Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

User:Box - Proposal?

I suppose this is sort of a proposal… I was thinking, instead of leaving the boxes in the template namespace (which some don't believe is a place for them), or limiting them to user subpages (which is disadvantageous because of a lack of a central location), or creating a new namespace (which is antiWikipedia in general), what if we create a collective User:Box (which currently redirects to this page) that is open for anybody to place subpages there, but isn't actually a user?For example, Template:User Earthling2 would be moved to User:Box/Earthling2, and would be placed on a user page with {{User:Box/Earthling2}}.I think this would satisfy all of the conditions:

  1. It serves as an easily accessible central location for all userboxes
  2. It doesn't "defile" template namespace
  3. It doesn't create a new namespace

If I knew how, I would make a formal proposal, so I guess I'm just throwing this idea up in the air here.What does everybody think? —Akrabbimtalk 02:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that a main objection to this is that the first condition (providing a centralized repository of userboxes) is one of the problems that many have with userboxes.Maintaining the current system of having one uniform and centralized location for userboxes also sustains the objection to having userboxes appear as if they have a certain level of (pseudo-)official approval and acceptance.With decentralized userboxes and userbox listings, there's less appearance of any "sanctioned userboxes", as userbox organization takes a more organic approach based on user initiative.Aside from that, I'll point out that, out of five such collective userbox "user accounts" (User:Userboxes, User:Userbox, User:Boxes, User:Userboxuser, and the one mentioned, User:Box), three were blocked for being role accounts and one was blocked as a result of an ArbComm case partially involving its use as a role account.(See also Wikipedia talk:German userbox solution#Central directory.) — Jeff | (talk) | 10:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I just spent like 25 minutes reading through the German userbox solution, and I've decided to, as it suggests, "just go ahead and do it." —Akrabbimtalk 20:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I find this whole thing to be rather silly.There is absolutely no compelling argument against allowing userboxes to be created under Template:User yyy.At least, this way they are controllable and have some potential to be limited to useful userboxes.I am going to "just go ahead and" undo attempts to get people to not do this as I believe a) there is no basis for it, b) it is disruptive, and c) borders on being POV. --NThurston 19:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Why SHOULDN'T we tolerate ANY userboxes?

'Common uses for boxes include user interests, user skills, technical information, Wikipedia activities, or mere fun; however, some of these uses are controversial and should probably be avoided.'

What an absurd statement.Something should be avoided because it's controversial.Utterly astounding.

It has been made clear that userboxes are to be used only on userpages.It is also blindingly obvious that if you pick a userbox that says "This user supports sudden infant death syndrome," you deserve whatever you get and are actively spoiling for a fight.Let that user get banned eventually for being an idiot.Don't kill WP social networking because some people get their asses up in the air over something as completely harmless as a box on someone's userpage. --StarKruzr 05:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hear hear! CameoAppearance 03:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Draft Solution

I have prepared a draft of a possible solution to this confusion. If it is useless, please tag it for speedy deletion and forget about it. If it is useful, then please say so and I will make a policy draft. --Richard0612 20:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I disslike Substitution. Makes killing fair use images and copyvios that much harder.Geni 16:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

difuculty

It is way to complicated this method of designing a userbox and all.There is NO excuse for the amount of diffuculty involved.Let us make a simpler method.Karzack 16:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

We need changes on Userbox Ideas Page

When it started, It used to be written like this:

=Userbox Ideas=
Arsenal Football Team

Then When I come back it's all about this:

=Arsenal FC=
Here's my userbox what do you think of it, do I need to change anything.

I think we need seperate ideas talk pages because people can't see typed ideas —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RaptorX (talk • contribs) .

Friend Code Userboxes?

Could we have these? For WiFi games on the Nintendo DS. Metroid Prime Hunters, Animal Crossing: Wild World, and so on and so forth... -MF14

And how does that advance Wikipedia? Please read Wikipedia:User page. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 23:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, Wikipedia isn't a gaming site, we don't need thousands of templates for each game/movie/TV show that someone might like.They have MySpace for that ... Cyde?Weys 04:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
On that basis, I'd recommend some axe-wielding for Wikipedia:Userboxes/Media.Very, very unneeded.DJR (T) 23:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be wholly against that, based on this (and many other examples) from Wikipedia:User page: "and also a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they're working."

