Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes/Archive 2

new goal
sorry if this has already come up, but I've just noticed it and it is bugging me.

Some userboxes float right.

I think we should standardise all templated userboxes to float:left. or float:right. or something. But whatever it is, it should be standardised. Otherwise userboxes are a bitch if they're not in wikitables. Deano 23:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Lee S. Svoboda 00:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thirded. Just leaving out float may work? -- Grand Edgemaster Talk 00:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Fourthed, and yes, just scrap float Ian13ID:540053 10:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Fifthed. (Seeing as how it is the holidays, I thought mentioning alcohol might cheer some of you up? Ha ha ha...aaaahhh, yeah.) Scrapping float -does- work. I've done it before and nobody seems to complain too generously. Cernen 12:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

'What Links Here' not always accurate
The major tasks at the moment include adjusting template links. The primary way to find them is by looking at the what links here page (the ones linked under current tasks). Unfortunately, these can give false positives and also not show linked pages. This happens quite rarely but can be noticed where a page appears under userbox os but not on userbox browser but uses both those templates. In short, we should leave the redirects up until around a week after we have transferred the templates. At that time, check again to see if any new ones are there and fix those links. When we get to that stage we should then evaluate the situation again. -- Grand Edgemaster Talk 00:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've never noticed the "What links here" not to show a link page, if you find another example could you let me know. False postives are antoher story - they occur all of the time. My bot can touch a "What links here", clearing out the false postives. Just let me know.--Commander Keane 10:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Image for use
I orriginaly inteded this for WP:AGF but it appears no one assumes good faith enouh to allow me to do so. Might be some use to you. -- Cool CatTalk 02:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Nice image, I've used it for User AGF. Cheers, [[Image:Anglo-indian.jpg|20px]] Deano (Talk) 17:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Grouped templates
On the main page it is reccommended that windows be changed to User windows. Great care should be taken during this operation, initially due to the template being highly complex, and secondly due to the fact that User windows is text-only compared to the combined template which has images. I think that the complex template should have its contents extracted into single templates (which don't overwrite the current text-only ones in that space), and the complex template be modified to use conditional redirects, if that is possible. Someone should probably check the copyright status of the logos as well, since fair use images cannot be used on userpages. In summary: Several of my ideas can probably be improved on.-- Grand Edgemaster Talk 00:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We need an organised way of storing os/browser/wikipedia userboxes. Maybe the format of User OS Windows?
 * We need a way of separating text from image variants of the same box, maybe User OS Windows-noimg?
 * We need to move templates such as User debian to User OS debian?


 * Make categories in the Category: namespace to grou[p them together maybe? Could work, rather than effectively making one template out of many - Those ones (like User religion) are extremely hard to edit for most (see Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Religion') - haven't looked at the main page yet but maybe that was the reason for the suggestion. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  02:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think that categories are for this purpose. I also think that there are guidelines that only encyclopedic content should be placed into categories. Wikipedia user categories must begin with Wikipedian so to be different. -- Grand Edgemaster Talk 23:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * While Windows is arguably the greatest market share on the planet, with something like 70% of computers using it as their OS, there are a growing number of people on alternative OS. User:AlMac|(talk) 13:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see the target of that comment, but if it was aimed at my examples, it is the one on the main page and I assume the original author of that section would hope in the long term to apply it to all of the other OSs in that template to remove the complexity and to improve its babel-compatibility. -- Grand Edgemaster Talk 23:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Namespace Potential, Anyone?
Far be it from me to suggest sweeping policy change regarding how the wiki runs; hell. I just got here. But, since there seems to be talk of requesting so many different userboxes, and since so many people are interested in them...what about a userbox namespace? Then we could split UBX's into anything and everything we want, and they wouldn't count as templates. We'd draft up a few standards...well? Any suggestions? Cernen 12:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm curious. What extra things could we do if userboxes had their own namespace that we can't do now? I can can forsee naming, but nothing else.--Commander Keane 19:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought of doing this last week when we created the WikiProject actually. I've got a draft started already - it'll be done in the coming week.  Have a look at portals... then imagine just the headers.  Each links to the relevant subpage of WP:UBX, and so people can get to the page they require poste-haste.  [[Image:Anglo-indian.jpg|20px]] Deano (Talk) 17:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm a little slow on the uptake, you lost me after the link to portals. What can you do with the namespace exactly?--Commander Keane 18:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well the way I'm thinking, it'll act like a little box titled "Userboxes", and it will have about 10 links to the various sub-pages of WP:UBX, such as Sports, Location, Wiki, View/Beliefs etc.etc. In hindsight, the Portals example was pretty bad.  [[Image:Anglo-indian.jpg|20px]] Deano (Talk) 18:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think one of those boxes with links to all catagories is a great idea. I may undertake myself if I find the time. Ian13ID:540053 14:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * WP:UBS Created! Ian13ID:540053 15:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well there goes all the work I'd been doing. Bollocks. [[Image:Anglo-indian.jpg|20px]] Deano (Talk) 15:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

