Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Archive 8

HSM
I currently know a lot of people and users who dislike the TV Movie "High School Musical" I would like to request a userbox stating that hsm stinks. Here is the code:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rallyinspired (talk • contribs) 21:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Still not sure
I read through the pages that explain how to make a userbox, but I'm still not sure where I go to create one, nor how to begin. There are so many pages explaining userboxes that it is confusing. I just want to tweak an existing template with an image from Wikimedia commons (or one of my own), and add my own text. I would propose my idea on the idea page for someone else to make, but I want it to look a certain way so I guess I'll make one myself. How do I begin? Oh, and what is a template space and a name space? Thanks! nycdi 06:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a knowledge base, not myspace
Userboxes, sheesh. How about I calculate how much time you've just wasted?
 * A fitting statement, considering you forgot to sign your comment with four tildes. RageSamurai21655 (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Need help with image
How do you place an image in the ID box of a homemade userbox?

How?
I would like to create my own userbox. How would I get a userbox to go from this syntax:

{[{Userbox |border-c=#F30 border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#f90 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=this is the picture of the box‎ |info=This user cannot wait for July 21, 2007.}}

(Which, without the bracket to block it would look like this:)

to something like this:

I know this is probably a noobish and stupid question, but thanks. Codelyoko193 12:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? Codelyoko193 18:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The explanation on the article is confusing to me. I need help. Codelyoko193 18:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I figured it out. Codelyoko193 18:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Link generator template
I created a template for formatting links to user boxes in user namespace. See. Will (Talk - contribs) 23:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Userbox "History Student" vs. "Student of History"
Can someone please make the necessary corrections to the above, please!
 * A "history student" is one who literally studies history.
 * But a "student of history" carries broader connotations, not just the idea of someone who is formally registered in an accredited institution or school.
 * Right now the User box on my User page says that I am a "history student." But I want to say that I am a "student of history."
 * Can someone modify the Userbox accordingly? Thanks. Ludvikus 20:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That box isn't yours. So I can't just change it. However, you can host a new one. This in keeping with current policy anyway. First, create a page like User:Ludvikus/User Boxes/Student of History. Then copy the code in the box below to your new page. Save it. If you use the page above, put  onto your user page. I would then suggest listing your box at Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/New Userboxes and Userboxes/History.

Will (Talk - contribs) 02:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Bay Area Template
Is there a Bay Area Userbox because I'm proud of living in the bay area!! Derrty2033 04:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Userbox vs. Userboxes
I think there is no reason to prefer the plural over the singular as the heading to this article.
 * Why not have Userbox instead??????????????????
 * Yours, etc. Ludvikus 00:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

- Neither of the singular, or plural is defined: - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes -Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes -Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes -Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes -Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes -Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes -Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Userbox - Userboxes - Yours truly, Ludvikus 01:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

i agree totally-Three ways round 00:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we ban all frivolous user infoboxes?
I notice there is a meteoric rise in the use of frivolous infoboxes (eg "this user likes cabbage"). I don't see why such infoboxes have any place whatsoever in a serious encyclopedic effort. I know they appear in user namespace rather than main wikipedia namespace but even so, I feel they are one of several factors leading to wikipedia being dragged into a "myspace.com" effort and away from serious scholarly effort. I'm not a killjoy, but all the effort put into finding daft userboxes could really be better spent elsewhere. Is there any possible reason for keeping frivolous user infoboxes? I propose an immediate policy of banning all such new creations and timescale for removal of existing ones. - PocklingtonDan 19:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The archives have previous discussions about such proposals. Slambo (Speak) 20:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The "energies could be better used" argument is a bit flawed, in my estimation. I've got 99 userboxes, but at the same time, I've got 12,407 edits (4,857 of those being mainspace). Having userboxes does not equate to not improving the encyclopedia. EVula // talk // ☯  // 21:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, but that would be 12,408 if you hadn't stopped to let everyone know you were a "gray reef shark". Now times that by the number of registered wikipedia contributors. Plus, as I say, wikipedia is supposed to be a serious encycolpedia, why would I want to know one of its authors likes jam sandwiches or gray reef sharks? Rather than asking for reasons why we should get rid of them, I'd rather ask "why keep them?". What possible benefit is there? - PocklingtonDan 21:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * information and collaboration - Building an encyclopedia doesn't only mean the direct editing of articles, else there would be no ability to block users, no arbitration comittee, and really, no userpages at all. Wikipedia is a community of collaboration. My question would be: Why do you care? How does having the userboxes detract from your editing of the encyclopedia? - jc37 22:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Because hosting that nonsense and those images wastes bandwidth people have donated money to, in the somewhat mistaken belief that it will be used to propagate knowledge and not wasted on lists of people's favourite foods.86.142.240.13 20:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * PocklingtonDan does make a valid observation, however. If it is taken that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and thus not, among other things, a social networking site (see the relevant section of WP:NOT), and user pages and userboxes exist for the sole purpose of highlighting what a user may be interested in contributing to articles about, then strictly speaking there are many frivolous userboxes, and there would not usually be any purpose in having photographs of the users and basic personal information on userpages either as these do not help users find other users with similar interests. Just backing up his observation with fairly strict Wikipedia policy, as I interpret it. I don't necessarily agree with this Wikipedia policy.--HisSpaceResearch 07:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:UM requires that all user boxes that don't help Wikipedia become a better encyclopedia be moved to user space. I interpret this stricter than most. Some users think that something like a box promoting a Major League Baseball team can remain in the template namespace. I disagree and have moved two boxes that I really liked to my own namespace. All boxes that I create start out in my namespace. Will (Talk - contribs) 08:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The idea that "effort put into...userboxes could really be better spent elsewhere" is extremely flawed. One could make that arguement for just about anything one does. Sure you could waste your time being a firefighter, but it would be MORE useful if you used all that time putting out fires to develope a cure for AIDS. You'd save a lot more people in the long run.

The arguement that EVula's 12,407 edits would be at all higher without the presence of userboxes taking away his time is also extremely poor. What says he would dedicate that time to contributing to the encyclopædia? In fact, one could make the arguement that without the userboxes, EVula wouldn't contribute as much as he has. Or even at all. He (and many other extremely valuable members) of the Wiki community have very extensive user pages. They, for whatever reason feel like having personalized space here. If they didn't get it here, the would likely spend the time they used creating their user page on a completely different site, or somewhere outside of the WWW. It's not hard to take that a step farther in the assumption that the less time they spend on the site, the less likely they are to contribute. And I bet the converse is true as well: I would venture to say that having the ability to freely create and edit one's own userpage (including the use of userboxes) has led to many more valuable members, as well as their spending more time on the site, and in turn, more contributions, leading to a better encyclopædia.

You really have no arguement that simple userboxes on the personal pages of users negatively affect the scholarliness of the the encyclopædia. If it is a question of quality (meaning, without userboxes the encyclopædia could somehow be better quality i.e. more extensive due to more contributions, etc.) than I would argue they actually increase the quality. Not only by indirectly leading to more valuable members and contributions, but also by allowing members to personalize their space and have a greater sense of community because of it. I enjoy learning more about the users who personalize their pages, and the userboxes are a great way to do it. You have plenty of userboxes on your own page...and in a quick scan of them I knew plenty about you as a person as well as your feelings toward Wiki. The purpose here is not just a scholarly encyclopædia, but an overall collection and organization of information, done through a community of users. Not a bunch of individuals. If there were no community, there really couldn't be collaboration, and without collaboration it couldn't be called Wiki.

Now 86.142.240.13 makes the arguement for wasted bandwidth because it is the only one against userboxes that holds any water. But really, I'm not sure if there is an accurate way to measure it, but I would venture to say the space used by userboxes is miniscule. And even then, the arguement that it is space well-used I already made above. --JohnDoe0007 00:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A userbox bug?
Hello. I seem to be getting some strange behaviour when trying to make a reversed userbox. Here are two userboxes exactly the same except that the second has -r after Userbox (please take a look at the code if necessary). But, as you can see, id font in the second is not white as it is in the first, but black. Pro Grape 08:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Try using the one below. Auburn Pilot talk 08:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)



Naming
How do you name a userbox?-BlakJak664 13:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As simply and succinctly as possible. -- BlueSquadron Raven  21:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

i have a question how do you get a userbox that you made with the little template on the main article from the 8 lines it is now, to one of those neat little one liners with a name

peace-Three ways round 00:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

New Userbox
I really don't understand how to make a userbox. I would like to make one that uses this and says "This user is bisexual". Is there already a box like this? If not, could someone explain how to make such a userbox? Thank you! H e mh e m20X6 09:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind!H e mh e m20X6 09:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hairstyle userbox
Is there a userbox to describe yuir hair or lack thereof? Bald, Afro, Buzzcut or Pageboy. Chivista

Opinion userboxes
Whatever happened to userboxes about politics? I know they used to exist once. Jack Daw 05:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They have been moved to user space. See User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes and User:UBX/Userboxes/General Nav. -- Donald Albury 01:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes revert
(Comments moved from User talk:Dalbury)

Hey; I noticed that you re-added a paragraph about what policies apply where in Userboxes, and you said that "this consensual compromise was arrived at after a great many words were spilled on the floor...". I can't see where this idea expressed in the article comes from, though; might it be some sort of misreading of the userbox migration compromise? Could you please clarify? Thanks in advance, and happy editing. —AySz88\^ - ^ 06:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, now I think I see where it might come from, and I'll generalize it a bit so it isn't so vague.... If it's not what you meant, feel free to improve or revert. —AySz88\^ - ^  06:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am a little confused by your comment too... Where has this compromise been agreed by the community? Ian ¹³ /t  12:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have moved this discussion here, where it belongs, from my user talk page.

