Wikipedia talk:Mackensen's Proposal/Archive 3

Technical note on substing
Just as a reminder: be aware of the technical limitations of substing (→WP:SUBST). For example template calls that contain unset parameters which are defaulted in the template and templates that contain PF things look very bad in wiki code when substed (in fact they are not properly substed). I hope you don't mind if I hint here for 2777.

As a side note, a page A can be transcluded into any other page B. A needs not to reside in namespace "template". So userboxes for substing could reside in any namespace, also in "Wikipedia".

Not so well thought substing leaves often an unmaintanable mess behind. Just doing the template inclusions can save a lot of maintenance work (i.e. bot runs). --Ligulem 09:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure why a userbox would need conditionals, but most of them can be made so that they subst without them. There are only a few situations where this would not work properly, but not many. Kotepho 05:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Community influence
From the paragraph above, I have no objection to userboxes per say, if used in moderation, as I believe that it's excessive use that's most harmful. In line of that, I'm curious, has anyone seen a user with hundreds of userboxes and actually asked them to reduce the number? And, if so, what was the result? Regards, MartinRe 09:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe a request has been made before, along those lines, and I don't think it went down well. Mackensen (talk) 10:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Just noticed this. If you want a sample User:Elmo12456.  Here is the  old version of his user page.  Please do not click if you not on broadband.


 * Tony Sidaway (yes, that Tony Sidaway) did something similar to this a few months ago, and he got a fairly good response by just asking. He can probably give numbers/percentaegs, but I'm thinking it was something like 40-70% said they would do it (removal of polemical/POV userboxes). The problem is that at this point we've reached the stage of fanatics on both sides, scripted responses on WP:TFD, and other trench warfare tactics. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess I only see anything approaching fanaticism on the side of those who would do away with userboxes in template space. So far, it looks like there are three objections, but none of them have been supported much, if at all:
 * Server load. I keep asking for something to back this up, and get ignored.
 * Vote stacking. Even granting that this is a problem (and not, as I'm coming to believe, a flaw in the assumptions inherent in the way Wikipedia comes to decisions), this proposal does nothing to stop it.
 * Purity of template space. Again, no explanation as to c.
 * I'm beginning to believe this is something admins will force on editors, whether they like it or not, for nebulous reasons having to do with perceived frivolity. Before ramming it through, please stop for a moment and think what it says to the casual editor who doesn't live and breathe Wikipedia: it's nothing good. Jay Maynard 15:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * To answer some of your questions:
 * Server load - see Transclusion_costs_and_benefits - Tranclusion is a serious server load ("Switching off transclusion would drastically reduce server load") Also, from what I understand, changing a template used in multiple places requires each pages to be refreshed, imagine what edit wars (multiple edits) over user templates (used in 100's of user pages) is costing??
 * Vote stacking. IMO, Consensus works best with a reasonable amount of people with a wide spread of opinions, who, with discussion, some to a fair agreement. Vote stacking unbalances that, by having a large amount of people with the same opinion added to discussion, makes it very difficult to find the middle ground.
 * Purity of template space - Those in favour of this point to the WP:NPOV pillar, that everything in "encyclopedia space" should be neutral, and template space is part of that space. (Why NPOV "is so vital" should be obvious, I hope!)
 * Please don't separate people into "admins" and "editors", there's enough them and us wrt userboxes already! :) (I'm not an admin, btw, if that makes any difference). Could you explain what not good thing this would say to the casual editor? Personally I don't think it will deter any casual editors, I think the only people it will seriously deter are those who spend the majority of their time on their userspace, which I think is no bad thing. Casual editors might be annoyed for a time, but at worst it should be a reminder that wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, and user space is supposed to be used primarely for that, and not as a personal web page. Regards, MartinRe 15:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Although I have no problem with subst'ing of userboxes becoming the accepted standard or with the proposal in general - seeing it as no big deal in itself - I do feel that the argument from purity is weak. It's a purely psychological argument, having to do with the way some people think of template space, rather than with any properties that template space objectively has. Psychological arguments can be overcome by changing the way of thinking, rather than by changing the world. For example, in this case the purity argument would be overcome if people agreed to think of "Template:User_" (that is, the set of templates prefixed by "User_") as a virtual space enclosed by encyclopedic "Template:" space but distinct from it (or rather, semi-distinct). Zerrakhi 16:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies:
 * Server load - The page is a good discussion, but there's still a lot of talk with little measurement and no hard figures (and despite the page's assertion, it is possible to measure just how much extra work transcluding a set of userboxes causes).
 * Vote stacking - The problem here is that attempts to make decisions by consensus work only when there is consensus to be found. On divisive issues, such as this one, in the end, some group - and, I suspect from the way this is going, a fairly large one - will be left feeling powerless and disenfranchised. I'm already wondering if, as a lowly editor who hasn't been around very long, my voice will wind up counting for much. This is not a new phenomenon; lots of folks have tried governing by consensus only to find that some issue or other is simply not amenable to resolution that way - and how such issues are finally resolved has profound effects on the future of the organization.
 * Purity of template space - I'm not disputing for a moment that NPOV is fundamental. What I am disputing is that template space must itself be NPOV, especially the pages within that space that start with "User_". Yes, templates that make their way into the encyclopedia itself must be, but that's not the only purpose for template space. (If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.) It should be obvious that user templates can be as non-NPOV as user pages themselves, and the whole idea that they represent the project in some way is laughable at best - unless you are arguing that user pages themselves represent the project!
 * This whole debate tells those who are not initiated into the inner sanctums and workings of Wikipedia that the space the project grants each user is fundamentally not important. It says that the user can do some things with it, but it's fundamentally not his to lay out who he is and what his interests are - and, make no mistake, that is relevant to building the encyclopedia - in a way he might find useful.
 * I'm not separating people into "editors" and "admins"; the folks who keep bringing this issue up are doing so. It may well not be conscious on their part. It is, however, quite evident. I wish it weren't so, but there it is. Jay Maynard 18:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Before someone yells at you, I'll just remind you quietly that the debate has nothing to do with what is allowed in user space. Also, in terms of the users vs. admins comment, regardless of whether there is a separation, it might not be a good idea to use such a separation as a point, since (I think) it would be better to treat users and admins as equal in discussions such as this. TheJ a  bb  e  rw  &#664;  ckhelp! 00:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Location userboxes?
I notice that Babel boxes are now (quite rightly) excluded from this proposal. I think it would be appropriate if this exception were extended to 'location' userboxes (ie this user is from Country X) as they have similar administrative benefits. Cynical 15:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, whether Babelboxes are included or not is still under discussion. I for one cannot and will not support this proposal unless Babelboxes (and location boxes) are included. Angr (t • c) 15:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In dewiki, only Babel boxes are allowed in the Template namespace. Location templates are under a special user account. Last time I checked, other templates existed only in some users' personal spaces and were not advertised in a central directory. Kusma (討論) 17:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I know, but I don't see any reason for enwiki to follow dewiki's mistake of treating Babelboxes separately. Angr (t • c) 21:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see why this is a mistake. Unlike Userboxes, Babel is actually virtually the same on dozens of projects and would need to get a backup system in place first. At least we'd need a central place that tells people how to write "I don't speak English, you may use French, Spanish, or Chinese to contact me" or similar in Chinese, German, Hindi, Spanish, Russian, Italian, Japanese etc. Once such a replacement system is in place (probably located at Babel or Babel), the userboxes that serve this purpose right now can be phased out, but they shouldn't be deleted in a rush. Kusma (討論) 21:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no reason to change anything in the way Babelboxes are handled, by doing so we would ruin interoperability with Wikipedias in other languages. The Babel boxes are useful, if only marginally so. As an example I was asked a question here because I had a certain Babel box on my page and I replied here  with the needed information. There are lots of other useful userboxes. Can't we just have a whitelist of allowed userboxes which can be slowly expanded through a democratic procedure? Haukur 22:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We already have Translators available and Translation to help us find translators. Babelboxes aren't really necessary for this. Angr (t • c) 22:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Those translator pages are good and useful but the Babel boxes are useful too. You often feel more comfortable asking someone you're already working with to translate for you than to make a request on a page like that. I'm not saying that the Babel boxes are very useful, just that they're marginally useful and almost completely harmless. Haukur 15:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure! They're not going away from userpages, they just won't be stored in Template space any more. Angr (t • c) 15:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually want Babel boxes to stay for precisely those languages on List of Wikipedias, and do not care at all what happens to all other userboxes. Kusma (討論) 23:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Why only those? There are many other languages in the world, and knowledge of them can be useful in contributing to Wikipedia. Jimpartame 05:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Babelboxes are not going to be deleted anyway; they're just not going to be templates anymore. They'll be substed on the pages where they already exist, and entered directly as code onto new user pages as necessary. The user page will look the same, and the categories will still be there. There just won't be a Template:User en or a Template:User de-3 (etc.) as such any more. Angr (t • c) 06:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As long as the internationally standardized constructions like and similar constructions work and give a useful result, I don't care how they are implemented, it will just probably be a monster without the userbox templates. Kusma (討論) 13:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well no, that wouldn't work. You'd have to type in

