = orange
|info-s = 8
|info-fc = black
|id = Hk
|info = Virginia Tech is going to win the ACC
|float = left

}}
Hk Virginia Tech is going to win the ACC

Is it possible for this to work?

BigDT 01:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

{{subst:Userbox :|border-c = #900000 :|border-s = {{{border-width|{{{border-s|1}}}}}} :|id-c = {{{logo-background|{{{1|{{{id-c|#DDD}}}}}}}}} :|id-s = {{{logo-size|{{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}}}} :|id-fc = {{{logo-color|#A00000}}} :|info-c = {{{info-background|{{{2|orange}}}}}} :|info-s = {{{info-size|{{{info-s|8}}}}}} :|info-fc = {{{info-color|{{{info-fc|black}}}}}} :|id = {{{logo|{{{3|Hk}}}}}} :|info = [[Virginia Tech]] is going to win the ACC :|float = {{{float|left}}} }}
Hk Virginia Tech is going to win the ACC

Just put nowiki tags around the template (subst and all). The user won't see them, but the code should work. Mackensen (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I tried that ... when that happens, it doesn't sub in the variables - it just shows {{{border-width|{{{border-s|1}}}}}}, etc, as is BigDT 01:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • From [1] it looks like I am going to have to do something like this:

{{subst:User:BigDT/TestTemplate2|info=This is [[Virginia Tech]]|info-nw=<nowiki>This is [[Virginia Tech]]</nowiki>|id=''it''|id-nw=<nowiki>''it''</nowiki>}}


{{subst:Userbox
|border-c = #999
|border-s = 1
|id-c = #DDD
|id-s = 14
|id-fc = black
|info-c = #EEE
|info-s = 8
|info-fc = black
|id = ''it''
|info = This is [[Virginia Tech]]
|float = left

}}
it This is Virginia Tech

Basically, it would need a nowiki version for the left and a regular version for the right ... it's not spectacular, but it's something. Any thoughts? BigDT 01:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've managed to get it working, but eeww. I'm not proud of this mess.

{{subst:User:SeventyThree/Sandbox 3|id=Hk|info=[[Virginia Tech]] is going to win the ACC|border-c=#900000|id-fc=#A00000|info-c=orange}} gives:


{{subst:Userbox
|border-c = #900000
|border-s = 1
|id-c = #DDD
|id-s = 14
|id-fc = #A00000
|info-c = orange
|info-s = 8
|info-fc = black
|id = Hk
|info = [[Virginia Tech]] is going to win the ACC
|float = left

}}
Hk Virginia Tech is going to win the ACC

There's got to be a way to improve the code, but hey, it works. SeventyThree(Talk) 15:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A compromise

This is the best compromise I've seen. It addresses everyone's issues. I'm sorry, extreme keep partisans, but you can't expect to get everything 100% your way. This is the best compromise as it actually keeps the display on userpages the same. The alternative might take a little longer to ram through from above but the end result would be even less in your favor. --Cyde Weys 01:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not a compromise. Nor is any compromise merited given the division of opinion on this subject: on the one hand there is a tiny handful of killjoys, and on the other there is everyone else. I oppose. Ou tis 16:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way. This represents a good faith effort on a part of many people to find a solution that everyone can live with. It's the wiki way to compromise, and find consensus. Please try to assume good faith and remain civil when discussing this matter. Best, Mackensen (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Also note that this isn't a vote. At the moment we're discussing, trying to find a solution. Mackensen (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
It is a brilliant compromise, isn't it? Unfortunately, the farce that is the recent userbox listings on TFD suggests that it won't achieve the popular consensus that we so badly need; if it proceeds, it'll likely have to be imposed on the recalcitrant ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Therein lies the whole problem - there is a fundamental problem with a community-based encyclopedia when there is an attitude that it is acceptable to impose a non-existent policy against a consensus. The playing around with Template:User Christian ... the deleting of a template when the overwhelming majority voted keep ... none of that is positive. If this so-called compromise does not gain community support, the situation of administrators deleting templates against a consensus is untenable. Enforcing a non-existent policy is NOT the reason administrators are here. BigDT 04:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's wait and see if it gains consensus before holding the funeral for this proposal, okay? It's not a "so-called" compromise, it's a compromise. Also, the last attempt gained 61% support and that was deemed "no consensus." I find that outrageous, and unrealistically Utopian. Nhprman 04:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Compromise? As far as I see it's just simple deleting all of the userboxes, even those that are uncontroversial and useful for encyclopedia (babel, programming languages etc.). It's just a completely unacceptable proposal. If you agree with it, fine, but don't try to present it as a compromise of sorts. Most reasonable editors are against it. Grue 08:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
All respect Grue, but I don't see much opposition yet. Again, I welcome you to bring forward proposals of your own. Mackensen (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
As you know Mackensen, other proposals already are out there. I would think any serious attempts at compromise would work toward finding the "highest common ground" - true consensus - in this collection of serious proposals. Rfrisbietalk 13:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, many proposals exist or have existed. I would argue that a compromise exists between parties, not proposals. Furthermore, this one proposal has already garnered considerable attention from existing parties, both positive and negative. Mackensen (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree people are responsible for compromise. However, as long as more than one serious proposal is active, any claims that a particular proposal has Wikipedia community consensus must be considered suspect. It only behooves the project to ensure true consensus exists before any one of a competing set of proposals is adopted as policy. Until these multiple proposals get straightened out, e.g, "merged" these distinct processes really doesn't have much chance of reaching a consensus. Rfrisbietalk 16:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there's any controversy about keeping the display on userpages the same. If that were going to change it would be because of a change in the censorship policy. I would say this is the most extreme of the three proposals with regards to template space. Misza's delets only the divisive ones, and "Userbox policy" deletes only the intentionally divisive ones. I don't see reason to think that this is the best compromise we can get. TheJabberwʘck 03:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm almost compelled to call it the worst compromise I've seen, in deference to Cyde's superlative. But, it's not. It makes a good-faith to address the things that are important to each group. De-templating userboxes guts their utility. To my mind, there should be a User_Template space, which eliminates the (in a way, beside the point) argument that userboxes exist in the wrong "space." It also fails to solve what the antiuserbox faction perceives as the "problem," namely, the use of userboxes to facilitate votestacking, astroturfing, & puppetry. All it does is to change the method by which it happens. User behavior can only be molded by rules, policies, & guidelines; artificially restricting the power of the technology only works until someone invents a workaround. We already have the policies we need to prevent these human problems. Userbox templates, to my view, needn't become different to meet the objectives of those who oppose the current system. The "space" issue can be solved in the system architecture, and the behavior issue can be solved with the users. The wholesale destruction of what should be a tool for building community & consensus in the Project is both counterproductive & an overreaction.--Ssbohio 02:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Well-stated. Rfrisbietalk 03:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too far reaching, but could be used on the political/religious boxes

We have histroically shown some tolerance to a little a bit of fun with activities such as categorizing Wikipedians as a "cofee break" activity, and I feel that this proposal goes too far in eliminating things which are harmless and do nothing to bring Wikipedia into disrepute. The way I see it userboxes fall into some categories. From best to worst they are

  1. Useful and relevant, the original babelboxes are of course those which come to mind here. In addition things like "This user is an administrator" are uncontroversial. Such userboxes serve a useful purpose and are directly related to the encyclopedia and should remain in template space, with the categories.
  2. Self-describing type class A (i.e. not religious, political or sexual) such as "This user enjoys basketball" have usually not been controversial either, and neither have their associated categories. At best such userboxes, along with the categories can provide people a chance to find other editors who are interested in, or might be experts on a certian kind of topic. I'll admit by the way that I have a {{user alignment}} box (related to Dungeons and Dragons) which seems to fall into such a category.
  3. Silly boxes, such as (at the risk of violating WP:BEANS) "This user likes to contribute to Wikipedia by hanging from the celing and typing on the keyboard with his left foot while guiding the mouse with the right foot." These userboxes are sometimes offensive to people because of the sheer silliness, but other people just find them good fun.
  4. Self-describing political and religious such as "This user is a Libertarian" or similar political or religious userboxes. These seem to be the most controversial at the moment and lead to a lot of bickering these past days.
  5. Self-describing anti-political and anti-religious such as "This user opposes socialism". These are already speedied as T1 candidates and there are not all that many who seem to miss them.
  6. Trolling such as "This user HATES all the deletionist vandals". Already speedied as T1, and no tears.
  7. Vandalism such as "This user thinks Sjakkalle is a complete moron who should be tried for treason, hung, drawn and quartered." These were speedied even before the advent of T1 becuase they are G3 candidates.

The way I see it, types 1 and 2 should be allowed to remain in template space. Type 1 are useful to the building of the encyclopedia while type 2 represent some of our oldest bits of fun and community building that we have, and they are not harmful whatsoever. Indeed, several of are most respected contributors have taken time off to have some fun, and we shouldn't ban such activity outright. The silly type 3 boxes are not helpful, but not very harmful in template space either, though I am not opposed to placing them in userspace. I think there should be a buffer zone between keepable templates and speedy deletable templates, and "sillyboxes" seem to be a natural buffer zone to me (i.e. send them to TFD and everyone agrees to respect the outcome of the TFD).

I have no trouble with your proposed policy when it comes to boxes of types 4 and 5 (these are after all the boxes which Jimbo expressed grave concerns about), while those of type 6 and 7 should just be deleted outright.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree, but I note that previous attempts to resolve the situation ran aground trying to determine what was worthwhile and what wasn't. In the end, we're left making a value judgement, and I don't think that's a good idea. Functionally, there's no difference between any of these types–they all have similar underlying code. Therefore, with a global listing being maintained, there's no real purpose to keeping any of them in template space, with the possible exception of #1 (thanks for these groupings, by the way). On that score, I understand that Phil Boswell has been working on a global babel template. Still, this is something to build on here. Mackensen (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I have a prototype framework (and I cannot emphasise that strongly enough ) available for scrutiny here. It uses two levels of template: one for the box and another for the individual languages. The former will only display those language codes it is coded to understand; the latter encapsulate all available levels of expertise within a single template. Obviously this framework could be adapted to cover other community-approved types of box also, possibly something to show which WikiProjects a user belonged to. Please feel free to comment on the discussion pages as appropriate: please (pretty please!) don't fiddle with the code unless you see something egregiously wrong because it's still under development and I have them open for editing for long periods (so it would be better to drop me a line…). HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed there is a value judgement here, for instance the line between type 2 and 3 is a little blurry. That is why I think a buffer zone of userboxes which can be discussed civilly on TFD is so important. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One alternative proposal that might as well be out there

Why not just require all userboxes to be substed? You can leave the templates themselves right where they are - they aren't hurting anything. Just require that if you use one, you subst, rather than transclude it. We can add some code to them ... like Template:TestTemplatesNotice that yells loudly at you if you forget to subst. Advantages:

  • Removes server drain from transcluded userboxes
  • Eliminates ability to social network based on "what links here"
  • Keeps the existing TFD process in place to review and remove inappropriate userbox templates (vs WP:MACK where inappropriate userbox templates would just be an edit conflict. (As before, I'm not talking or concerned about what a user puts on their page - just what boxes are listed on WP:UBX itself.)
  • Should remove EVERY objection from the pro-userbox crowd because - well - what's to complain about? Substing should have been done from the get go.

Any takers? BigDT 12:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  • How do you enforce this? i.e. How can you ensure (require) that everyone has subst'd the boxes they've used? There might be a bot that would do this, I don't know. It's an honest question. Nhprman 14:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I suspect a bot could do it. I don't favor this option, personally, because it leaves this issue open, and there's still stuff occupying the template namespace. It's an interesting alternative, but I don't think I could support it. Mackensen (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I know one bot who could do it :-P Cyde Weys 22:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dumb question: What's the big deal, anyway?

One thing I haven't seen so far is a good technical explanation of just why userboxes are so hard on the servers. I see concerns about load - but no facts. Has anyone instrumented the code and actually measured the load that the template (which, AIUI, is the Wikipedia equivalent of a server-side include) places on creation of a page? Has anyone, especially, comared it with the costs of having the code explicitly included on the user's page without dynamic interpretation?

Optimizing wihtout measuring is a classic error in computing. It's extremely common for programmers to spend lots of time optimizing code that doesn't get executed enough to warrant the effort. This proposal, as well as the jihad against userboxes in some quarters, smells like the same kind of thing. I am in no way casting aspersions on anyone's motives, which I'll readily concede are pure; I'd just like to see some facts before concluding that comments such as "userboxes damage the servers" are anything more than sheer hyperbole. Jay Maynard 13:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  • That's not the issue at stake here, really. My understanding is that straight html takes less effort than a transcluded template. The greater issue, and the one that concerns most people, is the proper use of the Template namespace and possible concerns about vote-stacking. The primary issues are not technical. Mackensen (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no problem with server load. Only 0.0001% of page views are User pages. Frankly I've never seen this argument used by opponents of userboxes before. Grue 13:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • What, then, should I make of comments in TfD such as "Why we don't focus on improve the Wiki instead of creating userboxes that permanently harm the server?"? Jay Maynard 13:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Damned if I know. I suppose one could interpret it metaphorically. This isn't TfD. This is a policy proposal that does not have any mention, so far as I know, of technical concerns. Mackensen (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. What, then, is the problem with transcluding userbox templates, if not server load? That's what the policy appears aimed at stopping. Jay Maynard 13:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
          • In a nutshell, the problem is that personal opinions/non-encyclopedic content and the like are existing in the Template: namespace, when they ought to be in the User: namespace. There's a further concern that the "What links here:" feature of the Template (or, for that matter, any transcluded page) encourages vote-stacking efforts. There have been several such occurences in the last month. The concern may be overrated; I'm not convinced. Substing the code onto user pages eliminates these concerns while making the code a part of the user's page. They still have what they had before. Mackensen (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Can you point me to an explanation of what the Template: namespace is for and why it's important that it be kept pure? As for vote-stacking, can you point to examples? If someone can do a "what links here:" for "User republican", they can do a search for "This user is a Republican" about as easily; thus, stopping transcluding would seem to be of limited benefit for that purpose. I'm interested in this discussion because I spent a couple of hours last night setting up my user page. (Forgot to hit "save".) I even (horrors!) created a new template, User from Texas, because User Texas didn't reflect my situation. Having standardized templates instead of lots of ad-hoc code seems to me to be, ultimately, more beneficial to the infrastructure of Wikipedia, although I'm certainly open to being convinced otherwise (if I wasn't, I wouldn't have asked this dumb question!). Fundamentally, this proposal seems to have two effects: End the anti-userbox crusade by removing it from the realm of TfD, and a resource tradeoff between template space and user space. The cost is in increased complexity, increased difficulty for the less-technical user, and decreased utility for some purposes. Is the benefit worth the cost? Jay Maynard 14:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
              • For the template namespace, see Wikipedia:Template namespace. Regarding vote-stacking, I'd have to dig through the archives. I know that's a lame response, but it'll take time to dig up examples. One that does come immediatedly to mind is User:StrangerInParadise, who spammed many talk pages [2]. Note that the Arbitration Committee has held, and most Wikipedians agree, that spamming talk pages, especially to encourage voting, is a Bad Thing. Mackensen (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
                • Far be it from me to disagree that spamming anything at any time for any purpose is a Bad Thing. I'm not at all sure that doing away with transclusion and the links it generates, or with user categories, will achieve the desirable end of preventing it, though. I'll go read the Template namepsace page right now. Jay Maynard 14:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
                • Okkay, I've read Template namespace. I understand how it works. I still don't understand the purity argument, though. Dumber question: How hard is it to create namespaces? If that's the concern of most folks, why not create another namespace (call it User templates, or some such), and move all of the userbox templates there? They'd only be included by the {{}} flags on pages from the User namespace. (Yeah, I know...typical user, suggesting program changes with no idea of how hard it'd be.) Jay Maynard 14:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
                  • The bottom line is, it's up to the devs, and the devs already hate userboxes with a passion and they're certainly not going to add another entire namespace just to accomodate userboxes. Remember, they're unpaid volunteers (except for brion?), so you can't force them to do anything they don't want to do :-P Cyde Weys 16:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
                    • As a project manager for an open source software project, I'm intimately familiar with the effect of developer dislike on feature implementation. If the developers aren't going to do it, then that's that for that idea. Since you're one of the ones hollering loudest abvout resource consumption, though, perhaps you could answer my original question? Jay Maynard 16:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
                      • Actually I'm really not howling about resource consumption. Here's a little bit of history. Templates were originally coded for MediaWiki for Tim Starling as a convenient way to add navigational boxes to multiple articles without having to go back and update each article invidivually each time you needed to update the navigational box. Templates were quickly then used by users for such things as block messages and vandalism warnings, but that was really still okay, because it was helping to build the encyclopedia. But at some point, some users started using templates in direct opposition to Wikipedia's purpose and philosophy. The philosophy of Wikipedia is thus: "Here we are all Wikipedians. You check your biases at the door and write all articles from a neutral point of view." As you can see, having a bunch of things in template space that proclaims all manner of personal beliefs and biases gives the wrong idea about Wikipedia is. Since it's in template space and used on many different user pages it almost gets an implicit endorsement from us. During the userbox heyday a lot of new users were introduced to Wikipedia by way of "Here's a list of userboxes you can put on your userpage," rather than, "Here's how to edit articles." And the result was a lot of users spent more time working on their userpages and making userboxes than actually writing the encyclopedia. --Cyde Weys 17:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
                        • (My god, it's full of stars! :-) When you talk about "how much code and how much server resources it takes to display a simple colored box", it sounds like you're complaining (okkay, I'll grant that "howling" is extreme, even if I didn't say it) about resource usage. Putting that aside for the moment...The philosophy of Wikipedia is a nice ideal, but it's impossible when you're dealing with real people. After all, professional journalists can't achieve it; what makes us think that amateurs with axes to grind can? The best we can hope is that people declare their biases up front and watch out for them, knowing that others can and will call them on it if they step over the line. I doubt, for example, that I could achieve NPOV on an article about the workings of Communism in real life. (So I won't even try.) I certainly don't consider the userboxes an endorsement of their concepts by Wikipedia, and especially those for which a wide range of varying, opposing viewpoints are available. Yes, I agree that userboxes are not what it's about - but trying to clamp down on them denies a simple fact: In any shared endeavor, whether desired or not, a sense of community forms aboutnd those sharing the work. You can't stamp out communities on Wikipedia, and it's foolish to try. Jay Maynard 17:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
                            • I hope no one's going to be stamping anything out. Anyway. Too many asterisks, let's make a pact to start at the left edge on the next comment. Mackensen (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Hooray, free prominence! Anyway, the personal expression and sense of community would still be there. It just wouldn't be coming from the template namespace. Ardric47 05:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Again: What's wrong with having it in the template namespace? The objections seem to be "server load" (but nobody appears to have actually instrumented the system to verify, let alone quantify, the effect) and "vote stacking" (which this proposal really does nothing to fix). Jay Maynard 11:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Babel boxes

