Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Archive 10

Who do I ask?
...If I feel a non existant box is needed (mm, for me, but probably by others too?). I could make it? but then, how do I make it available for everyone? thank you !--Pytra (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You can put it on one of the subpages listed in "Userboxes", and also mention it on the talk pages of appropriate articles or WikiProjects. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 15:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Userbox Varibles
How do you make a user box that uses varibles ,like this? 75.66.180.12 (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * See "Help:Template". If you have any problems, leave another message here. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 03:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

-Let me add my $0.02: I'm a newbie and I spent the last 4 hours (!!) trying to make my userbox work. The idea was simple: from the page, call the userbox, passing it a parameter, that should be inserted in the middle of an URL (the email address).

I saw that other userboxes used a format like:

My own userbox was at {{User:Fcassia/Userboxes/MozBugzilla} so I called it like However, when I hovered my mouse over the userbox, I saw which is the code the userbox had in the middle of the target URL/Link.

The solution? I had to use the parameter }. IT WORKS NOW, but I have no idea where "User_Mozbugzilla" comes from. Was it created automatically? Do I have by mistake two copies of my userbox? How do I edit "User_Mozbugzilla" ?? --TIA

I think this question of parameter-passing should be better addressed on the standard userbox template (there is no such example).

Fcassia (talk) 10:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I know what happened. I originally created a template with the userbox code, and then on user:myuser/userboxes/userboxname I just "included" –  the template name. it seems parameters are not passed if you use that approach. You have to actually type your code in the actual file referenced in the userbox. Otherwise it doesn't work. Is the above a bug? Fcassia (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't really understand what you're saying. Could you explain it again more simply? — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 16:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Where to post a userbox?
Hey, I created a userbox (and there are more on the way, probably) about the National Spelling Bee, where should I put it? In Sports? Games? somewhere else? Thanks, L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 15:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You can put it on one of the subpages listed in "Userboxes". — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 18:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I mean - which one? Where would a spelling bee userbox belong?  L&#9786;g&#9786;maniac chat? 22:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, spelling bees are generally participated in by schoolchildren, so I would suggest "Userboxes/Education" (which I just created). — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 23:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do you have to put newlines after drop-down userboxes?
On my userpage I have several drop-down userboxes. However for some I have to put a '&lt;br /&gt;' after them several times or it messes up the page formatting. What is going on with the WTML?--Dchmelik (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Diplomatic Relations Userboxes
Pro-Special Relationship

Anti-Special Relationship

I'm new to maing userboxes, so if someone could create a better version, that would be great Zobango (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Deprecation of userboxes in Template namespace
The current guideline allows userboxes in template namespace that are of a "more collaborative nature", whatever that means. I see no need to have userboxes in the Template namespace, and it causes confusion at TfD and MfD. I'd like to deprecate the use of Template: space for userboxes. I'll leave this here for a few days, and if no one opposes I'll make a bold edit and see if it sticks. Gigs (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that the reason some userboxes are in the Template namespace is because in general users are not supposed to be editing in each other's userspaces. Therefore, one places a userbox in one's userspace if one wants to retain control over it and not have other editors modify it, but in the Template namespace if one is happy for other editors to modify it. However, if a policy can be developed for when a userbox in userspace is editable (for example, if the original creator indicates clearly on the template description page that it is), then I have no objections to all userboxes being moved into userspace. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 21:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that distinction has ever been widely understood or adopted in practice. Given that userboxes are rarely edited, easily forked in the case of a disagreement, and as you point out, can be explicitly labeled as free to edit, this probably isn't much of an issue. Gigs (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Provided that a guideline is developed along the lines I've suggested, I've no objections to userboxes being moved out of the Template namespace. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 03:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

