User talk:UBX/MLB-Phillies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Request for commentary: Phillies userbox[edit]

I have attempted to improve the userbox for the Philadelhia Phillies {{User:UBX/MLB-Phillies}} using a free image of the team logo (logo image here). User:Tom Danson has consistently reverted. Although he agrees the logo itself is free, he wants to maintain uniformity among all MLB userboxes, and since not every team uses a {{PD-textlogo}}-qualified free logo, he has consistently eliminated any userboxes with logos.

The issue has also come up in the past in relation to the Yankees userbox (see here) that I know of.

Wikiproject baseball has no policy mandating uniformity of userboxes that I know of -- at least I've asked at their talk page and no one has heard of any such policy.

So I'd like commentary on whether the use of verifiably free images in userboxes is acceptable, absent some wikiproject policy to the contrary. BillTunell (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

He's right in saying there is no such "official policy." However, I think it is a guideline, and I'm asking that he respects those who prefer the simple uniform userbox. I've offered him his own userbox with this logo (which he's refused) and even a separate section on the userboxes page where fans of such teams with non-trademarked logos can choose from the standard one or the one with the logo, and he's not said anything about that. I would like him to know that he does not own this article (and nobody can own any Wikipedia article), and I don't claim to own them, I'm just a user with a mop & bucket (though not an admin yet). If the ruling is in his favor, then I will make sure those who enjoy the plain text userboxes can continue to do so with a new section. Thank you, Tom Danson (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The major problem with this workaround is that it fragments the user community. The point of the userbox is not just to identify a fan of a particular team on a particular userpage. By forming the parser-function-code basis for the relevent sports fan category page (in this case, the Phillies fan category page), the userbox allows wikipedia-based fans to identify one another. Creating multiple userboxes for each team defeats this purpose. Moreover, if you're going to allow multiple userboxes anyway, then that defeats any uniformity across the userbox spectrum – so why bother? BillTunell (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I also don't see any "guideline" relating to the use of plain userboxes any more than I see a policy. If I'm missing a guideline, then I'm hoping someone can identify it specifically. BillTunell (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Bill, I don't see a problem with creating another user box. It can still contain all the necessary categories without a wikipedia-generated-text identifier and include the image you wish. Creating multiple user boxes will not remove this association. Just put <includeonly>[[Category:Wikipedian Philadelphia Phillies fans|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly> in the body of your logo and voila! All associations are maintained. No problem! :-)
Tom, I would strongly caution you to implement some form of standardization without coordinating with others. In my experience, if it is not a policy or guideline, standardizing something with the way you like it will tend to fragment discussion and may lead to a hostile feeling amongst Wikipedians. In short, don't cite "I think it is a guideline..." without being able to note where you got it from. Jimbo Wales himself said as much: "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be [kept. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information...]"
This isn't a harsh rebuke or anything for either of you, just an outside opinion on how we can work together.
You two obviously have opinions on the subject. Perhaps all three of us could get together and put together some guidelines by which we all could work from to avoid such problems in the future. Who's with me? — BQZip01 — talk 19:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
BQZip, you are a genius! I have nothing against any other Wikipedia user, and I assume good faith with everyone. It's just that, as you can tell from my userpage, I have Asperger's syndrome, which contains traces of various other ones (maybe my organizational thing is a bit of OCD). I don't know if Bill has a problem with a separate userbox, he just doesn't like it when I bring up "uniformity" following that up with it. (Side note: I would LOVE to have infoboxes for my favorite teams with the monogram mark. It's just that I'm a bit unclear as to at which point certain typefonts become copyrighted.) Tom Danson (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose my two cents are worth something. FWIW, I see no problem with a team having more than one userbox. We have ribbons for barnstars, multiple ways to display same; some teams in other sports have several infoboxes. All I ask is that if more than one userbox for the Phillies exists that they be displayed together as options from which to choose, and that they are added to the WikiProject page so that members thereof can use them more easily. If we have a set of 30 MLB infoboxes using the "PHI"/"NYY"/"MIN" infoboxes, that is very valuable, because MANY, many teams use that same format, regardless of sport. I use those particular boxes on my own userpage, but would probably delete them if they were not consistently formatted. That point being granted, I see a lot of intrinsic value in using the PD-text logo, because it identifies Phillies fans, through their userbox, with WP:PHILLIES, which uses the logo on talk page tags. In sum, I think having multiple choices, all offered as options, is the best goal. I believe that the current userbox should stay as is to avoid disruption among editors who use this in consistent format, and that a new userbox should be created in the UBX namespace as an option for those teams which do have PD-text logos. KV5 (TalkPhils) 20:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess that would be fine by me. It involves some parser code work that I'm not familiar with, but I'll give an alternate box in the UBX namespace a shot. With respect to the Phillies Wikiproject page, I don't see the userbox anywhere on there, so I may want you to direct me where/how to add. BillTunell (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
No prob; I can do that. You really can just copy the code from the other box and make some tweaks; that's the wonderful thing about the GFDL. Haha. KV5 (TalkPhils) 00:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I've fiddled with the "templates" section of WP:PHILLIES. See if this looks good to you. BillTunell (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, if the issue here isn't about whether or not the logos are copyrighted, then I don't really care as long as we can make alternate userboxes with the logos, so if Tom Danson wants to standardize them without the logo, let him, as long as we make ones that have the logo too where possible. I think most teams' logos would have a similar copyright status to that of the Yankees, and it seems like more people would prefer the userboxes with the actual logo instead of just the text, so IMO they should be the standard one, with an option for just displaying the text. Is there a way to do this with one userbox through some sort of template parameter to enable or disable the showing of the logo? Or maybe it could just be done by having one userbox be a subpage of the other, e.g. {{User:UBX/MLB-Yankees/nologo}} to display the box without the logo, or the other way around. If we could do it with a template parameter, that would eliminate the two-userboxes issue. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 05:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the route I've taken. There are alternate verisons at {{User:UBX/MLB-Phillies}} and {{User:UBX/MLB-Phillies2}}, both of which are reflected at the general listing page here. I'll see about including these on the wikiproject. BillTunell (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Lots of options here. Bill, I suggest you take point on this one and see what you can come up with (It's your idea! :-) ). Post a link to it here and we'll see if there's anything to critique/help with and we'll go from there. Sound good? — BQZip01 — talk 06:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
See what you guys think of {{User:UBX/MLB-Phillies}}, {{User:UBX/MLB-Phillies2}}, the NL userbox listing, and the Phillies Wikiproject page, "template" section. I'd be comfortable with the solution as-is. Thanks for everyone's input. BillTunell (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Couple of issues here: the original userbox should remain at the original location. Currently they are switched. The reds in current userbox 2 (which should be UBX 1) do not match. The original template should also maintain the word of "fan", rather than both being "phanatic". Finally, these should have been tested in a sandbox instead of dropped right into the templates. KV5 (TalkPhils) 16:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I've changed "phantic" to "fan" in the generic version. I've also changed the red colors in both verisons to #CB0447, which matches the logo that I can find. If consensus is to make the non-logo the primary, that's fine. BOB indicated otherwise, and I'd tend to agree that current users would prefer the logo version – but I'll obviously go with the weight of user opinion. For now I've left the generic version as "Phillies2," subject to future change. BillTunell (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
But now, what you've done is replace a template with something that users did not insert on their userpage. It's better to have the original template remain as is, because users that chose to use it selected that as their choice. They did not select the logo template, but if they want it, they have the option to use it. KV5 (TalkPhils) 17:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Since you'e one of the few editors in this discussion who use the userbox, which one do you prefer personally? BillTunell (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
For my own use, it's always going to be the standardized "PHI" version unless all of my teams get image-based boxes (see here). KV5 (TalkPhils) 18:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Bill, I think I agree. We should leave that one as it was and simply create a new one. — BQZip01 — talk 17:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I've begun inviting any active memebrs on the Phillies fan category to comment to get a sense of which is preferred. I don't know that people necessarily prefer a generic version just because they put a userbox on their pages when a PD-textlogo version wasn't available. And I'm sure at least some users chose the userbox when it was a logo version. I'd never gotten a negative comment about the logo version until User:Tom Danson (who does not use the Philliies userbox himself). Regardless, like I said, I'll go with the weight of user comment. BillTunell (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Funny that this debate should arise and I get invited to it, because just the other day I was thinking how I wish professional sports teams' userboxes were more aesthetically appealing. Call me vain, but I much prefer to PD-logo userbox to the "standardized" PHI one. Personal preferences aside, I see nothing wrong with having both to choose from. For those who choose PHI, it's still an easily identifiable team userbox to anyone who knows anything about MLB baseball. Likewise, the PD-logo userbox is (IMO) easier to identify much more quickly via the "P" symbol. I'm switching my own userbox over to the PD-logo version. One last note: I concur with BlastoButter42 in that "if Tom Danson wants to standardize them without the logo, let him, as long as we make ones that have the logo too where possible." Wikipedia is a democracy, and as such, the people should have a choice as to which userbox they feel best represents them. Good luck with the rest of the debate. Jrcla2 talk 17:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The logo in question is NOT in public domain and is copyrighted from 1992. I corrected the tag as the '50s logo is not the same as the one currently used.JaMikePA (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