UK Ukraine or United Kingdon
There's a question about this from Riurik on Dec 26 Help Desk which perhaps someone here should try to answer? User:AlMac|(talk) 09:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * (done). [[Image:Anglo-indian.jpg|20px]] Deano (Talk) 17:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

User democrat
Hello. This userbox is really ugly and I have a better revision, but the page is protected and I'm not an admin. If someone would implement my version (you can find it at the bottom of the template's talk page; just be sure to leave the category in place) I'd appreciate it. Although a lot of people were edit warring over this (which is why it was protected), I think they'd all agree that the one in place is pretty bad and mine, even if it isn't final, is a step in the right direction. Thanks.--HereToHelp (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Never mind.--HereToHelp (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

list of userboxes
Created this list so we can have controll off all userboxes: List of userboxes


 * No, this probably won't work. For one it will become highly unmanageable. The best list we have at the moment is the directory structure under WP:UBX. -- Grand Edgemaster Talk 01:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You could transclude all of the subpages onto one big list - like what is done at Reference desk/all--Commander Keane 07:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The purpouse was a list of all boxes, not how they look like :) → Aza Toth 15:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise that the list was a databse query - it's obviously very useful. My idea about the transluded list which would show all userboxes is that users like to see a large selction on one page, rather than having to go through 15 subpages to get inspiration.--Commander Keane 09:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Major work on Template: User OS
User:AzaToth has deswitched User OS and moved contents into a sub-namespace to items like User:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User MS Windows. Unfortunately during this move, none of the current format of boxes were redirected. I will implement a temporary switched redirect whilst this project can adjust existing boxes in the standardisation task. More discussion should be held at Template_talk:User_OS -- Grand Edgemaster Talk 01:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Updated tasks list. -- Grand Edgemaster Talk 01:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay. I think we need to decide what we shpuld use as the seperator.... Ian13ID:540053 15:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup of Userboxes/Non-ISO_Languages userbox page
I have started the rather large task of cleaning up the Non-ISO Languages userbox section as mentioned on the project's homepage. If anyone has any recommendations, or would like to contact me to offer a hand [you obviously don't have to contact me just to get started!] drop me a line at my talk page. --Richard0612 18:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

With regards to the above, I speak virtually no non-ISO languages so help with those would be greatly appreciated --Richard0612 19:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Progress on the task
This is a 'Progress List" on what urgently needs to be done to the non-ISO section [i.e. broken links, set of userboxes not contiguous in style]


 * American English
 * No attention needed


 * Blazon
 * No attention needed [cleaned up as of 27/12/05]


 * Bullshit
 * No attention needed [cleaned up as of 27/12/05]


 * Cockney/Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
 * Attention desperately needed, only crs-4 has a valid userbox.


 * Dumbass
 * Some minor attention needed to ensure all boxes are contiguous.


 * Foreign
 * No attention needed [cleaned up as of 27/12/05]


 * Gibberish
 * Attention needed to make userboxes conform to at least a moderate standard of legibility.


 * Lazy English
 * No attention really needed, but the userboxes could be wikified and improved qualitywise.


 * 1337 or leetspeak
 * No attention needed


 * Pig latin
 * No attention needed


 * Quenya
 * Attention needed, QUE-3 to N have no boxes associated with them Cleaned up as of 28/12/05 --Richard0612 09:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Klingon
 * Some attention needed, thl-5 & N are missing.


