Wikipedia talk:Mackensen's Proposal/Archive 1

Commentary (partially) from DRVU
(moved from DRVU) BigDT 22:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I would agree with that as a compromise, as I said above, however, enforcing it without conensus is still troubling. I think it needs to be brought up for discussion before being unilaterally done. There is one other problem.  Suppose I make a userbox that says, "This user hates Mackensen" and place it on the page.  With templates, the answer is simple - speedy the template.  But if there are no templates to delete ... that's a problem.  It is now a content dispute, rather than a page where an administrative delete can end the issue.  This is an extreme case - it would obviously be removed from the page and the user would be punished if he insisted on creating it.  But what about something less severe - like "This user opposes George W Bush's dictatorship".  As a template, that would possibly be deleted under T1 and certainly would not survive a TFD.  But as just another element on a page, it's just a content dispute.  So my one question would be this - what process will replace TFD as the controlling process for deleting an errant userbox? BigDT 21:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that's a personal attack and always has been. That's called incivility. Let's not worry about these things. They can be dealt with on an individual basis. We're all good people, and we're all here to build an encyclopedia. With luck such a thing should never come up. With Bush, that's always been allowed on a userpage, just not in a template. A non-issue, as Cyde said. Mackensen (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't as big of an issue as you're making it out to be. If someone puts "I hate Mackensen" on their page I'll just remove it and block them for personal attacks.  It's quite simple, really.  As for content on pages - if people want to make themselves look like buffoons by adding divisive opinions to their userpage, that's their prerogative.  Keep in mind, people are already allowed to put these opinions directly on their userpage (rather than having to use templates), and many people have already done so.  I really think that this is a non-issue.  -- Cyde Weys  21:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should clarify, Mackensen and Cyde, I wasn't referring to the copy of it on the user's page itself. If someone creates a userbox that is "questionable" and adds the generation code to Userboxes, that's a content dispute rather than a deletion question.  Obviously, they can have anything that isn't an attack on their own user page - I'm referring to the list of publically available userboxes on Userboxes.  There needs to be some kind of procedure in place.  If that procedure is debate on the talk page, that's fine - it just has to be something more or less thought out. BigDT 22:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that's not a problem because it is not in the template space. That is to say, most things which were speedied under T1 would be perfectly acceptable as subst'd code on a user's page. Mackensen (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But what about as subst'd code on Userboxes itself? That isn't user space. BigDT 22:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Nphrman below has the right idea. I've no opposition to such lists, indeed they're inevitable. The key point is to stop the transclusion. Mackensen (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Mackensen is clearly right on the ball here. The best way to end this silliness is for everyone to just cool down, and compromise, and Mackensen has outlined a great procedure for doing that.--Sean Black (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What a horrible idea. That destroys all point of userboxes, like Babel ones and so on. I strongly oppose this proposal. I also think that those people who can't stand userboxes are in minority even among admins. Your generalisations are completely off the mark. Grue 22:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you don't like it. I thought that the purpose of userboxes was self-expression and identification. This alters that not a whit. What would you propose? What would you do? The present situation is clearly unacceptable. Mackensen (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why?
 * Support-- This is a great idea, as elegantly and eloquently stated by Mackenen. It most certainly does not "destroy" userboxes, it SAVES them in User space, and prevents them from EVER going through a deletion review again (the notable exception being the very few vicious or heinous boxes that attack or threaten.) Like Mackensen, I think putting a POV Userbox on your User page is generally a bad idea, but I'm willing to not interfere with other users who want to use them. I fully expect someone to create a "Userbox Central" where text can be copied and pasted onto User pages for various boxes. But the social networking, gang-editing, "club-creating," vote-stacking culture of Wikiepdia must come to an end. Templates must be tools for editing the encyclopedia, and nothing more. As for the debate, I've been APPALLLED at the ignorance of users who have been treating the deletion process as an attack on their "favorite" boxes. Perhaps the nominators didn't explain what they were trying to accomplish as well as Mackenen has, I don't know. But we all need to calm down, examine the facts, and come to a consensus quickly on this. The User box wars SHOULD END NOW. And this is a great way to do it. Nhprman 22:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - If I were inclined to "network" or "votestack" based on userboxes, why couldn't I just google ... look for site:wikipedia.org "This user is a whatever" or something along those lines. BigDT 22:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, you could, but then you'd have to work for it. Mackensen (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A few thoughts that, in my mind, need to be a part of the proposal:
 * 1. Any userbox that has already been deleted or is deleted in the future in accordance with the implementation of this proposal needs to be subst'd on the subpage of WP:Userboxes. Right now, there are a bunch of redlinks from where userboxes have already been deleted.  Those that were not hateful need to be replaced.
 * 2. There needs to be some kind of copy/paste code (kinda like I have done for sumofpi on Userboxes/Humor or the religion boxes on User:BigDT/Religious User Boxes. It's not pretty and I'm fully open to better ways to code it.  Also, there should be a version of the userbox template that could be used to generate a userbox for posting on Userboxes.
 * 3. Out of process deletion of userboxes must STOP until the proposal becomes policy. I absolutely, positively, reject the notion of administrators imposing policy, rather than implementing it based on consensus. BigDT 22:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4. There needs to be unilateral universal agreement that this represents a compromise and that six months from now, you guys aren't just going to delete the userbox template itself along with Userboxes. In other words, this needs to be the final step, not a slippery slope.
 * 5. There needs to be an agreement on standards for what can go on Userboxes. As it has been pointed out, "This user hates George Bush" is permitted in user space.  We need to agree in advance, though, what can go inside of Userboxes itself, and I would think that "This user hates George Bush" would be inappropriate.
 * 6. This needs to be a community consensus that is voted on, not something that you guys implement just because you can.
 * I agree absolutely with every point that you have made, with one exception: replace "unilateral" with "universal." Otherwise, I assent to all of this. Mackensen (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I also think these are great points that are a good first step towards a thorough policy on Userspace-based Userboxes. I would certainly support the end of deletions and focus ONLY on Mackensen's proposal and your ideas here for implementing such a policy. It would refocus the debate on moving the Userboxes into user space and the benefits of that move, rather than on defending individual boxes based on the merits of their content, which completely misses the point and does not address the problems. - Nhprman 02:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't all of this discussion go on WP:UBP WP:UPP  WP:UUB Userbox policy or User:Misza13/Userbox Gallery Poll or Proposed policy on userboxes/Proposals? Kotepho 22:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I think this is the place. This is where people will see it. If a critical mass develops I'll write it up someplace else. Those who are interested in this topic will see it here and hopefully contribute. Mackensen (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I love this proposal, I really do--but it is not different than a myriad of others. WP:UPP had 61% approval, so it is probably a good place to start.  Go through and read the different attempts at policy, particularly the opposes and write up a proposal and throw it in WP:CENT.  "I think this proposal is great so I'll force it on everyone!" does not help the encyclopedia or the community. Kotepho 23:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not planning on forcing this. I want support. I want as much support as can be found. I want a solution that people can live with and abide by. And I want that solution to be as simple and benign as possible. Mackensen (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Further comment. Ultimately, what gets listed at WP:UBX ought to be up the WikiProject guys, with the understanding that transclusions are not permitted and that personal attacks are frowned upon. Mackensen (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This issue is not just about having a box on a userpage. I agree it is about template space. It's also about category space.  At an even more basic level, it’s about automated groupings of Wikipedians.  “Userbox deletionists” are against it, “userbox preservationists” are for it.  A central argument by many deletionists is that removing automated groupings (e.g., “What links here” & categories) inhibits “factionalists,” which is good for the project.  A central argument by many preservationists is that these automated groupings support “community building” and “collaboration,”  which is good for the project. At this core level of Wikilosophy, most members of both groups are in agreement.  The rub comes at the operational level in deciding what to do about these automated groupings, and so, the fur flies.
