Wikipedia talk:Userbox migration/Archive 1

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Some issues

Where to gather together userboxes? Should we just add them to Wikipedia:Userboxes as usual, or will we be forced to create a new place?

Is it OK to put userboxes under User:Userboxes, or are they more likely to be deleted by rogue admins? User:Userboxes/Satanist got deleted once already. —Ashley Y 02:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If the idea is to move userboxes to user space to get them out of the clutches of deletionist admins, as many (including more than a few deletionist admins) have claimed, and if Jimbo endorses the solution, then on what grounds are they deleted? If userboxes can be deleted by admins even in user space, then why bother? Let the admins have their way, and us peons will know exactly where we stand - nowhere at all. Jay Maynard 02:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep them on your personal pages (check my sig). If they keep deleting them there (usually claiming the Jimbo hates boxes et al) whack them with the following:This is like saying, "You may have pamphlets, but you may not mechanically print and distribute them. This is not an infringement of free speech". To put it kindly, this is counter-intuitive." State that they are not following Jimbo's suggestions as they claim, they are not following policy or consensus, and that they basically vandalize your pages. If they do it again, start an RFC or RFA. Let's see how they talk themselvs out of that one. CharonX talk Userboxes 02:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

'Let's see how they talk themselvs out of that one.' They do it by being 'right' in the eyes of Tony Sidaway et al - someone has already tried to RFAr Cyde over this issue (worse than simply deleting userboxes - Cyde was actually vandalizing the templates), and it was rejected. Cynical 10:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I still believe in the community. While they have Jimbo's words and T1 as an "argument" they could always say "I only did what was 'right'". However Jimbo explicitely mentions the methods known to us as 'German solution' and says it was implemented with great effect. So they cannout say "We only did what Jimbo said". And they cannot use T1 since T1 is not appicable in userspace. They have bent T1 in templatespace against its spirits (a means to kill hatespeech etc.) but there is no similar policy on userspace to bend. So they would have to act outside policy without the tinyest figleaf. Charon X/talk 11:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A few admins may still try to use T1. I've seen the claim made that any transclusion is considered a template and thus fair game for T1. Should that interpretation to all the way to ArbComm I'm not sure how it would hold up but it would be interesting. In the interim, I've started converting my own on page userbox code over to an archive of userboxes. The next task will see if starting a conversion of Wikipedia:Userboxes will work to allow people to find these user page hosted transclude boxes. --StuffOfInterest 12:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I said above the transclusions in userspace are templates argument does not have the support of Jimbo. See my Jimbo-quote above. I too would be curious how ArbCom rules there, but I think we have a better chance with Jimbo having suggested that way.Charon X/talk 14:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The best defense will be to get enough peopple creating their own archives that it will cause too much of an uproar if one admin decides to go on a deletion spree. To that end, I've created a cross link from my archive to your archive. If I see anyone else out there starting their own I'll add links for that as well. Oh, and sorry to say this, but I really don't like how you have the page name ending with a slash. It just doesn't seem to follow usual Wiki naming practice. Could you at least create a redirect from the non-slashed version to that one? --StuffOfInterest 14:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Woops, didn't actively notice that slash. I moved it to slashless and changed the link on your page, hope you don't mind. Charon X/talk 13:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I would list them in the Wikipedia:Userboxes area (not the user account). If the admins start deleting the boxes from user space then they will be commiting vandalism in the absense of any dictates or concensus established policy. The problem with User:Userboxes is that it is more or less a puppet account for an archive. The boxes should be in a user's account and just a listing of them kept in the userboxes project page. --StuffOfInterest 02:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said below I don't mind either way (centralized directory or small number of large primary user-organized archives) both have their advantages and disadvantages. If the "no endorsement" faction feels an centralized archive would be endorsement I would go for the decentralized variant if it makes them happy, since there has been enough pain in this war. Charon X/talk 13:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There are no rogue admins, just rouge admins. Ardric47 07:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this discussion; just noticed from my watchlist that someone moved a userbox I had worked on and... here we go. Please, let me understand, we are scattering them on several user pages to make it harder for administrators to delete them???? —Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 19:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Organize

Please keep the effort organized. I'd suggest each sub-page of Wikipedia:Userboxes end up archived on the same group of pages.

I can easily see a later move to have Wikipedia:Userboxes eliminated because it seems "like an endorsement". Be prepared to replace it in user space also. GRBerry 14:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

GRBerry, I'm not quite sure what you mean by your reference to sub-page archives. Could you please expand on that a bit. I'm concerned about someone going after Wikipedia:Userboxes as well. All we can do is have some level of cross linking between personal archives to help any future browsing users find what they are looking for. In the meantime, I've decided to be bold and try listing one religous and one political user box of mine out on Wikipedia:Userboxes sub-pages. We'll see if anybody notices, expands on it, or tries to kill it. At least now there are a few words from the benevloent dictator to backup this sort of presention of userboxes.

The funny thing is, I don't really like userboxes that much. The only thing that made me put more than language and skill boxes on my page was when a few admins started saying we could not have them. I just want to see some solution come around which puts an end to the war. --StuffOfInterest 19:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

German Solution?

Should this really be called the German Solution? Isn't this a bit offensive to Germans? Why not the German Wikipedia Resolution?--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 20:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would this be offensive? If anything it is a compliment. The editors on the German Wikipedia came up with a solution to the userbox issue without it degenerating into the sort of warfare we've seen here. --StuffOfInterest 21:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Tree Biting Conspiracy says the name makes it sound like the german Final Solution--Rayc 22:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yuk! Hopefully not too many people make that connection. If too many complain then this page may have to be renamed but I'll leave hope that most people can see the naming for what it is, a compliment. --StuffOfInterest 02:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I was going to call it "The German compromise" but this name was already out there. Having "German" in the term clearly alludes to Jimbo's 5/27/06 comment, ("This is the solution that the Germans have put into effect with great results." -bold added) which is a good thing. Rfrisbie^talk 03:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds to me like the name of a famous movie or something. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 01:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd support a rename to "the german compromise". Solution made me twitch in horror at first, then decide/realize i probably just didnt know what it was referring to. Sounds much like a euphemism/spin for something nasty to my ears. Population control.