How about babel boxes, would these go the same way? Presumably... ? - FrancisTyers 13:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm for peace at almost any cost but destroying the babel boxes goes very far, in my opinion. Keeping them as templates is convenient - it provides a standardized representation and allows us to update all instances at the same time. It also makes the user page code much cleaner. There are several boxes which are just as useful as the babel boxes, e.g. project boxes, the admin box and boxes denoting expertise or interest in a subject. Haukur 15:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I've said somewhere on here (can't remember where), that I would favor keeping babel boxes (using Phil Boswell's new format), with the proviso that they be limited to those languages which have a corresponding wiki. Mackensen (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
There are literally thousands of notable languages without their own wikis. Jimpartame 15:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
True; I'm not disputing that. However, the primary utility of the babel system is to make it easier to find people to translate things between wikis. I used to have a German babel box, and I fielded at least one interwiki request (in addition to my own efforts). I'm not saying that languages without their own wikis aren't notable or important, I'm just saying that they shouldn't be a part of the Babel box system. Mackensen (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd add "have a wikipedia edition, or is the native tongue of some region". The first is administrative, the second is basic fairness. And this would still exclude frivolous babble-boxes like {{user pig-3}} or {{User:UBX/1337-0}} (both of which adorn my user page, I must admit). --EngineerScotty 16:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Right. I suppose what I'm getting at is a reasonable expectation that said user would need to translate something in this language, or communicate with a user in this language, for the purposes of encyclopedic work. Mackensen (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Please keep the standard (having a Wikipedia edition) Babel boxes, they work consistently (using the same templates and the same wiki code) on all language editions of Wikipedia, and allow easy identification of which languages you can use to communicate with a given user. Especially {{User en-0}} is important in this context. See Wikipedia:Babel and its dozens of interwikilinks, all of which go to pages in other languages describing the same format. It is great to be able to use the same format on ALL Wikipedias, regardless of whether you understand the language or not. Kusma (討論) 19:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I can only get behind this compromise if all templates are treated equally. If this proposal applies to non-Babel userboxes, it must also apply to Babelboxes, to {{pic of the day}}, to {{Userpage}}, to {{opentask}}, and all other templates intended for userspace. Angr (t • c) 23:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
It is a tough one, no doubt. Having a policy with grey areas is a recipe for disaster, but I don't think all templates should be treated equally, as not all templates are equal, as for one thing, {{opentask}} wouldn't work if userfied, wheres {{{user wears funny hats}} would be perfectly fine. However, it does need to be clearly defined, and not fuzzy. My gut feeling (and it's late here) is that templates that are unlikely to be modifed by any of the user whose page they are on, are good canditates for remaining in template space, and anything that is likely to be modified by multiple people is probably better userfied to stop edit wars. Not an ideal definition, but that would mean the above would be fine, as would the babel and wikiproject ones, but all the "personalised" ones would be userified. Regards, MartinRe 23:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Good point about {{opentask}}. I'd say the only templates for userspace that should remain as templates under this proposal are those whose usefulness depends on their ability to be updated frequently. This would include {{opentask}} and its relatives, {{pic of the day}} and its relatives, and {{Signpost-subscription}}. Angr (t • c) 09:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This is tangential, Martin, so feel free to split of a new header if you want to. As I replied to you below, isn't an easy solution to edit conflicts to split off to another template? This is impossible in article space, but easy in template space. The edit conflict problem seems a specious reason to vote against template space boxes to me. TheJabberwʘck 01:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

But since the raw code is so easily changed, wouldn't it make even more sense to avoid these splits altogether? One-use templates are a waste and would be justifiably deleted through normal channels. Mackensen (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
So are you assuming that the edit conflict is between one user who wants a different version and everyone else? I was picturing more two groups who can't decide which is the right template. I would agree with you in the first scenario, but not in the second. TheJabberwʘck 01:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Not exactly. I view this as a situation where one size doesn't necessarily fit all. I can easily see a userbox getting forked for any number of reasons–thematic, stylistic, whatever have you. The elegance of substituting (via the new box demonstrated below) is that users are free to modify without worrying about harming someone else's box (more to the point, altering someone else's page). Forking is good in this situation. People's user pages shouldn't be clones of each other. Mackensen (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that Babel boxes are apparently part of this, can we "freeze" this proposal a few days at least so we don't have a moving target? I realize this may be hard to do for some ADHD editors on WP, but it's essential that we're talking about the same proposal, not one that is edited every 24 hours. As for the Babel boxes themselves, great that they're excluded. Now wait 15 minutes for someone to say "But location boxes are great tools for editing, too" and "Religion boxes help us edit religion articles" etc. It's a slipery slope, folks, and I hope it doesn't scuttle the entire proposal. The joy of it was it's simplicity "Delete ALL userboxes in the template space" Now that's gone, and it's a weaker proposal now. - Nhprman 03:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Weaker, maybe, in policy, but much stronger in terms of community support, as few people are opposed to the Babel boxes. Besides for that, it's fine with me if you want to freeze the proposal for a bit. TheJabberwʘck
This is where terms and definitions get in the way. I'm not Opposed to Babelboxes, either. I'm opposed to where they reside - Template space. If people support the plan now because their "favorite" box category is now exempted, I think this Proposal will be doomed by 1000 future compromises to make it more "palatable" to users woefully uninformed about the problems that prompted it. Nhprman 05:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Why do we need to "freeze" anything? We are discussing. Things change, that is the point? It isn't like this is a vote yet. Kotepho 04:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, actually, that's a good point, Kotepho. Nphrman, I think it'll be OK as long as changes in the policy itself are clearly supported by and referenced to discussion here. TheJabberwʘck 04:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
This was presented as a Proposal to move all Userboxes out of template space and into User space where they could be freer and out of the delete/undelete debate entirely, with the social networking element stripped from them. Now it's changed course by allowing "some" userboxes as Templates and there are (misguided) attempts to preserve and protect the social networking elements that caused most of the problems to begin with.
So personally, I'm not even weighing in on this again until it's fully formed and ready for voting. Something that started off great could end up horrid after it exempts more userbox categories for the sake of compromise and consensus (I'm sure someone will eventually argue: "Keep humor templates, they're harmless.") That result would clearly undermine the spirit of the Proposal entirely. I hope that's not where this is heading, though. Nhprman 05:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it was a bit early to call this a proposal. It really is just his idea.. and one post on DRVU. It needs to be molded and it will probably change some. It seems silly to stay out of the kitchen while the food is being cooked only to say "I don't like lobster," after the meal is done. State your positions and explain them. You don't want any exemptions other than babelboxes or not even them? Say that. Say why. Make an argument. Answer other's concerns.
I for one think there is a good reason to exempt babelboxes and their categories. I can go to a wiki where I do not even speak the language and find someone that speaks ones that I do know. That is something useful and unique, as for any other exemptions people have brought up (which I have not seen much approval for) do not grant such benefits. If you speak English you can probably find the other userboxes if you want them, or use babelboxes and their categories to find someone that you can communicate with. Kotepho 05:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Babelboxes should not be exempted from any policy on userboxes, since they are userboxes, and serve the same function: to tell others something about you in a brief, eye-catching way. Babelboxes are a fun, colorful way to brag about what languages you know, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking they actually benefit the encyclopedia in any way. Nothing in userspace does. Angr (t • c) 07:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Babelboxes aren't particularly useful, but their categories are (or if there is not a category, the template and whatlinkshere is). They have been useful to me on both ja. and de. in such a way that does not exist with any of the other kinds. I don't particularly like exceptions either, but I believe that this one has a solid point (you are of course free to disagree with it). Kotepho 05:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm ready to support this if some items are clarified

The proposition is sound and I would be quite ready to support this if some doubts I have could be answered:

  1. Would some WP useful userboxes stay as templates (Admin, etc.). If so, how many and who will decide which are useful? This could be a new possible source of eternal voting.
  2. Would removing category template follow? Most of the same arguments could be used against categories (except the silly "server overload" one). Will a new category war start with the same adversaries wasting again a lot of time that could be used making WP better?
  3. Who can guarantee that the proposed list of usebox code will not be another battleground (with the same set claiming a "Userbox Christian" code id divisive unless it include a spinning crucifix?
  4. How can we be sure that no general offensive against users showing any political / ethical / religious affiliation will be next?

Generally, if the discussion started with this proposal and not awarding my userpage with the above-mentioned alleged symbol of my religion, I would be 100% amenable to change. I do assume good faith on the vast majority of WP editors. However, there is always a small minority which could use any pretext to start new disruptive WP-wars. Good policies which withstand the test of time must take into account that we are only human. Assuming good faith is what we do in case of individual users, it does not work for the whole population. Therefore any final version of this policy should contain definite statements about categories, userbox code lists and userboxes on userpages. Thank you for attention. Stepping off the soap-box. --Friendly Neighbour 14:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  • The question of "useful" boxes is tricky. It's dangerous for precisely the reasons you suggest. My thought is this: babel boxes can stay, if we have a wiki in that language. The primary utility of a babel box is to enable interwiki translation. Boxes which denote a user's status on Wikipedia...that I'm not sure of. Most administrators already note on their page that they're administrators.
  • The categories issue definitely has to be settled. I'm beginning to err on the side of permitting them, but again I'm not sure. It's a discussion that needs to happen.
  • I'll be happy to guarantee it for one. The proper placement of that code list is crucial. My own thought is that it ought to reside at Wikipedia:Userboxes, and be watched over by WikiProject Userboxes.
  • There is no precedent for a campaign against content on a user page, save the usual proviso regarding personal attacks. Note that no one ever attacked a subst'd userbox; if they did they were in error. User pages are generally sacrosant. Mackensen (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Process comments

I agree broadly with the proposal, but want to include some thoughts I've had, as well as an outline of how it might work in practice, as the devils in the details, so to speak.

There are many contentious issues with regard to the current situation, vote stacking concerns, edit wars over wording or included categories of templates, contested deletes on grounds of process, and contested tfd results on grounds of policy. None of this is helping to build an encyclopaedia.

I believe this is a situation where over emphasis one either process or policy is unwise. Possible outcomes of following process too literally might end up with templates retained that are examples of what WP is Not, but following policy too literally might give the impression of arbitrary decisions, and alienate people. Policy nor process works ideally, because I believe the issue is one of people, the inertia of a large group of people can not be changed quickly. That's why I think that any change in policy or process that results in sudden changes will be unsuccessful. For something to work in this case, the change must be gradual, maybe even "one editor at a time", as a certain Jimbo once said. Think of a large group of people as a child with a toy, the more you try and take it away to tidy it, the more the child will value it, but if you ignore it, it will eventually be discarded, and can be tidied. Forcibly taking it away might end up the same situation, but the gradual approach, while slower, will have the same end result, but without the screams. That's why I believe that it is more important to do something right, than do it 'right now'.

In line with the compromise, of transferring userboxs to userspace, the first step that needs to be addresses is to stop the creation of non-userspace userboxes. There's no point playing "whack-a-Mole" by userifying 1 userbox, if 2 others get created in its place. One reason for the increase in usage is that as it's trivial to copy and paste from WP:UBX to your user page, that' where most non-creators get their userboxes from. I would suggest that a possible way to reduce this, is to require any userboxes added to WP:UBX to use {{userbox}} format. That way, anyone interested in the userbox can still copy it (to stop "censorship" calls), but it could stop edit wars, as each user has an independent copy, and might reduce vote stacking, as no categories are added, and since they are independent, chances are people will change the image. This will basically have the same end result as requiring people to always subst, as they will be written in a pre-subst's way. (as per BigDT's suggestion above)

So, enough essay, and on to the practicalities.(which might explain my thoughts with more clarity)

An outline on what this is trying to to do is

  1. stop creation of new templates designed for user pages with no benefit to the encyclopaedia
  2. Still allow addition/copying of userboxs to WP:UBX, so long as they use UserBox, and not a standalone template.
  3. For existing userbox templates, the gradual conversion into userspace in line with any newly created ones.

So first, pick a date where the new guideline comes into practice, say, T:Day. TFUS = Template designed for user space in the form {{user ABC}} (Dual use templates (eg {{opentasks}} could have a redirect from {{user opentasks}} to clarify this)

After T-Day

  • Any TFUS must have a clear claim for "usefulabilty" for the project (e.g. User Aid)
  • TFUS created after T-Day without a usefulabilty claim may be speedy deleted (CSD A7 equivalent for templates) (If claim exists (e.g. New project) go to Tfd, where a case must be proven to show that why it's needed in template space, and a Userbox would not suffice)
  • Userboxes added to WP:UBX must be either in {{userbox}} format (i.e. Pre subst'd), or have shown a claim of "usefulabilty"above

Yes, this is an addition of a harsher CSD criteria, but as it would only applies to newly created templates, I think it would not be as controversial as applying the new CSD T1 to templates that existed prior to the T1 change.

For User templates existing prior to T-Day, the following would be done to transition into userspace

  1. Remove categories attached to userboxes (If people want cats, they can still add them, but separate the hard link between box + cat to stop edit wars)
  2. re-write into {{userbox}} format}}</nowiki>
  3. Subst into {{userbox}} format on WP:UBX page (do new users are pre-subst's)
  4. Subst template onto user pages (so no more edit wars over wording, pictures, etc)
  5. Remove original template from template space once has been userified.

That I believe would end up with all the user POV, etc., out of template space, not as fast, yes, but I believe more effective in the long term. It would also mean that addition of divisive userboxes to WP:UBX would simple involve a revert, or on a user page, where it can be dealt with like any other inflammatory statement on user pages.

People could still create their own userboxes ideas, and post them on WP:UBX (in the correct format), anyone who liked them, can still copy them, which should satisify the userbox fans.

As the userboxs are indepenent, with any POV in user space, with no hard-linked categories, it should please those that dislike edit wars over user boxes, those who want template space to be neutral, and remove the simplicity of vote stacking (as it will happen one way or the other, but if the boxes are pre-substs, chances are that people will personalise them by changing the images, etc)

As the result would be policy compliant, and the method according to process, it should keep both types of wonks reasonably covered, even if not as immediate as either might like.

