Template talk:User United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi, I made a few minor changes to make this template look more like the other templates. I made it so that only Great Britain is bold, I aligned the text to the left and I reduced the template width to that of the others by reducing the border width to that of the others. Hope no-one minds rst20xx 19:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

1 Align
2 Content Change
3 Please stop changing this template
4 If you don't live in the UK and aren't proud of where you come from...
5 Least Disruption
6 Protection
7 Resolution
8 Spot the difference
9 Who cares?
10 One of each?
11 Talk page is in categories?
12 Poll results

[edit] Align

I think it was said somewhere that boxes should have no align on the box themselves or main content, because sepetate tags can be used on userpages if they so wish (i.e. in their tables). Ian¹³_ID:540053 21:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

How? Whenever I've tried that it just doesn't work.

Deano (Talk) 21:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, in theory if noalign is defined in the userbox, it will look for external aligns if applicable, style="text-align:left;" should do it. Ian¹³_ID:540053 17:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Content Change

There is a discussion and proposal regarding the changing of content and wording in United Kingdom location/nationality userbox templates located at Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Location/United Kingdom. - Hayter 20:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hayter - someone else has now reverted this. I suggest you leave it as is. Gsd2000 17:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

And I suggest you research further than you have. Check the original version of this template. The included category was (and still is) Cat:Wikipedians in the United Kingdom. From Day 1, this template was created to reflect location rather than nationality. British nationals overseas should be using a different template - this one miscategorizes them, and the change of text is precisely because of situations like this, where "comes from" is seen as interchangeable with "lives in" and confusion and miscategorisation result. I'd encourage anyone with an interest in this to read the linked discussion above, and also check out, {{User Proud to be British}} and {{User British}}. - Hayter 18:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm British, but I'm not particularly proud of it, so I don't want the {{User British}} template. I want the one that I thought I was originally signed up to, but which you changed after an overwhelming number of Wikipedians (four) voted for your suggestion. Gsd2000 19:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

So follow your own advice and create a new one. It's not my fault you've been using an incorrect one up til now. - Hayter 19:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Why should I???? Read the original wording of this template: [[1]]. Why should I have to create a new one because you don't like the original wording? If anything the template wording trumps any category it might be attached to, because you can't actually see the category unless you view the source. Has it occurred to you that the category might have been wrong but the template wording right? You are rude telling me to create my own one - you changed it, so politeness dictates that you should sort a new one out for the people you have affected. Gsd2000 19:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Gsd2000. I put that box on my page because it said "comes from UK". I don't live there. The wording is also consistent with all other Template:User country templates - when I wanted a 'lives in Rwanda' box for myself, I had to create one along the lines of { { User Rwanda resident } }. I would advise you to do the same, but in fact I can't even see the box on your page, Hayter, so I don't know why the fuss? — SteveRwanda 07:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop changing this template

It's totally unreasonable. Every country in the world has { { User country } } to represent comes from. Whatever you may think are the rights and wrongs of this, it's the way it is now, and has been for months. That means the lives in box will have to have a new standard. I proposed { { User Country resident } } but am open to debate on that. It's too late for changes to the basic one though. — SteveRwanda 09:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Template: User United Kingdom

Category: Wikipedians in the UK (see Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location/United Kingdom)

Wikipedia: Userboxes/Location

Question: are you in the UK? I am. But I am planning to move to the USA soon, and I will be removing this userbox from my userpage when I have done so. There are other categories such as ethnicity and ancestry which might suit your usage better. I am reverting this again. If you revert it once more, you will be in breach of WP:3RR. --Mal 10:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not in the UK, that's why I sought out and found myself a nice box with a comes from line in it. That's why I got pretty annoyed when I came back and found someone had changed it. Conversely to your point, when I return to the UK I might decide to change for a lives in box. I understand your point about the categorisation, and it's unfortunate that the mistake was made, but I'm quite sure people pick out these boxes primarily for their textual content so that usage must remain in place. I'm sorry this is getting antagonistic, but it just seems wrong that people are levelling accusations of not wanting to fork 'my change' at me when they are in fact the ones making the change, not just to the format of this box but every { { user country } } box there is. — SteveRwanda 10:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It had been changed ages ago, and you hadn't complained then. Nor had you submitted a vote (that I am aware of) when we were all seeking consensus on the proper categorisation of these things. If you look at the page I refered you to, all the other userboxes for the constituent countries of the UK state "lives in". As you say, a 'mistake', as such, had been made. The simple fix is to find another user box which reflects your position better, or to create one if it doesn't exist. I base my opinion on logic more than anything else, and it seems to me that your stance is not logical. If you are to change the text in the userbox, then surely you should be changing the category to which it belongs. That category places you as a user who is "in the UK"... "Wikipedians in the UK". I chose this box because it reflected my position at the time. Consensus was reached to change the wording to better reflect the category it placed the user in. You are not in the UK, yet your use of this userbox adds you to that category. So I ask you again: are you in the UK? --Mal 10:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You can't fault him (or me, or anyone else affected) for not complaining when it was changed "ages ago" and for not "submitting a vote", because in order to know to do this, you have to have been 'watching' this page and/or the template. If you weren't watching them then you wouldn't have known until you chanced upon it, as happened to me. You speak of a "consensus" but I see action was taken after only three votes had been cast. Do you seriously call three votes a consensus?? I have now removed the categorisation that was incorrect. Gsd2000 12:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

By the same token, you cannot fault me, or any of the others, for changing the wording of the userbox. As Hayter states, it makes sense that if you have the userbox on your userpage, you would be interested in it. Steve has mis-categorised himself, though I don't know if you are resident in the UK. If you are, then my suggestion to you would be to use/create a userbox which more accurately reflects your position.