(The proposal itself i completely agree with though ;) -Quiddity 06:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh leave the poor Germans alone. It's an excellent solution of theirs. —Ashley Y 06:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, I'm a German myself and I fear I helped coin the term "the German solution". I don't really mind it, if you want to rename it, no problems either - after all "Namen sind nur Schall und Rauch" Charon X/talk 12:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Oi, chalk me up as someone who had a kneejerk reaction to the current name as well. In addition, it's not descriptive unless you already know it's about userboxes. What about: Wikipedia:Solution to userboxes, with a note in the first paragraph that says it comes from de:Wikipedia? -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatley, we've had numerous proposed policies and decisions which didn't make it and are polluting up quite a few good names now. If this does turn into either a defacto or official policy then it should be moved over to a proper name. I won't argue if someone wants to rename the current page but I don't see too much need for it yet. --StuffOfInterest 20:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Size of archive

I'd like to discuss an issue pertaining to the size of personal archives. My own feeling is that a user should not create a userbox in their archive unless they are using it form themself. This will hopefully avoid overpopulation of boxes where a user creates a bunch of them with no intention of ever using them. Back when admins were sending userboxes to TfD one of the criteria I would use for keep/delete votes was how many pages were including the template. In many cases there were none. At this point the box really does become useless junk. What do others think? --StuffOfInterest 10:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have some concers about this suggestion. If a stable centralized archive exists relatively free of deletion wars, limiting the size of individual archives is one thing. If a distributed system evolves as a preservation mechanism, then limiting size will be used as a weapon by deletionists. Some users ask for a specific userbox to be created for them for whatever reason. Others often do this as a service, even if they don't use it themselves. On counting links, the number of users for a box always will be small initially, making them vulnerable to this criterion in their infancy. Such restrictions may be more applicable to centralized archive and directory pages than on an individual user's pages. This suggestion would seem to work best as a guideline with some caveats, rather than as a hard and fast rule. Rfrisbie^talk 11:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

One thing jumped out at me in this. You mention that some users will ask to have a box created for them. If someone creates that box it should probably be hosted under the account of the user who wants to use it. My fear is that having large archives of infrequently used boxes in user space is an invitation to some admin to go on a deletion crusade. If the user hosting the box is using it him/herself then it becomes much harder for an admin to justify deletion. --StuffOfInterest 12:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Large" and "unused" are two different issues. For example, see Regarding central directories below. It's probably better to separate them. Rfrisbie^talk 14:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Tagging boxes

I'm trying to get any related discussions started over here in separate threads so we can work out details and conventions. Please bare with me.

Many people find userboxes through other people's pages rather than in archives. It would be nice to give people a way to find the code for a userbox without having to bring up an edit window on another users's page. I'd like to suggest that to get around this people hosting userboxes create a link at the end of the box text to take people to a place with the code for including that box. For my own boxes I'm using the following:

<small>[[User:StuffOfInterest/Userboxes|*]]</small>

This adds a small, clickable asterisk at the end of the text which takes you to my archive page where the include code is shown. I wouldn't recommend this as a requirement but it might be nice to have as a guideline to help users get to what they are looking for. --StuffOfInterest 12:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Classification of Wikipedians and userboxes

How are Wikipedians and userboxes classified in the German solution? I recommend the following classifications remain in the English implementation. For userboxes that migrate, their category listings would migrate as well. Rfrisbie^talk 12:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Categories → Category:Wikipedia administration → Category:Wikipedians

Category:Categories → Category:Wikipedia administration → Category:User templates

I wouldn't mind seeing the templates listed in Category:User templates but anything involving user boxes outside of user space may become a deletion target. --StuffOfInterest 12:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I added additional info, guideline like rules and implementation example

As above, I added a bunch of stuff, feel free to discuss and mercielessly edit it. Charon X/talk 12:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Er, and if you don't like them, just remove them again. They are just a suggestion, and I really won't mind. Charon X/talk 13:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding central directories

Personally I feel this could work without an "official" central directory, provided one or more dedicated users take it upon themselves to provide a large selection of boxes and/or links to other major archives. This would avoid the "official endorsement" problem seen by some users. Personally, I don't care either way. Charon X/talk 13:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe there should be an "official" directory. For starters, it should include the "skills," "editing interests" and "wikiaffiliations" userboxes. If some type of userbox is too "POV," e.g., "non-wikiaffiliations," then a "grass-roots" directory/directories would be useful. Rfrisbie^talk 14:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd concur that there should continue to be a directory outside User space. At least for the first few months, it should also contain pointers to grass-roots directories that are preceeded by educational text about why these are no longer in the existing directory. (It wouldn't hurt if the grass roots directories also have links back to the official directory.) GRBerry 15:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the German version does have a link from the Babel-userboxes directory to a major personal directory, so there should not problems there. Let's just make sure it does not look like an "endorsement". Charon X/talk 15:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

How about using Categories, with various sub-categories for listing the boxes? --Hunter 14:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favour of that, but fear that those who wish to banish userboxes from the template namespace would also want to see them banished from Wikipedia's categories. Waggers 11:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Non-Babel boxes in templatespace

First of all, what are babel boxes? Babel boxes are boxes saying "this user speaks XYZ" and perhaps "this user lives in (country)".

I see that the suggestion has been changed to allow some non-babel boxes in templatespace. Personally, I get a bad feeling with that. This issue is, if we say "non-babelboxes should be in userspace" we have a distinct line. Does it say "user speaks XYZ" or "user lives in XYZ" and is XYZ a real language/country? Then its templatespace. If not its userspace. If we say things like "this user is straight" or similar may remain in templatespace "because nobody would object" we have accomplished little. There will still be skirmishes whether "possibly controversial template A" is controversial and should be in userspace or not and belongs to templatespace.

Basically this is where we pro-userbox users give up parts of our position. We say "ok, normally there is nothing wrong with those boxes, but if it makes the others happy we move them to userspace." And we avoid lengthy, tireing discussions. Charon X/talk 15:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should allow more than Babel boxes in Template space, but let's try to draw the line narrowly. And acknowledge a position that if a significant body of commentary is received, we'll err towards moving more boxes to user space. As the project page is written at this moment, here is how I'd suggest drawing the line:

"related to skills and qualifications" - change to "claiming professional or academic expertise", as these clearly contribute to building an encyclopedia, all others to User space
"editing interests" - User space
"wikiaffiliations" - "Wikiproject affiliations" - wikiphilosophy goes to user space
new - allow "claiming access to specialized resources and willingness to research in them upon request" (old texts, pay for access online subscriptions). I don't know if there are any such boxes at present, but I'd like to give them favored treatement should any be formed.