 * In an open society like Wikipedia, its members will possess a wide and diverse variety of points of view. In fact, this is necessary to write a balanced and unbiased encyclopedia.  Consequently, the success of the project fundamentally and necessarily depends on collaboration and community building.  Factionalism, on the other hand, impedes the progress of this effort.  However, repressive attempts to eliminate factionalism, invariably fail to remove the intended target.  Quite the contrary.  The original factions typically are motivated to close ranks and push their agenda even harder.  In addition, wide-scale repressive tactics intended for a minority faction that are indiscriminately imposed upon the general population only serve to factionalize tremendously more members at a systemic level.  This scenario currently is playing out at Wikipedia.  The extent to which it continues will play a major roll in determining the basic health of this online community and, ultimately, the overall quality of the project.  For this reason, I wholeheartedly urge editors, and particularly administrators, to err on the side of collaboration and community building.    Rfrisbietalk 22:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but I don't understand the nature of your objection to my proposal. Mackensen (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell, I'm opposed to eliminating userbox templates and categories that group wikipedians because they intentionally eliminate the automated "What links here" and category groupings of wikipedians. If that were not the issue, transcluding vs. substituting would be irrelevant.  I consider these listings to be the best reasons to put userboxes in template with category markup coding.  This facilitates collaboration and community building.  Factions should be dealt with based on explicit biased behavior in editing articles, not with universal sanctions on the usage of Wikimedia software tools. Rfrisbietalk 00:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's mission isn't meant to facilitate community building. At the risk of assuming bad faith, I also have a problem with noting other Userbox proposals on the front page of this proposal, and question your motives for posting them since you oppose changes to the templates so strongly. It tends to imply (incorrectly) that this is just one of several proposals, when one of them is a proposal in utero, another of the three is a failed proposal. Why should other proposals be posted so prominently on the front page of this one? Nhprman 05:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's mission may not be to facilitate community building, but if community building helps accomplish Wikipedia's mission, shouldn't we build communities? Writing gramatically correct English isn't Wikipedia's mission either, but it certainly helps us make a better encyclopedia. If I want to find someone who speaks Russian, it's much easier to do that with the current system (what links here) than if I need to do a search. RCS talk 16:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Support this is a very good idea; I applaud Mackensen for stepping up with the idea, as lots of people have thought about this but not much action has been taken, resulting in the "power struggle" between the two sides. My userboxes themselves were converted to reside on my userpage only, and not take up template space. Mopper Speak! 23:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Though I would suggest that certain userboxen that have legitimate administrative purpose ("I am an admin", "I speak native Turkish", etc.) might remain in the template namespace--if for no other reason than easier and more convenient access.  "Legitimate administrative purpose" doesn't include user self-expression; only things which serve the purpose of enabling improvement to the encyclopedia.  I keep several non-controversial userboxen (which I wouldn't like to see vanish), some of them whimsical (but none of the offensive); I wouldn't object at all to them being substed rather than transcluded; and I don't much care where they live.  --EngineerScotty 23:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose Many users have proposed very similar ideas in the past. Personally, I think such a measure would be excessive and would cause more inconvenience than it would solve in the long run (as well as wasting more time than templates do, thus distracting users from editing the encyclopedia even more, without solving any substantial problem), though I respect your attempts to diffuse the situation peacefully. In my experience, the threat of vote-stacking, though a legitimite concern in a few instances, is largely a scarecrow (exacerbated by a failure to assume good faith of userbox-users) used by anti-userboxers for the sake of justifying their mass-deletion: their true concerns are much more based on their irrational terror that letting users explain their beliefs in a systematic way will "turn Wikipedia into MySpace". If they really cared all that much about potential vote-stacking methods, they'd have done away Category:Wikipedians and its subcats long ago, which is a much easier (and much older) method of contacting similar users than userboxes' "what links here" device. (Heck, I don't think most userbox-users are even aware that the "what links here" page exists!) The substing idea would also still cause problems and controversy if we continued to ban certain topics from userpages even when not a transcluded template, such as "I'm a pedophile" or "I think homosexual intercourse is a sin". That sort of hypocrisy, turning Wikipedia into a moral arbiter of what is or isn't decent and good, is unacceptable.
 * However, I would not oppose including some userboxes as raw code (rather than templates); that's actually a very good idea, to satisfy the users who want to add the stuff to their page, while removing any "danger" of them connecting to one another for some nefarious scheme. I simply think that your idea of substing them all is a very bad idea: why not subst the ones that express a POV, but keep templated the ones that express an unbiased interest? The concerns, after all, are of users factionalizing based on their personal ideologies, not of them contacting one another based on what articles they happen to be specialized in. Not all inter-user networking is bad: when it lets users with a shared interest get together easily to improve Wikipedia, it's a very positive organizational force. -Silence 00:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My reasons are simplicity and practicality. The difficulties over T1 demonstrate the impossibility of determining what is acceptable and what is not. Frankly, it's a not a judgment that should have to be made in the first place. Your userspace is yours; do what you like with it. Template space belongs to the encyclopedia. No one, by the way, is proposing banning certain topics from a user page. Let me be clear: this proposal does not modify one iota the rules for content on user pages. It neither seeks nor imposes restrictions in that regard. No one has proposed anything like that here; quite the opposite–I already suggested retrieving the code from deleted templates.
 * I'm troubled that will you suggest administrators don't assume good faith you do the same. Believe me when I say that there are those of us very much concerned about the possibility of vote-stacking because it represents such a threat to the concept of consensus. Mackensen (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would add one more thing. This is a compromise. You aren't expected to like all of it. I certainly don't. In my mind the best compromise is the one which does not give any faction everything it wants. As Thiers said of the French Republic: it was the system which divided the French least. Mackensen (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong support. First of all, categorization along lines that might be conducive to vote-rigging is Evil.  Obviously this wouldn't apply to Babel boxes, boxes declaring oneself to be an [insert rank here] and nothing else, or boxes declaring your membership in a totally content-neutral wikigroup such as WP:RCP or "This user assumes good faith", but anything else should be substed.  (Images would still provide linkbacks, though, hmm . . .)  Second of all, there's nothing inherently wrong with expressing a political view on your userpage, as others have argued. And finally, from a tactical voting perspective, this just might be able to get enough consensus to end this insane deletion wars. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolute support. I supported the original subst'ing compromise that the "userbox inclusionist" hardliners originally rejected. To me, this is in the same spirit as that policy. I think Mackensen's wrong in that this will displease everyone to some extent, though - this makes me perfectly happy. I can't stand some userboxes, and I dislike them being in template-space, but I honestly can never be bothered enough to do anything about them - not even take a stand at DRV or TfD. It matters not one whit to me whether userboxes stay or go. What matters to me is factionalism and vote-stacking, and userboxes which promote these practices should go no matter what. This proposal would allow us to come to easier compromises on such issues. Johnleemk | Talk 03:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Thanks for the note on my talk page, Mackensen.
 * I think that this is the best way to go. My only additions at the moment(and I know I'm repeating what others have said) would be that:
 * There must be a page (or pages) containing userbox codes, likely at WP:UBX.
 * I think that the Babel boxes should an exception to the policy. They should remain in the Template: namespace. However, I believe they should be the only exception, so we don't get arguments over what else should stay in Template space.
 * This policy must gain community consensus before it is implemented.
 * That's all I can think of to say for now. I'll add this page to my watchlist, and I hope something comes of it. — Mira Luka  03:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I'm not convinced that this would solve any actual problems. Vote stacking will still be possible, but will require slightly more work. Finding someone who's fluent in Spanish will also be slightly more work. Maybe I don't understand this aspect of the alleged problem, but I don't really know why the template namespace needs to be cleaner, nor have I yet seen evidence that it is dirty. Also, this proposal doesn't preserve all legitimate uses of userboxes, for example locating users who speak a given language. RCS talk 16:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does. Please read through all the discussion below. Babel boxes will probably be kept. Also, we're not voting yet. Mackensen (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, exceptions such as allowing Babel boxes begs the question of who decides whether a specific class of userboxes is "worthy" of template space. Which skills and backgrounds contribute to such a high degree that they should be exempt from template exclusion? Rfrisbietalk 17:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does, which is why the fewer exceptions the better. The best answer is that Babel boxes predate all other boxes. Of course, Phil might be able to give use a solution that allows substing those as well without losing the essential linkage. Mackensen (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That presumes a ban requiring exceptions in the first place. Without a ban the community can decide what's important. Rfrisbietalk 18:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And it seems to me that such a process is going on right here. Mackensen (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support provided it applies not just to userboxes but also to Babelboxes and the other templates at Template messages/User namespace. Any attempt to decide which templates are acceptable in userspace and which aren't is doomed from the start. This proposal has to apply equally to all templates intended for userspace. Angr (t • c) 22:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose the proposal has the main effect of making it more difficult for users to find a nice graphic to illustrate something about themselves. The current userbox system allows people to share a badge with an informal group of people who have the same characteristic. Lighten up a bit: this is a charitable, collaborative project made up of individuals with many characteristics, not a boot camp. Elroch 01:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Basic tenets