AySz88 and Ian13, I think the passage I restored reflects current practice on Wikipedia, which evolved from many discussions in many different places over the past year. This practice was not codified in a single discussion. There were many polls taken, and many unilateral actions taken. Some prominent editors have left the project (some would say they were hounded off), and prominent admins have lost their admin bit. I really would want to see a wider discussion before disturbing the balance that has emerged from the Great Userbox Wars of the past year. -- Donald Albury 13:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is probably worth noting that this page is neither policy nor guideline. Rather, it is a how-to page that describes how to create and format userboxes.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is worth introducing new editors to the concept that there are limits on what kinds of userboxes will be tolerated in Userspace and in Templatespace and other project spaces. It's beneficial to introduce them to current practice before they try to create a userbox making a political statement in Templatespace. -- Donald Albury 02:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Needs clarification
A question came up in a TfD nomination over a confusing passage on this page. Section 1.4: Category inclusion lists as its first rule: "Userboxes that include Category markup which adds the bearing userpage to a category must only categorize within subcategories of Category:Wikipedians."

Now, the rule ''Do not create categories which could potentially include all Wikipedians. For example: "This user is a Wikipedian."; "This user is human."; "This user uses the internet"; etc.'' would not make sense if it is referring to a Wikipedia:Category, for no Category:Wikipedians subcategory would start with "This user is"; that phrase is obvious the text of the userbox.

I thus propose to take the latter rule out of the subsection. Comments? Xiner (talk, email) 02:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like you are misunderstanding the intent of the sentence (which probably means it could use some clarity). The idea is that a category which has the criteria of "wikipedian", "human", or "internet-user", would eventually include all Wikipedians, which obviously would not be a useful category. - jc37 12:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In quotes are not "wikipedian", "human", or "internet-user", but "This user is a Wikipedian."; "This user is human."; "This user uses the internet". Xiner (talk, email) 14:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And those are examples of *userboxes* that should not categorize. It clearly says that a userbox that says "This user is a Wikipedian", etc. "should not include category markup based on such criteria." -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 22:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To be fair, it should be noted that I edited the section somewhat to increase clarity after responding to the above concerns... - jc37 22:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess I was confused because Xiner's most recent comment was made three days after you edited the project page. -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 04:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure what happened when, but the current version makes a lot more sense. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 05:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Userbox general question
Has political correctness taken over wikipedia? Or are userboxes with religious and political beliefs just not included? is there a valid reason like they havent been made? just curious..I would love to know (Fethroesforia 22:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC))
 * First of all, there are quite a few political and religious userboxes; they're just in userspace. See here for a list of galleries of such boxes.
 * As for the reason many of us avoid them, and the reason they're kept out of template space, I don't think it's political correctness, so much as the idea of staying within an appropriate role. When I'm teaching in the classroom, I don't bring my politics into it, not out of some "political correctness", but because it has nothing to do with my role as a teacher.  Similarly, at Wikipedia, where we're trying to build and maintain a free and neutral encyclopedia, my politics just don't have anything to do with that.  It would be as relevant as if I described the details of my sex life on my user page, which is to say: totally irrelevant.  I don't want to give the impression that I'm editing Wikipedia as a liberal, or a conservative, or what-have-you. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Jimbo spoke up against "templates that are divisive and inflammatory". Of course, religious or political belief isn't necessarily inflammatory, but related userboxes have a tendency to be worded in divisive manner. In pursuant discussion, the community decided it's hard to define which reli/poli boxes were the bad ones, so it would be easiest to move all of them into userspace (which, apparently, makes them seem less official to some).  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Nationalities
I can't find any nationality userboxes which disappoints me. I believe that wikipedians should be able to proudly display their nationalities in their userboxes. Yelir55 00:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you don't find what you want at User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Location, you can always roll your own, per the example at the bottom of that page. However, please also read the comment by GTBacchus in the section just above this one. -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 14:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Religious affiliation user boxes
I want to display on my user page that I am a proud Christian, as I am sure many other religious people do for their own religion. The religion userbox page has been recently deleted, the editor citing that it has no encyclopedic value, yet the purpose of user boxes and user namespace are not to be encyclopedic, but to provide information about fellow wikipedians. Since user boxes are not intended for use outside user namespace, how is this a valid argument? If the religion userboxes are still available somewhere, could someone let me know please? Alternatively, could someone consider restoring them? Jonaboff 04:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You can always construct one of your own. Wahkeenah 04:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the userbox you are looking for is . I have it displayed on my user page. <font face="comic sans ms" color="mediumblue">Auburn <font face="comic sans ms" color="darkorange">Pilot talk 04:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are a United Methodist, please see my comments at Talk:United Methodist Church. I proposed a box for that. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

usercreated images allowed in userboxes?
Just a clarification, but if you make an image yourself and upload it, are you allowed to use that as an userbox? (I'm assuming yes, but I'd want to make sure). And if so, how would you add it in? VelocityEX 05:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There should be no reason why not, as long as it is a "free" license, not fair use. Once your image is uploaded (keep track of what you named it), you can include it in a userbox just like any other image.  Contact me on my talk page if you need help. --NThurston 14:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually figured out yesterday how to include images into userboxes, I was using some fuddled code so it was confusing at first. But yeah, thanks for everything!!! VelocityEX 20:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

User:UserBox
I had this idea myself about 2 months ago, but decided to go with it today, and it appears as if someone else already had the idea. Is it a bad idea to put all userboxes in this user's namespace? What's the problem with this? I haven't created any templates in my userspace, but can we move all of them there? I think it's a great idea. Comments? McKay 15:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

i think it would be useful and helpful, but that's just me.Three ways round 00:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I do think we should put ALL the userboxes on one particular page. But not on a userpage. Besides how would we do this in the first place? 65.34.72.52 17:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Question about using icons from Wikipedia Commons on UserBoxes....
Specifically, this one: I'm assuming I'd save it to my computer and re-upload it on Wikipedia, right? And what tag should I use? I really have no idea what I'm doing n.n -- MessengerCrow13 ~Listen*To*Your*Heart*Beat~ *talk*contributions* 22:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Policy Page?
This may sound silly, but several sections of this page read like a policy page, should this page have a policy template at the top? --Matthew 08:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Since this page isn't generating responses and I don't want to act without consensus to label this as a policy page, this is being added to RfC. --Matthew 21:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What sections are refering to specifically? It all seems fine to me.  Thernlund (Talk 02:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Much of the current version seems to be more of a How-to than a policy. We already have a guideline at WP:UP. Perhaps the policy bits should be merged over there and this relablled a how-to? AndrewRT(Talk) 21:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

tag
How to you make your userbox into a template that can simply be summoned by typing it? I will not hesitate to eat you. 00:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Put "User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/I Hate the Chicago Cubs" on your user page. It is a simple page.  However, if you copy the text in quotes, you get the user box. Will (Talk - contribs) 01:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Userbox Organization
I'm terribly sorry, but I'm slightly baffled about organizing my userboxes. If you were to look at my userspace, you'd understand what I mean - the boxes are jumbled-looking, disorganized and there are gaps running here and there across the page, all of which annoys me. I've tried the and  formatting and it put all of my userboxes in one vertical line, even when I tried to make several stacks of userboxes with repeated use of such stacking codes. How to organize userboxes is gone over in the project page, I'm aware, but it is rather unintelligible for me, a person with practically no experience with computer programing of any sort. By the way, if the Village Pump would be a better place for me to place this, please tell me so. Thank you; --Dark Green 23:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Template
Where did the template to navigate through userbox categories go? - Patricknoddy 8:24pm, January 15, 2007

Blanket reverting
I made a recent edit which was blanket reverted (Dalbury, Jmaynard) without considering in any way time or effort which may have gone into it.

