Wikipedia talk:Userboxes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Wikipedia:Userboxes is part of WikiProject Userboxes. This means that the WikiProject has identified it as part of the userboxes system. WikiProject Userboxes itself is an attempt to improve, grow and standardize Wikipedia's articles and templates related to the userbox system, used on many users' pages. We need all your help, so join in today!
Shortcut:
WT:UBX
Archive
Archives

Refresh page (Purge server cache)

For userbox ideas, see Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Ideas
For Recently Created or Changed Userboxes, see Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/New Userboxes

Contents

[edit] Link generator template

I created a template for formatting links to user boxes in user namespace. See {{User:Will Pittenger/Create User Box Template Link}}. Will (Talk - contribs) 23:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox "History Student" vs. "Student of History"

Can someone please make the necessary corrections to the above, please!

  • A "history student" is one who literally studies history.
    • But a "student of history" carries broader connotations, not just the idea of someone who is formally registered in an accredited institution or school.
      • Right now the User box on my User page says that I am a "history student." But I want to say that I am a "student of history."
Can someone modify the Userbox accordingly? Thanks. Ludvikus 20:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That box isn't yours. So I can't just change it. However, you can host a new one. This in keeping with current policy anyway. First, create a page like User:Ludvikus/User Boxes/Student of History. Then copy the code in the box below to your new page. Save it. If you use the page above, put {{User:Ludvikus/User Boxes/Student of History}} onto your user page. I would then suggest listing your box at Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/New Userboxes and Wikipedia:Userboxes/History.

<div style="float: left; border:solid black 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: beige;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: black; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}pt; color: {{{id-fc|black}}};" | '''[[Image:David - Oath of the Horatii.JPG|45px]]'''
| style="font-size: {{{info-s|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc|black}}};" | This user is a '''[[historian|student of history]]'''. <includeonly>[[Category:Wikipedians interested in history|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly>
|}</div>

Will (Talk - contribs) 02:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bay Area Template

Is there a Bay Area Userbox because I'm proud of living in the bay area!! Derrty2033 04:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox vs. Userboxes

I think there is no reason to prefer the plural over the singular as the heading to this article.

Why not have Wikipedia:Userbox instead??????????????????
Yours, etc. Ludvikus 00:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither of the singular, or plural is defined: - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes -Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes -Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes -Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes -Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes -Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes -Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Yours truly, Ludvikus 01:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

i agree totally-Three ways round 00:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can we ban all frivolous user infoboxes?

I notice there is a meteoric rise in the use of frivolous infoboxes (eg "this user likes cabbage"). I don't see why such infoboxes have any place whatsoever in a serious encyclopedic effort. I know they appear in user namespace rather than main wikipedia namespace but even so, I feel they are one of several factors leading to wikipedia being dragged into a "myspace.com" effort and away from serious scholarly effort. I'm not a killjoy, but all the effort put into finding daft userboxes could really be better spent elsewhere. Is there any possible reason for keeping frivolous user infoboxes? I propose an immediate policy of banning all such new creations and timescale for removal of existing ones. - PocklingtonDan 19:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The archives have previous discussions about such proposals. Slambo (Speak) 20:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The "energies could be better used" argument is a bit flawed, in my estimation. I've got 99 userboxes, but at the same time, I've got 12,407 edits (4,857 of those being mainspace). Having userboxes does not equate to not improving the encyclopedia. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure, but that would be 12,408 if you hadn't stopped to let everyone know you were a "gray reef shark". Now times that by the number of registered wikipedia contributors. Plus, as I say, wikipedia is supposed to be a serious encycolpedia, why would I want to know one of its authors likes jam sandwiches or gray reef sharks? Rather than asking for reasons why we should get rid of them, I'd rather ask "why keep them?". What possible benefit is there? - PocklingtonDan 21:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
information and collaboration - Building an encyclopedia doesn't only mean the direct editing of articles, else there would be no ability to block users, no arbitration comittee, and really, no userpages at all. Wikipedia is a community of collaboration. My question would be: Why do you care? How does having the userboxes detract from your editing of the encyclopedia? - jc37 22:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Because hosting that nonsense and those images wastes bandwidth people have donated money to, in the somewhat mistaken belief that it will be used to propagate knowledge and not wasted on lists of people's favourite foods.86.142.240.13 20:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
PocklingtonDan does make a valid observation, however. If it is taken that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and thus not, among other things, a social networking site (see the relevant section of WP:NOT), and user pages and userboxes exist for the sole purpose of highlighting what a user may be interested in contributing to articles about, then strictly speaking there are many frivolous userboxes, and there would not usually be any purpose in having photographs of the users and basic personal information on userpages either as these do not help users find other users with similar interests. Just backing up his observation with fairly strict Wikipedia policy, as I interpret it. I don't necessarily agree with this Wikipedia policy.--HisSpaceResearch 07:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:UM requires that all user boxes that don't help Wikipedia become a better encyclopedia be moved to user space. I interpret this stricter than most. Some users think that something like a box promoting a Major League Baseball team can remain in the template namespace. I disagree and have moved two boxes that I really liked to my own namespace. All boxes that I create start out in my namespace. Will (Talk - contribs) 08:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A userbox bug?