 * 1) Subst or turn all of Template:User ... into Template:Userbox format on user pages
 * Exemptions or none?
 * 1) Delete all userboxes from Template:
 * Ditto
 * 1) Maintain a list of userboxes with examples and the code at Userboxes (or something)
 * Who cares where

What this solves

 * 1) Prevents some methods of vote stacking
 * Do we disallow images? categories?
 * 1) Cleans up the Template: namespace
 * 2) Preserves the use of userboxes
 * 3) Reduces edit warring over template wording colo(u)r/layout/category as each user's subst:d template can be modified without affecting anyone else.

On the tenets
I approve of the list that Kotepho has created here. I suggest that the use of images falls within the standard user page guidelines: no fair use. Mackensen (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If an image is used, even substed or in userbox form the user page will show up on the images listed under the image page. As such, it could also be used for vote stacking in the same sense as whatlinkshere or categories.  I don't particularlly like the vote stacking argument, as no matter what it will happen and it seems like sticking your finger in the dyke when the water is already cresting over it. Kotepho 23:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The inability to do something perfectly is not a reason to do nothing, however. -- nae'blis (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote stacking is bad. Does it happen often?  I don't think so.  Is it normally noticed or otherwise does not do a lot of damage?  I think so.
 * We think lots of things that aren't necessarily true. "Most vandalism is reverted in 5 minutes or less", and yet my Watchlist is full of vandalism 42 minutes, 10 hours, 2 days old. True, I tend to watch the less-watched pages, and can't/refuse to be here 24/7 to monitor against the chance of vandalism, but it does happen. I happen to think that most vote stacking/organizing happens relatively invisibly. IRC commentary, for example, has a huge impact on RfAs. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Does getting rid of categories/images deter vote stacking? yes. Are there benefits to having the categories/images? yes, in some cases.
 * There is some benefit, I'll grant you. There's also some risks. Is it necessary to the project, and unable to be done transparently through WikiProjects? Maybe. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Will the denial of images/categories cause people to not support this proposal? Maybe. Do we want this policy have wide support? yes.
 * I may be elitist, but I don't think having everyone on board for a proposal is absolutely necessary. I'm in the admin camp on that aspect of this; some people truly seem to be more interested in the social networking aspects than the encyclopedia-building aspects of Wikipedia. "Consensus" doesn't require unanimity, in the Wikipedia sense (which is why I wish they'd stop using that term); it also requires a good-faith effort. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is all about weighing risks, rewards, and opportunity costs. I don't have a solid opinion one way or the other  yet. Kotepho 23:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As long as userboxes have images and/or categories, I can't in good faith support them, ESPECIALLY the polarizing ones. Does babel/location boxes having categories harm the project? Probably not, in most instances. Maybe this proposal goes too far, for some, but it avoids taking sides, and supports some personal expression on userpages. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As mentioned above, I would exempt babel-boxes from this process; they serve a legitimate administrative function within Wikipedia. (Only serious babel-boxes corresponding to real natural languages which are spoken here on Earth--  and such doesn't count.) --EngineerScotty 23:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I strongly support allowing babelboxes to remain. As it is it is they are pretty standard across many projects, so it would seem unreasonable to have them not work like they do elsewhere here for little reason other than a zero tollerance policy. Kotepho 03:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "If Babel boxes remain as templates, why not other boxes?", some will argue. I think it's a can of worms to say keep one group but not the other in template space. If all are not moved over to User space, there will be a fight over what stays. That said, I don't feel strongly on this one way or another. They were the first Templated Userboxes, they could very well go back to being the ONLY ones in template space. - Nhprman 04:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Klingon, Esperanto, programming languages, and any other artificial languages should remain. User boxes that are for skills related to editing an encyclopedia (such as Template:User degree/MHA should remain, too. Ardric47 04:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I said this above, but I'll put it here too. I think that Babel boxes should be allowed to stay, but I think that those should be the only ones. That way, we'll have a bright line to point to, otherwise we'll have to deal with arguments over whether or not a specific box contains information related to editing Wikipedia. — Mira Luka  04:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * *But do you see what Ardrick47 just said? He has several "exceptions" that would also be saved as template Userboxes. How does it get decided, without seeming arbitrary? Nhprman 04:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC) I simply didn't read the response correctly Nhprman 05:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw what he said, I was responding to it. As I said, we need a "bright line" unless we're willing to deal with debates over every single userbox (like we have now). Even if it is arbitrary. — Mira Luka  05:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The line moves... — Mira Luka  05:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A second category for exemption: Wikiboxen which are used to specify membership in a WikiProject; i.e. . --EngineerScotty 05:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was right the first time. The line needs to be drawn somewhere. Those boxes can be placed, along with their coding, on the WikiProject's page. — Mira Luka  06:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This proposal's "bright line" of deleting/subst'ing ALL Templated boxes should NOT move. Any Userbox category can have a seemingly good excuse for keeping it in the template space, but the decision to keep one category and not the other will be arbitrary. This would also take MONTHS of "voting" to hash out among all the various interest groups vigorously defending each category of box, just like we're seeing now with individiual boxes. LET'S NOT DO THAT because it will junk this proposal. - Nhprman 06:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see any strong arguments for their inclusion versus thousands of others. They can just as easily be subst'd or made a subpage of the wikiproject, but I do not think people have objections to their categories (which is mostly the same as the participants list anyways...). Kotepho 06:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of Above Basic tenets