Well, I've rambled on long enough for someone taking a short break. Demolish arguements at will! Regards, MartinRe 15:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I'll need time to digest all this, but at the moment I can see nothing wrong with this outline. Mackensen (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. At the same time, we obviously need to remove the categories from the userboxes (does {{userbox}} even allow categories?). It's simply unnecessary, and unless we remove the categories also, the vote-stacking concerns still exist. And need I bring up how absolutely stupid some of the categories were? The Jimbo v. Willy on Wheels had a category associated with it and I almost got into a revert war deleting that stupid thing. We really don't need a category "Wikipedians who want to see Jimbo and Willy duke it out to the death". Dear God. --Cyde Weys 16:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Okkay, why not? How does it interfere with building an encyclopedia? Jay Maynard 16:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Hey Jay, wow, it's amazing the wide variety of people I'm meeting on Wikipedia! Anyway, categorization by user has interfered with Wikipedia consensus-seeking decisions in the past. I can now think of at least four instances in which vote-stacking by userbox or category (which allows association of users by beliefs) heavily disrupted Wikipedia. I guess you haven't been here long enough to remember these, but they are: StrangerInParadise on userboxes, JasonGastrich on diploma mill graduates, people on both sides of the "Rationales for impeachment" AfD and DRV, and most recently, a user on CfD for user-reported mental illness categories. --Cyde Weys 16:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
        Don't forget Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia and all the vote-stacking on abortion-related issues around January. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Just because I'm an Internet phenomenon doesn't mean I have to give up participating in the net. :-) Can you point me to references for the controversies you note? I'll happily read all about them. Note, however, that in general, the parliamentarian in me says that get-out-the-vote efforts are best answered with similar efforts on the other side, not in trying to limit participation. (I'll readily admit that that viewpoint may be of limited application in this community.) Jay Maynard 17:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I have no objection on categories, the above proposal simply sugests removing the hard link between a box and a category. There is nothing stopping people adding a box and the corresponding category, if they so wish (I do exactly that on my user page), but by separating the hardlink, it creates the flexability in allowing people to add the userbox/catagory independently, which stops wars over which category a certain userbox should have - and there have been quite a few! Regards, MartinRe 17:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Okay, for the Jason Gastrich stuff, you'll want to check out here and here. In summary, he's an evangelical fundamentalist with a "degree" from a diploma mill, and he came to Wikipedia and started adding all sorts of articles about non-notable "graduates" and "professos" from his diploma mill. When these articles were put up for deletion he used the Christian userbox to recruit sympathetic users and hijack the votes. For the StrangerInParadise stuff you'll want to check out here and here. Basically, what StrangerInParadise did was to vote-stack to death the previous Userbox Policy Poll that would have solved all of these issues months ago. And yes, you might think that get-out-the-vote efforts would be a good idea, but in practice, they're not. What ends up happening is massive user talk page spam as everyone is trying to "get out the vote". Also, remember that Wikipedia doesn't use a voting method to make decisions ... we use consensus. A bunch of mindless sheeple on both sides showing up to "vote" doesn't help consensus at all. --Cyde Weys 17:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

VERY wonkish, MartinRe (wipes single tear of joy)! Full marks and full support. Well done. ++Lar: t/c 17:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you, but what type of wonking is it? As I mentioned earlier, both process wonking and policy wonking seemed to be causing friction with people, so is this people wonking? :) Regards, all, I need to take a break now and spend some time with the three dimensional people. MartinRe 17:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Technical wonking... the best kind! ++Lar: t/c 18:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What would this mean for me?

I'm trying to figure out how this would change my Wikipedia experience. Suppose this proposal passes, and we delete all the userbox templates, but keep their content somewhere else. What would be the new process for adding a userbox to my user page? Right now, if I see a chess userbox that I like, I can add it with "{{user chess}}". Would that still work, as a redirect or whatever? Jimpartame 15:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Not quite. The code to be added would be a little longer, but also easier to customize. There are some examples further up of what this would look like. The net effect would be the same, but it might add a few minutes to your day. This proposal should not have any effect on what actually goes on your page, with the obvious exception that now it won't be in danger of being deleted. Mackensen (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • What would be the new way of putting in a chess userbox, and why wouldn't "{{user chess}}" be maintained as redirecting to that? Jimpartame 16:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Another effect is you will not be able to see what other wikipedians expressed that same interest in a central location. Rfrisbietalk 16:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Not through this particular mechanism, no. But there are the WikiProjects, the regional noticeboards, and the various un-official organizations (Counter-Vandalism Unit, Esperenza). There's also the IRC channels. There are plenty of places to encounter like-minded individuals, although the current groupings do have an encyclopedic bias (not a bad thing, to my mind). Mackensen (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
      • It's pretty neat to be able to see which Wikipedians like chess. Could you change your proposal to allow that? Jimpartame 16:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Jimpartame, I followed the same idea as this proposal outlined on my own user page. All my templates ({{User Irish}}, etc.) have been "userified" to use {{userbox}} format. All attached catagories that I was interested that originally came from userboxes (now removed) have been added manually at the bottom of the page. (so there would be a central location to find chess players, if they so wished to be found) End result? My page looks the same, and has the same categories as it would have if I used templated userboxes, but with the advantage that it is not vunerable to wording edit wars/catagory debates, and is more flexible about the relationshipe between catagories and boxes. Overall, an improvement I'd say, even if the source is a little more complex. If my long winded idea above was followed, the process for adding a userbox would be the same, simply copy the code from WP:UBX The only difference being that the code would be slighty longer, using the {{Userbox}} format. Regards, MartinRe 16:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The code from WP:UBX is "{{user chess}}", isn't it? You're saying it would be moved to "{{userbox chess}}"? Jimpartame 16:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I tested that, and it didn't work, so I guess I didn't understand how you're saying I would use the chess userbox. Jimpartame 16:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
      • No, more in the line of "{{userbox | border-c=black| id-c=#00008b| info-c=#ffffe0 |info-fc=font color | id=[[image:Nuvola_apps_package_games_strategy.png|40px]] | info=<center>This user plays '''[[chess]]''' </center>}}". Longer, yes, but if you're copying and pasting it anyway, that's hardly a big disadvantage, for the advantage of being able to change the text/colours/picture, etc. exactly how you like it without affecting anyone else. Regards, MartinRe 16:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Are you serious? That's way too hard to read, especially if I had to do that for every userbox I wanted on my page. And what about people with 40 userboxes? They'd have to scroll forever in the edit window just to get past where their userboxes were if they all looked like that! Why can't we just set it up so that "{{user chess}}" still works as a redirect? So your long version would be the real userbox, but I could still just type "{{user chess}}" and get the userbox. There's no need to make it hard to add userboxes. Jimpartame 16:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
          • It isn't as bad as it looks, and you'd be copying-and-pasting anyway. Mackensen (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
            • It's much worse than "{{user chess}}". And the copying-and-pasting bit doesn't make it any more readable when I'm editing my page. Jimpartame 16:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
              • At the risk of sounding blunt, Wikipedia does not exist to make every little operation you wish to perform on your userpage as efficient as possible. Wikipedia exists to be an encyclopedia. --Cyde Weys 16:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
                • I'm getting the impression that this proposal would make Wikipedia worse for me, and I'm not seeing what the advantages would be. It's not much of a compromise when it's all downsides. Jimpartame 16:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
                  • One main advantage would be that your userpage would be unchanged if the origanal template was damaged. Currently if someone vandalises the User chess template, all of a sudden all chess players have vandalised userpages. Oh, and "Ask not what Wikipedia can do for you, but what you can do for Wikipedia!". Regards, MartinRe 18:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
                    • But conversely, if someone made an improvement to the userbox, it wouldn't show up on your page. If we look at the encyclopedia itself as a parallel to userboxes, it's clear that articles (and userboxes) improve much faster with the input of many editors, despite the risk of vandalism. The Wikipedia method (allow all edits, and revert if necessary) is much more efficient than the Encarta method (review edits in advance, and implement if you like them). TheJabberwʘck 00:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
                      • On the other hand, our purpose here isn't to improve userboxes. We're here to improve the encyclopedia. We musn't lose sight of that.Mackensen (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
          • "{{user chess}}" isn't a redirect, it's a template call. And since userboxes are no longer going to be in template space, that obviously won't work (what you're describing is the status quo, basically). And as for the edit window ... yeah, it might be a little bit uglier. But guess what, it was always that ugly all along, the templates just hid it from view. Maybe now that people see how ugly this stuff actually is (and how much code and server resources it takes to display a small little colored box) they will go back to more reasonable things. For example, you could always just write "I like playing Chess; if you need any help with Chess-related articles, please contact me" on your userpage. It takes up a lot less space than a userbox and it looks a lot more professional. --Cyde Weys 16:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
            • I like the way the userbox looks, so telling me that I could write something that's not a userbox doesn't help here. I thought this proposal was supposed to be a good thing for people who like userboxes too, but it's sounding like you hate them and don't want people to use them. Jimpartame 16:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
              • That's Cyde's opinion, not mine. Give me a moment, and I can show you an easier way to format them.Mackensen (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
              • {{userbox | border-c=black | id-c=#00008b | info-c=#ffffe0 | info-fc=font color | id=[[image:Nuvola_apps_package_games_strategy.png|40px]] | info=<center>This user plays '''[[chess]]''' </center>}}
              • You'll need to edit this and look at the source to see what I'm talking about. See how clean the formatting is? Mackensen (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
                • It looks pretty confusing to me. Not everybody knows what things like "| id-c=#00008b" mean. What's wrong with "{{user chess}}"? Jimpartame 16:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
                  • It would still be in the template space. This is standard wiki-markup for a table, with some shorthand that would get substituted. And, in honesty, if you don't know wikitax table markup know you're certainly going to need to learn it at some time. It's in widespread use. Now, the raw HTML that the template generates (and what is eventually read by the browser), is even more complicated. Mackensen (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
                  • All the parameters are explained at Template:Userbox Regards, MartinRe 17:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Why bother deleting the template at all? As long as it's unsused (which would be so because of the substing), it can't contribute to votestacking because nothing is in the whatlinkshere, so why not just make it easy for new users who don't know enough to make it themselves to just paste {{subst:user chess}} onto their userpage? --Rory096 19:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Mackensen, it looks to me as though one of the biggest problems with the proposal right now is that it would make it more difficult for people to use userboxes. (Yes, I realize Cyde probably thinks this is an advantage.) "Wikitax table markup" may be an interesting thing for people to learn eventually, but you can't honestly claim that "{{userbox | border-c=black | id-c=#00008b | info-c=#ffffe0 | info-fc=font color | id=[[image:Nuvola_apps_package_games_strategy.png|40px]] | info=<center>This user plays '''[[chess]]''' </center>}}" is clearer than "{{user chess}}". I've suggested an easy way to fix this: Have your proposal as it currently stands, but also keep the "{{user chess}}" style as a shortcut for the new forms. That way, we get all the advantages of your compromise, and people who want to use userboxes don't have to fill up their user pages with huge paragraphs of gibberish. Jimpartame 19:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that's exactly what I said just above, so I support, this proposal (see also Wikipedia talk:Candidates for speedy deletion#Solution to votestacking). --Rory096 21:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transclusions and getting started

Two questions.

  • First, if server load is not the issue, is there any reason not to allow the transclusion of the main "Userbox" template in pages? The will keep the final amount of code on the user page reduced but will be of no use to the vote stackers as everyone will only be pointing to a single template and not to specific topics.
  • Second, if the answer to the first is no, is there any reason not to start modifying the entries in Wikipedia:Userboxes to show this code? There is going to be a lot of effort needed to get this page and sub-pages updated to show the code for people to copy/paste into their user pages. If the code is there already a lot of users may start using it to avoid having their userboxes disappear at random. --StuffOfInterest 17:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be a good idea to start converting userboxes at Wikipedia:Userboxes back to {{userbox}}. This results in much cleaner code on user's pages when substituted. --Cyde Weys 17:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I outlined a possible method of doing this. First, pick a template {{user ABC}}. Then, remove the catagories. Next, rewite the template to use userbox format, so it looks idential. (I believe someone has a bot for that) Finally, edit Wikipedia:Userboxes doing a simple replace of {{user ABC}} with {{subst:user ABC}} Voila. Repeat for user pages. (Doing all the work on the original template means it only has to be done once, as it has to be done there anyway, if large scale subst's are going to work. Regards, MartinRe 17:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, you can make requests for userbox substitutions at User talk:Cydebot. It's a lot easier to substitute a box used on dozens or hundreds of pages when a computer does all of the work for you. --Cyde Weys 17:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. If it ever comes to substing them (I'm fighting for that not to happen), I submit that it be REQUIRED that they be rewriten using the userbox code and THEN substed. --mboverload@ 17:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anything should be done yet, because as it is this proposal has WP:SNOW chance of passing. Grue 18:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Nor is anyone planning on it. Grue, I would be interested in hearing your actual thoughts on the matter. You obviously don't approve of the discussions here. I would love to know the reasons why. Mackensen (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I already expressed my thoughts above. Deleting userboxes from template space makes them harder to use. And userboxes are good for Wikipedia. Besides, what's a userbox? Something that is used only in user space and looks like a box? What about barnstars? Or Template:MultiLicensePD? Should they also be deleted? Grue 19:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
If you create a list of 'Template:Userbox' calls to replace the existing userboxes someone is just going to add a 'category' parameter to the template or include a category link right after each call in the list. If you remove the categories they'd fight it and we've got the same stalemate. Has about as much chance of succeeding as just removing categories from all existing userboxes. Any list could also be turned into a series of conditional parameters which could then be used to call just that one particular userbox from the page listing all of them. You'd end up with 'babel' templates calling {{Wikipedia:Userboxes|<whatever>}} instead of {{User <whatever>}} but the syntax of the babel call itself would be identical. Moving things around doesn't change the underlying issues. --CBDunkerson 19:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Then that someone gets slapped with a trout for violating policy. In this case, having a strict policy would be useful by setting ground rules. It has more of chance of succeeding for every user who agrees that it ought to succeed. Do I understand that you want this to fail, along with every other policy attempt? I'd like to see a success myself, and not one imposed from above. Mackensen (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The underlying issues–and it would help if you stated what you thought those were–may well be insoluble. However, removing the boxes from template namespace via substitution eliminates any possible grounds for destroying them short of an all-out war on userpages. That's not going to happen. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Wait, why shouldn't userboxes (in template form, or whatever form you want to change them into) have category information? Whether it's in the template namespace or not, there's no reason including the chess userbox can't put you in the category of Wikipedians who like chess. Jimpartame 19:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict - which was relevant to my point) I thought the 'proposal' here was 'move things around and that will solve everything'. Nothing in the text says, 'you can no longer have user categories' or 'you can no longer use transclusion on user pages'. Barring that it seems inevitable to me that people will continue doing those things. Any subsequent trout smacking would then be unjustified as the proposal didn't rule those things out. If you do want to rule those things out then I'd suggest proposing that directly. I'm all for the part of the proposal that says 'peace', I'm just suggesting that isn't as easy as playing musical chairs with the userboxes. Removing the boxes from the template namespace via substitution will not stop the disagreements in my opinion. People will still argue over inclusion/removal of categories. If you have a centralized list then people will still argue over whether individual items on it are divisive/inflammatory... perpetual edit war on Wikipedia:Userboxes. Underlying issues... 'vote stacking', 'divisiveness', and differing opinions on those points. --CBDunkerson 19:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grammy's proposal

{{Userbox

 |border-c = #000
 |border-s = 1
 |id-c     = #019
 |id-s     = 12
 |id-fc    = #eef
 |info-c   = #eef
 |info-s   = 8
 |info-fc  = #014
 |id       = GP
 |info     = This user supports Grammy's proposal. 

