Wikipedia:Mackensen's Proposal/Straw Poll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Exquisite-khelpcenter.png This is a non-binding survey of opinion. You are not voting on a proposal. Please help by expressing a preference on the questions below, adding a new question of your own, or discussing your opinion on the talk page.

Straw Poll[edit]

Feel free to add more questions to this poll. The purpose of this poll is to get an idea of where people stand on various issues related to the Proposal. This is not a vote on the Proposal itself, and is not binding in any way, shape, or form.

Question 1: Require Subst[edit]

  • Question 1: Do you support the requirement that all or substantially all templates intended to be used in user space for other than administrative purposes be substed on user pages?

Support requiring subst, sign here with ~~~~:

  1. BigDT 00:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Cyde Weys 01:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Mackensen (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Nhprman 04:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. David | Talk 10:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Misza13 T C 13:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. American Patriot 1776 15:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Metamagician3000 02:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. SHININGEYES 03:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Yes, and remove the cats from them too (I'm too lazy to scroll down and see if that's another poll right now) --Rory096 05:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    I would find this acceptable, as a consensus policy and combined with Mackensen's other proposals; as I have commented below, {{userbox}} might be more acceptable. I am intentionally unnumbered, since this is weak support.Septentrionalis 22:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Afonso Silva 18:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose requiring subst, sign here with ~~~~:

  1. JohnnyBGood Flag of Mexico.svg t c 01:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC). Whatlinks here is just too useful to lose in many cases.
  3. TheJabberwʘck 01:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Few benefits do not outweigh added difficulty of using code and loss of positive "Wiki effect."
  4. At the present wording, I can't support - see comment below. -- grm_wnr Esc 02:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Rfrisbietalk 02:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC) I can conditionally support. See comment.
  6.  Grue  11:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC) (subst is a mess)
  7. Nightstallion (?) 13:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Would rather see some sort of "User template:" space that doesn't support "what links here". --StuffOfInterest 18:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Andux 20:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. A bit too far reaching. I think the uncontroversial "interests" boxes (e.g. "This user is interested in botany") might stay transcluded on userpages. The controversial boxes ("This user is a socialist") should be subst:ed however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. "All or almost all"? No, I think that goes to far. Bucketsofg 18:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. // The True Sora No, see my essay.
  13. No. What TheTrueSora said. Greg the White Falcon 00:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. No... this effectively is the same as phasing out and prohibiting the use of all user templates... which is drastic. However (and this is seprate) if any templates were to be removed, it should be a requirement that such a template which should be removed, be subst~d first. That's just a common courtesy, and I don't think there is anyone I've heard from, anywhere on the userbox opinion spectrum, who disagrees with that. Just to clarify. D. G. 01:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. This is billed as a compromise, but is anything but. Jay Maynard 11:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose yet another divisive anti-UBX effort. John Reid 13:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose, didn't we already have this debate back in December? The result was to keep userboxes as they are. Gateman1997 16:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose: Either go with TheTrueSora's proposal or keep as-is. Fairsing 18:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  19. Bad, bad idea. This would destroy the connective value of useful userboxes, not just useless ones: it's a good thing to let "people interested in architecture" find one another by checking "what links here". Remove the baby from the birthwater first, please. Also, raw code for userboxes is monstrously difficult to manage and organize; it consumes 50 times as much space on users' pages as the simple template code does, and thus also consumes vastly more of our users' time than simple templates do, which means much, much less time for editing the encyclopedia for anyone who has a minor userbox hobby. That's a Bad Thing, for those keeping track. -Silence 21:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  20. Sarge Baldy 02:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  21. Yet another lame sig I came up with T | @ | C 04:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  22. Hirudo 07:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  23. Sarahgal 20:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  24. Srongly Oppose This is not a compromise but a continuation of an anti-userbox position. —David618 t 23:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  25. Strong Oppose There are many userboxes that should survive even the strictest scrutiny Eluchil404 02:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose I think that WP:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored also applies to userboxes, and that POV boxes on userpages in itself cause little harm. Force-substing them will only futher agitate many pro-userbox users, and take away good wiki-functionality. CharonX 21:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  27. Opppose as "all", would Support if the {{userbox}} and babelbox families were excluded. GRBerry 09:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  28. Ou tis 18:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose per my userpage. Raichu 00:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  30. strong oppose. Templates are a useful organizational tool, that centralize the maintenance of templates and provide the what-links-here option. — brighterorange (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  31. STRONG OPPOSE What if a guy wants another guy's box? He's gotta decipher the code and tell where it starts and stops. Then copy and paste it. Templates are easy to remember. GangstaEB EA 12:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  32. Oppose codes are hard to handle and cannot be updated for all users and thus effectively break up the userbox community and are a major step towards their annihilation. Tal :) 11:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  33. Oppose This would take away the ease of using them. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  34. OPPOSE!!! Just.... don't.... Tyson MooreTalk 21:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  35. Oppose Dead men's bells 01:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • This is the essence of the proposal. Without this, there's nothing. Mackensen (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, I agree ... I thought it was a worthwhile question to ask, though. If 100 people say no and 10 say yes, then we might as well quit and go back to WP:DRVU because any proposal would never get approved anyway so there's no sense talking about it. BigDT 01:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure that's true. If most of the no voters are (like me) pro-templatebox, a less restrictive alternative like Wikipedia:Userbox policy might succeed. TheJabberwʘck 01:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
        • But it didn't, a fact I very much regret. This policy, at least as I intended it, is even less restrictive as it would impose no value/moral judgments. None. Mackensen (talk) 01:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
          • If I'm not mistaken, Wikipedia:Userbox policy was never voted on, and is completely different from Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll. It is less restrictive than the current TfD standards, since it only prohibits "deliberately inflammatory, destructive, or obscene" content (emphasis mine). TheJabberwʘck 01:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Ah hah, my mistake. Yes, I'm aware of that proposal. My primary concern is that it is very long and overly concerned with various formatting issues. Policies should strive to be as simple as possible. Mackensen (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This needs clarification. Would you consider using {{userbox}} with parameters directly on an user page okay, or would you require substing that as well? -- grm_wnr Esc 02:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I would be fine with that. Mackensen (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I voted oppose but I can conditionally support if userboxes can have categories in them on userpages and the userboxes in templatespace are categorized. What I support is self-selected and automated groupings of wikipedians. I see no problem whatsoever with transcluding userboxes from templatespace, but I would be willing to support subst if and only if the capability to preserve and expand the wikipedian categories currently embedded in many templates is protected. This has two parts, categorizing wikipedians and categorizing the userboxes. Using the administrative categories classification system is a fundamental way to access wikipedians and userboxes by topic. If "What links here" is eliminated, then categorization is the only automated grouping approach left, as far as I know. This protection would have to be explicitly spelled out in the policy for me to support it. Rfrisbietalk 02:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see any reason to. I'm not dead set against it - I just can't think of a reason you would need to. I guess using {{userbox}} directly makes it easier to maintain ... but if it's a point of contention, I wouldn't see any reason to fight over it one way or the other. BigDT 02:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support if user categories are kept, Oppose if use category are removed. The basic concept behind the inital userboxes was to provide a discussion page for specific types of users and allow others to find specific people. As long as there is a way for users to find other users of a certain POV, so that if one requires a balancing POV while editing, they can find them. P.S., just read Rfrisbie comment above, looks like we have basically the same idea. --Rayc 19:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I would say we are in argeement on this. Rfrisbietalk 19:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Reasoning... I think the better policy is to move the userboxes to a new namespace, as per my essay. // The True Sora 20:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Beno1000 22:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - divisive creates a nightmare of maintenance for userpages. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 17:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Template:userpage gets updated from time to time. Of course some mirrors ignore templates so you win some you lose some.Geni 07:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No. This would lead to the slow end of userboxes, which give Wikipedia userpages a common layout theme, which is good, I think. StuffOfInterest's idea to make a separate space "User Template" sounds good, though. Herostratus 07:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: this does not include the possihility of changing to {{userbox}}. This would not change some people's opinions, but it might change some. Septentrionalis 22:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Question 2: Allow individual userbox templates to remain in template space[edit]