 * I think there would have to be no exemptions - otherwise we are right back here in six months
 * We need to have agreement that, though it is desirable to remove templates as an issue of server resources, this is not an attempt to do away with the use of userboxes - just the storing of them as templates.
 * "No out of process deletions" needs to be a basic tenet. (1) That way, some administrator who doesn't like userboxes can't come along and start wiping out sections of Userboxes.  (2) Until this proposal is the law of the land, userbox templates should not be deleted except as legit speedies (not things some people wish were speedies) or as a result of a TFD process.
 * This isn't a basic tenet, but it's an integral part of the process - we need a template that will display the userbox and the code used to generate it ... kinda like you see on User:BigDT/Religious User Boxes. Just showing a bunch of userboxes where you have to wade through source code isn't useful and there needs to be a standard format for the revised Userboxes page. BigDT 23:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't list the deletions as if this proposal passes there would be nothing out of process deleting them (if the rest is followed). The TFDs, DRVUs, speedies, all of it really isn't helping and I do agree they should probably stop (w/ the caveat of those that are actually divisive and inflammatory or attack based. Kotepho 23:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding deletions, it would be my hope that they would stop. I'll be voting keep, pending WP:MACK on all further speedies. Even if they don't, this proposal would bring those boxes back. Regarding the common code, what you've got there looks good, providing it is subst'd as well by the user. Mackensen (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How is


 * substainally different than


 * besides one being uglier? There is even some code (javascript and AWB) to convert from the html subst'd versions to userbox/userbox-r/whatever. What are your objections to people having the userbox version? Kotepho 23:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see now. There's no real problem with that, although if Template:Userbox isn't protected already it needs to be. Mackensen (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Additional Comments

 * If everything is subst-ed, then there won't be a list of what "templates" exist, will there? I don't have a problem with that, except for the more "legitimate" ones—chiefly languages, including programming languages and artificial languages like Klingon, and skills (unless I'm not thinking of something). Ardric47 01:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There won't be a list of templates, but they will be posted at WP:UBX BigDT 01:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I assume the goal of prohibiting transclutions of userboxes is to prevent automated groupings of Wikipedians. By this logic, does this proposal prohibit Wikipedian categories?  By this logic, does this proposal prohibit Wikipedian lists?  By this logic, does this proposal prohibit user pages?  Policing factions and other vandals who actually damage content should be the focus of deletions, not tools for collaboration and community building. Rfrisbietalk 04:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that it does not prohibit Wikipedian categories, but just breaks the link between a userbox and a fixed category, so that a user can add the userbox and/or category independently of each other. (There have been a few edit wars about which category to attach to some userboxes, which this proposal would stop) MartinRe 18:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable. No prohibition on categories per se, but a separation of categories from boxes. Again, this gives users flexibility and, admittedly, requires them to show additional initiative. Mackensen (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If that's the case then it should be made explicit in the policy that userboxes may use markup codes to link to Wikipedian categories and that categories about Wikipedian interests are allowed. Otherwise, many deletionists will use this as license to delete categories as well. In addition, any locations that show users how to subst userboxes also should show them how to include and customize category codings.  18:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's exactly what MartinRe meant. I think what he meant was that users would be free to categorize themselves, and free to add userboxes, but not free to include the categories within the userboxes. A small point, but important. Regarding categories, as they would no longer be attached to templates they wouldn't fall under any CSD criteria that I can find. Mackensen (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My point was to split the forced relationship between userboxs and categories so that any user can choose whatever userboxs they want and choose whatever categories they want, but one should not dictate the other. In other words, (i.e. Userboxes can not link to categories, but userpages are free to link to whatever cat's they want. I would agree with the latter point, it would be nice to add to WP:UBX in the line of "Userbox X details (people who use this may be interested in adding themselves to catagory Y, or catagory Z)", which should cover most options, without making membership of a specific category a requirement for the usage of a userbox, as it is now. Regards, MartinRe 18:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Mackensen, I fail to see the distinction or the justification for a user being prohibited from placing one or more categories within a userbox, if they so chose. It might be six of one – half a dozen of the other about whether a user chooses to put them in a box or at the bottom of their page in one place.  I see no rationale for regulating that.  My concern about protecting Category:Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedia userboxes with this policy is that I’ve seen several advocates for deleting templates advocate for deleting their associates categories as well.  For example, what happens to Category:Wikipedia userboxes? Does that get deleted?  What about all the categories, like Category:Wikipedians by lifestyle?  The war just moves to a new front after an emboldening victory here.  Having no CSD criteria is moot, the war just goes to Categories for deletion, unless Wikipedians are allowed to self-classify, whether the code goes in a funny little box or not .  Rfrisbietalk 19:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think I see what you mean. I have no objection, if, on the user's page, they have to keep whatever categories they choose in the same place as the userbox. (Have I understood correctly?) What I was suggesting is that in the original source, where any new users would see it, that there is no category included there (although some may be suggested). What the current situation is with many boxes, it says "If you use box X, you must be in category Y". What this proposal is trying to do is change this to be "If you use box X, you may be in category Y". or may not, it's your choice. Regards, MartinRe 19:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * MartinRe, I can support what you and I are saying about templates with no problem. What I oppose is the collateral efforts by some to eliminate all forms of automated wikipedian groupings.  First, "What links here," then caegories, then... I think there's a userbox for that somewhere. ;-) Rfrisbietalk 19:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Template - can anyone make this work?
Check out this template:

User:BigDT/TestTemplate

On the left, it shows the code that the user should copy and paste to his or her user page. On the right, it shows the userbox itself. So, something like this:

... would generate this ...

That generated output can then be added to WP:UBX. Everyone's happy. There's no more transclusion of templates and the userbox generation code is right there for anyone who wants it.

Here's the problem: how do you stop it from wikifying the parameters?

For example, if I do this:

... then Virginia Tech in linked instead of a nowiki version Virginia Tech ...

Is it possible for this to work?

BigDT 01:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

{| border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"
 * style="width:350px; overflow:auto; text-align: left; font-size: 8pt; color:black; font-family: Courier New; " |
 * style="width:350px; overflow:auto; text-align: left; font-size: 8pt; color:black; font-family: Courier New; " |


 * 


 * }

Just put nowiki tags around the template (subst and all). The user won't see them, but the code should work. Mackensen (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried that ... when that happens, it doesn't sub in the variables - it just shows, etc, as is BigDT 01:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * From it looks like I am going to have to do something like this:

Basically, it would need a nowiki version for the left and a regular version for the right ... it's not spectacular, but it's something. Any thoughts? BigDT 01:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've managed to get it working, but eeww. I'm not proud of this mess.

  gives:

There's got to be a way to improve the code, but hey, it works. SeventyThree(Talk) 15:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

A compromise
This is the best compromise I've seen. It addresses everyone's issues. I'm sorry, extreme keep partisans, but you can't expect to get everything 100% your way. This is the best compromise as it actually keeps the display on userpages the same. The alternative might take a little longer to ram through from above but the end result would be even less in your favor. -- Cyde Weys 01:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not a compromise. Nor is any compromise merited given the division of opinion on this subject: on the one hand there is a tiny handful of killjoys, and on the other there is everyone else. I oppose. Ou tis 16:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel that way. This represents a good faith effort on a part of many people to find a solution that everyone can live with. It's the wiki way to compromise, and find consensus. Please try to assume good faith and remain civil when discussing this matter. Best, Mackensen (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also note that this isn't a vote. At the moment we're discussing, trying to find a solution. Mackensen (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a brilliant compromise, isn't it? Unfortunately, the farce that is the recent userbox listings on TFD suggests that it won't achieve the popular consensus that we so badly need; if it proceeds, it'll likely have to be imposed on the recalcitrant ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Therein lies the whole problem - there is a fundamental problem with a community-based encyclopedia when there is an attitude that it is acceptable to impose a non-existent policy against a consensus. The playing around with Template:User Christian ... the deleting of a template when the overwhelming majority voted keep ... none of that is positive.  If this so-called compromise does not gain community support, the situation of administrators deleting templates against a consensus is untenable.  Enforcing a non-existent policy is NOT the reason administrators are here. BigDT 04:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's wait and see if it gains consensus before holding the funeral for this proposal, okay? It's not a "so-called" compromise, it's a compromise. Also, the last attempt gained 61% support and that was deemed "no consensus." I find that outrageous, and unrealistically Utopian. Nhprman 04:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Compromise? As far as I see it's just simple deleting all of the userboxes, even those that are uncontroversial and useful for encyclopedia (babel, programming languages etc.). It's just a completely unacceptable proposal. If you agree with it, fine, but don't try to present it as a compromise of sorts. Most reasonable editors are against it.  Grue   08:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * All respect Grue, but I don't see much opposition yet. Again, I welcome you to bring forward proposals of your own. Mackensen (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As you know Mackensen, other proposals already are out there. I would think any serious attempts at compromise would work toward finding the "highest common ground" - true consensus - in this collection of serious proposals. Rfrisbietalk 13:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Mackensen's Proposal
 * Userbox policy
 * User:Misza13/Userbox Gallery Poll
 * Yes, many proposals exist or have existed. I would argue that a compromise exists between parties, not proposals. Furthermore, this one proposal has already garnered considerable attention from existing parties, both positive and negative. Mackensen (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree people are responsible for compromise. However, as long as more than one serious proposal is active, any claims that a particular proposal has Wikipedia community consensus must be considered suspect.  It only behooves the project to ensure true consensus exists before any one of a competing set of proposals is adopted as policy. Until these multiple proposals get straightened out, e.g, "merged" these distinct processes really doesn't have much chance of reaching a consensus. Rfrisbietalk 16:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any controversy about keeping the display on userpages the same. If that were going to change it would be because of a change in the censorship policy. I would say this is the most extreme of the three proposals with regards to template space. Misza's delets only the divisive ones, and "Userbox policy" deletes only the intentionally divisive ones. I don't see reason to think that this is the best compromise we can get. TheJ a  bb  e  rw  &#664;  ck 03:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm almost compelled to call it the worst compromise I've seen, in deference to Cyde's superlative. But, it's not.  It makes a good-faith to address the things that are important to each group.  De-templating userboxes guts their utility.  To my mind, there should be a User_Template space, which eliminates the (in a way, beside the point) argument that userboxes exist in the wrong "space."  It also fails to solve what the antiuserbox faction perceives as the "problem," namely, the use of userboxes to facilitate votestacking, astroturfing, & puppetry.  All it does is to change the method by which it happens.  User behavior can only be molded by rules, policies, & guidelines; artificially restricting the power of the technology only works until someone invents a workaround.  We already have the policies we need to prevent these human problems.  Userbox templates, to my view, needn't become different to meet the objectives of those who oppose the current system.  The "space" issue can be solved in the system architecture, and the behavior issue can be solved with the users.  The wholesale destruction of what should be a tool for building community & consensus in the Project is both counterproductive & an overreaction.--Ssbohio 02:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well-stated. Rfrisbietalk 03:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Too far reaching, but could be used on the political/religious boxes
We have histroically shown some tolerance to a little a bit of fun with activities such as categorizing Wikipedians as a "cofee break" activity, and I feel that this proposal goes too far in eliminating things which are harmless and do nothing to bring Wikipedia into disrepute. The way I see it userboxes fall into some categories. From best to worst they are
 * 1) Useful and relevant, the original babelboxes are of course those which come to mind here. In addition things like "This user is an administrator" are uncontroversial. Such userboxes serve a useful purpose and are directly related to the encyclopedia and should remain in template space, with the categories.
 * 2) Self-describing type class A (i.e. not religious, political or sexual) such as "This user enjoys basketball" have usually not been controversial either, and neither have their associated categories. At best such userboxes, along with the categories can provide people a chance to find other editors who are interested in, or might be experts on a certian kind of topic. I'll admit by the way that I have a box (related to Dungeons and Dragons) which seems to fall into such a category.
 * 3) Silly boxes, such as (at the risk of violating WP:BEANS) "This user likes to contribute to Wikipedia by hanging from the celing and typing on the keyboard with his left foot while guiding the mouse with the right foot." These userboxes are sometimes offensive to people because of the sheer silliness, but other people just find them good fun.
 * 4) Self-describing political and religious such as "This user is a Libertarian" or similar political or religious userboxes. These seem to be the most controversial at the moment and lead to a lot of bickering these past days.
 * 5) Self-describing anti-political and anti-religious such as "This user opposes socialism". These are already speedied as T1 candidates and there are not all that many who seem to miss them.
 * 6) Trolling such as "This user HATES all the deletionist vandals". Already speedied as T1, and no tears.
 * 7) Vandalism such as "This user thinks Sjakkalle is a complete moron who should be tried for treason, hung, drawn and quartered." These were speedied even before the advent of T1 becuase they are G3 candidates.