A vote was taken on all the categories that denote Northern Irish people (in sports, film etc) and consensus was reached that all the categories be renamed to ".. from Northern Ireland" .. or the more non-sensible "Northern Ireland X". This consensus was reached by a vote of 2 for and 1 against. Yet it was accepted. I was not aware of the vote, as I was not active in Wikipedia at that time. Yet, after having had a couple of categories I created renamed, I have accepted this for now (until such time as I propose another vote). I can't remember the consensus reached on this issue... 4 to 1 I think? Which is a stronger vote than for all the Northern Irish cats. --Mal 23:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I put it back, because I would be guilty of the same crime that I am accusing Setata747 and Hayter of. I also note that in, the first sentence is as follows: "Wikipedians 'from' the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Gsd2000 13:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The "crime" being..? --Mal 23:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

First, it's common sense to keep an eye on templates you use on your page, for vandalism as much as anything else. Expecting this from users isn't unreasonable. Second GSD, both you and I have referenced the original edit of this template by Deano. He added Cat:Wikipedians in the United Kingdom. When this was done, he added this template to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location/United Kingdom. Clearly, it was created as a location indicator. Steve, you've accused me of vandalising this template by changing it, but userboxes are changed all the time, usually to make them better and/or clearer. Since this is a location indicator, ex-patriates using it are mis-categorising themselves and it's because of the phrase, "comes from" which would suggest the userbox is designed to reflect nationality. This doesn't make them stupid - it's a problem with the use of the phrase. Changing it to "lives in" may temporarily cause some people's userpages to display incorrect information, but these people are already categorised in error and I would suppose that the majority will likely want to remove the userbox upon finding out, because they're using the wrong template. This change of text, and the proposal I made on the other talk page, are for clarity and simplicity; not because I don't like the naming convention and whilst I welcome thought-out criticism of the proposal, I resent being called a vandal because I have attempted to better a part of Wikipedia. - Hayter 14:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean you intentionally vandalised anything, I just think people have rushed in and changed something without actually thinking about the consequences. Given the disparity between categorisation and text in the box, you have three options:

(i) leave as is, and put up with a few errors (anyone who sees me categorised as a Wikipedian in the UK can quickly disabuse themselves of that idea by following the link to my user page.
(ii) change the categorisation of the user box
(iii) change the text

The primary consideration when making this decision is which decision will cause least disruption to existing users of the box. And since it is my firm belief that most users display a box for its text rather than the categorisation that goes with it, I think option (ii) is the one that should be chosen. You should only choose option (iii) if you genuinely believe people place the user box there to categorise themselves rather than for the pretty coloured box on the user page. — SteveRwanda 14:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I consider that the primary consideration is the logical categorisation of the userboxes: it adds you to the category "Users IN the UK" and is included in the WP page as Userboxes/Location. The text should reflect these facts. --Mal 23:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I also resent being told I haven't considered this, especially since there is extensive documented discussion of this beginning as far back as Feb 21st. But that's me and a side issue. I believe people place the userbox there to categorise themselves AND for the pretty coloured box on the userpage. This isn't an OR situation. I might want a userbox that says I use a mac, but the relevant one includes the category "Wikipedians who own Macs" which isn't true. In such a situation, I wouldn't use the template. I'm not saying there are not people who are happy to be miscategorised so long as their userpage looks nice, but I would say they are a minority. You disagree. So in the absense of a referendum, logic must take precedent and logic says most people would wish things to be correct rather than incorrect. Usage of this template on an ex-pat's page is the latter. - Hayter 15:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Logic says most people would wish things to be correct rather than incorrect. Quite right, but you still have to pick your method of correction, i.e. option (ii) or (iii) above. If, as you say, people pick their user boxes for text AND category, I would assume they have a flick through the available options, scan the text, and pick on that basis. They will then either check the categorisation and say Oh no, it's wrong. Better pick another box, or they will assume that the categorisation they're getting with their chosen box is correct. Very few people will look first at the categorisation, decide it fits and then put up the box even though the text says the wrong thing (either that, or they both come from AND live in the UK, so don't care either way). So I still say option (ii) - change the categorisation of the box - is less disruptive. And I apologise again for any implied vandalism or lack of thought on your part. I try not to deal in personal attacks. Cheers — SteveRwanda 15:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If, as you say, people pick their user boxes for text AND category, I would assume they have a flick through the available options, scan the text, and pick on that basis. They will then either check the categorisation and say "Oh no, it's wrong. Better pick another box"

It might interest you to know that both the category and text reflected my position as being resident in the UK at the time I chose to add the userbox to my userpage. --Mal 23:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Given that Deano created this userbox for locational puposes, changing the category to Cat:British Wikipedians or something similar would not "fix" or better this location template, but entirely change its purpose. This is the sort of action you earlier classed as vandalism and GSD has mistakenly become so enraged about. Changing the text to better reflect the purpose of the template is a correction. Changing the category is not. - Hayter 16:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What Deano did or didn't intend when creating the box, is entirely irrelevant to debates about the purpose it now serves, and the intention users had when adding it to their pages. Users do not own their contributions. Please refer back to my argument that more people chose this box because of its text than its category. Unless you can refute that, there is no valid reason to change the text. — SteveRwanda 17:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The purpose it now serves is the same purpose it served when it was created and even if it wasn't, you haven't proved that that's the case therefore there is no reason to disprove it. Of the six people that have commented on this (myself, you, GSD, Mal, Scjessey, MartinRe), only two have indicated that they oppose it. And now that there's {{User British2}}, I don't see why you're persisting with this lopsided argument. The userbox purpose is to show location and as such, the burden is upon you to prove that the majority of users use it for another purpose. Until you can do so, the assumption must be that the majority use it for the correct purpose, if for no other reason than the majority of British people actually do live in the UK and so have 'accidentally' used it correctly. - Hayter 19:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you don't live in the UK and aren't proud of where you come from...

Use this. {{User British2}}

Not only does it have the correct phrasing, but it has the correct category as well. - Hayter 15:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't mention anything of not being proud of where you come from! lol Perhaps the text should read "I'm British but I hate it!" --Mal 23:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

One would also wonder as to the logic of someone specifically selecting a userbox that marks himself as being British, if they are not proud of the fact. --Mal 23:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Mal - this kind of thinking explains why you have acted the way you have done regarding this whole silly issue. You (and Hayter) have not been considerate of others' opinions, believing that "you know best" for everyone. I happen to be British and I am neither proud nor ashamed of it. The reason I actually put this on my page was after another Wikipedian asked where I was from - a reasonable question. Not where I was from and whether I was proud of it. I find it is actually against the spirit of Wikipedia to make statements of the form "...and proud of it". We are all supposed to be neutral editors here, not people espousing particular points of view. Gsd2000 00:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