The first and forth are clearly helpful for building the encyclopedia, the third is no more of an endorsement of those projects than allowing them a project page in Wikipedia space. Allowing the first also favors experts in a way that may make it easier to find them and should be a small bit of reward to help keep them around (not readily being able to do so is a wikiproblem). GRBerry 15:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I updated the examples to reflect the changes noted above. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 22:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't care that much about what stays except to say that claiming only Babel boxes reflect legitimate encyclopedia-building competencies is an extremist position. If someone gets their feathers ruffled if something is in template space, but can tolerate it in user space, then move it. However, if the objection is just another maneuver to marginalize a legitimate template as an intermediate step toward its eventual elimination, then "once burned, twice shy" and I will not continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Rfrisbie^talk 22:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said in my post above, I think its the part we pro-userbox users must move towards the "other side". By having narrow and distinctive rules what exactly may remain in templatespace we can avoid long tireing discussions. We want to avoid another vague "divisive or inflammatory" rule, in any direction - once bitten, twice shy. I feel this is part of the reason I personally would like to keep the range of boxes inside templatespace quite limited. By having precise and short rules we can quickly disarm any attack from any side. "This user lives in Germany" - Germany is a real country, so templatespace. "This user lives in a glass dome on the moon" - unless he can provide evidence that he REALLY does, userspace. This is not meant to marginalize userspace userboxes, but rather to avoid further conflict. If user A says he finds your relatively unoffensive userbox in templatespace offensive, the current version of the solution would expect you to move it to userpace. Of course there would be ironically (knowing human nature) controversial discussions whether a certain userbox is controversal and userspace or not. Basically we would be in a similar place like before, people arguing about userboxes. But what we really want to do is keep those satified that like their boxes, like me, while also satisfying those that would like to see POV boxes gone, at least out of the encycopedic content. And before we brew additional trouble whether of userbox U belongs here or there, according to the different interpretations of too vague rules, I rather say "keep the really, really safe ones, like the Babel-boxes inside templatespace, and move the rest into userspace. And then let the box-loathers and anti-POV-box faction sulk as they want, since POV boxes are allowed in userspace." Basically with a little investment from our side future conflicts are largely avoided. And this is what many users really long for: peace. Charon X/talk 00:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good in theory. Make any changes to the "Guiding principles" you see fit. I have no interest or intention of edit warring anyone over userboxes. Rfrisbie^talk 01:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, same here. I came back only a little over a week ago after near a month of userbox-war-stress induced wikibreak (at first I wanted to leave for good, but you know how it is...) but I'm starting to feel the burnout again, especially after LONG discussions with some admins in the last days. So I tried to explain the train of my thoughts, and see what the others think of it. I don't want to impose my views on all the others, I think we all felt that end of the stick often enough in the last view days. So please, whoever else reads this, add your two cents, and tell us what YOU think is better, narrow or wide, concrete or just the essentials, and show us your views (this offer of course not only extends to those that like userboxes, also those that dislike them are asked and encouraged to comment - we try to find a solution here with which (almost) all can live with). Charon X/talk 01:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My two cents: Keep only Babel templates in templatespace, move everything else to userspace. It will (hopefully) stop all future problems. —Mi r a 01:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My feeling is Babel as first tier, skills (programming and area of expertise) as second tier. Beyond that it really needs to be in userspace. So, I guess you could call me "narrow". By second tier, I can see those boxes having an argument for either template or user space. So far there doesn't seem to be much issue with boxes like "advanced PHP programmer" but you never know what may change in the future. The Babel language boxes on the other hand have almost no controversy. --StuffOfInterest 01:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Without quality content, language is irrelevant. If content area experts aren't writing articles, who is? I pretty much assume editors can read and write English. The quality of their command of the language speaks for itself. Rfrisbie^talk 01:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with keeping StuffOfInterest's "Tier 2" in template space, and I would add to that group blatantly encyclopedic boxes like "user admin" and Wikiproject memberships. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I can appreciate the difficulty in aiming to take a narrow approach to template-space inclusion (so as not to encourage further deletion by the anti-userboxers), while also trying to make some concessions to make the solution palatable to the pro-userboxers as well. (See, for example, attempts with WP:UUB and WP:UPP.) While difficult, I agree that attempting this balancing act while also trying to keep the implementation simple and free of instruction creep is important in trying to definitively settle the matter and in avoiding further warring.

That said, I wanted to throw an idea out here regarding a compromise for the gray area of WikiProjects and other WikiAffiliations (group 3 from GRBerry's post above): migrate them to the Wikipedia: namespace. Specifically, WikiProjects and other WikiAffiliations that want a userbox should create it as (or migrate it to) a subpage of their main project page instead of cluttering up the template namespace. For examples: {{User WikiProject Userboxes}} could be moved out of the template namespace and into the Wikipedia namespace as {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes/Userbox}}. {{User wikipedia/WikiGnome}} would be {{Wikipedia:WikiGnome/Userbox}}, {{User WikiProject Florida}} would be {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida/Userbox}}, {{User wikipedia/Administrator}} would be {{Wikipedia:Administrators/Userbox}}, etc. I should point out that WikiProject Disambiguation has done this from the start, with their userbox at {{Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Userbox}} (even if it doesn't exactly follow the naming scheme used in the other examples).

Hopefully, such Wikipedia-namespace userboxes wouldn't face much objection. The content is usually straightforward and uncontroversial (e.g., "This user is a member of WikiProject X", "This user is an administrator", etc.), and allowing transclusion from a centralized location (the subpage of the project page) would permit the project's userbox to have a standardized appearance. One of the main objections to transclusion, the potential for tracking using Whatlinkshere, is a non-issue since it's as harmless as maintaining a list of WikiProject or WikiAffiliation members. The other major objection to transclusion is the viral nature it promotes, and I don't think that's a problem here either. The common argument, generally referring to advocacy userboxes, is that the viral nature of these userboxes—that they are listed, promoted, and made available in the template namespace for easy inclusion on user pages—encourages their use as an accepted Wikipedian practice on user pages, which gives the wrong impression that such promotion of advocacy is a valid part of what it means to be a good Wikipedian. For WikiProject/Affiliation userboxes, such viral nature is not so harmful. If the viral nature of {{Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Userbox}} motivates someone (though I doubt a userbox would be the main motivation) to help out with disambiguation and to use the userbox to identify themselves as doing so, there's no harm done—in fact, it benefits the project. Participation in such efforts can certainly be a valid part of what it means to be a good Wikipedian. (Certainly, you don't need a userbox to participate or to be a good Wikipedian; however, the existence of these sorts of transcludable userboxes do no harm [at worst] and might even have a positive effect [at best].)

Now, another aspect of this is that the implementation creates a sort of natural inclusion criteria for Wikipedia-namespace userboxes: they must be associated with a project/affiliation that has a project page in the Wikipedia-namespace. Currently, that would include all WikiProjects, as well as other groups/affiliations in the Wikipedia-namespace (like administrators, Esperanza, CVU, WikiGnomes, etc.) It would naturally exclude political/religious/advocacy userboxes , humor userboxes, trivial (e.g., favorite color) userboxes, as none of these would be associated with groups in the Wikipedia-namespace. I suppose there might be some out there with a penchant for wikilawyering who might create a project page to serve the purpose of getting a specific userbox—as if [[Wikipedia:Atheists Alliance]] would be created just to have a "This user is an atheist" userbox.—rather than the other way around. However, this would be treated as any other abuse of the Wikipedia project namespace; it wouldn't specifically be the userbox that would be objectionable (for a change), but that the associated project would be advocacy-based, and therefore would not be allowed in the Wikipedia-namespace in the first place.

