User talk:UBX/NBA-Thunder

Request for third opinion: Thunder userbox
About seven months ago, User:BillTunell and I had a disagreement regarding the Phillies and Yankees userboxes, where he inserted free-use logos. We both agreed to disagree and respect the standard format as is. Now the dispute is going on again, only this time with the Thunder userbox. In the standard template, the text is aligned left and says "This user is a (team name here) fan." However, Bill's preference is different, and while I can respect that, I still believe every NBA userbox should look similar. I reverted his edits, which he keeps reverting back. He has communicated minimally when asked why he wants this box to not look the same as every other NBA team userbox. So, I am hoping for a third opinion on this-how much worth is uniformity? Tom Danson (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

PS: Another question: Where is the standard NBA template located? Could you provide a link? —  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 19:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, User:UBX is merely an alternate account of User:Mets501 designed to be a new home for userboxes after the "Great Migration". Second, check User:UBX/NBA-Suns for an example of a properly run-userbox (I picked the Phoenix Suns because they are my favorite team).  It is based off the standards set forth in Template:Userbox.  Check this out and then make your call.  Thanks, Tom Danson (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Copied from User_talk:BillTunell — T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 20:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment: Userbox style
About seven months ago, User:BillTunell and I had a disagreement regarding the Phillies and Yankees userboxes, where he inserted free-use logos. We both agreed to disagree and respect the standard format as is. Now the dispute is going on again, only this time with the Thunder userbox. In the standard template, the text is aligned left and says "This user is a (team name here) fan." However, Bill's preference is different, and while I can respect that, I still believe every NBA userbox should look similar. I reverted his edits, which he keeps reverting back. He has communicated minimally when asked why he wants this box to not look the same as every other NBA team userbox. A third opinion I asked for was pretty unclear, but he said I should stop reverting and take this to RfC. So now I ask you-how important is uniformity in the standard NBA userboxes? Tom Danson (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Standardization is important; there is no reason why an alternate style can't be created, but userbox templates that all follow a similar format in name should also follow a similar format in design. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 19:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There's also no point to stop using the userbox template. The changes can be acomplished while still using the template. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Really? C'mon guys. Anyone can create a user box and use whatever one they like (as long as they incorporate images IAW our policies). These do NOT need to be standardized, though anyone can create a set of userboxes if they wish. Here's an idea: each one of you create whatever userbox you wish in your own user spaces. I know I have! — BQZip01 —  talk 23:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm with BQZip01 on this one. This userbox has like 5 people using it.  They're not part of the encyclopedia, so they don't need to be standardized (that was one of the biggest reasons they got moved out of template-space).  Just create local copies if you want to use them.  Technically, I suppose I own this userspace, but that's not really relevant here.  Just create two copies of it and worry about the actual encyclopedia, not this. — M ETS 501 (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * My opinion on this matter may be predictable, but I think the whole "uniformity" agenda is really just . These templates were created as a starting point, not a mandate by any wikipedia adminsitrator. That's why they're called templates.  I don't know where you'd even see two or more of the userboxes together, except when searching under the WP:Userboxes gallery to find something you want to put on your own page.  So I'm not sure where this "uniformity" issue comes into play.


 * Other userbox template categories have been extensively edited by the consensus of actual users -- see for instance, any number of college and university userboxes. If there's going to be multiple userboxes, I think it should be at the request of an actual user.  Otherwise, you're dividing a fanbase that did not ask for it.  And if we're going to bother with two userboxes (which is completely unnecessary in this case, IMO, and has been requested by no one), then whichever is the primary userbox should be a matter for a majority of actual users to decide.  That's how we resolved the Phillies userbox issue from last year.  Beyond that, I give no importance to the made-up "uniformity" agenda of some random editor that doesn't use the userbox.


 * As a practical matter, the blue-on-blue text of the old userbox is just unreadable.