: On the contrary, I believe I have acted wholly in the interest of people - particularly the majority of the people who are likely to use this template. I have no problem with whether you are proud or not of where you come from. Personally, I have used a "Proud of.. " template on my userpage, though I wouldn't mind if it was decided that such userboxes be removed as I do understand with, and partially agree with, your point of view on that score. I resent and strongly disagree with your accusations. --Mal 00:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hayter - re the creation of {{User British2}}. Even though I completely disagree with the "consensus" (coup d'etat more like) here, and the fact that you then changed the template wording, creating an alternative template is what you should have done at the very start - as one of the people who agreed with you suggested you do in his reservations. That's the least you should have done, and is just being polite, at the end of the day. Had you done so, in all likelihood I would have changed my page accordingly and you wouldn't have heard a peep out of me. I took umbrage at the manner in which you and your chums went about this, and then the apparent arrogance of your responses, suggesting it was up to people affected by this change to create their own userbox. Gsd2000 00:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I take umbrage at the manner in which you and your chum have gone about constantly reverting this template after consensus was reached. For myself, I was only interested in the accuracy and logic of the matter. I have had to change and/or create userboxes in the past due to changes and discussions regarding a couple of other userboxes. You have suggested that, had Hayter or me or whoever, approached this in a different manner, then you would have accepted the consensus. Does that indicate that you are willing to do this then? --Mal 00:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because at the end of the day one side has to let the other have their way. I still believe that this template should be kept in line with the other countries of the world and its original wording; we could carry on reverting each others' changes but life is far too short for that. NB I had actually reverted it before spotting the new template created by Hayter, I'll leave it for someone else to revert back though. I won't revert it again. I have updated my user page. I just hope that the next time any of you decide to do something similar you either think better of it, or you go about it in a different manner. Finally - please, none of you, for God's sake, touch {{User British2}}. :) Gsd2000 00:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

People keep going on about accuracy and logic, but no one has answered my question, which is central to the whole debate about correcting accuracy - which will cause more disruption to users, changing the text or changing the category? I think there's absolutely no doubt that it's the text that's more significant. Certainly that disrupts me more, which is why I got in this silly argument in the first place. So until you can prove to me that more people use this template who LIVE in the UK but don't COME FROM there than come from but don't live there, then the template stays as it is (or maybe with a changed category, I'm not bothered about that either way). There's some logic for you. — SteveRwanda 05:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, we went about it in the same manner as hundreds of articles are adjusted: by discussion and consensus. You are still incorrectly categorised Steve, and the category will remain as is. The wording will be changed to reflect the category. Once I have moved to the USA, I will probably end up using the same userbox as GSD2000 - the User British2 one. Thanks to Hayter I think, for setting it up. As for "until you can prove to me that more people use this template who LIVE in the UK but don't COME FROM there than come from but don't live there".. I think you have misunderstood the logic. The userbox is for people who are currently located in the UK - not necessarily for only those who "live there but don't come from there". As a British Citizen, I both live there and come from there. I suspect that is probably the case with the vast majority of people who use this template. I would imagine that the users who actually currently reside in the UK vastly outnumber the ex-pats.. though that is not the point in any case. --Mal 08:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but do users of this box who reside in the UK but AREN'T British outnumber ex-pats who aren't? I severely doubt it. So let's stop this silly argument once and for all, leave the userbox as it is (since 4-2 out of hundreds of people affected does not constitute consensus, and the status quo should therefore prevail) and get on with writing decent articles and doing what Wikipedia is supposed to be there for. SteveRwanda 08:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

And PS - I'm well aware that I'm wrongly categorised at the moment, and maybe I'll change the box on my page at some point, or maybe I'm 'in spirit' in the UK anyway, but this debate isn't about me, it's about others like me who might not notice the fundamental change to the way they're represented on their user pages for weeks on end. Danke schon und guten Nacht. — SteveRwanda 08:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't see how your question about those who reside in the UK and aren't British vs. ex-pats is relevant, with all respect. The majority of the people who use this box are likely to be those who reside in the UK AND are British.

You say that a consensus of 4-2 is not enough, but I've pointed out to you that categories pertaining to Northern Irish people and things were all renamed to ".. from Northern Ireland" with a vote of only 2-1... and it was voted on at a more 'official' level (CfD). Also, I think Hayter pointed out that the consensus arrived at before yourself and GSD came on board was 4-1.. making it now 4-3. Though, since GSD is now using a different userbox, I assume its de facto 4-2. --Mal 10:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Argggh, can't we just move onto something else??? I really don't understand your position at all. If you don't like the logic of the box, change it in the LEAST DISRUPTIVE way possible. The argument that category is more significant than text in a user box is nonsense. As you say, The majority of the people who use this box are likely to be those who reside in the UK AND are British. For them, it makes no difference whether the box says 'comes from' or 'lives in', although presumably most signed up to the 'comes from' form knew they were doing so and that's what they wanted. The only people for whom this debate is really relevant are those who are partially misclassified by the current box - i.e. British expats abroad (such as myself), or foreigners living in Britain. I would suggest none of the latter category have the box on their page, whereas a few - who knows how many - like myself, will be from the former category, not realising the categorisation error. (Haven't I said all this before?). Please just give this up - it's obvious there will be no resolution to our argument and it's clearly vastly less radical just to leave the box alone. — SteveRwanda 10:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Your argument has lost what merit it had in the first place amid your irrational speculation. You cannot say any more than Mal or I can, what people thought or are thinking without evidence. Given that there is none, your argument is now baseless. Foreigners living in Britain can use this userbox and not be misclassified at all, given that it is a location and not a nationality indicator. And with the creation of {{User British2}}, there is no rational reason for you to object to this. Altering your page to that one is the most logical course of action. I can do it for you, if you want. Asking one to "give up" because you are intent on pursuing a flawed conclusion is ridiculous besides which, now that GSD is using British2, you are the only one that remains outspoken in opposition to this change. Take a step back and consider why. - Hayter 12:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hayter - I tried resisting my temptation to comment but I can't. Although I am now using British2, that was only because I got fed up. Steve provides a very cogent and rational argument, that you and your cohorts have not really responded to. The evidence is in front of your eyes - two British expats who discovered too late that they were now labelled as UK residents. If there are two of us, there are in all likelihood more. The fact is that both sides have rational arguments, someone is going to have to give in, but you might try adopting a more polite tack, considering that what you have done has caused disruption to ex-pats like myself and Steve. The onus is on you to do your best to help those affected, in the most polite manner - as the 'agree with reservations' chap hinted above. Don't attack our arguments as "flawed" and "irrational" because they are not. Gsd2000 12:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"those who are partially misclassified by the current box - i.e. British expats abroad (such as myself), or foreigners living in Britain" - those who are British ex-pats abroad are fully misclassified - not partially.

"two British expats who discovered too late that they were now labelled as UK residents." Perhaps a more careful inspection in the future would be in order? --Mal 12:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Least Disruption

Since this seems to be your sticking point Steve, let me address it for a final time. I apologise if the following sounds condescending, but it has all been said before, by others as well as I.

