Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes/Archive 2006

Archive 2000

←

Archive 2004

Archive 2005

Archive 2006

Archive 2007

Archive 2008

→

Archive 2010

Wording of notice

I have a severe problem with the current wording of the notice slapped at the top of this user-project. While I don't necessarily disagree that some form of notice should be there, the current version "An RfC has been filed against Kelly Martin for unilaterally deleting a sizable portion of userboxes created by the Project." is not only worded in an extremely biased manner but could also constitute a personal attack. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? The notice, as it is currently worded, is blatantly implying that the accused is guilty. While this may or may not be true, the current wording is unacceptable. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, at this point I don't think anyone, let alone Ms. Martin, is arguing that she did, in fact, delete the templates, or even that she did so without going through Wikipedia:Templates for deletion (thus, unilaterally). What, specifically, do you feel is biased about the current phrasing? – Seancdaug 04:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello there. I understand your concerns, this being a sensitive issue. It's pretty darn obvious from the deletion log that Ms Martin did indeed delete the said userboxes. There is nothing solid to suggest she either had the blessing of Jimbo or anyone else for that matter, before undertaking to delete the userboxes. The only poing of possible contention is the "unilateral" part, since some may consider Jimbo's message enough to constitute as a go-ahead. I disagree with your analysis of what the current message is trying to imply. When I wrote it I spent a good 2 minutes trying to think of something that a) would not be biased b) would summarise the dispute in a concise manner. I think I've done my best, and I don't think what I wrote is implying that anyone is guilty, since what I wrote was really just what happened. Oh and, the RfC is concerning Ms Martin's behaviour in deleting these userboxes, not whether her actions were justifiable, even though the RfC itself is going way off-topic with the latter. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 04:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the reason I'm concerned is that the wording, I believe, is extremely biased - "unilaterally" and "sizeable" already carry strong negative connotations; this, combined with "against Kelly Martin" - more negative connotation - and "created by the Project.", which appeals to the project member's pathos (or is it ethos? I could never remember...) create a highly POV notice. I don't care if it is true or not - the wording already gives bias to the reader. Please reconsider the version I edited: "An RfC has been filed concerning the use of userboxes. Your input on the matter is appreciated." Nice, short, sweet, to the point and accurate. Anyways, I'm going to bed now, so won't be arguing this, but please reconsider. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thing is it's not accurate! The RfC was filed against her behaviour, not whether userboxes suck and should be banned from Wikipedia! It's not about "the use of userboxes". I agree on unilateral, even though that is the case and even she has not refuted that it was unilateral. Sizeable - I don't see how this can be intepreted as POV unless one has a preconceived notion that deleting userboxes is wrong (otherwise the reader would be thinking, "Good job! You got rid of these trash!") People have formed their opinions about this already I bet. I'll see what I can do about it. Probably remove unilateral. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 04:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You have a point, but as Miborovsky has said, the RfC does not "concern the use of userboxes." It is a user-conduct RfC specifically concerning the actions of Ms. Martin. It was not established to entertain the (much broader) question of userbox protocol, and to lead people into the discussion with that impression is misleading and dilutes the usefulness of the whole procedure. It's not about the "use of infoboxes," and it is about the unilateral deletion of infoboxes. How about this:

An RfC has been filed regarding User:Kelly Martin's deletion of a number of userbox templates. Your input on the matter is appreciated.

That cuts out most of the emotive language, I think. – Seancdaug 04:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. And since both parties should be agreeable to this (hopefully!) I've removed protection. Not that I believe it should have been protected in the first place. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 05:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Please be sure to watch it for a while to see if the anons and socks return; I've got to go to bed. (I'd planned on unprotecting both this and Wikipedia:Userboxes in the morning.) —Cryptic (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Er, thanks for reminding me. I'll add the notice on that page too, but I'll not unprotect that for now. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 05:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of userboxes

In my opinion, all of the following should be deleted, or at least adjusted so as to remedy the relevant defects:

1. Any userbox which uses any nonfree image.
2. Any userbox which includes content not appropriate for placement on a user page, per Wikipedia's user page policy, is offensive, or is incivil.
3. Any userbox which tends to serve the purpose of organizing Wikipedians along political, ideological (other than Wikipedia-specific ideologies such as "inclusionist"), or religious lines, especially for the purpose of bloc voting or mobilizing in mass for or against any particular point of view.
4. Any userbox which includes categorization code which puts the user who places it on his or her page into a category inappropriate for a user to be in.

I'll be generating a master list of unacceptable userboxes in the next few days. Based on what I found today, there are hundreds of unacceptable boxes, most of which need to go. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

2 seems fine; 1, 3 and 4 are more problematic (1, since the issue is the image, removing the image makes more sense; 3, because only people utilizing them as a voting bloc should be penalized; and 4, without clarification of what is deemed "inappropriate" this seems open ended). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The user page policy specifically states in what categories a user should be put in and not be put in, so there's nothing unclear about (4) above. (4) is actually a subcase of (2), but I felt like addressing it separately. I would prefer deletion, but I'm willing to tolerate merely amending defective userboxes. Frankly, I think you people need to lose this silly little fetish and actually get on to editing the encyclopedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This "silly little fetish" is something that does not touch the article namespace, and can be safely ignored by anyone who doesn't see it's point. What possible reason could you have for being so confrontational (not to mention rudely uncivil) on this topic? – Seancdaug 06:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, how is this at all different from the large number of barnstars out there? Is that also a "silly little fetish"? —Locke Cole • t • c 06:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope you realize that number three is going to be near impossible to enforce. Pretty much every userbox could be classified as "organizing Wikipedians along a point of view". Morgan695 19:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

And what about this section of text on Wikipedia:User page?

A good start is to add a little information about yourself, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, your real name, your location, information about your areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, other homepages, and so forth. Obviously, this will depend on how comfortable you are with respect to privacy.

If we're going to start deleting userboxes involving people's opinions and views, then why don't we go through people's userpages and start deleting any text in which they talk about their own personal opinions? It's essentially the same thing. Morgan695 19:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not adverse to deleting 90% or more of user boxes. Most of them serve no useful purpose anyway. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

But if you're so adamant about deleting any personal opinion on Wiki, then your next project should be editing individual userpages to rid them of any personal opinion or thought. Like I said, it would essentially be the same thing as deleting userboxes. Morgan695 19:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Ms. Martin, if you don't realize at this stage that there are an overwhelming number of editors who disagree with this statement, then I am concerned for you. This is a startlingly weak argument that smacks of petty incivility. Arguing that the presence of infoboxes is detrimental to the ideals of the project is one thing, arguing that they're not utilitarian enough is quite another. – Seancdaug 19:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Overwhelming number? What, 70 out of about 11,000 active editors? That's not overwhelming. It's barely noticeable, in fact. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the silent majority, as it were, is, by definition, silent. I would hope that this recent maelstrom would, if nothing else, indicate that there are a significant (if numerically small when placed against the backdrop of 11,000 active editors) number of editors who object to this unilateralist approach. The disapproval of 70+ editors should at least suggest that your statement is far from universally shared. – Seancdaug 05:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

And there are maybe 20 who signed their names after your response. Should they be ignored completely? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 05:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The question asked was: "If we're going to start deleting userboxes involving people's opinions and views, then why don't we go through people's userpages and start deleting any text in which they talk about their own personal opinions?". User pages contain divisive/libellous/hateful material above and beyond any of the userboxes. -- Synapse 21:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If userpages are so "divisive, libellous, and hateful" then why do userboxes seem to be Mrs. Martin's top priority? It seems userboxes are being used as a scapegoat for greater problems on Wikipedia. Morgan695 22:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I would add a fifth category: user boxes which amount to an endorsement of a commercial product or service (including, without limitation, sports teams). Kelly Martin (talk) 05:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

And your support for this statement is? Other than the fact that it's potentially distasteful, it's not violating any policy or guidelines that I'm aware of, and it does not seem to fall into any of the two recognized categories of wikispam. – Seancdaug 06:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it up to any one person to deem 'inappropriate' in their/his/her/it 's powers of perception? Surely there needs to be some further clarification of the point made before being allowed? Not another Rfc? SatuSuro 05:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's very likely that there are a number of userboxes which most, if not all, of us would agree are in violation of Wikipedia guidelines on user page content. However, the pertinent section is a bit vague, and I am not sure that it's a good idea to make any unilateral declarations of appropriateness outside of the normal TfD process. What may seem like an irrelevant opinion piece to one user may actually serve as a statement of principles and perspective with direct relevance to how one goes about editing Wikipedia to another. – Seancdaug 06:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

All else aside, I would like to heartily and sincerely thank Ms. Martin for posting this. Though I clearly do not agree with all of her positions, I think this is a discussion worth having, and I thank her for sharing her motivations and giving members of this project advance notice of her intended future activities. – Seancdaug 06:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

We should have had this discussion before the mass deletions. And it needs to take place in a manner that permits for community consensus. This kind of top-down dictate is simply unacceptable. Firebug 15:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

About #3 - The problem is, some userboxes which you might deem "unacceptable" according to this criterion are serving a helpful, encyclopedia-related function in making it easier to find editors who are knowledgeable on a particular topic. For example, one of the main objectives behind the creation of a pagan case for Template:User religion was to make it easier to locate people who might have interest in/expertise on topics related to Neopaganism. (There are currently some pretty big gaps in Wikipedia's coverage of these topics.) Should userboxes like this be eliminated because they might be used to form voting blocs? And also, how can we be justified in keeping userboxes related to such topics as inclusionism/deletionism, which are used to form voting blocs? As I see it, a userbox that says "This user is an inclusionist/This user is a deletionist" with a link to the relevant organization is much more dangerous to Wikipedia than one that says "This user is a Unitarian Universalist" or "This user doesn't believe in Santa." - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 09:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have Wiki-bloc userboxes on my page (along with other potentially divisive 'group' identifiers) for precisely that reason. However, your point about Neopagans and other small blocs is a good one. I remember finding the Easter article stating definitively that 'Eostre' was a made up goddess that was never really worshipped... when the reality is that the limited evidence available all suggests that there was such a goddess, but there is no absolutely conclusive proof. A better organized pagan bloc might be able to more effectively respond to things like that. Unfortunately, the same mechanism (actually user categories - the boxes really just being an effective advertising method for those categories) which would allow a pagan group to organize would also allow an 'anti-pagan' group to do so and coordinate activities in removing/biasing pagan content. It leads to a 'warring camps' situation. I can't think of an easy way to balance the benefits of group organization against the drawbacks of group factionalism. That said, large groups don't need that kind of organization to drive article content... there are enough of them that it happens automatically. For smaller groups I might suggest a wikiproject. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 13:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to Wikipedia:WikiProject, "Generally you should have at least 5–10 people involved before a Wikiproject structure makes any sense and adds any value. If you don't think you'll get at least 5–10 people on board, then don't waste your effort—you'll be better off just writing your articles." To the best of my knowledge, Neopaganism doesn't yet meet that threshhold. Part of the idea behind the userbox was that people would see it, and think, "Hey, cool userbox!" and put it on their userpage, and eventually we'd have gotten enough people together for a WikiProject to be viable. I suppose I could list it on Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List_of_proposed_projects, but that page seems to get very little traffic. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 00:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

A possible solution is to change all the "is-a X/isn't-a X" or "for X/against X" userbox sets with a "interested in X" userbox. For example, "This user is interested in Environmentalism", "This user is interested in Unitarianism". This way it could avoid political overtones while still being used to link people who contribute to articles on the same topics -- Synapse 17:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking along the same lines. I've recently blanked most of my userboxes in light of the bit of thought-provoking discussion sparked by the RfC, and I was thinking that such a rephrasing might be in order. Other editors probably don't care what religion or political party I'm involved with, or what TV shows I'm a fan of, per se, but it is useful to present information regarding what topics I'm interested in contributing to. – Seancdaug 18:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I would support this... I'm personally a big fan of the Template:User religion interest that showed up recently. I think "Could this userbox be converted to express an interest rather than an affiliation/opinion?" is probably a pretty good rule of thumb for differentiating the good userboxes from the bad. Converting the userboxes in this way would also pull the rug out from under most attempts to organize bloc voting based on userboxes, since it would combine people both "for" and "against" a position into one userbox. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 00:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"Any userbox which is offensive" — omg. Just about ANYTHING "offends" someone... That's ridiculous.