I have made a few minor edits in one go to make the page more clear, and remove the bias. This page is to inform people about Userboxes, not to lobby personal views ("Userboxes are tools which are intended for communication purposes, such as helping Wikipedians collaborate more effectively on articles, in order to create the best encyclopedia we can." - The uncited 'man' comes to mind.)

If you have a problem with my edits, please talk rather than blindly reverting. I therefore invite you to state your concerns about aspects to my edit, and what you think it should change to. Obviously, if no-one replies I can only assume that the majority agrees, and I will reinstate it, for people to collaborate on rather than destroy.

Thank you Ian ¹³  /t  18:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just from somebody who has this page on his watchlist, I'd say this comment should have come before the edits. Blanket changes to wikipedia and project pages should be discussed first. Had such changes been made to a Wiki/project page I frequent, I probably would have reverted too. As to the specific changes, I have no real opinion. I'll leave that up to those of you who frequent this page. <font face="comic sans ms" color="mediumblue">Auburn <font face="comic sans ms" color="darkorange">Pilot talk 18:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked through the changes, but I think it was stated in one of the reverter's edit summaries, that you should discuss in more detail (here) the kinds of things that you're changing. You're making changes to a policy page (well mostly?) so the changes should be discussed before taking them live. Maybe you should make a proposed page in the user or talk namespace to discuss future possibilities for the article? McKay 19:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a policy page... Ian ¹³  /t  17:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I reverted the change because it was a massive change to the page made without any sort of attempt to reach consensus beforehand. I'm sympathetic to the work that went down the tubes, but what about the work that was thrown out in the massive revision? I also believe that there is no need for NPOV in an unencyclopedic page (indeed, that is central to the userbox wars in the first place), and given the massive, unrelenting attacks on userboxes from some quarters, the changes that were made could easily be interpreted as a continuation of those attacks. Jay Maynard 20:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Massive unrelenting attacks"? When was the last one?  Every remotely reasonable userbox I've seen at XfDs lately has been a speedy keep.  Tony's not a sysop anymore, and Cyde has been going around saying things like "early closures are a bad idea because they generate drama".  Who's attacking userboxes anymore? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Tony's no longer a sysop? Color me astounded, as I'd thought he was firmly entrenched here. Cyde's backed off, too? Amazing. In light of those facts, I'll have to revise my opinion: There were unrelenting attacks on userboxes, but they've abated. Perhaps there will indeed be peace. That just makes the massive edits to this page worse: they could reignite the old, and apparently cooled-down, war. Jay Maynard 00:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Being very active at WP:MFD the emerging consensus has been that if it's a box that follows WP:GUS and is not blatantly offensive or disruptive it's not going anywhere. That being said, boxes in Template: space are still likely to be axed in TFD. —  xaosflux  <sup style="color:#00FF00;">Talk  05:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, if anything I think my edits support userboxes. To my view, this page is an informative page, that tells people about userboxes, and I don't think this is a good place to try and push any certain point of view. If we just try and keep it neutral then this cannot happen. Ian ¹³  /t  17:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I reverted Ian the first time, I'll have my say. The edit summary struck me as a big problem, indicating that Ian was not really familiar with Wikipedia policies. NPOV does not apply to project pages, and many project pages, especially policies and guidelines, have a very definite and well-established point of view. The most important point of view is that we are building an encyclopedia. Userboxes have been a very contentious issue in the recent past (starting a little over a year ago), and the struggle over the role of userboxes in Wikipedia caused many harsh and bitter words to be exchanged. A number of editors left Wikipedia at least in part because of that struggle. The present arrangements regarding the content, placement and 'storage' of userboxes is a compromise that eventually achieved consensus as something that almost everyone could live with. Changing this page without finding a new consensus to support the changes is likely to open old wounds. Everyone can edit pages in Wikipedia. But then, anyone can revert those changes. Controversial changes are quite likely to be reverted. Citing incorrect interpretations of policy for making major changes ups the odds that the changes will be reverted. -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 22:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am very aware of policy, and I do know that NPOV doesn't apply here, however I think it is good practice to try and keep things neutral and make this page just informative. Policies and guidelines will obviously display a POV since that is what they are aiming to enforce, but this page is not a guideline nor policy, and I therefore think we can just avoid argument over this page if we just keep it rather neutral. Anyway, I don't think what edits I tried to make were that much of a big deal - infact besides trying to make it more clear, I didn't do much at all. Obviously this makes no difference to any 'power' I should or may have to edit the page, but I started the Userboxes WikiProject and directed it for a while (until it just got so attacked it wasn't worth bothering) with the pure aim of organisation and simplification whilst trying to keep it all neutral so no-one is offended in any way. Ian ¹³  /t  17:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And can I just ask, what bits of my edit don't people like (i.e. give line references ans say what you think it should be)? I think we should at least try and sort that out. Ian ¹³ /t  17:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem for me was that your edit removed any mention of the possible benefit userboxes have to the encyclopedia. That is what I object to. Any attempt to make the page NPOV by removing such mentions can easily be construed as saying they do not have such benefits, and so as an attack on userboxes. Since project pages don't need to be NPOV in the first place, I would recommend abandoning anything of the sort. Jay Maynard 22:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am certainly not saying it has no benefit, I just think it is not really something that is hugely notable in that I wouldn't really expect anyone to say why they demerit the project. I can see your point though. Looking at my edit does this mean that it is only the removal of the top box that you dislike? Ian ¹³  /t  17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ian13, in cases like this, it's often helpful to break one's edit into individual changes, and implement it one change at a time. This isolates the controversial bit, and allows other improvements to be made to the page without getting caught up in reversions.  In that spirit, I've added a slightly edited version of the first paragraph from your edits, and I'm interested to see whether it has consensus approval.
 * This is one of the pages around here that's best edited very slowly and incrementally, it turns out. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are obviously welcome to reinstate my edits as you wish, but I think it is rather silly that it has got to such a stage that that is required.  Ian ¹³  /t  17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, maybe so. :) Maybe it's just the top box, and the rest doesn't have to be broken up. It's just a trick that works sometimes. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Gallery of "new" userboxes
I thought that userboxes expressing user preferences or sentiments that were not directly contributing to the building of an encyclopedia were supposed to not be found outside User space. So what, then, is the deal with Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/New Userboxes? -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 00:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That rule, WP:UM, refers to where the templates themselves are displayed. How are we supposed to find out about new boxes if the there is no gallery? Will (Talk - contribs) 01:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Help!
So why can't I do this:

But I can do this:

Really appreciate any help here--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">DanielFolsom T|C|U 01:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is to do with how Wikicode is processed. In the second instance, it is passed with number references (1,2,3 etc), whereas on the multiline it is not thus breaking the code. You basically have to use one line, or pass exact references (ie info=This User is sad because he/she feels bad about stealing another user's user page design.). Good luck. Ian ¹³  /t  17:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Help(2)
Why is it that for the regular userbox simplified code (where you don't have to say id1-fc =...) you can't control things like border or font color?--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">DanielFolsom T|C|U 16:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, you can. See User:Royalguard11/userboxes/UBX essay for an example.  If you still have questions, post to my talk page.  --NThurston 17:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

New Userbox Available
I have created User published author for Wikipedians who have published in academic journals. Please include it where appropriate. --NThurston 16:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Politics Page?
Is there a politics section of the userboxes. I have seen people who have 'this user thinks its every citizens duty to vote', or 'this user agrees with some aspects of conservatism'; but i cant find them, would anybody be able to point me in the right direction please. :) freedom4korea 17:51 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * click on the following link: Category:Political user templates. Not every political userbox is here, since some people haven't yet created a link to this category, and some just created their own userboxes.--Sefringle 00:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Gallery section text format
Any reason the non-header text in this section is entirely italicized? I know of no guideline suggesting it, and for readability's sake I suggest that it be changed to non-italic text. I'd go ahead and do it, but I don't know if this is a topic already considered. -- Tim (Littlebluedog 03:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

Problem with this page's category
At the very bottom of the page one of the listed categories is "Wikipedians interested in ancient Rome", this should not be there, as the page does not discuss Ancient Rome. Does anyone know how to fix this? i.e How do I change the category list? --Jackaranga 14:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If there's a userbox saying "This user is interested in Ancient Rome", the category just appears.--<font face="comic sans ms"> SU IT  -n-tie 05:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition to page
I'd like to suggest a general principle added to the "restrictions" section, that userboxes which imply a pejorative towards others are in general not okay. Usually these can be recast in terms of oneself.

