Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes/Archive 2005

Archive 2000

←

Archive 2003

Archive 2004

Archive 2005

Userboxes and categories

There has been some discussion about how userboxes ought to sort people into categories at Template talk:User religion. That template was originally designed to place people into categories along the lines of User religion/whatever, but since those were nonexistent duplicates of the already-established subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by religion, they were all recently switched over from this format. I noticed when checking out the other templates listed on this page that some of them have the same problem - for example, {{User wikipedia}} places users who choose the Esperanza case in the nonexistent category Category:User Wikipedia/Esperanza. Also, this case of the template is duplicated by template {{User ESP-member}}, which is the one listed on Esperanza's own page. Should we go through and change all of these? Finally, not all of the cases of, say, the User wikipedia template are displayed on Wikipedia:Userboxes and there are probably some other loose userboxes floating around as well. Should we make an effort to collect these? - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 17:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not sure about some of the details of what you've said, but in terms of categorising, all the userboxes i've created automatically sort users into a suitable category. For example, if you use {{User NRI}}, you are automatically put into Category:NRI or PIO Wikipedians (this being a subcategory of Category:Indian Wikipedians. I personally think that where possible, userboxes should add users to categories, not to subpages of Wikipedia. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano 17:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, well I would say that, yes, they should be changed to fall into their subjects catagory wherever possible, however I am not sure if this would be wise for catagorising purposes, unfortunatly, catagories are probably one of my weakest points. I do however support collecting up all the loose templates and fining a place for them in the Wikipedia:Userboxes system, and will add that to the projects bit of this page. Thanks Ian¹³_ID:540053 17:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Stray userboxes

Some userboxes, such as {{user bad EU}}, are politically incorrect. I made that one myself but I didn't think it was appropriate to go on WP:UBX. But neither should it be deleted. The same goes for {{User-AmE-0}}... and I'm sure there are many others out there... File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano 17:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a subpage Non-PC userboxes could be created... although this is probably a bad idea as it'd be v.hard to police... File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano 17:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have to presume the bad EU template would go into Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics, sicne its refered to as for political parties and belief, and I would say it is a belief about a political party. User-AmE-0 is a harder one, maybe Politics subpage could be renamed to Beliefs, then it could house them as well? Ian¹³_ID:540053 19:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Non-ISO_Languages seems to be the place for rather odd languages. Ian¹³_ID:540053 19:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Aye, Ian's got it. Non-ISO languages (though improperly named, as Klingon is apparantly an ISO language with its own code and everything), is the place to store things like American English, Lazy English, British English, Irish English, New Zealand English...good lord, we may need an English Language Variants page...bullshit, dumbass, gibberish/simmish, Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang, Blazon (which isn't exactly weird but it is obscure), Quenya, etc. etc. etc. etc... Cernen 12:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Operating system user boxes

By convention Template: userbox os should be renamed Template: user os, but this is already taken by Template:user os, a babel box for the Ossetic language. What should I do?

Lee S. Svoboda 23:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, me and User:FireFox were thinking the same thing. I think we decided on Template:User opsys probably being the best alternative. Fell free to add the what links here page of the old one to thecurrent talks on the project page if you choose to move it for us. :) Bed now... Ian¹³_ID:540053 23:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with Template:User operating system? --Jamdav86 09:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorted, its at Template:User OS (Jamdav86: nothing really, we just want to keep it as simple for people as possible). Ian¹³_ID:540053 14:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions

My two cents is that we begin by trying to order and subcategorize the userboxes page as per the original comment on Wikipedia talk:Userboxes. I don't have time right now, but perhaps over the weekend unless someone beats me to it, I would be willing to complete the following tasks:

1. Start a request page for people who want to ask for the creation of specific userboxes and place a notice at the top of the aforementioned talk page notifying people of said request page.
2. Create a talk page specifically for the purpose of coming to consensus over a standardized template style for userboxes.
3. Personal vendetta, find the guy who vandalized my vegan userbox creation and wikikill the bastard. Oh yeah, and change my own creations to match what I feel the standard for userboxes should be. We have to practice what we preach, right?