Userboxes for political and such AREN'T ever used for "bloc voting" that I've seen: the fact is they serve to help Wikipedians find other people knowledgeable about the same subjects. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 15:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel much of this is highly unfounded upon. Any any deletions you wish to make I request are made through the approiate channels, i.e. TfD. In my view no mass deletions should be made, it is a matter for the community to decide, not one individual. I ask every individual template on the master list has a full explanation on which rules it breaks, and I will try to list how it could be fixed or undertake the work myself. And I also request you are CIVIL about this, and do not treat us like we are in the wrong. Ian¹³_ID:540053 19:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

-0 userboxes

On the topic of userboxes that serve no purpose except to be divisive, what do people think about the "lang-0" templates, such as {{User eo-0}}?

When {{User en-0}} was first proposed, people seemed to agree that it was a useful template for the English Wikipedia, to convey the important information that a certain contributor does not understand English, but it wouldn't make any sense to do with other languages. But now -0 templates exist for various languages, dialects, and non-ISO "languages", and it seems their sole purpose is to express disdain about the target language. That strikes me as a pretty awful use of templates.

Any thoughts? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of the non-ISO language -0 templates are primarily intended to be humorous. I don't really see a problem with them, but I wouldn't really fight their removal either. For "real" languages, I think they do serve a purpose. Take me, for example: I edit a fair number of articles relating to societies and cultures (particularly Japan and Wales). The -0 templates allow me to clarify that my interest in these subjects does not extend to a working knowledge of the language, which is potentially useful to know in a variety of situations (such as when dealing with foreign language sources). – Seancdaug 07:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Good news, "Userbox" prefix eliminated

As indicated here, usage of the "Userbox" prefix has been fixed (=eliminated). Those that remain with the "Userbox" prefix are creation templates that will remain with that prefix, as per this discussion. I guess the Current tasks section on the project page can be adjusted now...--Commander Keane 14:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Updating! Providing all those evil page protects are gone. Ian¹³_ID:540053 17:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion to note userboxes out of the usual prefixes

Whilst working through the adjustment of prefixes from Userbox to User, I noticed some userboxes that have no prefix at all I will just list them here for future reference as they are hard to find. --Grand Edgemaster _Talk 23:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• {{Vegetarian}}
• {{tonofedits}}
• {{Proud Americans}}
• {{User Noads}}
• {{Userbox Night}}
• {{Userbox preference}}
• {{Userbox Love}}

As of this moment, I've got these from the list done - AbsoluteFlatness 22:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC) :

• {{Proud Australians}}
• {{adminnobox}}
• {{WelCom}}
• {{Windows XP}}
• {{Social Democrat}}
• {{Vegan}}
• {{noads-alt}}
• {{WPBuffy}}
• {{WPStarTrek}}
• {{WPDoctorWho}}
• {{WPStargate}}
• {{metric}} -Xol 00:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you like me to move these userboxes to the {{User_????}} prefix? --Richard0612 08:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Please would everyone tuck into the above list, and move and get ready to delete origional per guide on main page Ian¹³_ID:540053 15:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems that it's all done, some already had USER prefix copies, so I set up temporary redirects. Any that didn't, I created copies of them with the USER prefix and set up a redirect from the original. Eventually the non-USER templates can be deleted [I'm not an admin, so I can't delete them] --Richard0612 09:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, {{User Noads}} belongs above, down here for the sake of noticability - AbsoluteFlatness 21:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the best way to handle these (the lists are huge) would be to add a small notice to the top of the userbox - asking for the user to update his/her page. I will do it on the metric box. -Xol 04:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• It seems that User:Cryptic reverted that message, now it's in noincludes. People tend not to like things changing on their userpages, I guess. - AbsoluteFlatness 22:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I apologized on his talk page, but one has to realize that he was only one out of about 200 users. He didn't even change his to the new template, when I provided an easy link to fix it. I tried to cause everyone the least hassle: if each user fixed their page, then we would have 200 people each making one change, rather than one overworked user making 200 changes. -Xol 23:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

tl vs. nowiki

Hi, I've been maintaining the Userboxes pages for a while now but just joined the project. I couldn't find this anywhere, so forgive me if it's already written somewhere: on the Userboxes pages, is there a standard for using {{tl}} instead of <nowiki> on the Code side of the table? Obviously nowiki is requred for userboxes that aren't a template, but I see the standard has been set to avoid this. Should we set a standard? I personally prefer {{tl}} as it makes it easier to view the template page (especially useful to see who else is using a particular userbox). Cheers! -- Tetraminoe 22:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Two similar templates

How do we deal with Template:User browser:Mozilla Firefox and Template:User fox. Both have the same text but a different image. Should the latter be moved to Template:User browser:Mozilla Firefox2?--Commander Keane 12:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

standardisation

On Wikipedia:Userboxes we see that there are two ways of creating a userbox :

{{Userbox
  |border-c = border color
  |id-c     = side-box colour
  |id-s     = font size
  |id-fc    = font color
  |info-c   = main box colour
  |info-s   = font size
  |info-fc  = font color
  |id       = side-box content
  |info     = main box content
}}

or

 {{Userbox|side-box colour|main box colour|side-box content|main box content}}

the second has been standardised , so only the prefix user is required, are there any simalar plans for the first method?

--DTR 13:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

There was a dicussion somewhere over the renaming of the Userbox template to User, a discussion was/is being held at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Userboxes/Creation_templates --Grand Edgemaster _Talk 13:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Created template

I created Template:User folkdancer, but it looks rather awkward because, 1)I couldn't figure out how to abbreviate "International folk dancer", and 2)I couldn't find an appropratiate mini-photo. Any comments or help would be appreciated. I'm pretty sure there aren't many wikipedian folk dancers, but I can hope. --Fang Aili 01:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC on User:Cryptic

I opened a RFC on User:Cryptic due to his blocks against people protesting the mass deletions. Firebug 01:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

My lord, this whole thing is becoming a circus. —BorgHunter (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Userbox display suppression

I've been bold and modified a number of templates that group userboxes together (such as {{Boxboxtop}}) with a name/ID that can be used to suppress display of userboxes on userpages (for those who absolutely hate userboxes (not me)). If you know of any templates used to group together userboxes (or, if you don't use a template but instead use HTML directly on your page), please use the ID "userboxes". You can add it <div> tags by simply inserting id="userboxes" name="userboxes" (so you end up with <div id="userboxes" name="userboxes">). Then, if you don't want userboxes to be displayed, simply modify your monobook.css (or whichever skin you use) by adding this line–

userboxes { display:none; }

I strongly suggest standardizing on this, and leaving a section on the WikiProject Userboxes page indicating how users may "disable" userboxes while browsing. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

---

page Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes has been created

based on a suggestion at WP:VP. ++Lar: t/c 05:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

need propose policy on improving conflict resolution

I posted on Jimbo's Talk page a suggestion that if his time permits, he read The Mythical Man-Month because I believe there are project management insights there that apply to the inter-communication challenges of Wiki dispute resolution. The size of his admin staff seems to me to be larger than the IBM staff described in the book, and even more in need of scientifically designed inter-personal infrastructures. I also suggest that the book The Mythical Man-Month is worth reading by anyone who wants to help WP resolve the internal conflicts between volunteers who have quite different WP:POV on policy issues. The book is a classic on how to do things, and how not to do things, that should be required reading pre-requisite for a lot of people around here that some day I would hope I could call my peers. User:AlMac|^(talk) 10:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to create Userboxes for Deletion (UfD)

I know it seems initially trivial, but, considering the recent influx of Userbox deletion submissions of WP:TFD, plus the recent request for comment against Kelly Martin, a Wikipedia:Userboxes for Deletion page must be created, especially since all userboxes come with their own Wikipedian category as well (which would also need to be removed). Any comments? (Please feel free to move this to a Proposal page if you see fit.) --JB Adder | Talk 11:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes don't always come with a category do they? Many do but a few don't, I thought. Why would this be better than using TfD and CfD? ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Great idea! UfD would ensure that templates and categories are deleted (or kept) together. Also, it would reinforce the fact that userboxes are not limited by most Wikipedia policies because they are intended for use in the user namespace. Should UfD include only userboxes or should it expand to include other userspace templates such as those at Wikipedia:Template messages/User namespace? --TantalumTelluride 16:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I would support this, but since the "screw process" comment... I've been wondering about the effectiveness of group work -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 19:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Good answer. Let's give up / out / in. 69.49.99.19 21:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• This is a great Idea - It would give us a chance to spell out official policy on the top of the UFD page so people would know when deletion is acceptable and when it is not.--God of War 09:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

As per the discussion at Proposed policy on userboxes (see How do we define userbox?), I think this a good idea but needs a slight tweak: Call it Wikipedia:Userspace Content for Deletion or something like that, so it encompasses not just userboxes (a contentious issue now, but maybe not in 3 months) but other templates, categories, or images designed solely for use in the User: namespace. --Tetraminoe 14:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

subst'ing piped links

I've recently gone through and subst'ed a number of userboxes that were against WP:AMT. I had some problems, though, with subst'ing the userboxes that still used piped links (e.g., {{User religion|atheist}}, {{User degree|BS}}, etc.) Placing 'subst:' before 'Userbox' in those templates didn't provide satisfactory results. If someone who has a better understanding of the 'switch' system could subst those, that would be appreciated. The userboxes I came across (and skipped) that still use piped links are:

• {{user religion}}
• {{user Chinese zodiac}} split by User:Commander Keane
• {{user wikipedia}}
• {{user poker}} Pipe Removed, I was creator and no one was using the pipe anyway 1001001 04:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• User zodiac (although the User zodiac:Capricorn, etc. were easily subst'ed)
• {{User:Scepia/Dune}}
• {{user degree}}
• {{user split infinitive}}
• {{user past sneak}}
• {{user singular they}}
• {{user serial comma}}

In case anyone's interested, I've subst'ed most (if not all) of the userboxes breaking WP:AMT that were linked from the categories in {{WP:UBS}}. The exceptions were the aforementioned piped-link userboxes, and some of the userboxes in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Programming (which I don't have time to check right now). — Jeff | (talk) | 12:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Great! Consider yourself Tireless-Contributor-barnstarred. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 13:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

(Just saw this). Wow, thanks! And thanks to everyone on the project that's been going through removing the fair use images and subst'ing the meta-templates (I think there was maybe one userbox that hadn't been subst'ed in the entire Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location hierarchy by the time I'd gotten to it, so we definitely have some very thorough contributors.) I think it's really beneficial that this WikiProject has been so quickly bringing the userboxes (or userboxen, if you prefer) into compliance with policy—especially now, when userboxes need to have their best foot forward. — Jeff | (talk) | 11:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I took care of almost all of the subst: and WP:FU issues at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Userboxes/List_of_meta_templates All that is left is some especially twitchy ones regarding the switch template. 1001001 06:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like {{switch}} is having trouble with the WikiTable syntax that's used after Userbox has been subst'ed. These can be re-done using HTML table syntax, which switch doesn't seem to mind, though that's a rather inelegant solution. (e.g., see my sandbox for the HTML-table version of {{user past sneak}}.) Anyone have any other ideas, or should we just HTML-ify the tables in those userboxes that use switch? — Jeff | (talk) | 10:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought that since {{switch}} is a template, any use of it in a userbox is a violation of WP:AMT. So, you can wait until after the useage of switch is removed (=lots of individual userboxen), then subst.--Commander Keane 16:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

A plea for the Germanic plural

Will members of the Userbox project please agree that the plural of "userbox" should be "userboxen"? This is a wonderful application of the Germanic plural, and makes for great mirth. And it just fits. So userboxen, please. Even changing the name of the project to reflect this would be a good idea. Thank you. Babajobu 09:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the german wikipeida, although i'm agreeing with you. Userboxen kicks ass, as we argued about for two hours in IRC. - iGod 11:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Babajobu, it has a nice ring to it. If I start using "userboxen", can I direct any queries about it to you?--Commander Keane 16:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, CommanderKeane, I will happily receive all queries on the use of "userboxen". Babajobu 03:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I realise no one is asking me, mut I'll give my two pennies anyway. It doesn't sound that great, and would look pretty silly... so I'd personally say not in a million years. And I got an A* at German GCSE! Deano (Talk) 21:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think switching to a kewl 1337 suffix is just the wrong thing to do if one wants this topic taken seriously, so I think going with regular English usage is the way to go. IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 05:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Although since first reading this I have found myself using Userboxen a number of times, I don't think the name of the project should be changed. Keith Greer 14:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Smart Babel

I created {{Babel-N}} to replace the profusion of existing Babel-1, Babel-2, Babel-3, et cetera templates. This Babel-N template can be used with any number of userboxes up to 100. Any unused boxes will be hidden. If you currently have a Babel template call like this;

{{Babel|en-N|de-1|ru-1|la-1|ot-2}}

You can convert it to the smart babel template by replacing '5' with 'N' and adding '|if=' as below;

{{Babel-N |if=|en-N|de-1|ru-1|la-1|ot-2}}

Then you can just add or remove new userboxes without having to update the template you are calling... or continually creating new templates as the number of userboxes increases. The extra |if= parameter is what allows this template to hide unused babel-boxes. Enjoy. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 21:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this a violation of WP:AUM?--Commander Keane 22:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No. It's a single template. No meta-templating involved. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 22:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought it used {{if}}. Infact it uses {{{if}}}. What do you call {{{if}}}? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commander Keane (talk • contribs)

I call it a parameter. :]

In the construction, '{{Babel-N |if=', 'Babel-N' is a template and '|if=' is a parameter passed to that template. Data. Text. Not a template. Very different from {{if}}, which has in fact been deleted. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 23:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The above method relies on a quirk of MediaWiki's current code, and no guaranteed to work long-term. Rather than be clever and rely on a "|if=" requirement, I've fixed up the template to just use one parameter. A user can then create a list of userboxes as that parameter. See the Template talk:Babel-N for an example. -- Netoholic @ 00:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, the way Netoholic has changed Babel-N the same example given above would now need to be called like so;

{{Babel-N |{{{User en-N}}}{{{User de-1}}}{{{User ru-1}}}{{{User la-1}}}{{{User ot-2}}}}}

I won't revert (since he has already changed this on the one page where it was being called), but I'm curious to hear opinions on the two formats. Netoholic's allows potentially infinite userboxes without needing to increase the size of the template. Also, now that I think of it my original format technically is a meta-template, but only in the same sense as all of the other 'Babel-#' templates... they are all templates which call various user templates. Netoholic's version has the individual call all of the user templates first and then pass those as a parameter to the Babel template (which then basically just provides some formatting and header/footer). The question is, would everyone use Netoholic's version instead of the Babel-10 sort? If so I think we can leave it. If not then maybe we should have both my version and Netoholic's and phase out the others. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 00:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Leaving this project

I have taken my name off of the members list. I currently, and never want to be, active on a WikiProject with so much controversy involved. I don't think I'll ever rejoin this project after these past few days.

All I have seen are 2 RFAr's surrounded by the topic of user boxes/templates from here:

• WP:RFAR#Kelly_Martin.2C_Snowspinner_and_Tony_Sidaway
• WP:RFAR#Wheel_warring

And 2 RFC's filed surrounding the user boxes.

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 3
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin

I don't see how filing RFC's and RFAr's are supposed to settle problems around here. All this could potentially do is drive away these users. Snowspinner already went on wikibreak. I think everyone involved, voting and otherwised involved should grow up, none of this taken personally though. All I'm saying is instead of pointing fingers, we should have tried to work things out amongst the wikipedians instead of blaming one another for actions that could drive them away and make them pursue further action. I don't see how removing someone's admin powers is going to resolve the conflict at hand. Everyone make mistakes once in a while and I don't think we should remove admin powers every time someone makes a mistake. What should have been done was to conduct a meeting somewhere, preferably here, about the matter and come up with a solution like the suggestion above (Userboxes for Deletion or UfD's). If this could have been talked out, maybe we could have avoided this little incident here and maybe no one would have been called up for RFC/RFAr. I not saying what they did wasn't wrong but I don't think we should try and burn people at the stake for every little conflict. — Moe ε 04:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Another new toy

I created {{User Infobox}} for people who want to present information about themselves in a standardized way, but don't want a ton of userboxes. Basically it's one big configurable userbox which can be used to present the same info as 30 (or whatever) individual boxes. An example can be viewed on the template page itself and a slightly less whimsical usage can be seen at User:CBDunkerson. The template is very much in a 'draft' format at this point, so feel free to add/change sections. Since it hides any information not set there is no reason this couldn't include 'contact information' for every conceivable means of contacting a person (main email, secondary email, google email, IRC, ICQ, live journal, telephone, postal address, et cetera), every conceivable religion and sub-group (|religion=invisible pink unicorn, |christian=1|catholic=1|lapsed=1, et cetera), every wikiproject, et cetera. I set this up to default to the same width as a standard 'babelbox', so it can be used in conjunction with babel and other userboxes. Also, before anyone asks... no this is not a meta-template. It is a single call to 'User Infobox' which doesn't call any other templates. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 14:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Chinese zodiac userboxen ready to be subst'ed

The Chinese zodiac userboxen (found here) have been split and are ready for subst'ing. I would do it myself, but cleaning up the mess after substitution boggles me (wasn't there a subpage for this, I couldn't seem to find it).--Commander Keane 20:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. — Jeff | (talk) | 11:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

UfD

The proposal for 'Userboxes for Deletion' has been put forth; I would like to conduct a discussion to discover whether it would be supported. Please also consder making it 'Userpage templates for deletion' (can still be UfD), to cover a more broader base but still be able to consider specific userpage policy. All comments are welcomed. Ian¹³_ID:540053 22:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the proposal pages? Thanks! (yes it's searchable but the poor server doesn't need the extra load, it seems) ++Lar: t/c 00:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd support this proposal, if i had a link to it... - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{T | C} 19:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

IRC Channel

There is now a Wikiproject Userboxes IRC channel where real-time discussions can be held. Need advice or just a chat, just drop in. #wikipedia-en-userboxes. --Grand Edgemaster and Ian13 22:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Technically unauthorised at the moment, awaiting authorisation from User:Fennec. --Grand Edgemaster _Talk 22:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This was denied, so it is at ##wikipedia-en-userboxes, where permission is not required (freenode call it an about channel). Ian¹³_ID:540053 17:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this still in use? I couldn't find anyone there. Or is there a mailing list for this project? --Epeius Hippos 21:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use policy change

How can we change the Wikipedia policy to allow logos onto userboxes? A lot of userboxes are having to be modified to comply with the existing policy at the moment, and with such a strong support for userboxes, wouldn't it be sensible for a policy change? I've looked around and can't find any extensive discussions on this matter. mdmanser 00:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Because that would make policy violate the law. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

CAVEAT EMPTOR: That's only her opinion, and it's a minority one. Image use in user boxes, technically, would fit fair use guidelines. There are indeed discussions going on, you just have to find them. --CJ Marsicano 16:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, buyer beware indeed... there is another body of opinion that holds fair use is only for purposes of review or comment, and that user boxes don't fall into that usage. I'm not sure it's fair to characterise it as minority, nor am I sure it's useful to let opinion drive WP to do something that would get it in legal trouble. IANAL but someone here has to be, and perhaps could give meaningful legal advice to those that would get sued if things went awry (the foundation). Users aren't the ones at risk here, WP itself is. ++Lar: t/c 20:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup template

I have created a template, {{Userbox-cleanup}}, to assist in userbox cleanup where an immediate descision cannot be made. This template should be included as follows:

<noinclude>{{Userbox-cleanup}}</noinclude>

A reason for why the template was included must be placed on the talk page. Once an item has been tagged, it will be placed into the userboxes in need of cleanup category. --Grand Edgemaster _Talk 00:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Recursive Category

• I noticed that Category:WikiProject Userboxes is inside Category:WikiProject Userboxes.
• You can say that again, an infinite number of times. User:AlMac|^(talk) 09:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That's because the category page was including a template that adds pages to the category. I've removed it for now, I guess it could be subst'd back in if no one cares that it's static - AbsoluteFlatness 22:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Maximum number of userboxes?