 * Userboxes
 * No attention needed


 * Wants to learn other languages
 * No attention needed [cleaned up as of 27/12/05]

If you have cleaned up a section, to let others know, strikethrough or delete the appropriate section and replace it wiht the date and your username. When all of the non-ISO sections have been cleaned up. I will post that information, along with everyone who contributed. --Richard0612 20:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"what links here" not working
I was going through Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:User_1 trying to fix the mess I helped make, but every page it listed seemed to not have a link to the Template. Is something wrong, or am I just not looking hard enough? Lee S. Svoboda 23:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it's normal, often all pages must be touched to show correct link information → Aza Toth 23:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have let my bot touch all of the "What links here" for Template:User 1. Before touching there were 83. Now there are 3. By the way, touching is just a blank save - saving a page without changing anything in the article. A blank save won't show in the edit history.--Commander Keane 09:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh wow. Could be by any chance have some command over this bot or its code or anything? And would it even be possible for a bot to be made (by you?) to do some of the userbox prefix changes for us? I have a host I can use (Grand Edgemasters server infact) where it could be hosted, and that servers quite secure, we could put a load amount limit on it to prevent spamming. Thanks for anycomments/help. Ian13ID:540053 20:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

BIG PROBLEM
Have a look at the deletion proposal for user NoSanta at Templates for deletion.

Adrian Buehlmann brought up the point that this is in violation of WP:AMT... which means that half the userboxes on WP:UBX are also in violation.

Furthermore, the outcome of this proposed deletion has repercussions for the entire WP:UB. If it is deleted then many of the arguments for deletion will be valid for countless userboxes... which once again illustrates the fundemental importance of this proposal.

SO - something needs to be done. And I have no idea what. Deano (Talk) 18:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Simple!


 * Meta-templates are templates made by using another template.
 * To turn a meta-template into a normal template, just add subst: after the first  {{ 




 * So, to turn {{userbox|white|black|This userbox is a userbox!}} into a NORMAL, NON-META TEMPLATE, you would change it to: {{subst:userbox|white|black|This userbox is a userbox!}} and press Save page.


 * Afterwards, looking at the edit you will see that it's magically been converted to HTML and is no longer a meta-template. :)


 * Examples at {{tl|User bi}}, {{tl|User bifemale}}, {{tl|User lipstick}} etc. Good isn't it :) -- Mistress Selina Kyle {{sup| (  Α⇔Ω  ¦  ⇒✉  ) }} 19:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hehe, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AUser_NoSanta&diff=33023508&oldid=33015461. Was just about to fix it myself :D -- Mistress Selina Kyle {{sup| (  Α⇔Ω  ¦  ⇒✉  ) }} 19:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * One only problem is that subst at the moment is a bit buggy, and won't expand default-parameters if parameter is not given (could be a minor problem ,but it can clutter a lot) {{sub|→ Aza Toth }} 19:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I didn't get what the subst: was about until I read this. Shouldn't the box types on Userboxes be changed accordingly to reflect the new coding style guide? TCorp 14:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay that's good (and remarkably simple!)... we'll just have to see what comes of the proposal now then... Deano (Talk) 19:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Good, I will make meta-template cleanup a current task! Ian{{sup|13}}{{sub|ID:540053}} 20:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I just voted, and it looks like it is a keep. Oh yeah, the guy who brought it up for deletion has the {{Tl|User Santa}} userbox on his user page. What a maroon. --D-Day 20:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Would permanently protecting {{tl|userbox}} solve the problems raised at WP:AUM? That'd probably be a better solution, if it works. --AySz88 ^ -  ^  20:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This is an absolutely massive problem, particularly as userboxes are already somewhat controversial, and provide no useful function whatsoever. I would strongly suggest making converting these off of meta-templates a top priority for everybody - userboxes that employ meta-templates are extremely likely to suffer a bloody death in the near future. Phil Sandifer 20:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Seconded. This needs to be fixed now. And no, just protecting the meta template isn't a viable option. It doesn't solve all those problems. Rob Church {{sup|Talk}} 21:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I am a novice here.

User:AlMac|{{sup|(talk)}} 21:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The votes for deletion stand at 8 delete 15 keep as of Wednesday afternoon my time, so it looks like the deletion might not pass, but there are valid concerns raised.
 * WP:NOT what the function of WP should be
 * WP:AMT Server load
 * This leads me to think that perhaps some policy should be formulated about userbox development that would mitigate the grievances raised by the deletion discussion.