&lt;div style="float:left;border:solid #6ef7a7 1px;margin:1px;"> &#123;| cellspacing="0" style="width:238px;background:#c5fcdc;" | style="width:45px;height:45px;background:#6ef7a7;text-align:center;font-size:14pt;" | sv | style="font-size:8pt;padding:4pt;line-height:1.25em;" | Den här användaren talar svenska som modersmål. |} &lt;/div> &lt;div style="float:left;border:solid #FFB3B3 1px;margin:1px"> &#123;| cellspacing="0" style="width:238px;background:#FFE0E8" | style="width:45px;height:45px;background:#FFB3B3;text-align:center;font-size:14pt" | en-0 | style="font-size:8pt;padding:4pt;line-height:1.25em" | This user '''does not understand English''' (or understands it with considerable difficulty). |}&lt;/div> &lt;div style="float:left;border:solid #99B3FF 1px;margin:1px"> &#123;| cellspacing="0" style="width:238px;background:#E0E8FF" | style="width:45px;height:45px;background:#99B3FF;text-align:center;font-size:14pt" | fr-3 | style="font-size:8pt;padding:4pt;line-height:1.25em" | Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau avancé de français. |} &lt;/div> but there would be a central page from which you can copy the code so you don't have to memorize it all. Angr (t • c) 14:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It could be made to work without that. It would be a silly amount of effort and time that should be spent on improving the encyclopedia, but then, every minute of userbox debating is a minute lost for the encyclopedia. Anyway, the page with the code needs to have instructions in at least 30 languages before I would even consider anything but opposing the deletion of Babel userboxes. Kusma (討論) 22:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What on earth for? This is the English-language Wikipedia; everything here is in English. Angr (t • c) 06:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For the same reason there's an "I don't speak english" babel box Kuronue 21:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflicts
MartinRe, you've mentioned several times that one of your reasons for supporting this poll is that it would stop edit conflicts on userboxes. A couple of questions: I'd like to better understand your position on this. TheJ a  bb  e  rw  &#664;  ck 22:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you have any specific previous conflicts in mind, or is this just a general hypothesis?
 * 2) Don't you think this decentralization will increase time spent on userboxes (and decrease time spent on the encyclopedia) by disabling the cooperative "wiki-effect"?
 * 3) Most importantly, why shouldn't userboxers be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to subst:?