Interests and preferences are obviously very useful in that regard (among others).

The concerns seem to have been about belief, primarily Religion/Philosophy and Politics. (Most of which have already made the move to userspace ala WP:GUS.)

And from what I've read at Wikipedia:Jimbo on Userboxes, we should put the axes down : ) - Jc37 09:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Interests and preferences are not always helpful for Wikipedia, or even benign. We need to continue to work to eliminate userboxes that do not contribute to a better Wikipedia. I still subscribe to Jimbo's request stated at the top of User talk:Jimbo Wales/Userboxes. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 01:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

Why is Userbox so protected?Why isn't it just redirected here? It took me forever to find this place, and had I been willing, perhaps I would have created multiple unnecessary userboxes in template space instead of being converted to the German solution. At this point, typing in "userbox" in the go field just leads to a creepy dead end with keep out signs, barbed wire, and electric fencing.All in all, this is not a very pleasant WikiExperience. Redirecting here would provide the education that people are seeking when they type "userbox". If redirecting isn't the answer, maybe a friendly soft redirect (protected, of course) would be nice. Just a thought. —Akrabbimtalk 19:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As a note, the userbox page has been (briefly) discussed here before, see Wikipedia talk:Userboxes#Redirect "Userboxes" here —Mira 20:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Easy way of adding images to Userboxes

I recently created a userbox using this syntax:

{{userbox|colour1|colour2|informationbox|This user is X}}

The problem is that I have tried to add a Wikipedia Image, but It is very difficult. It is there a easy way?--User:Atenea26, 19:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC).

Think it would be easier to put it on the template Reedy Boy 20:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Try something like below. Rfrisbietalk 21:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

{{subst:userbox|white|pink|id=[[Image:SFriendly.gif|40px]]|This user is X}}
This user is X


thanks ;)--User:Atenea26 14:40,21 July 2006 (UTC)

I followed these exact steps, and they don't work. I even copied the sample template above and still failed to get the image. -- User:Socal gal at heart 19:13,08 September 2007

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sexuality censored by User:Cyde.

This abusive administrator has a history of censoring material and userboxes he doesn't agree with, and has now under the excuse that "the userboxes were moved to userpages" deleted the LISTING page of the Wikipedia sexuality userboxes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/delete?page=Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sexuality

This is unacceptable and the action should be reversed, there is NO reason at all why even listing where the userboxes are should not be allowed. --81.158.110.173 16:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

He was correct in saying that all userboxes have been moved to user space, it it seems this will happen to all of the "Wikipedia:Userboxes/" pages someday. Please see User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/Sexuality or User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Sexuality for alternative directories. —Mira 21:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think calling someone "abusive" is the most constructive thing to do. — Nathan (talk) / 22:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This is going to happen to most of them, and soon.The Wikipedia: space archive needs to be re-organized and focused tightly on languages spoken (Babel boxes), locations ("I live in the USA"), and expressions of encyclopedic knowledge ("This user is a historian").Everything else will be moved into userspace, where other people can worry about how it's all organized or whatever.I'm just worried about the stuff in the official namespaces Template:, Wikipedia:, and Category:.--Cyde?Weys 02:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the history of this to my WP:GUS area at User:Xaosflux/UBX/Sexuality. — xaosflux Talk 05:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

GUS move tag?

I'm thinking we need some sort of a tag or category we can add to userboxes in the Template: namespace that says something to the effect of, "This userbox is should be userfied per the German solution."We have enough people working on userfying, so adding a system like this that those people could use would be beneficial.Right now I really have no interest in userfying templates myself, so I've just been deleting the ones that match T1 that haven't been userfied yet, but if this sort of system was in place, I'd just tag them.The tag should have a category associated with it, something like Category:Userbox templates that need to be userfied, and the tag/category would be removed once it was userfied.--Cyde?Weys 02:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I like that. — Nathan (talk) / 05:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I like that as well, although I think a category might be enough. —Mira 05:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Say hello to Template:Userfy/GUS. —Andux? 06:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks like that should do it. —Mira 06:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty, I've started populating that category.--Cyde?Weys 16:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've updated {{User userfy}} to behave more like {{Userfy/GUS}}. Specifically, the template no longer adds itself to the category, it gives an example usage on its page, and it also mentions the other template, Template:Userfy/GUS, which users may opt to use instead. If there was a reason it was behaving the way it was, go ahead and revert my changes, and possibly explain why on the template's talk page so someone else doesn't revert to my changes down the road. BigNate37T·C 17:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Directions to making UserBoxes.