Hello. I seem to be getting some strange behaviour when trying to make a reversed userbox. Here are two userboxes exactly the same except that the second has -r after Userbox (please take a look at the code if necessary). But, as you can see, id font in the second is not white as it is in the first, but black. Pro Grape 08:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

conservative This user agrees with some aspects of conservatism.
This user agrees with some aspects of conservatism. conservative


Try using the one below. AuburnPilottalk 08:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This user agrees with some aspects of conservatism. conservative

[edit] Naming

How do you name a userbox?-BlakJak664 13:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As simply and succinctly as possible. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

i have a question how do you get a userbox that you made with the little template on the main article from the 8 lines it is now, to one of those neat little one liners with a name

peace-Three ways round 00:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Userbox

I really don't understand how to make a userbox. I would like to make one that uses this Image:Bi flag.svg and says "This user is bisexual". Is there already a box like this? If not, could someone explain how to make such a userbox? Thank you! Hemhem20X6 09:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind!Hemhem20X6 09:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hairstyle userbox

Is there a userbox to describe yuir hair or lack thereof? Bald, Afro, Buzzcut or Pageboy. Chivista

[edit] Opinion userboxes

Whatever happened to userboxes about politics? I know they used to exist once. Jack Daw 05:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

They have been moved to user space. See User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes and User:UBX/Userboxes/General Nav. -- Donald Albury 01:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes revert

(Comments moved from User talk:Dalbury)

Hey; I noticed that you re-added a paragraph about what policies apply where in Wikipedia:Userboxes, and you said that "this consensual compromise was arrived at after a great many words were spilled on the floor...". I can't see where this idea expressed in the article comes from, though; might it be some sort of misreading of the userbox migration compromise? Could you please clarify? Thanks in advance, and happy editing. —AySz88\^-^ 06:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, now I think I see where it might come from, and I'll generalize it a bit so it isn't so vague.... If it's not what you meant, feel free to improve or revert. —AySz88\^-^ 06:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am a little confused by your comment too... Where has this compromise been agreed by the community? Ian¹³/t 12:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have moved this discussion here, where it belongs, from my user talk page.

AySz88 and Ian13, I think the passage I restored reflects current practice on Wikipedia, which evolved from many discussions in many different places over the past year. This practice was not codified in a single discussion. There were many polls taken, and many unilateral actions taken. Some prominent editors have left the project (some would say they were hounded off), and prominent admins have lost their admin bit. I really would want to see a wider discussion before disturbing the balance that has emerged from the Great Userbox Wars of the past year. -- Donald Albury 13:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It is probably worth noting that this page is neither policy nor guideline. Rather, it is a how-to page that describes how to create and format userboxes. >Radiant< 13:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
It is worth introducing new editors to the concept that there are limits on what kinds of userboxes will be tolerated in Userspace and in Templatespace and other project spaces. It's beneficial to introduce them to current practice before they try to create a userbox making a political statement in Templatespace. -- Donald Albury 02:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Certainly. >Radiant< 10:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs clarification

A question came up in a TfD nomination over a confusing passage on this page. Section 1.4: Category inclusion lists as its first rule: "Userboxes that include Category markup which adds the bearing userpage to a category must only categorize within subcategories of Category:Wikipedians."