 * Fair comments, answers in order:
 * Some conflicts that I've noted were User United Kingdom, User England, and even User male. All those have historys showing some edit conflicts, I'm sure if you browse the templates, you could find more.
 * Possibly, but I don't think so. Those spending time on userboxes will probably continue to do so, but if edit conflicts are removed, the overall time should go down.
 * Yes, ideally they should be allowed to subst or not, but if they choose not to subst, they should be aware - and accept - that central changes will affect them. Subst'd and non-subst'd templates both have pros and cons, however, from what I've seen, people want the pro's of both sides, and none of the cons, which is impossible. I have no objection to people choosing, so long as they accept the outcome of their choice. Hope that helps, Regards, MartinRe 15:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Another example is User en-4, which was the topic of some heated controversy last year. Angr (t • c) 21:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Erm... Please don't use the term edit conflict for what is usually called an edit war. It's very confusing. -- grm_wnr Esc  21:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What is a "reader-facing template"?
What is a "reader-facing template"? WP:NPOV uses the term, but I can't find a definition for it. Does it mean a "template on an article page" or something else? Also, does any policy currently define what part of Wikipedia templatespace is? Is it exclusively encyclopedic space? Is it encyclopedia and project space? Is it undefined? I've seen many claims, but I'd like to see the policy for myself, if anyone can help me find it. Rfrisbietalk 17:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any such policy. But some of the people involved in this proposal think it would be good if the Template namespace were just for templates to be used in encyclopedia articles. I think that would be a good idea, provided we can find a new place to put the other templates, including the userboxes. This proposal, as currently worded, would cause the userbox templates to no longer exist anywhere (instead of moving them somewhere else). That's the part I object to. Jimpartame 21:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As I understand them, May Userbox policy poll and Migration of usercruft into new namespaces are intended to address the issues you mention. Rfrisbietalk 20:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