 * I think Ian{{sup|13}}{{sub|ID:540053}}'s grand speech will probably go a long way to avoiding deletion on principle. The individual case is pretty much irrelevant, but has brought to light several major issues that need to be taken care of.  Firstly, we need to subst: all the guilty templates.  Following this, we need to establish a clear policy for userboxes in terms of what they are in relation to the rest of Wikipedia, to avoid any disputes in the future.  Finally, we need to confirm once and for all whether fair-use images can be used in templates.  No one seems to know.  [[Image:Anglo-indian.jpg|20px]] Deano (Talk) 21:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Go my grand speech! Um, I have looked into this fair-use buisness, and it seems fair use can only be used on articles, per Wikipedia policy (regardless of what the copyright holder says). Therefore, it seems no fair-use images are to be used unless the rules are somehow changed. Ian{{sup|13}}{{sub|ID:540053}} 14:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I came across a discussion of fair use policy on Village Pump policy debate & my sense is that in some Asian nations, there is no law supporting fair use, and there is an effort to make Wiki acceptable for use in those nations. User:AlMac|{{sup|(talk)}} 17:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Purge links
Since the pages that list userboxes (not the boxes themselves) use a bunch of templates, I think it would be useful if you guys could put links to purge the server cache at the top of such such pages (like on top of WP:PR). This would prove useful to those looking for their templates of the most up-to-date versions. Please consider my request.--HereToHelp (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * On top of this - is there any way we can stop Userbox pages being categorised when a template is added? [[Image:Anglo-indian.jpg|20px]] Deano (Talk) 11:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There are times we want to be included in the category of people involved in something, and there are times we want to refer to the userboxes without being in the category, such as explaining things at the Help Desk or New User Log. Perhaps something in the coding could say to have the category linkage active only if the page it is on begins with the word "User". User:AlMac|(talk) 17:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It could be done, bout it would violate WP:AUM → Aza Toth 17:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This one is easy; just subst: the template, then edit the page to remove the category. It will still show up correctly. Also, all Template space pages should automatically purge the cache of any page they are used on whenever they are edited (hence the reason subst: is important for heavily used templates, to avoid recaching the 10,000 pages they are used on.) -- Essjay ·   Talk 01:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userboxes/WikiProjects ?
Does Userboxes/WikiProjects really warrant sub-pages? I would certainly agree with categorization, but sub-pages? It just doesn't make sense to me, that is, the main page with 6 boxes in the "Other" category, but 3 sub-pages with 7, 8, and 4 boxes in those. I dunno, I'll get off my soapbox now... -slowpokeiv 14:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Overturn split I say all one page. Ian13ID:540053 14:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Prefix changes
I must say that I strongly disagree with the moving of boxes which require arguments (such as the custom box templates) under the User prefix. The entire point of having a standard prefix is to allow Babel-type templates to accept box names without the prefix, and given that Babel templates cannot pass arguments to box templates correctly, moving such boxes under the standard prefix serves no purpose, and may, in fact, cause more problems than it solves. I propose that any userbox template which requires arguments to produce meaningful output should be placed under the Userbox prefix. &mdash;Andux 19:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe that it had been discussed elsewhere that the User prefix would be taken but also adjusting the templates to make them Babel-compatible. See just above at this discussion. -- Grand Edgemaster Talk 21:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The next stage for many ported boxes is to split, per the discussion GE linked to. Ian13ID:540053 22:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * My point is that some boxes cannot be made Babel-compatible. Consider Userbox/Vandalized (now User vandalized):


 * As you can see, the output is not constrained to a limited set of possibilities, so the template cannot be split the way Userbox browser, etc. could be. I feel that such templates belong under the Userbox prefix. &mdash;Andux 21:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Un-archived and updated to reflect the move of Userbox/Vandalized. &mdash;Andux 23:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

In theory babel must be subst: tagged to avoid breaking WP:AMT, so it still provides an easily accessable template for use. Ian13ID:540053 17:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that the "vandalized" userbox is especially stupid as putting a "vandalism counter" on your page is just an invitation to vandalism. Best not to have such things.  Kelly Martin (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

User or user?
Or does it not matter? Just noticed an apparent inconsistency in the code; most, at a glance, use all lowercase whilst some capitalise ‘u’. Nige 16:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It technically doesn't matter as the U is always automatically capitalised by the wikimedia software. -- Grand Edgemaster Talk 17:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * But still, should we use a convention? It makes it easier for bots.--Commander Keane 17:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If we are making a convention it should probably be to use CAP. Simply because it puts one minisculium less strain on the servers.  [[Image:Anglo-indian.jpg|20px]] Deano (Talk) 17:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I second 'User'. Ian13ID:540053 17:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * ‘User’ it is. I'll edit the guidelines on the main page to suit.Nige 15:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair use & logos
I agree it's better to use free images when possible, but if we stick strictly to the policy of no fair use images, many, many boxes will have to be modified -- I'm thinking basically of everything with a logo, such as Userboxes/Political Parties and Userboxes/Schools/United States. I think it would be acceptable to set the policy of no fair use images except logos. I'm not sure, what do you think? -- Tetraminoe 07:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd support that, yes. &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 07:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this is a good idea --Richard0612 09:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

User programming
At the moment User programming pseudo-redirects to userbox programming/level 1 etc. It uses a swtich template, which is a violation of WP:AUM.

