Template talk:User WP

Template-protected edit request on 13 April 2021
Technical fix:. I added the second user category (eg. Wikipedians interested in...) instead of the deprecated maincat parameter that currently adds template categories (for userboxes based on this one), since they're already included in the documentations, as per guidelines. Note: I'm the user who made this template. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 13:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 09:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 May 2021
Technical fix:. I shortened the code about the user categories and fixed the link on the word 'member' in order to link the user list when there's no user category (testcases). Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 02:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, and thank you for your efforts!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 20:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Options
Hi Est. 2021. Userbox options are not set in stone. And I think you may misunderstand what "default" means. So setting this template up to intentionally disallow user options (like when you decided to deprecate color options), is not just a bad idea, it's foolish.

Because it would be quite simple for users to not use this iteration of template:userbox. - jc37 02:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You should discuss your edits before edit-warring. This template is used on approximately 16,000 pages. The default info-lh always has been 1.25em, you can't just change it to 1.4 on 16,000 pages without any discussion. As creator of this template, I discussed about it hundreds of time and the consensus has always been that, so I'm going to revert your edit once again. If there is any valid reason to change it, please let me know, discuss it here first. Thanks, Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 02:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: I removed the obsolete aliases, not the color options. You're totally wrong. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 02:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok so first, per WP:BRD, I reverted you and said I would be happy to discuss on the talk page, and here we are. That's not edit warring. Though you deciding to revert again after I started talking here, might be considered "interesting".
 * Second: WP:BOLD says that I could of course make that change. Nothing in Wikipedia is set in stone, least of which stuff which is placed upon userpages.
 * Third, I have sincere concerns about this iteration of Template:Userbox, and have been considering MFD-ing it (the switch subpage in particular), as it is, and your comments above are probably not helping you as much as you might think.
 * Fourth, I've been working with userboxes a very long time. (Might not be a bad idea for you to check out WP:Userboxes.) And I didn't just do this out of nowhere. 1.4 actually happened due to discussions ages ago due to the fact that not everyone has the same monitor, or uses the same style. 1.25 is the default for all userboxes. But that is modified all over the place when different fonts and font sizes and other stylings are used. My guess is that you are unaware of that.
 * So, in this case, when "WikiProject X" is in a larger font, it needs more than the 1.25 line height, or it gets too close to the line above. This affects quite a few things. Per previous discussions, this can affect blind user's line readers, and when colours are involved, it can affect the ability for those who are colourblind to read the text, among other things.
 * A bit of WP:AGF would have gone a long way.
 * And finally, I might suggest that you start to have a touch less ownership issues concerning this template.
 * Anyway, I'm going to put the 1.4 back in place, as you don't appear to have a reason to remove except that you want this page to match the default for all userboxes, which is not necessary.
 * If you revert again, rather than continue to discuss, I'll be happy to reach out for a WP:3PO, or to hit one of the noticeboards for more eyes on this. Or, alternatively, you can just discuss here, which I am happy to do. - jc37 02:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I will ignore the personal attacks. That's not about ownership, it's about having discussed it with hundreds of users. The only interesting thing you wrote is the line about the accessibility, but if that was true you should directly edit, not this one, since there aren't "different fonts and font sizes and other stylings" here. Moreover, your threats about having this template deleted are so ludicrous. Reach whatever noticeboard you want, you already have my reasons. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 03:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * lol, I suggest you re-read the above. You won't find a single personal attack.
 * And, "hundreds of times". So I spose I should note WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, but that aside you haven't actually linked to any of those "hundreds of discussions". You have me curious now. I'm always interesting in reading : )
 * And I wasn't threatening anything, I was letting you know I am concerned. I've seen your edits all over my watchlist, arbitrarily making quite a few changes. And while being WP:BOLD can be perfectly fine, it doesn't mean that your edits are entrenched in cement.
 * As for editing template userbox's defaults, it doesn't have the immediate issue this one does, it is designed to be more general in usage, so its defaults are aligned with that. I've been involved in these template unification discussions going back even before template:mbox, so like I said, I'm not just doing this for no good reason.
 * And suggesting that this template (or /switch) doesn't affect userbox stylings? If it doesn't, why'd you revert the 1.4 change? That itself is a styling change.
 * I do think you are a well-meaning editor in this, so I'd rather not call you on the carpet at one of the boards about this. But apparently, you're deciding to be intransigent about this, so I suppose I need to decide on my next path. to move discussion forward.
 * It's too bad you didn't/don't wish to discuss, I had some thoughts on a way forward for this, which might involve some coding, and would have liked to talk with you about that, but apparently, your ownership feelings about this template are too strong for that. It's a shame, but c'est la vie, I suppose. - jc37 03:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Strange error on documentation page
See |this discussion about an error on this template's documentation page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Odd data storage
Storing individual projects' preferred images/etc. in a subtemplate, rather than just having a parameter that each project invokes when they use this template, is a very odd way to store information. I'd support converting to a more normal format at some point if anyone has the inclination. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Members vs. participants
@Est. 2021, re your revert here, thanks for flagging the prior convo. It seems that Jonesey's main concern is the lack of consensus. Per WP:DNRNC, it's better to wait to see if anyone actually objects than to revert preemptively for fear they might. Given that, would you be alright with reinstating? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb }&#125;  talk 15:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I saw the note at WT:COUNCIL, and I think that changing the default language here is fine. I don't think it's important, though.  Membership implies a self-identified feeling of belonging in the group, which can continue to be true even while the editor is inactive.  Participation is a description of an activity that can stop without any change in the person's sentiments.  Both words are accurate for most editors at different points in time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Related CfD, for context. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)