}}

See the source code of User:Grm_wnr/user Grammy's proposal (which is the thing above) to see what I mean with it. That would be the only allowable format for userboxes (personally, I'd not allow Babel boxes either, but that's negotiable. I'm firmly against programming languages and the like though). Yes, people might still misuse Whatlinkshere for the raw box code, but than again they can misuse Whatlinkshere for any other page too. Yes, this wouldn't keep the template namespace as clean as the list option, but be honest, the template namespace isn't very clean to begin with. This way, everybody gets the instant source code and can see what the box looks like on the box template itself. Note: This is not a finely honed proposal, it just got into my head and I'd like to see what other people think. Honestly, I like Mackensen's proposal as well... Comments? -- grm_wnr Esc 17:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

And how is this better than the current situation? Grue 18:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
It gives people reason not to use transclusion, while leaving the source code where they expect it. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Issues

There seem to be various different 'issues' with userboxes that are not consistent from person to person. To list the ones I've seen and my thoughts on each;

  1. Vote stacking - Does not apply to most userboxes (unless you are worried about the 'pi cabal' getting together and forming a 'consensus that pi=3.141') and seems to have been addressed by CSD T1. Granted, there is disagreement on that issue but there is a process and it has been proceeding. In any case, this proposal would allow categories to remain and thus not 'fix' this issue. Possibly the added difficulty in setting up userboxes (requiring some understanding of table markup) would reduce the number of people using them and indirectly decrease 'vote stacking', but it seems a stretch.
  2. User content in template space - I don't think template space was ever defined as 'for transclusion into every namespace except userspace', but if so then... why not just move the userboxes to user space? Not as multiple copies of the 'code', but just as they are now. Have {{User:Userboxes/Pink gerbils}} to call the 'I love pink gerbils' userbox. It would then be simple to change all the infrastructure (babel boxes and the like) to expect userboxes to be found at 'User:Userboxes/<whatever>' instead of 'Template:User <whatever>'. That said, I really don't see what they are harming where they are now.
  3. Transclusion - Someone will have to explain to me why this is an issue before I can respond to it. Server load? Virtually non-existant and probably offset by the added cost (also minimal) of storing the full template code over and over again on every user page rather than just the short call to the template.
  4. Unencyclopedic - See 'user page'. The very concept is unencyclopedic and always has been. In any case, this proposal would not remove 'unencyclopedic' content - just change the way it is achieved. Again there might be some indirect reduction due to making the userboxes more difficult to use, but not much.

Anything else? What I had thought were the two biggest complaints against userboxes (that they are unencyclopedic and promote vote stacking) would not be addressed by this proposal. The things it would accomplish are new to me, but seem either not very important or easily resolved just by moving things. I'd generally be against subst'ing the boxes everywhere because it goes against the whole concept behind transclusion... removing complicated markup that many people don't understand from 'primary' pages to a centralized location that everyone can access. --CBDunkerson 19:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Regarding transclusion, one of the principal objections was that things were being transcluded from the Template: namespace. T1 and T2 exist for that reason, but it's clear that an objective definition of T1 and T2 is impossible. Moreover, given the emotional importance attached to these boxes, a speedy deletion under T1 or T2 will always be controversial. Moving these things out of the Template: namespace eliminates this issue altogether. Mackensen (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    So far as I know, T1 and T2 were entirely motivated by the 'vote stacking' issue. I don't understand the "things were being transcluded from the Template: namespace" bit at all... that's the entire reason the Template: namespace exists... so that 'things can be transcluded from it'. Why was that "one of the principal objections"? I also don't think moving things out of the Template namespace resolves the issues... people delete subst'd 'inflammatory/divisive userboxes' from the individual pages too. Presumably they'd want to remove them from the 'list' (wherever it is) and the same disagreements would occur. --CBDunkerson 19:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not aware of deletions of subst'd material–that shouldn't be happening. Again, regarding transclusion, it's a point of principle about what should and should not be in the template namespace. Any policy would have to make guarantees about the list. Mackensen (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    The problem with transclusion for user pages, from what I've seen, is the resulting edit wars over the layout, colour, wording, categories, etc, that go along with having one box transcluded on multiple user pages. Article based templates, and most of the "standard" user templates do not exhibit this problem. Also, if editors delete a (subst) divisive userboxes from a user page, this affects one person, whereas changing the template was affecting many, many more in one go. Regards, MartinRe 19:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How about just being bold and implementing policy?

How about just being bold and implementing Wikipedia's policy against divisiveness and what wikipedia is not and deleting all user groupings (userboxes, categories, whatever) in the obvious areas of sex, politics and religion - everyone knows this is what to talk about to make buzz and what not to talk about if you want to be noncontroversial. WAS 4.250 19:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that's been tried, and it didn't work. Mackensen (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
As I recall, most people percieved it as an out of the blue unannounced suprise attack on their shiny new toys and were shocked upset and immediately began reverting. I can safely say being bold at this point would be after substantial talk and notification rather than before. Announce it. Wait 24 hours. Do it. It's time. WAS 4.250 19:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is about consensus. If you want to make your own policies, make your own fork of Wikipedia. Grue 19:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
such a "bold" manoever is bound to be divisive and will be percieved by most users as the triumph of beurocracy over the usership. frymaster 20:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
True - the main rationale given for the proposal is that one side contains more sysops, and therefore that side must be right. Admins are not any more important than other Wikipedians. (incidentally, I agree with this proposal, but not the wording). Cynical 20:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Likewise, I'm not happy with the wording either, as the last thing we want to do is immediately split people into factions! However, prose isn't my strong suit, so I'm just working on the spirit. I would suggest something in the line of onf of my first paragaghs in my "essay", which simply lists out perceived problems without implying one is right or not. NPOV for a proposal anyone? I would also strongly recommend that prior to any "voting" on this proposal, that it has been worked on, and clarified as much as possible, I would ask that we all please make sure the wording, and what it will and will not do is 100% clear - even if you don't agree with all of the proposal - and let it succeed and fail on its merits, and not because people misunderstood it, for better or worse. (The last userbox poll had these problems, if I recall, as some people questioned many of the supports and objects due the reasons given being at odds to what was being discussed, resulting it being changed/clarified mid vote, which we should avoid. Regards, MartinRe 20:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • [3] Jimmy Wales says "Behaving in a divisive and

inflammatory way anywhere in Wikipedia is not welcome."

  • [4] Jimmy Wales says "CSD T1 is normal

policy, created and confirmed in the normal way. It is a very simple natural extension of all our other policies which, despite our ongoing tolerance of people trolling on the mailing list, *ahem*, have always urged people in no uncertain terms not to be divisive and inflammatory." WAS 4.250 20:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, however, that CSD T1 was recently extended to cover more than just "divisive and inflammatory", which caused a lot of the recent, ahem, debate! Regards, MartinRe 20:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Police and military use violence to supress violence. firefighters use fire to supress fire. Certainly there are times when "divisive and inflammatory" is needed to supress "divisive and inflammatory". I suppose there are disagreements about whether or not this is one of those times. WAS 4.250 20:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Civility is one of the key principles of the project. Jettisoning it to deal with this would be silly. Septentrionalis 21:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reservations

I supported the late userbox policy poll, which would have included this; I can support this. But I do have reservations.

The vote-stacking argument has never been phrased so as to answer two objections:

  • Most userboxes are not likely to help in votestacking. (The sum-of-pi or the Dolphin-1 spring to mind.)
  • Very few cliques have ever used userboxes. Most are doing all too well at imposing their national, religious, or political PoV without any boxen at all.

This policy will therefore inflict significant amounts of collateral damage on people like our chess fan, three sections up, without doing anything significant to solve the real problem.

The collateral damage could be ameliorated by keeping the templates, with a warning that the template is liable to substitution without further warning; and going through and substing every so often.

The turbulence here is due largely to a couple of people on either side, most of them not long-established at all. The ones who specialized in making inflamatory userboxes about the War have been suppressed (and a good thing too); would it not be simpler to deal with the others by imposing the principles of the MarkSweep decision? Septentrionalis 21:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

The current proposal, as outlined, is essentially what I wrote yesterday afternoon as an idea of how matters could be resolved. It is, however, weak on its technical propositions (on purpose). There's been considerable and fruitful discussion on these points. Therefore, I'm going to try and craft a technical version (sort of an extension to the original concept).

Technical policy
Implementation
  1. Moratorium: Beginning with the implementation of WP:MACK, the speedy deletion of any existing userbox is suspended. At the same time, the creation of new userboxes in the Template namespace is highly discouraged and such templates may be immediately substituted.
  2. Substitution: All existing userboxes in the Template namespace will be substituted where they had once been transcluded. This includes locations in the Wikipedia namespace which previously had lists of templates.
  3. Establishment: The lists of userboxes will be changed to list possible substitutions instead (e.g. {{Userbox | }}. A possible location for such lists is Wikipedia:Userboxes, but absent the need for an authoritative list this is subject to change.
  4. Removal: All existing userboxes in the Template namespace, once properly substituted and documented, will be deleted.
  5. Aftermath: Further creations of userboxes in the Template namespace should be substituted and deleted.
Use of user pages
  1. The use of substituted templates on user pages shall not be treated any differently from any other text or image on that user page.
Use of category space
  1. The use of the category namespace for self-categorization being well-established in principle and in fact, Wikipedians may feel free to add themselves to whatever categories they desire.

What do people think? Mackensen (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the last point (I don't want user pages in Category:Fundamental or any other article category, and if Whatlinkshere on userboxes is so terrible this is never going to fly), but I'd say they are beyond the scope of this proposal anyway. Let's focus on the boxes and deal with the categories elsewhere. Apart from that, it's okay I guess... I'll have to think about it some more. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Right. I think it would be good to have something to look at so that discussion is centralized. My goal is that we all produce a proposal that we think can gain wide acceptance. Mackensen (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Will the existing userboxes that automatically carry with them category inclusion continue to do so? Personally, I agree that this proposal does nothing to deal with the stated concern of votestacking, and without that, it's a lot of sound and fury signifying little. Since I also believe there's no good way to deal with votestacking except to ignore it and ban users who spam to try to generate it, and since I still haven't heard anyone back up claims of increased resource usage based on transcluding (despite repeated requests), I'm left wondering what this proposal will accomplish aside from lots of wrangling and user confusion. Jay Maynard 21:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this proposal is a good way to rid template space of all userboxes in a way that causes as little harm as possible. It does not change very much for people who want to have nice colored boxes on their userpage, and it should make the people who can't stand having "junk" in Template: space happy. (Just standard babel boxes should stay by my argument above). Userboxes on a user page would then finally fall under the user page policies only again, and that policy seems to be a lot less controversial than what you can or can't have in template space. The proposal also separates the categorization and votestacking questions from the userbox issue. Kusma (討論) 21:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but there's still been no good explanation of why userboxes in template space are bad - aside from teh fact that there are admins out there who think they are. Jay Maynard 22:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. However, I think this proposal should satisfy these admins and not really harm anyone else, resulting in peace and more time for writing an encyclopedia. The userbox wars have been more harmful than userboxes so far, so it is time to stop the wars for good. Kusma (討論) 22:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I second Kusma on this point. Peace, in itself, is desirable under some circumstances. I would also support an exemption for babel boxes, subject to appropriate controls. Mackensen (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Will we have peace, though? Will this proposal satisfy the rabid userbox deletionists? Jay Maynard 22:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Userboxes won't be deleted. I still have userboxes on my user page, which is in "post-proposal" form. You wouldn't even be able to tell the difference without looking at the source. Regards, MartinRe 23:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Jay Maynard, one of the reasons I see userboxes in template as harmful is the edit wars that they create. Because transclused userboxes are all linked, whenever the original template is changed, everyone's user pages is modified in the same way. That means if someone changes the text/colour/category, or whatever, everyone gets affected, and one of those disagree and modifies the orignal back, and then someone else who added it in the edited stage, changes it back, and so on. This has happened in several templates that I have seen. If it userbox is put on a user page via userbox, then if the user can update it to their own preferences without affecting anyone else. Regards, MartinRe 22:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Some of the userbox directory pages recommend subst-ing, and some do not. I chose not to because 1) the recommendation was inconsistent and 2) I wanted the userbox to change if someone came along with a better idea for it. Jay Maynard 22:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
What would you do if someone came along with a worse idea for it? From what I've seen many users get quite irate if their userpage has been changed because someone edited a transcluded userbox. Regards, MartinRe 23:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Same thing I'd do if someone made a change to any other page I had an interest in: either change it back myself, or if it turned into an edit war, take it to the template's talk page, and trust that good sense would prevail. Jay Maynard 23:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Articles, by design can only have one version, so if editors disagree, one version has to be picked. However, with subst'd userboxes, two different users can start with the same userbox, and if one wants to change it, they can do so without affecting the other, resulting in two versions, with both users getting their preferred version. Having them unsubst's means that edtors have to agree on a version neither are 100% happy with, and hope no one else disagrees again. So, why create a focal point for potential disputes, when it can be avoided completely quite easily in the first place? Regards, MartinRe 23:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
That proposal still has categories in the userboxen, so how does it solve the problem at all? --Rory096 22:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, for one, I'm not entirely convinced on that point. However, Wikipedians categorized themselves before there were userboxes, and not all members of a category have the same userbox. The same cannot be said of the "What links here" feature. Mackensen (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
And what if they were just substed, without point 4? That would get rid of the Special:whatlinkshere problem and would allow new users to easily add userboxen. --Rory096 22:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The easy addition of userboxen could also be accomplished by posting the code (ready to be cut&pasted) next to the displayed userbox on Wikipedia:Userboxes. Should be easy enough, and nobody will have to go and subst all userboxen once per day. Kusma (討論) 22:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
True, but it's then needlessly making {{Userbox}} a high-risk template. It's not like substing userboxen is hard, we have bots that subst plenty of other templates. --Rory096 22:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
That's not a serious concern. I think it's protected already. Mackensen (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
{{Userbox}} has already been protected for a long time. --Cyde Weys 23:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Very well, I'd support this if the code was in the userbox page. --Rory096 04:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Useful vs useless

As far as I can see, the general concerns with userboxes relate to whether they can be seen as useful to the building of Wikipedia, or are divisive, or are simply frivolous. The problem is that in many cases this varies from userbox to userbox. Sure, there are many here that are frivolous, and some are divisive - but there are also many others which are of great use in creating and building an NPOV and comprehensive encyclopedia. There are several occasions, for instance, that I have needed to know two sides of an argument before coming to a decision on problems retaing to a specific article, and have gone to userbox categories to find people I know who could give me the two sides to the argument. Substing, although in principle a great idea, would remove these categories and would also remove the ability to use "what links here" to find such users. Though I appreciate the motives behind the proposed compromise, I don't see it being at all useful in those circumstances.

Ideally, the best solution would be to nail down which userboxes are useful, which are frivolous, and which are divisive, subst'ing all the frivolous ones, deleting the divisive ones, and keeping the useful ones. Unfortunately, everyone seems to have theori own idea about which ones are useful and which ones aren't. A block subst'ing affecting every userbox, though, would be the wrong way to proceed IMO - it ould be like blocking all users from one country simply because that country has a lot of vandals.

On a side note, I'd be very interested to know where Mackensen came up with the idea that long-serving admins are generally against userboxes. I'd like to see some stats backing that up! As a long-serving admin I'm generally against their deletion, for the reasons given above. Grutness...wha? 23:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice idea in theory, but I don't think it'll work in practice. There'll be too much bickering over whether any given userbox is useful, frivolous (which I assume you're defining for present purposes as "not harmful, but not helpful either"), or harmful. As I said above, the only way this proposal will work is if it applies equally to all templates intended for userspace. Angr (t • c) 23:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
In which case we lose the useful ones as well. I don't buy it as a solution in that case. A weaker compromise might be allowing userboxes but disallowing any userbox categories. It would still be possible to hunt for users so marked via whatlinkshere, but would at least remove one level of clutter. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not convinced this tripartite division even exists. I would call all userboxes (including Babelboxes) "frivolous" in the sense of neither hurting nor helping the encyclopedia project. Angr (t • c) 07:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
That's not my idea. Rather, that most people against userboxes are admins. I don't recall emphasizing long-serving at one point, although there are of number of us who've been admins since mid-2004 or earlier. Mackensen (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
User since late 2002 myself. --Cyde Weys 00:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
In that case I apologise for misunderstanding. Still, given the proportion of users who are admins, wouldn't that mean that most of those opposed come from a very small group of editors? Grutness...wha? 00:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How about a straw poll?

If enough people participate, this could give us an idea of where the consensus is:

I think this is a premature step. People shouldn't get the impression that they're voting on the proposal, or even necessarily on the content. This is an attempt to guage where the boundary is, nothing more. Mackensen (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This poll is wildly confusing. I can imagine some of the users who have been blindly and ignorantly "voting" to save the content of the boxes coming to the poll page and being utterly confused. Nhprman 03:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Hasn't happened yet, and I think the well-worded questions should prevent that. TheJabberwʘck 03:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I find question 2's options wildly confusing, and I think I got it right, but not sure. Most users won't know what "transcluded" means, let alone sort out what space it should be done in. Simpler options or better explanations of each should be included. Nhprman 04:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Problem is that that would lead to ignorant voters such as the ones you describe above. One of the strengths of this talk page is that so far almost everyone on here knows what they are talking about, and little time has to be spend rectifying false assumptions. But if you can make the question both clearer and still accurate, go for it. TheJabberwʘck 22:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Revised Sample Box

User:SeventyThree was able to fix my box so that it works with included wiki code. I have created a template for it at {{Userbox Sample}}. This template should be suitable for use on WP:BOX. See here for an example:


{{subst:Userbox
|border-c = blue
|border-s = 1
|id-c = #90b0e0
|id-s = 9
|id-fc = black
|info-c = #aaccff
|info-s = 8
|info-fc = black
|id = [[Image:Earth flag PD.jpg|70px]]
|info = This user '''[[Respect|respects]]''' the '''[[Belief|beliefs]]''' and '''[[religion|religions]]''' of others.
|float = left

}}
This user respects the beliefs and religions of others.