So, is the User programming situation going to be split into seperate templates like what has been done with browsers?

Will User religion have to be split up into different template becasue it too uses a switch templates?--Commander Keane 16:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep. All switch templates will - but atleast it will stop our babel box problems. Ian13ID:540053 16:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Images
What images are acceptable for use in userboxes? --D-Day 14:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Any copyleft ones. Images with fair use tags should not be used per. Fair_use: "Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages.". Ian13ID:540053 16:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What's the difference between a picture being used in an article vs. a template? I don't get it.
 * Could you tell me if can be used in a template? It has a GNU Free Documentation License, but now I don't know if that really means "free". Thanks. --Fang Aili 16:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes you can use Image:Tolkien_ring.jpg, the GNU licence allows this. Images that you can't use on userboxes are of the fair use variety. Maybe read Fair use and Fair use to get an idea about what it is, then ask here if need further clarification. The GNU licence is "free" since it allows you to use the image anywhere (like a userbox) as long as you provide the source (in Wikipedia the source can be found by clicking the image, that's why you can use them anywhere). --Commander Keane 16:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I updated the Userboxes page. It should be clearer now as to what images are allowed and what not. It's not a complete how to, yet, but I'm hoping people will help edit and expand the page. TCorp 19:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

End of the project
I guess this project has met its untimely end since User:Kelly Martin has unceremoniously chosen to delete a large number of userboxes that "express opinion"? Or is it going to be reabsorbed back into BABEL? -- Миборовский U 22:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I mean, if someone can delete other people's work without the slightest attempt at communicating, why put anything into it? -- Миборовский U 22:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I would very much like to see a detailed response from Ms. Martin. At this point, I have trouble seeing her actions as anything other than a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia, and her rationale very likely violates Wikipedia policy, as well. And the arbitrariness of her deletions gives me pause, as well. – Seancdaug 22:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Kelly Martin's deletion log documents the deletions. Disucssion appears to happening at her talk--Commander Keane 22:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * A Request for comment has been filed.--Commander Keane 22:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The RfC seeks comment on Kelly's deletion action of userboxes, but not on userboxes themselves. Can someone give a pointer to where that discussion is best suited? It does seem like something that might need working through, as individual TfD discussion has not been conclusive yet, there seems to be a need for a consensus on a policy (fearing instruction creep of course!)... I looked at this talkpage ( for WikiProject_Userboxes) which seems a logical place for it, or at least for it to be signposted, but didn't see it clearly being there. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 09:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This won't be the end of the project - not without a struggle anyway. Ian13ID:540053 11:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Wording of notice
I have a severe problem with the current wording of the notice slapped at the top of this user-project. While I don't necessarily disagree that some form of notice should be there, the current version "An RfC has been filed against Kelly Martin for unilaterally deleting a sizable portion of userboxes created by the Project." is not only worded in an extremely biased manner but could also constitute a personal attack. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? The notice, as it is currently worded, is blatantly implying that the accused is guilty. While this may or may not be true, the current wording is unacceptable. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 04:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, at this point I don't think anyone, let alone Ms. Martin, is arguing that she did, in fact, delete the templates, or even that she did so without going through Templates for deletion (thus, unilaterally). What, specifically, do you feel is biased about the current phrasing? – Seancdaug 04:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello there. I understand your concerns, this being a sensitive issue. It's pretty darn obvious from the deletion log that Ms Martin did indeed delete the said userboxes. There is nothing solid to suggest she either had the blessing of Jimbo or anyone else for that matter, before undertaking to delete the userboxes. The only poing of possible contention is the "unilateral" part, since some may consider Jimbo's message enough to constitute as a go-ahead. I disagree with your analysis of what the current message is trying to imply. When I wrote it I spent a good 2 minutes trying to think of something that a) would not be biased b) would summarise the dispute in a concise manner. I think I've done my best, and I don't think what I wrote is implying that anyone is guilty, since what I wrote was really just what happened. Oh and, the