This was prompted by a discussion of a userbox text "this user supports resistance to Israeli hostility". Whilst the original text is political campaigning, I can imagine cases it wouldn't be, where the userbox expresses (or implies) a negative view of others rather than a description of oneself. This would usually be of the form "This user is against (or views negatively) (negative act or feature) of (some other group)"

The problem is that such user boxes inevitably create a straw man argument: the other group is labelled with the negative feature or attribute, which the user is then self-posited as being rightfully against. Such labels are inevitably capable of being inflammatory, but it's a specific recipe that is worth highlighting in the page.

I've therefore added an item which I hope is non-controversial: "Userboxes which imply a negative attribute of some person or group to which the userbox creator then expresses objection, are usually not acceptable."

(To clarify, it's not the objecting to something, but the expressing of a pejorative (hostile/negative) view as being factual, to which one then objects, which is not really okay.)

FT2 (Talk 11:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the proposal but is it not covered by this section:

''Content restrictions

''All items in template and user space are governed by the civility policy. ''Userboxes must not include blatant incivility or personal attacks. ''Userboxes must not be intentionally inflammatory or divisive. ''Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for political campaigning. ''Userboxes which imply a negative attribute of some person or group to which the userbox ''creator then expresses objection, are not usually acceptable. Simply: If content is not appropriate on a user page, it is not appropriate within userboxes.


 * AndrewRT(Talk) 23:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured user pages
Hi, please comment here. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 19:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

HALP
Hello. Is it possible to use userboxes from English Wikipedia on other language Wikipedia? I want to use some userboxes on my user page at the Norwegian Wikipedia. DJLarZ 21:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Im new but logicly i would think so. try & see what happens ok?Kanpai!--Lolicon3043910 18:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is NOT possible to directly use (transclude) a template or userbox from a different Wikipedia. You can however copy-paste the markup for the userbox to make a copy of it on your desired Wikipedia.  If you do so, please credit the source in your edit summary. <font color="#00F" size="+1">&mdash;dgies tc 18:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Compatibility with Opera
Has there been any investigation as to the Userbox templates compatibility with the Opera browser? The ID formatting is off in all the templates when I view userboxes in Opera, and the entire Userbox template is out of whack. It looks fine in Firefox and IE on my computer, it's only Opera that seems to have a problem. El Cid 03:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-admins using admin userbox?
Since I can't find this anywhere else, I'll ask here: Is it forbidden for a non-admin to have the administator userbox on his/her userpage? It seems like it should be, as it's deceptive, but I can't find it written anywhere. And no, this isn't a hypothetical question; I'm asking because there's a user who won't remove the admin userbox from his/her userpage. Heimstern Läufer 07:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It could be considered disruptive. Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia, not about trying to prescribe in detail every possible infraction that works against that goal. That's what ignore all rules is about. I don't think the community will object to someone removing the admin userbox from a non-admin's page. Would you care to share who this user is? -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 11:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about an actual userbox that says "this user is an admin", or the little "logo with mop" icon in the upper right corner? I think that the latter is more of a grey area because what if a user wants to use that image to mean something other than being an administrator. It's a _mop_, that could mean something like doing vandalism cleanup or something, i've never understood the symbolism why a mop means admins. --Random832(tc) 13:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be forbidden. Since when were the non-admins allowed to use the admin userbox? It is deceptive, as Heimstern stated above, and harmful to the newbies. If someone refuses to remove the userbox himself, just do it. If he reverts, then you report. This is actually ridiculous PeaceNT 14:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Random832: We're talking about the userbox that says "This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia". Donald Albury: The user appears to have voluntarily removed the userbox, so the immediate issue is apparently over. It looks to me like it's reasonably accepted that we should remove the admin userbox from non-admins' pages, so I'll plan on doing that where necessary and reporting if that fails. Heimstern Läufer 16:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you help me?
When i tried to put userboxes on my page, when i grouped them it didn't end the grouping with the Userboxbottom thing (i know there are two squiggly brackets around it but if i put them there it would not display here. Is this the right code to use to end the grouping? When i use it it displays |} instead. Yaanch 00:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What did you start your user box list with? Use Userboxbottom only if you started the list with userboxtop.  Babel is designed to stand alone.  Don't combine it with other boxes. Will (Talk - contribs) 04:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Why Migration?????
How come Userbox templates need "migration"?<font face="Invader"> Invader Soap Evil JokesGir's Dog February 13th, 2007 (UTC)
 * The short version is that the community decided a few months ago that userboxes that do not directly contribute to building an encyclopedia (such as the language boxes) should be allowed only in user space. The long version is not for the faint of heart. -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 04:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Image+box=???
I cant figure out where i put an image in the box! As a matter-of-fact i dont even know how to use one! Whaer do you put an image in the box?--Lolicon3043910 18:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's an example that you could use user USMA --NThurston 18:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * now im more confused! Where does the image go?--Lolicon3043910 18:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * First, have you uploaded the picture to Wikipedia? If not, use the "upload file" link on the left of this page to take care of that.  Make sure to remember the file name.  Now, in the example code noted above, look for [[Image:U.S. Military Academy COA.png|45px]] .  This is the code for inserting an image.  Replare "U.S. Military Academy COA.png" with the file name of your image and save the box.  Does that help?  If not, perhaps you could point me to the box you are working on and I can see what needs to be done still.  --NThurston 19:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

May I?
I have just created a userbox I am wondering if I can place it on Userboxes/Animals — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sereh888 (talk • contribs)

Categories
I created a userbox User:TJ Spyke/Userboxes/HD DVD, but i'm having trouble setting it up so that putting the userbox on their page they will automatically be put in the category Category:Wikipedians who prefer HD DVD. Any help? TJ Spyke 14:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Did that do it? Bladestorm 15:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, thank you. TJ Spyke 22:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yay! You're welcome. :) Bladestorm 22:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Userbox 'Example 2' javascript needs a fixing for Firefox and Opera
Example 2 Userbox grouper at Userboxes does not properly unwind with Firefox and Opera web browsers but does with Internet Explorer. When you click 'show' it covers partially the top most userbox. It becomes worst when you add more catagories. Could someone fix it for me or tell the author to fix it... I would very much like to use it but because of that I cannot. ThanksGetonyourfeet 13:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have also found this javascript to be rather cumbersome as I am a Firefox user--I really appreciate example 2's functionality, but the trouble that Getonyourfeet describes worsens as more subcategories are added (see my own userpage).--Einmyria 03:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Religious Wikibox
who deleated all the religious boxes and why? Richardkselby 18:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably it was part of the Userbox migration of some userboxes into the User namespace. For example, the user box for "This user is Jewish" is at  .  Apparently the rationale was that userboxes that identify religion can be divisive in the community, so they should not be on a community page.  Frankly, if you ask me, it shouldn't make a difference, but I'm sure somebody knows where to find the religion userbox you're looking for.  You can make a more specific request here, or ask at the Help Desk. YechielMan 19:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

yeah, but this makes it less accessable to find a a bog, it's like going on a freaking treasure hunt!!! Richardkselby 03:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Naming Userboxes
How do I name my userbox? And where in my userpage do I put it? I can get the template to show up, but it isn't named. Iiartisanii 00:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Notice of fair-use images on userboxes
Hey guys. I created this temporary template to post on editor talk pages for those who use fair images in userboxes (it's against policy). I think this message is pretty self-explanatory and eases any disruptiveness caused by simply deleting the image. I tried to find a similar notice but couldn't find one. What do you guys think? Post your opinions on the Wikiproject Userboxes talk page. - Mtmelendez (TALK 21:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Rather cool. At least it tells people why and shows you have good reasons. Make use of it I say... Ian ¹³  /t  22:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I was hoping to reach some sort of consensus to create the template in the Wikipedia template space. I'll wait a few more days for comments and then either create it or modify it. - Mtmelendez (TALK 22:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Done! I created the new template here: Images on userboxes. - Mtmelendez (TALK 16:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

userbox naming and stuff like that
hey i have a questions i made a few userboxes for my page, and how do i name them. Right now they are about 10 lines, and are really big, so how do i get them to be small and have a name with my username in the name and all that jazz.

peace- Three ways  round  22:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Defective grouping template
Today I tried to use boxboxtop and boxboxbottom to organize my userbox so I can give the option to viewers to hide or show them, however, the template turns out to be defective. see here, try to show/hide the boxes. Can anyone explain this please? Wooyi 19:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

A spoof example userbox?
Is it alright if this is made into some sort of userbox with a short name? I took the idea of the example user box shown on the page and transformed it into this:

Psychic Potato 15:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Multi-Licensing Userbox
I've managed to fit all sorts of legal stuff onto this small box, I was just wondering if it would work. Thanks.