  • Question 2: Do you support allowing all or substantially all of the current userboxes to remain in template space, provided that they are substed into user space, and not transcluded?

Support userboxes in template space for substitution purposes, sign here with ~~~~:

  1. BigDT 00:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Maybe. I'm still not sure. Mackensen (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Second choice. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. What can be transcluded can also be substituted. D. G. 01:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. What is the sense in letting current users have their boxes while removing the avenue for future users. A library to subst from is fine for me. Ansell Review my progress! 23:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Doesn't hurt anything if it's substed, and there's no reason to put it anywhere else. Saying that templatespace is for whatever content is arbitrary and unnecessary. --Rory096 05:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Support userboxes in template space for transclusion purposes (the status quo), sign here with ~~~~:

  1. TheJabberwʘck 01:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Grutness...wha? 01:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Rfrisbietalk 02:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  4.  Grue  11:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. StuffOfInterest 18:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. This is OK for most "normal" userboxes (e.g. "this user is interested in chemistry"), though not all of them (e.g. political/religious ones). Silly boxes ("This user likes to contribute to Wikipedia while bathing in a lava lake") should ultimately be sendt to userspace though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. First choice. Fine once you remove the category, because then they can't be used for vote-stacking. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. I support the status quo. Bucketsofg 19:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Greg the White Falcon 00:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. I support the status quo too. However, as Sjakkalle said, userboxes which are in standard template space should have reasonable standards applied to them, rather than any damn thing. Meaning what's useful for the administration of the editing process, e.g., "This user is interested in physics." :-) And keeping a "virtual namespace" totally seperate is a critical requirement. I.e., require "user " prefix. D. G. 01:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Changing the status quo doesn't fix any of the stated problems. Jay Maynard 11:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Wouldn't solve any problems, anyway. Beno1000 23:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. I like the status quo. Everyone who likes them are happy, everyone who doesn't like them have no real reason to complain. Gateman1997 09:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Status quo. Valentinian (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. Hirudo 07:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. This is fine by me though a new namespace would hopefully stop the debate —David618 t 23:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Ou tis 18:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  18. JohnnyBGood Flag of Mexico.svg t c 01:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  19. GangstaEB EA 12:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  20. Dead men's bells 01:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Support userboxes in user space for substitution purposes, sign here with ~~~~:

  1. Mackensen (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Nhprman 04:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Again, transc. implies subst. D. G. 01:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Second choice, easier to gain consensus for this than for transclusion purposes. GRBerry 10:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Support userboxes in user space for transclusion purposes, sign here with ~~~~:

  1. Rfrisbietalk 02:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Andux 20:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. I don't see why anyone would oppose the existence of userboxes in user space. In userspace there is no difference as to whether it "is" a template or not. I think clamping down on what people can do in the namespace of their own userpage (beyond the obvious reasonable standards) is silly. Userspace is often quite useful for all kinds of strange general experimentation that eventually contributes to the encyclopaedia, such as messing around with wiki syntax or editing a bit of an article on your own, just whatever. D. G. 01:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. First choice, allows the benefit of what links here to find editors. I see more benefit from that than cost from the rare case of vote-stacking. GRBerry 10:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. There are already so many different opinions and layouts in userspace, it seems perfect to add this too. Tranclusion is preferred, mainly because of what-links-here. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose existence of all userbox templates (other than the basic {{userbox}} template), sign here with ~~~~:

  1. Cyde Weys 01:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    Cyde, I hope I didn't put words in your mouth ... I wanted to update the choices based on the comments below. Please reword this answer if it isn't what you support BigDT 01:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Plain code put in a gallery is enough for demonstrational purposes. Misza13 T C 13:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose yet another divisive anti-UBX effort. John Reid 13:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Tyson MooreTalk 21:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • I support userboxes in template space, but oppose subst'ing them. With subst'ing, there's no way of finding out who is using a particular userbox, which is the only possible reason why such things are useful in the first place! Grutness...wha? 01:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought their purpose was self-expression, frankly. Surely categories can fulfill such a role? Mackensen (talk) 01:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That's their purpose to the person putting them on their user page, but not how they're useful to other editors! I'll give an example. I had to edit a template featuring the Dome of the Rock. I wanted opinions on the use of that image from a Jew and an Arab living in or near Jerusalem. That was easy to do by checking the userboxes available in WP - I just followed the "whatlinkshere" links to a couple of user pages. If the userboxes had been subst'ed, that would not have been possible. If the userboxes had been subst'ed, there would also have been no possibility of hunting for them in user categories, since such categories would not exist (categories with userboxes aren't really needed as long as you have whatlinkshere, which does the jib just as effectively but with less clutter). I've had similar cases of needing to find neutral Wikipedians and Wikipedians who have insight into two sides of an article at other times, too, and also Wikipedians who have specialist knowledge of a field. userboxes are very very useful for these purposes. Grutness...wha? 01:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Might want to move your vote to the second option. TheJabberwʘck 01:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No, because I dn't oppose userbox templates being in template space. This poll question gives only two options, both of which assume a removal of some kind for userboxes - either from template space, or from wikipedia overall. I support neither of these things. It's kind of like asking "do you want to play soccer against a team with two goalkeepers or three goalkeepers?" Grutness...wha? 01:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I interpreted the second option (of three) to mean the status quo, actually. Mackensen (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Three options now. Yes, I think it is the status quo. TheJabberwʘck 01:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Based on what you guys said, I added two more choices - some people just want userboxes out of template space and want them in user space, out of sight out of mind - I think that's what Grutness was going for, eg, with a fake user named "template" so the userboxes would be located at "User:Template/User Christian" or some such place. It's a completely and totally unworkable solution IMO, but for completeness, I put the answer up there. BigDT 01:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
no, I was looking for the templates in template space and not subst'ed. That option wasn't there when I initially voted, which was the problem (apologies to Iamthejabberwock - I thought that was still the situation when he commented above, but it wasn't). Grutness...wha? 01:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I can conditionally support subst, given category protections noted in my Q1 comments. Rfrisbietalk 02:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Question 3: User Categories[edit]

  • Question 3: Should all user categories not directly related to a Wikipedia editing interest or skill be removed?

Support removing user categories, sign here with ~~~~:

  1. BigDT 00:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Cyde Weys 01:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Grutness...wha? 01:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC) - iff userboxes are not subst'ed.
  4. TheJabberwʘck 01:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC) per Grutness, as a reasonable compromise.
  5. iff userboxes are not subst'ed. Agree with Grutness. Mackensen (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Yes. Definitely. David | Talk 10:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. generally agree.  Grue  11:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Agree per above. Either categories or Whatlinkshere. Not both. Misza13 T C 13:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support, but policy will need to be clear on what is or is not legitimate. --StuffOfInterest 18:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Yes, this was the real problem in the first place. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Yes. I assume a geographic location would be considered an "interest" as it could help with organising local meet-ups, etc. Metamagician3000 02:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Fully support. They are definitely causing vote-stacking problems directly. See neutral arguments about ambiguities and hence potential for arguments over its definition. Ansell Review my progress! 23:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. SHININGEYES 03:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. I cannot support this more. This, along with whatlinkshere are what lets votestacking exist. Remove these, and userboxen are completely harmless. --Rory096 05:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Limited Support I agree with the commentators that a better wording needs to be found. But in the vote-stacking examples I've seen offered to date, the real enabling tool was the category, not the userbox. GRBerry 10:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Afonso Silva 18:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  18. Per Grutness (If boxes are not subst, you know it can be useful to find editors with similar interest...) Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support per Rory096, although I would like to see the proposal broadened a bit to include location etc. For instancem I once use the "Wikipedians from Arizona" to query editors on whether they had ever heard of an Arizonan ranch that was up for AfD (they hadn't). Herostratus 16:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support, however any policy created will have to be narrow on what is allowed and what is not ><Richard0612 UW 20:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose removing user categories, sign here with ~~~~:

  1. JohnnyBGood Flag of Mexico.svg t c 01:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Rfrisbietalk 03:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Too restrictive and subject to edit warring.
  3. Some of these "entertainment" categories replaced the old lists which had a number of respected contributors signing up on them for fun, e.g. Wikipedia:Wikipedians by D&D alignment. As long as they are well-populated and not harmful I don't think we need to remove them. If we do, we should revert back to the lists. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Bucketsofg 19:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. This is one of the most damn useful things about them. WHY? D. G. 01:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Removing them is an attempt to deny the fact that people will form interest groups, and is doomed to fail - and is antisocial in the process. Jay Maynard 11:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose yet another divisive anti-UBX effort. John Reid 13:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Location is not an interest or skill per se, but is useful; web browser is not an interest or skill per se, but is useful; the same applies to many, many other valid usercategories. Also, I really don't see any big problem with letting people have a few humorous usercategories, just for fun: unlike userboxes, which can be utilized in a wide variety of ways and don't necessarily require templates (much less templates in templatespace), usercategories can only be used in this specific way, and creating a new namespace would be very wasteful and ineffective. -Silence 21:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Harmless, and potentially useful for developing WikiProjects. Sarge Baldy 02:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Sarahgal 20:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. MSTCrow 10:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. GangstaEB EA 12:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. Any type of category can be useful to help wikipedians have better contacts with each other and user categories in general are an integral part of Wikipedia's vigorous flourishing comunnity and deleting them is both antisocial and harmful to the commmunity and ultimately to the whole project.
  14. As per GangstaEB. Abeg92 19:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Dead men's bells 01:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • I'll stay neutral, "directly related to a Wikipedia editing interest or skill" is still much too vague for me. -- grm_wnr Esc 02:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "not directly related" is the rub. There can be many valid reasons to categorize wikipedians. The primary reasons are related to editing specific articles. Collaboration and community building are instrumental to that end. Many of these "off topic" categories further the project nonetheless. Another valid class of userboxes are those related to wikipedian demographics. You can see some examples here: User:Jimbo Wales/Userboxes. Rfrisbietalk 03:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't really fairly put down oppose or support on this. I support the general idea. Userboxes should serve Wikipedia. However, the wording... I worry. I don't want to see a harsh standard that could clobber things that are reasonable. But I do believe a general guiding purpose in userbox policy should be that userboxes exist to serve Wikipedia and better it. D. G. 01:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral I agree with Jay Maynard in that it may be perceived as antisocial. Wikipedia requires a community in order to make an encyclopedia. However, Wikipedia should not lose its focus. Additionally, I agree with the other comments in that the question is very vaguely phrased. michaelb Talk to this user 21:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This relates somewhat to questions 9–10, below, thusly: If there's a new "Wikipedia category" space (for categories outisde the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia, categories relatnig to the community or to editing, like category:if templates and category:redirects from alternate names), then that'd be a great place (imho) for user categories, whether related to editing interests or not; otherwise, perhaps there should not be non-editing-related user categories. (And I say this despite the fact that I've categorized my own user page into many of these!)—msh210 06:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Question 4: User Categories in Userboxes[edit]