New Namespace?
Has the idea been considered to just create a new namespace for boxes? I know on the software side this is simplicity manifested, but I don't know if there are other side effects I'm not considering. Once the new namespace is created, a bot can just copy all the userbox templates over (granted it might need a bit of guidance for the non "Template:User .*" patterned boxes), then edit all the pages that include the boxes to point to the new namespace. Once it's all done, it can just delete them all from the template namespace. Right?  B. Mearns * , KSC 19:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not gonna happen. See Cyde's comment in the "Dumb question" section: the developers hate userboxes, and aren't gonna add another namespace to make them easier. That was my thought, as well, as it defuses the controversy by getting them out of template space while changing none of the other aspects (as this proposal does). Jay Maynard 20:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Physical" namespace is one thing. Conceptual namespace is quite another.  All sorts of suggestions have been put out there to conceptually distinguish "userbox code" from "encyclopedic templates."  Any arguments against creating a new namespace mask the deeper intents of the objections. Even if a bona-fide new namespace "would" be vetoed by developers (I know of no direct statements by them - I'd love to see the link here),  claiming "developers hate userboxes" as a rationale for blocking a new conceptual or "virtual" userbox namespace is a straw man argument. Rfrisbietalk 22:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think a new namespace would solve the "Template namespace must be pure!" argument, and be no different a solution for the other arguments than this proposal, and I'd love to see it. I was merely pointing out that it'd been suggested and shot down during this discussion. Jay Maynard 22:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * See also User:TheTrueSora/A Proposal on Userboxes (revisited), which proposes a new physical namespace. TheJ a  bb  e  rw  &#664;  ckhelp! 00:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with creating a new namespace is that it even further legitimizes userboxes and gives an even worse impression of what it means to be a Wikipedian. Jay Maynard is right; this idea is not going to happen as the people who could actually implement it have no interest whatsoever in doing so. -- Cyde Weys 00:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How do userboxes give people a bad impression of what it means to be a Wikipedian? As one of the leaders of the crusade, surely you can explain it concisely. Jay Maynard 00:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ouch, don't call it a crusade. Crusades are, by definition, religiously-motivated ... which is quite impossible for me.  -- Cyde Weys  00:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It feels like a crusade: if you can't rationally explain it, it's indistinguishable from a religion, at least to the uninitiated observer. Jay Maynard 00:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyway, to actually answer the question, here's something Jimbo said that sums it up pretty well. -- Cyde Weys  00:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This one won't kill your browser. -- Cyde Weys  00:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So, basically, Wikipedia welcomes you as long as you're either apolitical or willing to hide your politics? I am a Republican, and proud of it, just as others are proud to be gay, or deaf, or vegan, or firearms owners, or even ($DEITY save us) from Massachusetts. Why should any of those be any different from any other?
 * IOW, I think Jimbo's position is wrong because it tries to homogenize us all. That will work no better on Wikipedia than it will anywhere else. I realize I'm speaking against something the guy who's responsible for the whole shebang feels strongly about, but I'm certainly not alone. Jay Maynard 01:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia welcomes you as encyclopedia editors. It doesn't welcome you if you're going to come here and spew your POV all over the place (not that I'm accusing you of doing so, but obviously, some others have tried it).  Having huge displays of POV on userpages is a bad idea because it gives the impression that that kind of thing is acceptable, when the actual policy is WP:NPOV.  Remember, your userpage isn't a personal site ... it's a privilege afforded to people working on the encyclopedia for use in encyclopedia-related communication and such.  The ideal Wikipedia editor is one whose biases you can't even figure out, because every article edit they make is entirely neutral.  Please understand, Wikipedia is only an online community to the ends of writing the encyclopedia ... it's not an online community in general where you share your views on a wide variety of issues.  -- Cyde Weys  01:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Homogeneity is not the goal. Individualism is totally welcome, just not flag-waving. Do you really not see a difference between those? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jay Maynard, this is like a quadruple edit conflict by now, but I wrote up a response to your question:
 * What it means to be a Wikipedian is to be dedicated to creating the ultimate encyclopedia, completely free, completely comprehensive, completely neutral. We want Wikipedia to be authoritative, reliable, and not in any particular group's pocket.  Any special interest group would love to be able to dictate what Wikipedia says, and to dictate "truth" from their particular POV.  One of our main tasks as Wikipedians is to guard against that, because we must remain firmly above partisanship in any form.  If we don't rise above all partisanship, then we're just as shitty as any other website - we no longer make the internet not suck.  A good Wikipedian carries that ideal around, and at least while they're working on Wikipedia, holds accuracy and NPOV as higher ideals than whatever politial agenda they might otherwise align themselves with.
 * I'm very proud to check my personal beliefs at the door when I work here. If you go and set up a userpage advertising that you hold this and that political beliefs, then you're giving the impression that you're participating here with that in mind, rather than trying to get beyond it, that you're editing not as a guardian of neutrality, but as a "Bigendian" or whatever.  You give the impression that it's somehow consistent to be a lobbyist and an encyclopedist at the same time.  I, and I daresay many of us, would rather not have anybody working on the encyclopedia as a lobbyist, nor give the impression that such an attitude is considered in any way "cool" here.
 * I suspect all the noise about the sacredness of the Template namespace is somehow a smokescreen for this one idea, that a lot of us are just really uncomforatble with this willingness to openly embrace POVs in the middle of the ultimate NPOV project. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Very well said! -- Cyde Weys  01:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, GTBacchus is perfectly reflecting the views of Jimbo Wales, the higher-ups on the project (i.e. Wikimedia Board, arbitrators, etc.), and the developers. That is why a user template space will never be implemented.  So far they haven't intervened in this mess other than by saying their opinions because they're hoping we can figure it out on our own, but they are certainly not going to turn around and implement something against the most basic goals of the project.  -- Cyde Weys  01:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Okkay, I see where you're coming from, and you're right, nobody's laid it out in those terms before.