That said, a number of other "second tier" userboxes that might also be acceptable wouldn't be covered under such a migration to Wikipedia-space. Userboxes based on skill, location, area of expertise, etc. really don't have "parent" project pages and would therefore be beyond the purview of such a migration. Babelboxes generally enjoy a good deal of support, but also would not be covered under such a migration. (Aside from that, the babelbox naming system of {{user foo-#}} seems fairly well standardized across the Wikipedias for the various languages, so it would be a really bad idea to try and fiddle with that.) For myself, I should say that I personally support keeping all the second tier userboxes around in a centralized location (either partially migrated to the Wikipedia-namespace or left in template space altogether), as my objections are typically to advocacy userboxes.

While the above is somewhat lengthy, I think the general idea and its implementation is fairly straightforward. A more basic statement might look something like:

WikiProjects and other encyclopedia-related groups in the Wikipedia: namespace can provide a userbox as a transcludable project subpage. Existing userboxes for such groups are to be removed from the template namespace and migrated to project subpages.

I think the part about not creating a group as an excuse to get a userbox should go without saying, so we don't need to be too explicit about that.

Again, I'll say that I'd be fine leaving all such second tier userboxes where they are; I certainly won't be bothered if no one supports a Wikipedia-namespace migration and instead just wants to keep these sorts of userboxes in templatespace (heck, I might even prefer it!). I'm just putting this out here as a sort of "third way" between the template and user namespaces—another option to consider should it occur that the inclusion of WikiProjects/WikiAffiliations in templatespace would be considered a point of contention. — Jeff | (talk) | 05:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This suggestion seems to me a most sensible one. I have long thought that there should be more standing given to WikiProjects in this connection. As an example, I wonder if just about all of the "programming-related" userboxes should be attached to wikipedia:WikiProject Programming languages: at the risk of sparking controversy, if {{user intercal}} had been under the auspices of such a project, there would have been less likelihood of its being nuked. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 22:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Religion

I have started recovering the religion section at User:Ashley Y/Userboxes/Religion, including creating userboxes that express POV (e.g. "This user is a Christian" rather than "This user is interested in Christianity"). —Ashley Y 00:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You might take a look at User:BigDT/Religious User Boxes, which is I recall many of the religious userboxes, if I recall correctly as they stood in mid-May. GRBerry 01:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This highlights one fear I have with the userspace solution. We could easily end up with massive duplication of efforts. Please, before creating a new userspace box, check around to see if another one may already exist. First, take a look in Wikipedia:Userboxes to see if what you plan to create is there. If not, do a search on the exact text string you want to use. Finally, check a few of the existing user space archives. After that, if you don't see what you want, then create a new one. --StuffOfInterest 01:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not necessarily a bad thing. A certain amount of redundancy provides robustness; that's why the internet was invented in the first place. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm templating many of these. —Ashley Y 02:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So who is the central userbox user that is going to store the templates--Rayc 02:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There isn't one. The "templates" are spread around among the user community as sub-pages. A central archive is a much bigger target than having many users with a few boxes each. My personal rule is that I'll only host a userbox which I use on my own page. If others want to use it as well then great. --StuffOfInterest 02:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

User categories in Userboxes

I suggest discouraging the use of user categories in userbox code. The biggest remaining concern of some deletionists would be the vote-stacking argument. My take on the evidence at Wikipedia:T1 and T2 debates is that the real problem was user categories. (Well, ok, the really real problem is off-wikipedia vote-stacking, but nothing we do to userboxes will stop that.) If we separate the two, the boxes should be safer. GRBerry 02:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I like what StuffOfInterest did with the categories, personally. They're still there, but not included in the userbox itself. —Mi r a 03:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I also support this "category suggestion method." I also would support userboxes that had the category code commented out with an applicable note. Obviously, there are several ways to have users choose to be included in Wikipedian categories. Whether such categories should exist is another issue. That can be addressed separately from userboxes. Rfrisbie^talk 17:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

With some exceptions, Categories of Wikipedians don't help us to create an encyclopedia and should be strongly deprecated. I've changed the text to reflect this. --Tony Sidaway 18:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both GR and espcially with Tony here. Userboxes should not have categories; categories of Wikipedians do not help Wikipedia acheive its goals in any way. In fact, I've found that the existence of categories such as Category:Liberal Wikipedians and Category:Conservative Wikipedians, for example, only serve to counter Wikipedia's goals. Not only are they divisive by their very nature, not only are they used for votestacking, but they are used more insiduously by editors of controversial articles to find "like-minded" contributors to help argue on the talk pages and give their POV the appearance of consensus. I've seen this on political pages, pages dealing with religious issues, pages involving various nationalist interests, etc. The biggest problem, by far, with userboxes is the categorization issue and I'm counting the days until we have a policy that puts an end to this.--WilliamThweatt 02:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course categories of Wikipedians help the encyclopedia. It's true that not all of them do, but counting them all out paints with far too broad a brush. Further, neither categories nor userboxes themselves are direct causes of votestacking; as long as userpages are searchable, votestacking is trivial - and this has been repeatedly debunked and repeatedly proven to be unrelated to userboxes and categories, so it's at best disingenuous to raise the argument over and over again. Let me repeat myself: IF YOU WANT TO STOP VOTESTACKING AND LIKE ABUSES, MAKE USER PAGES NON-SEARCHABLE. Until that is done, this argument is horse exhaust. Jay Maynard 09:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I should note for the sake of completeness that there's one other solution to votestacking that does not involve making user pages non-searchable: mandate that user pages be as bland and homogenous as mine currently is. Of course, if that's what you want - and I can't help but reach that conclusion by some folks' insistence that people should stop being liberals or conservatives or anything else when they poke their noses in here - then go right ahead and say it. Jay Maynard 09:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Jay, you don't need to shout, we can all hear you. It's also incorrect that the use of categories in votestacking has been "debunked". In the examples at WP:T1D cited as examples of userbox votestacking, it turned out to be categories that were used in almost every instance.