  • Question 4: Without regard to where and how userboxes exist, should the inclusion of categories in a userbox be permitted?

Support all kinds of user categories in userboxes, sign here with ~~~~:

  1. JohnnyBGood Flag of Mexico.svg t c 01:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Rfrisbietalk 03:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Bucketsofg 19:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Greg the White Falcon 00:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Without any doubt! D. G. 01:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. As above. Jay Maynard 11:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Sarge Baldy 02:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Sarahgal 20:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. David618 t 23:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. MSTCrow 10:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. GangstaEB EA 12:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. Userboxs help create and maintain user categories and limiting or prohibiting categories in userboxes will severely damage user categories in general. Tal :) 11:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. Dead men's bells 01:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Support only editing interest/skill user categories in userboxes, sign here with ~~~~:

  1. TheJabberwʘck 01:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC) as a reasonable compromise.
  2. Categories are useful.  Grue  11:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. StuffOfInterest 17:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Andux 20:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Well, I am a slightly more liberal than this, but I don't think we should have categories for socialist Wikipedians either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Somewhere in this area would be OK. The D&D alignment categories aren't too much of a problem, but categories based on religion, beliefs, socialism, etc., etc. perpetuate votestacking. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. I can't see the problem if it's categories that benefit the encyclopedia. Metamagician3000 02:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. This strikes me as a sensible compromise. Of course it will require a process for adjudicating exactly what constitutes a editing interest / skill category and what does not, but I think the community ought to be able to handle this. Fairsing 03:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. With the caveat that we need a better definition, as per the prior question. GRBerry 10:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Tyson MooreTalk 21:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


Oppose all kinds of user categories in userboxes, sign here with ~~~~:

  1. BigDT 00:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Cyde Weys 01:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Iff userboxes are not subst'ed. "Whatlinkshere" fulfils the same role in that case. Grutness...wha? 01:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Again, per Grutness. Mackensen (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Never. David | Talk 10:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. per Gruntness. Misza13 T C 13:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose yet another divisive anti-UBX effort. John Reid 13:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    Did you even read the question? ugen64 03:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. They are not useful at all given their disadvantages. Lists are fine for administrative efforts. And this defeats the strength of the anti-votestacking class of arguments. Ansell Review my progress! 23:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. I'd be OK with editing/wikiproject cats, but it's not really necessary. Other cats are just methods for votestacking. --Rory096 05:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Per Grutness Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Categories are much more powerful than "What links here," even though both are useful, and I support both. What links here is linear. Categories form a network. In this case, multiple userboxes can link to the same category - allowing the "subst diversity promise" I've heard as a benefit. Subcategories can then be arranged in hierarchies and networks that serve multiple instrumental purposes for the betterment of the project. If tranclusion is prohibited, then prohibiting categories as well is the deal breaker for me. Rfrisbietalk 03:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Question 5: Restrictions on UBX Library[edit]

  • Question 5: If individual userboxes are deleted and a library is maintained of demonstration userboxes similar to WP:UBX, what kinds of restrictions should be placed on userboxes that may reside in that library? This question is not about what may be permitted in user space, but about the library itself. (You may choose more than one.)

No restrictions, aside from personal attacks - if it is legal in user space, it's legal in the library, sign here with ~~~~:

  1. Mackensen (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. TheJabberwʘck 01:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. That's what we're doing this whole thing for. -- grm_wnr Esc 02:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Rfrisbietalk 03:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC) the instrumentality of how userboxes are placed in userspace is irrelevant
  5. Misza13 T C 13:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Cynical 15:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. StuffOfInterest 17:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. If it's destined for user space, all bets are off. Jay Maynard 11:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. If this is problematic, simply put the library in userspace. :) Problem solved. If we were to put a restriction on this list (which I'm not 100% opposed to, but have yet to hear a good proposal for the consistent application of yet), I'd put an inclusion restriction based on usefulness, not on inoffensiveness. "This user is an atheist." is vastly more offensive to vastly more people than "This user likes cottage cheese.", but I'd infinitely prefer archiving the former than the latter, because it's simply much more useful and relevant. Taste is much more subjective than utility. -Silence 21:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. If it's problematic, the community will reach a consensus on it. Sarge Baldy 02:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. I'm not opposed to restrictions on demonstrably offensive userboxes -- although defining what that means will be difficult -- but if it's ok in one space it doesn't make sense to be prohibited in another. It's not like we have an "Adults" section and a "Children" section or anything like that on Wikipedia. If the concern is that personal userboxes might be interpreted in some way as "official" Wikipedia statements, moving the Library itself into userspace might be a better way to solve that. Fairsing 03:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Anything else is just a user POV against what other users can have. Anything legal in article space can't exactly be banned in user space and still claim not to censor users. Ansell Review my progress! 23:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. As long as there is no votestacking (see above proposals), there's no reason to restrict content. I use userboxen because I'm too lazy to write stuff out, so if I could say it if I did write it out, I should be able to say it if I just wrote {{user blue}}. --Rory096 06:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Hirudo 07:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. Sarahgal 20:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. David618 t 23:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. With all restrictions that normally apply to user space. (These are more than just "no personal attacks".) GRBerry 10:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Why regulate userboxes any differently than the rest of user space? — brighterorange (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  19. GangstaEB EA 12:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  20. Tal :) 11:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  21. Dead men's bells 01:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No political or religious userboxes, except as they may relate to editing (eg, "This user edits articles on Christianity" would be permissible, but "This user is a Born again Christian would not be), sign here with ~~~~:

  1. Cyde Weys 01:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. SHININGEYES 03:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


No NEGATIVE or SARCASTIC userboxes with respect to religious/political issues (eg, "This user left the Catholic Church", "This user worships pink unicorns", "This user would never vote for Hillary Clinton" are prohibited in the library, sign here with ~~~~:

  1. BigDT 00:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. JohnnyBGood Flag of Mexico.svg t c 01:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Don't need them. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. SHININGEYES 03:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Valentinian (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Unneccessary inflammatory.