I'm just wondering, I had an admin revert my user page and delete the additions because I had "too many" userboxes. Is there a precedent for such a thing? Is there actually an established maximum number of userboxes? Should this be on a policy page somewhere? Thanks. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No such regulations currently exist. Probably just a vengeful/pissed off admin. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} (forgot to sign)

Please keep in mind that every userbox you have requires an extra call to the server. So, 25 userboxes is 25 times as many calls => 25x the load. This slows down Wikipedia for everyone. The solution is the subst: your userboxen.--Commander Keane 06:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

That is not necessarily true. Many userboxes are text only, in which case the server load is not increased (any more than adding text). Also, I'm not a computer geek, but I find it hard to believe that tiny 40x40 pixel pictures are that much of a strain on the servers. --Fang Aili 15:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the thing is all it does is call a reference to another lot of data in the database, but despite increasing the number of calls, it does not increase the data requested anymore than subst'ing it would, and not subst'ing requires less entries, and hence makes it easier for the server to collect the relevent data. So positives and negitives balance pretty much. Ian¹³_ID:540053 17:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

When did this happen, Cyde? I looked in your history a ways back (like to the 4th?) and couldn't see more than one box, and a statement that userboxes were too much trouble. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 06:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Jimbo

Jimbo wrote the following on wikien-l:

I'm not going to be heavy handed about this, but I would recommend that as a general social rule, we try to refrain from self-identifying as advocates within the context of Wikipedia. Given that we're trying to work together collaboratively on a _neutral_ encyclopedia project, it seems to me to be not relevant and perhaps leaning towards the unhealthy to do so.

Kelly Martin (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

May I comment that Jimbo is not God. I would also like to question why he didn't post this somewhere himself, and that IRC logs are not acceptable on wikipedia (could have been anyone, not wikipedia servers, and the last person who posted logs was banned). I also question if he was refering specifically to userboxes, and that fact is, if you support something its not going to change anything by posting a note saying so on your userpage, is not going to change anything. I would be more prepared to see a consider a Wikipedia from him atleast. Ian¹³_ID:540053 17:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with Jimbo here. There is a conflict of policy/guidelines here. The userpage is where a user can briefly describe his/her self and interests. Virtually all self-descriptions could be constrewed as bias, and it is inevitable that a user's "leanings" will be expressed one way or the other. However, as Wikipedians, we all strive towards NPOV. Perhaps by declaring our interests and possible biases, we become more self-aware of our own POV. --Fang Aili 18:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I rather be honest in showing my own beliefs and such on my userpage and still strive to do NPOV edits in encyclopedic content than vice-versa (claiming to be totally unbiased and submitting POV edits) TCorp 02:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I share Jimbo's concern, up to a point. Being polemical and acting as advocates of POVs is harmful to Wikipedia. However, it's also important that we learn to be Civil to other people even if they have a userbox which tells us they have different views. Also it's useful to be able to find people who are very interested in particular topics. I wrote a bit more about this issue here, but the bottom line is that we while shouldn't suppress our POV, we should be respectful and not argumentative, being more conscious of this the stronger our POV. --Singkong2005 06:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

user wikipedia cleanup

made a cleanup of user wikipedia, but a bunch of boxes does not fit there or I don't know what to do:

File:CVU2.PNGThis user is a member of the
Counter Vandalism Unit.

CensorshipThis user is an artist

This user is Addicted to Wikipedia.

This user scored a {{{score}}} on the Are You a Wikipediholic Test.

CVU already have a box, no need fow two of them, _→AzaToth 17:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Babel boxen proposed level for students xx-S

The babel level description list with the proposed level included:

• xx-0 if you don't understand the language at all. Don't use it for every language you don't know; only when there is some reason why you might be expected to know it.
• xx-S if you are a student of the language who is actively making effort to reach a basic understanding of the language.
• xx-1 for basic ability - enough to understand written material or simple questions in this language.
• xx-2 for intermediate ability - enough for editing or discussions.
• xx-3 for advanced level - though you can write in this language with no problem, some small errors might occur.
• xx-4 for 'near-native' level - although it's not your first language from birth, your ability is something like that of a native speaker.
• xx (no dash or number) is to indicate that you are a "native speaker" who has grown up speaking this language.

Why a new level? Because there is a significant gap between no knowledge at all (and presumably not even a desire to know) and a basic level of knowledge such that someone can read and possibly even communicate in the language. For example, I love Icelandic and am making a free-time effort to learn it, but I can't claim "basic knowledge" of it, but neither do I know "nothing at all" and don't wish to claim absolutely no knowledge. Hence the need for a level between the two. I propose "xx-S" (referring to student) so that the existing boxes don't have to be changed to accomodate the new level. -- Guðsþegn 16:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Ian¹³_ID:540053 19:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Good idea. I like it. --Fang Aili 19:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Seeing as all who care are in agreement, I will go ahead and do it. --   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 21:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I will also propose it on the Babel discussion page first. --   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 21:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather like that, since I'm not really comfortable with de-1 for myself. de-S would be a better match. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar Userbox

I proposed this at WP:KC, but with userboxes being a rather err.. contentious issue at the moment I thought I'd better ask here. Basically, for people who prefer for their user page to be just userboxes, an alternative template award which uses the same syntax and fields as the normal award template but in the userbox form. See this test page for working examples. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I've created it at template:User star. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 14:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Someing like "This user has X barnstars"? That would be nice. The Republican 01:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Coordinate efforts to check for fair use images

Do we have any sort of coordinated plan to check for fair use images in userboxes (before the userboxes are nominated for deletion)? Maybe we should have a list of userbox categories, and someone can check off sections after they've checked the images. --Fang Aili 21:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I've created a table in which we can keep track of image-checking. I've listed the userbox categories. Once you've checked for and deleted all fair use images from those userboxes, replace unchecked with Checked, and sign/date. The date will, in theory, allow us to more easily check any userboxes added to those categories after that date. (If you think this is a dumb idea or you think the table can be improved, I'm certainly open to suggestions.) --Fang Aili 22:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

How do I create one?

I know about the code,I just don't know where to put it. 1/13/06 8:30 PM EST — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudtz (talk • contribs) 20:30, 13 January 2006

• Put it in your userspace till you're happy with it. Test it by doing inclusion elsewhere on your space. Once you have it looking the way you want, and you have thought long and hard about whether it is appropriate as a generally usable template (doesn't contain copyvio images or text, doesn't attack people, doesn't cause divisiveness to the project, will be of interest to more than you, isn't a template whose sole purpose is vote stacking (summing up some of the userbox discussion, read it here for more: WP:UBP)) then add categories to it (if appropriate!!! not always appropriate!!!) and do a move on it from userspace to templatespace. Hope that helps. Ask again if not clear! ++Lar: t/c 05:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Broken boxes?

Any userbox with the template label {{user wikipedia|XXXXX}} as opposed to {{user XXXXX}} is now showing up as

This user is a Wikipedian.

. I do not know how to fix this, so I ask your assistance. for example the userbox for recent changes patrolers--CastAStone|^(talk) 05:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Take a look here: Template_talk:User_wikipedia. I have no idea what exactly is going on but it looks like it's not fixable by non admins till whatever it is that is at issue is resolved. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 05:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, someone objected to the time it was taking us to split stuff, so protected it - but badly. No-can-do unless you can find an admin who will fix. Ian¹³_ID:540053 10:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I have visted all the "What links here" for {{User wikipedia}} and fixed the broken userboxes. Strangely CastAStone's userpage wasn't in the "What links here" (but I fixed it just now). Anyway, hopefully most of the borken userboxes are fixed now.--Commander Keane 12:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Templates Starting with Userbox

On the main page it says all the templates starting with "userbox" were delt with (or at least I think thats what it says) but I found 3. Userbox Night (which I moved to Template:user Night), Template:Userbox preference & Template:Userbox Love. I got unsure of myself after I saw more "userbox" prefix's. Should these be moved or did I screw up? --ShakataGaNai 19:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone is making userboxes without reading the how-to. I moved the other two. *sigh* - TCorp 21:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Aparently. Ok - well next time I'll just move them anyways. I was just unsure. Thanks! --ShakataGaNai 21:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

the debate

Was the userbox debate ever resolved? I stopped reading the Kelly Martin RfC after a while. Did anything really happen? --Fang Aili 05:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

We'll, she resigned from ArbComm and that's it. Not that if she didn't she could have clung on, but at least that's something. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh. I suppose at the least it teaches other admins to beware when deleting large numbers of files without discussion. --Fang Aili 16:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, I suppose that what happened could be described as 'she resigned'... however, it could also be described as 'her term ran out and she wasn't re-elected'. As to the userboxes... the debate continues. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 16:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Note from Jimbo

I wonder if you might consider...

I wonder if you might consider simply removing your political userboxes and asking others to do the same. This seems to me to be the best way to quickly and easily end the userbox wars.

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.

I think rather than us having to go through a mass deletion (which is what is likely to happen if the userbox fad doesn't go away), it will be better to simply change the culture, one person at a time. Will you help me?--Jimbo Wales 10:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it helps people assume good faith, about one's political-related edits, then I'm all for it. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 12:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't wikipedia all about various people coming together to make an encyclopedia? People from all walks of life and political backgrounds? With all sorts of ideologies and beliefs? Did I miss something there? Or are well all in fact to be no more than mindless, opinionless edit drones? Surely, we all strive to write NPOV edits, but no one should be forced in hiding their political or ideological background. There should be consequences for people that push points of view in articles, not for those that state their personal beliefs on userpages. - TCorp 15:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you did miss something. WIKIPEDIA IS NEVER CENSORED --Shell 16:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I must say I feel it is important that as a community we consider other points of view in order to obtain a NPOV. We are part of a community that strive for well-balanced articles. I do not object to ensuring people are made aware of this, but I feel that turning us into WikiZombies will hold no benefit to the community - there would be no opinions, no objections to POV, no-one to stand against such censorship. And I personally refuse to be part of a consored community where all must hold no POV, so long as the community is aware that a NPOV must later be achieved. Ian¹³_ID:540053 17:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

If you support me and cjmarsicano's view, add {{User:Cjmarsicano/UDUIW}} to your userpage or [[Category:Users in Defense of Userboxes and Individuality on Wikipedia (UDUIW)]] --Shell 17:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I am against userboxes that are incendiary in nature (i.e. "Democrats suck!"), but I do not see any harm in declaring oneself a Democrat, Buddhist, etc., while understanding that we all strive towards NPOV in articles. I also do not think a policy against "polemical" userboxes is possible, because the community will never agree on what exactly constitutes "polemical". I also think you, Jimbo, are risking the alienation of quite a few dedicated Wikipedians by calling them "the wrong kinds of people". --Fang Aili 17:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. It's not really WP:AGF to me to state their beliefs are for the worse to Wikipedia. Ian¹³_ID:540053 17:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Projectboxes

This is the new project to take care of projectboxes. Many considerations and necessary skills are same as for this project, so please join. Zocky | picture popups 18:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Use of subst: tag

I realize that adding "subst:" to a template will allow it to be rendered code-wise onto the user page, but that page still be listed in the "What Links Here" portion of the template? Kareeser|^Talk! 23:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Subst:ing a template into a page will remove that page from the template's "What links here" list. There's really no reason to subst: templates on your user page, though; WP:AUM only applies to the use of templates on pages in the Template namespace. —Andux 07:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, right, that clears it up. Thanks! Kareeser|^Talk! 15:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason to use subst is not because of WP:AUM but rather so that people can't find your templates via categories or "what links here" and try to influence your vote in various controversies (so called Wikipedia:Vote stacking) ++Lar: t/c 00:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

My lastest creation.........