Now, the rule Do not create categories which could potentially include all Wikipedians. For example: "This user is a Wikipedian."; "This user is human."; "This user uses the internet"; etc. would not make sense if it is referring to a Wikipedia:Category, for no Category:Wikipedians subcategory would start with "This user is"; that phrase is obvious the text of the userbox.

I thus propose to take the latter rule out of the subsection. Comments? Xiner (talk, email) 02:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like you are misunderstanding the intent of the sentence (which probably means it could use some clarity). The idea is that a category which has the criteria of "wikipedian", "human", or "internet-user", would eventually include all Wikipedians, which obviously would not be a useful category. - jc37 12:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

In quotes are not "wikipedian", "human", or "internet-user", but "This user is a Wikipedian."; "This user is human."; "This user uses the internet". Xiner (talk, email) 14:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
And those are examples of *userboxes* that should not categorize. It clearly says that a userbox that says "This user is a Wikipedian", etc. "should not include category markup based on such criteria." -- Donald Albury 22:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, it should be noted that I edited the section somewhat to increase clarity after responding to the above concerns... - jc37 22:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess I was confused because Xiner's most recent comment was made three days after you edited the project page. -- Donald Albury 04:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure what happened when, but the current version makes a lot more sense. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 05:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox general question

Has political correctness taken over wikipedia? Or are userboxes with religious and political beliefs just not included? is there a valid reason like they havent been made? just curious..I would love to know (Fethroesforia 22:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC))

First of all, there are quite a few political and religious userboxes; they're just in userspace. See here for a list of galleries of such boxes.
As for the reason many of us avoid them, and the reason they're kept out of template space, I don't think it's political correctness, so much as the idea of staying within an appropriate role. When I'm teaching in the classroom, I don't bring my politics into it, not out of some "political correctness", but because it has nothing to do with my role as a teacher. Similarly, at Wikipedia, where we're trying to build and maintain a free and neutral encyclopedia, my politics just don't have anything to do with that. It would be as relevant as if I described the details of my sex life on my user page, which is to say: totally irrelevant. I don't want to give the impression that I'm editing Wikipedia as a liberal, or a conservative, or what-have-you. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo spoke up against "templates that are divisive and inflammatory". Of course, religious or political belief isn't necessarily inflammatory, but related userboxes have a tendency to be worded in divisive manner. In pursuant discussion, the community decided it's hard to define which reli/poli boxes were the bad ones, so it would be easiest to move all of them into userspace (which, apparently, makes them seem less official to some). >Radiant< 09:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nationalities

I can't find any nationality userboxes which disappoints me. I believe that wikipedians should be able to proudly display their nationalities in their userboxes. Yelir55 00:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If you don't find what you want at User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Location, you can always roll your own, per the example at the bottom of that page. However, please also read the comment by GTBacchus in the section just above this one. -- Donald Albury 14:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious affiliation user boxes

I want to display on my user page that I am a proud Christian, as I am sure many other religious people do for their own religion. The religion userbox page has been recently deleted, the editor citing that it has no encyclopedic value, yet the purpose of user boxes and user namespace are not to be encyclopedic, but to provide information about fellow wikipedians. Since user boxes are not intended for use outside user namespace, how is this a valid argument? If the religion userboxes are still available somewhere, could someone let me know please? Alternatively, could someone consider restoring them? Jonaboff 04:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  • You can always construct one of your own. Wahkeenah 04:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe the userbox you are looking for is {{User:Xoloz/UBX/User Christian}}. I have it displayed on my user page. AuburnPilottalk 04:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are a United Methodist, please see my comments at Talk:United Methodist Church#Crude version of logo is now available for those that want to show it on their user page. I proposed a box for that. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] usercreated images allowed in userboxes?

