User talk:Misza13/Userbox Gallery Poll

what do you think about a part that says what this policy will not allow? like inclusion of userbox subpages of other users' and political/religious userboxes stuff like that. Will userboxes that are not political or religious, like this User:Jedi6/WikiWars, be allowed? ILovEPlankton 20:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Point 3.3 of the policy states that transclusion of userboxes from one's own subpages is perfectly allowed. So User:Jedi6/WikiWars is allowed to exist. However, it is being transcluded on other people's pages, which would not be allowed. But then again, that's what the Gallery is meant for, where the userbox's HTML (or an equivalent {{userbox|...}} call) would be stored. Furthermore, if someone finds such userbox inappropriate for a general-purpose gallery, this policy doesn't prevent users from creating their own galleries (as user subpages), as long as they follow the same content policy (i.e. no templates). Probably such userfied galleries would be more free in terms of allowing borderline inflammatory/divisive/stupid/disgusting content, but that's up for a separate debate. Misza13 ^{T C} 21:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

but could Jedi6 create that in the template space? ILovEPlankton 21:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No, because this userbox is non-encyclopedic and doesn't further the Project's cause. Misza13 ^{T C} 21:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

ok, do you think we should put that in the policy? It says no political/religious, but it doesn't specify any further. ILovEPlankton 21:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I have reworded 1. to be more strict and clear on this matter. Thank you. Misza13 ^{T C} 21:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I think it's good. Instead of having things like This user hates topic X or This user loves topic X you can just make a userbox that says This user is interested in topic X.--The ikiroid (talk)^{(Help Me Improve)} 22:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

you do realize this would make a ban on all unencyclopedic userboxes in the template space, right? So The userbox you described would not be allowed in the template space. ILovEPlankton 02:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

guess I miss interpreted it. :P ILovEPlankton 12:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hates/loves - no. Is interested - yes. Expressing interests on topics is useful, as it might help getting new editors to work on a needy article. Thus, interests can stay as templates by 2.3. Misza13 ^{T C} 09:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

My three cents

• Creating a brand new directory of userboxes from scratch is pointless when the existing subpages of Wikipedia:Userboxes could be adapted to serve the same purpose with less work.
• Point 3.3 fails to assume good faith; rather than banning transclusion without substitution because some asshats might use Special:Whatlinkshere to inflict their POV on the encyclopedia, I submit that anyone who attempts such a POV-pushing campaign simply should be shot. Repeatedly. In the genitals. With a howitzer.
• This proposal is quite similar in effect to the ones at WP:UPP and WP:UUB—both of which failed to achieve consensus.

—Andux^␅ 03:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• It wouldn't be a directory of userboxes, it would be a directory of their code.
• From what I gather of point 3.3 is that you can't transclude from other users subpages, but you can make your own subpages and transclude from there.
• Most opposes for those policys were because they didn't adress the issue directly enough

ILovEPlankton 03:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The code directory sounds like a good compromise, and is gentler on the servers. Garrett^Talk 07:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• The redundancy with Wikipedia:Userboxes came to my mind as well. And yes, I think the existing pages can be adapted to the new idea.
• You have to ask yourself a question: let's take a "This user opposes abortion" userbox as an example. It's fine in your userspace as it warns of your potential bias. But why in the world would you need a list of those sharing this view?
• This is sad. Just oppose. No reasons. It warns me of potential problems which may arise when the voting starts: people who are simply deaf to reasonable arguments. That's why the previous policies failed. And that's why I'm leaving this policy in "workshop" state for at least a week - I want people familiar with and ready, any questions/problems adressed; I want the policy to be ready and hit WP:100 with no double listing.

--Misza13 ^{T C} 10:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

My three cents, not that you need them, I think you should leave this in the workshop for atleast 2 weeks. ILovEPlankton 17:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If you accept three cents from an (currently) anon user. Your proposal is well meant, but will open only a can of worms - what is "interests/hobbies/fields of expertise"? Studying books about the Roman empire is an interest/hobby, right? What about books about Egyptian gods? Still hobby? What about books about the (origin of the) Islam? What about studying the various versions of the Bible? It is hard to draw a precise line. Visiting Right/Left rallys wouldn't be a hobby, but how about protecting animals and protesting against pollution? 84.145.234.98 01:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

my 2 cents

I'm poorer than you guys :P Some things I've noticed that you might want to change (some petty, some not):

You're using "userbox" to mean two different things

Most people do so at the moment, including me. If this page is going to be policy, it needs to be very clear about what it means, so defining the terms is a must. I suggest using "userbox" for the rectangular-shaped thing which shows up on a userpage, and "userbox template" for a termplate designed to be used on userpages to make a userbox appear.

"as raw HTML code (i.e. obtained by subst:ing the userboxes)"

This section is about allowing boxes which aren't permitted in the template namespace, so it's probably not good to refer to "subst:ing".

"as raw HTML code"

I assume you meant wiki-syntax rather than HTML.