The way I see it, types 1 and 2 should be allowed to remain in template space. Type 1 are useful to the building of the encyclopedia while type 2 represent some of our oldest bits of fun and community building that we have, and they are not harmful whatsoever. Indeed, several of are most respected contributors have taken time off to have some fun, and we shouldn't ban such activity outright. The silly type 3 boxes are not helpful, but not very harmful in template space either, though I am not opposed to placing them in userspace. I think there should be a buffer zone between keepable templates and speedy deletable templates, and "sillyboxes" seem to be a natural buffer zone to me (i.e. send them to TFD and everyone agrees to respect the outcome of the TFD).

I have no trouble with your proposed policy when it comes to boxes of types 4 and 5 (these are after all the boxes which Jimbo expressed grave concerns about), while those of type 6 and 7 should just be deleted outright.

Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't necessarily disagree, but I note that previous attempts to resolve the situation ran aground trying to determine what was worthwhile and what wasn't. In the end, we're left making a value judgement, and I don't think that's a good idea. Functionally, there's no difference between any of these types–they all have similar underlying code. Therefore, with a global listing being maintained, there's no real purpose to keeping any of them in template space, with the possible exception of #1 (thanks for these groupings, by the way). On that score, I understand that Phil Boswell has been working on a global babel template. Still, this is something to build on here. Mackensen (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have a prototype framework (and I cannot emphasise that strongly enough [[Image:Face-devil-grin.svg|20px]]) available for scrutiny here. It uses two levels of template: one for the box and another for the individual languages. The former will only display those language codes it is coded to understand; the latter encapsulate all available levels of expertise within a single template. Obviously this framework could be adapted to cover other community-approved types of box also, possibly something to show which WikiProjects a user belonged to. Please feel free to comment on the discussion pages as appropriate: please (pretty please!) don't fiddle with the code unless you see something egregiously wrong because it's still under development and I have them open for editing for long periods (so it would be better to drop me a line…). HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed there is a value judgement here, for instance the line between type 2 and 3 is a little blurry. That is why I think a buffer zone of userboxes which can be discussed civilly on TFD is so important. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

One alternative proposal that might as well be out there
Why not just require all userboxes to be substed? You can leave the templates themselves right where they are - they aren't hurting anything. Just require that if you use one, you subst, rather than transclude it. We can add some code to them ... like Template:TestTemplatesNotice that yells loudly at you if you forget to subst. Advantages:


 * Removes server drain from transcluded userboxes
 * Eliminates ability to social network based on "what links here"
 * Keeps the existing TFD process in place to review and remove inappropriate userbox templates (vs WP:MACK where inappropriate userbox templates would just be an edit conflict. (As before, I'm not talking or concerned about what a user puts on their page - just what boxes are listed on WP:UBX itself.)
 * Should remove EVERY objection from the pro-userbox crowd because - well - what's to complain about? Substing should have been done from the get go.

Any takers? BigDT 12:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you enforce this? i.e. How can you ensure (require) that everyone has subst'd the boxes they've used? There might be a bot that would do this, I don't know. It's an honest question. Nhprman 14:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect a bot could do it. I don't favor this option, personally, because it leaves this issue open, and there's still stuff occupying the template namespace. It's an interesting alternative, but I don't think I could support it. Mackensen (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I know one bot who could do it :-P  Cyde Weys  22:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Dumb question: What's the big deal, anyway?
One thing I haven't seen so far is a good technical explanation of just why userboxes are so hard on the servers. I see concerns about load - but no facts. Has anyone instrumented the code and actually measured the load that the template (which, AIUI, is the Wikipedia equivalent of a server-side include) places on creation of a page? Has anyone, especially, comared it with the costs of having the code explicitly included on the user's page without dynamic interpretation?