With much wikilove, signing off for now. Daykart 02:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, similar boxes should have similar backrounds, e.g. all boxes that relate to a form of atheism have a grey backround. --Jamdav86 09:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• The request page sounds like a great idea, I may possibly beat you to it on that, I now have a lot on my hands :P
• I'm not sure what you are fully implying over the standard userbox. I presumed it was as most look, with a 1px border, and with an image sized so it doesn't distort this shape, however, this may be a good idea in practive.
• And to go after boxes against us I believe is an ongoing task, as well as attempting to migrate the prefixes that is.
• The background point I am unsure about, indeed there are a huge variety of background colours in userboxes and babel userboxes as well, a page on that for ideas may be a good plan.

Ian¹³_ID:540053 10:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Woah, woah, woah! I'm not happy about this "standardisation"-fest. The only thing that should be standardised is the size of the standard box, because they all have to fit into wikitables on user pages. Other than that they should be free the be whatever colour/border/picture they want - otherwise what's the point? I was very disappointed to see {{User gb}}, which was a bit different, dumbed down to {{User United Kingdom}} and the "standard" location format. Why have a standard? It is boring and no one would want to put it on their page. Why should countries have to have dull boxes?

Furthermore, while "United Kingdom" should be the principle template, it should not be the only template. If some users (such as myself) prefer to say they are from "Great Britain", then they should be able to do so. Standardisation sucks. [MY two cents.] File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano 10:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Noted the change from {{User gb}}, but the principle remains. So I've moved it to {{User Great Britain}}. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano 11:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure. GB was meant to be for gibberish, like the rest of the series. And being a UK flag it, I thought, should be called UK. I mearly say this because I doubt the people in Northern Ireland will like you using the UK flag (which includes Northern Ireland) and calling it great Britain (which doesn't). It mearly seems discriminatary. I also say not have an image bigger than the size of the box as, besides being inconsistant, it happens to disaggree with certain browsers, and means it doesn't fit in well in babel boxes. If you don't mind I would like to make the GB use a great brtian embalem. Ian¹³_ID:540053 12:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It would help if I couldfind a symbol for GB though. Ian¹³_ID:540053 12:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no official symbol for GB (to my knowledge). There are flags for the whole UK and its constituent (ex-)countries. --Grand Edgemaster _Talk 23:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The Union flag does not include any part of the Flag of Northern Ireland. It is made up of the Cross of St. George (England), the Saltire of St. Andrew (Scotland), and the Saltire of St. Patrick (Ireland). Northern Ireland in its present form is unrepresented in the flag, just as Wales is unrepresented. Furthermore, the Union Jack is the flag of Great Britain - in the Olympic Games there is no "United Kingdom", but "Great Britain". Northern Irish athletes can compete either for Eire or Team GB. But, obviously, Team GB compete under the Union flag, as it is the national flag. If NI joined Eire, it would still remain the Great British national flag. Therefore, there is no reason to remove it! It is politically correct, and there is no legitimate "anti-PC" argument against it! File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano 21:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I'll clarify the terms:

• Great Britain — England, Scotland, Wales
• United Kingdom — England, Scotland, Wales, Northen Ireland
• British Isles — England, Scotland, Wales, Northen Ireland, Republic of Ireland, all other minor islands e.g. Isle of Man

That help? --Jamdav86 10:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I just say to use the UK flag (union jack) and only have a great Britain template, is wrong. Ian¹³_ID:540053 20:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Categories standarisation

I would like to see this projec focuses standarisation of user categories related to userboxes. Actually, they differ from "X Wikipedians" (eg: Male Wikipedian), "Wikipedia X" (eg:Wikipedian programmers), "User X" (eg: User ada) and subcategories (eg:User OS/Microsoft Windows). Anyway, great move in creating this project. CG 14:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added it as a goal, however catagories are not one of my stronger points, so when that is the focus, I will probably need some more detail to get it going... Ian¹³_ID:540053 15:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Babel boxes

Right. I'm not sure if this is possible, but I will still apeal to all users to try and find out.

If you add {{Babel|en|wikipedia}} we get:

Wikipedia:Babel

enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.

This user is a Wikipedian.