Userboxes with profanity or nudity are prohibited in the library, sign here with ~~~~:

  1. BigDT 00:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. JohnnyBGood Flag of Mexico.svg t c 01:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Grutness...wha? 01:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. SHININGEYES 03:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Valentinian (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. GangstaEB EA 13:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Unneccessary inflammatory.
  9. DavidBailey 01:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Wouldn't prohibiting userspace-legal boxes in the Library be basically censoring their content? TheJabberwʘck 01:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not really censoring. You can say anything you want on your user page - just don't put it in the library. The library is on WP space, not user space, so it doesn't automatically follow that anything appropriate for a user space would always 100% be appropriate for WP space. Personally, I would probably be happy if profane/offensive userboxes are just kept confined to somewhere that I never have to go - a separate subpage of the library - out of sight, out of mind - although, I'd rather keep the questionable ones out of there completely. Again, this is just about the library, not about userspace, and then (from my POV), just about the unambiguously offensive ones - either because they are profane or because they inherently express a disdain for another's religion or politics. I see nothing wrong with "I am a Christian" in the religion section, but I do see something wrong with "I don't like Catholics", "I left Islam", "I want boobies" (with an explicit picture thereof), etc. If it is intentionally and inherently offensive, I'd rather keep it out of WP space. BigDT 02:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Your arguments have merit - as do arguments for censoring Wikipedia articles for minors - but I don't think they're in line with the current consensus. You seem to be suggesting that WP space is more restricted than user space or article space. I'm not sure if there's a specific policy regarding WP space, but I think the general censorship policy suggests that it is not subject to any more restrictions than other spaces.
  • I think a better solution is to forbid the intentionally offensive boxes from template space in the first place. That is my favorite part of the proposed Wikipedia:Userbox policy. TheJabberwʘck 04:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that setting up such a library of userboxes that have some kind of approval for use in userspace would be a nightmare. I don't mind what goes on userpages, unless it is so extreme as to bring Wikipedia into disrepute or contains personal attacks. But if we give any sort of official imprimatur to a batch of userboxes, we'll end up with endless disputes about what belongs there and what doesn't. It's better that if anyone does want to exercise the privilege of having userboxes (that are not encyclopedic ones) that they be forced to go to some trouble to write them themselves, or copy something they see and like from another userpage that they stumble across. There should be no category of userboxes that have an official imprimatur for userspace while being unhelpful to writing an encyclopedia. Metamagician3000 03:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I haven't seen such a firestorm on Wikipedia:Userboxes; why do you think it'll occur in the proposed library? That would only happen if the library had further restrictions such as "No NEGATIVE or SARCASTIC userboxes." If it's just a compilation of all userboxes in template space, there won't be any issues abour what belongs there - the issues will take place about the templates themselves. Also, you could argue that having a central repository saves time, and is thus helpful to the encyclopedia. TheJabberwʘckhelp! 15:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • But Wikipedia:Userboxes gives a tiny number of completely innocuous examples. It is not like a comprehensive library that might contain vast numbers of controversial userboxes pushing all sorts of limits of whatever code of practice is developed - and there would have to be some code of practice to deal with offensive ones, etc. And I just don't see the need for this library. The only reason I used userboxes was because of the facility to do so. If it hadn't been there, I wouldn't have cared, or I might just have filched some that I happened to see on others' userpages. It's best for the longer-term future if we do nothing to facilitate the use of non-encyclopedic userboxes, while letting them sit on the userpages of people who go to the trouble to write their own (as I've now done) or to copy ones they happen to see and like. Metamagician3000 01:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Not if you look at all the subpages - Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs, for example. It is pretty comprehensive, and it does have some controversial ones. As for the meat of your arguments, I'd just like to offer myself as a counterexample. I would have compiled the userboxes I have now whether or not there was a central repository. The only difference is that it would have taken me a lot longer. In general, repressing information is a bad thing, no matter how good your intentions are. Λυδαcιτγ 04:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
What ever is decided no fair use images.Geni 07:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The library will need, for management reasons alone, to be broken into subpages. Arrange it so the most favored varieties are more prominently displayed - ie, these subpages are linked first. (Those that can be templates on top, then others asserting expertise, then then those asserting a POV, then humorous/Myspace type). Feel free to include educational text in the library top level page.) 10:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

  1. Oppose yet another divisive anti-UBX effort. John Reid 13:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose what? TheJabberwʘckhelp! 15:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Question 6: Moratorium on New Userboxes[edit]

  • Question 6: Assuming that non-administrative templates are banned, but regardless of the exact proposal adopted or the timeframe of the adoption of that proposal, should there be an immediate moratorium on the creation of new non-administrative templates for user space and that any userboxes created after this date should automatically be substed, speedied, and their link(s) on WP:UBX replaced with raw {{userbox}} code?