Optimizing wihtout measuring is a classic error in computing. It's extremely common for programmers to spend lots of time optimizing code that doesn't get executed enough to warrant the effort. This proposal, as well as the jihad against userboxes in some quarters, smells like the same kind of thing. I am in no way casting aspersions on anyone's motives, which I'll readily concede are pure; I'd just like to see some facts before concluding that comments such as "userboxes damage the servers" are anything more than sheer hyperbole. Jay Maynard 13:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not the issue at stake here, really. My understanding is that straight html takes less effort than a transcluded template. The greater issue, and the one that concerns most people, is the proper use of the Template namespace and possible concerns about vote-stacking. The primary issues are not technical. Mackensen (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no problem with server load. Only 0.0001% of page views are User pages. Frankly I've never seen this argument used by opponents of userboxes before.  Grue   13:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What, then, should I make of comments in TfD such as "Why we don't focus on improve the Wiki instead of creating userboxes that permanently harm the server?"? Jay Maynard 13:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Damned if I know. I suppose one could interpret it metaphorically. This isn't TfD. This is a policy proposal that does not have any mention, so far as I know, of technical concerns. Mackensen (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. What, then, is the problem with transcluding userbox templates, if not server load? That's what the policy appears aimed at stopping. Jay Maynard 13:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell, the problem is that personal opinions/non-encyclopedic content and the like are existing in the Template: namespace, when they ought to be in the User: namespace. There's a further concern that the "What links here:" feature of the Template (or, for that matter, any transcluded page) encourages vote-stacking efforts. There have been several such occurences in the last month. The concern may be overrated; I'm not convinced. Substing the code onto user pages eliminates these concerns while making the code a part of the user's page. They still have what they had before. Mackensen (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to an explanation of what the Template: namespace is for and why it's important that it be kept pure? As for vote-stacking, can you point to examples? If someone can do a "what links here:" for "User republican", they can do a search for "This user is a Republican" about as easily; thus, stopping transcluding would seem to be of limited benefit for that purpose. I'm interested in this discussion because I spent a couple of hours last night setting up my user page. (Forgot to hit "save".) I even (horrors!) created a new template, User from Texas, because User Texas didn't reflect my situation. Having standardized templates instead of lots of ad-hoc code seems to me to be, ultimately, more beneficial to the infrastructure of Wikipedia, although I'm certainly open to being convinced otherwise (if I wasn't, I wouldn't have asked this dumb question!). Fundamentally, this proposal seems to have two effects: End the anti-userbox crusade by removing it from the realm of TfD, and a resource tradeoff between template space and user space. The cost is in increased complexity, increased difficulty for the less-technical user, and decreased utility for some purposes. Is the benefit worth the cost? Jay Maynard 14:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For the template namespace, see Template namespace. Regarding vote-stacking, I'd have to dig through the archives. I know that's a lame response, but it'll take time to dig up examples. One that does come immediatedly to mind is User:StrangerInParadise, who spammed many talk pages . Note that the Arbitration Committee has held, and most Wikipedians agree, that spamming talk pages, especially to encourage voting, is a Bad Thing. Mackensen (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Far be it from me to disagree that spamming anything at any time for any purpose is a Bad Thing. I'm not at all sure that doing away with transclusion and the links it generates, or with user categories, will achieve the desirable end of preventing it, though. I'll go read the Template namepsace page right now. Jay Maynard 14:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Okkay, I've read Template namespace. I understand how it works. I still don't understand the purity argument, though. Dumber question: How hard is it to create namespaces? If that's the concern of most folks, why not create another namespace (call it User templates, or some such), and move all of the userbox templates there? They'd only be included by the – flags on pages from the User namespace. (Yeah, I know...typical user, suggesting program changes with no idea of how hard it'd be.) Jay Maynard 14:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is, it's up to the devs, and the devs already hate userboxes with a passion and they're certainly not going to add another entire namespace just to accomodate userboxes. Remember, they're unpaid volunteers (except for brion?), so you can't force them to do anything they don't want to do :-P   Cyde Weys  16:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As a project manager for an open source software project, I'm intimately familiar with the effect of developer dislike on feature implementation. If the developers aren't going to do it, then that's that for that idea. Since you're one of the ones hollering loudest abvout resource consumption, though, perhaps you could answer my original question? Jay Maynard 16:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm really not howling about resource consumption. Here's a little bit of history.  Templates were originally coded for MediaWiki for Tim Starling as a convenient way to add navigational boxes to multiple articles without having to go back and update each article invidivually each time you needed to update the navigational box.  Templates were quickly then used by users for such things as block messages and vandalism warnings, but that was really still okay, because it was helping to build the encyclopedia.  But at some point, some users started using templates in direct opposition to Wikipedia's purpose and philosophy.  The philosophy of Wikipedia is thus: "Here we are all Wikipedians.  You check your biases at the door and write all articles from a neutral point of view."  As you can see, having a bunch of things in template space that proclaims all manner of personal beliefs and biases gives the wrong idea about Wikipedia is.  Since it's in template space and used on many different user pages it almost gets an implicit endorsement from us.  During the userbox heyday a lot of new users were introduced to Wikipedia by way of "Here's a list of userboxes you can put on your userpage," rather than, "Here's how to edit articles."  And the result was a lot of users spent more time working on their userpages and making userboxes than actually writing the encyclopedia.  -- Cyde Weys  17:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (My god, it's full of stars! :-) When you talk about "how much code and how much server resources it takes to display a simple colored box", it sounds like you're complaining (okkay, I'll grant that "howling" is extreme, even if I didn't say it) about resource usage. Putting that aside for the moment...The philosophy of Wikipedia is a nice ideal, but it's impossible when you're dealing with real people. After all, professional journalists can't achieve it; what makes us think that amateurs with axes to grind can? The best we can hope is that people declare their biases up front and watch out for them, knowing that others can and will call them on it if they step over the line. I doubt, for example, that I could achieve NPOV on an article about the workings of Communism in real life. (So I won't even try.) I certainly don't consider the userboxes an endorsement of their concepts by Wikipedia, and especially those for which a wide range of varying, opposing viewpoints are available. Yes, I agree that userboxes are not what it's about - but trying to clamp down on them denies a simple fact: In any shared endeavor, whether desired or not, a sense of community forms aboutnd those sharing the work. You can't stamp out communities on Wikipedia, and it's foolish to try. Jay Maynard 17:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope no one's going to be stamping anything out. Anyway. Too many asterisks, let's make a pact to start at the left edge on the next comment. Mackensen (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hooray, free prominence! Anyway, the personal expression and sense of community would still be there. It just wouldn't be coming from the template namespace. Ardric47 05:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Again: What's wrong with having it in the template namespace? The objections seem to be "server load" (but nobody appears to have actually instrumented the system to verify, let alone quantify, the effect) and "vote stacking" (which this proposal really does nothing to fix). Jay Maynard 11:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Babel boxes