Hi! I am a userbox with a POV. I won't hurt you, I promise! Pretty please don't delete me.

.........--God of War 22:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a userbox. I cut & pasted it from Uncyclopedia, then adjusted it accordingly. I think it's pretty funny. --The most intelligent Wikipedian to exist, period! 20:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

We're Doomed! This user supports userboxes. They probably just need to get outside more often,. You can help save Wikipedia by slapping this user silly, then blocking them forever..

Kind of a big userbox, don't you think? =P Kareeser|^Talk! 02:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious! Unfortunately, that's a fair use image. Otherwise I'd probably steal it for my userpage. :) --Fang Aili 03:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall recieve. I think this image is fair game. --The most intelligent Wikipedian to exist, period! 12:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Lol, both userboxes are great :-) - • Dussst • ^{T | C} 18:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't think anything made by Michaelangelo is still under copyright fer chrissakes. --Cyde Weys 21:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't comment on old discussions when you don't know what was going on. The image he used before the Michaelangelo one was this. --Fang Aili 03:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If any one you want to add this to your userpage, I made it into {{Doom box}} instead of that HTML gooblegook. --Harrington is like Montana 20:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added it to my userpage. --Fang Aili 05:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

here's one I made for my page, help yourself...User:Mike McGregor/insurgent {{User:Mike McGregor/insurgent}} Mike McGregor (Can) 11:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

And here's one if you want to see a lighter side of the userbox debate. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 14:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC) {{User userbox revolution}}

Two bad substitutions

Two of my userboxes have turned into something else recently:

• {{User religion|invisible pink unicorn}} changed from something like "This user doesn't really believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn" to "This user is religious". Not exactly the same meaning:-) AdelaMae says it happened because the person who took over doing the split didn't fix the userpages.
• {{User wikipedia|anti-administrator}} changed from something like "This user is not an administrator and does not want to become one" to "This user is a member of Wikipedia". Well, isn't every user?

If you don't have a safer way to catch such changes, it seems to me like it would be better to by default disable or delete "strange" userboxes when you cange their meaning, than to replace them with default messages like this. And go through userpages and fix them if necessary, but then it'll matter less if you don't. And/or maybe leave a message about it in the users's talk page if you feel industrious, though in my case the boxes were just silly stuff I wouldn't mind losing. HFuruseth 07:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they have been recently split. It generally seems to be / or : rather than |. What links here is broken at the moment, so I think people are catching what they can. Ian¹³_ID:540053 20:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Subst-ing the {{Userbox}} template causes some unforseen problems with {{switch}} etc., which was likely the case here. -Xol 03:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

By the looks of it, it now loads {{User religion}} and then tries to find a variable to assign "invisible pink unicorn" to, and the same with {{User wikipedia}} trying to find a value for "anti-administrator". The templates are now found at {{user IPU2}} and {{User wikipedia/Anti-Administrator}} respectively. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 16:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of userboxes

I was going over some things, and I discovered on Wikipedia:List of userboxes that redirects of userboxes are listed.

An example:

• Template:User AWWD
• Template:User AWWD...

are both listed on the page when it actuallt redirects to Template:User wikipedia:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD which is not listed. Could someone please go over the list and add Template:User wikipedia:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD and take off redirects. — Moe ε 05:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Unilateral deletion?

I've noticed a number of red links in various userbox catagories, esp. of controversial userboxes. Does anyone know what's up? Are the anti-userbox extremists at it again? --Dragon695 10:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Check the deletion log to see who deleted a particular userbox and why. You could view the past 5000 deletions and use you browser to search for "Template:User" to find relevant deletions.--Commander Keane 11:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Very intresting stuff....

00:13, 30 January 2006 Doc glasgow deleted "Template:User cannibal" (sick)

This could be interperted as humor - I don't know - I don't get to see it before deciding on it's fate.--God of War 06:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Also the names of these aren't so offensive...I wonder what the content was.

1. 12:52, 28 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User ancestry" (attack template)
2. 12:47, 28 January 2006 Doc glasgow deleted "Template:User -Israel" (stop trolling)
3. 12:45, 28 January 2006 Talrias deleted "Template:User -ancestry" (erm. right.)

22:36, 28 January 2006 Doc glasgow deleted "Template:User creationism and flat earth" (attack template)

Newspapers

Why are we generalizing the Newspaper templates? Does anyone know what's up? I thought we were only getting rid of duplicates, but not generalizing. --Dragon695 03:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Userbox categories

Currently there are several variations of category naming resultant from userboxes, three I've noticed being:

• Category:User …
• Category:Users who … OR Category:… Users
• Category:Wikipedians … OR Category:… Wikipedians

and a few that don't indiciate self-reference, such as Category:Su Doku players. I think there should be a more consistent way of naming categories for Wikipedians. KramarDanIkabu 18:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Don't bring up sodoku. That's the stupidest fad i've ever seen.--God of War 05:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, this is something that I think can stand to be fixed. KramarDanIkabu 19:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think naming the category directly after the userbox would be simplest. Ex:
"Category: User programmer" rather than the existing "Category:Wikipedian programmers" -Xol 21:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

a template idea

I've added what may very well be a good basis for a template for this wikiproject to the debian and openbsd talk pages, it may be a good addition to the collection.

WikiProject Userboxes/Archive 2006 has a category and userbox dedicated to its users, which means that users can show their affiliation to WikiProject Userboxes/Archive 2006 by adding the userbox or category link to their user page. Check the user category located at Category:WikiProject Userboxes/Archive 2006 users.

Though it likely warrents modification here to make sure it works for linking variables for the userbox and category, since not every subject has both but several have one or the other. 65.94.58.104 10:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of divisive userboxes

Some people are trying to sneak a new line of text into the criteria for speedy deletion. It says divisive or offensive userboxes can be speedily deleted. There is no consensus or talk page discussion on this, only a brewing revert war. Now Tony Sidaway has used this brand new speedy deletion criteria to try and get rid of Template:User pacifist3 which is in the middle of an active TFD. Please voice your opinion on this before some admins go on a userbox deletion rampage.--God of War 18:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion

Too late, it appears that Doc, MarkSweep, and Tony Sidaway are at it again. --Dragon695 06:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Organization of userboxes

How could I organize my userboxes? It's just one big line going all the way down the page. --Revolución (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a table? Or maybe look at how the users in Category:User ubx-5 organise their userboxen.--Commander Keane 00:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Why we musn't speedy userboxes...

One of the userboxes on my user page is up for speedy deletion, and now my whole userpage falls under a category of being considered for speedy deletion! How do we fix that? --D-Day 21:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Include the Speedy Deletion category inside of <noinclude> and </noinclude> tags on the template page. --Cyde Weys 21:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What's missing here

I'll give you a hint it rymes with "Smuserbox/Alert"... so, was it polmatic and divisive? or did it just help with a bit of transparancy in the userbox debate? Mike McGregor (Can) 11:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

New namespace Userbox instead of Template

How about creating a new namesace Userbox: instead of slapping them all in Template: ? Infinity0 ^talk 18:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• This is not a good idea and Jimbo has expressed opposition. See, the thing about userboxes is, they really aren't helpful, and they give the wrong impression about what it means to be a Wikipedian. Creating an entire namespace just for them would give the impression of officially sanctioning them, which is the opposite of what we want to do. What's going to happen from here on out is that userboxes are going to be a strictly userspace-only thing, and they are still going to be heavily discouraged, because they endorse a bumper sticker mentality that is unhelpful and not relevant to the project's goal of creating an encyclopedia. --Cyde Weys 05:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• They're helpful to me. TheJabberwʘck 02:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

trying request for unprotect for a protected deleted userbox

I've requested that Template:User PresidentBush be unprotected explicitly so that it can be recreated and TfD can run its course. we'll see how that goes i guess...Mike McGregor (Can) 20:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution

As a WP:RCP, I know a vandal when I see one. So I'm disgusted by the recent spate of admins -- people who should know beter -- who are deleting userboxes without running them through TfD, informing the "what links here" users, or following the Wikipedia:Userbox#Administrators policy. Is anyone currently in Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution over this? If not, I volunteer to head up the committee. I am utterly convinced that userboxes are necessary to preserve NPOV on the articles, so I am willing to give up all of my other Wiki duties so that I have enough time to work on a solution for this blatant abuse of deletion power.--M@rēino 04:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Have you seen Jimbo's statements regarding this issue? It's clear that they needed to go. And no, we're not going to waste everyone's time bringing dozens of userboxes through TfD when the end result is assured anyway. A big reason for the deletion was that the template: namespace should be for encyclopedic main articlespace content only, not userspace cruft. So in that context it doesn't make sense bringing them through TfD when they shouldn't have ever been templates in the first place. --Cyde Weys 05:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please remember jimbo isn't god, people are intitled to follow dispute channels, especially where there is a valid dispute. Ian13/talk 19:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Some of you may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/February userbox deletion. --Fang Aili 18:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes/Alerts

Doesn't Template:User queerrights need to be added here? Moe ε 04:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

CT Userbox Code

I am trying to create a new userbox for the Cleanup Taskforce that links to the desk of the user upon whose page it sits. My current work is found User:Averykrouse/Cleanup here. Essentially what I need it to do is to replace the "here" link with one that will direct to User:EXAMPLE/Desk where EXAMPLE is replaced with the userpage it's used on, no matter who is using it. Can someone help me? Feel free to edit the code there at my page if you can fix it for me. (This is my first attempt at userboxes, mind you, save the User:Keyboard category.) Thanks! --Avery W. Krouse 06:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Postive/negative

Maybe for better organization of Wikipedia's userboxes, we can split them up into positve/negative, if appropriate. For example, the Opinion of Band can be split up into positive i.e. This user listens to Green Day and negative i.e. This user does not like Green Day. You can also see my userboxesOsbus 14:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for help

I'm afraid that this is terribly improper and I'm gonna get flamed, but you people are likely to be the experts and I can't think of anything else to help me. This is an appeal for help to the members of this project, not the project itself. I've inserted (using subst) some userboxes into my userpage, but they are scattered without any layout. How can I arrange these into a neat rectangular table of all the userboxes? The original templates are included as comments below the substituted code. Please, someone help me claer up the huge mess that is my userpage. Thanks a lot. Loom91 19:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I used some boboxtop and boxboxbottom templates to columnize mine here. --maru (talk) contribs 02:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey!