User:The Userboxer/Userboxes/Text-PD

So, what do you think? I'm still new here, any advice would be much appreciated. and I know this is not the place to put these things, but the proper page just doesn't get enough attention.The UserboxerComplain 01:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This page linked from somethingawful 04-11-2007
Just a heads-up in case stupid stuff starts happening. 
 * -- That Guy, From That Show! 19:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't even know those userboxes existed! The UserboxerComplain 23:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone claify this?
I have a user box design, But, I cannot figure out how to make it into somthing like {Template: WYWH}}. The explanation in the article is confusing on how to do this (to me anyways). Thanks. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 01:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Using WP userboxes on other Wikimedia projects
Is there any way to use my template-generated boxes on my Commons account? --Padraic 19:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. I suggest putting a link there pointing to your userboxes here.  <font style="background:#7FFF00">Reywas92 <font style="background:#00ff7f">Talk 20:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Merging of userbox listings
(Copied from WikiProject page because no one responded) I have noticed that there are three templates for userbox navigation, all at the bottom of User:UBX. If one is searching the directories for possible user boxes for his page, he would need to scour through about four pages for each topic. Multiple users and the wikiproject all have pages full of boxes that are rather redundant and unneeded. If one created a new box, he wouldn't want to add it to all of the pages, one is enough. I heard Rfrisbie is moving his boxes, but I think User:UBX should be deleted and it would be simplest if all userboxes are listed in the Wikiproject Userboxes directory. Thank you, <font style="background:#7FFF00">Reywas92 <font style="background:#00ff7f">Talk 20:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Images into the boxes
I know it may sound rather stupid (given the fact that I've made 5 boxes in my userpage), but I can't find a way of putting an image into the id box of my userbox. Can anyone please help me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iakd87 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Do you mean like this?

Just look at the source code. Regards, Lynbarn 11:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Iakd87 21:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Someone removed the image from this example because it was non-free and therefore not suitable for templates. I guess they didn't see the context, which was asking about how to use images in userboxes! I fixed the example by adding a generic image. Jruderman 05:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"This user likes to collect DVDs."
NOTE: I'm not watching this page, so at the minute you responde make SURE you also leave me a message on my talk page.

I am aware of how to customize my userboxes, and I know exactly how to look for them. But the problem is I want something like "This user likes to collect DVDs." and be added to a category. So is there any userbox similar that will add me to a category? Thanks. TheBlazikenMaster 20:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

P.s. Is there any quick way to find what I'm looking for without having to go through hell lotta possible categories?

Flat Userboxes
The normal sized userboxes are clunky -- normally have alot of blank space in them. I threw together User:Monkeyblue/UBX which pretty-much says everything that I could say here. Monkeyblue (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't like flat boxes they are hard to see, Scorry.Anubiz 14:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not know about this ibea at the time that I saw the 2 you made me, you made me think my ideas were not worth a proper size userbox! Anubiz 14:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry I didn't mean to offend at all. I just find that the flat userbox template is easier to throw together. Monkeyblue (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well you did. I still don't like them. --Anubiz 18:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering many userboxes are actually larger than the recommended size (it's difficult to list the 10 commandments on a normal box) I welcome this as a way of balancing tables of boxes but a bit too small for regular use. Barfbagger 18:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Whare is the 10 commadments one? I think I would like that one.

Would the middle one be a better size? Monkeyblue (talk) 09:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The middle size one is ok, and I am scorry my "problam" makes me think strange things sometimes. Anubiz 00:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (Whatever happened to threaded discussions...) Although I personally prefer how the middle one looks, I think consistency is preferred. A default size has been chosen and is fairly workable; it should therefore be adhered to, for now. -- oKto siTe   talk  13:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Userboxes - Question for admins
Just what is necessary for an admin to delete a userbox? I recently had one deleted from a series of political parties after only a few days - allegedly because no one had linked to it but in fact it was being used by two other Wikipedians (User:Barfbagger/Userboxes/Ukip). This smacks of abuse of power. How can I get it reinstated? Barfbagger 18:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Go to WP:DRV. I see no evidence that it was tagged as CSD so someone was taking their own initiative.  Not good.  Explain what you posted here as well as any other details you can offer.  Good luck. --StuffOfInterest 18:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * From what I've seen, the policy on userboxes is like so:
 * Any userbox related to politics or religion WILL be deleted without discussion, without warning, without explanation, and without apologies, unless the admin thinks it's a "good" group like the Audubon Society.
 * Any userbox advertising a commercial product WILL remain in template space, e.g. Template:User Raw and all other sports templates. The fact that the policy cited for deleting political boxes mentions "Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise" is irrelevant.  Anything you read anywhere in Wikipedia policy contrary to advertising/commercial interests generally doesn't actually mean anything.  We WILL be assimilated.
 * Apparent unfairness such as the deletion of all religion boxes from template space vs. the maintenance of astrological templates will be ignored.
 * If you are not an admin nobody actually cares what you have to say, and it wouldn't matter anyway. 204.186.117.104 19:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Resizing
HELP please!! Can someone PLEASE tell me how to resize an image so my custom userbox isn't so HUGE?? I'm not looking for saving the image, resizing it, and then uploading it again. It takes WAY too long. --AngelArlia 22:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Rather than simply placing the image in the userbox as [[Image:Exquisite-kmencoder.png]], add |48px within the coding so that it appears [[Image:Exquisite-kmencoder.png|48px]] . Then change 48 to whatever size appears to be correct. -  auburn pilot   talk  22:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you SO much!!! --AngelArlia 22:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

RE:
"I'm confused. In this message you say "you may do what ever you want," but on the image description page you said "I had permission to use the photos for WIKIPEDIA ONLY!!!." Which is it?--Werdan7T @ 21:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)"

When I said "you may do what ever you want," This states that the people at Dayton CVB told me that I can do anything I want with the photo as long as I had created an account. Then I said "I had permission to use the photos for WIKIPEDIA ONLY" I told the operaters that Im using it for WIKIPEDIA only. So they told me I had permission to use it on wikipedia...Because I told them about how I wanted to Change the photo of Dayton. Yes it is confusing but and mybe I needed to change my wording a litte.


 * Anyone can use the photos for their uses.
 * If you want High Quality Photos you need an account. Once you have that then your fine.

Does that make it too the point or answer your questin? I hope that figured things out. All I want is for the photo to stay. It shouldnt be deleted because I was givin permison to use it. (Sorry for the Spelling) User:MarkDonna

A Small Problem
I have created a slew of new userboxes (see my Talk Page), and I have placed them on the New Userboxes page. The question is, should I also place them on the appropriate userbox page also? For example, my Command and Conquer 3 Userboxes on the Userboxing:Games page as well as the New Userboxes page? I would appreciate any input. --FastLizard4 04:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S., I would appreciate a reply on my Talk Page's Messages Section -- FastLizard4 04:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What Not to Do
Could we highlight what not to do with Userboxes more prominently? Mathiastck 09:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Generic
Is there a generic userbox I can just insert my own message into? Trevor GH5 01:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason I don't believe this is a good idea is because each userbox is customized to its particular message. It may be possible to enter a variable into the ID field of the userbox, but you wouldn't be able to control other aspects, such as color and font size, bold, italics, and that sort of thing.  Since I don't yet know of one, you could try to make your own "generic" userbox.  Or take the simpler approach, make your own that is customized to your message!  Userbox Creator has a nice template, and the coding for userboxes can be found on various userboxing pages.  You could also search for an already existing userbox that would fit your needs.
 * I hope you find this information helpful.
 * -- FastLizard4 ( Talk | Contribs ) 02:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There's isn't anything where I pick a couple of capital letters to appear on the left and then add a small message on the right? Trevor GH5 00:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be where "ID" is the couple letters and "Content" is your small message. -  auburn  pilot   talk  00:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Help?
On my userboxes page my userboxes are randomly scattered and I'm completely helpless. I can't get them in to two straight lines or anything. I need help! (once you see the page you'll be able to better understand why.) - Bella 00:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * One way to sort this is to use a wiki table - I have put an example (with four userboxes across each row) of how it works on your page, with the original below it. You might want to re-size/re-order some of the userboxes to make the rows appear more consistant, but I think the overall effect is the sort of thing you are looking for. Hope this is of some help - if not, please ask! Regards,  <font style="color:White;background:DarkRed" size="0"> Lynbarn  <font color="DarkRed" size = "0"> (talk)  16:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, it's great! It looks awesome! I'll try fooling aroung with it some more to fix the top rows, but it looks much better than the horrible thing I had before. Thnk you very much! Bella 20:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Standardizing the format UserBox list pages.
I really believe that all the UserBox list pages should be standardized with a single format. The format I propose uses the templatestemplate:Usbk and template:Usbkc. (template:Usbkc is used when parameters are in use in the Userbox) These are the same templates that are being used on the Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/New Userboxes page. I had made a whole page with this format at Userboxes/WikiProjects. Before the change of format on that page, some of the userboxes appear to be corrupted. After the change in format those userboxes were corrected by the simplified templates. I know it would take work to standardize them, however I am up to the challenge of making these pages look right. I hope no one is against the idea of the new format as this I feel would the best one to use since it is being used to list new userboxes and it is a very simple template to use. If anyone has any comments on this please post below. Sawblade05 05:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Note Template:usbk now works for parameters i am going to copy this discussion for the talk page of the main page