Search user languages

However if we want to use a babel box, and we want {{user en}} and {{user wikipedia|administrator}}, then we cant seemingly use a babel box, since the code would be {{Babel|en|wikipedia|administrator}} and the administrator part would be interpreted as a third argument. Any ideas on how the current babel system and arguments to userboxes can be incorporated? Ian¹³_ID:540053 15:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest splitting up all the multi-box templates. Maybe use subpages instead, so {{user wikipedia|administrator}} would become {{user wikipedia/administrator}}. —Andux 16:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That would be a solution, I feel - however may be a better seperator, since so many other templates make use of that as the boundry. Disolving is probably however the best option, since people unable to make use of boxes due to this appear to have created copies of the origional, just bloating the wikispace. I'll note as a current task for the future :D Ian¹³_ID:540053 17:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't know if this goes here, but I tried adding this group "userbox" inside a table, and it failed when I tried to enter data into the second cell. --^BuGs^ 09:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I know how! However, it could possibly be time-intensive, so I thought I'd bring it to the project to be added to the task list. If you go to Template:Babel, you see a long list of templates. Within this large set of templates, there are individual templates. Click on one. You see how a Babelbox works: a large wikitable. What I propose is a three-part task:

1. Change all existing userboxes with prefix "{{user", or "{{userbox", or no prefix at all, to "{{User".
2. Once step one is complete, create an extensive network of templates similar to the babelboxes, just renaming "Wikipedia:Babel" to "Wikipedia:Userboxes". I feel that 25 isn't high enough to go for in Userboxes, simply because there are hundreds of said userboxes. Anyone know of the most some people have with regards to userboxes? Once said limit is found, make templates up to this number.
3. Once above project is complete, make multicolumn templates similar to the Babel templates (see Template:Babel-3-4 for an example.

Any questions, feel free to ask. Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 08:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Fixed links. This was real late at night. Sorry for any confusion. Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 01:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

New userboxes

Hi. I just joined the project yesterday. Here are two userboxes I created. They're a work in progress, but I just wanted to see how people felt about them and if they could be changed before they're added to the directory. Template:User non-pc and Template:User polcorrect. --D-Day 16:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you are helping to expand, and you may have had a hard job joining before yesterday, since this project was not then in existance :) I would say they are good, however, I feel the text should be shorter if possible, to keep the box as average size as possible for peoples userpages, I also say that in Template:User polcorrect, it may be considered hard to read the text on such a dark background. Hope that in some slight way helps you. Ian¹³_ID:540053 17:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I shortened the text up some, don't know if it's enough but it's getting there. Thanks for your helpful suggestions. --D-Day 18:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Help

for some reason, there is a } after my last userbox on my talk page

can someone help me fix this?

user rather than userbox?

I thought the concensus a while ago was to change all the non-real language userboxes to userbox instead of cluttering up user. And now they're being changed back? ...why exactly? -- jeffthejiff (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I see someone has moved {{Userbox-2}} to {{User 2}}. I really don't think this was a good idea - firstly because 99% of userbox templates are now going through redirects. Secondly, this template was not a userbox, it was the template to create a userbox. Therefore it does not come under the remit of changing all user boxes...etc..

I seriously think this move should be reconsidered, along with the moving of the other templates for creation. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano 21:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe User:Ian13 changed to User rather than Userbox due to the greater number of already existing User prefixes the discussion can be found over here: Wikipedia talk:Userboxes#This pages future. Secondly in the light of this confusion, could we do something about centralising these types of discussions? --Grand Edgemaster _Talk 21:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I presume they all go here, unless anyone has some good ideas for some sub-pages to discuss things. The thing is, as I understood, although it was considered that userbox would be good, user was the prefix where most userboxes were situated. Regarding the redirects, we are working on transfering them all over to the new template so that the redirect can be removed. I also understand it was considered (somewhere) that it could be good to have all userboxes under the same prefix so that users could inter-organise userboxes as they so wish, and this will seriously help in organising userboxes and helping users display boxes nicely on their user pages, and moving all the babel languages would be hugely impractical. In theory, those templates are not to create userboxes for other templtes, but to create uerboxes for peoples pages, and having the same (user) prefix will mean organisation templates can be used with them as well. Ian¹³_ID:540053 22:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Revert User to Userbox for userbox creating templates

It seems that userbox creation templates are considered that they should remain at userbox prefixes. Teplates like User Wikipedia however will continue to be ported since they will soon be splint into seperate templates for users to use in babel boxes and the like. Ian¹³_ID:540053 22:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This action will take course until such a time that an outcome of action can be decided. Ian¹³_ID:540053 22:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree - the {{userbox}}, {{userbox-2}} etc. templates should maintain the prefix "userbox", to illustrate that there are a template for creation, and not themselves a userbox. The "User_blah" format should be reserved for actual userboxes which people can put on their user-pages. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano 22:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The above conversation is now discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes/Creation templates