I want to be a part of the Wikiproject, Userboxes too. Silversword55 01:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I just made 6 new Userboxes.

• Template:User syracuse
• Template:User dq
• Template:User arizona u
• Template:User mcd
• Template:User pistons
• Template:User tn volunteers

AAAAAAUUGHHH!! You're crushing the page! I created those userboxen for you, and replaced them with links.

Oh, and if you want to join the project, poke around on WP:UB for a link to the project user page and add yourself. --SheeEttin 00:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Template:User laker hater
• Template:User spurs Silversword55 00:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, if you want to make a userbox, go to Template:User_<userboxbox name> and create it there. I don't want to clean up after you. Oh, and you might want to add them to the list of userboxen at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports. I dodn't add the previous ones, do you might want to do that. Just in case other people want to use them. --SheeEttin 19:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

UBs not fair use?

I seem to recall reading somewhere here that using company logos in userboxen does not qualify as fair use. Is this true, and if so, is there a different way they can be used?
To be specific, I want to create two boxen, an ATI and a nVidia graphics card user one, to go with the AMD/Intel processor pair. --SheeEttin 23:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Userbox template creation

How does one go about creating a permanent userbox which can be called up as a template?

KV 04:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Simply go to Template:User_<userbox name> and click either the edit button or "Start this article". I suggest you go to WP:UB for the userbox template code. After it's created, add it to the corresponding list(s) of boxen. A list of lists is easily accesible at its template.

If you want to keep it private, or you think it's not the best thing to release publicly, do the same thing, but create it on your user page, by creating a page such as User:King Vegita/userbox and placing it in there. (To use a userbox from a user sub-page, just put {{User:King Vegita/userbox}}.) --SheeEttin 20:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, you've been of great help.

KV 04:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[1]

That's how it's going to be until there is a page, but I don't see an appropriate list.

KV 16:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Fonts?

Is there a list of available or appropriate fonts to use on Wikipedia? I'm not sure which would be alright to use in making Userboxes, and I'd like to know. --Chris Griswold 09:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest looking at other boxen that are similar to the one you want, and copying it. That's what I did for my Anti-MMORPG one--I stole most of it from the Template:User Urban Dead template, then modified it quite a bit. For fonts, if a default one is provided, I suggest you stick with it unless you think that a different one is necessary. Whan I wanted to change a font, I didn't know how to change it, so you might want to consult the first part of Font family (HTML). --SheeEttin 22:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You can use basicly any font you want to. It's just a pain in the ass to do, and makes articles harder to read. However, userboxes and sigs are ok. The Republican 22:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I am having trouble with userboxes..

how do you make this userbox a template of its own?

File:Shorecrest.jpgThis user studies at Shore School.

√αʑʑρεɾ 02:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Time

There is talk of merging all existing Time zone userboxes into one userbox which takes the timezone as a variable. Current implementations are zone-specific or are based on either UTC or GMT offset. My proposal to replace the timezones is Template:User timezone. I'm want to get an idea of what people think of this, and maybe some help in phasing out the old boxes. --horsedreamer 05:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Babel-like template

I am familiar with the Babel language template (I may be using the wrong words) where it's feasible to section-off the languages one speaks... Is there, by any chance, a similar template for one's ancestry? I have ancestors from several different countries and was hoping to make a neat section on my userpage. --Brian1979 23:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about templates, but I copied some code from another user. See the bottom of the right-hand column on my page. --Singkong2005 07:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Boxes for political parties and other groups

I'm a member of Engineers Without Borders (Australia), and was thinking it would be useful to have a userbox and category for members of an organization like this one. it would help in identifying other members of the same organization who also edit Wikipedia, which would aid collaboration (through meeting up at conferences or other gatherings). If I were going to a national conference for EWB, I could arrange to meet up with other Wikipedians there, which would be very cool. Do other editors think that userboxes for such organizations would be a good thing?

I've realized that this same argument applies to political parties. This is a more tricky issue - there's more likely to be POV issues and even editing agendas. I am a member of a political party, and using userboxes would help to be able to identify people who are members... But it's a two-edged sword. Personally I'm more committed to accuracy and NPOV than I am to my party, but many others would easily be tempted into collaborating editing with a POV.

My mind isn't made up on this issue, but I'm starting to be inclined away from political userboxes. If they were to be useful for the purposes mentioned above, though, it would be more useful to have locality based categories, such as "Members of the Thingy Party in Arizona", rather than a global "Thingy Wikipedians".

If political and belief-based userboxes are going to continue to be used, then I have some suggestions:

• Suggest that all POV userboxes be placed on a subpage, e.g. I might create User:Singkong2005/POV userboxes.
• Create and encourage the use of a userbox to go above the POV ones, which says something like: "The following userboxes are meant to show the interests of this user, or to facilitate interaction with fellow Wikipedians who are members of the same organization. This user is committed to NPOV and respects other users regardless of belief or affiliation." (It would be a deeper than than usual userbox.)
• Create non-POV userboxes and list them on pages such as Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Political Parties, next to POV boxes, with a note encouraging the use of these non-POV boxes in preference. Actually this seems pretty difficult... it's hard to summarize the interests of a Democrat, Tory, or Greens member/voter. A Greens voter is likely to be interested in the Environment, Ecology, [[Alternative economics and International development... and more, so that's a bigger bunch of userboxes. Another example: something like "This user is interested in alternative energy sources" could be a more non-POV alternative to "This user supports the use of wind power and electric vehicles," so that it reflects an interest regardless of the POV held. Of course, this isn't perfect, as an interest in environmental issues does tend to indicate someone with certain POVs, and an interest in animal welfare (which might be one alternative to the vegan userbox) is likely to indicate a certain view about animals.

It's worth thinking about these things, as it looks like POV userboxes are going to be with us for some time yet. There appears to be a large minority who are very keen to keep them and who feel that such userboxes are a positive thing. --Singkong2005 07:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Giving up

I'm about ready to throw the towel in on the userbox debate. The constant DRV's and edit wars have me drained, emotionally and physically. As far as I'm concerned, go ahead and delete, just be sure to subst the ones I have. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 21:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't let the turkeys get you down! TheJabberwʘck 02:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see the ongoing changes to WP:CSD that may make most userboxes speedy deletion candidates. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Help develop a policy on userboxes

Another effort to develop a policy on userboxes, proposed userbox policy, is in development. Please consider contributing to this effort. Rfrisbie^talk 15:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

An end to the War?

Wikipedia:May Userbox policy poll has been created, and may well be the end of the Userbox War - • The Giant Puffin • 12:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The May Userbox policy poll has been ratified as an official policy on the English Wikipedia. Rfrisbie^talk 20:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, I didn't count to ten, check the history for details. Rfrisbie^talk 20:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Archived

I have been bold and archived the page - • The Giant Puffin • 08:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where to list these

{{User WS-S}} {{User WS-H}} {{User WS-E}} {{User WS-G}} {{User WS-L}} are all new userboxes I created to display wikistress in a manner paralleling the Homeland Security Advisory System.However, I'm not sure where to list them, so I'll leave that to the experts.

KV 21:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A capitulation to end the war?

Jimbo has (see WP:JOU) endorsed the German solution.That apparently amounts to moving most userboxes to userspace as examples rather than templates.If this is to be done, I'd like to think this group is the most capable of doing it effectively.What do you all think?GRBerry 22:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

For more detail, see Wikipedia:The German solution GRBerry 14:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Auto-add user categories to userboxes?

Is there any policy about whether or not it is kosher to automatically add user pages to a user category through userboxes?

User category inclusion has been a fundamental tool of userboxes, ever since they were just Babel boxes.Yet User:Drini has been deleting category inclusion from userboxes that he feels have the potential for "user networking by belief system."In the case of {{user rc}} he even locked that page after users reverted his change.

Now, I actually do not have any template-based "belief system" boxes on my own user page (although I have some self-made non-template "belief" boxes).I firmly support NPOV as a Wikipedia principle, and am opposed to vote-stacking.But why shouldn't users be allowed to add themselves to long-established user categories via long-established userboxes?

Also, pretending I were into vote-stacking, I would simply see "What links here" from the template page, and generate a list that way. So what's the point of prohibiting it anyway? — Eoghanacht ^talk 21:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

One of the argument for deleting userboxes is that they are supposedly used in vote-stacking.The evidence is more that the category is a problem than that the userbox is.(This is especially true because using a subst: call to the userbox means that it doesn't appear on "What links here?")Given that we've had a months long conflict about whether userboxes can exist at all, handing extra ammunition to the deletionists just doesn't seem like a good idea.Take a look at Wikipedia:The German solution for the solution that we seem to be arriving at, Wikipedia:T1 and T2 debates for a summary of recent debate about what userboxes can be speedy deleted, and User:StuffOfInterest/Userboxes for an example of how userbox archives can display a relevant category without automatically putting people into the category.

Finally, the community is sufficiently divided that no policies have been formed.GRBerry 22:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Userbox deletions

Does anybody know why Template:User Pascal's Wager was deleted?I don't see why it couldn't have stayed as one of the religious humour user-templates.Thanks. --Aquarius Rising 20:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Submit it to WP:DRV if you think the inappropriate, but the deletion log shows T1 as the reason. — Arthur Rubin |(talk) 15:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Given the variety of humourous user-templates in existence, it looks like it was a case of an admin going overboard. An admin shouldn't be able to delete tastefully humourous user templates of the nature of this one "on sight". --Aquarius Rising 22:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ideas page

I dont know if its just me, but when I went on there to see if I could help, it looked like a complete mess and I didnt know which suggestions were completed or which ones were still pending. Cant we reorganise the page back to the To Do and Done sections like before; instead of people creating sections for each suggestion they make? I was considering doing it but I didnt want to step on everyone's toes if it was just me that found it unorganised and impossible to navigate through. Plus it seems like quite a task to reorganise it and I havent been on there for ages so I dont know which suggestions belong in To Do and which ones belong in Done - • The Giant Puffin • 15:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Whatsupkid

I'm not sure where to put this so I'm putting it here in hopes that if nothing else, someone can get the wheels moving on resolving this. The user above has created quite a few boxes including his own categories that are completely unique to him; often they are duplicates of existing boxes. His userspace needs a major cleanup. I've listed his sports-related ones for redirection/deletion at WP:TFD and WP:CFD, but I think that some admin with time on his hands really needs to do a major cleanup. BoojiBoy 15:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Subcategorization

While not a member of your project, I took it upon myself to subcategorize some userboxes in Category:User templates. Well, I am not getting thoroughly tired of it after only 1 day, since I am doing it all by hand without the use of a bot. The last subcategory I was populating was Category:Location user templates, and I stopped in the Ts of the parent category. I may come back to it, but if some would jump in and help, I may come back to it sooner. Other subcategories created by me are Category:Pet user templates and Category:Language user templates. Just FYI.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 02:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for new category

I was thinking it might be able to create a new category for comedy. There is already a large section in the Media sections, and there are other comedy related userboxes in books, comic strips and anime. Other comedy userboxes could also be made, such as userboxes on certain stand-up comedians, or one of those sets of userboxes where people can type in the name of a comedian into a box with a certain rating (Similar to the Actors section in Media). ISD 11:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As long as admins dont go crazy and do a mass deletion, the category should be ok. However, no matter how much better the userbox purge situation is now than it was a couple of months ago, there is still a risk that giving comedy userboxes their own category could ultimately lead to their deletion - • The Giant Puffin • 13:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

So can I go and do it straight away? ISD 17:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Be bold! Ian¹³/t 16:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:User templates

Please see Category:User templates for all the work that has been done to date. Also see the category's talk page for more on the effort to shorten the parent category and get the subcategories created and populated. Also, ALL user pages in that category MUST be dealt with soon. User pages in the category could only get in from a userbox that doesn't have <noinclude>[[Category:User templates]]</noinlude>. The noinclude is absent. A thorough search of those pages needs to be done to find the errant userboxes.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 09:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

PS. Once I am done with the main effort, I will probably fade into the background as soon as I am sure that the effort will continue.