The template is a location indicator. Let us assume most people are smart enough to realise this and are not as you imply, ignorant to the inclusion or meaning of a category.
Even when looking at those who may have mistaken it for a nationality indicator, it is more than likely that the majority are in fact, in the UK, given that this is where most British people can be found. Thus, changing the text does not misrepresent this majority.
There is possibly, a minority besides yourself who mistook this template for a nationality indicator and used it accordingly whilst living outside the United Kingdom. This minority is probably unaware of the purpose of the template. If they were, they would not use it, realising that it miscategorises them. This minority would likely appreciate the ability to substitue a template with an incorrect category for a template with a correct category. This minority has a number of options to choose from, not the least of which is {{User British2}}.
You propose that the path of least disruption is to change the category, but this is literally to change the meaning of the template beyond refinement of the existing purpose as I did in the first place. This is the sort of action you referred to two days ago as vandalism. Your contradiction aside, it is not illogical to suppose that there are people living within the UK who use this template despite not being British. In fact is is more than not illogical, it is not incorrect. See Ganesha who is Indian but lives in the UK and so uses this location template.
To change the Category places all of the people who use this template in a different one to what they were in when they added this userbox to their page. For some the new category may be correct, but it is still an entirely different one.
To change the category miscategorises people such as Ganesha.
To change the text means that the aforementiontioned and hypothetical minority have userboxes on their pages that show text which is incorrect for them. But given that their use of the userbox already displays incorrect text on their page (see bottom and listed categories), this is merely a brighter sign that they are using the wrong template.

You have accused me of changing the meaning of this template. When it was explained to you that I had not done so because the template was already a location indicator, you claimed that the original purpose of the template was secondary to what most people use it for. This is perhaps a fair point and worthy of discussion, except you have not contradicted the logical supposition that the majority of people use it for the reason it was created. Your entire argument favouring a change of category is based upon your unsupported claim that most people don't really care about the category, so long as the text is okay. This is an opinion, not an extrapolation and as such is weightless in considering what would cause least trouble. I repeat, with exasperation rather than antipathy, you are being unreasonable in refusing to consider logical reasoning over your own opinion. - Hayter 12:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

I have protected the template under the original wording of "comes from". I have done so due to the edit warring on the template at present. Although I do not endorse the protected version (or infact any version), the edit warring that was taking place is unacceptable, and atleast 3 members who have recently reverted qualify for blocks under 3RR. I therefore request that the following takes place:

Discussion of the overall matter.
Discussion of possible versions to be used.
Discussion (not just a straw poll) of which to use and how to progress forward.

Although no-one need follow my advise and anyone may request unprotection at any time, I think it is nessary for these concerns to be addressed before this page is unprotected. Thanks! Ian13/talk 16:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Please also note I have removed the catagorisation to assist in content disucssions. Ian13/talk 16:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

So in effect this means that not only is the userbox inaccurate for me, but also am I no longer categorised as a person living in the UK..?

That would seem to suit SteveRwanda quite nicely. Ho hum. --Mal 10:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I am calling for a discussion - edit warring is not acceptable. You are also able to join a catagory without using a userbox, or make your own. Ian13/talk 13:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, very little discussion, but the page seems less active, so I am unprotecting and we will see. If edit war does start again, I will protect until a full conclusion for which version to use has been reached here. Ian13/talk 09:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I've failed to respond because of my bulleted summary posted shortly before it was locked. I'm awaiting a response.

That, and I've been busy with the 6 Nations. :D - Hayter 12:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not reverting this currently, but will do so if there is no response from the one user who objects - the one who is wrongly categorised by the use of this userbox, though likes to change the wording to suit his own position. "You are also able to join a catagory without using a userbox, or make your own." — I chose this userbox for the specific reason that it categorised me as a person who lives in the UK. Perhaps your suggestion would best be served to the sole user that disputes the use of this userbox. --Mal 05:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Having mulled this over, I still disagree with the suggestion to change this template, because (a) for every other country except those in the British Isles, Template User XXXX gives you a template that says "comes from XXXX" (b) the original wording was "comes from" (c) users are more likely to look at the template wording rather than any categorisation in deciding whether to use templates (d) as pointed out above by Ian13 (who I know is not arguing for or against either side) you are also able to join a category without using a userbox, or make your own (e) the "majority" claimed above is statistically insignificant to the point of being misleading (f) there is an argument that "location" equates better with "lives in", but it does not - you can be located in France (on a day trip to France, sitting in an internet cafe editing Wikipedia) but still live in England. Finally, Mal, you should give Steve time to respond, and not accuse him of wishing to "change wording to suit his own position" - lets remember that it is you and Hayter who wish to change the wording. Steve just wants it back to the version that he originally signed up to. Mal, I frankly don't see why you can't add the category to your user page and be done with it. Gsd2000 11:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

there is an argument that "location" equates better with "lives in", but it does not - you can be located in France (on a day trip to France, sitting in an internet cafe editing Wikipedia) but still live in England. - There is no argument on this point - the point being made is that "lives in" equates better to location than "comes from" and if you cannot make the distinction then we have a problem. This is the most asinine argument you have put forth so far - only the most anal of Wikipedia users will a)edit the encyclopaedia whilst on a day trip to France and b) alter their userpage to reflect their temporary location. - Hayter 15:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Again with the personal attacks. I'm just addressing one of your two core arguments, and showing that it is not necessarily so. In the spirit of the debate that Ian requested, can you please address my points a) to f) and not the person making the points? Gsd2000 00:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I attacked your argument, not you. But regardless,

A - We're not discussing every other template, we're discussing this one. Of course the conformity argument could be made and I acknowledge that, but every other UK country template is currently the way I would have them, so it goes both ways. This is a dead end as far as debate goes.
B - The original wording is misleading regarding the purpose of the template - that's why I changed it. If something is broken, you fix it - you don't declare that to be the new grade for working.
C - This is an unsubstansiated claim. You may be right but you have no way to prove or even indicate that this is the case.
D - This does not counter anything either Mal or I has said. It's a superfluous point, as this debate regards the wish of people to display a userbox. Do you suggest that people use the userbox in its current form and add another, different category at the same time, 'balancing out' the error?
E - I have only ever claimed there was a "stated majority" (and have pointed this distinction out a number of times now) and have freely admitted its shortcomings. Nevertheless, it is the only indicator we have at the moment and.
F - Asinine. As I said.

- Hayter 10:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's another way of looking at it, which I would like all contributors to this debate to consider. The phrase "comes from" is ambiguous. In colloquial usage, it could mean "this user is coming to you from.. XXXX", or it could mean "this user originally comes from". The reason for changing the wording becomes obvious then, because of the category and the ambiguity.

GSD, I don't see how I'm not "giving Steve time to respond". He is changing the wording to suit his own position by the way. I don't see how that can be disputed. I just want to change the wording back to the version that I originally signed up to. Frankly, GSD, I don't see why you don't just create a different userbox, reflecting your position more accurately, and have done with it. Oh .. hang on .. you did!