Wikipedia:Sports Fans

this entire section should be moved and its contents brought into line... does everyone agree it should be at Wikipedia:Userboxes/US Sports? File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 13:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree --Grand Edgemaster _Talk 13:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay I've moved the page, but its entire contents need to be editted in order to standardise the page's style and avoid repetition. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 16:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be moved--at least, not to something called "US Sports". It's not JUST for US sports--it may be that all the boxes created to date are for US teams in US leagues, but that's not the same thing. Kurt Weber 16:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It may not have been created just for US sports, but given that its entire contents are US sports, and sub-pages have already been created for other sports, it seems more than sensible that the page is moved to US Sports, and comes within the Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports sub-section. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 16:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Those sub-pages were created approximately a month after Sports Fans was. Why make people go through all that hierarchy when it can just as easily be put on one page? Kurt Weber 16:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Because people would not find it otherwise. The only way someone would have found the page beforehand would be if they had been linked there, and that is still perfectly possible. It makes no sense to have some sports (i.e. American sports) in a completely separate location to the rest of the world's sports... and doing so gives the US an even greater isolationist image which should be avoided. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 17:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Logos

Draft logo by GE

I have made a logo, it is a little rubbishy and I will try to improve it. Could I have suggestions for improvement. Other possible logos that have been specially created for this should probably be uploaded to this location and use the revision history to choose the best? --Grand Edgemaster _Talk 13:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think old images are lost when new ones are uploaded.... It looks okay, but, I'm not sure, I just haven't quite taken to it :/ Ian¹³_ID:540053 15:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I dont think so, the revision history for the last image did take me back several versions. --Grand Edgemaster _Talk 17:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

new goal

sorry if this has already come up, but I've just noticed it and it is bugging me.

Some userboxes float right.

I think we should standardise all templated userboxes to float:left. or float:right. or something. But whatever it is, it should be standardised. Otherwise userboxes are a bitch if they're not in wikitables. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano 23:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. Lee S. Svoboda 00:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thirded. Just leaving out float may work? --Grand Edgemaster _Talk 00:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Fourthed, and yes, just scrap float Ian¹³_ID:540053 10:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Fifthed. (Seeing as how it is the holidays, I thought mentioning alcohol might cheer some of you up? Ha ha ha...aaaahhh, yeah.) Scrapping float -does- work. I've done it before and nobody seems to complain too generously. Cernen 12:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

'What Links Here' not always accurate

The major tasks at the moment include adjusting template links. The primary way to find them is by looking at the what links here page (the ones linked under current tasks). Unfortunately, these can give false positives and also not show linked pages. This happens quite rarely but can be noticed where a page appears under userbox os but not on userbox browser but uses both those templates. In short, we should leave the redirects up until around a week after we have transferred the templates. At that time, check again to see if any new ones are there and fix those links. When we get to that stage we should then evaluate the situation again. --Grand Edgemaster _Talk 00:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I've never noticed the "What links here" not to show a link page, if you find another example could you let me know. False postives are antoher story - they occur all of the time. My bot can touch a "What links here", clearing out the false postives. Just let me know.--Commander Keane 10:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Image for use

I orriginaly inteded this for WP:AGF but it appears no one assumes good faith enouh to allow me to do so. Might be some use to you. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 02:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice image, I've used it for {{User AGF}}. Cheers, File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 17:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Grouped templates

On the main page it is reccommended that {{User OS}} be changed to {{User windows}}. Great care should be taken during this operation, initially due to the template being highly complex, and secondly due to the fact that {{User windows}} is text-only compared to the combined template which has images. I think that the complex template should have its contents extracted into single templates (which don't overwrite the current text-only ones in that space), and the complex template be modified to use conditional redirects, if that is possible. Someone should probably check the copyright status of the logos as well, since fair use images cannot be used on userpages. In summary:

• We need an organised way of storing os/browser/wikipedia userboxes. Maybe the format of {{User OS Windows}}?
• We need a way of separating text from image variants of the same box, maybe {{User OS Windows-noimg}}?
• We need to move templates such as {{User debian}} to {{User OS debian}}?