Can anyone provide a thorough, step-by-step process of making a userbox? I find the directions confusing.

I found the best way was to get the code for an old user box, then change the colours and text and image.  Killfest2  06:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Look up two or three sections, there's a fairly easy template that you can use, you just need to decide on the colors and image. 68.39.174.238 18:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization

So, these need to be reorganized to categories more appropriate for the official direction project-endorsed templates are going to be taking.I'm thinking we have separate pages for languages spoken, encyclopedic interests (e.g. "This user is interested in Roman history."), and encyclopedic skills (e.g. "This user knows Perl" or "This user is a physicist").Anything else I've forgotten?Remember, unless there's a tangible benefit of having these things standardized and accessible to everyone from project space they need to be userfied.--Cyde?Weys 04:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Political Parties & Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs

The sections “Wikipedia:Userboxes/Political Parties” and “Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs” have been deleted.Why?-- Jason Palpatine 22:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC) (speak your mind | contributions)

I just noticed that too. On some level I agree with the move... we're always yammering about NPOV... but was there any sort of discussion prior to this? It would have been polite to do so, I think. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 14:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, they've been deleted, they're moving them all into userspace. I take back what I said before, this has been talked about for ages. Alrighty. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 14:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Talked about when and where? -- Jason Palpatine 14:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

List Users by Userbox?

Is there a way to list users who use a certain box? (other than this) --Johnruble 23:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Go to the userbox page and select "what links here" from the menu on the left. —Mira 01:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The userfication continues ..

How are we going to make a dent in a page like this?There's lots of stuff in there that doesn't belong in template space, but no one's made any progress towards userfying any of it.I guess at some point I just start deleting with the assumption that if anyone had actually cared they would have already userfied it by now.--Cyde?Weys 13:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You're assuming that everyone agrees that so-and-so template is so obviously not helpful that it doesn't belong in template space (and which ones are you talking about, anyway?). —AySz88\^-^ 15:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe not everyone, but it looks like there is a consensus to get userboxes that do not directly benefit Wikipedia out of everything except userspace. I, for one, do not see how media userboxes benefit Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 22:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
You know I really wish certian people would not encourage people to do things which make it harder to find and remove copyvios.Geni 22:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Earth to Mr. Strawman ... Earth to Mr. Strawman ... Cyde?Weys 22:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Decentralisation makes copyvios harder to find. That is ultimately what you are encourageing. So no strawman since I correctly described your actions. You could try and claim that the logic behind my conclusion on what your actions will result in is flawed but so far it appears to be correct.Geni 22:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I would recommend picking a user that uses the box, and simply moving the box into that user's space. —Ashley Y 22:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
If some box needs userfying and no one in particular wants it in their userspace, I've already volunteered User:Rfrisbie/Userbox as a home. Rfrisbietalk 22:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, 95% of the ubx on that page look pretty awful - I guess most suffered from the WP:FU ruling.I would hasten to add that any ubx still in the template namespace that is not used on any user page might as well be deleted.If Kelly Martin went on a rampage through those userboxes, I doubt that many would be missed.The ones that would be are always the first to be outsourced to the user space...which none of these have.Wield the axe!DJR (T) 23:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite. Which of the userboxes on my userpage are "inappropriate for templatespace" (aside from the ones I created)? It seems to me that many of them could have a valid arguement for their usefulness in locating an editor with particular interests, and I don't think any are extremely POV. When one goes to userfy a box, how do you remove them—simply a pagemove or after that do you change every reference to the newly created redirect from template to userspace to point directly at the template again, and then speedy the redirect created from the pagemove under G6? Or just replace the box with something like {{User:BigNate37/Userbox userfied}} (as an example)? BigNate37T·C 17:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure.If you move a box then bypass all the redirects, you can go for a speedy. The box {{User GUS UBX to}} also adds unredirected pages to a cat for further cleanup. Rfrisbietalk 17:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, that box was what I was thinking of. Is there any guideline to which boxes should be removed from template namespace? BigNate37T·C 18:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, but it depends on who you ask!