Just a clarification, but if you make an image yourself and upload it, are you allowed to use that as an userbox? (I'm assuming yes, but I'd want to make sure). And if so, how would you add it in? VelocityEX 05:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There should be no reason why not, as long as it is a "free" license, not fair use. Once your image is uploaded (keep track of what you named it), you can include it in a userbox just like any other image. Contact me on my talk page if you need help. --NThurston 14:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually figured out yesterday how to include images into userboxes, I was using some fuddled code so it was confusing at first. But yeah, thanks for everything!!! VelocityEX 20:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:UserBox

I had this idea myself about 2 months ago, but decided to go with it today, and it appears as if someone else already had the idea. Is it a bad idea to put all userboxes in this user's namespace? What's the problem with this? I haven't created any templates in my userspace, but can we move all of them there? I think it's a great idea. Comments? McKay 15:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

i think it would be useful and helpful, but that's just me.Three ways round 00:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I do think we should put ALL the userboxes on one particular page. But not on a userpage. Besides how would we do this in the first place? 65.34.72.52 17:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about using icons from Wikipedia Commons on UserBoxes....

Specifically, this one: [1] I'm assuming I'd save it to my computer and re-upload it on Wikipedia, right? And what tag should I use? I really have no idea what I'm doing n.n --MessengerCrow13 ~Listen*To*Your*Heart*Beat~ *talk*contributions* 22:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policy Page?

This may sound silly, but several sections of this page read like a policy page, should this page have a policy template at the top? --Matthew 08:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Since this page isn't generating responses and I don't want to act without consensus to label this as a policy page, this is being added to RfC. --Matthew 21:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
What sections are refering to specifically? It all seems fine to me. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 02:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Much of the current version seems to be more of a How-to than a policy. We already have a guideline at WP:UP. Perhaps the policy bits should be merged over there and this relablled a how-to? AndrewRT(Talk) 21:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tag

How to you make your userbox into a template that can simply be summoned by typing it? I will not hesitate to eat you. 00:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Put "{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/I Hate the Chicago Cubs}}" on your user page. It is a simple page. However, if you copy the text in quotes, you get the user box. Will (Talk - contribs) 01:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox Organization

I'm terribly sorry, but I'm slightly baffled about organizing my userboxes. If you were to look at my userspace, you'd understand what I mean - the boxes are jumbled-looking, disorganized and there are gaps running here and there across the page, all of which annoys me. I've tried the {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}} formatting and it put all of my userboxes in one vertical line, even when I tried to make several stacks of userboxes with repeated use of such stacking codes. How to organize userboxes is gone over in the project page, I'm aware, but it is rather unintelligible for me, a person with practically no experience with computer programing of any sort. By the way, if the Village Pump would be a better place for me to place this, please tell me so. Thank you; --Dark Green 23:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Where did the template to navigate through userbox categories go? - Patricknoddy 8:24pm, January 15, 2007

[edit] Blanket reverting

I made a recent edit [2] which was blanket reverted (Dalbury, Jmaynard) without considering in any way time or effort which may have gone into it.

I have made a few minor edits in one go to make the page more clear, and remove the bias. This page is to inform people about Userboxes, not to lobby personal views ("Userboxes are tools which are intended for communication purposes, such as helping Wikipedians collaborate more effectively on articles, in order to create the best encyclopedia we can." - The uncited 'man' comes to mind.)

If you have a problem with my edits, please talk rather than blindly reverting. I therefore invite you to state your concerns about aspects to my edit, and what you think it should change to. Obviously, if no-one replies I can only assume that the majority agrees, and I will reinstate it, for people to collaborate on rather than destroy.