 * The problem is that, while the ideal Wikipedia editor is able to write in an unbiased manner, it's simply not possible over the long term. This is not to disparage anyone's efforts, or those of the whole project, as it's obvious that blatant POV-ness gets stamped out under a thousand edits. It is, however, a recognition of the simple fact that people's biases do leak into their writings to a greater or lesser degree. One need look no farther than the mainstream media to see that.
 * To me, if someone is willing not only to agree to write in an NPOV manner, but lay their biases out on the table for all to see so that others can hold them to that agreement, it makes their participation that much stronger and that much more likely to be unbiased - for the inevitable result of POV writing is that someone will catch it and edit it out, and if it's blatantly in favor of someone's declared biases, it's that much more likely to get caught and fixed, and knowing that will make people pay extra attention to being NPOV.
 * This does not apply only to politics and similar issues. I am a Registered Parliamentarian member of the National Association of Parliamentarians. This affects how I look at lots of things, including Wikipedia's method of governance. Even so, I doubt that anyone would take me to task for having an RP userbox. (Hm...maybe a series of them, from RONR-0 to RONR-N? :-) The "get rid of 'em all!" answer to that simply further homogenizes Wikipedians.
 * The world is full of lots of different kinds of people, with lots of different viewpoints. That they've come together to create this resource is truly amazing. Don't diminish that by hiding it. Jay Maynard 01:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jay Maynard, if you think I'm advocating hiding anything, you've misunderstood me. (Which is fair enough; I'm only just finding the words to articulate these ideas...)
 * Look, I'm a teacher; that's what I do for a living. I don't announce my political beliefs in the classroom.  Why not?  Well, they're completely irrelevant.  My role as a teacher is separate from my role as a politically active person.  So is my role as a Wikipedian.  If you ask me where I stand on any political issue, I'll tell you, but I'm not going to announce it on my Wikipedia userpage as if that's somehow what I'm here for.  Doing so would feel as inappropriate to me as putting my political party affiliation on a course syllabus.  I would be mixing roles in an inappropriate way.  It would feel culturally wrong, like eating with my left hand in India.  It's just not done.
 * This analogy, of the role as Wikipedian to role as teacher, also shows the flaw in another part of your argument, that without userboxes, we somehow become homogenous. I don't know about the politics of any of my colleagues in the department, and yet, we're anything but homogenous!  I refuse to believe that your membership in any granfaloon (club, party, what-have-you) is what makes you Jay Maynard.  You know what's homogenous?  Templated userboxes!  "We're all Bigendians; look at our identical boxen."  My favorite examples of extremely individualistic user pages here that focus on material relevant to writing an encyclopedia are User:Geogre and User:SlimVirgin. Homogenous? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your candid response, GTB. Just a quick question: how does moving templates out of Template: space and into User: space help reduce POV? TheJ a  bb  e  rw  &#664;  ckhelp! 01:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Long belated reply - I hope you don't mind my cutting in here, Cyde. Iamthejabberwock, your question isn't quite posed in a way I find comfortable.  It can reduce the appearance that activism is somehow an accepted part of being a Wikipedian, bacause having them in Template space is like an official stamp that they're really part of the project.  Ultimately, moving things between namespaces won't solve the underlying cultural problem, but it's a first step.  As they get moved, or substed, and people ask why, we get to have conversations like this one.  More and more people get turned on to the ideal that some of us see being threatened, and the culture changes back, one person at a time, just like Jimbo said.
 * Heck, even mass deletions get that message across to some extent, but they also engender a culture of combativeness and polarization, and look where we are. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It helps in a small way by preventing association (i.e. getting rid of categories and what links here). Obviously it's not our preferred solution, but it looks to be the best we can get, despite Jimbo being very clear on this matter and kindly asking everyone to shape up :-/   Cyde Weys  01:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that the move is separate to the getting rid of what links here and categories, both of which can be eliminated using subst and keep strategies. The move would be a conceptual move in my view and separate to the votestacking causes issue (ie, categories and what links here) Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 01:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Getting rid of "what links here" and categories is not going to do a thing about vote stacking. Making user pages unsearchable might. The only way to get rid of it is to make it so it doesn't change outcomes. As for spamming userpages to get out votes, that in and of itself can be dealt with easily.
 * The bigger deal here, though, is that it's an attempt to apply technological solutions to social problems. It doesn't work on the Internet (think of mandatory porn filters and the like); what makes anyone think it will work any better on Wikipedia? Jay Maynard 02:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and "preventing association" is just a nicer way of saying "stamp out user communities" - omething that others have said is not desirable. Which is it to be? Stamp, or no? Jay Maynard 02:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Preventing searching of user space is not what this proposal is about. This proposal does not refer to the delete groups concern about votestacking, if as you say user space is non-searchable. Possibly a separate proposal for this would be appropriate, however, doing so would nullify the argument against vote-stacking as long as a subst and keep strategy is used. Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 23:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. As I understand it, one of the primary arguments against userboxes is that they assist votestacking efforts by making it easier to find users who would be inclined to vote a certain way on a proposal. This proposal is held out as helping with that problem. My contention is that it does nothing of the sort, unless user space is also made nonsearchable; otherwise, a quick Google (maybe even with tools available on this very site) will return the same results. Jay Maynard 23:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * For that matter, you could solve the problem by removing Userpages at all, and having everyone only able to make Talk pages (or remove Talk pages and force people to use their Userpage as a Talk page). Why even have Userpages? They're there to describe the user. Kuronue 21:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Reason for Keeping?
To help understand the debate, what are the arguments (briefly) for keeping userboxes (other than babel, etc.) in the template namespace? Sincerely—Ardric47 03:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Put simply, they're harmless. All of the arguments against having them there are thin, at best. Jay Maynard 11:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The “deal breaker” issue is automated groupings of Wikipedians