And, if you use the generated wiki code, you get:

This user respects the beliefs and religions of others.


It's perfect! Give User:SeventyThree a big pat on the back ... this works great ... BigDT 01:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I like this kind of userbox listings for WP:UBX or a similar place. I think they encourage creativity and learning some wikicode to create your own self-made boxes for your own user page more than the regular ready-made userboxes do. (Real Wikipedians create their own userboxes). Kusma (討論) 01:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the raw code is broken out such that each param is on its own line. That is going to be a real pain if you want to put a lot of them on a userpage ... it will take up a lot of room. And I agree that educating users in WikiCode is a good thing. --Cyde Weys 01:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Taking your advice, I made another version of it that has more compact code:


{{subst:Userbox | border-c = blue | border-s = 1 | id-c = #90b0e0 | id-s = 9 | id-fc = black | info-c = #aaccff | info-s = 8 | info-fc = black | id = [[Image:Earth flag PD.jpg|70px]] | info = This user '''[[Respect|respects]]''' the '''[[Belief|beliefs]]''' and '''[[religion|religions]]''' of others. | float = left }}
This user respects the beliefs and religions of others.

And here is the result from the code it generates:

This user respects the beliefs and religions of others.
Please see {{Userbox Sample2}} and {{Userbox Sample}}. I have put a template usage notes header in both of them ... this should help users understand what is going on and remember to subst. BigDT 02:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I request that Userbox_Sample be renamed Userbox_sample (that is, with a lower case s) and that Userbox_Sample2 be renamed Userbox_sample_compact. I would also like to see the templates modified so that they don't leave a blank empty line above the box. Zerrakhi 05:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, don't forget that corresponding samplers need to be made available and documented for templates Userbox-r, Userbox-2 and Userbox-m. Zerrakhi 06:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
And another thing. Please note that Wikipedia:Userboxes does not presently document the "float" parameter of template Userbox. For clarity, therefore, the "float" parameter should not be mentioned in the code displayed by the above sampling templates except when the default value (left) is overridden. Zerrakhi 08:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Be careful what you wish for

I have a real concern about where this policy goes if it is passed. Once userboxes are no longer part of the template userspace but rather are shared among users unofficially it gets much harder to act in a centralized way. Which userboxes can be deleted? Which ones are trolling? Which versions of which userboxes (a userbox could have 1000 different versions in circulation with different language or images).

Just to pick an extreme example imagine a userbox with "This user supports freedom of belief"

  1. An image of an eagle
  2. An image of the statue of liberty
  3. An image of Osama bin Laden
  4. An image of a burning cross
  5. An image of the celtic cross (sometimes christian, sometimes white power, sometimes ethnic pride)
  6. An image an old guy the admin doesn't recognize so can't figure out who this is aimed at
  7. An image of minister Louis Farrakhan

And that's just one forked userbox. Imagine hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of forked userboxes in userspace.

And it can get worse from here if there are attempts to control. People who like the userbox templates might decide to keep them, and you start having certain user pages with lots of templates. But they get in trouble for a few so to avoid oversight userbox repositories might start migrating off wikipedia entirely onto other sites. So what gets accomplished in the end? We have userboxes that are more divisive supported by outside groups in places that aren't even subject to wikipedia administration.

Oh yeah and while we are talking about forked userboxes. What if they are pulling images from other sites (not wikimedia)? There may be copyright or obscenity issues with no easy central oversight. Also once they are part of userspace they acts against them will be taken personally. When an admin deletes a template he accidentally changes user XYZ's userpage. When he deletes a box directly on XYZ's page that is going to be seen as a personal attack and often against the ideas in the box. There is going to be genuine passion and not just mild annoyance.

I think the current situation requires consensus policy. That's going to mean really detailed long complex negotiation. Yeah that sucks. But I think that's what it is going to really take. I think the people who hate userboxes in template space will hate them much worse once they aren't in template space. Just my $.02 (from a guy with no personal interest in the userbox issue at all) jbolden1517Talk 03:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

We need to find constructive ways of dealing with the problems, while retaining the strengths of this proposal. If you don't like something about it, suggest a way of fixing it! That's what I've done. When it became clear that one drawback would be the fact that people adding userboxes would have to go through reams of complicated code to do what we can handle easily and elegantly now, I suggested the obvious fix: keeping the "{{user whatever}}" syntax as a shortcut (but not a template) for the userboxes. People accepted that, and the proposal is now stronger for it. If you think decentralization will cause control problems, let's not abandon the proposal because of that. Let's try to brainstorm ways to fix it. Jimpartame 03:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Well my proposal in the article was that we maintain a central repository of userboxes and slowly develop policy about what is an acceptable userbox. In other words a slow long detailed peace treaty not a one shot deal. . If you want me to throw out a proposal after the rules are made up I'd say deleting a userbox (or class of userboxes) should take 66% support of 50 or more editors on an open vote lasting at least 3 days. That way its not seen as some admin just doing stuff arbitrarily OTOH the worst offenders can be gotten rid of. jbolden1517Talk 04:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'd say decentralization is a bonus, because enabling users to act in a centralized way isn't a stated goal of the project...unless they're writing an encyclopedia, in which case the centralized place is hopefully an article. Regarding offiste images, the software doesn't permit it. Mackensen (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
A further comment. Context is everything. One reason why I always preferring paragraphs when discussing myself (but that's me). I doubt very much an admin (or any editor) would remove something from someone's userpage absent a clear and compelling threat to Wikipedia or a personal attack. It would be unprecedented. Mackensen (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
If you are OK with the above scenario than that kills the problem. I just don't see how the this is not worse than the situation now in tems of divisiveness which I thought was the root cause. I'm starting to think I completely fail to understand the anti userbox policy. You are right about the software issue with offsite images, I stand corrected. jbolden1517Talk 04:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's not true; User:Gmaxwell removed a bunch of userboxes and stuff from my userpage, saying "Remove inflammatory content, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and that this is a userpage is no excuse: wikipedia userpages are not a myspace replacement." He later replaced it, though. TheJabberwʘck 03:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and it's good that he reverted himself. Exceptional, this case. I'd have reverted him, to be honest. Mackensen (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] long-time sysops

Not really. For the most part long-time sysops have been staying away from this whole thing. The most identifiable figures in the anti-userbox group tend to be pretty new admins.Geni 04:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I'd disagree, but that's just my view. I don't it matters, in the end, who comprises which group. That there's a disagreement is obvious. Mackensen (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Considering that's the case, what's the point of making unverified attributions in a proposed policy statement? It's certainly counter to NPOV considerations. Rfrisbietalk 04:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
This proposal isn't an article, and isn't subject to NPOV, even though I believe it to be balanced and fair. Nhprman 04:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Balanced and fair? I'm pretty sure that the statement we're talking about was never intended to be part of the proposal. It was a c/p from a conversation at DRVU. Maybe it could be moved into this talk page as to not be confusing. BigDT 04:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


Triggered by Kelly Martin who had only been an admin for 7 months. Carried on by MarkSweep who had only been an admin for a simular length of time. Current flagbarer appears to be Cyde who has maybe 2 months as an admin. The true long timers mostly stayed out things.Geni 04:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

My point is about obvious commentary on a page that's called a proposal. At the very least, more sections like "Background" and "Proposed policy" would be useful. Rfrisbietalk 04:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Accuracy

I just have one thing to say. I admire--strongly--Mackensen's efforts to negotiate a peace. It is clearly a sign that the end is near to this conflict, by hook or by crook, that more and more people are realising that a peace is needed and focusing on it. However there is one fault I find and offence I take. The description of the proposal as a peace between warring sides, as a compromise that makes most people reasonably happy is significantly disingenuous. It does no such thing-- on the contrary, the proposal (read it carefully) is nothing less than the gradual phaseout of all userboxes (except, apparantly, Babels). That's not a peace. That's game, check, & mate in sheep's clothing. Even if it ends that way, I'll be happier than if it keeps raging on, but... I don't like the way things are being done, not one bit. D. G. 07:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a compromise. From what I've seen the two warring sides have opinions of "keep in template space" and "delete completely", so I think "keep, but in user space" is a reasonable line between the two. the proposal wouldn't phase out them completely, it would simply move them to user space. As I've pointed out earlier, my user page still contains userboxes, and it's in the state it would be in if this proposal passes. Personally, I have nothing against userboxes - even funny, non-encyclopedic ones - if used in moderation. They have been compared to bumper stickers, which is quite apt, as not many would object to a few bumper stickers, but if the car is covered in them to the point of covering the windows making driving dangerous, that is when it stops being fun. If I see a userpage covered in hundreds of little boxes, that gives me the same sinking feeling. The editor in question may be a long standing contributor, but the impression it is giving is harmful, as new editors think "cool", and copy it, and first time visitors do the same, signing up, but spending all their time on their user page, or editing userboxes) and not on the encylopedia, turning wikipedia into a free web host. That, I believe, is the core problem with userboxes, not the boxes themselves, but the mis-use and overuse thereof and the wrong impression it gives. Unfortunately I can not think of any ideal solution that would help with this overall issue. Even this proposal only tackles this indirectly, and I'm having second thought about it, if it would result in babel boxes being lost. Maybe we should try something simplier, like having a limit on the number of userboxes a person can have? In the same line as WP:3RR, there is nothing magical about 3 reverts or 24 hours, it's just an arbitary line in the sand to stop edit warring. Would a similar "line in the sand" work for misuse of userboxes, or would it get shouted down as another type of "censorship"? Regards, MartinRe 09:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
What's the danger involved in having hundreds of userboxes on a user page? They don't cause any meaningful problems for the servers, so the only downside I can see is that it might make the page look kind of ugly. That's not something we should be trying to prevent with policies. Jimpartame 09:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
See explaination from paragraph above: "The editor in question [with 100's of boxes] may be a long standing contributor, but the impression it is giving is harmful, as new editors think "cool", and copy it, and first time visitors do the same, signing up, but spending all their time on their user page, or editing userboxes and not on the encylopedia, turning wikipedia into a free web host.". So, yes, they look ugly, but they also encourage people to sign up for the wikipedia, use its resources, with no conribution to wikipedia itself. That is harmful. Just like employers often allow leeway for their staff to browse the web during work, if outsides see that, join the same company, and spend hours surfing, then more come in, and spend their entire day surfling and doing no work. (Not a perfect anology, as employee can be fired, but I hope you get the general idea) Regards, MartinRe 09:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
One problem then is that this compromise does not confront that problem. :p After all, people can still stick whatever they like within policy - including userboxes - on their pages. Johnleemk | Talk 09:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed :P Or at least it only confronts it indirectly. But I cannot think of a solution that confronts it directly that has any chance of being accepted. Limit of X userboxes/page? Limit of X userboxes/page for every 1000 edits you do? That would turn into a DnD leveling campaign! Ideally, community pressure might work asking people to reduce the numbers, but I think it's reached a critical mass that that won't work - if Jimbo himself can ask, with limited results. Hmmm, have another idea, will post in a different section. Regards, MartinRe 09:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, sir, the candidate official policy at Wikipedia:Userbox policy does stipulate a rather reasonable limitation of 64 userboxes per userpage. D. G. 20:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
That's kind of silly. If there's a user who has hundreds of userboxes, and doesn't contribute to Wikipedia, then yes, that's a problem. But the problem isn't the userboxes, it's that he isn't contributing to the encyclopedia! You could have a hundred userboxes and write great articles, and you could have no userboxes but still not contribute anything meaningful. They don't have anything to do with each other. You still haven't identified anything wrong with "a userpage covered in hundreds of little boxes." Why does it give you a sinking feeling, and why should those users change to accommodate you? Jimpartame 11:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
A number of us perceive an indirect relationship between the number of boxes on a userpage and the user's contributions to the encyclopedia (in part because they spend all their time editing their user page). Fair or not, that's a strong perception. Mackensen (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
My user page has a number of boxes on it - but that number is unlikely to change, now that I've gotten it set up. My contributions to the encyclopedia, few (comparatively) though they may be now, will go up, OTOH, as I chase links and find things that I can knowledgeably add to. CHasing users away because you don't want them to take some time out to say "here's who I am!" in a space reserved, at least in part, for that purpose, is not going to help build the encyclopedia. Jay Maynard 11:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
No disagreement there–we're talking about people who have been here weeks, even months, but have yet to move beyond the user space. This is a cause for concern. Mackensen (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
This compromise isn't addressing the issue of whether userboxes on a userpage are harmful or not. It's addressing the issue of keeping userboxes in template space. As others have noted, this gives them what is apparently something of an endorsement or official sanction - this is especially so for newbies who may not be familiar with Wikipedia. Another thing is that now people will actually have to read a page explaining why some userboxes may be harmful, etc. (this page is of course the userbox directory) before adding a userbox, as opposed to the current situation where anyone can just stumble on a link to a userbox template and then go, "Ooh, shiny!" and sticking it on their userpage. Another benefit for the individualists would also be that this makes customising userboxes easier and more transparent. Johnleemk | Talk 09:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a problem that Wikipedia is being used as a free hosting service à la Myspace, but userboxes are tangential to it. I've been doing a lot of work deleting improperly source and/or licensed images lately, and I have encountered the following situation with disheartening regularity: A brand new user starts a vanity article about himself, which instead of being speedied gets userfied by someone not wishing to bite the newcomers, i.e. the article Joe Q. Blow gets moved to User:Joe Q. Blow and the redirect deleted. The user has no problem with this, and continues to spend days getting his user page just the way he likes it. Then he disappears forever, having done nothing on Wikipedia but tell us all about himself, and never having made a single contribution to an actual article. I have seen this scenario (with slight variations) over and over again, and not once has the user had userboxes on his page. Making userboxes the scapegoat for the descent to Myspace both maligns their users (the vast majority of whom are valuable contributors to the encyclopedia) and ignores the real problem. Angr (t • c) 09:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This IS an interesting problem indeed. It is however entirely unrelated to the userbox issue. And I might add, it seems an easily solvable problem. (1) Don't Do That. Next time, bite the newbie. Delete the page, don't move to User:, and kindly explain to the newbie what was wrong. (2) Fix things up so User: is unindexed by engines. The first is easier done by individuals, the second would be more of a general policy change. D. G. 20:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
That is also a problem, yes. I think it might be reduced if user pages didn't get indexed by search engines, which they do now, and as wikipedia is just a major site, searching for your username will make it near the top of the list, and if your username is your real name, voila, vanity page on wikipedia, when most people won't realise that the User: prefix means unoffical. However, this problem already has a solution in mfd, even if that is after the fact. Or maybe we need to think of something completely different that might cover both cases, maybe new editors can't edit their userpage until they have been here a while? But that, like any other solution would hurt some good editors, and I can't think of any solution that will stop everything without causing inconvience to someone. The only debate is where we draw the line. Regards, MartinRe 10:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I never thought of MFD'ing the user page of someone who hasn't made any (or many) contributions. That's actually a good idea. I'll remember that next time I come across one. Obviously there needs to be a grace period, but if someone has only (or almost only) made edits to their own userpage, and done nothing else for, say, a month, MFD'ing is a good idea. Angr (t • c) 10:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "I think it is a compromise. From what I've seen the two warring sides have opinions of 'keep in template space' and 'delete completely'" - This is an obvious falsehood. The two warring sides say, and have always said, "keep in template space" and "convert into raw code". Noone has ever seriously argued that we can't allow the templates to be substed before they're deleted! Even the strongest opponents of userboxes, like User:Cyde, have long preferred substing to mere removal. This is no more of a compromise than any other proposal has been: it's exactly as DG said, the extreme of one end of the range of possible solutions. 100% take, 0% give. -Silence 19:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I would note that this compromise accepts the principle of userboxes, and the idea that they belong on a user's page. That is something. It also provides a mechanism to create new ones, and to maintain a central listing. In return for the effective establishment of boxes, it asks that they leave template space. I don't find that one-sided myself, but that's me. This is also the only proposal, to my knowledge, which does not try (beyond babel boxes) to make any value judgement on individual boxes. Mackensen (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That's true, Mack, but I think almost everybody is in favor of some value judgment, even the biggest userbox proponents. As an extreme example: "This user thinks all Jews should be killed." So I would say that this lack of a value judgment is actually a weakness. That said, value judgments are dangerous, and any proposal that contains one should be treated with caution. TheJabberwʘck 22:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Silence, please do not refer to my opinion, given in good faith, as an "obvious falsehood". I may be mistaken, I may not, but to suggest that I was lying is not helpful to this discussion. I would appreciate it if you stuck that word out and replaced it with something more appropiate, for example "obviously untrue". (I have no objection to being told I was wrong, but not if that implies that I deliberately said something false) Regards, MartinRe 20:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Aren't "false" and "untrue" exact synonyms, sir? D. G. 02:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A "falsehood" has additional implications that an "untruth" does not. Λυδαcιτγ(TheJabberwock) 00:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technical note on substing

Just as a reminder: be aware of the technical limitations of substing (→WP:SUBST). For example template calls that contain unset parameters which are defaulted in the template and templates that contain M:PF things look very bad in wiki code when substed (in fact they are not properly substed). I hope you don't mind if I hint here for bugzilla:2777.