The sorting is DONE!...or as done as it will get.

WillowW and I blitzed that category today and got it down to one page. Keep it that way! I really don't want to look at another user template right now. I am sick of them after over a week of sorting. There are over 50 sub-categories and sub-sub-categories. Please look through them. Have a nice day.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 22:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sexuality Userboxes

Does anyone know where the sexuality userboxes have gone to? Have they been deleted, and if so why? ISD 15:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

They have been deleted, though I am not sure exactly why, though I am not opposed to them being deleted.It was probably because Wikipedia is not a dating website. —Akrabbim^talk 19:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The page Wikpedia:Userboxes/Sexuality has been deleted, but the userboxes themselves live on in user space. They can be found at User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/Sexuality. —Shayl^talk 21:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians by location/nationality/ancestry

The curently available userboxes to indicate one's location, nationality and ancestry are inconsistent. I am of Dutch nationality (and ancestry) and live in Bulgaria, and would like to indicate this on my userpage. I now have a choice of

• {{User Bulgaria}}, which says I'm from Bulgaria (suggesting nationality or at least place of birth), which isn't true,
• {{User Netherlands}}, which makes me a member of Category:Wikipedians_in_the_Netherlands, which isn't true, and
• {{user Dutch}}, which doesn't stress the fact that not only are my ancestors Dutch, but I am.

I think it would be useful to have a kind of Babelbox in which one can indicate one's location, nationality and several ancestries (all optional, of course). Preslav 11:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Just go ahead and do it with the raw code.That way you'll be able to tailor exactly what you want.--Cyde↔Weys 02:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Or, probably a better solution that involves slightly more work, create a new template to select from and put it in the appropriate list. —AySz88\^-^ 07:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Userfying userboxes

Someone needs to get working on these.--Cyde↔Weys 02:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Pick a generic account like User:box or whatever, and I'll be happy to move them there. Rfrisbie^talk 02:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I don't care where they go, they're either going to be deleted or moved out of the real namespaces.--Cyde↔Weys 18:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Merging userboxes

I am against the German userbox solution of what to do with userboxes, so suggest that we use template language to its fullest potential. Userboxes need to be created with variables so that the need for several under one topic or with the same theme are unneeded. Please see the following userboxes.

• {{User:UBX/Doctor Who Doctor}} will replace 10 userboxes.
• {{User:UBX/Star Trek series}} will replace 6 userboxes.
• {{User:UBX/Monty Python}} will replace 9 userboxes, this userbox is also customizable to whatever the user wants it to say.

This will require that Category:User templates be patrolled to keep an eye on new userboxes created. It will also require a useful userbox creation manual be written for novices.

I am already looking at the merger of two more small groups of userboxes. Another group I am thinking about will be so controversial that I am not sure that I want to attempt it, but it would replace 100s of userboxes in one fell swoop. I am not savy enough to know how to do it yet either. There are probably plenty more out there that can be merged. The fewer userboxes there are the better. It will quell the sentiment against them and make finding a favorite subject userbox easier.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 20:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a very good idea, but I have a few pointers:

• Don't let it get in the way of ongoing implementation of GUS
• As long as activity remains in user space, don't discourage users from creating possibly redundant boxes (i.e. different colors, etc.) for personal variety
• Keep the mergers so that they only consolidate multiple boxes that have indentical characteristics, other than the messages

As far as template namespace use is concerned, I'm all for it.However, if and when most userboxes are relegated to userspace, I don't think it's as necessary or useful. —Akrabbim^talk 21:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I want to see the German userbox solution halted and reversed. User templates are still templates and they belong in the template space not user space. I will never use a user template from user space. The code for them is clunky and unsightly. They are hideous to look at in user template categories. The names alone are an eyesore. The simple Template:User X is so much better to look at than User:Someuser/someuserboxs/User X. It gets worse when variables are involved.

If to stop and reverse the German userbox solution means that we must reduce the amount of user templates, then we need to find a way of keeping the content by merging as many like templates as possible and provide variable usage. That is my goal here. And the one idea I have to merge those 100s of templates, is to have 1 language template with variables so when adding it to a page it may look something like this...

{{User lanauge|en|5}}

If that template were in place, and everyone used it, think of how many user templates could be deleted from template space. That template would generate template text and level colors, if we had a color convention for all languages, and add the user to the appropriate language Wikipedian category. It would probably be the most used of all templates. I just wish that I could write it, but at the moment I am not that good.

If we can show those against user templates that there is a viable solution to keeping them under control while keeping them in template space, the need to userfy them would disappear. That would be a good thing. - LA @ 22:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

PS. The reason to delete the mergers is clean-up and to make the merged template the only one available. We don't need all of the redundant ones taking up space on the servers, even if it is only a few bytes. You have to remember, those few bytes have to be multiplied by however many times that template is edited. A template that is 100 bytes, edited 10 times, is now taking up 1000 bytes of space or more.

Something to correct in the User box "toomanyedits user page"

I am a Wikipedian who always edit my own user page so I use the userbox "toomanyedits user page" but I found there's something wrong in the sentence.

This user spends too much time on editing THEIR user pages.

????

Perhaps I misunderstand something, would anyone solve the problem for me please?

--Nxn 0405 chl 21:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't like the Singular they, I guess? Then change it to his/her or his. --tjstrf 21:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Or, change it to say The users with this userbox spend too much time editing their user pages. - LA @ 22:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Userfying Monty Python userboxes

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.

• Template:User Monty Python (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • This template is not to be moved to user space. It is the master Monty Python user template and all masters should stay in Template space where they belong. It should have replaced the 9 below, but the TfD was inconclusive. If you look at the template, you will see that it was written to be kept in Template space so it will be usable in multiple applications. - LA @ 21:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User bright side (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:User Camelot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:User Elderberries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • A second TfD was taken out against this template for it lack of transclusion and redlinked image. - LA @ 21:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Template:User Holy Grail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:User Inquisition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:User messiah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:User monty python (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:User monty python alt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:User Nudge Nudge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Duplication

Seems to me there is a tremendous amount of duplication among userboxes. There are two navigational templates floating out there that point to two different directories, generally. One goes to Wikipedia:Userboxes/* while the other goes to User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes, who has basically copied out the whole darn thing with, presumably, the intention everything be userfied, German style. Makes it a little difficult for us non-AWB equipped types to keep track of. Is there perhaps some sort of dialog we can start between the two halves to get this all put into one place? --BlueSquadronRaven 17:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Forcing userboxes out of template space made duplication inevitable. If the dust ever settles on which types of boxes should go where, I'll be more than happy to remove directory pages that only include links to template and/or wikipedia space. Rfrisbie^talk 17:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications, both here and on my talk page. Guess you have yourself quite the task of being the current new directory for the whole shebang. --BlueSquadronRaven 20:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really, lots of people work on the various catalogs, archives, directories, nav boxes, etc. I just copied some pages to help track whatever migrations took place.Welcome to the show! >;-o) Rfrisbie^talk 22:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible Userbox Solution

Or perhaps this solution will be better.

This is a form letter, please don't reply directly. Do, however, feel free to discuss this solution I've come up with.

I've made an unofficial place for all User Boxes (hopefully) safe from overzealous Admins. Feel free to add any you like, edit any there, or just list your already made userboxes there. Also feel free to edit the main page (the user page) in any way that you think might help. Please note, however, that this is a user page and not an official Wikipedia page, so almost any User Box will be tolerated as long as it's within reason. UserBox 03:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• I may be missing something by coming into the UBX discussion late, but can't userboxes relating to TOPIC be filed under TOPIC/userboxes or something similar?The toolbox for a page could have a link to "./userboxes". -- ChristTrekker 18:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Userbox for WikiProject Userboxes?

I'm new here but, out of curiosity, is there a reason that this project's userbox (as per bottom of project page) isn't in Template:User form?

Code	Result
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes/Userbox}}	This user is a participant in WikiProject Userboxes.
{{User_WPUserboxes}}	This user is a member of WikiProject Userboxes.

--Renice 19:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Because at one point in the discussion of WP:GUS, it was thought that all WikiProject templates should be moved to subpages of the projects themselves. (This message is an example of this. The current viewpoint seems to be that this is unnecessary, but I don't really see the point in reverting what's been done. —Mira 00:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

user helper

This is just the second userbox I've made; the previous one was for another WikiProject, so I knew pretty much what to do with it. I just made {{user helper}}. I think it's in an appropriate category, but I'm unaware what (if anything) I should do to follow up on that. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks. :) Luna Santin 06:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest adding it to the appropriate subpage of WP:UBX. It looks like Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia would be the best choice. —Mira 06:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[2] Done. Easier than it looks, editing that page, thanks to that nice template. Thanks. Luna Santin 07:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem.

—Mira 07:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Law & Order: New template, same name

If you are interested Law & Order userboxes, please comment here. - LA @ 03:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Religious affiliation or knowledge userboxes?