Thank you Ian¹³/t 18:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Just from somebody who has this page on his watchlist, I'd say this comment should have come before the edits. Blanket changes to wikipedia and project pages should be discussed first. Had such changes been made to a Wiki/project page I frequent, I probably would have reverted too. As to the specific changes, I have no real opinion. I'll leave that up to those of you who frequent this page. AuburnPilottalk 18:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I haven't looked through the changes, but I think it was stated in one of the reverter's edit summaries, that you should discuss in more detail (here) the kinds of things that you're changing. You're making changes to a policy page (well mostly?) so the changes should be discussed before taking them live. Maybe you should make a proposed page in the user or talk namespace to discuss future possibilities for the article? McKay 19:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
This is not a policy page... Ian¹³/t 17:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the change because it was a massive change to the page made without any sort of attempt to reach consensus beforehand. I'm sympathetic to the work that went down the tubes, but what about the work that was thrown out in the massive revision? I also believe that there is no need for NPOV in an unencyclopedic page (indeed, that is central to the userbox wars in the first place), and given the massive, unrelenting attacks on userboxes from some quarters, the changes that were made could easily be interpreted as a continuation of those attacks. Jay Maynard 20:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
"Massive unrelenting attacks"? When was the last one? Every remotely reasonable userbox I've seen at XfDs lately has been a speedy keep. Tony's not a sysop anymore, and Cyde has been going around saying things like "early closures are a bad idea because they generate drama". Who's attacking userboxes anymore? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Tony's no longer a sysop? Color me astounded, as I'd thought he was firmly entrenched here. Cyde's backed off, too? Amazing. In light of those facts, I'll have to revise my opinion: There were unrelenting attacks on userboxes, but they've abated. Perhaps there will indeed be peace. That just makes the massive edits to this page worse: they could reignite the old, and apparently cooled-down, war. Jay Maynard 00:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Being very active at WP:MFD the emerging consensus has been that if it's a box that follows WP:GUS and is not blatantly offensive or disruptive it's not going anywhere. That being said, boxes in Template: space are still likely to be axed in TFD. — xaosflux Talk 05:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally, if anything I think my edits support userboxes. To my view, this page is an informative page, that tells people about userboxes, and I don't think this is a good place to try and push any certain point of view. If we just try and keep it neutral then this cannot happen. Ian¹³/t 17:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
As I reverted Ian the first time, I'll have my say. The edit summary struck me as a big problem, indicating that Ian was not really familiar with Wikipedia policies. NPOV does not apply to project pages, and many project pages, especially policies and guidelines, have a very definite and well-established point of view. The most important point of view is that we are building an encyclopedia. Userboxes have been a very contentious issue in the recent past (starting a little over a year ago), and the struggle over the role of userboxes in Wikipedia caused many harsh and bitter words to be exchanged. A number of editors left Wikipedia at least in part because of that struggle. The present arrangements regarding the content, placement and 'storage' of userboxes is a compromise that eventually achieved consensus as something that almost everyone could live with. Changing this page without finding a new consensus to support the changes is likely to open old wounds. Everyone can edit pages in Wikipedia. But then, anyone can revert those changes. Controversial changes are quite likely to be reverted. Citing incorrect interpretations of policy for making major changes ups the odds that the changes will be reverted. -- Donald Albury 22:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I am very aware of policy, and I do know that NPOV doesn't apply here, however I think it is good practice to try and keep things neutral and make this page just informative. Policies and guidelines will obviously display a POV since that is what they are aiming to enforce, but this page is not a guideline nor policy, and I therefore think we can just avoid argument over this page if we just keep it rather neutral. Anyway, I don't think what edits I tried to make were that much of a big deal - infact besides trying to make it more clear, I didn't do much at all. Obviously this makes no difference to any 'power' I should or may have to edit the page, but I started the Userboxes WikiProject and directed it for a while (until it just got so attacked it wasn't worth bothering) with the pure aim of organisation and simplification whilst trying to keep it all neutral so no-one is offended in any way. Ian¹³/t 17:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And can I just ask, what bits of my edit don't people like (i.e. give line references ans say what you think it should be)? I think we should at least try and sort that out. Ian¹³/t 17:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem for me was that your edit removed any mention of the possible benefit userboxes have to the encyclopedia. That is what I object to. Any attempt to make the page NPOV by removing such mentions can easily be construed as saying they do not have such benefits, and so as an attack on userboxes. Since project pages don't need to be NPOV in the first place, I would recommend abandoning anything of the sort. Jay Maynard 22:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I am certainly not saying it has no benefit, I just think it is not really something that is hugely notable in that I wouldn't really expect anyone to say why they demerit the project. I can see your point though. Looking at my edit does this mean that it is only the removal of the top box that you dislike? Ian¹³/t 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Ian13, in cases like this, it's often helpful to break one's edit into individual changes, and implement it one change at a time. This isolates the controversial bit, and allows other improvements to be made to the page without getting caught up in reversions. In that spirit, I've added a slightly edited version of the first paragraph from your edits, and I'm interested to see whether it has consensus approval.
This is one of the pages around here that's best edited very slowly and incrementally, it turns out. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
You are obviously welcome to reinstate my edits as you wish, but I think it is rather silly that it has got to such a stage that that is required. Ian¹³/t 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe so. :) Maybe it's just the top box, and the rest doesn't have to be broken up. It's just a trick that works sometimes. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery of "new" userboxes