As a side note, a page A can be transcluded into any other page B. A needs not to reside in namespace "template". So userboxes for substing could reside in any namespace, also in "Wikipedia".

Not so well thought substing leaves often an unmaintanable mess behind. Just doing the template inclusions can save a lot of maintenance work (i.e. bot runs). --Ligulem 09:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure why a userbox would need conditionals, but most of them can be made so that they subst without them. There are only a few situations where this would not work properly, but not many. Kotepho 05:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Community influence

From the paragraph above, I have no objection to userboxes per say, if used in moderation, as I believe that it's excessive use that's most harmful. In line of that, I'm curious, has anyone seen a user with hundreds of userboxes and actually asked them to reduce the number? And, if so, what was the result? Regards, MartinRe 09:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I believe a request has been made before, along those lines, and I don't think it went down well. Mackensen (talk) 10:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Just noticed this. If you want a sample User:Elmo12456. Here is the old version of his user page. Please do not click if you not on broadband.
Tony Sidaway (yes, that Tony Sidaway) did something similar to this a few months ago, and he got a fairly good response by just asking. He can probably give numbers/percentaegs, but I'm thinking it was something like 40-70% said they would do it (removal of polemical/POV userboxes). The problem is that at this point we've reached the stage of fanatics on both sides, scripted responses on WP:TFD, and other trench warfare tactics. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I guess I only see anything approaching fanaticism on the side of those who would do away with userboxes in template space. So far, it looks like there are three objections, but none of them have been supported much, if at all:
  1. Server load. I keep asking for something to back this up, and get ignored.
  2. Vote stacking. Even granting that this is a problem (and not, as I'm coming to believe, a flaw in the assumptions inherent in the way Wikipedia comes to decisions), this proposal does nothing to stop it.
  3. Purity of template space. Again, no explanation as to c.
I'm beginning to believe this is something admins will force on editors, whether they like it or not, for nebulous reasons having to do with perceived frivolity. Before ramming it through, please stop for a moment and think what it says to the casual editor who doesn't live and breathe Wikipedia: it's nothing good. Jay Maynard 15:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
To answer some of your questions:
  1. Server load - see Wikipedia:Transclusion_costs_and_benefits - Tranclusion is a serious server load ("Switching off transclusion would drastically reduce server load") Also, from what I understand, changing a template used in multiple places requires each pages to be refreshed, imagine what edit wars (multiple edits) over user templates (used in 100's of user pages) is costing??
  2. Vote stacking. IMO, Consensus works best with a reasonable amount of people with a wide spread of opinions, who, with discussion, some to a fair agreement. Vote stacking unbalances that, by having a large amount of people with the same opinion added to discussion, makes it very difficult to find the middle ground.
  3. Purity of template space - Those in favour of this point to the WP:NPOV pillar, that everything in "encyclopedia space" should be neutral, and template space is part of that space. (Why NPOV "is so vital" should be obvious, I hope!)
Please don't separate people into "admins" and "editors", there's enough them and us wrt userboxes already! :) (I'm not an admin, btw, if that makes any difference). Could you explain what not good thing this would say to the casual editor? Personally I don't think it will deter any casual editors, I think the only people it will seriously deter are those who spend the majority of their time on their userspace, which I think is no bad thing. Casual editors might be annoyed for a time, but at worst it should be a reminder that wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, and user space is supposed to be used primarely for that, and not as a personal web page. Regards, MartinRe 15:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Although I have no problem with subst'ing of userboxes becoming the accepted standard or with the proposal in general - seeing it as no big deal in itself - I do feel that the argument from purity is weak. It's a purely psychological argument, having to do with the way some people think of template space, rather than with any properties that template space objectively has. Psychological arguments can be overcome by changing the way of thinking, rather than by changing the world. For example, in this case the purity argument would be overcome if people agreed to think of "Template:User_" (that is, the set of templates prefixed by "User_") as a virtual space enclosed by encyclopedic "Template:" space but distinct from it (or rather, semi-distinct). Zerrakhi 16:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies:
  1. Server load - The page is a good discussion, but there's still a lot of talk with little measurement and no hard figures (and despite the page's assertion, it is possible to measure just how much extra work transcluding a set of userboxes causes).
  2. Vote stacking - The problem here is that attempts to make decisions by consensus work only when there is consensus to be found. On divisive issues, such as this one, in the end, some group - and, I suspect from the way this is going, a fairly large one - will be left feeling powerless and disenfranchised. I'm already wondering if, as a lowly editor who hasn't been around very long, my voice will wind up counting for much. This is not a new phenomenon; lots of folks have tried governing by consensus only to find that some issue or other is simply not amenable to resolution that way - and how such issues are finally resolved has profound effects on the future of the organization.
  3. Purity of template space - I'm not disputing for a moment that NPOV is fundamental. What I am disputing is that template space must itself be NPOV, especially the pages within that space that start with "User_". Yes, templates that make their way into the encyclopedia itself must be, but that's not the only purpose for template space. (If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.) It should be obvious that user templates can be as non-NPOV as user pages themselves, and the whole idea that they represent the project in some way is laughable at best - unless you are arguing that user pages themselves represent the project!
This whole debate tells those who are not initiated into the inner sanctums and workings of Wikipedia that the space the project grants each user is fundamentally not important. It says that the user can do some things with it, but it's fundamentally not his to lay out who he is and what his interests are - and, make no mistake, that is relevant to building the encyclopedia - in a way he might find useful.
I'm not separating people into "editors" and "admins"; the folks who keep bringing this issue up are doing so. It may well not be conscious on their part. It is, however, quite evident. I wish it weren't so, but there it is. Jay Maynard 18:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Before someone yells at you, I'll just remind you quietly that the debate has nothing to do with what is allowed in user space. Also, in terms of the users vs. admins comment, regardless of whether there is a separation, it might not be a good idea to use such a separation as a point, since (I think) it would be better to treat users and admins as equal in discussions such as this. TheJabberwʘckhelp! 00:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Location userboxes?

I notice that Babel boxes are now (quite rightly) excluded from this proposal. I think it would be appropriate if this exception were extended to 'location' userboxes (ie this user is from Country X) as they have similar administrative benefits. Cynical 15:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, whether Babelboxes are included or not is still under discussion. I for one cannot and will not support this proposal unless Babelboxes (and location boxes) are included. Angr (t • c) 15:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
In dewiki, only Babel boxes are allowed in the Template namespace. Location templates are under a special user account. Last time I checked, other templates existed only in some users' personal spaces and were not advertised in a central directory. Kusma (討論) 17:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I know, but I don't see any reason for enwiki to follow dewiki's mistake of treating Babelboxes separately. Angr (t • c) 21:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why this is a mistake. Unlike Wikipedia:Userboxes, Wikipedia:Babel is actually virtually the same on dozens of projects and would need to get a backup system in place first. At least we'd need a central place that tells people how to write "I don't speak English, you may use French, Spanish, or Chinese to contact me" or similar in Chinese, German, Hindi, Spanish, Russian, Italian, Japanese etc. Once such a replacement system is in place (probably located at Wikipedia:Babel or m:Babel), the userboxes that serve this purpose right now can be phased out, but they shouldn't be deleted in a rush. Kusma (討論) 21:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
There's no reason to change anything in the way Babelboxes are handled, by doing so we would ruin interoperability with Wikipedias in other languages. The Babel boxes are useful, if only marginally so. As an example I was asked a question here [5] because I had a certain Babel box on my page and I replied here [6] with the needed information. There are lots of other useful userboxes. Can't we just have a whitelist of allowed userboxes which can be slowly expanded through a democratic procedure? Haukur 22:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
We already have Wikipedia:Translators available and m:Translation to help us find translators. Babelboxes aren't really necessary for this. Angr (t • c) 22:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Those translator pages are good and useful but the Babel boxes are useful too. You often feel more comfortable asking someone you're already working with to translate for you than to make a request on a page like that. I'm not saying that the Babel boxes are very useful, just that they're marginally useful and almost completely harmless. Haukur 15:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure! They're not going away from userpages, they just won't be stored in Template space any more. Angr (t • c) 15:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I actually want Babel boxes to stay for precisely those languages on m:List of Wikipedias, and do not care at all what happens to all other userboxes. Kusma (討論) 23:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Why only those? There are many other languages in the world, and knowledge of them can be useful in contributing to Wikipedia. Jimpartame 05:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Babelboxes are not going to be deleted anyway; they're just not going to be templates anymore. They'll be substed on the pages where they already exist, and entered directly as code onto new user pages as necessary. The user page will look the same, and the categories will still be there. There just won't be a Template:User en or a Template:User de-3 (etc.) as such any more. Angr (t • c) 06:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As long as the internationally standardized constructions like {{Babel-3|sv|en-0|fr-3}} and similar constructions work and give a useful result, I don't care how they are implemented, it will just probably be a monster without the userbox templates. Kusma (討論) 13:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Well no, that wouldn't work. You'd have to type in
<div style="float:left;border:solid #6ef7a7 1px;margin:1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width:238px;background:#c5fcdc;"
| style="width:45px;height:45px;background:#6ef7a7;text-align:center;font-size:14pt;" | '''[[Swedish language|sv]]'''
| style="font-size:8pt;padding:4pt;line-height:1.25em;" | Den här användaren talar '''[[:Category:User sv|svenska]]''' 
som '''[[:Category:User sv-N|modersmål]]'''.[[Category:User sv|{{PAGENAME}}]][[Category:User sv-N|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|} </div>
<div style="float:left;border:solid #FFB3B3 1px;margin:1px">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width:238px;background:#FFE0E8"
| style="width:45px;height:45px;background:#FFB3B3;text-align:center;font-size:14pt" | '''[[English language|en]]-0'''
| style="font-size:8pt;padding:4pt;line-height:1.25em" | This user '''[[:Category:User en-0|does not understand]]
 [[:Category:User en|English]]''' (or understands it with considerable difficulty).[[Category:User en-0|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|}</div>
<div style="float:left;border:solid #99B3FF 1px;margin:1px">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width:238px;background:#E0E8FF"
| style="width:45px;height:45px;background:#99B3FF;text-align:center;font-size:14pt" | '''[[French language|fr]]-3'''
| style="font-size:8pt;padding:4pt;line-height:1.25em" | Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau
'''[[:Category:User fr-3|avancé]]''' de '''[[:Category:User fr|français]]'''. [[Category:User fr|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 [[Category:User fr-3|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|} </div>

but there would be a central page from which you can copy the code so you don't have to memorize it all. Angr (t • c) 14:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It could be made to work without that. It would be a silly amount of effort and time that should be spent on improving the encyclopedia, but then, every minute of userbox debating is a minute lost for the encyclopedia. Anyway, the page with the code needs to have instructions in at least 30 languages before I would even consider anything but opposing the deletion of Babel userboxes. Kusma (討論) 22:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
What on earth for? This is the English-language Wikipedia; everything here is in English. Angr (t • c) 06:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
For the same reason there's an "I don't speak english" babel box Kuronue 21:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit conflicts

MartinRe, you've mentioned several times that one of your reasons for supporting this poll is that it would stop edit conflicts on userboxes. A couple of questions:

  1. Do you have any specific previous conflicts in mind, or is this just a general hypothesis?
  2. Don't you think this decentralization will increase time spent on userboxes (and decrease time spent on the encyclopedia) by disabling the cooperative "wiki-effect"?
  3. Most importantly, why shouldn't userboxers be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to subst:?

I'd like to better understand your position on this. TheJabberwʘck 22:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair comments, answers in order:
  1. Some conflicts that I've noted were {{User United Kingdom}}, {{User England}}, and even {{User male}}. All those have historys showing some edit conflicts, I'm sure if you browse the templates, you could find more.
  2. Possibly, but I don't think so. Those spending time on userboxes will probably continue to do so, but if edit conflicts are removed, the overall time should go down.
  3. Yes, ideally they should be allowed to subst or not, but if they choose not to subst, they should be aware - and accept - that central changes will affect them. Subst'd and non-subst'd templates both have pros and cons, however, from what I've seen, people want the pro's of both sides, and none of the cons, which is impossible. I have no objection to people choosing, so long as they accept the outcome of their choice. Hope that helps, Regards, MartinRe 15:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Another example is {{User en-4}}, which was the topic of some heated controversy last year. Angr (t • c) 21:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Erm... Please don't use the term edit conflict for what is usually called an edit war. It's very confusing. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is a "reader-facing template"?

What is a "reader-facing template"? WP:NPOV uses the term, but I can't find a definition for it. Does it mean a "template on an article page" or something else? Also, does any policy currently define what part of Wikipedia templatespace is? Is it exclusively encyclopedic space? Is it encyclopedia and project space? Is it undefined? I've seen many claims, but I'd like to see the policy for myself, if anyone can help me find it. Rfrisbietalk 17:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any such policy. But some of the people involved in this proposal think it would be good if the Template namespace were just for templates to be used in encyclopedia articles. I think that would be a good idea, provided we can find a new place to put the other templates, including the userboxes. This proposal, as currently worded, would cause the userbox templates to no longer exist anywhere (instead of moving them somewhere else). That's the part I object to. Jimpartame 21:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. As I understand them, Wikipedia:May Userbox policy poll and Wikipedia:Migration of usercruft into new namespaces are intended to address the issues you mention. Rfrisbietalk 20:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Namespace?