--Java7837 16:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoops
I accidently replaced the page with (ironically) a userbox. I was trying to make one for my user page, and I clicked Save instead of Preview. Remember, WP:BELLY... I didn&#39;t do it. 22:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Too Many
I found someone saying it isn't good to have too many user boxes. Is this true, and if so, why?--LtWinters 22:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Mostly, it's a stigma of certain editors that userboxes make wikipedia too much like myspace, and there are many editors who would like them completely erradicated. Adam McCormick 02:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking for
Is there a "This user ain't nobody's lackey" userbox?
 * I don't thinks so, and as that does not help the community collaboratively, it should not be created Adam McCormick 02:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Gah!
I'm trying to make my own userboxes, but I can't figure out how to give them that short code that makes typing them easier. Can anyone help? Bad-Gy 08:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * See: Userboxes Regards, Lynbarn 19:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

People being pretentious with their userboxes
Maybe I'm just too normal, but Wikipedia users are on the whole much more interested in obscure subcultures, beliefs and (what would be seen by many as) pretentious ideas than the general population, without a doubt. This of course probably has to quite a lot to do with the fact that Wikipedia attracts the "geek" community. Can you answer for this?-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 22:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia author?
Is there a userbox that says something like "This user has written encyclopedia articles in real life" (or sim)? <b style="color:#008000;">semper fictilis</b> 15:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There is now!

Is this the sort of think you had in mind?

Lynbarn 15:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Great! Now the question is whether it's pretentious to put it on my page.   <b style="color:#008000;">semper fictilis</b> 23:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Suggest a wording change to "has written articles for a paper encyclopedia". There's nothing fake about time we spend here. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 22:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Guideline
Isn't it about time this page became a Guideline? If not, it should at least be added to Category:Wikipedia essays. Either way it should either get Guideline or Essay at the top, and have its introductory notice box updated (use a standard Nutshell I would say), as the scope of this document is no longer represented by the text there, which implies this is just a tech how-to manual, when in fact it offers a lot of consensus-based guidelines. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 22:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of a userbox
There's recently been a disscussion between me and Marycontrary on my user talk, because she was offended by my userbox that essentially said "I believe civilization cannot proggress without country music's elimination." This has grown into a multiple-user argument, some for, some against. One user has suggested deletion, but I think it should be changed, as there are no other userboxes that say anything about disliking country. Help! @_@ ~Crowstar~  13:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

So confused!
Hello, I'm totally new to Wikipedia and I am so confused. I want to add some Userboxes to my page, but the more I try to understand how, the more confused I get. I'm sorry I'm so slow, but can someone help me out? Thanks. PartTimeSuperHero 03:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The very concept of the userbox is innately American, and harmful to Wikipedia
Userboxes serve to provide some information about the user, some of which may be very trivial and almost nonsensical; others are interesting and informative. The original purpose of userboxes was to give a means for collaboration between individuals on topics that they might be interested in; now this has gone far beyond that and in my opinion seems to be in conflict with WP:NOT, namely, since this is not MySpace, so much of the userbox information is irrelevant to building an encyclopedia. Which brings me to my second point - that the userbox is an innately American invention. Why do I say this? It's because it's so flashy; it's about telling the world you're proud to be what you are, no matter how different this might be from the norm - which is a hallmark of American culture, and is not necessarily present to any great extent in other cultures. In other words, the userbox often comes across as pretentious; I get the feeling that some of these people are pretending to be something they're not. It's curious that Wikipedia seems to attract disproportionately large numbers of people with Asperger's syndrome or LGBT individuals, as just two examples.-Onthaveanaccountcreateone 10:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The idea of Userboxes have grown far beyond its original scope (BABEL), but this is to be expected in a project with users. I feel that userboxes allow contributors to put something of their own into their workspace, wikipedia. A userbox gives an opinion, but it is not a opinion  in conflicts (as with talkpages) -- more a statement of who and what this user is and their view point. Whether they choose to adopt a new persona (eg. being gay or lesbian) while online is perfectly acceptable, we do not need to know who is behind the mask but rather how the mask stands to help.
 * "[A]n innately American invention". Interesting, never thought of userboxes that way. I do not see a problem with this invention; nor do I see a problem with most of the objects that surround me -- they follow the same guideline of "flashy... proud to be what [they] are" whether they are a the desklight or the desk itself, they must be American inventions? But no, my desk is from the carpenter down the road and the light is from (looks at base) China. Just a note, I am from Australia, my IP is 203.87.39.30, look it up.
 * Userboxes are inherently American? I'm not sure. People who have a online persona? Yes and I think adds to the colour of Wikipedia. Thanks,  Monkeyblu e  12:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't find it at all odd that people with Asperger syndrome are active on Wikipedia in disproportionately large numbers. The WP page itself notes that they experience "a tendency to focus intensely on areas of interest". Sounds like Wikipedians to me.
 * I agree that there's a tendency to use Userboxes to make WP into something it's NOT, but on the other hand they serve to humanize the people involved, thereby making participation less intimidating. (At least such is the case for me.)
 * As for the American-specific nature of the things, I don't know that I can agree. After all, iconographic self-identification has a proud tradition around the globe, from the family crest to the union bug. -- Scartol 14:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why anybody would bother to take this editor seriously. He starts off by insulting Americans with an absurd statement: as if no one outside of the US is social. And then closes his comment by insulting users with Asperger's or who are a member of the LGBT community. Ridiculous and offensive at the same time. - Cyborg Ninja (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Why ....
Everytime i add a new userbox to my user page, it always appears seperately to the rest, as in on the left instead of the right. Steg Blob 02:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Something is not right
I do not have any userbox on my user page that says I am a member of the football (soccer) WikiProject, but for some reason there is a category that says I am a member of the project on my user page. Why is this? --- Realest4Life 02:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Somebody mistakenly included the category in User hip hop wikiproject, which you have on your userpage. I've corrected the category, so it should be fixed. - <font color="#0000cd">auburn <font color="#EF6521">pilot  talk  02:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. --- Realest4Life 02:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I also would like help
I attempted to create a userbox at User:SLSB/LU but the picture is not the same size/isn't connecting with the rest of the box. Can someone fix it and post a reply on my talk page and here please? Thanks! <font face="Verdana" color="Red">SLSB <font color="White">talk  • <font color="White">contrib   14:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Centering a Userbox
How can I center a userbox relative to my userpage's page margins? I only have one userbox, so the formatting shouldn't be too complicated. If you take a look at my userpage you will see that everything is centered by using <tt> </tt>, but it didn't work on the userbox. --bse3 17:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I figured it out. Here's how it's done if anyone wants to know:
 * {|style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
 * ||} --bse3 03:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

New userbox migration
After receiving feedback on Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/New Userboxes, is there a procedure for moving them to category pages (such as Userboxes/Media/Books)? Or does one do so oneself? Thanks in advance. -- Scartol 15:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You have to do it man, it's easy. Go to the category that your userbox fits in and just add it in. Salisbury Steak ( complaint dept. - contribs ) 15:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't mind doing it; I just didn't want to step out of line. Guess I need to be more bold. Thanks for the info. -- Scartol  15:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Homestar Runner
Do we have any Homestar Runner userboxes? It seems like we would, but I can't find them. If not, I'd be happy to make one, but what category would it go in? GlassCobra 06:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would display a H*R ubx, provided it's oblique and amusing. (Maybe something about doing a great jorb, or fouquigads -- I don't know how to spell it. Why not make a few? (TGS, maybe? Or — ooh, Senor Cardgage Mort-gage! Yes!) I think they should go in Userboxes/Comedy or maybe Userboxes/Computing. Have fun and drop me a line when you've got something I can add! -- Scartol  20:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Parameters
How do you use parameters? I want to make this userbox work: User:Anthrcer/TemplateSandbox. —The preceding signed but undated.