JaMike: I've changed this again. I'm not sure how much you've dealt with threshold of originality issues before, but there's no question that the "P" logo is a public-domain trademark as opposed to a copyright. The organization claims no copyright and it would not qualify as a mere typeface. The userbox restriction relates to copyrightable images (fair use) not public domain marks. If you disagree, I'd be happy to open up a discussion on one of the noticeboads. But the whle intention behind this RFC is to stop unilateral edits without discussion. I hope you'll give the underlying standards a look. BillTunell (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The way I see it, I still believe that the text ones should be standard, and the non-copyrighted (but trademarked) ones should be the "specialty" option. It may be more popular than the text ones, but I still think every team needs a "standard," and they should all look similar. Tom Danson (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Tom Danson. KV5 (TalkPhils) 11:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Given the limited commentary, I've switched the two. BillTunell (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Colors and WP:ACCESS guideline[edit]

In a new incarnation of an old battle, the colors in this userbox have been changed from flat-out wrong to correct and in line with sitewide policy. All content on Wikipedia is expected to comply with accessibility guidelines. I have removed the blue text on a white background because it is specifically mentioned as problematic in that guideline: "Be aware of the contrast of both plain text and the red/blue/purple link text with the background and avoid clashes where possible (such as blue writing on a red background)" (emphasis mine). I am fully cognizant that the Phillies utilize blue officially as a color, and it is used in the border, but it absolutely cannot, per policy, be used as a text color on a red background. The white is completely acceptable since the team's primary colors are red and white anyway. — KV5Talk • 23:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)