Has the idea been considered to just create a new namespace for boxes? I know on the software side this is simplicity manifested, but I don't know if there are other side effects I'm not considering. Once the new namespace is created, a bot can just copy all the userbox templates over (granted it might need a bit of guidance for the non "Template:User .*" patterned boxes), then edit all the pages that include the boxes to point to the new namespace. Once it's all done, it can just delete them all from the template namespace. Right? B.Mearns*, KSC 19:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Not gonna happen. See Cyde's comment in the "Dumb question" section: the developers hate userboxes, and aren't gonna add another namespace to make them easier. That was my thought, as well, as it defuses the controversy by getting them out of template space while changing none of the other aspects (as this proposal does). Jay Maynard 20:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
"Physical" namespace is one thing. Conceptual namespace is quite another. All sorts of suggestions have been put out there to conceptually distinguish "userbox code" from "encyclopedic templates." Any arguments against creating a new namespace mask the deeper intents of the objections. Even if a bona-fide new namespace "would" be vetoed by developers (I know of no direct statements by them - I'd love to see the link here), claiming "developers hate userboxes" as a rationale for blocking a new conceptual or "virtual" userbox namespace is a straw man argument. Rfrisbietalk 22:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I think a new namespace would solve the "Template namespace must be pure!" argument, and be no different a solution for the other arguments than this proposal, and I'd love to see it. I was merely pointing out that it'd been suggested and shot down during this discussion. Jay Maynard 22:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
See also User:TheTrueSora/A Proposal on Userboxes (revisited), which proposes a new physical namespace. TheJabberwʘckhelp! 00:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with creating a new namespace is that it even further legitimizes userboxes and gives an even worse impression of what it means to be a Wikipedian. Jay Maynard is right; this idea is not going to happen as the people who could actually implement it have no interest whatsoever in doing so. --Cyde Weys 00:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

How do userboxes give people a bad impression of what it means to be a Wikipedian? As one of the leaders of the crusade, surely you can explain it concisely. Jay Maynard 00:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Ouch, don't call it a crusade. Crusades are, by definition, religiously-motivated ... which is quite impossible for me. --Cyde Weys 00:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
It feels like a crusade: if you can't rationally explain it, it's indistinguishable from a religion, at least to the uninitiated observer. Jay Maynard 00:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, to actually answer the question, here's something Jimbo said that sums it up pretty well. --Cyde Weys 00:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
This one won't kill your browser. --Cyde Weys 00:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
So, basically, Wikipedia welcomes you as long as you're either apolitical or willing to hide your politics? I am a Republican, and proud of it, just as others are proud to be gay, or deaf, or vegan, or firearms owners, or even ($DEITY save us) from Massachusetts. Why should any of those be any different from any other?
IOW, I think Jimbo's position is wrong because it tries to homogenize us all. That will work no better on Wikipedia than it will anywhere else. I realize I'm speaking against something the guy who's responsible for the whole shebang feels strongly about, but I'm certainly not alone. Jay Maynard 01:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia welcomes you as encyclopedia editors. It doesn't welcome you if you're going to come here and spew your POV all over the place (not that I'm accusing you of doing so, but obviously, some others have tried it). Having huge displays of POV on userpages is a bad idea because it gives the impression that that kind of thing is acceptable, when the actual policy is WP:NPOV. Remember, your userpage isn't a personal site ... it's a privilege afforded to people working on the encyclopedia for use in encyclopedia-related communication and such. The ideal Wikipedia editor is one whose biases you can't even figure out, because every article edit they make is entirely neutral. Please understand, Wikipedia is only an online community to the ends of writing the encyclopedia ... it's not an online community in general where you share your views on a wide variety of issues. --Cyde Weys 01:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Homogeneity is not the goal. Individualism is totally welcome, just not flag-waving. Do you really not see a difference between those? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Jay Maynard, this is like a quadruple edit conflict by now, but I wrote up a response to your question:
What it means to be a Wikipedian is to be dedicated to creating the ultimate encyclopedia, completely free, completely comprehensive, completely neutral. We want Wikipedia to be authoritative, reliable, and not in any particular group's pocket. Any special interest group would love to be able to dictate what Wikipedia says, and to dictate "truth" from their particular POV. One of our main tasks as Wikipedians is to guard against that, because we must remain firmly above partisanship in any form. If we don't rise above all partisanship, then we're just as shitty as any other website - we no longer make the internet not suck. A good Wikipedian carries that ideal around, and at least while they're working on Wikipedia, holds accuracy and NPOV as higher ideals than whatever politial agenda they might otherwise align themselves with.
I'm very proud to check my personal beliefs at the door when I work here. If you go and set up a userpage advertising that you hold this and that political beliefs, then you're giving the impression that you're participating here with that in mind, rather than trying to get beyond it, that you're editing not as a guardian of neutrality, but as a "Bigendian" or whatever. You give the impression that it's somehow consistent to be a lobbyist and an encyclopedist at the same time. I, and I daresay many of us, would rather not have anybody working on the encyclopedia as a lobbyist, nor give the impression that such an attitude is considered in any way "cool" here.
I suspect all the noise about the sacredness of the Template namespace is somehow a smokescreen for this one idea, that a lot of us are just really uncomforatble with this willingness to openly embrace POVs in the middle of the ultimate NPOV project. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Very well said! --Cyde Weys 01:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
By the way, GTBacchus is perfectly reflecting the views of Jimbo Wales, the higher-ups on the project (i.e. Wikimedia Board, arbitrators, etc.), and the developers. That is why a user template space will never be implemented. So far they haven't intervened in this mess other than by saying their opinions because they're hoping we can figure it out on our own, but they are certainly not going to turn around and implement something against the most basic goals of the project. --Cyde Weys 01:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Okkay, I see where you're coming from, and you're right, nobody's laid it out in those terms before.
The problem is that, while the ideal Wikipedia editor is able to write in an unbiased manner, it's simply not possible over the long term. This is not to disparage anyone's efforts, or those of the whole project, as it's obvious that blatant POV-ness gets stamped out under a thousand edits. It is, however, a recognition of the simple fact that people's biases do leak into their writings to a greater or lesser degree. One need look no farther than the mainstream media to see that.
To me, if someone is willing not only to agree to write in an NPOV manner, but lay their biases out on the table for all to see so that others can hold them to that agreement, it makes their participation that much stronger and that much more likely to be unbiased - for the inevitable result of POV writing is that someone will catch it and edit it out, and if it's blatantly in favor of someone's declared biases, it's that much more likely to get caught and fixed, and knowing that will make people pay extra attention to being NPOV.
This does not apply only to politics and similar issues. I am a Registered Parliamentarian member of the National Association of Parliamentarians. This affects how I look at lots of things, including Wikipedia's method of governance. Even so, I doubt that anyone would take me to task for having an RP userbox. (Hm...maybe a series of them, from RONR-0 to RONR-N? :-) The "get rid of 'em all!" answer to that simply further homogenizes Wikipedians.
The world is full of lots of different kinds of people, with lots of different viewpoints. That they've come together to create this resource is truly amazing. Don't diminish that by hiding it. Jay Maynard 01:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Jay Maynard, if you think I'm advocating hiding anything, you've misunderstood me. (Which is fair enough; I'm only just finding the words to articulate these ideas...)
Look, I'm a teacher; that's what I do for a living. I don't announce my political beliefs in the classroom. Why not? Well, they're completely irrelevant. My role as a teacher is separate from my role as a politically active person. So is my role as a Wikipedian. If you ask me where I stand on any political issue, I'll tell you, but I'm not going to announce it on my Wikipedia userpage as if that's somehow what I'm here for. Doing so would feel as inappropriate to me as putting my political party affiliation on a course syllabus. I would be mixing roles in an inappropriate way. It would feel culturally wrong, like eating with my left hand in India. It's just not done.
This analogy, of the role as Wikipedian to role as teacher, also shows the flaw in another part of your argument, that without userboxes, we somehow become homogenous. I don't know about the politics of any of my colleagues in the department, and yet, we're anything but homogenous! I refuse to believe that your membership in any granfaloon (club, party, what-have-you) is what makes you Jay Maynard. You know what's homogenous? Templated userboxes! "We're all Bigendians; look at our identical boxen." My favorite examples of extremely individualistic user pages here that focus on material relevant to writing an encyclopedia are User:Geogre and User:SlimVirgin. Homogenous? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your candid response, GTB. Just a quick question: how does moving templates out of Template: space and into User: space help reduce POV? TheJabberwʘckhelp! 01:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Long belated reply - I hope you don't mind my cutting in here, Cyde. Iamthejabberwock, your question isn't quite posed in a way I find comfortable. It can reduce the appearance that activism is somehow an accepted part of being a Wikipedian, bacause having them in Template space is like an official stamp that they're really part of the project. Ultimately, moving things between namespaces won't solve the underlying cultural problem, but it's a first step. As they get moved, or substed, and people ask why, we get to have conversations like this one. More and more people get turned on to the ideal that some of us see being threatened, and the culture changes back, one person at a time, just like Jimbo said.
Heck, even mass deletions get that message across to some extent, but they also engender a culture of combativeness and polarization, and look where we are. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
It helps in a small way by preventing association (i.e. getting rid of categories and what links here). Obviously it's not our preferred solution, but it looks to be the best we can get, despite Jimbo being very clear on this matter and kindly asking everyone to shape up :-/ Cyde Weys 01:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the move is separate to the getting rid of what links here and categories, both of which can be eliminated using subst and keep strategies. The move would be a conceptual move in my view and separate to the votestacking causes issue (ie, categories and what links here) Ansell Review my progress! 01:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Getting rid of "what links here" and categories is not going to do a thing about vote stacking. Making user pages unsearchable might. The only way to get rid of it is to make it so it doesn't change outcomes. As for spamming userpages to get out votes, that in and of itself can be dealt with easily.
The bigger deal here, though, is that it's an attempt to apply technological solutions to social problems. It doesn't work on the Internet (think of mandatory porn filters and the like); what makes anyone think it will work any better on Wikipedia? Jay Maynard 02:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and "preventing association" is just a nicer way of saying "stamp out user communities" - omething that others have said is not desirable. Which is it to be? Stamp, or no? Jay Maynard 02:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Preventing searching of user space is not what this proposal is about. This proposal does not refer to the delete groups concern about votestacking, if as you say user space is non-searchable. Possibly a separate proposal for this would be appropriate, however, doing so would nullify the argument against vote-stacking as long as a subst and keep strategy is used. Ansell Review my progress! 23:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. As I understand it, one of the primary arguments against userboxes is that they assist votestacking efforts by making it easier to find users who would be inclined to vote a certain way on a proposal. This proposal is held out as helping with that problem. My contention is that it does nothing of the sort, unless user space is also made nonsearchable; otherwise, a quick Google (maybe even with tools available on this very site) will return the same results. Jay Maynard 23:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
For that matter, you could solve the problem by removing Userpages at all, and having everyone only able to make Talk pages (or remove Talk pages and force people to use their Userpage as a Talk page). Why even have Userpages? They're there to describe the user. Kuronue 21:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for Keeping?

To help understand the debate, what are the arguments (briefly) for keeping userboxes (other than babel, etc.) in the template namespace? Sincerely—Ardric47 03:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Put simply, they're harmless. All of the arguments against having them there are thin, at best. Jay Maynard 11:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The “deal breaker” issue is automated groupings of Wikipedians

As far as I can tell, the “deal breaker” issue for many discussants here is over whether or not automated groupings of Wikipedians should be allowed. “Deletionists” are against them, “preservationists” are for them. Up front, my wikilosophy on this issue is userbox protectionism. The automated groupings I know about are “What links here” when userbox templates are transcluded, and categories that can be embedded in userbox code or manually placed on user pages. Both groups appear to have the laudable aim of furthering the encyclopedia through implementing their respective positions. Deletionists often cite the need to protect the encyclopedia against factions that will attempt to undermine the project. This policy position assumes bad faith on the part of other Wikipedians. Preservationists often cite the need to support collaboration and community building among editors with diverse points of view in order to achieve fair and balanced encyclopedic articles. This policy position assumes good faith on the part of other Wikipedians. Given the technology for automated groupings is policy-neutral, it boils down to a choice between a policy position to thwart a potential threat vs. a policy position to promote a potential benefit. To go on the record once again, I choose to err on the side of assuming good faith. I support any and all technologies that implement automated user groupings for the instrumental purpose of supporting collaboration and community building as a means to develop the world’s best encyclopedia – anywhere. Rfrisbietalk 04:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Bravo, well said. I myself would rather err on the side of good faith also. Ansell Review my progress! 04:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
In fairness, this proposal will removed the automated linking by what links here, but categories will remain, which I believe is the widely accepted method of automated grouping. Also by separating userboxes and categories, that does give users more flexibility as to what categories they want to be added in. Also, this policy does not assume bad faith as you put it, there is an actual problem this is trying to fix, and not just a potential threat - see the "Edit Conflict" section for specific examples where edit wars over content/category inclusion happened, which would not happen under this proposal. This proposal would support collaboration while trying to reduce confrontation, and what's so bad about that? Regards, MartinRe 10:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You're trying to frame this as a feud between "deletionists" and "preservationists". Those labels are incredibly inaccurate. Better labels might be "encyclopedists" and "MySpacers". --Cyde↔Weys 05:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my point, "Both groups appear to have the laudable aim of furthering the encyclopedia through implementing their respective positions." From this perspective, both sides are "encyclopedists." Rfrisbietalk 05:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
You also seem to have missed my point made above, that the majority of "MySpace"-type user pages have no userboxes on them at all. Angr (t • c) 06:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there are "myspace" type userpages with no userboxes, and this proposal isn't trying to deal with that. I did suggest that mfd might be appropiate if you find such a page. However, please don't object to the proposal simply because it doesn't fix a problem that it wasn't designed to in the first place. Regards, MartinRe 10:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I know this proposal isn't trying to deal with it, and I'm not objecting to this proposal yet. I'm trying to remind Cyde that userboxes have zero relevance to the problem of the MySpacification of Wikipedia, since he brought it up. Angr (t • c) 11:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
What problem does it fix? Not votestacking and not server load... Jay Maynard 11:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
It does help with server load, as I've replied to previously. Just because there are no hard figures doen't mean it has no effect. What this also solves (also outlined above) is the edit wars that regularly occur over user templates. These go together, a edit user war of ten edits over a template that is used on 100 user pages, results in 1000 pages being modified. With this proposal, if someone wants to change the userbox on their page, they can do so, resulting in one edit, and no edit war risk. How is that not an improvement? Regards, MartinRe 11:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not that there are no hard figures. It's that there are no figures at all. This bothers me because of personal experience: in the open source software product I manage, there was once a lot of code added, and a lot of work done, to optimize a chunk of code that was worse for the optimization. Someone actually measured the simple and complex versions, and found that the simple version performed better. We ripped out the complexity and got better. The same thing may well be happening here: a lot of assumptions are being made based on conjecture that may well not be true.
As for the edit war risk, that's going to be a problem no matter what happens. Edit wars are possible throughout the encyclopedia. Why is it such a problem here and not elsewhere? Jay Maynard 11:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and at least one major edit war was a result of an admin trying to unilaterally impose his will on a community (AIUI, Cyde vs. Christianity, which resulted in BigDT's departure). There's a fix for that, and it's not getting rid of the userbox. Jay Maynard 11:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Cyde, I suggest you'd use "good" and "evil" from now on for even less divisiveness. Seriously though, good labels would be "MySpacers" and "Anti-MySpacers", neither of which automatically means "encyclopedist" in my opinion. -- grm_wnr Esc 10:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I object to being called a "MySpacer" - that's not my purpose in saying who I am on my userpage. I believe that my position in favor of the status quo does further the encyclopedia, for reasons I've already stated. Jay Maynard 11:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the status quo does further the encyclopedia, but I believe that the proposal will further the encyclopedia even further. Regards, MartinRe 11:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of my concerns

I'm getting tired of this thing, so I've summarised my main concerns on Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes and will now be taking much less interest in the debate. Zerrakhi 05:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BOXPOL

This proposal is in error. We are already working out the Userbox policy. It's just divisive and unnecessary to start yet another kill-the-boxes proposal. John Reid 13:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This page has been around for almost a week, and now you tell us. Jay Maynard 13:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
That said, I have no heartburn with that proposal, and certainly much less so than with this one. Jay Maynard 13:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The various Alternative and previous proposals have been posted here since 5/15/06 and elsewhere. Rfrisbietalk 14:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
This is an alternative proposal which is inherently no more or less meritorious than WP:UPOL (WP:BOXPOL). TheJabberwʘckhelp! 21:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not MySpace

Jimbo Wales' Userboxes as of 5/19/06. "This user ... is 39 years old; can be reached by email; is male; is a member of Wikipedia."
Jimbo Wales' Userboxes as of 5/19/06.
"This user ... is 39 years old; can be reached by email; is male; is a member of Wikipedia."

I doubt that very few, if any, users involved in this discussion would challenge this statement or what it implies. Specifically,

" Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site.
You may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikipedia. Wikipedia pages are not:

  1. User pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they are used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration."

So, let’s just take that straw man argument off the table for this policy discussion.

Interestingly, while certain types of user information here may appear to serve "social networking" purposes, if viewed in the context of a site like MySpace, e.g., "interested in dating;" the very same information, assuming good faith, can help provide the foundation for effective collaboration when viewed in the context of Wikipedia user pages. I "randomly" ;-) selected a user page that included some userbox information on it to illustrate the point. Given the context of Wikipedia, do you think this guy posted that information here because he's interested in dating or is he simply disclosing background demographic information that may support collaboration?

A clear and strong policy against turning a user page into a "MySpace" page already exists. If problems occur with certain individuals' user pages looking like MySpace pages, then use the existing policy to address their user page. If inappropriate information is on the user page, putting a little box around it, no matter where it came from, is irrelevant. If the information is appropriate for a user page, then putting a little box around it does not make it inappropriate.

