Template talk:User WikiProject United States presidential elections

Image size

The new vertically oriented image makes the userbox taller than the "standard" userbox and kinda messes with the formatting of my userbox grouping layout on my userpage as a result. For now, I'm going to revert to the earlier version, not as commentary on the image but, rather, to bring the size back in line. I hope this will be ok until we can figure something else out. Thanks. Qqqqqq (talk) 06:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a senseless reason to revert. This is the original and was only changed because the image was deleted and renamed while I was inactive. Userpages are useless, so I really don't care what it does to your userpage. This is the logo. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, ok. No need to be a jerk about it. Not sure when that became the logo of the wikiproject, either. There are more to Presidents than TR. Qqqqqq (talk) 06:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being a jerk. You need to understand that this has been discussed already, and you're not going to revert because of the inconvenience it causes to your userpage. That is disrespectful to all other users with the userbox. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You absolutely were. Your attitude is one of condescension and superiority. I didn't see the discussion, as this discussion page did not previously exist. No need to bite me; I thought I was doing something helpful. Qqqqqq (talk) 06:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've been editing since 2005, you should understand. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do indeed. The userbox has been the same size for about 11 months, until last week or so, and then it suddenly became bigger. Didn't see the discussion wherein consensus for that change was developed. Silly me for thinking the earlier version was the product of consensus, going unchanged from July 2008 until June 2009. Qqqqqq (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The project was mostly inactive during that time. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I should have phrased better. I didn't mean that I wanted to change the userbox to conform to the standards of my own userpage, but to the "standard" userbox size that the vast majority of userboxes seem to use. Seemed like a reasonable thing to do at the time. Qqqqqq (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, you should've waited for a response rather than unilaterally changing it, especially given that it was recently changed. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it's such a big deal. Maybe you could have done the same when changing it previously without providing any rationale, for that matter. Qqqqqq (talk) 07:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I placed the correct logo on the page that was deleted but existed under a different name. My changes were already discussed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modernization

@William S. Saturn: Give me a good reason for not changing this userbox. The new style I created is of standard size, and has elements truly representative of presidential elections, an electoral map and a POTUS seal. The old one has a bad photo, is outsized, and isn't very artistic. Spartan7W § 16:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because you can create another without changing the original.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an answer. Why can't I change the original? Spartan7W § 16:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because you can easily create another.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't an answer of principle or basis. Bold changes can be made, I made one. You did not give a substantive reason to oppose my changes. Spartan7W § 16:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to. This is not in the mainspace. There is no reason you cannot just create another template.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have real rationale to update this userbox: style, symbols, size. You have no reason to support its present form. Yes, I could create a new one. But my version is a cleaner, more representative userbox, in line with those used by other United States WikiProjects. Give me a substantive reason why not to update, not just a 'no'. Spartan7W § 16:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not mainspace. No stylistic reason is good reason to change a template that has been in use for eight years and which others have added to their userpages.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because it has been around doesn't mean it hasn't been outdated. This is outdated. Poor photo, poor caption, oversized for a WikiProject userbox used by many. Your opposition to change isn't a substantive reason to oppose. Spartan7W § 01:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment Remodeling of userbox style

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus for A. AlbinoFerret 16:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An updated design has been proposed for this userbox. Which do you prefer?17:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

A - Proposed	B - Original

RfC Survey

V: Option A - The new style provides two key elements: 1) For a userbox used by many members, the proposed is of standard userbox size. 2) It features elements wholly representative of the subject and Wikiproject, namely the seal of the president, and an electoral map (which features a 90-year old election, split between two parties + 1 third party). Furthermore, its gold border style matches, though subtly, with presidential series boxes used for importrant presidents. The old box is outsized, and it has a poor-quality picture which cannot be easily distinguished at the small size, and text isn't well placed. Spartan7W § 17:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can easily create another userbox template. This template here is the original userbox template and should not be changed merely for stylistic reasons. Other users have already placed that userbox template on their user pages.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but as you see above, you single-handedly changed this template long ago, giving no consideration to another editor. No consensus was reached to make the present state. The RfC is here for that Spartan7W § 18:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No I changed it back to the original. She tried to unilaterally change it just like you are doing now. The original template should remain the original template. You can easily create another userbox template but you would rather change this one for bad faith reasons.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith? You are accusing me of vandalism. I am proposing improvement. Spartan7W § 18:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is in bad faith because you can easily create another template and leave the original intact. I never accused you of vandalism. You are now lying which is further evidence of your bad faith.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have a personal issue with me, I don't know why. People can edit things on wikipedia. This isn't your userbox. Making it better, more representative of its purpose isn't bad faith. It isn't bad faith to change things, but for you, everything I do it bad faith. I would say your nominating every logo for deletion, when only 1 was clearly below TOO is bad faith. Spartan7W § 18:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above accusation forms the basis of your bad faith. This is not the place to discuss these extraneous issues.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a token of good will, I have created Template:User WikiProject United States presidential elections 2. --William S. Saturn (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I used to care about userboxes for about a hot minute when I started on Wikipedia. Not any more. This just distracts from improving content. I say we wrap this up and get back to the articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2015
A Mhoppmann (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

I prefer B, the original, because the photograph is more interesting than the 1924 map or the presidential seal. One option might be to make the seal smaller and move it to the right side of the original info box. -Darouet (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A, given it is much more informative, silly RfC notwithstanding. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.