User talk:TheTrueSora/A Proposal on Userboxes (revisited)

Please use this Talk page for critisims of my essay or on ways to make this essay into a proposal. Thanks! // The  True  Sora  19:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The two sides to Wikipedia
I couldn't agree more with your essay, especially on the lost sense of community if all POV templates are deleted. I for one like knowing how many of my fellow Wikipedians share my views on certain issues, however I don't in any way believe that I or any of them have more of a right to make a contribution to Wikipedia than someone who does not agree with us. I am a firm believer in the school that says there are two distinct sides to Wikipedia: the articles and the user pages. Articles are for NPOV statements only, user pages are a form of expression and individuality among Wikipedians. And if Silence edits my user page again substituting raw code for the userboxes I've created, I'll be really upset. Forcing a lack of opinion down someone's throat is just as bad as forcing an opinion, far as I'm concerned. Greg the White Falcon 20:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

(Sorry about the double-edit, by the way... I hit the edit button instead of creating a new discussion.)

Unworkable
Good idea, but it's already been thought of, and it probably won't work. StrangerInParadise, especially, supported it on Wikipedia talk:Userbox policy poll. Problem is that, regardless of whether the community is in support of this, the developers, for the most part, hate boxes and would be against creating a new space.

That said, I strongly support this proposal. I just want to warn you that you're unlikely to succed.

Minorly, the Userbox Policy Poll was most definitely not for keeping most boxes, since it disallowed any declaration of POV. The most pro-userbox proposal so far is Userbox policy. TheJ a  bb  e  rw  &#664;  ckhelp! 22:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As to it not working (because of the devs): while I can see this (myself being a developer), the beatuty of Wikipedia is that MediaWiki is open source- if the community is in support of this proposal, I'm sure someone (myself even, if no one else volunteers) would be willing to contribute to the codebase. // The  True  Sora  00:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I too think this is a great idea, but sadly agree that it probably won't be agreeable to the "powers that be". A shame - as I've pointed out elsewhere, userboxes are extremely useful when looking for editors with specific opinions on topics, so as to get a balanced view of all sides of an argument. Subst'ing makes these users harder to find than transcluding, so keeping the templates in a specific space is a very good idea - though I can also understand why some users don't want user templates and article templates alongside each other. Grutness... wha?   00:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Grutness, that's the way it currently is. Article templates are with user templates; both are in the Template: namespace. I'm proposing we move the user templates to their own namespace (the currently inactive Userbox: namespace); in that way, the two types of templates are seperated. // The  True  Sora  00:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Does the Userbox: namespace exist? If so, then what's the big deal: Move templates from Template: to Userbox:, subst all User templates to Userbox:, and drive on. The template namespace purists will be satisfied, and the users will have a clear, simple way to do userboxes. Jay Maynard 00:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A namespace doesn't have to exist officially; right now I could create a userbox at Userbox:atheist and use it as a template. The problem with that, though, is then I would be forced to use when I want to add a userbox; I proposed using a new format, such as $$atheist$$ or %%atheist%% for userboxes only. The major problem with this is programming; if the developers don't want to implement it (and they won't use code given by the community), the proposal can't be accepted. // The   True  Sora  00:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoa... I didn't know that. Pretty crazy. I just made Userbox:Test, and here it is:
 * You should definitely explain that in the policy. But people have been fine all along with using User:Atheist. A new format would be nicer, but this is so simple! As far as I can tell, the support of the other developers isn't needed at all. We can just go ahead and move all the boxes to this space. I retract my earlier statement about it being unworkable. TheJ a  bb  e  rw  &#664;  ckhelp! 01:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC) OK, apparently this doesn't work quite so easily. It seems we need the developers to enable the  –  system to work with userbox space. Seems to be a very easy job. TheJ  a  bb  e  rw  &#664;  ckhelp! 01:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, yeah. Getting developers to add the Userbox namespace to the template would make a ton of sense; it shouldn't require much code at all (although, I don't know the codebase). // The  True  Sora  01:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, yeah. Getting developers to add the Userbox namespace to the template would make a ton of sense; it shouldn't require much code at all (although, I don't know the codebase). // The  True  Sora  01:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User space, template space, userbox space... its all space.
It is all a collection of 1's and 0's. If there is a performance issue by having userboxes in the "template space" then userboxes should be moved out of that space. Otherwise, it is all just space.

We are building an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is made of articles. As long as the userboxes are not in articles (unless it is an article describing userboxes) then it should really make no difference. Many have made the argument that userboxes are unencyclopedic. Since they are not part of the articles then who cares?

Several have suggested that I can have the same effect by having the userbox code on my user page. The software engineer in me rejects this argument. If the same code is going to be repeated on many different pages, then it makes much more sense to keep the code in one place for all to access than to have it be repeated.

Basically, we need to stop fighting about these silly little boxes that have nothing to do with the encyclopedia and work on things that DO effect the encyclopedia (like editing actual article content and discussing the policies and guidelines). DanielZimmerman 04:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But there is a performance issue with what the administrators are doing now. They are mostly in favor of substing all the userboxes onto userpages; this causes tons of bloat within the userpage itself. The current problem, though, is that the Template: namespace is supposed to only be for article templates, not user templates. By creating a new namespace, we can keep the UBX centeralized, while moving them from the Template namespace, which is supposed to be NPOV. // The  True  Sora  11:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Categories
Are you going to create a new category namespace too for all of the userbox categories? Or are you just going to disallow the use of categories in this new Userbox: namespace? -- Cyde↔Weys 11:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In my proposal, I excluded categories, mainly because I think it's not that important to implement at the moment; users will most likely not notice a category missing from their userpage. They will, however, notice userboxes missing. Fixing the userbox problem is much more important than fixing the category problem, in my opinion. // The  True  Sora  11:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, so in your proposal we do away with all categories from userboxes? Just want to make this clear.  -- Cyde↔Weys  11:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm saying my proposal doesn't affect the category situation at this moment. If a clear concenous is reached on the category issue, then I will include it in my proposal. However, I would agree that the current position the administrators are taking with regard to userboxes is the correct one. So, after making a short answer long, you are correct, categories aren't in the Userbox: space.. // <sup style="color:black;">The  True  <sub style="color:blue;">Sora  12:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)