Finally, here's another thing that you may want to consider. Assuming, for the minute, that the user box wording is changed as I would like to see it, then I will be removing this particular userbox (if I remember!) from my user page once I start living in the USA again (later this year). --Mal 06:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This is my last contribution to this debate as it's wasting my time. My position is clear:

The box is not a location indicator, since its original text doesn't imply anything about location. Just because you think it is and Deano may or may not have intended that when creating it, it isn't one now, or it only half is.

You've shot yourself in the foot, Mal, by saying "I just want to change the wording back to the version that I originally signed up to" - well so do I, and since this box was up and running for 2 months with the original wording "comes from" and only 10 days after it was changed to "lives in", the prior version should have precedence.

All other {{user country}} boxes say "comes from". Why should the UK be different? {{User Rwanda}} doesn't exist so I could have created it to suit my own position of living there, but I chose not to since that would be counter to existing Wikipedia conventions. Please consider doing the same here.

Time to move on to other things, folks. — SteveRwanda 08:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Judging by your actions to this point, I doubt your position would be the same if the current version was not how you would have it. In fact I'd guess you'd keep reverting it "till the cows come home." But that aside, you claim that "The box is not a location indicator... or it only half is," suggesting confusion on your part. You say that the original purpose of the template is irrelevant which is disputed, but even if it didn't matter, you're still basing this on the assumption that you know best when it comes to what people use this for. You don't. And don't say Mal and I assume the same because we don't - our edits are based on the logic of clarifying the purpose of the template, not because we think we can read minds better than you. Mal's reference to the original wording whilst perhaps not as clear as it might have been, was I believe, in reference to the category wording, which you seek to ignore. Your apparent refusal to engage in good faith discussion is divisive. I don't say this because I disagree with you, but because i take issue with the nature of your contribution to this discussion. I disagree with some of what scjessey said about this, but I feel his interests lay with what was the best course of action for those using and those who will use the template(s). I disagree almost entirely with what GSD says but I believe his a-f points were an attempt to address the issue and convince people of a point, rather than extend the argument into eternity or push it to one side behind a veil of practical superiority. Sadly, it appears whether fairly or unfairly, that your latest contributions, however you may have started out, are these negative things I have detailed. You have seemingly ignored the bullet points I took time to lay out, specifically for your benefit, and you have not engaged with GSD's raised points, instead stubbornly clinging to the entirely unfounded argument that most users are currently using this to reflect nationality rather than location. As I have said, it may be that you are right but we currently have no way to tell and so the best path to resolution of this issue is via logic, rather than assumptions. I truthfully hope I'm wrong, but it seems you are sticking on this because it was revealed you were in error, rather than that you want to find the best solution for everyone. - Hayter 14:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what people intended, and neither do you. our edits are based on the logic of clarifying the purpose of the template - only the purpose according to you. As you say, neither of us knows the box's true purpose for most people so we have to leave it as it is. Ian13 has removed the contradictory logic of the box now also, and that had nothing to do with me, so in effect the argument about the contradictory logic of the box is now removed. I truthfully hope I'm wrong, but it seems you are sticking on this because it was revealed you were in error, rather than that you want to find the best solution for everyone. — SteveRwanda 15:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on Steve, such responses do nothing but reinforce what may be a misperception on my part. If I'm wrong in my assumption about you then act in a manner which reflects that.

In the absence of contradictory evidence (and there is none), it must be assumed the current purpose of the template is the same as when it was created. Given Deano's actions upon creating it, that purpose is plain. Because you are currently using it incorrectly does not indicate that most other people are and even if it did, that does not alter its purpose. Because I use a scalpel to mark out drill points on a wall does not change the fact that it was made to slice people up. The illogicality of your argument notwithstanding, the same is true for this template. - Hayter 16:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Please. You're not acting any better than I am and we're just going round in circles here. Let's just decide how we're going to get out of this mess. I don't agree with your arguments and it's unlikely you can say anything to change that. Likewise, it seems you won't agree with me either, even though I'm suggesting the box's usage is implied by what it says, which is rather more logical than saying its usage was defined by one bloke who made an error when creating it. But anyway. What do we do? Ian31 suggested putting something in the box itself to try and draw other users into the debate. Does that seem reasonable? How about, as a temporary template:

User United Kingdom
The content of this box is disputed. Please express your views here.

— SteveRwanda 16:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, the link here would have to work. Not quite sure why it isn't at present. — SteveRwanda 16:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The link won't work here, because it is a link to the page it is on. Ian13/talk 17:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds workable. Though a straw poll should perhaps be discouraged, I'd recommend a new section on this page with an agreed summary of both arguments included so, for simplicity's sake, people can more easily declare their support for one position over the other, or if need be, present a new POV. Failing that, another option is to include a single summary of my point with the options of support or oppose below. Whichever direction is taken, I feel that clearly listing people's thoughts with reasoning in such a manner is the best way to handle this, but we should work out how it'll be done before posting the notice to prevent another page-length being filled with the same points as above by others. - Hayter 19:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the disputed wording tack and a summary of the arguments. However, I'm still not sure how this is going to get resolved without resorting to straw polls, as any contribution to a discussion for or against the change will effectively end up being exactly that. Presumably we should all agree on a length of time that the debate should be open (one month at least, I say), and accept the tally of votes for or against the proposal after that time. I know WP isn't a democracy, but short of arbitration I don't see how this will work. Gsd2000 22:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The very fact that there is confusion is one of the reasons I supported keeping the wording as "lives in" or similar, in line with the category. I would suggest that a template called "User United Kingdom" is more logical to use for this purpose, and a separate userbox for ex-pats seems logical. That's what I plan to do once I have moved to the USA, as I've said before: I will have become an ex-pat by then. --Mal 08:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, we know what you think... how are we going to resolve this? Gsd2000 22:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resolution

How about this? Template talk:User United Kingdom/usagepoll We get it sorted there then set up a link here so it's all nicely contained. - Hayter 11:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

As long as you also ask for further reasoning by supporters as to why they feel like they do, I feel that would be a suitable way to seek a resolution. Ian13/talk 12:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the wording of the page to present the problem in a more neutral fashion - the page should not be 'location-centric' since it is also disputed whether this is really a location box or not. I've also increased the number of potential solutions to three, since that's how many there are: (1) Do nothing (2) Change the category (3) Change the text. The page isn't active yet (hence Mal's vote is a little premature), so let's try and get this right before it is. And please don't bite my head off if you disagree with any of the changes I've made. Let's work round this in a friendly manner! — SteveRwanda 15:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing - we haven't established the ground rules of how long to run the poll and how to interpret the results of this exercise yet, which could cause a failure of resolution. I'm not sure the best way to proceed - maybe Ian13 can advise as a 'neutral' voice... I do think that if there aren't a sufficient (whatever that means) number of responses, bearing in mind around 200 users use this box, then none of us have a mandate to change the box, therefore solution 1 would have to default, even though it's not really ideal. — SteveRwanda 15:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