RfC is concerning Ms Martin's behaviour in deleting these userboxes, not whether her actions were justifiable, even though the RfC itself is going way off-topic with the latter. -- Миборовский U 04:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the reason I'm concerned is that the wording, I believe, is extremely biased - "unilaterally" and "sizeable" already carry strong negative connotations; this, combined with "against Kelly Martin" - more negative connotation - and "created by the Project.", which appeals to the project member's pathos (or is it ethos? I could never remember...) create a highly POV notice. I don't care if it is true or not - the wording already gives bias to the reader. Please reconsider the version I edited: "An RfC has been filed concerning the use of userboxes. Your input on the matter is appreciated." Nice, short, sweet, to the point and accurate. Anyways, I'm going to bed now, so won't be arguing this, but please reconsider. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 04:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thing is it's not accurate! The RfC was filed against her behaviour, not whether userboxes suck and should be banned from Wikipedia! It's not about "the use of userboxes". I agree on unilateral, even though that is the case and even she has not refuted that it was unilateral. Sizeable - I don't see how this can be intepreted as POV unless one has a preconceived notion that deleting userboxes is wrong (otherwise the reader would be thinking, "Good job! You got rid of these trash!") People have formed their opinions about this already I bet. I'll see what I can do about it. Probably remove unilateral. -- Миборовский U 04:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You have a point, but as Miborovsky has said, the RfC does not "concern the use of userboxes." It is a user-conduct RfC specifically concerning the actions of Ms. Martin. It was not established to entertain the (much broader) question of userbox protocol, and to lead people into the discussion with that impression is misleading and dilutes the usefulness of the whole procedure. It's not about the "use of infoboxes," and it is about the unilateral deletion of infoboxes. How about this:
 * "An RfC has been filed regarding User:Kelly Martin's deletion of a number of userbox templates. Your input on the matter is appreciated."
 * That cuts out most of the emotive language, I think. – Seancdaug 04:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. And since both parties should be agreeable to this (hopefully!) I've removed protection. Not that I believe it should have been protected in the first place. Миборовский U 05:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please be sure to watch it for a while to see if the anons and socks return; I've got to go to bed. (I'd planned on unprotecting both this and Userboxes in the morning.) &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, thanks for reminding me. I'll add the notice on that page too, but I'll not unprotect that for now. -- Миборовский U 05:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of userboxes
In my opinion, all of the following should be deleted, or at least adjusted so as to remedy the relevant defects:
 * 1) Any userbox which uses any nonfree image.
 * 2) Any userbox which includes content not appropriate for placement on a user page, per Wikipedia's user page policy, is offensive, or is incivil.
 * 3) Any userbox which tends to serve the purpose of organizing Wikipedians along political, ideological (other than Wikipedia-specific ideologies such as "inclusionist"), or religious lines, especially for the purpose of bloc voting or mobilizing in mass for or against any particular point of view.
 * 4) Any userbox which includes categorization code which puts the user who places it on his or her page into a category inappropriate for a user to be in.

I'll be generating a master list of unacceptable userboxes in the next few days. Based on what I found today, there are hundreds of unacceptable boxes, most of which need to go. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 2 seems fine; 1, 3 and 4 are more problematic (1, since the issue is the image, removing the image makes more sense; 3, because only people utilizing them as a voting bloc should be penalized; and 4, without clarification of what is deemed "inappropriate" this seems open ended). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The user page policy specifically states in what categories a user should be put in and not be put in, so there's nothing unclear about (4) above. (4) is actually a subcase of (2), but I felt like addressing it separately.  I would prefer deletion, but I'm willing to tolerate merely amending defective userboxes.  Frankly, I think you people need to lose this silly little fetish and actually get on to editing the encyclopedia.  Kelly Martin (talk) 05:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This "silly little fetish" is something that does not touch the article namespace, and can be safely ignored by anyone who doesn't see it's point. What possible reason could you have for being so confrontational (not to mention rudely uncivil) on this topic? – Seancdaug 06:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, how is this at all different from the large number of barnstars out there? Is that also a "silly little fetish"? —Locke Cole • t • c 06:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope you realize that number three is going to be near impossible to enforce. Pretty much every userbox could be classified as "organizing Wikipedians along a point of view". Morgan695 19:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And what about this section of text on User page?