If user page policy somehow does not properly address the MyPage issue, then user page policy should be changed. Such policy should clearly state both unacceptable and acceptable types of content that may appear on the page. Any mechanisms for placing information on or about a user page, such as userboxes and user categories, also should be subject to this policy. If any restrictions are placed on these mechanisms, they should be no broader than necessary to implement the policy. The rationale for this is no policy, including the one proposed here, should unnecessarily preclude the use of existing tools to support the broad aim of encyclopedic collaboration in the name of enforcing sanctions against specific and identifiable policy violations. Rfrisbietalk 04:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

  • *slow clap* -Silence 05:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Very well put. I'm begining to think myself that these proposals are doomed to fail as we are only treating individual symptoms and not the root problem with seems to be "user pages not complying with WP:USER". Question is, how to we a) ensure that all new users are aware of this guideline from the start (to save confusion) and to try and get people to follow it, if their current page is excessive? (I think WP:USER as it stands is fine, it's doesn't need changing, just following!) We could start asking people, and if that doesn't work, use Mfd, as if user pages are being abused by a editor, then the privilege of a userpage should be withdrawn temporarily from that editor. Regards, MartinRe 19:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    The actual problem is a cultural difference: Some editors have observed and internalized some cultural norms that involve, among other things, a strong pride in working on Wikipedia as a Wikipedian, not as a member of any other group, and striving always to rise above personal opinions. The fact that this is impossible diminishes in no way its value as an ideal. Someone sharing in this ideal wouldn't consider announcing their off-Wikipedia allegiances on their userpages; those are simply irrelevant here. We see people waving flags around, and it rubs us the wrong way; it seems so incredibly unencyclopedic. It appears that people want to edit Wikipedia as Catholics, or Libertarians, or Feminists, or whatever. In fact, there are people who want to do just that, and those people are enemies of this project - worse than vandals. That kind of editing is utterly unacceptable.
    Even if someone waving flags on their userpage isn't engaging in activism, someone else comes along, sees their userpage, and thinks "here's a place where it's somehow cool to be an activist". Gradually, the culture starts to shift, away from those who take pride in their aspirations to neutrality, towards a culture of those who don't try to be neutral, perhaps shrugging it off with the thought that someone editing from "the other side" will somehow balance them out, when that's not at all how it's supposed to work. I have yet to see any pro-userbox person indicate that they understand that there's a cultural ideal at stake here. All technical and political solutions are just noise; it's a cultural problem. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    That's a great ideal. Even if it holds value as an ideal, however, it is flatly impossible in practice. I do not intend to edit pages as a Republican, or an activist for anything else, as I agree that it is contrary to the goals of the project. OTOH, if you know that I'm a Republican, you'll be on the lookout for that viewpoint in my edits, and will be ready to correct me should I stray from the straight and narrow; knowing that, I'm going to take extra care not to give anyone cause to do so.
    I just spent some time rewriting table (verb). I did so as a parliamentarian, and specifically as a Registered Parliamentarian, a level of membership in one organization (the National Association of Parliamentarians) that certifies that I am expert in the rules of parliamentary procedure. (No, I'm not presuming to represent NAP here.) That doesn't make me an activist (unless you consider it activism for the proper use of Robert's Rules of Order). Nevertheless, the anti-userbox crowd would have me not list that on my user page, and most certainly not via a box in Template space!
    Yes, it's cultural. What seems to be missed by those on the other side is that people have more interests than just being Wikipedians. Those interests, and those biases, will carry over into their Wikipedia activities. It's impossible to do otherwise, and those who think it is are deluding themselves. Why not accept reality and work with it, rather than deny it? Jay Maynard 21:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    Only things that are flatly impossible in practice hold value as ideals.
    You mistake my meaning, Jay, or I'm perhaps unclear in my phrasing; I'm not "denying" that my interests and biases carry over into my Wikipedia work. Oh, and I do have interests outside of Wikipedia. Do you really believe the portrait you're painting of those of us whom you call "the other side"? Aiming for an ideal != claiming that it's attainable. It's still worth aiming for. Don't worry, I'm working with reality, but I'm keeping a diamond in my mind. Aiming for the stars isn't delusion; it's how wonders of the world get built. I'm here to build a wonder.
    Anyway, your "why deny it?" argument looks rather different when it turns out I don't oppose disclosure of bias; I'm against giving the impression of activism. More on that in 2 paragraphs.
    Also, I don't know who you've been talking to, but I am a member of the "anti-userbox crowd", and I have no problem at all with you declaring your areas of expertise on your userpage. When I edit Riemann Hypothesis, I do so as a mathematician and as math teacher - that's different from editing Abortion as a "pro-choicer", which I am. I'm proud that the only time my beliefs have been called into question at that particular article, I was accused of being a "rabid anti-abortionist", which I'm certainly not.
    Your argument that, knowing you're a republican, I'll keep an eye on you, and you'll edit carefully, under the gun as it were... that's a pretty good argument. The "disclosing potential bias" argument. I'm not against disclosing potential bias; I think userboxes are a bad way to do it. They give the impression of bumper-stickery activism. Very few people are creating and using boxen for the purpose of disclosing potential bias, in that spirit. People are having fun waving colorful flags around, and they're pushing Wikipedia culture in a more flag-wavey direction, which is not what you have in mind when you talk about disclosing potential bias.
    This is not about someone trying to keep honest, dedicated editors from disclosing potential bias. This is about trying not to give the impression that Wikipedia exists in any degree for the purpose of facilitating club-housing. That impression is an actual problem; I guess that's what I'm asking peoiple to believe. Is that the sticking point? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    I agree the NPOV culture often is misinterpreted. A key misinterpretation swirling around the userbox debate is mistaking "point of view" for "bias." The passages below illustrate the confusion.
    Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POV's). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" policy…
    Some contributors to Wikipedia misuse the term POV, taking it to be the antithesis of "NPOV", implying that a particular article or passage is affected by an editor's point of view. This is not what the term POV means, and should be avoided. The term they are groping for is "biased". (Wikipedia:Describing points of view)
    In my profession, "full and frank disclosure" of one's relevant points of view is considered to be an essential element of proprely addressing potential bias. Striving toward the ideal of NPOV for Wikipedia articles should have no less of a standard. Userboxes that disclose such POVs help serve that purpose. Rfrisbietalk 22:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    Disclosure of bias serves that purpose; userboxes can disclose bias, but do it while giving other, entirely wrong, impressions. See above. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    That's certainly a point of view. I just don't consider it a legitimate rationale for excessively restricting userboxes out of hand. My view is to address the behavior, not the technology used to express it. Rfrisbietalk 03:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    How? How do you convince people that flag-waving is contrary to the project, while maintaining an official warehouse of flags? Why not just disclose bias in a way that doesn't look like advertising for that bias? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    Why should userboxes in template space be considered any more official a part of the project than anything else, especially since they're both labeled as user things and when anyone can create them without official approval? Would your answer change if WP:MUPP is adopted and they're moved out of template space? Jay Maynard 11:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    GTBacchus, my point is that if any specific class of behaviors is inappropriate, then it should be addressed directly. For example, if "flag waving" is a problem, then we should be discussion a proposed policy somewhere along the lines of, "Wikipedia is not flag waving." The policy should address what in article space is acceptable (e.g. characterizations of flag waving pertinent to a specific topic) and what is unacceptable (e.g., an exhibition of flag waving). The policy also should address what is acceptable and unacceptable in user space. Any userboxes, regardless of their source, then should comply with this user space policy on flag waving. Substitute any other "cultural" issue and you’ll have my point of view on it. Regards, Rfrisbietalk 13:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major arguments

The major arguments are:

Anti-Userbox Argument Pro-Userbox Argument
Wikipedia is not a social networking site. Not all networking is "social networking". Equating any user-linking templates at all with MySpace is "slippery slope" paranoia.
Templatespace should be reserved for things that benefit the encyclopedia. Not all templates are the same. Templates used in articles and templates used in userspace should be held to different standards, as readers will only ever see the former. The same applies to categories in articles vs. categories in Wikipedia- and user-space.
Userspace should be reserved for things that benefit the encyclopedia. Expressing POVs and interests does benefit the encyclopedia, and having fun on one's userpage doesn't necessarily constitute "harming the encyclopedia".
We shouldn't express our POVs and biases in userspace as though we're here as representatves of some cause rather than being here as encyclopedists. It will give the impression that Wikipedia is a place where activism is condoned. Everything is biased, and everyone has a POV. NPOV is "neutral point of view", not "no point of view". It's positive and helpful for users to express their POVs and biases, as it prevents misunderstandings and encourages tolerance and understanding of others' views. In contrast, an environment where secrecy is encouraged and honest openness discouraged is harmful to Wikipedia, and doesn't erase users' biases, but merely covers them up.
Userboxes consume too much time, space, etc. They propagate so quickly, if they aren't carefully kept in check, they'll flood everything! It will always be exceedingly easy to mass-delete or mass-subst userboxes at any point in the future, even if there are 10 times as many boxes in the future as there are none. Hysteria over the mere number of userboxes is fueling a lot of the divisiveness and hate over what really is a pretty trivial and innocuous little fad.
Userboxes cause fights and division and are generally harming Wikipedia. Deleting userboxes causes all or most of the trouble associated with userboxes. If they're left alone, things will calm down and the fighting will cease.
Using templates to express certain views makes votestacking and factionalizing too easy. Votestacking is a relatively rare and trivial problem, outweighed by the benefits of letting users with similar interests find one another and work together on articles. Remember to assume good faith. Also, even if categories are also deleted, eliminating usertemplates does not fix the votestacking problem, as userpages are still easy to search for.
Many userboxes have inflammatory or offensive contents, and having them in templatespace means that people may interpret Wikipedia as condoning certain beliefs or lifestyles because we have a template for it. Censoring certain views while permitting others is unethical and amounts to Wikipedia condemning certain beliefs or actions as immoral. It is more damaging for Wikipedia to censor certain userboxes and not censor others based on arbitrary measures of "offensiveness", than for Wikipedia to not attempt to judge how offensive or inoffensive any template is at all. If anything, userboxes should be judged based on their usefulness, not based on how morally acceptable certain people find them.
All userboxes should be substed. The outward appearance will be the same, but substing eliminates much of the possibility of votestacking, social networking, and factionalizing. Substing should be a matter of the users' choice. Raw code consumes more time and space than simple templates, thus diverting users' attention from the encyclopedia much more, and wasting lots of time unnecessarily. Templates are very simple, convenient, and useful tool for userpages. Substing also does nothing to fix votestacking, since user pages are still searchable.
Userboxes enable talk page and other spamming, for votes and other purposes. Spamming is bad, but there are already measures in place to deal with it. Userboxes themselves are peripheral to the problem.

I am putting these out as a potential confirmation of the different positions. I do not want to try to create factions but as it is clear from this proposal that there are differences I would like to outline them so that people can be clear about what they are saying when they refer to the subst and delete group, and its arguments. Feel free to add to the list above but dont be surprised if someone changes it again. Ansell Review my progress! 23:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Added a couple of mine. Λυδαcιτγ(TheJabberwock) 23:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The most biased thing about this presentation is that it offers anti-userbox arguments, pro-userbox responses to those arguments, and no criticism of the pro-userbox responses. It's set up like a Goofus and Gallant comic. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guideline to solve this problem already exists?

As Rfrisbie outlined in a above section, there is already a guideline for user pages, namely Wikipedia:User page, and I am coming to the belief that no new policies or guidelines are needed, simply the application of the current ones.

The problems raised are many, vote stacking, edit wars, overuse of userboxes, and as Angr mentioned, using user space for personal bios, (which is not userbox related). But aren't all these items covered by "misuse of user space", and, if so, should they be dealt with as such? For example, userboxes are often described as a useful way of expressing potential biases, which can be the case, in moderation. However, if someone has 100's of userboxes, it is counter productive. Include significant biases, sure, that may be of use, but including trivial ones just drowns out the rest.

As such, I have no basic problem with userboxes staying in template space (except for the ones covered by the original CSD T1 as divisive and inflamatory, as these are valid speedies as the template equilavent of attack pages.) However, it would be good, in my opinion, to try and remind people about what user space is designed for, and to discourage new users simply going to WP:UBX, and copying 100's of shiney userboxes without knowing the user page guidelines. Reducing the possibility of edit wars over user templates would be good too.

So, how about the folllowing:

  1. Leave userbox templates as they are (with the exception of the attack ones as T1, above)
  2. Insert a warning/reminder on the top of each page of WP:UBX about the user page guidlines and referring people to WP:USER (current messages are very easy to ignore)
  3. Add {{subst: to the beginning of the templates listed at WP:UBX
    • Thus, those that understand subst can choose to remove it, but those that simply copy and paste (and are more likely not to understand subst and edit war) will get the template pre-substs. (Templates could be updated to user {{userbox}} to make it easier on those that choose to subst too)
    • This would not be making the use of subst policy, just recommending it, those that are aware of the pros and cons are free to remove it.
  4. If a user page appears to be excessive, either a personal bio, 100's of userboxes, offensive, or whatever, request the user to remedy it by asking on their talk page, referring them to WP:USER
  5. If that doesn't work, refer the page to Mfd, as userpages are a privilege, and, if abused, can be taken away.
  6. That way, a problem user page is dealt by userspace guidelines.

How does this sound? Regards, MartinRe 13:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I support this proposal in principle. It addresses the issues around userboxes specifically and within the broader and more appropriate context of user pages. I believe a straw poll on suggestions like these would be much more likely to achieve consensus on how to address problem behaviors while, at the same time, protecting legitimate tools of collaboration. Rfrisbietalk 13:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I oppose this as long as {{subst: is the default. People will use the code from the listing unless they have a really good reason not to, and having the default be subst is not in the nature of a compromise; it's capitulation to those who believe in the purity of template space - something about which there is a serious lack of consensus. If the subst default is removed, I would support it. Jay Maynard 14:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Insisting on the staus quo is not in the nature of a compromise either. There have been many opinion on userboxes, varying from "delete them all", "subst then delete", "keep but force subst", "keep but recommend subst", and "keep as is". As this is "keep but recommend subst", I cannot see how this is a capitulation in any shape or form, especially as those beliveing in a pure template space would be insisting on "subst then delete" as a minimum. This idea does not force the use of subst, anyone wishing not to subst can do so. But by making subst the default, it does require people using userboxes to have a basic understanding about transclusion (and the benefits/problems thereof) in order to use it. Any why is that such a bad thing? Regards, MartinRe 17:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You're assuming that the average user will take the time to study the costs and benefits of transclusion vs. subst:-ing. I don't think htat's a valid assumption at all. It's not "keep but recommend subst", it's "keep and make the user turn off subst: if he knows how" - a substantially higher bar. "Keep but recommend subst:" would be pretty close to what there is now: a default if you copy and paste of transcluding, with a recommendation at the top of every index page (maybe more strongly worded than what is there now) to consider putting subst: in the template call on the user's page. Jay Maynard 17:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'm making the opposite assumption, that average users will not take the time to study what subst means. However, I believe that users who have not bothered to take the time to understand what subst means are therefore unlikely to realise (or accept) the disadvantages that a transcluded template has. I do not think deleting six characters is a very high bar, for those that understand subst. But for those that do not, and might wonder why their page has changed, I think it better the default to be the case which won't blow up in their face. Regards, MartinRe 18:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That a transcluded template's disadvantages are its primary feature is precisely what there's no consensus about. It's not that deleting six characters is a high bar, it's that the user understanding that he might want to delete those six characters is. As things stand, the user's page will change if someone changes the userbox template. This is how templates work all over the site, and changing it by default for only one class of template violates the principle of least surprise. You're assuming that the user wants the userbox to remain the same forever. I don't: if someone comes up with a better content for that userbox, I want mine to change. Jay Maynard 18:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I weakly support this. Would be a strong support, but I'm against the subst: default, per Jay. Also, I like the idea of a new physical space to separate the userboxes. But this is, all in all, a very sensible solution. Λυδαcιτγ(TheJabberwock) 14:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New usebox policy

The May Userbox policy poll has been ratified as an official policy on the English Wikipedia. Rfrisbietalk 20:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, I didn't count to ten, check the history for details. Rfrisbietalk 20:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boldly going forward (cuz I can't find the reverse)

The community is split on the subject of userboxes. Consensus is nowhere in sight. Still, admins keep deleting boxes claiming T1 or T2. In other words, the situation is bad.
After reading |Jimbo's comments I decided, the German solution is the solution to this mess. It moves the userboxes out of template space into userspace, removing POV from the templates, and protecting the boxes from (over)eager adminstrators and T1. Join the migration!. CharonX talk Userboxes 19:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

CharonX, I've been soliciting comment on that concept here along with a proposed method for handling the migration of the current template space collection of boxes. Any solution will need to be two step with one getting the existing collection our of template space and the second setting up a new, acceptable architecture for new ones to be created in user space. --StuffOfInterest 19:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The German solution

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. Rfrisbietalk 23:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Being bold, and putting this to rest

I think the lack of activity and the opposition in the straw poll indicates that this won't have the support to become a policy. I'll put a reject/historical tag on it and put it to rest. If you disagree feel free to revert, but please leave me a message. Thanks. CharonX/talk 23:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/c/Wikipedia_talk%7EMackensen%27s_Proposal_7054.html"