"all current templates would have to literally be unsubsted"

It's not going to be possible to move them all over to {{userbox}}, because some of them are pathalogical. Sometimes intentionally. using {{userbox-2}}, {{userbox-m}} and {{userbox-r}} might help a little.

"nor modify it (except for obvious spelling/grammar mistakes), as it may be subject to drastic changes"

seems rather contradictory. A assume you mean only modify after discussion on talk page, similar to official policies.

SeventyThree^(Talk) 03:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I did some changes based on that. Also, technically a userbox is a mixture of HTML (<div>s) and WikiSyntax (WikiTables). By "no changes" I meant that as it is still my subpage, I reserve my self the exclusive right to semantical edits. I'll also think of writing a glossary for it. Thanks again, Misza13 ^{T C} 12:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Can we ask questions here? If so, here are mine :

• What would be the difference between the Userbox Gallery and the present Userbox page? I didn't understand that in the proposal.
• "Userboxes expressing interests/hobbies/fields of expertise" sounds a bit vague, and probably many people will try to use this to create otherwise banned userboxes, which would result in as many heated discussions as presently. Is a location userbox still good? For example, a userbox saying that I live in Montreal surely shows some expertise, or at least interest in editing pages related to Montreal.
• What prevents users from recreating political, religious, etc. userboxes on their userpage or subpages? Or is that OK? Because I can't see how we can hope to go around deleting all offending userboxes on individual userpages. If I understand correctly, templates that fall under 2. are the only ones that can remain as templates in the Userbox Gallery... But others can be created as templates on a subpage? How do we control that a user is not using a template from someone else's subpage?

Sounds like a good proposal apart from some things that were a bit difficult to follow. Thanks, IronChris | (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• There is no great difference between a Gallery and the current userbox WikiProject pages. The latter (as stated above) might as well be adapted to become said galleries. What's more important is the content and we must spread the tendency to use pure code/{{userbox}} instances.
• I didn't think it would seem vague. I tried to write it strict and explicitly inclusive, banning the rest. The list may well be expanded (location boxes seem okay) and any borderline cases may be discussed on TfD, where they will be challenged against the most important criterion: Is it useful in building an encyclopedia?
• Again, userboxes banned from the Template: namespace are ok to be recreated on users' subpages (unless they're outrights attacks, etc - but then they'd be removed even if they were just raw HTML) as long as they are not transcluded by other users. Point 3.3 disallows this and such pages could be ruthlessly deleted without earlier notice (a CSD could be established on this). How to track it? Well, such subpages have been speedied several times already. Usually when the sh*t hits the fan (i.e. massive vote-stacking ensues on a topic) many people track back to voter's pages to figure out how they got there, so such attempts wouldn't stand long.

Hope this clarifies a bit, and thanks for the input! Misza13 ^{T C} 21:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Question/comment re: Wikipedian Organizations

First of all, I like this proposal a lot. It's short, clear and addresses the issues. One thing I have to ask is regarding the allowance for boxes for: "Membership userboxes for WikiProject and Wikipedian organizations." Right now, these organizations are rather tame (some I'd say, "lame") but mostly harmless. However, couldn't some smart fella create a so-called organization called "User Wikipedia/RightWing" or "User Wikipedia/AntiWar" after this policy of yours is in place? Wouldn't that simply be a means for social networking and Wikitribalism, to rear its ugly head once it's killed by your fine proposal? A policy would need to be set up for that, unless I'm completely unaware of a policy in place for granting charters for such organizations already, or disallowing them. I doubt it, though, given Wikipedia's track record on Userboxes. Best of luck. - Nhprman 23:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a policy on Wikipedia organizations, but I believe that should an organization be created and didn't prove itself helpful or even came out as harmful, then it would be swiftly disbanded and its members blocked/banned. Misza13 ^{T C} 12:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Religion userboxes

It looks like somebody didn't want to wait for a policy before putting all religion userboxes up for deletion : Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 12#Userboxes in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion. Just thought you might want to know, if you don't already. IronChris | (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• That's right, rally the troops! I *love* vote stacking. That's exactly why Template Userboxes are not suitable for Wikipedia. In the course of the discussion on this issue at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates (and elsewhere, no doubt) it was suggested that ALL religion boxes be discussed at once. Some admins have acted on that suggestion. Frankly, it's far more fair to do this than to pick out the less popular ones and delete them one at a time, while "saving" the ones people can rally to more quickly. That has long been the case with political boxes. This vote-stacking and speedy deleting less-popular boxes should end. It's unseemly. But IMHO, these boxes are divisive and should be deleted from Template space. Nhprman 22:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely, in fact I have been advocating this procedure from the start. I just thought that users working on a proposal dealing with exactly this issue should know about it. IronChris | (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. I totally misunderstood your intent. Nhprman 22:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem! IronChris | (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