Support no new userboxes, sign here with ~~~~:

  1. BigDT 00:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Cyde Weys 01:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Purely for purposes of administrative coherence. Mackensen (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. TheJabberwʘck 01:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Seems pretty obvious as an implementation of the policy.
  5. A long-term solution is required. Misza13 T C 13:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. This is a disgusting assumption for me to make, but just as matter of logic, yes, that is what such a ban would entail. It is like asking, assuming 2 and 2 make 5, do 2 and 3 make 6? Well, yes, they do (never mind the holes in that analogy). This should not be done, but theoretically, it should be obvious that this is the ideal way to implement it. I think many of the opposers are under the (very understandable) impression that this question is asking whether a moratorium should be undertaken at all. D. G. 02:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Metamagician3000 02:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. SHININGEYES 03:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Afonso Silva 18:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose no new userboxes, sign here with ~~~~:

  1. JohnnyBGood Flag of Mexico.svg t c 01:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Grutness...wha? 01:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC) unless it can be guaranteed that no new and useful types of userboxes can be created (which doesn't seem likley)
  3. regardless of the exact proposal adopted or the timeframe of the adoption of that proposal - No, I'm not giving out policy wildcards. This can only be decided after the policy has been made at least halfway solid. I'd support in principle. -- grm_wnr Esc 02:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Rfrisbietalk 03:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. who knows what people can come up with?  Grue  11:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. I wouldn't ban all new but I would require them to use the {{Userbox}} super-template so that if a subst comes along later the resulting code left of user's pages will be clean. --StuffOfInterest 17:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Sandpiper 18:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC) sounds like a back-door ban if all else fails
  8. A bit too far reaching. I have noticed we don't have a userbox "This user likes basketball", and while I have no intention of creating one, I see no reason to put a moratorium on that type of thing. Instead, I support a moratorium of the controversial religious/political boxes and urge anyone who wants to make a humorous sillybox do so in userspace. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. No reason whatsoever for this. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Bucketsofg 19:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose yet another divisive anti-UBX effort. John Reid 13:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Per Jimbo's comments (and common sense), be much, much more willing to speedy-delete or otherwise deal with inappropriate new userboxes than inappropriate old userboxes. But the moratorium on userboxes should be an informal one, not an absolute mandate to create no new boxes, as proposed above: otherwise we stand to waste more time deleting and fighting than we do establishing a consistent policy for these things. -Silence 21:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. I see no fundamental difference between new userboxes and new text placed on user pages. Sarge Baldy 02:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Doesn't make sense to me. If you have userboxes, why no new ones? The world isn't a static place; there will be new Wikiprojects started, and if old Wikiprojects can have them new ones should be able to have them too. Fairsing 03:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. Ansell Review my progress! 23:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. I strongly agree with discouraging new creations, but a ban on them is too far. --Rory096 06:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Sarahgal 21:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. David618 t 23:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  19. MSTCrow 10:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  20. Another attempt to slowly kill userboxes. We don't make new ones, but we delete 2 and 3 each day at WP:TFD GangstaEB EA 12:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  21. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Keeping all that exists, but not allowing new ones just sounds like a strange solution. Either allow (with restrictions) them or remove them all.
  22. Dead men's bells 01:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


Comments

  • Please read the question - specifically, Sjakkalle, Stifle. and Sandpiper (the three S's). This is already "[a]ssuming that non-administrative templates are banned," and asking if there should then be a moratorium on such boxes. Giving support to this in no way indicates support for banning such templates, but instead shows support for implementing such a ban if it is extant. I find this an obvious extension of such a policy - of course banned boxes cannot be created anymore. TheJabberwʘckhelp! 23:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Fairsing too. Read the question carefully! The old WikiProjects will not be allowed to have these userboxes, assuming the policy is implemented in this way. Nobody will! Λυδαcιτγ 04:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC) (same guy as above)
    • Thank you - that helps to clarify. The phrase that threw me off was the "regardless of the exact proposal adopted," which I took to mean "no matter what happens" no new userboxes would be allowed. The question is actually meant to say, if *all* userbox templates are banned then there can be no new ones, which of course only makes sense. I take responsibility for not reading the question closely enough to parse this out, and also respectfully suggest that the question's wording could be clearer. Thanks! Fairsing 23:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Certainly, and thanks for understanding. I italicized the question a bit; what else would you suggest? Λυδαcιτγ(TheJabberwock) 01:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't know that you need to make changes now; there doesn't seem to be as much new activity on the straw poll as of the past few days so there may not be a lot of "new" voters around. In any case, if I were to take a cut at rewriting the question from scratch, maybe something like this: "If all non-administrative templates were to be banned, making the existence of userboxes in template space a violation of official Wikipedia policy, should a moratorium subsequently be implemented to enforce this policy by automatically subst-ing new userboxes, speedy deleting them, and replacing their link(s) on WP:UBX with raw userbox code?" Somewhat wordy, I know, but pehaps a bit more clear. Fairsing 22:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Question 7: Construction of the Proposal[edit]

  • Question 7: Assuming that we reach such a stage, the proposal should be crafted in such a manner that users can indicate a level of support, so that even if the entire proposal is not accepted, a lesser version might be adopted. This could be done through approval voting.

Support Proposal is broken into chunks, sign here with ~~~~.

  1. TheJabberwʘck 01:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC) And combined with the other proposals at the bottom of the page.
  2. That is, to borrow from web design, the proposal should degrade gracefully. This will take forethought, but we're all bright fellows and ought to be able to manage it. Mackensen (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Conditional Support - in general, yes, but if something weird happens, like mass bot-assisted substing is rejected and mass deletion of userboxes is approved ... ugh ... there just needs to be some intelligence factor in here. BigDT 02:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Rfrisbietalk 03:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Some choices might make sense as "Options: A, B, A and B" etc.
  5. Makes it easier to get an agreeable result. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. The less that is rammed down our throats, the better. Jay Maynard 11:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Preliminary support, but it depends on whether the right questions are being asked. Sarge Baldy 02:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Has pretty well already been summed up by the people above. DarthVader 01:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. What BigDT said. --Rory096 06:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Somes good, some is horrific (no offense) GangstaEB EA 13:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose All or nothing, whatever is decided, sign here with ~~~~.