As far as I can tell, the “deal breaker” issue for many discussants here is over whether or not automated groupings of Wikipedians should be allowed. “Deletionists” are against them, “preservationists” are for them. Up front, my wikilosophy on this issue is userbox protectionism. The automated groupings I know about are “What links here” when userbox templates are transcluded, and categories that can be embedded in userbox code or manually placed on user pages. Both groups appear to have the laudable aim of furthering the encyclopedia through implementing their respective positions. Deletionists often cite the need to protect the encyclopedia against factions that will attempt to undermine the project. This policy position assumes bad faith on the part of other Wikipedians. Preservationists often cite the need to support collaboration and community building among editors with diverse points of view in order to achieve fair and balanced encyclopedic articles. This policy position assumes good faith on the part of other Wikipedians. Given the technology for automated groupings is policy-neutral, it boils down to a choice between a policy position to thwart a potential threat vs. a policy position to promote a potential benefit. To go on the record once again, I choose to err on the side of assuming good faith. I support any and all technologies that implement automated user groupings for the instrumental purpose of supporting collaboration and community building as a means to develop the world’s best encyclopedia – anywhere. Rfrisbietalk 04:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Bravo, well said. I myself would rather err on the side of good faith also. Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 04:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In fairness, this proposal will removed the automated linking by what links here, but categories will remain, which I believe is the widely accepted method of automated grouping. Also by separating userboxes and categories, that does give users more flexibility as to what categories they want to be added in. Also, this policy does not assume bad faith as you put it, there is an actual problem this is trying to fix, and not just a potential threat - see the "Edit Conflict" section for specific examples where edit wars over content/category inclusion happened, which would not happen under this proposal. This proposal would support collaboration while trying to reduce confrontation, and what's so bad about that? Regards, MartinRe 10:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You're trying to frame this as a feud between "deletionists" and "preservationists". Those labels are incredibly inaccurate. Better labels might be "encyclopedists" and "MySpacers". -- Cyde↔Weys 05:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to have missed my point, "Both groups appear to have the laudable aim of furthering the encyclopedia through implementing their respective positions." From this perspective, both sides are "encyclopedists." Rfrisbietalk 05:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You also seem to have missed my point made above, that the majority of "MySpace"-type user pages have no userboxes on them at all. Angr (t • c) 06:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are "myspace" type userpages with no userboxes, and this proposal isn't trying to deal with that. I did suggest that mfd might be appropiate if you find such a page. However, please don't object to the proposal simply because it doesn't fix a problem that it wasn't designed to in the first place. Regards, MartinRe 10:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I know this proposal isn't trying to deal with it, and I'm not objecting to this proposal yet. I'm trying to remind Cyde that userboxes have zero relevance to the problem of the MySpacification of Wikipedia, since he brought it up. Angr (t • c) 11:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What problem does it fix? Not votestacking and not server load... Jay Maynard 11:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It does help with server load, as I've replied to previously. Just because there are no hard figures doen't mean it has no effect. What this also solves (also outlined above) is the edit wars that regularly occur over user templates. These go together, a edit user war of ten edits over a template that is used on 100 user pages, results in 1000 pages being modified. With this proposal, if someone wants to change the userbox on their page, they can do so, resulting in one edit, and no edit war risk. How is that not an improvement? Regards, MartinRe 11:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not that there are no hard figures. It's that there are no figures at all. This bothers me because of personal experience: in the open source software product I manage, there was once a lot of code added, and a lot of work done, to optimize a chunk of code that was worse for the optimization. Someone actually measured the simple and complex versions, and found that the simple version performed better. We ripped out the complexity and got better. The same thing may well be happening here: a lot of assumptions are being made based on conjecture that may well not be true.
 * As for the edit war risk, that's going to be a problem no matter what happens. Edit wars are possible throughout the encyclopedia. Why is it such a problem here and not elsewhere? Jay Maynard 11:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and at least one major edit war was a result of an admin trying to unilaterally impose his will on a community (AIUI, Cyde vs. Christianity, which resulted in BigDT's departure). There's a fix for that, and it's not getting rid of the userbox. Jay Maynard 11:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Cyde, I suggest you'd use "good" and "evil" from now on for even less divisiveness. Seriously though, good labels would be "MySpacers" and "Anti-MySpacers", neither of which automatically means "encyclopedist" in my opinion. -- grm_wnr Esc  10:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I object to being called a "MySpacer" - that's not my purpose in saying who I am on my userpage. I believe that my position in favor of the status quo does further the encyclopedia, for reasons I've already stated. Jay Maynard 11:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the status quo does further the encyclopedia, but I believe that the proposal will further the encyclopedia even further. Regards, MartinRe 11:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Summary of my concerns
I'm getting tired of this thing, so I've summarised my main concerns on Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes and will now be taking much less interest in the debate. Zerrakhi 05:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userbox policy
This proposal is in error. We are already working out the Userbox policy. It's just divisive and unnecessary to start yet another kill-the-boxes proposal. John Reid 13:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This page has been around for almost a week, and now you tell us. Jay Maynard 13:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That said, I have no heartburn with that proposal, and certainly much less so than with this one. Jay Maynard 13:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The various Alternative and previous proposals have been posted here since 5/15/06 and elsewhere. Rfrisbietalk 14:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is an alternative proposal which is inherently no more or less meritorious than Userbox policy. TheJ a  bb  e  rw  &#664;  ckhelp! 21:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not MySpace