Your continued insistence that "some folks" want userpages to be bland and homogeneous is actually boring at this point, and indicates that you've got your fingers in your ears. "La la la I can't hear you" is boring. Why not get the chip off your shoulder, Jay? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that was both a bit pushy and a bit unclear. I apologize for both, and will attempt to rectify the latter: I don't think your thesis that people want your page to be dull and homogenous is supported by any evidence, but rather contradicted by the strong support this solution is receiving from those previously on the "antiuserbox side" in the late "war". Would you rather have userboxes on your page, or maintain an altar to your conviction that Tony Sidaway really is a censorious dickhead? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I shouted because, despite repeated debunkings, people keep repeating that categories and userboxes enable votestacking - when that's not supported by the evidence. Of the five cases listed at WP:T1D, three involved categories - and one of those was about the category in question, so I would agree with the poster that that's a legitimate use. Half of the remaining cases does not a tide make. Removing categories will not correct votestacking; the evidence is plain to see. Why do people keep bringing up this red herring?

I've rethought my stand on my user page, and will be reverting it to the more informative version and fixing links to userboxes that have been moved. I'll even host those I use that are not hosted elsewhere in userspace. I realize that, in so doing, I'm opening myself up to a direct attack by Tony, but I'm going to assume, in the face of evidence to the contrary, that he will not decide to speedy delete the stuff hosted there under T1. In return, will you pledge to speedy undelete any of them if he does go against this solution to the war? I think that you'll find that none of them are "divisive and inflammatory" under any reasonable interpretation of T1, let alone core policies such as WP:NPA. Jay Maynard 17:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I pledge never to reverse anyone else's administrative action without prior, or at the very least, concommitant dialogue. That's what the community entrusted me with when they gave me the keys to the janitor closet. I have told you that you have my support; if that's not good enough for you, I don't know what to say. My record shows that I'm not scared of Tony Sidaway. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, I guess well find out just how far "support" goes when the rubber meets the road - or, in this case, when the speedy delete hits the servers. I really feel like the pro-userbox portion of the community that is Wikipedia is giving in to the anti-userbox admins too easily, and will find that their trust has been abused when userspace boxes start getting deleted under T1, but since I'm apparently the only one who feels that way, I'll shut up now. Jay Maynard 17:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Jay, I think you're in danger of being one of the last people buying into the whole "us vs them", "good guys and bad guys", black and white framing of the issue. If you think of a fight, you create conditions where someone has to lose in order for someone else to win. Try a paradigm shift, and see a situation where everybody is winning, and nobody "giving in". Try reading a page like meatball:DefendAgainstPassion, which has some very good content about not reinforcing conflict dynamics. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's entirely possible. Considering everything that's been slung my way, it's kinda hard for me to get out of that mindset. OTOH, when people who've done the slinging are entirely unapologetic about it, that doesn't help... Jay Maynard 18:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There is not consensus on the above viewpoints to eliminate Wikipedian categories. Rfrisbie^talk 04:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have problems accepting the idea that categories of users interested in certain articles are fundamentally harmful to Wikipedia. I have seen (and been involved in) cases where the exact opposite is true, a POV is being pushed and is successful because too few editors had a different viewpoint. IE- the NPOV looses. I say, deal with vote stacking where it is discovered, but vote stacking can occur by many more methods than user boxes with categories, and a sense of community is created when groups which have similar interests can discuss and contribute to articles. DavidBailey 03:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's suggesting that categories of Wikipedians interested in certain topics are harmful, the problem is categories of Wikipedians according to the side they've taken on some issue. Could you clarify how you're presenting a counter-example? I really don't see how it's any more difficult for "groups which have similar interests to discuss and contibute to articles" in any scenario that anybody is suggesting. What exactly are you arguing against? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Whose userpage...

exactly do you propose stuff is moved to? Who has a right to claim stuff like that? A vital flaw I feel... Ian13/talk 09:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Different people can set up directories of the userboxes they see fit to list. It'll be a fairly organic process, and there will end up being a small handful of big directories, with a lot of overlap. At least that's what I'm seeing; I don't know about anyone else. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I just picked one of the subpages at Wikipedia:Userboxes and decided to take all of the userboxes from that page. Other people are just displaying the ones they've created themselves, or just the ones they use. I think it will be harder to find a specific userbox, if you're looking for one. But it will also be fun just browsing through all of the available directories. —Mi r a 09:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I bet we'll end up with directories with different... atmospheres. I think it'll be really interesting, the structure that develops organically. Some people will probably maintain directories of directories, and a lot of redundancy at all levels will keep the whole system robust, in case some individual disappears or deletes all their stuff. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be simplest to just make sub-pages of User:Template? After all, there appears to be no user named Template, and we can always block that name if we haven't already. I don't much like the idea of associating a userbox with a particular user if many people use it. Seahen 01:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What you suggest might be simpler, but it won't fly. Associating userboxes with a particular person makes someone somewhat responsible for their content, perhaps. Even if that's not the case, the point is to discourage them, not facilitate them. Template space facilitated them way too much, and in a too official-seeming way. Maybe if they're rather blatantly deprecated, by not even allowing them to be hosted in a common area, people will start to ask why, and maybe find out a way of thinking about Wikipedia that won't incline them to the same mode of expression, at least that's what some of us hope. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Broadly welcome

I notice that migration has already begun. I broadly welcome this as an excellent alternative to trying to keep such templates in template space, and urge editors to adopt their favorite templates, move them to subpages and inform those who transclude the templates so that they can redirect or subst according to preference.

It doesn't matter who adopts a template; as publicly transcluded content they would be subject to public editing.

Special pseudo-users should not be used for the purpose. Please user your own username and user space.

The T1 speedy criterion still applies, but templates in user space should be afforded much broader leeway than those in template space. --Tony Sidaway 15:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, thanks for the endorsement. What is your feeling on a) listing these userspace boxes in Wikipedia:Userboxes and b) listing the userspace boxes on Category:User templates? BTW, I fully agree with not using pseudo-users. As for notifying users, it would be nice to let a bot loose for some of the popular ones (such as religion and politics) to go through and either notify users or make the modification for them. I'll presume that most users would rather have the source of their box change than having it just disappear. Hopefully, finally, this solution can settle things down again. --StuffOfInterest 15:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel that use of categories of any kind would be inappropriate except for pretty uncontroversial matters such as Wikipiedians who live in Quebec or Wikipedians who have knowledge of Catalan.

On bot-based mass-editing of user pages to the new template locations, I think it would be a good idea to hold a straw poll prior to this; I would be in favor provided there was a strong consensus for it. I think that there would in general be no widespread objections to politely worded bot-based notifications giving a brief informative note about the move and linking to a more informative "what's all this about?" kind of FAQ page. --Tony Sidaway 16:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the categories, I was talking about putting the boxes in a category rather than the category in the boxes. As for the later, my personal policy is not to put the category in a box. On my archive page I list a suggested category with the box so if people choose to list themselves in it they have the option. It seems to make more sense than binding the two together. --StuffOfInterest 16:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate even to have a category of userboxes. The users who want to have userboxes should create them in their own user pages and tell other users about them (but not by spamming). Perhaps a page can be provided on the Userboxes WikiProject for people to list their pages of userboxes. --Tony Sidaway 18:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course you don't. Without a central directory, and a category, userboxes will wither and die - exactly what you have been working toward, by hook or by crook. Further, if, as you claim, T1 still applies, what's to stop you or Cyde or other anti-userbox admins from speedy-deleting them out of user space? How, in fact, does this improve the situation?