Several of my ideas can probably be improved on.--Grand Edgemaster _Talk 00:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Make categories in the Category: namespace to grou[p them together maybe? Could work, rather than effectively making one template out of many - Those ones (like {{User religion}}) are extremely hard to edit for most (see Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Religion') - haven't looked at the main page yet but maybe that was the reason for the suggestion. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that categories are for this purpose. I also think that there are guidelines that only encyclopedic content should be placed into categories. Wikipedia user categories must begin with Wikipedian so to be different. --Grand Edgemaster _Talk 23:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

While Windows is arguably the greatest market share on the planet, with something like 70% of computers using it as their OS, there are a growing number of people on alternative OS. User:AlMac|^(talk) 13:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the target of that comment, but if it was aimed at my examples, it is the one on the main page and I assume the original author of that section would hope in the long term to apply it to all of the other OSs in that template to remove the complexity and to improve its babel-compatibility. --Grand Edgemaster _Talk 23:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Namespace Potential, Anyone?

Far be it from me to suggest sweeping policy change regarding how the wiki runs; hell. I just got here. But, since there seems to be talk of requesting so many different userboxes, and since so many people are interested in them...what about a userbox namespace? Then we could split UBX's into anything and everything we want, and they wouldn't count as templates. We'd draft up a few standards...well? Any suggestions? Cernen 12:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious. What extra things could we do if userboxes had their own namespace that we can't do now? I can can forsee naming, but nothing else.--Commander Keane 19:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought of doing this last week when we created the WikiProject actually. I've got a draft started already - it'll be done in the coming week. Have a look at {{portals}}... then imagine just the headers. Each links to the relevant subpage of WP:UBX, and so people can get to the page they require poste-haste. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 17:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little slow on the uptake, you lost me after the link to {{portals}}. What can you do with the namespace exactly?--Commander Keane 18:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Well the way I'm thinking, it'll act like a little box titled "Userboxes", and it will have about 10 links to the various sub-pages of WP:UBX, such as Sports, Location, Wiki, View/Beliefs etc.etc. In hindsight, the {{Portals}} example was pretty bad. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 18:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I think one of those boxes with links to all catagories is a great idea. I may undertake myself if I find the time. Ian¹³_ID:540053 14:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

{{WP:UBS}} Created! Ian¹³_ID:540053 15:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well there goes all the work I'd been doing. Bollocks. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 15:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

UK Ukraine or United Kingdon

There's a question about this from Riurik on Dec 26 Help Desk which perhaps someone here should try to answer? User:AlMac|^(talk) 09:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

(done). File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 17:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

{{User democrat}}

Hello. This userbox is really ugly and I have a better revision, but the page is protected and I'm not an admin. If someone would implement my version (you can find it at the bottom of the template's talk page; just be sure to leave the category in place) I'd appreciate it. Although a lot of people were edit warring over this (which is why it was protected), I think they'd all agree that the one in place is pretty bad and mine, even if it isn't final, is a step in the right direction. Thanks.--HereToHelp (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Never mind.--HereToHelp (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

list of userboxes

Created this list so we can have controll off all userboxes: Wikipedia:List of userboxes

No, this probably won't work. For one it will become highly unmanageable. The best list we have at the moment is the directory structure under WP:UBX. --Grand Edgemaster _Talk 01:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You could transclude all of the subpages onto one big list - like what is done at Wikipedia:Reference desk/all--Commander Keane 07:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The purpouse was a list of all boxes, not how they look like :) _→AzaToth 15:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realise that the list was a databse query - it's obviously very useful. My idea about the transluded list which would show all userboxes is that users like to see a large selction on one page, rather than having to go through 15 subpages to get inspiration.--Commander Keane 09:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Major work on Template: User OS

User:AzaToth has deswitched {{User OS}} and moved contents into a sub-namespace to items like {{User:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User MS Windows}}. Unfortunately during this move, none of the current format of boxes were redirected. I will implement a temporary switched redirect whilst this project can adjust existing boxes in the standardisation task. More discussion should be held at Template_talk:User_OS --Grand Edgemaster _Talk 01:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Updated tasks list. --Grand Edgemaster _Talk 01:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I think we need to decide what we shpuld use as the seperator.... Ian¹³_ID:540053 15:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup of Wikipedia:Userboxes/Non-ISO_Languages userbox page

I have started the rather large task of cleaning up the Non-ISO Languages userbox section as mentioned on the project's homepage. If anyone has any recommendations, or would like to contact me to offer a hand [you obviously don't have to contact me just to get started!] drop me a line at my talk page. --Richard0612 18:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

With regards to the above, I speak virtually no non-ISO languages so help with those would be greatly appreciated --Richard0612 19:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Progress on the task

This is a 'Progress List" on what urgently needs to be done to the non-ISO section [i.e. broken links, set of userboxes not contiguous in style]

• American English
  • No attention needed

• Blazon
  • No attention needed [cleaned up as of 27/12/05]

• Bullshit
  • No attention needed [cleaned up as of 27/12/05]

• Cockney/Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
  • Attention desperately needed, only crs-4 has a valid userbox.