I doubt that very few, if any, users involved in this discussion would challenge this statement or what it implies. Specifically,

" Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site. You may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikipedia. Wikipedia pages are not:
 * 1) User pages.  Wikipedians have their own  user pages, but they are used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet.  The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration."

So, let’s just take that straw man argument off the table for this policy discussion.

Interestingly, while certain types of user information here may appear to serve "social networking" purposes, if viewed in the context of a site like MySpace, e.g., "interested in dating;" the very same information, assuming good faith, can help provide the foundation for effective collaboration when viewed in the context of Wikipedia user pages. I "randomly" ;-) selected a user page that included some userbox information on it to illustrate the point. Given the context of Wikipedia, do you think this guy posted that information here because he's interested in dating or is he simply disclosing background demographic information that may support collaboration?

A clear and strong policy against turning a user page into a "MySpace" page already exists. If problems occur with certain individuals' user pages looking like MySpace pages, then use the existing policy to address their user page. If inappropriate information is on the user page, putting a little box around it, no matter where it came from, is irrelevant. If the information is appropriate for a user page, then putting a little box around it does not make it inappropriate.

If user page policy somehow does not properly address the MyPage issue, then user page policy should be changed. Such policy should clearly state both unacceptable and acceptable types of content that may appear on the page. Any mechanisms for placing information on or about a user page, such as userboxes and user categories, also should be subject to this policy. If any restrictions are placed on these mechanisms, they should be no broader than necessary to implement the policy. The rationale for this is no policy, including the one proposed here, should unnecessarily preclude the use of existing tools to support the broad aim of encyclopedic collaboration in the name of enforcing sanctions against specific and identifiable policy violations. Rfrisbietalk 04:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * *slow clap* -Silence 05:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Very well put. I'm begining to think myself that these proposals are doomed to fail as we are only treating individual symptoms and not the root problem with seems to be "user pages not complying with WP:USER". Question is, how to we a) ensure that all new users are aware of this guideline from the start (to save confusion) and to try and get people to follow it, if their current page is excessive? (I think WP:USER as it stands is fine, it's doesn't need changing, just following!) We could start asking people, and if that doesn't work, use Mfd, as if user pages are being abused by a editor, then the privilege of a userpage should be withdrawn temporarily from that editor. Regards, MartinRe 19:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The actual problem is a cultural difference: Some editors have observed and internalized some cultural norms that involve, among other things, a strong pride in working on Wikipedia as a Wikipedian, not as a member of any other group, and striving always to rise above personal opinions. The fact that this is impossible diminishes in no way its value as an ideal.  Someone sharing in this ideal wouldn't consider announcing their off-Wikipedia allegiances on their userpages; those are simply irrelevant here.  We see people waving flags around, and it rubs us the wrong way; it seems so incredibly unencyclopedic.  It appears that people want to edit Wikipedia as Catholics, or Libertarians, or Feminists, or whatever.  In fact, there are people who want to do just that, and those people are enemies of this project - worse than vandals.  That kind of editing is utterly unacceptable.
 * Even if someone waving flags on their userpage isn't engaging in activism, someone else comes along, sees their userpage, and thinks "here's a place where it's somehow cool to be an activist". Gradually, the culture starts to shift, away from those who take pride in their aspirations to neutrality, towards a culture of those who don't try to be neutral, perhaps shrugging it off with the thought that someone editing from "the other side" will somehow balance them out, when that's not at all how it's supposed to work.  I have yet to see any pro-userbox person indicate that they understand that there's a cultural ideal at stake here.  All technical and political solutions are just noise; it's a cultural problem. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a great ideal. Even if it holds value as an ideal, however, it is flatly impossible in practice. I do not intend to edit pages as a Republican, or an activist for anything else, as I agree that it is contrary to the goals of the project. OTOH, if you know that I'm a Republican, you'll be on the lookout for that viewpoint in my edits, and will be ready to correct me should I stray from the straight and narrow; knowing that, I'm going to take extra care not to give anyone cause to do so.
 * I just spent some time rewriting table (verb). I did so as a parliamentarian, and specifically as a Registered Parliamentarian, a level of membership in one organization (the National Association of Parliamentarians) that certifies that I am expert in the rules of parliamentary procedure. (No, I'm not presuming to represent NAP here.) That doesn't make me an activist (unless you consider it activism for the proper use of Robert's Rules of Order). Nevertheless, the anti-userbox crowd would have me not list that on my user page, and most certainly not via a box in Template space!
 * Yes, it's cultural. What seems to be missed by those on the other side is that people have more interests than just being Wikipedians. Those interests, and those biases, will carry over into their Wikipedia activities. It's impossible to do otherwise, and those who think it is are deluding themselves. Why not accept reality and work with it, rather than deny it? Jay Maynard 21:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Only things that are flatly impossible in practice hold value as ideals.
 * You mistake my meaning, Jay, or I'm perhaps unclear in my phrasing; I'm not "denying" that my interests and biases carry over into my Wikipedia work. Oh, and I do have interests outside of Wikipedia.  Do you really believe the portrait you're painting of those of us whom you call "the other side"?  Aiming for an ideal != claiming that it's attainable.  It's still worth aiming for.  Don't worry, I'm working with reality, but I'm keeping a diamond in my mind.  Aiming for the stars isn't delusion; it's how wonders of the world get built.  I'm here to build a wonder.
 * Anyway, your "why deny it?" argument looks rather different when it turns out I don't oppose disclosure of bias; I'm against giving the impression of activism. More on that in 2 paragraphs.
 * Also, I don't know who you've been talking to, but I am a member of the "anti-userbox crowd", and I have no problem at all with you declaring your areas of expertise on your userpage. When I edit Riemann Hypothesis, I do so as a mathematician and as math teacher - that's different from editing Abortion as a "pro-choicer", which I am.  I'm proud that the only time my beliefs have been called into question at that particular article, I was accused of being a "rabid anti-abortionist", which I'm certainly not.
 * Your argument that, knowing you're a republican, I'll keep an eye on you, and you'll edit carefully, under the gun as it were... that's a pretty good argument. The "disclosing potential bias" argument.  I'm not against disclosing potential bias; I think userboxes are a bad way to do it.  They give the impression of bumper-stickery activism.  Very few people are creating and using boxen for the purpose of disclosing potential bias, in that spirit.  People are having fun waving colorful flags around, and they're pushing Wikipedia culture in a more flag-wavey direction, which is not what you have in mind when you talk about disclosing potential bias.
 * This is not about someone trying to keep honest, dedicated editors from disclosing potential bias. This is about trying not to give the impression that Wikipedia exists in any degree for the purpose of facilitating club-housing.  That impression is an actual problem; I guess that's what I'm asking peoiple to believe.  Is that the sticking point? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree the NPOV culture often is misinterpreted. A key misinterpretation swirling around the userbox debate is mistaking "point of view" for "bias." The passages below illustrate the confusion.
 * Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POV's). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" policy…
 * Some contributors to Wikipedia misuse the term POV, taking it to be the antithesis of "NPOV", implying that a particular article or passage is affected by an editor's point of view. This is not what the term POV means, and should be avoided. The term they are groping for is "biased". (Describing points of view)
 * In my profession, "full and frank disclosure" of one's relevant points of view is considered to be an essential element of proprely addressing potential bias. Striving toward the ideal of NPOV for Wikipedia articles should have no less of a standard. Userboxes that disclose such POVs help serve that purpose. Rfrisbietalk 22:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Disclosure of bias serves that purpose; userboxes can disclose bias, but do it while giving other, entirely wrong, impressions. See above. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's certainly a point of view. I just don't consider it a legitimate rationale for excessively restricting userboxes out of hand.  My view is to address the behavior, not the technology used to express it. Rfrisbietalk 03:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How? How do you convince people that flag-waving is contrary to the project, while maintaining an official warehouse of flags?  Why not just disclose bias in a way that doesn't look like advertising for that bias? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why should userboxes in template space be considered any more official a part of the project than anything else, especially since they're both labeled as user things and when anyone can create them without official approval? Would your answer change if WP:MUPP is adopted and they're moved out of template space? Jay Maynard 11:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * GTBacchus, my point is that if any specific class of behaviors is inappropriate, then it should be addressed directly. For example, if "flag waving" is a problem, then we should be discussion a proposed policy somewhere along the lines of, "Wikipedia is not flag waving." The policy should address what in article space is acceptable (e.g. characterizations of flag waving pertinent to a specific topic) and what is unacceptable (e.g., an exhibition of flag waving).  The policy also should address what is acceptable and unacceptable in user space.  Any userboxes, regardless of their source, then should comply with this user space policy on flag waving. Substitute any other "cultural" issue and you’ll have my point of view on it.  Regards,  Rfrisbietalk 13:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Major arguments
The major arguments are:

I am putting these out as a potential confirmation of the different positions. I do not want to try to create factions but as it is clear from this proposal that there are differences I would like to outline them so that people can be clear about what they are saying when they refer to the subst and delete group, and its arguments. Feel free to add to the list above but dont be surprised if someone changes it again. Ans e  ll  Review my progress! 23:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Added a couple of mine.  Λυδ α  cιτγ (TheJabberwock) 23:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The most biased thing about this presentation is that it offers anti-userbox arguments, pro-userbox responses to those arguments, and no criticism of the pro-userbox responses. It's set up like a Goofus and Gallant comic. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Guideline to solve this problem already exists?
As Rfrisbie outlined in a above section, there is already a guideline for user pages, namely User page, and I am coming to the belief that no new policies or guidelines are needed, simply the application of the current ones.

The problems raised are many, vote stacking, edit wars, overuse of userboxes, and as Angr mentioned, using user space for personal bios, (which is not userbox related). But aren't all these items covered by "misuse of user space", and, if so, should they be dealt with as such? For example, userboxes are often described as a useful way of expressing potential biases, which can be the case, in moderation. However, if someone has 100's of userboxes, it is counter productive. Include significant biases, sure, that may be of use, but including trivial ones just drowns out the rest.