How do you mean the page shouldn't be location-centric. Since that's the point of contention (whether it is or isn't), shouldn't the page be focused on it? - Hayter 17:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

All I meant was that the debate is whether the box reflects nationality or location. Therefore the wording 'This is a location box' and 'This is not a location box' doesn't really sum up the two sides equally. I did think afterwards that maybe you deliberately left the other one saying 'This is a location box' before Mal changed it so it could be edited by me, so it wasn't really location-centric after all... Anyway, that notwithstanding, what do you think of the way the usagepoll page looks now? Let me know your views... — SteveRwanda 08:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the titles to 'Opinion X' rather than 'Solution X' and included the solution below in bold, simply because all the arguments are presented as fact (as you'd expect). With them all labelled as solutions, it looks as though the people who came up with the poll (us) have agreed on the facts and just can't agree on the best solution. I've also included a note saying signatures w/out reasoning may be discounted, simply for a bit of further security against this becoming a simple straw poll, and I've removed your comments, Mal, because it might look dodgy if people are voting before the thing begins. You can still find it at this edit if you want to ust cut n' paste.

As it stands, I'm reasonably happy with the way it is. Beyond that then, I suggest it runs for a fortnight (a month is too long for it to be disrupted, I feel), and we have a 'gentleman's agreement' to respect the poll, not only in keeping with its decision (even if it's by a slim cut), but in leaving the opinions of people to themselves. Others can debate with each other if they want, but we've already got our arguments on the page and they're pretty clear on our positions already. A question is one thing, but I shouldn't go after and try to convince someone who's said they agree with Op 1, for instance.

Apon the poll's completion, I'd also suggest that this page be archived, not only because of the size of it due solely to this topic, but because leaving it hanging out in the open is liable to restart the debate all over again at a later venture, no matter what the outcome. - Hayter 15:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If everyone aggrees, I am prepared to moderate this vote under the following terms:

Only people who have had the userbox one their page before 1 Apr 2006 00:00UTC, or have been acticley involved in its content, are allowed to vote (to prevent sockpuppetry).
As I deem appropriate within my neutral role (or any other neutral person for that matter who takes this role), no action will be taken ~~unless~~ until a satisfactory number of votes exist to pass one 'option'.
And that a neutral message is allowed indicating the poll on the template or elsewhere, but otherwise no 'spamming' is to occur (i.e. one user posting more than 3 messages on user talk pages or elsewhere noticable), and should this occur, corrective action will be taken to prevent a one-sided vote including, where appropriate, vote annulment.
Vote cancellations and counts are only to be preformed by neutral parties, and that should a voter have a discripency with a vote (ie. illegibility to vote because of time they have used the box) it is to be raised on the talk page or privately and preformed by a neutral party.
People are to have their comments respected, if that's what they feel, then they are entitled to that opinion, and others are not to try and convince them of something they oppose.
And finally, this poll is unnofficial and non-binding, however we ask people respect it for the time being to ensure progress is made.

Should anyone disagree with my proposals then please just ignore them, and should anyone disagree with me taking such a role, once more ignore me. Ian13/talk 16:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good for the most part, but if no action is taken at the conclusion (say due to a roughly even vote), then this won't get resolved. - Hayter 17:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think if it were an equal vote, no matter what terms it could be hard to resolve via that conclusion, however I have reconsdered my statment to until. Ian13/talk 17:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Can I also suggest a Change Catagory option is added to the poll. Ian13/talk 17:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have also changed the poll layout to use bullet points instead to improve readability, all are welcome to change, modify, revert or otherwise dissemble. Ian13/talk 17:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to accept the above rules, and the 'gentlemen's agreement' mentioned by Hayter. However, before the poll gets underway I think we still need somehow to clarify what will happen in the event of roughly equal numbers voting for 2 categories or if hardly anyone bothers to vote at all. I would argue that the template as it stands now should then be retained as a no consensus, but since that would be an outcome closer to my position than others' I'll not push it too hard and wait for more opinions. — SteveRwanda 16:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, to me that would say there is no consensus to change. If few voted, then obviously they don't see any change as important/don't care about a change. If it were roughly equal, then we would either continue the poll untill some consensus does appear or try to evaluate which issues are most important. The thing is if there is no consensus, no matter what straw poll, it would be hard to move on. We can give it a blast and see what happens, but personally in my view, it is better to leave things as they are (and have been for months) than change if there is uncertainty, and yes that may be to some peoples advantage, but atleast people would be keeping what they signed up for until a majority wants that changed to somethnig else. Then again, people may see me as bias, but I am expressing my views here to try and reach a resolution. Ian13/talk 17:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the gentlemen's agreement. Two weeks is fair, though I would probably opt for a month. However, I have a strong suspicion that it'll be 2-2! In case it is a draw, I believe the final arbiter as to what to do should be Ian13, because he's spent a good deal of effort trying to get us kiddies to resolve the issue. Gsd2000 01:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorted, and I have noted it above. Thank you for your support in me, and I will aim to be as fair as possible. I still feel the ~~change catagory option would be important (or atleast logical)~~(done!), but if everyone agrees we can start the poll for 2 weeks and see how it goes. Ian13/talk 10:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

	This user comes from the United Kingdom.
A straw poll is underway regarding this template's wording and content. Your opinion is valued.

Any good? Ian13/talk 10:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks OK, and I guess it will draw people's attention with that tiny text. One thing I've noticed, according to the rules above, Hayter isn't allowed to cast a vote since as far as I can tell he's never had the offending box on his userpage... And Gsd2000 removed the box a couple of weeks ago in exasperation at what was happening. So the vote could end up 1-1, not 2-2! Do we make an exception there or what? — SteveRwanda 11:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Since Gsd2000 has had the box on their page (and probably removed it due to this dispute), and would probably restore this box should the poll go their "way", I think it would be fair that they are allowed to vote. Hayters involvement also makes me feel they should cetrainly be allowed a vote. I have reworded as appropriate. Ian13/talk 11:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I only just saw this. Phew! Yes I absolutely will restore this user box should the vote go "my" way. Gsd2000 13:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's go then! Ian13/talk 11:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought we agreed it would run for a fortnight? Which would take us to 21 April. I've changed the page appropriately. — SteveRwanda 12:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, my bad... Ian13/talk 12:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Please all get voing then, to ecourage others to do so. Ian13/talk 12:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh, should you be able to vote for two different options? - Hayter 15:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure - Ian13 said you could in the box at the top of the page, and Gsd2000 did so... I followed for that reason. — SteveRwanda 15:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I said you could, because the objective of this is to find out what the community as a whole would most accept, therefore since a user may be quite happy with 2 options, I saw it as fair that users should be entitled to vote for 2. I think we are trying to find what a majority would accept as a workable solution. Ian13/talk 21:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm also not wild about the fact that only two of the proposals have an 'issues' section. Since it's running now, it obviously can't be changed and I'm not going to challenge whatever decision is reached, but with the formatting and this, the page is quite different since I last checked it two days ago and said I was happy with it. I assumed a final check would be run by both arguing parties before it was put out to vote. - Hayter 18:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Gah! Sorry if I've managed to offend anyone, it just became difficult to ensure everyone was happy. Obviously, I personally think you can add issue/reason points as long as you don't change the proposal itself (i.e. remove cat.). I tried to turn the page into bullet form, and keep every point that was there to save users reading big lumps of text, so I could only work with what there was. But I won;t object to some work on it. Ian13/talk 21:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