New Question

What is the policy regarding humor userboxes? --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 13:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I like them too (fellow Wikipedians are very creative in this department). But the policy says a harsh no to putting them in the Template: namespace. It's simply an unneeded waste of resources. If it looks the same on your userpage, it makes no difference for the reader, while a great (in my humble technical opinion) difference for the servers - checking some 30,50,100 (depends on user) separate pages (the servers must check whether a template has changed for example!) must take some time, right? Misza13 ^{T C} 13:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't checking the {{userbox}} template create a similar load? TheJabberwʘck 17:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no 'checking if a page has changed'. As of a month of two ago, changes to templates are automaticly propagated across all the pages which use them by the software. And if the template hasn't changed, there's not a lot of difference between transcluding text and just using it, because it's all cached anyway. The thing that does make a difference is when people change the template - the cached versions become invalid, and the servers have to do some work to make new versions of all the pages which use it. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by SeventyThree (talk • contribs)

So, if I'm reading this correctly, it's ok to subst them, but putting them in the {{userbox|Grandma Was A Nudist}} format is a no-no? --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 14:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No, no. It's ok to have {{userbox|Grandma Was A Nudist}} on one's userpage (since it only uses the {{userbox}} template), it's ok to put {{subst:userbox|Grandma Was A Nudist}}, because it will only create some HTML/Wiki text, but it is not allowed to create a {{user Grandma Was A Nudist}} template. Misza13 ^{T C} 14:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 14:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Reform

Excellent work! =) I completely agree with the page, but I would like to propose a reform, just for clarifying some things. The page currently says:

2. The following userbox types are allowed to stay as templates:

1. Babel language templates.

2. Membership userboxes for WikiProject and Wikipedian organizations.

3. Userboxes expressing interests/hobbies/fields of expertise.

I think it's better to say that:

2. The following userbox types are allowed to stay as templates:

1. Babel language templates.

2. Membership userboxes for WikiProject and Wikipedian organizations.

3. Userboxes expressing location/country/fields of expertise.

Why the change? Because hobbies are quite similar to the WPs and organizations' boxes, and nevertheless there are so many interests' templates that can be created (or alleged =)). Also, their deletion makes space for location/country boxes, which in fact are more specific and useful for an encyclopedia. What do you think? —SHININGEYES 04:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

As long as 3.3 stays as it is I wholly support this idea --T-rex 14:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. A user's location (especially country of residence) can be very useful to know. A user's interests or hobbies aren't as important, and just about anything can count as an interest. I'm not even convinced we need to keep userboxes expressing a field of expertise in the template space, but I can see why many people would argue for it. Philbert2.71828 06:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

User pages are not supposed to be encyclopedic.

So why are we requiring that userboxes be encyclopedic to be included in the template space? The "template namespace" shouldn't be considered to be "part" of the encyclopedia. The only things that should be considered part of the actual encyclopedia are the articles. If it is not an article, its not part of the encyclopedia, so it should not be required to be encyclopedic. As long as the templates that are userboxes are not placed in articles then I see no problem. And if those templates ARE placed in articles then the articles can be edited. DanielZimmerman 18:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

How does this meet the needs of both factions?

It seems to be a complete grant of the elimination of userbox templates as means of both personal expression and respect for the diverse groups that edit here. This is pretty much what one side of the discussion wants. I'm having trouble visualizing this as a move toward consensus. I like userboxes. I don't see userboxes as causing votestacking, etc -- that's down to the users. Moreover, removing the technology won't stop the problem, since other means exist to find like-minded users without using userbox templates. Creating template space within user space would eliminate the technicality that unencyclopedic userboxes fall afoul of. But, to my mind, even that isn't necessary, as the encyclopedic nature of the boxes doesn't seem to be of any import if they're not part of articles. We can maintain the pertense that none of us has a bias, but the truth is that all of us come here with a whole range of biases based on our group affiliations & personal history. "Sunlight," as Louis Brandeis said, "is the best disinfectant."--Ssbohio 04:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if there is consensus to be found. There appear to be two positions, and no middle ground. This is the classic problem with a consensus model of governance: when consensus cannot be reached, nothing happens. Jay Maynard 01:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

My NPOV on This Proposal

I'm neutral on this one. It sounds like a good idea, but I'm against it because I stand by the belief that all userboxes should be kept. However, use of the '''{{userbox|...}}''' template or raw HTML will be complicated to many people, and create very unnecessary clutter of WP:NCHP with questions like "How do you change background colours?" or "How do you make an image smaller?". But I'm actually more against it than for it. Freddie^{Against Userbox Deletion?} 01:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Something to laugh about

Some people would call me hypocritical because I am supporting this proposal, but I am against userbox deletion. But that is where they are wrong, I am not against userbox deletion, I am against people wasting all there time and effort (instead of doing more important admin duties) trying to get all userboxes deleted, and what I am also against is the mass deletion of userboxes for no reason. My point is I am not against deleting userboxes when there is a set policy against them, I hate it when people go around deleting every single userbox they don't like, just because they don't like it. ILovePlankton ^{( L)} 23:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)