• Dumbass
  • Some minor attention needed to ensure all boxes are contiguous.

• Foreign
  • No attention needed [cleaned up as of 27/12/05]

• Gibberish
  • Attention needed to make userboxes conform to at least a moderate standard of legibility.

• Lazy English
  • No attention really needed, but the userboxes could be wikified and improved qualitywise.

• 1337 or leetspeak
  • No attention needed

• Pig latin
  • No attention needed

• Quenya
  • Attention needed, QUE-3 to N have no boxes associated with them Cleaned up as of 28/12/05 --Richard0612 09:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Klingon
  • Some attention needed, thl-5 & N are missing.

• Userboxes
  • No attention needed

• Wants to learn other languages
  • No attention needed [cleaned up as of 27/12/05]

If you have cleaned up a section, to let others know, strikethrough or delete the appropriate section and replace it wiht the date and your username. When all of the non-ISO sections have been cleaned up. I will post that information, along with everyone who contributed. --Richard0612 20:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"what links here" not working

I was going through Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:User_1 trying to fix the mess I helped make, but every page it listed seemed to not have a link to the Template. Is something wrong, or am I just not looking hard enough? Lee S. Svoboda 23:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it's normal, often all pages must be touched to show correct link information _→AzaToth 23:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I have let my bot touch all of the "What links here" for Template:User 1. Before touching there were 83. Now there are 3. By the way, touching is just a blank save - saving a page without changing anything in the article. A blank save won't show in the edit history.--Commander Keane 09:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh wow. Could be by any chance have some command over this bot or its code or anything? And would it even be possible for a bot to be made (by you?) to do some of the userbox prefix changes for us? I have a host I can use (Grand Edgemasters server infact) where it could be hosted, and that servers quite secure, we could put a load amount limit on it to prevent spamming. Thanks for anycomments/help. Ian¹³_ID:540053 20:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

BIG PROBLEM

Have a look at the deletion proposal for {{user NoSanta}} at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:User NoSanta.

Adrian Buehlmann brought up the point that this is in violation of WP:AMT... which means that half the userboxes on WP:UBX are also in violation.

Furthermore, the outcome of this proposed deletion has repercussions for the entire WP:UB. If it is deleted then many of the arguments for deletion will be valid for countless userboxes... which once again illustrates the fundemental importance of this proposal.

SO - something needs to be done. And I have no idea what. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 18:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Simple!

Meta-templates are templates made by using another template.

To turn a meta-template into a normal template, just add subst: after the first {{

:)

So, to turn {{userbox|white|black|This userbox is a userbox!}} into a NORMAL, NON-META TEMPLATE, you would change it to: {{subst:userbox|white|black|This userbox is a userbox!}} and press Save page.

Afterwards, looking at the edit you will see that it's magically been converted to HTML and is no longer a meta-template. :)

Examples at {{User bi}}, {{User bifemale}}, {{User lipstick}} etc. Good isn't it :) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AUser_NoSanta&diff=33023508&oldid=33015461. Was just about to fix it myself :D --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

One only problem is that subst at the moment is a bit buggy, and won't expand default-parameters if parameter is not given (could be a minor problem ,but it can clutter a lot) _→AzaToth 19:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't get what the subst: was about until I read this. Shouldn't the box types on Wikipedia:Userboxes be changed accordingly to reflect the new coding style guide? TCorp 14:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay that's good (and remarkably simple!)... we'll just have to see what comes of the proposal now then... File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 19:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Good, I will make meta-template cleanup a current task! Ian¹³_ID:540053 20:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I just voted, and it looks like it is a keep. Oh yeah, the guy who brought it up for deletion has the {{User Santa}} userbox on his user page. What a maroon. --D-Day 20:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Would permanently protecting {{userbox}} solve the problems raised at WP:AUM? That'd probably be a better solution, if it works. --AySz88^-^ 20:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This is an absolutely massive problem, particularly as userboxes are already somewhat controversial, and provide no useful function whatsoever. I would strongly suggest making converting these off of meta-templates a top priority for everybody - userboxes that employ meta-templates are extremely likely to suffer a bloody death in the near future. Phil Sandifer 20:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. This needs to be fixed now. And no, just protecting the meta template isn't a viable option. It doesn't solve all those problems. Rob Church ^Talk 21:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I am a novice here.