For reference, I hereby deem a suitable amount of valid votes have been placed for the poll to close as scheduled (21st April), providing a tie or vote of no consensus does not emerge. Ian13/talk 14:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to note, votes for 'my position', which could be either Solution 2 or Solution 4, now total 11 different people, which is equal to the votes for 'Hayter's position' (Solution 3 only). Probably not too much to be done but it feels a bit like the Tories winning a seat because Labour and the Lib Dems split the remaining votes! We'll see how it pans out in the remaining week anyway. — SteveRwanda 14:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You may also want to note that the Tories, Labour and the Lib-Dems get only one vote from each constituent. You can't, as a voter, vote for more than one party in an election. --Mal 08:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point! — SteveRwanda 08:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean - just to make my final task of deciding which wins that little bit harder. ;) Ian13/talk 16:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spot the difference

These userboxes, taken from the page Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location/United Kingdom:

Code

Result

This user comes from
The United Kingdom.

This user lives in England.

This user lives in
Great Britain.

This user lives in
Northern Ireland.

This user lives in Scotland.

This user lives in
Wales.

--Mal 08:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Aye, but outside of the United Kingdom area they are mostly comes from, so the argument works both ways. Ian13/talk 12:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

And so that's clear:

Code

Result

This user comes from
The United Kingdom.

This user comes from France.

Image:Germanymap-stub.jpg

This user comes from Germany.

This user comes from the United States of America.

This user comes from Burkina Faso.

This user comes from Australia.

All nation states. Consistent. Works both ways! — SteveRwanda 08:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but this userbox is listed specifically on the Location page. --Mal 00:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who cares?

Whatever your opinion on userboxes (and I'm personally all for them), the debate surrounding this single template is pretty appalling, quite frankly. I'm fairly flabbergasted why Wikipedians have such a crisis in personal identity. The debate regarding this template does nothing, I repeat, nothing to further the Wikipedia project as whole, and the vast amount of energy and effort that's gone into such discussion is ridiculous. When you consider the massive task facing, for example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting, and there are users deliberating the correct wording of a category for Wikipedians....Sorry, but it seems far too self-referential for a project that was never supposed to be self-referential.

I have the template on my userpage, and will continue to do so, but I'm not voting in the straw poll. Nuge | ^talk 14:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Tell me, how is your post furthering the Wikipedia project? If you don't care, don't contribute. Noone's forcing you to vote. Oh, and your pomposity is all the more ridiculous, given that you have on your userpage a statement that you read broadsheet newspapers. Get a life! Gsd2000 00:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You both miss the point, and make an irrelevant one (I don't see what my other userboxes has to do with this). Also, 'Get a life!' is a well-worn and unoriginal personal attack.

I'm not trying to be pompous, I'm simply of the belief that all this focus and effort on self-contained community stuff is detracting from more important work that needs to be done. I do care, that's why I posted, and why I contribute to WP; and why it's frustrating to see what I feel is somewhat misguided endeavour. Nuge | ^talk 18:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, and it worries me how deeply I got involved in this, but as with all WP debates I was convinced I had an airtight principle to defend, which went beyond what happened with this individual box. When a large number of users transclude a userbox onto their pages, they're using it to indicate soemthing about themselves to the entire Wikipedia community. In my case I wanted to indicate that I was from the UK (without resorting to unncecessary statements such as being 'proud'). For other users to be able to alter those boxes on the basis of a straw poll of 2% of the users of the box is therefore (IMHO) wrong, and a principle worth arguing, since those users are then altering what someone chose to say about themselves.

I've agreed to abide by the result of this election but I will still say the principle should hold. Personally I will be supporting compulsory subst-ing for user boxes if such a debate comes up as this whole business has tainted my WP experience and made me fall out with two fellow Wikipedians over almost nothing! — SteveRwanda 18:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Atleast this dispute should make community progress. If everyone can walk away with a little more insight on handling their opinions, then progress has been made which can later benifit encyclopedia editing. Ian13/talk 13:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One of each?

Could we not have one userbox template for 'comes from' and one for 'lives in'? I understand that people may want one or the other; however some people might want to show both statuses. --Joe^Talk!_Esp 18:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, and that will happen irrespective of this poll. The only reason there's an issue is because people already have this box on their page and changing the text could affect them without their realising it. — SteveRwanda 08:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Joe, see {{User British2}}. Steve and I agree that there should be seperate userboxes for each purpose, but we disagree on the purpose of this one. Once it gets sorted out, either User British2 will serve as the alternate (denoting nationality), or a new one will likely be set up (denoting location), depending on the result of the poll. - Hayter 18:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page is in categories?

Why is this talk page included in so many categories? I appreciate that I probably added to the problem by inserting infoboxes, but this needs fixing! (I'll do my bit later if nobody else gets around to it!) --Mal 00:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Just need to subst them and remove the category (probably what everyone ought to be doing anyway). It was indeed by adding all those userboxes that this page got falsely categorised... Kind of adds to my argument about people being categorised without realising it just by adding a user box, but never mind! — SteveRwanda 07:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

lol Fair enough Steve. :) --Mal 09:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poll results

I have closed the poll (a little late), and have attempted to reach a conclusion as to which proposal passes. This result is non-binding, but does at present hopefully properly represent the community.

I declare that from what is presented on that page (any evidence to suggest some votes are invalid/vote swinging will lead to it being judged again) proposal 3 "wins", and that the text should be changed to 'This user lives in the United Kingdom'.

It has also been brought to my attention of a split between keeping the text the same (2 & 4), which could possibly have lead to proposal 3 passing unfairly. For judging purposes, I counted these by merging the votes of the concerned categories (removing the dupliates where people had voted for both). I would like to note, that should these be seen as the same aim - they still do not pass.