confusing UBX abbreviation use or confusing User:UBX
I'm new to wiki and thought that I have to store all my created userboxes under User:UBX. User:UBX is trying to use other wiki editors in a manipulative way to full fill his/her own ambitions. That's not fair. If he/she is not trying to do that, then why does User:UBX has resulted in duplication of functions of Userboxes? It gives indirect message and obligation to store userboxes under User:UBX; see also 'A userbox (commonly abbreviated as UBX)' on Userboxes. I suggest to reconsider UBX abbreviation use on Userboxes or User:UBX actions according to fair and common sense. –  imis ☂ 05:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't User:UBX a bot designed by Wikipedia to hold userboxes? That was my impression. Dude1818 (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, User:UBX is not a bot. It is a user account specially set up to hold userboxes. At some stage there was a move to transfer userboxes out of the template space into the user space, so UBX was set up to hold these userboxes. (You'll have to search the talk page archives if you want more details on this.) However, you don't have to use UBX if you don't want to. It is perfectly fine to create userboxes in your own user space (e.g., User:Zaikovskis/userbox). Many editors prefer to put userboxes they have created into UBX for convenience, and perhaps to make it easier for people to find them. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 05:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * ...or created into UBX for confusion - the same as I had and User:Dude1818. I think this has to be taken further. –  imis ☂  21:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see what the problem is that you have with it. I don't know what ambitions User:UBX (or Mets501) has that you would come to the conclusion that he is trying to manipulate wiki editors.  The purpose of User:UBX is to provide an unofficial central location for userboxes with a short, concise, and easily-remembered prefix.  The purpose of putting a userbox in User: space is that "content in User: space is traditionally given more leeway than in other namespaces (see WP:UBX).  There is no difference between a box named User:Zaikovskis/3ToedSloth or User:UBX/3ToedSloth; it is completely up to the creator of the box where they want to put it.  WP:UBX says exactly that: "simply create a subpage of your own user page or User:UBX."
 * As far as the duplicate directories go, WP:Userboxes/Gallery doesn't even mention the User:UBX/Userboxes directory. The User:UBX directory is just to keep track of the ones hosted on User:UBX subpages, while WP:Userboxes/Gallery keeps track of all userboxes, on all namespaces and subpages.
 * User:UBX has no ambitions - if you have created userboxes in its subpages, feel free to move them into your own subpages if you so desire. I'm pretty sure that there has been no active deceit or wrongdoing on its behalf. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 04:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I've used wrong 'ambition' wording. I refer to the fact that 'Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising or self-promotion' []. WP:UBX shouldn't promote User:UBX which is also linked to User:Mets501. Userboxes promotes User:UBX as well by giving indirect indication to store userboxes there, see 'A userbox (commonly abbreviated as UBX)'.
 * Central location for userboxes shouldn't be under somebody's username –  imis ☂ 04:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not? Mets isn't trying to promote himself at all. He is just trying to be useful, by creating a space for people to put userboxes in if they don't want it on their own user space.  And the only reason that it mentions his main account on the User:UBX account is for transparency, so people don't suspect any dubious sockpuppetry. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 04:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Time for a history lesson. In the beginning, there was an online encyclopedia, created by users, available in multiple languages. Some of the users wanted simple ways to say who they were and/or express their individuality. Userboxes were created. Other users thought that they were making the encyclopedia into a social networking space, being used to votestack in community discussions, and otherwise inappropriate. On the English language version of the encyclopedia, the userbox wars began. After many injured feelings, multiple arbitration cases, and much waste of editor time and attention, people realized that the wars were harmful. So some editors began looking for a compromise solution. Eventually, they noticed what the German language version had decided - userboxes should not be in template space, they should be in user space, and not particularly easy to find. This was agreed upon as a compromise, ending the userbox wars. Some editors still wanted a central place to find userboxes. This would require some editor to agree to host them, or to host and maintain a directory. A few different editors stepped up in different ways. Mets volunteered to establish an alternative account that he wouldn't actually use much in order to be a host for userboxes that people wanted in a central location. I and a couple other editors volunteered to host directories (though I never volunteered to actually maintain mine, and I don't know of one that is still maintained). And peace and editorial infighting over userboxes ended. The hope is that most userboxes will gradually die out and cease existing, so there is no active encouragement of their creation or use.