Userbox group
Fellow Wikipedians. I'v included Userboxes/Ethnic groups, and started with these two templates that I created: Jewish and Ethnic Macedonian. I would like to ask you is everything according to the normative (I would like the administrators to help me with the commands and program language). And I would also like the other users to add their templates about their ethnic background. Cheers. Revizionist 14:07, 08 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Userboxes/Ethnic groups
 * cool &#91;&#91;User:moggie_mn&#124;moggie man...i rule&lt;span style=&quot;color:orange&quot;&gt; 22:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Were should this go?
Where should this go? I cant find a good catagory. THROUGH FIRE   JUSTICE IS SERVED!  00:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I hate to say it, but the best I can come up with is Misc. Maybe the US page? There ought to be something someplace, but I don't know where. Best regards.--Song 23:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

WTF? Userboxes/Politics and Userboxes/Politics and Social Issues
Okay, it appears that Userboxes/Politics got deleted and then was restored. However, in the short period of deletion, another user had re-created Userboxes/Politics and Social Issues. Nothing in the new page is unique that isn't already on the old one, so I've re-linked back to the old page. Not meant to be an endorsement of any opinion in the UBX debate: just that if there's going to be a link for such userboxes on the WP:UBX page, it might as well be the correct page. Kelvinc 06:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes/Politics
Many of these userboxes seem unnecessarily divisive. Is this allowed? What and where is policy on this? IvoShandor 08:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. There is a guideline Userboxes, but maybe it should be developed to be more strict or to have a real policy of this. I think divisive views belong to own websites. I wouldn't count advocating ordinary political groups or views as divisive. Best regards <font color="#008899">Rhanyeia <font color="#ff8800">♥ <font color="#009900">♫  08:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on the issue. Certain issues like abortion, the death penalty etc really can enflame tensions, not to mention that the definition of "ordinary political groups" is completely subjective. Who is to say what is ordinary and what is not? Just perusing the guideline, before I started this thread, I didn't see anything particular, can you point me to the section? IvoShandor 08:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Have a look at WP:UBX. I think it would be good to set a limit what creates too much tension and make it easier to delete userboxes which don't go along that. Userboxes are after all not the most important things we are doing here, and they shouldn't make us sidetracked from the real work. Best regards <font color="#008899">Rhanyeia <font color="#ff8800">♥ <font color="#009900">♫  08:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think very specified political views, which are not relevant for most articles, don't need userboxes. A user who edits relevant articles and wants to disclose views about it would do better to do it with own words. Best regards <font color="#008899">Rhanyeia <font color="#ff8800">♥ <font color="#009900">♫  09:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I must admit, I have been distracted, and rather annoyed at some of the userboxes on that page, there is a current MfD involving a userbox on the Tamil Tigers, I remain unsure of what position to take because there appears to be somewhat of a double standard in applying userbox guidelines. But I do think many of the userboxes on the page I referenced need to be removed and deleted. But that's a lot of MfD'in, don't quite feel up to that, I could do something much more constructive with my time. IvoShandor 10:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. MfD takes unnecessarily lot of time and is stressful. The userbox about Tamil Tigers was clearly divisive before it was reworder and relinked, I think to speedy delete it would have been very good. After it has been reworded I don't know if I should take a stand or not. Best regards <font color="#008899">Rhanyeia <font color="#ff8800">♥ <font color="#009900">♫  10:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That was my thought. I looked at the box, the title, the history, then came here, saw all the other userboxes on the politics page and decided on switching to neutral because I really think that if some of the nonsense that is already here stays, the Tamil box shouldn't be a big problem. I know, OTHERSTUFF, and all that. But if we're not applying guidelines ubiquitously then we ought not apply them at all, imo. That MfD appears to have grown out of a dispute, which makes it even more difficult to judge. IvoShandor 11:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a box shouldn't be kept because there are "other stuff". I decided to take a stand on MfD while you were writing that message. I'm trying to get deleted some things created by an indef blocked sock (and one other box which doesn't comply with WP:UBX) on MfD and I still don't know what's going to happen. Best regards <font color="#008899">Rhanyeia <font color="#ff8800">♥ <font color="#009900">♫  11:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes based on social or philosophical issues (including politics and religion) should not be in template space, and galleries of them should only exist in userspace. Feel free to MfD the page. - jc37 13:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally think all userboxes of that nature should not be allowed at all and here is why. 1) Userpages (where userboxes are most-often displayed) are not a free-for-all to say anything that you want where there is nothing anyone can do about it. Anyone can and is allowed to edit your userpage like any other page, and according to UP, they are not allowed to display "Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia" or "Polemical statements". 2) Even though Wikipedia asks people to be bold in edits, it also tells people to always be nice (though this is directed at doing so to other members, not with all opinions). 3) All articles should be written in a neutral point of view. There is nothing nice, properly encyclopedic, or neutral about a userbox that says "I hate George Bush." or "All religion is stupid." and therefore should not be allowed to be freely plastered just because userboxes are looked at a little differently than articles. — CobraWiki ( jabber 07:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There has been a lot of debate recently on WP:UCFD about what should and should not be allowed in user categories (and tangentially in user boxes). jc37, I see here you're stating that userboxes based on social, philosophical, political, or religious issues should not be allowed.
 * First of all, am I right in now assuming that you've had a change in opinion since you last voted to keep Category:Christian Wikipedians? (There's nothing wrong with changing your mind, I just want to verify that you have changed it and that you're not making an exception.)
 * Secondly, and this is directed at everyone, if this is to be Wikipedia's guideline on userboxes and/or user categories shouldn't this be cleared up on the Userboxes page itself? As it stands right now, closings on xfd's are somewhat capricious, depending on how the closer interprets current guidelines. This is unacceptable. This page needs to either clarify that this is the policy or that it isn't. Allowing people to assert that this is the policy without it being challenged is causing chaos, IMO.
 * Ben Hocking (talk 17:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ben, you are misreading what jc37 has stated, and additionally, you are conflating userboxes and user categories, which are two separate (but related) issues. Userboxes can (and should) be created without categories, and categories can be created without a userbox. There are separate discussions for userboxes (WP:MFD) and user cats (WP:UCFD). As to what jc37 has stated, he opposes religious/political/divisive userboxes in template space, which is different from user space. IOW, the template socialist is in template space, and should be moved, while the template User:MQDuck/userboxes/Marxist is in user space, and is therefore not something he advocates deleting. It's a subtle distinction, but it is akin to issues such as separation of church and state (A nativity scene in front of City Hall is not okay, but a nativity scene in front of the church next to city hall is allowed. The first is public property, the second is private property.) Horologium t-c 17:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (As an aside) - I was merely stating what the consensus has been (the minimum that most seemed to agree to) about userboxes. It had/has nothing to do with my personal opinion. - jc37 (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To Horologium, it was not my intent to misrepresent Jc37, which is why I asked him to verify my interpretation and did not state it as absolute fact. I don't see that he has verified your interpretation either, so make sure you realize that you might be misinterpreting him as well. As for the distinction between user space and template space, I see one, but it's a very fine distinction when dealing with user boxes. User boxes traditionally reside in template space, so a policy on user boxes does apply to those user boxes in template space. As for the user category distinction, you're absolutely right in general, but I believe talk has made the point elsewhere that user boxes are appropriate in places where user categories are not, but not vice-versa (i.e., the valid reasons for user categories is a proper subset of user boxes). Again, this is my interpretation of his comments and might be incorrect. It would probably be more appropriate for him to correct me than you, however. No offense intended. To talk, I don't believe that arguing consensus when you disagree with it is productive as it can lead to a false consensus. You think it's consensus only because others think it's consensus and argue to support that perceived consensus. If you're not getting what I'm saying (I realize I've said it somewhat clumsily), I can attempt to explain it more clearly. Ben Hocking (talk 18:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I appreciate his attempt to clarify for you. (And am surprised that you don't appreciate such an attempt from a fellow editor.) And no, users are of course welcome to add categories to their userpages if they wish. No one anywhere that I know of is suggesting that one has to use userboxes. As for the rest, it sounds like you're unaware of just how disruptive this has been in the past, and how the above was the consensual result. I have not stated if I agree or not. The point is that in offering advice to editors asking questions, I should attempt to stay neutral and inform them of current convention, not my own opinion of it. (Though I may also inform them of my opinion as an aside, at my own preference, of course...) - jc37 (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The only reason I didn't appreciate it was because I wasn't sure it was accurate, as I had no reason to suspect that Horologium understood your meaning more than mine. I was not annoyed by it, merely unconvinced by it (until now, as you seem to be agreeing with his interpretation of your comments). (Let me make this more clear, as this could easily be taken the wrong way. When I say I didn't appreciate it, I merely mean that I didn't know if it was helpful. I don't mean that in the more colloquial sense that I was insulted or whatever. No insult is meant to you or Horologium.) I was not suggesting that you were suggesting that user categories couldn't be added manually and exist separately from user boxes, but that the valid rationales for their existence were a subset of those for user boxes. Also, you do to seem to have argued on the UCFD pages (IMO) against the same things that you are arguing against with the user boxes, while making some exceptions for user boxes (where you've been unwilling to make exceptions for user categories). Of course, it's possible that I misinterpreted those comments and you were referring solely to user boxes held within user space as opposed to those in template space. You are correct that I am unaware of just how disruptive the user boxes have been in the past, but it seems guidelines were addressed to help clarify those disruptions (along the lines of don't make user boxes that insult others). The current interpretation of those guidelines seems to exceed their original intention and seems to be unnecessarily harsh, IMO.
 * As for the comment about educating about consensus even when you disagree with it or are neutral on it, I have done similar, although I always point out afterwards if I am neutral or against it. (A recent example being the whole "few" vs. "some" debate on the global warming page. I really don't care about which word is used.)
 * My main point is, however, that if these new interpretations are necessary then they should be formalized. What I find disruptive is that these interpretations are not formalized and are being applied unevenly. So whether or not I agree with these quasi-guidelines, I'd prefer that they be in writing than solely in "precedence" or interpretation. Wouldn't you agree? Ben Hocking (talk 19:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Slippery slope... Policy pages (in theory) are supposed to reflect current practice/consensus. That said, I've seen several requests for such a policy page. (And I'm starting to think that including category information on this page may have caused some confusion. Though it was done that way since both the userboxes and the user categories are to follow somilar rules on content.) - jc37 (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Ben, go look at Userbox Migration for an overview of the whole "Userboxes in userspace" thing. It explains much of what jc37 has been saying. Horologium t-c 19:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, Horologium. It did answer some questions and informed me a lot on user boxes, although I was somewhat disappointed to see (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that this appears to be unofficial policy even though it is supported by Jimbo Wales. Why can't we make this official? Also, although it does address some user categories that are definitely appropriate, it leaves many other user categories in a gray region, with the comment that we should try to hash out a consensus on these on the talk page. Unfortunately, it seems that some people have decided there is a consensus on these user categories, even though it does not yet even have the unofficial policy standard that the user box migration seems to have.
 * jc37, I agree that having the user category information only on this page (with the previous user category page being marked historical as I think you pointed out to me when I previously cited it) does muddy the water. The userbox issue seems reasonably well settled to me (although I'd like to see the unofficial policy become official), but the user category issue does not seem settled to me at all. Ben Hocking (talk 19:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that any official policy that restricts userboxes with regard to anything other than legal issues goes against free speech and really should not be considered. So what if someone doesn't agree with my positions on issues or my party? When have we become so sensitive that we now have to pry into simple boxes in userspace to remove so-called divisive or offensive userboxes? Personally, a lot of things offend me and thing I virulently disagree with, but that is  my opinion- and even if a majority agreed with me, policing these things tighter and tighter is just not right in my mind. An opinion, nevertheless. Monsieurdl (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox. That is not an essay, or a guideline, it is policy. FWIW, I tend to stay out of WP:MFD, and I also tend to take a very broad view of what is permissible in userspace (as opposed to elsewhere; I have spent a lot of time at WP:UCFD). For the most part, the offensive userboxes have been moved to namespace, but the massive gallery pages (such as Userboxes/Politics) have introduced some rather offensive (to some) userboxes into places other than namespace. Horologium t-c 02:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To be absolutely correct, Wikipedia articles are not soapboxes in the context presented. I'm just saying this not because I have anything to worry about, but for the future- that's my concern. I have seen a trend that disturbs me throughout society, and so I thought I'd put my two cents in. Where is the line, and how many times will it be moved to where common sense is thrown out the window in favor of bland, lifeless userpages? I rather miss the 20th century... :P Monsieurdl (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have addressed this particular aspect of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Expansion/clarification of "NOT#SOAPBOX. Horologium t-c 15:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and the text of the policy has been changed. It now clearly states WP:SOAP applies to all content on Wikipedia: articles, categories, discussion pages, and user pages. Note that the changes were made by an administrator who has been active in the maintenance of that page. Horologium t-c 16:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the change only puts categories (and user categories by extension) in the same scope as user pages. Its a minor improvement, but I don't think it settles the issue, unless we're going to start removing all similar content from user pages. Ben Hocking (talk 16:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