• The votes for deletion stand at 8 delete 15 keep as of Wednesday afternoon my time, so it looks like the deletion might not pass, but there are valid concerns raised.
  • WP:NOT what the function of WP should be
  • WP:AMT Server load
• This leads me to think that perhaps some policy should be formulated about userbox development that would mitigate the grievances raised by the deletion discussion.

User:AlMac|^(talk) 21:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Ian¹³_ID:540053's grand speech will probably go a long way to avoiding deletion on principle. The individual case is pretty much irrelevant, but has brought to light several major issues that need to be taken care of. Firstly, we need to subst: all the guilty templates. Following this, we need to establish a clear policy for userboxes in terms of what they are in relation to the rest of Wikipedia, to avoid any disputes in the future. Finally, we need to confirm once and for all whether fair-use images can be used in templates. No one seems to know. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 21:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Go my grand speech! Um, I have looked into this fair-use buisness, and it seems fair use can only be used on articles, per Wikipedia policy (regardless of what the copyright holder says). Therefore, it seems no fair-use images are to be used unless the rules are somehow changed. Ian¹³_ID:540053 14:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I came across a discussion of fair use policy on Village Pump policy debate & my sense is that in some Asian nations, there is no law supporting fair use, and there is an effort to make Wiki acceptable for use in those nations. User:AlMac|^(talk) 17:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Purge links

Since the pages that list userboxes (not the boxes themselves) use a bunch of templates, I think it would be useful if you guys could put links to purge the server cache at the top of such such pages (like on top of WP:PR). This would prove useful to those looking for their templates of the most up-to-date versions. Please consider my request.--HereToHelp (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

On top of this - is there any way we can stop Wikipedia:Userbox pages being categorised when a template is added? File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 11:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There are times we want to be included in the category of people involved in something, and there are times we want to refer to the userboxes without being in the category, such as explaining things at the Help Desk or New User Log. Perhaps something in the coding could say to have the category linkage active only if the page it is on begins with the word "User". User:AlMac|^(talk) 17:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It could be done, bout it would violate WP:AUM _→AzaToth 17:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This one is easy; just subst: the template, then edit the page to remove the category. It will still show up correctly. Also, all Template space pages should automatically purge the cache of any page they are used on whenever they are edited (hence the reason subst: is important for heavily used templates, to avoid recaching the 10,000 pages they are used on.) -- Essjay · Talk 01:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userboxes/WikiProjects ?

Does Wikipedia:Userboxes/WikiProjects really warrant sub-pages? I would certainly agree with categorization, but sub-pages? It just doesn't make sense to me, that is, the main page with 6 boxes in the "Other" category, but 3 sub-pages with 7, 8, and 4 boxes in those. I dunno, I'll get off my soapbox now... -slowpokeiv 14:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Overturn split I say all one page. Ian¹³_ID:540053 14:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Prefix changes

I must say that I strongly disagree with the moving of boxes which require arguments (such as the custom box templates) under the User prefix. The entire point of having a standard prefix is to allow Babel-type templates to accept box names without the prefix, and given that Babel templates cannot pass arguments to box templates correctly, moving such boxes under the standard prefix serves no purpose, and may, in fact, cause more problems than it solves. I propose that any userbox template which requires arguments to produce meaningful output should be placed under the Userbox prefix. —Andux 19:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that it had been discussed elsewhere that the User prefix would be taken but also adjusting the templates to make them Babel-compatible. See just above at this discussion. --Grand Edgemaster _Talk 21:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The next stage for many ported boxes is to split, per the discussion GE linked to. Ian¹³_ID:540053 22:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

My point is that some boxes cannot be made Babel-compatible. Consider Userbox/Vandalized (now User vandalized):

Code	Result
{{User vandalized}}	vnThis user page has been vandalized.
{{User vandalized|2}}	vn-2This user page has been vandalized twice.
{{User vandalized|π}}	vn-πThis user page has been vandalized π times.
{{User vandalized|too many}}	vn-too manyThis user page has been vandalized too many times.
{{User vandalized|2<sup>64</sup>}}	vn-264This user page has been vandalized 264 times.
{{User vandalized|∞}}	vn-∞This user page has been vandalized ∞ times.