Take a look at WP:GUS and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Userbox location straw poll for some suggestions and viewpoints. Rfrisbietalk 20:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Userbox wording dispute

@ {{User Chinese}}

Extremely retarded IMHO. Suggests userfication. -- ??????????? 02:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Or just block those participants who went over 3RR and be glad they're not warring over something more impactful?Just tell them to make their own userboxes manually if they don't like the ambiguous wording I just provided; I don't see how it would help to userfy the box for everyone else. —AySz88\^-^ 03:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to block people for minor disputes like this. And I'm unfamiliar with current userbox rules/trends which is why I took it here. -- ??????????? 01:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes for userfication

Please userfy the following userboxes per WP:GUS.Due to a Tfd that they were involved in back on July 18 they have a deadline to be userfied of 2006-08-08, at which point it will be assumed nobody wants them enough to adopt them into userspace (thus saving them), because when the outcome of a Tfd is "Userfy", they can't just stay in template space indefinitely.

--Cyde Weys 00:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, with the first one there, none of the others are really useful to much extent (in my opinion). BigNate37T·C 23:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hidden Surprises

I found the following sub-pages:

  1. Wikipedia:Userboxes/NEAT/Science
  2. Wikipedia:Userboxes/NEAT/Science/Music
  3. Wikipedia:Userboxes/NEAT/Science/Music/Electronic

There doesn't seem to be a: Wikipedia:Userboxes/NEAT.

In any case, I moved the 3 userboxes from the electronics page to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Music. User:Akidd dublin seems to claim on his talk page to no longer use that account. I am guessing that these 3 pages would qualify for speedy deletion. - Jc37 14:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting.Here's the complete subpage list for Wikipedia:Userboxes/ and their talk pages. Rfrisbietalk 15:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, *that* was "fun" : )

That was quite the list...

For the following, unless you already see it, presume Wikipedia:Userboxes/

1.) Redirects that likely could be deleted (shown in redirect to target order):

  1. Age groups - Life
  2. Anime - Media/Anime
  3. Education/Special cases - Education/Special case
  4. Hobbies - Interests
  5. Ideas - to talk:Ideas
  6. ITV Franchises - Media/Television/ITV Franchises
  7. Media/Newspapers - Media/Newsprint
  8. Mental Health - Health
  9. Wikipedia:Userboxes/Other - Wikipedia:Userboxes
  10. Santa - Seasonal
  11. Timezones - TIme
  12. US Sports - US and Canadian Sports
  13. User Emotions - Emoticans
  14. WikiProjects/Geography - WikiProjects
  15. WikiProjects/Sports - WikiProjects
  16. WikiProjects/Wikipedia - WikiProjects
  17. computing - Computing
  18. location - Location

1a.) Each of the following are redirects to "Education", instead of "Schools".

  1. Userboxes/Schools
  2. Userboxes/Schools/Austria
  3. Userboxes/Schools/United Kingdom
  4. Userboxes/Schools/United States

2.) Each of the following should be sub-pages of sports (If I move them, then that's 6 more redirects to delete : )

  1. Wikipedia:Userboxes/US and Canadian Sports
  2. Wikipedia:Userboxes/Football
  3. Wikipedia:Userboxes/Rugby Union
  4. Wikipedia:Userboxes/Rugby League
  5. Wikipedia:Userboxes/Aussie Rules
  6. Wikipedia:Userboxes/National Basketball League

4.) Should be deleted:

  1. School types has 3 duplicated from Education page.
  2. Religion/Christian only has a GUS note inside a single UBX.
  3. Radio types duplicates 4 that are already on the Media/Radio page.
  4. Music/Styles duplicates 3 that are already on the Music page
  5. Wikipedia:Userboxes/Projects had a single wikiProject, which I put on the WikiProject page.

5.) Should be Merged:

  1. Media/Television/ITV Franchises merged to Media/Television page
  2. Sports Users Play merged to Sports

6.) Special:

  1. Userboxes/Alerts - deleted with a message left behind to not remake.

-Jc37 18:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice summary. Send out the WikiGnomes!