All I see here is a completely excusable lack of historical awareness combined with a failure to actively assume good faith, as editors here are expected to do. GRBerry 14:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Again, I stress that nobody is forced to create userboxes in User:UBX. Feel free to make userboxes in subpages of your own user pages. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 17:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Stopping subsequent text from appearing at the side of the plain box
After playing around for ages and reading Userboxes from top to bottom, I have finally figured out how to stop text from running out of the side of the box (as is happening right now with the present text and box on my system). The only way to display a "plain box" (on a project page for members to evaluate, for example) appears to be to use a table:

Is this indeed the only solution? If so, this needs to be clearly explained somewhere. (I note that some editors resort to adding several times after the box, but this is not ideal as it will work well for some browser/resolution setups but not for others, as I have found out.) Thanks --Jubilee♫ clipman 00:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Put a after the userbox, like I have done here. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah! Thanks: I never knew about that template!  --Jubilee♫ clipman  22:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Added the explanation of to the article.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  23:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Userbox
If you go to my userpage, you can see I flunked my first userbox, which was supposed to say "This user has brown eyes". Us441 (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You've tried to transclude a non-existent template. Try adding this to your user page:  which is one that I found in Userboxes/Health. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * YOU ARE SO WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It does not work, even if I add the ubsk in front, as you'll see if you click "edit this page" for Userboxes:Health. Us441 (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You spelled the name of the userbox wrongly. "Brown E yes", not "Brown eyes". :-) — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 09:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The template (which incidentally you misspelt as ubsk) is a special template, not intended for use alone, but in conjunction with  and, and so is normally only used on the userbox list pages. Together they provide, in tabular form, (a) a sample of the code that should be used to show the userbox; (b) an example of how it appears; and (c) a link to a list of places where the userbox is in use. All you need to do to get the userbox to show on your page is to use your mouse to mark and copy the sample code, including the two pairs of curly brackets, and then paste it onto your user page. Take the sample code directly from the page that you see, and not from the edit window which is the only place you'll see the . I provided such a sample above, sorry if that wasn't clear. It's better to use the mouse than to copy by eye, being less prone to errors.
 * Looking at what Jacklee has done, you should bear in mind that template names, like all other page names in Wikipedia, are case-sensitive on all except the first letter; so  would have been OK, but   is not. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Main page and subpages?
eg Userboxes and Userboxes/Using existing