I thought that userboxes expressing user preferences or sentiments that were not directly contributing to the building of an encyclopedia were supposed to not be found outside User space. So what, then, is the deal with Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/New Userboxes? -- Donald Albury 00:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That rule, WP:UM, refers to where the templates themselves are displayed. How are we supposed to find out about new boxes if the there is no gallery? Will (Talk - contribs) 01:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help!

So why can't I do this:


{{userbox
|orange
|yellow
|[[Image:Cry-tpvgames.gif|40px]]
|This User is [[sad]] because he/she feels bad about stealing another user's user page design.
}}

But I can do this:


{{userbox|orange|yellow|[[Image:Cry-tpvgames.gif|40px]]|This User is [[sad]] because he/she feels bad about stealing another user's user page design.}}

Really appreciate any help here--Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 01:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It is to do with how Wikicode is processed. In the second instance, it is passed with number references (1,2,3 etc), whereas on the multiline it is not thus breaking the code. You basically have to use one line, or pass exact references (ie info=This User is sad because he/she feels bad about stealing another user's user page design.). Good luck. Ian¹³/t 17:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help(2)

Why is it that for the regular userbox simplified code (where you don't have to say id1-fc =...) you can't control things like border or font color?--Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 16:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you can. See User:Royalguard11/userboxes/UBX essay for an example. If you still have questions, post to my talk page. --NThurston 17:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Userbox Available

I have created {{User published author}} for Wikipedians who have published in academic journals. Please include it where appropriate. --NThurston 16:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Politics Page?

Is there a politics section of the userboxes. I have seen people who have 'this user thinks its every citizens duty to vote', or 'this user agrees with some aspects of conservatism'; but i cant find them, would anybody be able to point me in the right direction please. :) freedom4korea 17:51 30 January 2007 (UTC)

click on the following link: Category:Political user templates. Not every political userbox is here, since some people haven't yet created a link to this category, and some just created their own userboxes.--Sefringle 00:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery section text format

Any reason the non-header text in this section is entirely italicized? I know of no guideline suggesting it, and for readability's sake I suggest that it be changed to non-italic text. I'd go ahead and do it, but I don't know if this is a topic already considered. -- Tim (Littlebluedog 03:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Problem with this page's category

At the very bottom of the page one of the listed categories is "Wikipedians interested in ancient Rome", this should not be there, as the page does not discuss Ancient Rome. Does anyone know how to fix this? i.e How do I change the category list? --Jackaranga 14:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If there's a userbox saying "This user is interested in Ancient Rome", the category just appears.--SUIT-n-tie 05:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed addition to page

I'd like to suggest a general principle added to the "restrictions" section, that userboxes which imply a pejorative towards others are in general not okay. Usually these can be recast in terms of oneself.

This was prompted by a discussion of a userbox text "this user supports resistance to Israeli hostility". Whilst the original text is political campaigning, I can imagine cases it wouldn't be, where the userbox expresses (or implies) a negative view of others rather than a description of oneself. This would usually be of the form "This user is against (or views negatively) (negative act or feature) of (some other group)"

The problem is that such user boxes inevitably create a straw man argument: the other group is labelled with the negative feature or attribute, which the user is then self-posited as being rightfully against. Such labels are inevitably capable of being inflammatory, but it's a specific recipe that is worth highlighting in the page.