As you can see, the output is not constrained to a limited set of possibilities, so the template cannot be split the way Userbox browser, etc. could be. I feel that such templates belong under the Userbox prefix. —Andux 21:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Un-archived and updated to reflect the move of Userbox/Vandalized. —Andux 23:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

In theory babel must be subst: tagged to avoid breaking WP:AMT, so it still provides an easily accessable template for use. Ian¹³_ID:540053 17:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that the "vandalized" userbox is especially stupid as putting a "vandalism counter" on your page is just an invitation to vandalism. Best not to have such things. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

User or user?

Or does it not matter? Just noticed an apparent inconsistency in the code; most, at a glance, use all lowercase whilst some capitalise ‘u’. Nige 16:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It technically doesn't matter as the U is always automatically capitalised by the wikimedia software. --Grand Edgemaster _Talk 17:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

But still, should we use a convention? It makes it easier for bots.--Commander Keane 17:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If we are making a convention it should probably be to use CAP. Simply because it puts one minisculium less strain on the servers. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 17:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I second 'User'. Ian¹³_ID:540053 17:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

‘User’ it is. I'll edit the guidelines on the main page to suit.Nige 15:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair use & logos

I agree it's better to use free images when possible, but if we stick strictly to the policy of no fair use images, many, many boxes will have to be modified -- I'm thinking basically of everything with a logo, such as Wikipedia:Userboxes/Political Parties and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Schools/United States. I think it would be acceptable to set the policy of no fair use images except logos. I'm not sure, what do you think? -- Tetraminoe 07:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd support that, yes. —Nightstallion (?) 07:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think this is a good idea --Richard0612 09:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

User programming

At the moment {{User programming}} pseudo-redirects to {{userbox programming/level 1}} etc. It uses a swtich template, which is a violation of WP:AUM.

So, is the {{User programming}} situation going to be split into seperate templates like what has been done with browsers?

Will {{User religion}} have to be split up into different template becasue it too uses a switch templates?--Commander Keane 16:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep. All switch templates will - but atleast it will stop our babel box problems. Ian¹³_ID:540053 16:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Images

What images are acceptable for use in userboxes? --D-Day 14:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Any copyleft ones. Images with fair use tags should not be used per. Wikipedia:Fair_use: "Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages.". Ian¹³_ID:540053 16:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

What's the difference between a picture being used in an article vs. a template? I don't get it.

Could you tell me if [1] can be used in a template? It has a GNU Free Documentation License, but now I don't know if that really means "free". Thanks. --Fang Aili 16:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes you can use Image:Tolkien_ring.jpg, the GNU licence allows this. Images that you can't use on userboxes are of the fair use variety. Maybe read Fair use and Wikipedia:Fair use to get an idea about what it is, then ask here if need further clarification. The GNU licence is "free" since it allows you to use the image anywhere (like a userbox) as long as you provide the source (in Wikipedia the source can be found by clicking the image, that's why you can use them anywhere). --Commander Keane 16:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I updated the Userboxes page. It should be clearer now as to what images are allowed and what not. It's not a complete how to, yet, but I'm hoping people will help edit and expand the page. TCorp 19:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

End of the project

I guess this project has met its untimely end since User:Kelly Martin has unceremoniously chosen to delete a large number of userboxes that "express opinion"? Or is it going to be reabsorbed back into BABEL? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 22:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I mean, if someone can delete other people's work without the slightest attempt at communicating, why put anything into it? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 22:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I would very much like to see a detailed response from Ms. Martin. At this point, I have trouble seeing her actions as anything other than a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia, and her rationale very likely violates Wikipedia policy, as well. And the arbitrariness of her deletions gives me pause, as well. – Seancdaug 22:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Kelly Martin's deletion log documents the deletions. Disucssion appears to happening at her talk--Commander Keane 22:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

A Request for comment has been filed.--Commander Keane 22:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The RfC seeks comment on Kelly's deletion action of userboxes, but not on userboxes themselves. Can someone give a pointer to where that discussion is best suited? It does seem like something that might need working through, as individual TfD discussion has not been conclusive yet, there seems to be a need for a consensus on a policy (fearing instruction creep of course!)... I looked at this talkpage ( for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Userboxes) which seems a logical place for it, or at least for it to be signposted, but didn't see it clearly being there. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 09:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This won't be the end of the project - not without a struggle anyway. Ian¹³_ID:540053 11:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Archive 2000

←

Archive 2003

Archive 2004

Archive 2005