How about babel boxes, would these go the same way? Presumably... ? - FrancisTyers 13:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm for peace at almost any cost but destroying the babel boxes goes very far, in my opinion. Keeping them as templates is convenient - it provides a standardized representation and allows us to update all instances at the same time. It also makes the user page code much cleaner. There are several boxes which are just as useful as the babel boxes, e.g. project boxes, the admin box and boxes denoting expertise or interest in a subject. Haukur 15:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've said somewhere on here (can't remember where), that I would favor keeping babel boxes (using Phil Boswell's new format), with the proviso that they be limited to those languages which have a corresponding wiki. Mackensen (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There are literally thousands of notable languages without their own wikis. Jimpartame 15:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * True; I'm not disputing that. However, the primary utility of the babel system is to make it easier to find people to translate things between wikis. I used to have a German babel box, and I fielded at least one interwiki request (in addition to my own efforts). I'm not saying that languages without their own wikis aren't notable or important, I'm just saying that they shouldn't be a part of the Babel box system. Mackensen (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd add "have a wikipedia edition, or is the native tongue of some region". The first is administrative, the second is basic fairness.  And this would still exclude frivolous babble-boxes like  or User:UBX/1337-0 (both of which adorn my user page, I must admit). --EngineerScotty 16:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Right. I suppose what I'm getting at is a reasonable expectation that said user would need to translate something in this language, or communicate with a user in this language, for the purposes of encyclopedic work. Mackensen (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please keep the standard (having a Wikipedia edition) Babel boxes, they work consistently (using the same templates and the same wiki code) on all language editions of Wikipedia, and allow easy identification of which languages you can use to communicate with a given user. Especially User en-0 is important in this context. See Babel and its dozens of interwikilinks, all of which go to pages in other languages describing the same format. It is great to be able to use the same format on ALL Wikipedias, regardless of whether you understand the language or not. Kusma (討論) 19:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, I can only get behind this compromise if all templates are treated equally. If this proposal applies to non-Babel userboxes, it must also apply to Babelboxes, to pic of the day, to Userpage, to opentask, and all other templates intended for userspace. Angr (t • c) 23:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a tough one, no doubt. Having a policy with grey areas is a recipe for disaster, but I don't think all templates should be treated equally, as not all templates are equal, as for one thing, opentask wouldn't work if userfied, wheres {{{tl|user wears funny hats}} would be perfectly fine. However, it does need to be clearly defined, and not fuzzy. My gut feeling (and it's late here) is that templates that are unlikely to be modifed by any of the user whose page they are on, are good canditates for remaining in template space, and anything that is likely to be modified by multiple people is probably better userfied to stop edit wars. Not an ideal definition, but that would mean the above would be fine, as would the babel and wikiproject ones, but all the "personalised" ones would be userified. Regards, MartinRe 23:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point about opentask. I'd say the only templates for userspace that should remain as templates under this proposal are those whose usefulness depends on their ability to be updated frequently. This would include opentask and its relatives, pic of the day and its relatives, and Signpost-subscription. Angr (t • c) 09:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This is tangential, Martin, so feel free to split of a new header if you want to. As I replied to you below, isn't an easy solution to edit conflicts to split off to another template? This is impossible in article space, but easy in template space. The edit conflict problem seems a specious reason to vote against template space boxes to me. TheJ a  bb  e  rw  &#664;  ck 01:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But since the raw code is so easily changed, wouldn't it make even more sense to avoid these splits altogether? One-use templates are a waste and would be justifiably deleted through normal channels. Mackensen (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So are you assuming that the edit conflict is between one user who wants a different version and everyone else? I was picturing more two groups who can't decide which is the right template. I would agree with you in the first scenario, but not in the second. TheJ a  bb  e  rw  &#664;  ck 01:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. I view this as a situation where one size doesn't necessarily fit all. I can easily see a userbox getting forked for any number of reasons–thematic, stylistic, whatever have you. The elegance of substituting (via the new box demonstrated below) is that users are free to modify without worrying about harming someone else's box (more to the point, altering someone else's page). Forking is good in this situation. People's user pages shouldn't be clones of each other. Mackensen (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that Babel boxes are apparently part of this, can we "freeze" this proposal a few days at least so we don't have a moving target? I realize this may be hard to do for some ADHD editors on WP, but it's essential that we're talking about the same proposal, not one that is edited every 24 hours. As for the Babel boxes themselves, great that they're excluded. Now wait 15 minutes for someone to say "But location boxes are great tools for editing, too" and "Religion boxes help us edit religion articles" etc. It's a slipery slope, folks, and I hope it doesn't scuttle the entire proposal. The joy of it was it's simplicity "Delete ALL userboxes in the template space" Now that's gone, and it's a weaker proposal now. - Nhprman 03:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Weaker, maybe, in policy, but much stronger in terms of community support, as few people are opposed to the Babel boxes. Besides for that, it's fine with me if you want to freeze the proposal for a bit. TheJ a  bb  e  rw  &#664;  ck
 * This is where terms and definitions get in the way. I'm not Opposed to Babelboxes, either. I'm opposed to where they reside - Template space. If people support the plan now because their "favorite" box category is now exempted, I think this Proposal will be doomed by 1000 future compromises to make it more "palatable" to users woefully uninformed about the problems that prompted it. Nhprman 05:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do we need to "freeze" anything? We are discussing.  Things change, that is the point?  It isn't like this is a vote yet. Kotepho 04:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, actually, that's a good point, Kotepho. Nphrman, I think it'll be OK as long as changes in the policy itself are clearly supported by and referenced to discussion here. TheJ a  bb  e  rw  &#664;  ck 04:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This was presented as a Proposal to move all Userboxes out of template space and into User space where they could be freer and out of the delete/undelete debate entirely, with the social networking element stripped from them. Now it's changed course by allowing "some" userboxes as Templates and there are (misguided) attempts to preserve and protect the social networking elements that caused most of the problems to begin with.
 * So personally, I'm not even weighing in on this again until it's fully formed and ready for voting. Something that started off great could end up horrid after it exempts more userbox categories for the sake of compromise and consensus (I'm sure someone will eventually argue: "Keep humor templates, they're harmless.") That result would clearly undermine the spirit of the Proposal entirely. I hope that's not where this is heading, though. Nhprman 05:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it was a bit early to call this a proposal. It really is just his idea.. and one post on DRVU.  It needs to be molded and it will probably change some.  It seems silly to stay out of the kitchen while the food is being cooked only to say "I don't like lobster," after the meal is done. State your positions and explain them.  You don't want any exemptions other than babelboxes or not even them?  Say that.  Say why.  Make an argument.  Answer other's concerns.
 * I for one think there is a good reason to exempt babelboxes and their categories. I can go to a wiki where I do not even speak the language and find someone that speaks ones that I do know.  That is something useful and unique, as for any other exemptions people have brought up (which I have not seen much approval for) do not grant such benefits.  If you speak English you can probably find the other userboxes if you want them, or use babelboxes and their categories to find someone that you can communicate with.  Kotepho 05:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Babelboxes should not be exempted from any policy on userboxes, since they are userboxes, and serve the same function: to tell others something about you in a brief, eye-catching way. Babelboxes are a fun, colorful way to brag about what languages you know, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking they actually benefit the encyclopedia in any way. Nothing in userspace does. Angr (t • c) 07:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Babelboxes aren't particularly useful, but their categories are (or if there is not a category, the template and whatlinkshere is). They have been useful to me on both ja. and de. in such a way that does not exist with any of the other kinds. I don't particularly like exceptions either, but I believe that this one has a solid point (you are of course free to disagree with it). Kotepho 05:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)