New userboxes
The new userboxes page dates back to Aug 1 of this year... is it a backlog? Does anyone (apart from the stray userbox creators) look at this page from time to time still? Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 07:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Another one...
I have created a userbox here for your consideration. Auroranorth 12:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Broken religious userbox on all pages
I don't know how this happened, maybe a substitution by a bad template, but I have seen this on an abnormally high amount of userpagess. If you know where the original is post. If you can transclude all these to the original. If the original was deleted due to POV, inflammatory, etc. then delete this on site:

It needs to be fixed to:

It shows:

{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: white;"
 * style="width:45px; height:45px; background:#00BFFF; text-align:center; font-size:14pt; color:black;" | [[Image:FirstCrusade.jpg|45px]]
 * style="font-size:8pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color:black;" | This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion.|}

Once I've created a userbox?
What do I do? I'm a bit confused?  Doktor  Wilhelm   02:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you want to do? >< Richard  Ω6  12  10:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion debate about user categories by status
A recent deletion review over the deletion of Category:Wikipedians by active status, Category:Wikipedians who are not currently active and Category:Wikipedians who are partially active suggested that more discussion was needed about the potential utility of such categories. That discussion is taking place now at this link. All opinions are welcome. Thank you. Chick Bowen 23:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me or..
are the directions on how to make a user box quite confusing. I can manage to pull of a poorly made user box but i personally believe this page needs to be acomidated to the less template knowledgeableForeverDEAD 03:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You can copy & paste my code onto a page of your own and play around with the templates from the userboxes that I've made. Just click on the title above that userbox and it'll take you to that page and you can look at the template there. --14:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slyder Pilot (talk • contribs)

userbox for cannabis users
Is there a userbox for cannabis users...? --jmeeter 18:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This you have to search yourself by using the search bar, maybe type "cannabis user" or something, then click "Search", after you get the search result, go to the bottom and tick on "Template" and uncheck "(Main)" (I'm not sure), then click the Search button. --אדםוןד ואודס (talk) 08:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What the?
When I view group-boxed (the type with show/hide buttons), the gray background seems to obscure some of the boxes when I open a section. Thing is, this only happens in Firefox 2. Any help? RageSamurai21655 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed the same thing. If you use the option with each group having it's own box it works, however. (Check out my user page for another example of this.) Ben Hocking (talk 20:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, dude RageSamurai21655 (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Question on userbox creating
I can't figure out how to make a userbox that has user optional text, like How would I do that? I'm doing this for another wiki, nad they just told me to come here for userbox creating help... HELP!!! Unionhawk (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, i figured it out --Unionhawk (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Believes?
In this article, it says to avoid userboxes with the word "believes", but would it be okay if I made a userbox with it or is there a good alternative around this? &mdash; Noah¢s   ( Talk )  02:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It might be better if you created it in your userspace [i.e. User:Noahcs/userbox], that way there will be less problem with saying 'I believe...' or something similar. >< Richard  Ω6  12  10:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving?
I think it's about time we archive this page or at least the first half of it. • <font face="Futura Lt BT" size="3"> Evan S :: <font face="Impact" size="2">talk   §   <font face="Comic Sans MS" size="2"> email   §   <font face="Verdana" size="2">photos • 22:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree. But who's going to handle this matter? --אדםוןד ואודס (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

More examples
Most users, including myself, are in dire need of more examples of userbox code, especially concerning formatting userboxes (not creating them). The current code for boxes is not very clear, intuitive or flexible. - Cyborg Ninja (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of examples of nice userboxes out there that can be sampled. Perhaps study those, or get a greater grasp on templates? Template:Userbox should handle most basic needs. –Pomte 04:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A SMALL QUESTION
Are in the Userboxes Gallery all Wikipedia's userboxes? If not, is there a list of ALL USERBOXES? Lykantrop (Talk) 21:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a daunting task to list all userboxes because there are so many and there's no consistent process to group them. See, for instance, the lack of organization in Category:Wikipedian userboxes and Category:User templates. Some are not categorized or listed anywhere so only their creators know of them. –Pomte 22:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you may need to devote your whole life searching for all the userboxes :-P --אדםוןד ואודס (talk) 08:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)