  1. It needs to be handled as a package. Straw polls are good for crafting a package but final approval needs to be all or nothing. Otherwise you can end up with the partial approval situation listed in the conditional support above. --StuffOfInterest 17:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. I agree with Stuff. This is the stage for putting together one proposal. That proposal should stand or fall as written. Bucketsofg 19:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose the snarkiest attempt to bypass community consensus-building I have read in a long, long time. We are currently working on our Userbox policy. It will not be easy or without pain but eventually a consensus version will emerge if fanatics on all sides simply cool out and make an effort to work together. Go to the policy page. Read the policy. If you object to it, edit it. Respect your fellow editors and work toward consensus. This is the way we do things around here -- the way of the wiki. John Reid 13:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Chopping it up might leave us with a final solution nobody ever wanted. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • I think it's much too early for this one. --Cyde Weys 01:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I just wanted to make sure I wasn't the only one who was thinking along these lines. Mackensen (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A specific example of "A and B" would go something like - "Substitute templates and keep their related categories." Rfrisbietalk 19:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Cyde. Let's wait until a candidate policy has been put together and then we'll see. That said, it's a great idea. The last poll got 61% and almost passed, ending the war. Had it had a little bit of modularity, we might not even be discussing this now. D. G. 02:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Userbox policy is, by definition, the current proposed policy. Rfrisbietalk 14:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Why? John Reid simply happened to create a page with that title - it has not gained consensus any more than this one has. At this phase, there are multiple proposed policies, as you can see at the bottom of WP:MACK. TheJabberwʘckhelp! 20:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • All I'm doing is reading the name of the article. That's the first place I assume most readers would look. Obviously, many current and dead alternatives exist. Perhaps an NPOV disambig page should be created to keep track of them all. By the way, I can't wait for the "conference committee" to get together to reconcile all these different proposals. ;-) Rfrisbietalk 14:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment to John Reid: Both this and Wikipedia:Userbox policy are just proposals, correct? Why do you treat the latter as if it's the one proposal? WP:MACK starts out from a different point, and is in fact fundamentally different than Wikipedia:Userbox policy. To edit the policy to Mack's ideas would be to completely change it. Instead, he put up an alternative here. TheJabberwʘckhelp! 20:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Question 8: Moratorium on the T2 speedy deletion of userboxes[edit]

  • Question 8: Considering the ongoing speedy deletion wars, should there be an immediate moratorium on the speedy deletion of userboxes that are "designed for user pages and express viewpoints on controversial issues, personal beliefs, ideologies, or ethical convictions," but are not "divisive and inflammatory," until such time when a userbox policy is adopted?

Support no new speedy deletions under T2, sign here with ~~~~:

  1. TheJabberwʘck 02:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC) better to wait than to alienate; we've got time
  2. Rfrisbietalk 02:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC) T2 itself is "divisive and inflamatory."
  3. BigDT 02:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Per Jabberwock - we have time. Obviously, some outright crap can be deleted, but speedying "popular" boxes is just tearing old wounds. Misza13 T C 13:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. StuffOfInterest 17:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. JohnnyBGood Flag of Mexico.svg t c 18:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Sandpiper 18:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC) fighting about the boxes before making a decision is not helpfull
  8. Definite support, revoke that CSD which never achieved consensus anyway. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Bucketsofg 19:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Weak support what's up with the speedy application of policy that didn't achieve consensus? Slow down folks. Netscott 04:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Absolutely. People who speedy delete under a policy that isn't policy are subverting the process. Jay Maynard 11:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Trouble with speedy is that it lends itself to these sort of conflicts. And T2 goes quite far. We don't even have standards like this for speedying articles. Used to be you had to create an article that was all "bishaklhl shwalk fsajdlfj askljfk lj" in order to get speedied. The T2 standard for speedying templates is just strange. We must have order on Wikipedia. D. G. 02:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Actually, wait a minute. T2 is not even a standard! It's not a stable policy and we should not be speedying things using T2 as justification. Please reprimand anyone you see doing this. Those who speedy delete elements should have the onus on them to damn well know what's policy and what ain't. There's no Wikipedia:Do_it_because_you_wanna policy. D. G. 02:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support -- Speedy is for clearly unacceptable material. If a debate is active, speedy is inappropriate. John Reid 13:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Yes, yes, yes. We should work to conform all userboxes to T2 if it's going to remain policy, but we shouldn't go around speedy-deleting willy-nilly. For example, rather than speedy-deleting a template, why not turn it into a redirect to a more appropriate one, or simply change the text to a more appropriate version? (Both, preferably, after a mass-subst for the users using it.) -Silence 21:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. This policy is absolutely out of control. Sarge Baldy 02:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. To date, T2 has clearly not been accepted as a consensus of the community. Given that, it would seem reasonable for admins to go through the regular deletion process for templates that don't meet the T1 criteria for speedy deletion. To do otherwise seems unnecessarily unilateral. Fairsing 04:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Yet another lame sig I came up with T | @ | C 13:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Not to ban T2, but to effectively prevent its out of consensus use. Ansell Review my progress! 23:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  19. DarthVader 01:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support moratorium. —Ashley Y 19:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support, as it doesn't really have wide consensus and is really, really broad (it currently covers ALL personal beliefs, not just controversial ones, if you read it closely. That includes things like {{user blue}}). --Rory096 06:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  22. Hirudo 07:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  23. Eluchil404 02:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  24. David618 t 17:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  25. Also support whatever is "divisive and inflammatory" to prevent gaming the system. MSTCrow 10:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  26. DavidBailey 01:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  27. Dead men's bells 01:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose: speedy deletions can still occur under T2, sign here with ~~~~:

  1. Oppose, though, of course, this straw poll can't overrule CSD policy. --Cyde Weys 02:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - T2 is good policy and should not be frozen on the off-chance that some more elaborate policy will supersede it. Metamagician3000 02:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose T2 has a useful purpose -- Tawker 02:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. OpposeSHININGEYES 03:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments
  1. Obviously this would only be binding if the proposal itself achieved community consensus. Mackensen (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Obviously, the T2 proposal can be removed any time consensus at the speedy deletion policy makes it so. Rfrisbietalk 14:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose What if a personal attacking box popped up? Gonna let it stay? GangstaEB EA 13:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, but severely restrict the deletions to insulting, inflammatory and otherwise disrupting boxes. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)

Question 9: New Userbox virtual space[edit]

Question 9: Without specifying its exact physical location, should a new Userbox virtual space be established that allows for the centralized creation of userboxes that are subject only to the policies and guidelines applicable to userspace?