Rfrisbietalk 18:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

MBTI Userboxes?

I think it's a good idea. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator for each of the sixteen personality types. I'm going to make my type, and if other people want to make the rest then they should.

Sounds good. See User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Personality.

Rfrisbietalk 23:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Pets is up for deletion

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Pets is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Pets. Please weigh in. Rfrisbietalk 19:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Law & Order: New template, same name

If you are interested Law & Order userboxes, please comment here. - LA @ 03:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so let me turn it around on you. You don't like being accused of not helping to write the encyclopedia when you are helping to write it, so how do you think we admins feel when we constantly get accused of being bullies when we're not bullies? --Cyde Weys 23:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Categories

What's happened to getting listed in a category when you put a userbox on your userpage?Like, if I put the 'This user is gay.' userbox, I don't get listed in Category:gay Wikipedians.100110100 16:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Study the templates that do include categories, and if you wish, go ahead and modify the "gay" userbox appropriately.If folks aren't happy with that, you can add the category manually, or create your own userbox which includes categorization.--71.36.251.182 23:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Adelphia userbox no longer

Sometime in the near future, probably in the next month everyone with adelphia ISP userboxes will need to update their ISP to Time Warner or Comcast. Adelphia was dissolved the first of this month. Thanks! This includes me. Should be something to consider - many users probably don't know which they will be migrated to. As of now, still using adelphia's old servers for internet, and old call center. Not sure if bills will be changed just yet. --x1987x(talk) 02:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Pets

Lemme get this straight... if a userbox afd gets noconsensus- it can still be deleted and moved to userspace? This seems a little Fascist to me...How is it possible that a no concensus merits deletion!I haven't read anything about that in GUS.-Merlin Storm 02:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Methinks you know not the real horrors of fascism if you call deleting a userbox fascist.Go talk to victims of a pogrom, please.--Cyde Weys 02:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Methinks you're changing the subject.Not giving anyone the right to voice their opinion is despotic,and you know it!I'm not comparing Userboxes to lives lost, I'm comparing what's right and wrong, and what's just.As long as I'm around, justice will be to.An inmate can't be executed without trail So let's give it a fair trial.Wikipedia is not a democracy-but let's not make it a fascism either.Merlin Storm 00:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

And let's not misuse the term 'fascism', or 'despotism' either, for that matter. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 02:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Occam's Razor - the Simple Solution

It has been said that the best solution is often the most obvious.Here's my thoughts:This whole debate has been about not wanting to "police" items placed in Template:.The solution - police Template: and force everybody to the un-policed User: area!What are you guys thinking?!If you look at the userboxes, most of the interest areas are following the current naming guideline of Template:User yyy.So, the "wild animals" have already been herded into a neat little canyon where they can live happily ever after.Let's just all agree that userboxes named Template:User yyy have the same protections and rights as any userbox created in the User: space and call off the dogs.Can anyone explain why this won't get us to a better solution faster? --NThurston 15:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Because there's a religious view among some admins (led by Cyde and Tony Sidaway) that userboxes don't belong in Template: space. They can't explain exactly why that makes a difference, but it doesn't stop them from deleting any they find there. Moving them to User: space was a compromise designed from keeping them from being wiped out entirely on Wikipedia. Jay Maynard 16:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Just so everyone knows, Cyde put the rejected template on this already. And Occam's Razor only applies to science, you can't apply it to everything (religion, philosopy, medicine-there would be more dead people, psycology- he's just crazy, got no disease) -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 22:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • That's not fair to say that psychology isn't science.Occam's razor only works on rational alternatives.Just saying "he's crazy" isn't a rational alternative as it doesn't explain anything.You're right, Occam's razor is sort of "scientific", but simply "he's crazy" isn't.--Cyde Weys 02:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I would just like to point out that William of Occam was a philosopher and theologian, and William himself used his 'Razor' in discussing questions such as "Whether a Higher Angel Knows Through Fewer Species than a Lower."[1] -- Donald Albury 12:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It is the most obvious, but I think trying to implement it would result in many people violating WP:COOL. Hemhem20X6 06:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"New boxes" message