 * A good start is to add a little information about yourself, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, your real name, your location, information about your areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, other homepages, and so forth. Obviously, this will depend on how comfortable you are with respect to privacy.


 * If we're going to start deleting userboxes involving people's opinions and views, then why don't we go through people's userpages and start deleting any text in which they talk about their own personal opinions? It's essentially the same thing. Morgan695 19:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not adverse to deleting 90% or more of user boxes. Most of them serve no useful purpose anyway. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * But if you're so adamant about deleting any personal opinion on Wiki, then your next project should be editing individual userpages to rid them of any personal opinion or thought. Like I said, it would essentially be the same thing as deleting userboxes. Morgan695 19:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ms. Martin, if you don't realize at this stage that there are an overwhelming number of editors who disagree with this statement, then I am concerned for you. This is a startlingly weak argument that smacks of petty incivility. Arguing that the presence of infoboxes is detrimental to the ideals of the project is one thing, arguing that they're not utilitarian enough is quite another. – Seancdaug 19:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Overwhelming number? What, 70 out of about 11,000 active editors?  That's not overwhelming.  It's barely noticeable, in fact. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the silent majority, as it were, is, by definition, silent. I would hope that this recent maelstrom would, if nothing else, indicate that there are a significant (if numerically small when placed against the backdrop of 11,000 active editors) number of editors who object to this unilateralist approach. The disapproval of 70+ editors should at least suggest that your statement is far from universally shared. – Seancdaug 05:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And there are maybe 20 who signed their names after your response. Should they be ignored completely? -- Миборовский U 05:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The question asked was: "If we're going to start deleting userboxes involving people's opinions and views, then why don't we go through people's userpages and start deleting any text in which they talk about their own personal opinions?". User pages contain divisive/libellous/hateful material above and beyond any of the userboxes. -- Synapse 21:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If userpages are so "divisive, libellous, and hateful" then why do userboxes seem to be Mrs. Martin's top priority? It seems userboxes are being used as a scapegoat for greater problems on Wikipedia. Morgan695 22:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I would add a fifth category: user boxes which amount to an endorsement of a commercial product or service (including, without limitation, sports teams). Kelly Martin (talk) 05:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And your support for this statement is? Other than the fact that it's potentially distasteful, it's not violating any policy or guidelines that I'm aware of, and it does not seem to fall into any of the two recognized categories of wikispam. – Seancdaug 06:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it up to any one person to deem 'inappropriate' in their/his/her/it 's powers of perception? Surely there needs to be some further clarification of the point made before being allowed? Not another Rfc? SatuSuro 05:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's very likely that there are a number of userboxes which most, if not all, of us would agree are in violation of Wikipedia guidelines on user page content. However, the pertinent section is a bit vague, and I am not sure that it's a good idea to make any unilateral declarations of appropriateness outside of the normal TfD process. What may seem like an irrelevant opinion piece to one user may actually serve as a statement of principles and perspective with direct relevance to how one goes about editing Wikipedia to another. – Seancdaug 06:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * All else aside, I would like to heartily and sincerely thank Ms. Martin for posting this. Though I clearly do not agree with all of her positions, I think this is a discussion worth having, and I thank her for sharing her motivations and giving members of this project advance notice of her intended future activities. – Seancdaug 06:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * We should have had this discussion before the mass deletions. And it needs to take place in a manner that permits for community consensus. This kind of top-down dictate is simply unacceptable. Firebug 15:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * About #3 - The problem is, some userboxes which you might deem "unacceptable" according to this criterion are serving a helpful, encyclopedia-related function in making it easier to find editors who are knowledgeable on a particular topic. For example, one of the main objectives behind the creation of a pagan case for Template:User religion was to make it easier to locate people who might have interest in/expertise on topics related to Neopaganism.  (There are currently some pretty big gaps in Wikipedia's coverage of these topics.)  Should userboxes like this be eliminated because they might be used to form voting blocs?  And also, how can we be justified in keeping userboxes related to such topics as inclusionism/deletionism, which are used to form voting blocs?  As I see it, a userbox that says "This user is an inclusionist/This user is a deletionist" with a link to the relevant organization is much more dangerous to Wikipedia than one that says "This user is a Unitarian Universalist" or "This user doesn't believe in Santa." - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 09:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have Wiki-bloc userboxes on my page (along with other potentially divisive 'group' identifiers) for precisely that reason. However, your point about Neopagans and other small blocs is a good one. I remember finding the Easter article stating definitively that 'Eostre' was a made up goddess that was never really worshipped... when the reality is that the limited evidence available all suggests that there was such a goddess, but there is no absolutely conclusive proof. A better organized pagan bloc might be able to more effectively respond to things like that. Unfortunately, the same mechanism (actually user categories - the boxes really just being an effective advertising method for those categories) which would allow a pagan group to organize would also allow an 'anti-pagan' group to do so and coordinate activities in removing/biasing pagan content. It leads to a 'warring camps' situation. I can't think of an easy way to balance the benefits of group organization against the drawbacks of group factionalism. That said, large groups don't need that kind of organization to drive article content... there are enough of them that it happens automatically. For smaller groups I might suggest a wikiproject. --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 13:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, according to WikiProject, "Generally you should have at least 5–10 people involved before a Wikiproject structure makes any sense and adds any value. If you don't think you'll get at least 5–10 people on board, then don't waste your effort—you'll be better off just writing your articles." To the best of my knowledge, Neopaganism doesn't yet meet that threshhold.  Part of the idea behind the userbox was that people would see it, and think, "Hey, cool userbox!" and put it on their userpage, and eventually we'd have gotten enough people together for a WikiProject to be viable.  I suppose I could list it on Wikiproject/List_of_proposed_projects, but that page seems to get very little traffic. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 00:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A possible solution is to change all the "is-a X/isn't-a X" or "for X/against X" userbox sets with a "interested in X" userbox. For example, "This user is interested in Environmentalism", "This user is interested in Unitarianism". This way it could avoid political overtones while still being used to link people who contribute to articles on the same topics -- Synapse 17:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was thinking along the same lines. I've recently blanked most of my userboxes in light of the bit of thought-provoking discussion sparked by the RfC, and I was thinking that such a rephrasing might be in order. Other editors probably don't care what religion or political party I'm involved with, or what TV shows I'm a fan of, per se, but it is useful to present information regarding what topics I'm interested in contributing to. – Seancdaug 18:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would support this... I'm personally a big fan of the Template:User religion interest that showed up recently. I think "Could this userbox be converted to express an interest rather than an affiliation/opinion?" is probably a pretty good rule of thumb for differentiating the good userboxes from the bad.  Converting the userboxes in this way would also pull the rug out from under most attempts to organize bloc voting based on userboxes, since it would combine people both "for" and "against" a position into one userbox. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 00:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "Any userbox which is offensive" &mdash; omg. Just about ANYTHING "offends" someone... That's ridiculous.