 * As for WOSLinker's point, I certainly don't mind generating the same look with a different code format, assuming that's possible. BillTunell (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Question: "How important is uniformity in the standard NBA userboxes?"
 * Answer: Not. At. All. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Compromise Proposal. How about we use that template as a potential User:UBX/NBA-Thunder2 (kinda like we settled the Phillies thing), so those who like that can use it, while those who prefer the standard can use that. (Don't worry, User:UBX is not an actual user page, just a public use account devoted to userboxes).  Sounds fair? Tom Danson (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The way the commentary has gone, I don't see any support for that proposition. The bifurcation of a secondary Phillies box was at the request of the Phillies fan base, which we don't have here.  And the underlying "uniformity" rationale seems to have been debunked by this point.  I'll wait until the 7th, but if nothing changes I'd anticipate reverting back to my prior edits.  If you want to create a secondary userbox, that's fine by me. BillTunell (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Creating an additional box with a different design is more fair to those who already have the current box on their page. The reason I noticed the change in the Phillies box to begin with is by seeing that one of my userboxes that follow the standard format had suddenly changed. I don't think that users would appreciate it. Make the option available, and give people a choice. Nothing has been "debunked", as you say. Discussion is slow but ongoing. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  19:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If a majority (or any, for that matter) of the current users agreed with you, I wouldn't mind. But that's not the case.  At best, everyone is just rolling their eyes at this whole dispute.  Like I said, if you guys want to make a secondary userbox, go ahead.  But no one is going to use it. BillTunell (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And yet, you are forcing a change on users who may be utilizing the current template unaware of this discussion or of the changes you are proposing. You're pushing your version over the current standard and dismissing any other possibility by saying that "no one is going to use it". &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  19:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There are exactly seven users of this userbox (Doublediapason, Joetcrocker, Okiefromokla, DrJohnBecker, Mr. Slashy Man, Bullshark4, and myself) all of whom Tom Danson notified of this RFC (except for me, of course, who had to find it on my own). So anyone who cares is aware of the issue, and no one is forcing anything on people who are unaware.  The only one who chimed in is me, and you know my opinion.  No other users have agreed with you.


 * In fact, no one is forcing anything on anybody. I've offered to let you and Danson edit the secondary userbox, in the (IMO remote) event that anyone wants to use it.  But you insist on determining the primary userbox instead, based not on the 3PO (which you asked for, and lost) or on the RFC vote (which you asked for, and lost) but rather on this "standard" to which you keep referring.  Such a "standard" simply does not exist. Mets501 himself doesn't even care about "standarization" on his own userspace.  And there is no wikipedia rule about it.  It's just a made-up agenda on your part that, in this case, has no bearing on how you use the encyclopedia.  Making up a non-existent rule is no way to win an argument -- and frankly, IMO, has been a pretty juvenile way to conduct it. BillTunell (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but this doesn't have anything to do with winning or losing. I also did not ask for the third opinion. This is not Mets501's userspace. I will ignore the personal slights against myself, but I am going to recuse myself from the rest of the discussion because it's becoming painfully obvious that BillTunell isn't interested in discussing, only in saying that his view is right and mine is "juveline" and "non-existent". &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  21:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Notice. Bill has reverted it to his version with NO Response to KV5's comment, saying "per vote". Please note these things are discussions, not votes and that no consensus has been reached as of yet.  I believe his comments are just general incivility (note the prior personal attack which I removed), and unless he can agree to speak civilly, we should maintain the status quo. Tom Danson (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been generously patient with this. Any RFC has a timeframe associated with it. The RFC is now adminsitratively closed, and there hasn't been any unique commentary for several weeks. As I made clear above, I am reverting based on the outcome of the 3PO and the RFC. I'm not going to postpone reversions based on these voting outcomes indefinitely, just because someone might chime in several months from now. As I also previoulsy explained, I am comfortable with you guys creating a secondary userbox -- but your claims over the primary box have no basis given the voting outcome. Your claims of "personal attack" are merely meant to divert from the fact that you've lost the RFC. BillTunell (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)