I moved the "new boxes" message to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Headers/NewBoxes so that it can be added to directory pages as well, e.g., Wikipedia:Userboxes/Humor. Since WP:GUS has a straw poll and migration status summary about which types of boxes should be where, it would be useful to coordinate this message with those activities. Rfrisbietalk 15:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a very good idea.I guess it'd make sense to put it at the top of every userbox subpage.--Cyde Weys 18:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, this warning is working excellently.I just went through the past 24 hours' worth of new templates and I only had to delete one userbox.Compare this to the days before this warning went up when I had to delete over a dozen new userbox templates a day.--Cyde Weys 18:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This question still goes begging, "Which boxes should stay in template space or Wikipedia space?" Of course, Babel boxes, project boxes and "encyclopedic expertise" boxes easily come to mind. If old boxes can stay, then it follows that boxes of the same type can be added.The first two types are easy enough to identify, but not necessarily the third. It seems some weasel words would be weally wonderful necessary if the "read my lips, no new boxes" message were placed on every UBX gallery subpage. Rfrisbietalk 19:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Cyde wrote: " before this warning went up when I had to delete over a dozen new userbox templates a day."
No such thing.Before then you chose to delete a dozen a day.I don't see where the "had to" comes from.Wikipedia would be a much more civil place if we all just left other people's userbox templates alone and got on with writing an encyclopedia.--SteveMcCluskey 02:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Not gonna happen. There is a small core group of anti-userbox admins who believe that the destruction of userboxes in Template: space is essential to Wikipedia's continued survival, or some such, even though they have never really managed to explain why. The GUS is the only solution so far, and it implies that userboxes in Template: space will go away. Jay Maynard 02:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
No explanation, you say. Let's start with Jimmy Wales' comment on userboxes here: Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian. Jimbo had hoped to persuade Wikipedians to voluntarily forego the use of such userboxes as a way to avoid a mass deletion of them, but there were no signs of that happening. The userboxes being targeted do not contribute to the goals of Wikipedia, but rather distract editors from those goals. The compromise is to allow non-polemical expression on user pages, but confine items that do not contribute to the growth and maintenance of Wikipedia as a freely editiable and available on-line encyclopedia to user space. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 10:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Nice theory. It falls down when you look at Jimbo's other comments about how people should not go on a mass userbox deletion spree, and how prohibiting them would make as little sense as allowing people to speak but not hand out pamphlets. Nobody has yet been able to come up with an explanation as to why allowing the same thing to be said on a user page but not in a userbox is perfectly fine. Further, nobody has yet come up wiht an explanation for why a userbox saying "This user is an organ donor." should be speedy deleted as "divisive and inflammatory". Further still, it's only the opinion of some folks that userboxes do not contribute to the goals of Wikipedia; in particular, there's a strong argument to be made that allowing someone to declare his biases improves the encyclopedia by allowing others to watch for those biases appearing in articles. The simple fact is that some admins want Wikipedians to check their identities, and what makes them unique and valuable, at the door and homogenize themselves. I predict a renewed attack on userboxes in userspace just as soon as they realize that their efforts have been unsuccessful. Jay Maynard 12:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "The simple fact is that some admins want Wikipedians to check their identities, and what makes them unique and valuable, at the door and homogenize themselves"This is of course, not a "simple fact", but your incorrect interpretation of others' motives.We've been over this before.You're wrong about the motives of userbox deletionists; please stop mischaracterizing my motives, because you're swinging that brush around, and tarring me with it.Your "homogenization" argument is a straw man you've been setting up for months, and it has never been anybody's argument for deletion.Do I have to debunk this in detail again?
  • "Nobody has yet been able to come up with an explanation as to why allowing the same thing to be said on a user page but not in a userbox is perfectly fine."False.I've answered that question more than once, on pages you were watching.Shall I provide diffs?
  • "Nobody has yet come up with an explanation for why a userbox saying "This user is an organ doneor" should be speedy deleted as divisive and inflammatory."False.You're presenting incomplete context.The short answer is that we were using a very narrow interpretation of "divisive and inflammatory" to include anything vaguely political.It needed to be removed from template space, and that was the catch-all justification we had to work with, so we worked with it.Sometimes you use a plastic bag with holes in it as a colander, because that's what's around.
  • "there's a strong argument to be made that allowing someone to declare his biases improves the encyclopedia by allowing others to watch for those biases appearing in articles"True, and the question is how this benefit balances against the disadvantage of reinforcing a culture of partisan advocacy.Please read the conversation on my talk page between myself and Enigmatical for a more detailed explanation of how we see userboxes as harmful.
A balanced presentation of the arguments would look like this: "There are some arguments for why ubxn are harmful, and some arguments for why they're beneficial.There's no general consensus on which is more correct, but there's a pretty strong consensus among experienced Wikipedians that moving them out of "official" namespaces will suffice to mitigate their harm. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Creation