I've therefore added an item which I hope is non-controversial: "Userboxes which imply a negative attribute of some person or group to which the userbox creator then expresses objection, are usually not acceptable."

(To clarify, it's not the objecting to something, but the expressing of a pejorative (hostile/negative) view as being factual, to which one then objects, which is not really okay.)

FT2 (Talk | email) 11:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal but is it not covered by this section:

Content restrictions

All items in template and user space are governed by the civility policy. Userboxes must not include blatant incivility or personal attacks. Userboxes must not be intentionally inflammatory or divisive. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for political campaigning. Userboxes which imply a negative attribute of some person or group to which the userbox creator then expresses objection, are not usually acceptable. Simply: If content is not appropriate on a user page, it is not appropriate within userboxes.

AndrewRT(Talk) 23:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured user pages

Hi, please comment here. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 19:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HALP

Hello. Is it possible to use userboxes from English Wikipedia on other language Wikipedia? I want to use some userboxes on my user page at the Norwegian Wikipedia. DJLarZ 21:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Im new but logicly i would think so. try & see what happens ok?Kanpai!--Lolicon3043910 18:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It is NOT possible to directly use (transclude) a template or userbox from a different Wikipedia. You can however copy-paste the markup for the userbox to make a copy of it on your desired Wikipedia. If you do so, please credit the source in your edit summary. —dgiestc 18:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compatibility with Opera

Has there been any investigation as to the Userbox templates compatibility with the Opera browser? The ID formatting is off in all the templates when I view userboxes in Opera, and the entire Userbox template is out of whack. It looks fine in Firefox and IE on my computer, it's only Opera that seems to have a problem. El Cid 03:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-admins using admin userbox?

Since I can't find this anywhere else, I'll ask here: Is it forbidden for a non-admin to have the administator userbox on his/her userpage? It seems like it should be, as it's deceptive, but I can't find it written anywhere. And no, this isn't a hypothetical question; I'm asking because there's a user who won't remove the admin userbox from his/her userpage. Heimstern Läufer 07:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It could be considered disruptive. Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia, not about trying to prescribe in detail every possible infraction that works against that goal. That's what ignore all rules is about. I don't think the community will object to someone removing the admin userbox from a non-admin's page. Would you care to share who this user is? -- Donald Albury 11:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Are we talking about an actual userbox that says "this user is an admin", or the little "logo with mop" icon in the upper right corner? I think that the latter is more of a grey area because what if a user wants to use that image to mean something other than being an administrator. It's a _mop_, that could mean something like doing vandalism cleanup or something, i've never understood the symbolism why a mop means admins. --Random832(tc) 13:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It should be forbidden. Since when were the non-admins allowed to use the admin userbox? It is deceptive, as Heimstern stated above, and harmful to the newbies. If someone refuses to remove the userbox himself, just do it. If he reverts, then you report. This is actually ridiculous PeaceNT 14:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Random832: We're talking about the userbox that says "This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia". Donald Albury: The user appears to have voluntarily removed the userbox, so the immediate issue is apparently over. It looks to me like it's reasonably accepted that we should remove the admin userbox from non-admins' pages, so I'll plan on doing that where necessary and reporting if that fails. Heimstern Läufer 16:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can you help me?

When i tried to put userboxes on my page, when i grouped them it didn't end the grouping with the Userboxbottom thing (i know there are two squiggly brackets around it but if i put them there it would not display here. Is this the right code to use to end the grouping? When i use it it displays |} instead. Yaanch 00:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What did you start your user box list with? Use {{Userboxbottom}} only if you started the list with {{userboxtop}}. {{Babel}} is designed to stand alone. Don't combine it with other boxes. Will (Talk - contribs) 04:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why Migration?????

How come Userbox templates need "migration"?----Invader SoapEvil JokesGir's DogFebruary 13th, 2007 (UTC)

The short version is that the community decided a few months ago that userboxes that do not directly contribute to building an encyclopedia (such as the language boxes) should be allowed only in user space. The long version is not for the faint of heart. -- Donald Albury 04:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image+box=???