Support new Userbox virtual space, sign here with ~~~~:

  1. Rfrisbietalk 03:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Eliminates the "unencyclopedic" criticism.
  2. Great idea. Glad I had it. :-) Jay Maynard 11:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. TheJabberwʘckhelp! 20:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC), but would rather see a new physical space
  4. I was going to vote oppose, for the obvious reasons. Waste of developer resources. But as someone says in the comments, one developer has already volunteered. In any case, it would quite literally entail nothing more than adding "Userbox:" as an allowable namespace. This isn't the new feature of the year, folks. Support if it doesn't involve pestering the developers and wasting resources that could go to more interesting problems. D. G. 21:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. I agree, but mainly because it's the basis of my proposal, as one commenter noted. // The True Sora 01:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. Userboxes should be treated exactly like user pages. Sarge Baldy 02:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. support. Sounds like a good compromise. Grutness...wha? 04:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. It sounds like the best solution. Yet another lame sig I came up with T | @ | C 05:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. Sounds good. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support, kind of. Isn't template:user space that already? --Rory096 06:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Sarahgal 21:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. 'Weak support Not as good as a new namespace. —David618 t 17:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. MSTCrow 10:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. Maybe it will work its way up to a full fledged namespace GangstaEB EA 13:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC) BTW: Sora, is your policy succeding?

Oppose new Userbox virtual space, sign here with ~~~~:

  1. Support Best case solution, removes it from TFD processes. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 17:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. This one is a non-starter. --Cyde Weys 03:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. No to usebox transclusion, wherever they are. Misza13 T C 10:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Uhm, no. Just as bad. BrokenSegue 19:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Unnecessary and a demand on the dev team. We should ask for more important work to be done. John Reid 13:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No kidding. This one doesn't have a chance of happening. I urge these userboxers to have a look at Bugzilla ... there's waaaay more important stuff to be done than programming in a new namespace to accomodate non-encyclopedic activities. --Cyde↔Weys 14:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Someone on the dev team has already volunteered (User:TheTrueSora). This would take very little effort - all that needs to be done is to add compatibility for Userbox: space to the {{}} function. And ending the "Userbox War" will allow us to get back to more important work. TheJabberwockActually, this proposal does not require the dev team at all. The one below does. Λυδαcιτγ(TheJabberwock) 19:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • TheTrueSora isn't on the dev team. Yes, it is true that since MediaWiki is open source, anyone can edit their own personal version, but that doesn't mean that the real devs actually have to make it the live version on Wikipedia. --Cyde↔Weys 11:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. "Virtual" space does not require the creation of a new userspace. "Creation by proclamation" is another option. Two common suggestions are to proclaim "Template:User <userbox name>" or "User:<Userbox space>/<userbox name>" as "virtual userbox space." Rfrisbietalk 14:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Can you please explain exactly what you mean by "virtual space" then, I think I get it now but I want to be sure. Basically you'd want to proclaim that all templates that start with "User " aren't actually normal templates but are subject to their own rules and regulations. Is that correct? --Cyde↔Weys 14:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. Λυδαcιτγ(TheJabberwock) 19:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Rfrisbietalk 19:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. This on its own would not solve the votestacking problem. And therefore, I cannot support without restrictions on what Userbox space can hold, as per my other opinions on this page. Ansell Review my progress! 23:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • How does restricting technology solve any behavior problem? If votestacking is a problem, then a policy directly addressing votestacking should be in place and enforced against the perpetrators. I personally don't know where such a policy already exists, but I'm sure something already applies to it. If the policy on votestacking needs work, then go for it. If it simply needs better enforcement on who's actually doing this, then get on the case. The tools for collaboration are not the problem. People misbehaving are the problem. That's where the energy on developing and enforcing policies really should be going. Rfrisbietalk 01:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Question 10: New Userbox physical space[edit]

Question 10: Should a new Userbox physical space (such as Userbox: or User template:) be established that allows for the centralized creation and storage of userboxes that are subject only to the policies and guidelines applicable to userspace?

Support new Userbox physical space, sign here with ~~~~:

  1. Λυδαcιτγ(TheJabberwock) 19:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strong support This is the only way to stop the dispute. —David618 t 17:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. MSTCrow 10:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. support; I think this would solve some of the legitimate complaints about userboxes without hindering their usefulness. Should be easy to implement. — brighterorange (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. GangstaEB EA 13:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. support Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose new Userbox physical space, sign here with ~~~~:

  1. Rfrisbietalk 03:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Very weak oppose simply because it's not necessary. Virtual space is sufficient. "Template:User <userbox name>", "User:<Userspace name>/<Userbox name>" (example} and "Userbox:<Userbox name>" all are logically equivalent.
  2. No reason to make devs do stuff when everybody knows Template:User space is userbox space, and there are no real restrictions (based in policy or even guidelines) on what can be in templatespace anyway. --Rory096 06:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. ENCYCLOPEDIA, remember? Why are userboxes so important to give 'em a privilege of an exclusive namespace? Misza13 T C 10:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • This would require the developers to add compatibility for the new space to the {{}} function. Λυδαcιτγ(TheJabberwock) 19:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I would like to hear more pros and cons of this proposal. So far it seems to make a lot of sense, and the only objection I have yet seen is that the developers might not agree to do the development work. (TheTrueSora has volunteered to do the coding if the developers are not able). There isn't much on the talk page for this proposal. Does anyone have other observations, pro or con on this? Fairsing 23:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The biggest pro is that it removes the need to be encyclopedic, or at least reduces it to the same level as that found on a userpage. So people won't have to worry about templates being deleted without their notice, any more than they worry about their user pages. Λυδαcιτγ(TheJabberwock) 01:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Does not allow for differences in peoples views about categorisation, would categorisation by users into their own categories manually be banned. Ansell Review my progress! 23:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Could go either way per consensus. See questions above to get a feeling of what the consensus would be. Λυδαcιτγ(TheJabberwock) 01:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
"This is not an acceptable policy, and it has not achieved the requisite level of consensus. The single most important thing that must be done is the removal of a centralized official space for Userboxes. A userbox namespace is exactly the wrong answer.--Jimbo Wales 10:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)" [1]

Alternative and previous proposals[edit]