It doesn't let me create a userbox where I want, viz., [[user:maclover/userboxes/stock]]. Help?--Mac Lover TalkC 22:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Try capitalizing User: Another option is to use User:Tl1/Mac Lover--NThurston
User categories can be used for vote-stacking purposes, and many of them are just pointless. Therefore, some people prefer that they stay out of userboxes. If you really want to add yourself to a category, it should be easy to add (using your example) [[Category:Gay Wikipedians|{{PAGENAME}}]] to your page. —Mira 01:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but some userboxes will list you automatically in the corresponding catagory page, where it would list User:100110100, for example.Before, the 'This user is gay.' userbox listed the users who had the 'this user is gay.' user box.What's happened?100110100 21:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The category was removed from the userbox. If you really really want to know who is using a box, use the "What links here" function on the userbox's page. —Mira 00:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you.Why has it been removed?100110100 04:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
As I said above, they can be used for vote-stacking purposes, they are unencyclopedic, and many are just pointless. —Mira 10:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Vote-stacking?What's vote-stacking?Thanks.100110100 00:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 01:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks.But I'm confused.What was that link supposed to be for?And what does that have to do with vote stacking?And if its related to categories & userboxes not referencing, how?100110100 03:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I answered this on my talk page, but I'll put my answer here, as well.
The discussion was on the proposed removal of a project which aimed to manipulate AfD and other deletion discussions by recruiting like-minded editors to 'vote' in such discussions (i.e., vote-stacking). The defenders of that project then tried to 'stack the vote' in the referenced discussion by leaving messages on the talk pages of editors who were listed in a particular category. The defenders hoped and assumed that the other members of that category would support their position. This was a very real and dangerous case of some editors trying to organize a block of editors so that they could overwhelm discussion and impose their POV on selected articles. They were using categories to identify editors that they assumed would support their agenda. We have enough problems with POV-pushing as it is. We don't need to be helping the POV-pushers organize their cliques by giving them an easy way to find new members. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 22:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
However, nobody has ever answered the objection to this view that, so long as Wikipedia is trivially searchable, there is no way to prevent solicitation of "votes" from like-minded people. Votestacking is a red herring. Jay Maynard 22:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
?????????100110100 04:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks.Now, that raises the question, why are there some categories, and not others?100110100 04:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
That's like asking the question of why some people unlace their shoes before taking them off and some don't.--Cyde Weys 04:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I do question the usefulness of these categories and would encourage people not to create them.If the category has a 1-to-1 correspondence with the userbox (as most of them do), don't create it; just use the What links here on the template.There's no reason to pollute additional encyclopedic namespaces with unencyclopedic content.--Cyde Weys 04:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Categories are not an encyclopedic namespace. They are used far to much for carious times of management for that to be the case.Category:Old_Ordnance_Survey_map_images for example.Geni 04:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
You're using a more strict definition of "encyclopedic" than I am.As far as I am concerned, arranging images used in the encyclopedia into a category by image source is encyclopedic.You're on an article that has one of those images, you click on it ... and boom, suddenly there's links to lots more images just like it!It's very convenient for the reader.And I'm also willing to concede a maintenance purpose of categories.But categorizing users by various random traits just goes beyond the pale.I can understand categorizing talk pages by which WikiProject they're in, but it makes no sense to me to categorize users by which ones eat pizza.--Cyde Weys 04:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but I think, for example, taking out the Wikipedia:gay Wikipedians category wasn't a very good idea.So maybe reform &,,, reinstate?Here's how I see it: a category for of who eats pizza is just arbitrary.You could also say that its culturally arbitrary, & culturally imperialistic.100110100 00:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Doom 3 World

Here's one I just made:

D3W This user is a member of Doom 3 World as username goes here.



FLaRN (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)