I cant figure out where i put an image in the box! As a matter-of-fact i dont even know how to use one! Whaer do you put an image in the box?--Lolicon3043910 18:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example that you could use {{user USMA}} --NThurston 18:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
now im more confused! Where does the image go?--Lolicon3043910 18:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
First, have you uploaded the picture to Wikipedia? If not, use the "upload file" link on the left of this page to take care of that. Make sure to remember the file name. Now, in the example code noted above, look for [[Image:U.S. Military Academy COA.png|45px]]. This is the code for inserting an image. Replare "U.S. Military Academy COA.png" with the file name of your image and save the box. Does that help? If not, perhaps you could point me to the box you are working on and I can see what needs to be done still. --NThurston 19:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] May I?

I have just created a userbox I am wondering if I can place it on WP:UBXA (

This user has more than 5 pets! 6+

)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sereh888 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Categories

I created a userbox User:TJ Spyke/Userboxes/HD DVD, but i'm having trouble setting it up so that putting the userbox on their page they will automatically be put in the category Category:Wikipedians who prefer HD DVD. Any help? TJ Spyke 14:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Did that do it? Bladestorm 15:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep, thank you. TJ Spyke 22:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Yay! You're welcome. :) Bladestorm 22:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox 'Example 2' javascript needs a fixing for Firefox and Opera

Example 2 Userbox grouper at Wikipedia:Userboxes#Grouping userboxes does not properly unwind with Firefox and Opera web browsers but does with Internet Explorer. When you click 'show' it covers partially the top most userbox. It becomes worst when you add more catagories. Could someone fix it for me or tell the author to fix it... I would very much like to use it but because of that I cannot. ThanksGetonyourfeet 13:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Religious Wikibox

who deleated all the religious boxes and why? Richardkselby 18:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably it was part of the Wikipedia:Userbox migration of some userboxes into the User namespace. For example, the user box for "This user is Jewish" is at {{User:Ibaranoff24/Userboxes/User Jew}}. Apparently the rationale was that userboxes that identify religion can be divisive in the community, so they should not be on a community page. Frankly, if you ask me, it shouldn't make a difference, but I'm sure somebody knows where to find the religion userbox you're looking for. You can make a more specific request here, or ask at the Help Desk. YechielMan 19:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

yeah, but this makes it less accessable to find a a bog, it's like going on a freaking treasure hunt!!! Richardkselby 03:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Naming Userboxes

How do I name my userbox? And where in my userpage do I put it? I can get the template to show up, but it isn't named. Iiartisanii 00:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notice of fair-use images on userboxes

Hey guys. I created this temporary template to post on editor talk pages for those who use fair images in userboxes (it's against policy). I think this message is pretty self-explanatory and eases any disruptiveness caused by simply deleting the image. I tried to find a similar notice but couldn't find one. What do you guys think? Post your opinions on the Wikiproject Userboxes talk page. - Mtmelendez (TALK|UB|HOME) 21:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather cool. At least it tells people why and shows you have good reasons. Make use of it I say... Ian¹³/t 22:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I was hoping to reach some sort of consensus to create the template in the Wikipedia template space. I'll wait a few more days for comments and then either create it or modify it. - Mtmelendez (TALK|UB|HOME) 22:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Done! I created the new template here: {{Images on userboxes}}. - Mtmelendez (TALK|UB|HOME) 16:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] userbox naming and stuff like that

hey i have a questions i made a few userboxes for my page, and how do i name them. Right now they are about 10 lines, and are really big, so how do i get them to be small and have a name with my username in the name and all that jazz.

peace-Threewaysround 22:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defective grouping template

Today I tried to use {{boxboxtop}} and {{boxboxbottom}} to organize my userbox so I can give the option to viewers to hide or show them, however, the template turns out to be defective. see here, try to show/hide the boxes. Can anyone explain this please? Wooyi 19:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A spoof example userbox?

Is it alright if this is made into some sort of userbox with a short name? I took the idea of the example user box shown on the page and transformed it into this:

UBX This is a Userbox.
240V This is a Fuserbox.


Psychic Potato 15:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/s/e/Wikipedia_talk%7EUserboxes_a3c9.html"