As such, I have no basic problem with userboxes staying in template space (except for the ones covered by the original CSD T1 as divisive and inflamatory, as these are valid speedies as the template equilavent of attack pages.) However, it would be good, in my opinion, to try and remind people about what user space is designed for, and to discourage new users simply going to WP:UBX, and copying 100's of shiney userboxes without knowing the user page guidelines. Reducing the possibility of edit wars over user templates would be good too.

So, how about the folllowing:
 * 1) Leave userbox templates as they are (with the exception of the attack ones as T1, above)
 * 2) Insert a warning/reminder on the top of each page of WP:UBX about the user page guidlines and referring people to WP:USER (current messages are very easy to ignore)
 * 3) Add {{subst: to the beginning of the templates listed at WP:UBX
 * 4) *Thus, those that understand subst can choose to remove it, but those that simply copy and paste (and are more likely not to understand subst and edit war) will get the template pre-substs. (Templates could be updated to user {{userbox}} to make it easier on those that choose to subst too)
 * 5) *This would not be making the use of subst policy, just recommending it, those that are aware of the pros and cons are free to remove it.
 * 6) If a user page appears to be excessive, either a personal bio, 100's of userboxes, offensive, or whatever, request the user to remedy it by asking on their talk page, referring them to WP:USER
 * 7) If that doesn't work, refer the page to Mfd, as userpages are a privilege, and, if abused, can be taken away.
 * 8) That way, a problem user page is dealt by userspace guidelines.

How does this sound? Regards, MartinRe 13:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I support this proposal in principle. It addresses the issues around userboxes specifically and within the broader and more appropriate context of user pages. I believe a straw poll on suggestions like these would be much more likely to achieve consensus on how to address problem behaviors while, at the same time, protecting legitimate tools of collaboration. Rfrisbie{{sup|talk}} 13:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I oppose this as long as {{subst: is the default. People will use the code from the listing unless they have a really good reason not to, and having the default be subst is not in the nature of a compromise; it's capitulation to those who believe in the purity of template space - something about which there is a serious lack of consensus. If the subst default is removed, I would support it. Jay Maynard 14:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Insisting on the staus quo is not in the nature of a compromise either. There have been many opinion on userboxes, varying from "delete them all", "subst then delete", "keep but force subst", "keep but recommend subst", and "keep as is". As this is "keep but recommend subst", I cannot see how this is a capitulation in any shape or form, especially as those beliveing in a pure template space would be insisting on "subst then delete" as a minimum. This idea does not force the use of subst, anyone wishing not to subst can do so. But by making subst the default, it does require people using userboxes to have a basic understanding about transclusion (and the benefits/problems thereof) in order to use it. Any why is that such a bad thing? Regards, MartinRe 17:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're assuming that the average user will take the time to study the costs and benefits of transclusion vs. subst:-ing. I don't think htat's a valid assumption at all. It's not "keep but recommend subst", it's "keep and make the user turn off subst: if he knows how" - a substantially higher bar. "Keep but recommend subst:" would be pretty close to what there is now: a default if you copy and paste of transcluding, with a recommendation at the top of every index page (maybe more strongly worded than what is there now) to consider putting subst: in the template call on the user's page. Jay Maynard 17:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm making the opposite assumption, that average users will not take the time to study what subst means. However, I believe that users who have not bothered to take the time to understand what subst means are therefore unlikely to realise (or accept) the disadvantages that a transcluded template has. I do not think deleting six characters is a very high bar, for those that understand subst. But for those that do not, and might wonder why their page has changed, I think it better the default to be the case which won't blow up in their face. Regards, MartinRe 18:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That a transcluded template's disadvantages are its primary feature is precisely what there's no consensus about. It's not that deleting six characters is a high bar, it's that the user understanding that he might want to delete those six characters is. As things stand, the user's page will change if someone changes the userbox template. This is how templates work all over the site, and changing it by default for only one class of template violates the principle of least surprise. You're assuming that the user wants the userbox to remain the same forever. I don't: if someone comes up with a better content for that userbox, I want mine to change. Jay Maynard 18:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I weakly support this. Would be a strong support, but I'm against the subst: default, per Jay. Also, I like the idea of a new physical space to separate the userboxes. But this is, all in all, a very sensible solution.  Λυδ α  cιτγ {{sup|(TheJabberwock)}} 14:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

New usebox policy
The May Userbox policy poll has been ratified as an official policy on the English Wikipedia. Rfrisbietalk 20:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently, I didn't count to ten, check the history for details. Rfrisbietalk 20:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Boldly going forward (cuz I can't find the reverse)
The community is split on the subject of userboxes. Consensus is nowhere in sight. Still, admins keep deleting boxes claiming T1 or T2. In other words, the situation is bad. After reading |Jimbo's comments I decided, the German solution is the solution to this mess. It moves the userboxes out of template space into userspace, removing POV from the templates, and protecting the boxes from (over)eager adminstrators and T1. Join the migration!. CharonX talk  Userboxes  19:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * CharonX, I've been soliciting comment on that concept here along with a proposed method for handling the migration of the current template space collection of boxes. Any solution will need to be two step with one getting the existing collection our of template space and the second setting up a new, acceptable architecture for new ones to be created in user space. --StuffOfInterest 19:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The German solution
I’ve added a partial list of discussions that might help formulate "The German solution" at Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates. Please feel free to add other related discussions. Rfrisbietalk 23:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Being bold, and putting this to rest
I think the lack of activity and the opposition in the straw poll indicates that this won't have the support to become a policy. I'll put a reject/historical tag on it and put it to rest. If you disagree feel free to revert, but please leave me a message. Thanks. CharonX /talk 23:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)