I'm deeply, deeply suspicious of your endorsement - to the point of beginning to oppose the proposal just because you think it's a good idea. Your claim that T1 still applies, coupled with your exceedingly broad interpretation of T1, gives me no confidence at all that this will actually be a solution. Jay Maynard 01:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You really think userboxes will die out without a centralized directory? I tend to think they'll flourish. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Licensing issues

I know that some of the archiving to date has been done by simply copying and pasting, but for continuity and site licensing reasons this should be discontinued. Instead, use page moves. This will create a link to the new location so that moved templates will continue to work on the user pages until the editors have been informed and edited their userpages to link to the new location. Moving the template also retains the editing history, which is required for licensing purposes but is also intrinsically useful maintenance information. I have edited the proposal accordingly. --Tony Sidaway 15:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, an admin will probably have to help with this as many of the templates being recreated are ones which were recently deleted and salted. --StuffOfInterest 16:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, too late for many of mine. The alternative is to edit the old page into a redirect, which at least leaves the editing history.

While Tony's suggestion is desirable, it's not actually legally required, as it is perfectly acceptable to include GFDL material without attribution on Wikipedia. —Ashley Y 23:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In any event, it is possible to fix cut and paste moves. Rfrisbie^talk 04:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm unwilling to do this until the fate of userboxes in Template: space has been decided. —Ashley Y 06:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the GFDL require attribution? Ardric47 07:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, how is subst: handled from a licensing standpoint? Is there still a trail of attribution somewhere? What about templates that have been subst'd and deleted? —Andux^␅ 08:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

A "move and bypass redirects" approach

I tried moving two WikiProject userboxes and then bypassing the redirects with WP:AWB. The two new pages are {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Education/Userbox}} and {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Userbox}}. AWB worked just fine with two "Find and replace" settings, e.g., "tl|User WikiProject Psychology" → "[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Userbox]]" and "User WikiProject Psychology" → "Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Userbox" in that order so that the "tl" versions are found before they're changed. I did goof up my edit note for pyschology so I left an apology on the affected talk pages. This is a relatively painless way to move userbox templates out of templatespace. How would you suggest improving the process of how I did these? Rfrisbie^talk 22:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Centralized userspace archives

In the Broadly welcome discussion, Tony Sidaway states, "Special pseudo-users should not be used for the purpose." However, he provides no rationale. At Wikipedia:Mackensen's Proposal/Straw Poll#Question 9: New Userbox virtual space, the only rationales I see are an erroneous development workload claim and the ubiquitous “this does not stop the votestacking threat” argument. My question is, on what policy basis is a centralized userboxes archive in userspace prohibited? What stops something like “User:CentralPlaceForPuttingUserboxes” or whatever from being a major userbox repository? Considering Jimbo's expressed approval of allowing them to exist in userspace, arbitrary and unnecessary restrictions impede an orderly migration from templatespace to userspace. Having a safe and well-known place to move pages certainly would expedite the process. Rfrisbie^talk 03:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ignore Tony unless he can point to policy. —Ashley Y 06:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Historically, that has proven a risky move. --Tony Sidaway 18:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I've never had an RFC against me. —Ashley Y 19:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ashley Y, please do not antagonize. The goal here is trying to find a middle ground which after nearly half a year can gain some sort of concensus. Remember that there are people on one end who think there should be absolutely no userboxes and no POV anywhere on Wikipedia. Slightly inside of this are those who feel there should be nothing non-encylopedic outside of user space. On the other end are those who think anyone should be able to post anything, anywhere. I'm looking for middle ground.

Userboxes have had a bad habbit of multiplying. There are people out there who create boxes for the hell of it when they themselves won't even use them. That's why my own feeling is that any userbox in a person's archive should also be on their own user page. If you won't use it there is no reason for you to host it. Another middle ground item I'm pushing for is to let us to list boxes (and probably archives of boxes) on the Wikipedia:Userboxes project page and subpages. Granted, this isn't in user space, but it sends people in the right direction.

On a side note, as for categories, I for one don't want to add a userbox to my page to later find out it automatically put me in a category. This is why for the boxes I host I list a suggested category inclusion next to the box but I don't put it in the box code. This allows the user to decide what categories they do or do not want in

The fact that Tony has endorsed this overall solution (with a few modifications) is a big step. Hopefully we'll see Cyde stop by this week and chime in a well. Doc would have been another one to hear from but it looks like he has departed out company. Getting some of the people on the deletionist side of the debate to come onboard makes this the best chance at a solution we've had to date. The next thing we have to do is get the people on the other end of the spectrum to stop creating boxes in template space and start creating them here. --StuffOfInterest 20:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the central Wikipedia:Userboxes would be a much better place than even a neutral role account for directories of userboxes. —Ashley Y 04:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see that it matters either way. That said, I'm sticking to my own userspace, because using a "pseudo-user" account just opens the way for more pointless bickering. —Mi r a 06:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I just created a navigation "template" that might help (don't worry, it's in my userspace), but I'm not sure if it's one of those "Bad Things™" or not. Please let me know what you think, either here or on the "template"'s talk page. —Mi r a 09:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As long as this is a "short list," this seems fine. Real soon now, I expect someone will create a centralized list page in userspace. Rfrisbie^talk 11:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a list linked at the top of the template. However, the user hosting it says it is temporary. —Mi r a 12:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that. I'm sure someone else will pick up the ball if that list disappears. And thanks for starting the template! :-) Rfrisbie^talk 14:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Why, thank you for the kind words. :) —Mi r a 14:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it is temporary, but I'm in no hurry. Work out what the right solution is, and after we have that implemented we'll deprecate and eventually do away with that page. GRBerry 18:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Userpage directories

In addition to "archives" for hosting userboxes, userpage "directories" are important to help find userboxes of interest. These directories can list userboxes from wherever they are located, not just those archived on a particular user's page. As an example, I am starting to migrate "pet" userboxes to my userpage area. As naming conventions, I add userboxes to "User:<Username>/Userbox/<Userbox name>". and directories to "User:<Username>/Userboxes/<Directory name>". After I move templates, I bypass all the redirects using WP:AWB. This process updates individual userpages, the related WP:UBX subpage and my own directory. My basic edit summary is "Bypassed userbox redirect from [[Template:<old name>]] to [[User:<new name>]]. See [[Wikipedia:The German solution]]." You can see an example directory at User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Pets. Rfrisbie^talk 14:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Where to put?