The text of each is created by the same edit. Why do we need duplicates of the text? The latter claims to be the main article but seems to be superfluous per the guidelines on mergers unless the section is deleted. I can see that the page is large but that fact suggests simply splitting without duplicating. I may have missed something here but the present situation seems to be against policy to me. --Jubilee♫ clipman 23:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have just noticed that the history is confused too: the only changes recorded in the history appear to be those related to the lead and dab header. Surely changes to a page should all be recorded in the history otherwise what is the point of it?  Try to find the history of my addition of the text concerning, for example (you actually have to click through to Userboxes/Using existing then check the history).  --Jubilee♫ clipman  18:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you go to Userboxes, and click the "edit" tab at the top (nb not one of the section edit links), and go down through the page, you will find that apart from the lede and some later sections (from "See also" onwards), the vast majority of it is transcluded templates. These include, so it is hardly surprising that Userboxes and Userboxes/Using existing are identical and have identical edit histories: they are the same document. The text is therefore not duplicated: and your single edit to add text concerning  will show in both places, but only actually exists in one place. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But what's the point? Why use a transcluded template?  Why not either have all the text in a single article (without the subpages) or split it all and use see also (with only the subpages).  The page is difficult to navigate as it stands: what happens if some bright spark decides to add yet another template that is relevant to the topic?  Anyway, Userboxes/Using existing isn't the main article, it is the article: main implies that much more is said about the topic in that article, whereas in fact exactly the same is said. Futhermore, why bother telling us about the main article at all: why would anyone click through to it except to edit it?  I guess there must be a logical reason for all this, but for the life of me I don't see it.  Any help?  --Jubilee♫ clipman  20:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The person to ask is the one who first created the relevant subpage: User:Jc37. I have left a message at User talk:Jc37. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have found a (brief) discussion about it in an archive.  The gist was that it helps avoid disruption but I don't see how: the section-edit-links all lead directly to the templates, anyway, so editors intent on disruption are taken where they want to go by that means.  Furthermore, it makes it far easier to delete entire sections.  I really don't see the how using templates helps avoid these problems.  Futhermore, watchlists will also fail to spot diffs in unwatched subpages.   Was this rather major change discussed beforehand?  I'll wait for Jc37 to answer.  As I say, I've probably missed something here.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  21:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Response from User:Jc37 reads as follows:
 * Hi.
 * The quick answer to your question is: It's to reduce disruption.
 * There were a LOT of discussions, spread over a lot of talk pages, the VP, and other pages. And this includes quite a few proposed policy pages which have since been merged/deleted.
 * There's also issues regarding transclusion. Several people wanted to transclude the gallery portion on other pages, for example.
 * I hope this helps. If you have further questions or would like further clarification, please let me know. - jc37 03:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Concern over the neutrality of some userboxes
After discussion on IRC about this matter it's clear that a more "formal" and recorded approach was needed. A couple of weeks ago I noticed anti-communist and anti-nazi userboxes, and I'll focus on anti-nazi userboxes as it was the best example I could find for this issue. Pro-nazi userboxes aren't allowed, which means the neutrality has been broken. Obviously this is an issue many people will feel strongly about, and I am NOT proposing that we allow pro-nazi userboxes, but rather that the anti-nazi userboxes are removed. This would keep things neutral, and not cause offense to ANY parties.It's an extremely simple solution to a problem both parties feel strongly about. To compare this to other examples, anti/pro abortion is a major issue in American society right now, but both sides are represented, maintaining neutrality. If only ANTI-abortion userboxes were allowed neutrality would be severely damaged, and that in itself would be offensive towards pro-abortionists. Below are a few userboxes that I believe need to be looked at: User:Buxbaum666/Userboxes/Antifascist - Clearly "anti" User:Krzyzowiec/Userboxes/Anti-nazi - Slightly better, but is still enough to break neutrality User:Brain40/Userboxes/Anti-communist - Same as above Also: User:Junglecat/marriage - Although pro-gay boxes exist, this just appears to be offensive? As a gay male I found it offensive anyway.. I would rather this not turn into a discussion about nazis or communists, and that people stick to the topic of the neutrality of these userboxes. Anti-Nazis userboxes was just the most clear example I could find. – MissAlyx  talk  02:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You may want to search the archives of this talk page and see if this issue has come up before. It sounds like it might have. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 10:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, had a quick look and found "Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Archive 3", which suggests there was previous consensus that WP:NPOV does not apply to the user space. However, see if there were more recent debates on the matter. Also, consensus can change, so if you disagree with the current consensus feel free to initiate a fresh debate on the matter. But establish what the previous consensus was first. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 10:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of the userbox list pages - including Userboxes/Politics - have warnings at the top. You might not be aware of The Great Userbox Wars, so care may be needed. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if neutrality doesn't apply to userboxes (which it currently doesn't), there is still a rule about "divisiveness". These anti-nazi userboxes appear to be intentionally trying to start arguments. Plus, it is explicitly saying "I don't like a small group of people". As you say, consensus is not the "be all and end all" of rules, and improvements can be made. I think it would be perfectly reasonable to have a simply rule saying "If one side of the argument isn't allowed to be shown for whatever reason, then an anti-view of it isn't either". There's nothing to stop new neutrality rules coming in. A rule such as that wouldn't negatively effect any genuine userboxes on non-controversial topics, and would keep both parties happy. At a future date, this could be revised if there is the need for further clarification. – MissAlyx  talk  13:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * USERPAGE also says: "[Statements that advocate acts of violence are not allowed.] It does not, however, include statements that support controversial groups or regimes that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence." - Surely communism/nazism would be a "controversial regime". I also see some pro-fascism userboxes that appear to be acceptable, but naming nazism in particular isn't? – MissAlyx  talk  16:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, nobody seems to be too strongly opposed, at least! Just trying to stop this going to archive and forgotten forever. – MissAlyx  talk  15:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of the examples you cited, only one is actually against any "people" per se, and that's the one that says it is against Nazis. Since, technically, no one has been a Nazi since the 1940's, it's moot. The other two are against modes of political thought, and could just as easily say "This user opposes the constitutional monarchy parliamentary system of democracy." It's a matter of opinion. As long as it doesn't come out and say "This user enjoys gay bashing." or something equally reprehensible, it's a non-issue to me. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  22:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Remove Userboxes
From User Page: "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal website." Userboxes are unrelated to the topic of Wikipedia and are always personal. With the possible exception of Language Userboxes(which, hovewer, suffer from the universal problem of not being verifable) they do not help user-to-user communication, either.