 * Userboxes for political and such AREN'T ever used for "bloc voting" that I've seen: the fact is they serve to help Wikipedians find other people knowledgeable about the same subjects. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  15:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel much of this is highly unfounded upon. Any any deletions you wish to make I request are made through the approiate channels, i.e. TfD. In my view no mass deletions should be made, it is a matter for the community to decide, not one individual. I ask every individual template on the master list has a full explanation on which rules it breaks, and I will try to list how it could be fixed or undertake the work myself. And I also request you are CIVIL about this, and do not treat us like we are in the wrong. Ian13ID:540053 19:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

-0 userboxes
On the topic of userboxes that serve no purpose except to be divisive, what do people think about the "lang-0" templates, such as User eo-0?

When User en-0 was first proposed, people seemed to agree that it was a useful template for the English Wikipedia, to convey the important information that a certain contributor does not understand English, but it wouldn't make any sense to do with other languages. But now -0 templates exist for various languages, dialects, and non-ISO "languages", and it seems their sole purpose is to express disdain about the target language. That strikes me as a pretty awful use of templates.

Any thoughts?  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  06:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think a lot of the non-ISO language -0 templates are primarily intended to be humorous. I don't really see a problem with them, but I wouldn't really fight their removal either. For "real" languages, I think they do serve a purpose. Take me, for example: I edit a fair number of articles relating to societies and cultures (particularly Japan and Wales). The -0 templates allow me to clarify that my interest in these subjects does not extend to a working knowledge of the language, which is potentially useful to know in a variety of situations (such as when dealing with foreign language sources). – Seancdaug 07:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Good news, "Userbox" prefix eliminated
As indicated here, usage of the "Userbox" prefix has been fixed (=eliminated). Those that remain with the "Userbox" prefix are creation templates that will remain with that prefix, as per this discussion. I guess the Current tasks section on the project page can be adjusted now...--Commander Keane 14:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Updating! Providing all those evil page protects are gone. Ian13ID:540053 17:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)