I think we should put the userboxes on my sockpuppet's page, User:Userboxuser. There is even a template for him, Template:ubxusr, so to use it use {{ubxusr|exampleuserboxbox}} which will turn out as {{User:Userboxuser/exampleuserbox}}. Also, a shortcut is located at U:UBX --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 16:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a bad idea, as it will only cause more controversy. (See Tony Sidaway's statements above.) —Mi r a 16:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

2nd that. --StuffOfInterest 19:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't create any more role accounts for the purpose of hosting userboxes. All userboxes under those accounts will be deleted or userfied. --Tony Sidaway 18:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

And then brought back under DRV. —Ashley Y 19:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it much easier to just not use role accounts, and then avoid the whole deletion/DRV cycle? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are User:Userboxuser, then you're in a better position to complain if a rogue admin deletes stuff in your space. If you can do that, it should work. I was going to use User:Userboxes, but the owner has apparently left Wikipedia. —Ashley Y 20:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

My god. Can someone please explain what the problem is? —Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 20:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure... it has to do with user accounts being created just as userbox storage places. Tony's saying don't do that, that userboxes should be stored in the user spaces of regular user accounts; at least that's what I'm hearing him say. I think Ashley objects to that, but I'm not sure why. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway has been making vague threats to delete stuff out of User: space. —Ashley Y 20:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The easiest way to deal with "vague threats" like that is to think of Wikipedia the way Tony does, specifically regarding the role of written policy. He's making perfect sense, from that perspective. Interpreting Wikipedia policy legalistically is a risky move; that's not a threat. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe this perspective leads to wheel-warring and complaints. I don't think this is the model for good editing or admin behaviour, and I don't think we should be bound by one editor who behaves like that. I recommend people build consensus instead. —Ashley Y 21:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Um.... it's not one editor. It's how the site's been working for years. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if there's a consensus for something, go ahead and organise it and let people know about it, even create a policy document if you like. I think saying "Special pseudo-users should not be used for the purpose" is a perfectly reasonable opinion, and possibly even the start of a discussion on the issue, but right now that's just one editor and hardly policy we are currently bound by. —Ashley Y 03:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I don't understand - how is User:Userboxuser in a better position to complain than you would be if a rogue admin deletes stuff from your own space? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Our own space is also good, but we might want a central place. Actually I'm thinking more for the "directory" pages than for the userboxes themselves. —Ashley Y 20:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I was imagining that certain people, whoever wants to, would host directories in their own user spaces, and there would be a certain amount of interlinking among them. Isn't that what people have started to do already? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, User:UBX/Userboxes/General Nav is a good tool to keep track of that status. Rfrisbie^talk 20:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have for religion, but if it's considered acceptable I might move it to a more central place so others can feel a bit freer about editing it without worrying about whether I "own" it. —Ashley Y 20:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that concern, but I think we'll just have to help people get over ideas about ownership. I sort of imagine lots of people having small collections of userboxes, copied from directories they like, or self-made, and then people will probably copy the ones the want to share to their favorite directories, which will become known as places where people come to compare and swap userboxes, and you'd be more of a host than an owner. It'll all be quite organic, I imgaine; wikis are good at that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well right now for example I have User:Ashley Y/Userboxes/Religion and BigDT has User:BigDT/Religious User Boxes. It would be useful if there were a neutral space where we could merge them together into a single page and avoid duplication. If you look at User:UBX/Userboxes/General Nav, you see the beginnings of a bunch of random stuff that could benefit from organisation. —Ashley Y 20:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As I've said several times, if you were only listing those which you yourself put on your user page there wouldn't be nearly as much duplication. I only have one religion box in my archive being that it is the only one I have on my user page. --StuffOfInterest 20:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I support organization, but I don't think avoiding redundancy is a good idea. Redundancy provides a certain robustness, which is a good thing. It certainly seems a strange battle to choose, if there's good faith opposition. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

A certain amount of redundancy is a good thing. I just believe that users should have a personal stake/interest in the boxes they choose to host. Otherwise, we'll see a lot of wasted resources and effort on boxes which will never see a single users page. --StuffOfInterest 21:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

My immediate concern has been preserving userboxes before they get speedily deleted: despite Jimbo's requests not to, the mass deletion has been continuing, albeit at a slower rate. I'm not sure I really want to hold on to all of them forever, I might try to get others to claim them once the dust has settled. —Ashley Y 04:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think my question wasn't quite clear. I meant: what's the problem with user boxes? Why we consider moving them? Do they violate any wikipedia rule? —Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 23:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, a lot of people think that a lot of userboxes violate the "spirit" of the project, but it's hard to point to one particular rule that's specificly about them. It's been a contentious issue for a while, and the "rules" regarding userboxes are in a state of flux, but you should understand that that's the usual story with "rules" here - the most experienced Wikipedians don't think in terms of rules at all. (Look at pillar 5 under WP:5P.) Anyway, the compromise that we seem to be coming to with userboxes is to move them from template space to user space, which makes it clearer that they aren't part of the encyclopedia project, but once in user space, we're going to let people say what they want with them, pretty much, and see how that works out. It's what they do on the German Wikipedia, hence the name of this page. I hope that addresses your question better. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. In all honesty, this is quite disheartening. Of course I don't care about userboxes and I'll remove all of them from my user page. But a similar phenomenon is happening with the Manual Of Style: tons of changes are being made without notice... I don't think one has to read the manual again every morning. I understand that no rule is set in stone but a relative stability is necessary, especially considering that the maintenance tools available here are near to zero and pretty much everything is done by hand. Thanks again for your reply. The previous comments are not addressed to you, of course. —Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 00:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

TfD problem?