If some Users wish to remain identifable they're welcome to provide a link to a personal website, such as MySpace or Livejournal, on their user page. But I fail to see how Userboxes themselves contribute in any way to Wikipedia's encyclopedic nature. 61.86.6.17 (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur, this site is starting to remind me of MySpace... Tchernobog (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * They don't add to Wikipedia's encyclopedic nature, but I believe there was a previous discussion about this and there was consensus that they help to build a sense of community among editors. Again, feel free to reopen discussion on this if you want to after searching the talk archives and seeing what the past discussions were about. Personally, I doubt if there will be consensus from abandoning userboxes altogether. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 14:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some userboxes place the page into a category which can be linked from elsewhere. On my user page I have, amongst others,, which has placed me in Category:Wikipedians in Oxfordshire. On some article talk pages, such as Talk:Oxford Road Halt railway station, you might see , which contains a link to Category:Wikipedians in Oxfordshire. This gives a connection between users and pages which they might be able to improve.
 * Similarly, my use of has placed me in Category:WikiProject Trains participants, so that I may be found should my opinion on a railway matter be sought. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have three major issues with the original post:
 * 1. "you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia". Are userboxes completely unrelated? Do they not express the baseline from which one edits and thus provide information as to the editor's mindset?
 * 2. "the universal problem of not being verifable..." Do userboxes really need to be verified to the same standards as the articles? Must I prove I do not speak, say, Cantonese, and do speak French? Must I prove I live in Toronto? Must I prove I like Physics and Astronomy? That is a rather ridiculous standard.
 * 3. "they do not help user-to-user communication, either". Yes, they do. Expanding on my first point, they identify an editor's position with regard to various topics, and this can aid communication. Take a recent discussion between me and JonBroxton. We were debating the merits of a film score review (or set thereof) that I felt was too close to violating WP:BLP. After a short time, he clearly looked at my userpage and some of my relevant userboxes, and this helped direct the conversation, if not entirely in the direction I would have preferred.  -RadicalOne •Contact Me•Chase My Tail 17:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think they're attention seeking nonsense and users could better spend their time improving articles rather than designing and awarding themselves an endless progression of pretty boxes. It's a bit like all those stupid "awards" people give to good photographs on Flickr; all just so much self-indulgent rubbish.  However as long as it doesn't cause bandwidth issues or clog up wikipedia then I say let people waste their time if they like, just don't expect other people to show an interest as they'll be too busy tarting up their own user pages to look at others, unless it's to copy some pretty template.  Mu2  16:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC) (who has an attention seeking signature just like most other users)