I've created one on my userpage if you'd like to see it. I'm currently unaware if any others are in existance, or if they aren't in existance for a reason. I realize that perhaps it's too controversial for it to be included in the archive of userboxes. If this is the case, then I will simply keep the one I have on my userpage and others may do the same of their own volition. Also, the reason I came in the first place was a small question relating to linking in a userbox. If I would like to make a word a link to an article, how do I do so without changing the font color of said link? Any solution or reply on this is appreciated! -Shazbot85 04:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There used to be userboxes for everything under the Sun, including every religious denomination you can think of, "This user is a pedophile," etc.Understandably we've cut back on them considerably to things that are non-divisive and non-inflammatory.--Cyde Weys 04:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly understood. I noticed no category for them, or perhaps I over looked it. If they aren't already, will or could they be a part of the userbox archive in the future, or is it simply to inflammatory a subject? -Shazbot85 04:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You can add <noinclude>[[Category:User templates|(name of userbox)]]</noinclude>, or one of its subcategories to a page to add it to the proper category. For adding color to links, use [[page you want to link to|<span style="color:#XXXXXX">what you want to see</span>]] instead of a normal link (see here for an example). Lastly, for other userboxes, including ones displaying religious affiliations, see User:GRBerry/German userbox solution and User:UBX/Userboxes/General Nav. —Mira 05:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much! -Shazbot85 19:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

List of userboxes

I have managed to obtain an update to this page. It is 68 days out of date (last time toolserver was updated), but now also lists creation time. Ian¹³/t 15:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Splitting templates with multiple options into separate templates

Splitting templates with multiple options into separate templates doesn't match up with Lady Aleena's userbox consolidation activities.Which way is it? Rfrisbie^talk 04:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Userbox template

Apparently 99% of the ouserboxes out there is not using the template, either because they didn't check it out or because the templte is not flexible enough: so I'm coming up with a new template, sadly I didn't see the old one until I got too far in the developement of my new version, so the parameters are not compatible (I'd appreciate some help in fixing that matter, I also have to add the color css setting but I won't blame anyone who does it before me :P). --2dMadness 05:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wanting to add new userbox

I want to add a new userbox to the main comics section, but recently whenever I add a new userbox to a page, it gets deleted. It is currently on my comics userbox page, User:ISD/Userboxes/Comics. The userbox is {{User:ISD/Userboxes/Kevin and Kell}} (see below). I was wanting to add it to the webcomics section, as Kevin and Kell was the first comic strip syndicated exclusively via the internet.

{{User:ISD/Userboxes/Kevin and Kell}}

User:ISD 08:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Behind the Times?

Seems to me many of the stated goals of the project are getting a little out of step with the large support for The German Solution. The first aim, for example, "Create a well-balanced page and sub-page system at Wikipedia:Userboxes to assist users in designing and categorising userboxes, as well as find others and incorporate boxes into their page." is becoming obsolete as these pages are starting to get deleted following the userfication of boxes. On the German Solution talk page I suggested that perhaps the Wikiproject Userboxes space have subpages devoted to being a central gallery of userboxes, no matter where they are located, organized into appropriate categories, and with users, maintainers and creators of userboxes encouraged to add their own. This would have the advantage of consolidating the current wide range of directories all over namespace and userspace. Any thoughts? --BlueSquadronRaven 18:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you point to the page which lists the "large support"? Thank you : ) - Jc37 20:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Here, here, and here. --BlueSquadronRaven 07:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Several thoughts.

1. In reading over the WP:GUS page, what I see is a hodge-podge of opinion (looking very much like a talk page), that itself states that it is not policy, or even a guideline.
2. As an aside, from what I have read, I believe that the WP:GUS is for ONLY those userboxes which are "divisive and inflamatory", as that is what is consistantly stated. (Read WP:JOU again, and I think you should easily see that this is also true at least in his statements.)
3. Concensus, as far as I understand it, means at least 70-80% (adminship, for example). I only see that twice in the straw poll. (One of which is beliefs, which most everyone (including WP:JOU) has agreed should probably individually be at least removed from template space in some way, if not userfied.)

All that aside for the moment:

1. Thank you for indirectly reminding me that I had not placed my Request for Information here : )
2. And also thank you for taking the time to share your opinion. If you find any other examples that you feel may be locations of concensus, please feel free to share those as well. : )

- Jc37 22:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

1. You didn't ask for indications of concensus, nor did I provide any. You asked for indications of "large support", and, you are still in the minority, last I checked.
2. You should also read WP:JOU again, specifically the part which reads:

"It should be noted that use of [userboxes related to beliefs, ideologies, viewpoints on controversial issues, and ethical convictions] is strongly discouraged at Wikipedia, and it is likely that very soon all these userboxes will be deleted or moved to userspace. Their use and creation is not recommended at this time."--Jimbo Wales 18:01, February 20, 2006 (UTC)

Subscribing to a particular belief or ideology is not in and of itself divisive and inflamatory, unless one chooses to make it so.

--BlueSquadronRaven 08:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

First, my apologies. While I intended to ask the question in regards to "Request for information", which is a request about concensus, I can see that I wasn't clear about that. Thank you for pointing that out.

Second, from what I understand, the controversy surrounding belief was a separate, but related controversy. The final result was the statement you just quoted. - Jc37 12:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Please remember we are neutral. I personally don't think that GUS IS neutral - and I must say the constant practically policy/accepted thing is growing a little old. I think we should maintain the sub-pages of this project, but the thing is that people don't always want others adding their userspace boxes onto their pages, and people (inc myself) don't want to use boxes in others control. GUS apparently is a big enough project itself to somehow round up all the userspace boxes and make their own gallery, but personally that seems more unmaintainable than when they are in the Template namespace with a global prefix. Ian¹³/t 17:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Information

I am officially requesting of ANYONE and EVERYONE who can provide me with information regarding:

1. Where it was determined by community concensus that Wikipedia:Userfying userboxes (which was rejected by the community), is now acceptable?
2. Where it was determined by community concensus that WP:GUS may be used as a rationale for an editor's actions (as one might use a policy statement or guideline).
3. Where it was determined by community concensus that NO userboxes may be created in template space. (I see this addition to WP:GUS but have, as yet, found no community concensus supporting it.)
4. Where it was determined by community concensus that such templates that the community has determined that T1 applies to (those that are divisive or inflammatory), are to be allowed to be userfied prior to (or even after) speedy deletion.

What I am NOT asking for/about at this time:

1. Your opinion of whether m:deletionism, m:inclusionism, or any other -ism, is "more correct".
2. Your opinion of whether or not userboxes should exist.
3. Your opinion of where userboxes should exist.
4. That templates should not have fair use images. ("Fair use images should be used only in the article namespace.")
5. That "Templates, particularly userboxes, which are divisive or inflammatory may be speedily deleted; see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Templates. For discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Comment on project page asked for links to Jimbo's opinions, and especially Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Regarding the new Template CSD. However, Jimbo Wales has urged both caution in deleting userboxes while the policy is discussed, and, in particular, restraint in reversing others' deletions or undeletions." - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al#Divisive or inflammatory userboxes may be speedily deleted and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway#Polemical or inflammatory userboxes may be speedily deleted
6. WP:JOU
7. WP:T1D

Please either respond here, or on this talk page. Thank you in advance - Jc37 22:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

As the founder of this project, and someone who has observed so many discussions, it is my view that the following answers your quesrions (in order):

1. Wikipedia:Userfying userboxes is not acceptable, and no approved discussion deamed it as such.
2. WP:GUS is not a policy, nor a guideline, and should not be used as rationale. Any action which does use it as an explaination should really be reverted, and treated as disruption.
3. There is NO policy stating userboxes may not be created in the Template: space, and anyone forcing such actions or moving userboxes is pretty much vandalising.
4. Again it wasn't, and they should be deleted as recreations/per the TfD.

I personally prefered it when some special foolish admins thought they could mass delete everything. It would have been better that way - than this stupid situation where some think WP:GUS can be seen as policy. Ian¹³/t 12:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You're the first to answer each question individually. For that I do thank you : ) - Jc37 13:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A-MEN! --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 21:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Request

I am family to a 9/11 survivor. I've decided to add one userbox to my userpage and I'd like that to be it, but I'm not skilled at the code. Would some kind person create a box I can use? Thank you. Durova 14:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Durova, did anyone ever do that for you? I'm not part of the project and not very good with the code myself, but I could try if no one's done it yet and you still want one. Let me know on my talk page. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear God, What a Mess!

If nobody has any objections, I'd like to start working on organizing the Userbox Gallery into something that is a lot more comprehensive, coherant, and...organized. Right now we have AIM boxes on the grammar page, and there are a lot of boxes found in the categories that aren't found in the gallery. I'm pretty good with organizing. Would that be okay?--*Kat* 11:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It would certainly help - • The Giant Puffin • 15:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Help please

See Template talk:User NHL-Islanders (and put your reply there please). —EdGl 00:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed; nevermind. —EdGl 02:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia GUS userboxes

I've been working on clearing the backlog on the above category. Earlier, the category contained both templates with the Template:User UBM UBX to template , user pages and basically anything with the template transcluded in one way or another. Recently it became just the templates plus a few stranglers which the software hasn't updated. Is it a good idea to create a separate category for user pages and teh rest so we can keep track on how we are doing. Harryboyles 08:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

A few stranglers? Don't you mean stragglers? But don't beat yourself over it: I nearly sent something — for work, mind you — that described itself as an "e-maul."  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 14:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Some userboxes up for deletion

Template:User_fathers_day, Template:User mothers day and Template:User mothering sunday have been nominated for deletion. I figured this would be the place to notify people in the event they feel inclined to vote on the matter. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 07:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

User Boxes without 'mandatory' categories

I tend to find user boxes useful in the sense that one small box can convey more than one will typically be able to convey in a small sentense. But I have seen that most of them come with a 'Category' which the user may not wish to add. e.g. my page belongs to 15 categories whereas I wish to retain only three of them but at the same time want keep all the user boxes there on my page (would have added more boxes but the categories...). Can this be added to User Box creation guideline that apart from User Boxes with category one should also create User Boxes without category. Vjdchauhan 05:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Continued irony

Considering the arguements about "official" namespaces, and such, I find the existance of this category up for CfD ironic. - jc37 11:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for help... templating, wikilinks, and userboxes

I've created a userbox with a link to leave a message on the users talk page. The userbox uses "BASEPAGENAME" to create a link to the talk page of the user who's using it. Unlike two of the other templates in my archive (namely the contribs templates) that use this method, it will only work on or just one level down from the main page of the userspacespace. Any ideas? If anybody could help it would be much appreciated, as this is very much making a mess of my head at the moment. lol

Not that I expect many people to want to but the box on a subpage of a subpage, but it would be nice to have it working there if someone does. Crimsone 06:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userbox policy

Some editors don't feel enough work has been invested in defining a good UBX policy. I see there are nearly 250 participants in this Wikiproject; I'd appreciate some of you getting over there to edit this page. Thank you.

Just Joined

I just added my name to the list to join the Wikiproject. What should I do to start helping out? --Pacaman! 20:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

+1 (me) - Happy new userboxes year! --EH101 12:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

New userbox

I think I just skipped a step: I created Template:User Sigma Chi and I think that this project says that I have to go through some steps first. Please Don't Bite Me; just tell me what to do next! Scoutersig 21:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you make Userboxes?

I want to know how to make a user box for empire earth but i dont know how to make them.

--Destructo 087 01:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Userboxes, it gives several examples of how to code them, and lists a gallery of examples. - jc37 08:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you think?

I made a userbox. User:Bushcarrot/Userboxes/Centrx vs Sakura Avalon Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 00:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive 2000

←

Archive 2004

Archive 2005

Archive 2006

Archive 2007

Archive 2008

→

Archive 2010