This TfD worries me somewhat. Will this plan still work if the boxes can be brought to TfD? —Mi r a 23:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

At some point, we ought to decide whether TfD or MfD is the appropriate forum for userfied templates. I can't see that it matters much one way or the other, but we might as well be consistent, eventually. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it wasn't obvious, I think they should go to MfD. —Mi r a 23:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's so unobvious, to me anyway, that I'm going to ask you why you think that. Why? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I meant if it wasn't obvious in light of my comments above. But I think the most basic reason is that, as silly as it may sound, they aren't in template space. —Mi r a 00:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Where do user pages and user subpages usually go? Let's be consistent with that... GRBerry 00:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

MfD. —Mi r a 00:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I was hoping for a reason other than "semantics" or "inertia". Like I said, I don't think it matters much. There's template space, and there's pages that are clearly designed for transclusion only, and there's a pretty good reason for taking either of those to define what is a "template". -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, part of the point of this proposal is that the new userboxes will be governed by the more lenient rules of userspace. Treating them as templates seems to defeat that point. —Mi r a 00:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a point. I wouldn't oppose using MfD; just be prepared to explain it n times, where 'n' is any arbitrary large number. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, guess I'd better practice. —Mi r a 00:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like what templates are good for. ;-) Rfrisbie^talk 01:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Categories and vote-stacking

I understand that categories make vote-stacking easier; there is also the argument that such things should not mess up Category space. What concerns me is that the same arguments might apply to any central directory of userboxes, given the "what links here" functionality. I would rather see such directories exist. —Ashley Y 04:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's easy to vote-stack using the search function: for instance, pro-choice users, Republican users. Is there any evidence that categories are significantly easier or more effective? —Ashley Y 04:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless user pages are not searchable anywhere (including on Wikipedia itself and on search engines like google), things would not change. Adding categories just make things easier for everyone and does not make things worse anyways. --Hunter 05:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have problems accepting the idea that categories of users interested in certain articles are fundamentally harmful to Wikipedia. I have seen (and been involved in) cases where the exact opposite is true, a POV is being pushed and is successful because too few editors had a different viewpoint. IE- the NPOV looses. I say, deal with vote stacking where it is discovered, but vote stacking can occur by many more methods than user boxes with categories, and a sense of community is created when groups which have similar interests can discuss and contribute to articles. DavidBailey 03:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Central directory

Where should we put a central directory of userboxes? (not a vote, don't sign underneath, just a question for discussion)

Use the existing WP:UBX? It will always exist for Babel-boxes at least, one assumes.

Use User:Box? No policy says we can't. Note that User:Boxes, User:Userbox and User:Userboxes all have ban notices on them, which complicate things.

Not at all? Perhaps some would prefer userboxes not to be easily found.

—Ashley Y 05:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that if you set up a central directory, you'll see it slip out of date until it isn't a central directory anymore. Decentralized is much more organic; I doubt it will be hard to find things, either. I find things on the internet all the time, and it hasn't got a central directory. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well WP:UBX works perfectly well. People find userboxes there, so they like to add new ones there too. I would prefer to keep that for POV userboxes if we can. —Ashley Y 05:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not against it; but clearly someone's been banning "role" accounts. If it were me, I'd just embrace the whole decentralized, user-hosted directories, sort of underground aspect of it, but I'll shut up about it, since others don't seem to see it that way. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The role accounts were banned for other reasons I believe: you'll notice that the user pages were not protected, for instance. —Ashley Y 05:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for role account blocking:

Userboxes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): 17:11, 4 June 2006 Ral315 blocked "Userboxes (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Tying up a loose end. The creator of this account was banned from userboxes, so I see no reason why this account shouldn't be banned in general.) (This one was involved in an ArbComm case.)
Userbox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): 17:09, 13 May 2006 Curps blocked "Userbox (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (vandalism)
Boxes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): 20:29, 12 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "User:Boxes" (See Wikipedia:User Page and WP:NOT) ; 20:05, 12 February 2006 Tony Sidaway blocked "Boxes (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Clearly has no intention of producing an encyclopedia) (later restored)
Box (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): 21:14, 12 February 2006 MarkSweep blocked "Box (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (doppelganger of User:Boxes)
Userboxuser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): 11:43, 4 June 2006 Tony Sidaway blocked "Userboxuser (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Another userbox role account)

So, three out of the above five were blocked because they were role accounts. Another was involved with an ArbComm case, which partially involved userboxes. One was blocked for vandalism. I don't see too bright a future ahead for use of role accounts as userbox directories.— Jeff | (talk) | 07:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh. So is there a policy against role accounts, or did the admins in question simply block the users because they didn't like the idea? —Ashley Y 07:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ashley, you're gonna be much happier here when you drop the "where is it written?" schtick. Wikipedia isn't suddenly going to become a "rules" game. Is this really the battle you want to choose? Are role accounts worth it to you? I'm just thinking in terms of opposition that (like it or not) exists, versus actual necessity, and I'm not seeing it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think WP:UBX is a much better solution. But I'm concerned about what guides admin behaviour in general. Can they just block user accounts whenever they want, or are they bound somehow? Equally, given that userboxes are acceptable in userspace, can I create a new role account for them, or would that be considered bad behaviour? (And why?) —Ashley Y 16:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Bad behavior" makes it sound so... let's say I think it might be provocative. If it means something to you, though, go for it; see what happens. Just don't be surprised if someone objects, and I won't predict where it'll go after that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, you don't think the userbox war might have been made less painful if admins paid just a little bit more attention to consensus and policy? Or is that not so much of a concern for you? —Ashley Y 16:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You might be surprised how much of a concern it is for me, but I fear we're getting off topic. I'd like to discuss this subject with you, because I think we (Wikipedia) can do a much better job in some communication related areas, and I'm mulling over some ideas how to do that. I'll probably ping your talk page later for input, but as a direct reply, I think the userbox war could have been made less painful in a variety of ways, some having to do with policy, all having to do with communication. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Consensus and policy are precisely the topic for me, and I believe are for most of the people who have been complaining about the speedy deletions. See BigDT's userbox-comment here, which sums it up. Even the German solution is threatened if, for instance, some admin decides they don't like it and starts deleting userboxes or whatever (see, for instance, WP:TFD#User:Dtm142.2FUser_no_evil_boxes). Now, one approach has been to find all such likely admins and get them to sign on, which is laudable I suppose, but I would rather see admins stick to accepted consensus and policy on the issue. That may sound like a "rules game" to you, but actually increased attention to process has worked very well in the past when things have gotten heated, and might have saved us a lot of pain this time around as well.

Anyway, if here is not the right place, there's Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates#An aside. —Ashley Y 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely the reasons for not having userboxes in the template namespace apply equally to the Wikipedia: namespace - so using WP:UBX as a central directory would meet with the same objections. I definitely think there should be a central repository/directory though. Waggers 11:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I already made a copy of Wikipedia:Userboxes/Pets and put it at User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Pets. I've moved a good chunk of the templates over to my userpage. For each one, I used WP:AWB to bypass the redirects, synchronize the two directory pages, and leave a message about the process described here. After "What links here" was cleared, I put {{User GUS UBX to}} at {{User mutt lover}} to test a friendlier "no userbox here" message. If WP:UBX is unacceptable, I'm certainly willing to be part of a "network of topical userbox directories" modeled after the current directory. As long as no one is attempting to block the migration process, it's really not all that hard, just a bit tedious. But that's what computers and WikiGnomes are for. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 14:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)