Another note, is that many choose the passed solution on the basis they see themselves, for example, as British, and not UKish. I would therefore urge a possible review of the working of the British/Irish... templates.

Ian13/talk 18:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice the duplicates on the vote before, so the real results were 17 to 19. That is very close. I still have no clue why people would change the text of a userbox? After all that is why people choose a userbox to begin with. The userbox's category is rarely noticed by the average user. I still hold to my belief that there was only two items to vote on, the first was to change the userbox text the other was to keep the userbox text as is. With the latter having sub options that resulted in taking attention away from what was really happening. Other people have noted that it is a common wiki feature to have the {{user country}} to signify that the person comes from, I just don’t see any reason why we have to change the text? I can't stress this enough, people get the userbox’s for what they say... Don't you? p.s. what is "vote swinging"? -- UKPhoenix79 08:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you completely about the foolhardiness of changing the text of a userbox (especially now the British Isles are different to every other country in the world), but nevertheless, the voting options were agreed on by the disputing parties and a vote was conducted. However, I hope the two or three individuals that sparked this off realise that many people did actually disagree with what they did, and that this will be the last time they see fit to change the semantics of a user box. Gsd2000 12:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Let it drop, GSD. We've argued about the original meaning, we've argued about the current usage, we've argued about how best to resolve it and now that we have agreed on a method and agreed to abide by the results of that method and that method has been played out to its conclusion, what makes you think you have a podium to lecture Mal and I on how we conduct ourselves about Wikipedia? Even by combining two different proposals to make one, #3 still won out, meaning that the majority of people who voted agreed with my reasoning. When politicians win elections by 51%, they don't apologise to those who voted for someone else or feel they shouldn't run again because of it. This is the last word I'll say on this regardless of any response you might make but part of a "gentleman's agreement" as discussed earlier is accepting a result with good grace. The majority of voters disagreed with you. Sure, some people who voted for any of the proposals seemed to do so under short-sighted vision, but that was foreseeable. We agreed to abide by the results of the poll. I assumed that meant putting a halt to the debate and refraining from sniping at each other once it had finished. - Hayter 21:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what your problem is, Hayter, and I do not like your bullying tone ("let it drop"). I was replying to someone who seemed not to be accepting the result, indicating that I did not agree with it but that was the result. I was also offering a concluding thought that given the acrimony the text change to a userbox caused, and the great amount of time and effort to resolve it, that people who wish to do the same in future will think twice first. If you view this as sniping or an attempt to reopen the debate - which it patently was not - that's not my problem. I did not attempt to change the result and I did not personally insult anyone. You do not own this talk page, and I shall have my say if I wish to. Gsd2000 21:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be known the only example I found of a user attempting to change someones vote was from the change-the-text opinion, and what with the edit war, this has not been the nicest page. I hope we can all consider it over now - and that any further content discussion later will be done so peacefully. I do ask however that this poll is not used as an outright reason to revert. Ian13/talk 09:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the text on this page and the edit war that ensued I included this in the Lamest edit wars listings! Realize that this is not an attack on anyone. I just find it funny (and I also cannot believe) that a simple user box has caused so much passion and mental anguish for so many people :( Personally I am very simple when it comes to my user boxes... I go by what it says... I would have thought that most if not all users out there do exactly the same thing, but this weird edit war has proven me wrong. I’m glad that this got resolved, unfortunately now I have no interest in having this user box any more. Yet, I’m happy that others find it more useful to them. I just never thought that someone would change he text of a user box enough to change its meaning. But looks like I’m in the slim minority and that’s fine by me :) Have fun out there and in a few months try to look back on this occurrence as a silly moment that occurred with your experience on Wikipedia. -- UKPhoenix79 05:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I see you stated on Lamest edit wars, a page devoted to "the most petty things" that "It only got resolved by a straw poll vote"... yes, a poll in which you not only voted, but contributed your opinions not once, but twice, going so far as to say about your viewpoint "I can't stress this enough"! So I hope you are also laughing at yourself here. :-) ps I have now subst-ed my userboxes so that I never become embroiled in a debate like this again. Gsd2000 15:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest we all go for a drink somewhere to try and put this silly nonsense behind us, but I don't live in the UK, so that won't be possible

— SteveRwanda 12:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I see the debate continues here in a way. A few points then, from my own perspective, in attempt to answer some peoples' apparent misunderstanding of it.

"I still have no clue why people would change the text of a userbox?": UKPhoenix - it was changed to better reflect the apparent reason it had been created - to remove ambiguity.

"Other people have noted that it is a common wiki feature to have the Template:User country to signify that the person comes from, I just don’t see any reason why we have to change the text?": The point of this is that the phrase "comes from" is ambiguous. One of the things that this whole debacle has highlighted is that the other userboxes are also, as you pointed out, ambiguous.

"especially now the British Isles are different to every other country in the world": GSD - the British Isles are not a country.

"I hope the two or three individuals that sparked this off realise that many people did actually disagree with what they did, and that this will be the last time they see fit to change the semantics of a user box.": It could be argued of course, that it was yourself and Steve that sparked the whole thing off. Most others were either happy with the changes (and the changes were made to the regional useboxes with no resistance), or were blissfully unaware: the change, I feel, was subtle but necessary.

As for not changing the semantics of a userbox in the future, I will personally change the semantics of any userbox or article or category etc, that I feel deserves it. If I can be persuaded that my edit was in error, or that consensus is against me, I will abide by that. In that sense I agree with Hayter when he asks "what makes you think you have a podium to lecture Mal and I on how we conduct ourselves about Wikipedia?" --Mal 21:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

We have already been put up for public ridicule by UKPhoenix (somewhat hypocritically, I felt) - lets not embarass ourselves any further by prolonging this silly debate. The vote is closed, and the wording change stays. And with that... I am unwatching this page in order to not get embroiled in any more of this nonsense. Gsd2000 21:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and can we please remain civil. Ian13/talk 16:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It was only after I made my vote that I looked over this templates history and the discussion that I realized how silly this is... and yes Gsd2000 I did laugh after you pointed out that I became involved with this discussion also :) So I’m glad that I only made a few comments involving this template... The discussion still goes on and I'm still finding it funny... But realize that I am in no way laughing at anyone in particular. Just coming from someone, now looking in to this whole convoluted situation makes me realize how serious the discussions became over such a small thing. I do hope that you also realize that in no way was this meant to ridicule, but to allow you to sit back and laugh at the silliness of this whole mess (c:= -- UKPhoenix79 06:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Wikipedians in the United Kingdom