Wikipedia talk:Userboxes

For the WikiProject collaboration on userboxes, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes.

A userbox is a small rectangular box that looks like this. More examples below.

Userboxes can come in many different styles and colors.

Userboxes can have one or two sideboxes.

A userbox (commonly abbreviated as UBX) is a small colored box (see examples to the right) designed to appear only on a Wikipedian's user page as a communicative notice about the user, in order to directly or indirectly help Wikipedians collaborate more effectively on articles.

The first userboxes were introduced to support the Babel inter-language effort by indicating the skills of users in other languages.

Be mindful that, like anything else you add to Wikipedia, userboxes you add will likely be public forever, even if you later have your user page deleted. (Like other Wikipedia pages, your user page will be regularly archived in the database dumps and may be archived by third parties, such as the Internet Archive.)

Using existing userboxes

Userboxes belong on their users' pages. In some cases, it may be considered uncivil to place userboxes on other users' pages without their permission (especially in a mean-spirited way—such as accusing a user of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.). However, userboxes may be placed on non-mainspace talk pages by anyone. (See also Wikipedia:Talk page.)

The {{clear}} template can be placed after the plain userbox if text is added on a new line immediately after it.

A gallery of existing userboxes can be found at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries.

Syntax

The standard syntax for adding a userbox to your user page (also known as transclusion) is: {{user name_of_box}}.

If you do not have any userboxes on your user page yet, you want to begin using them, and you want to add them down the right side of your user page starting at the top, then edit your user page and, at or near the top of the source for your user page, add {{Userboxtop |}}, add the transclusion(s) for the userbox(es) you wish to include, and add {{userboxbottom}} just after the last userbox transclusion. Please see the #Grouping_userboxes section for other ways of grouping and placing userboxes.

Optional substitution

You may decide to substitute the template code onto your user page using the syntax {{subst:user name_of_box}}. The use of "subst:" will ensure that the template is always displayed in its form when you add it to your user page (i.e. it will not reflect subsequent edits to the template). This method will lead to large amounts of code on your user page.

Creating a new userbox

If you wish to offer an idea for a userbox, do so on the ideas page.

If you have designed a userbox that you would like to make available to others, you may wish to first display it on the New Userboxes talk page for community comment.

Namespace

See also: Wikipedia:Userbox migration

The namespace you place your userbox in matters. Userboxes may only be created or displayed in the User, Project (Wikipedia), or Template namespaces.

So which prefix is best for your userbox: User:, Wikipedia:, or Template:?

Since content in User:space represents individual editors more than the community, they are traditionally given more leeway than in other namespaces. Thus, userboxes in User:space may not be as directly collaborative in nature as those in Template:or Wikipedia:namespaces, which are expected to adhere more tightly with certain policies and guidelines, especially Neutral point of view and What Wikipedia is not. This should also be considered before moving a userbox from userspace to any other namespace.

User:

To host a userbox in the user namespace, create a subpage of your own user page or User:UBX.

Wikipedia:

Userboxes in the project namespace are generally for WikiProject or task force usage. Simply create it as a subpage of the WikiProject (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Userbox).

Template:

In the template namespace, userbox names must begin with "User " (e.g. Template:User Brazil or Template:User en).

 Please remember to add nocat = true and wrap the category in includeonly tags (see this example diff) when using the Template namespace. Otherwise, your userbox will automatically be categorized, causing inconvenience to WikiElves.

If you are uncertain if your userbox is in the correct namespace, consider presenting the userbox at the New Userboxes talk page for community comment.

Userboxes and category use

Main page: Wikipedia:User categories

See also: Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User categories and Wikipedia:User categories § Syntax for including a user category in a userbox

A userbox can be coded to autocategorise any user pages which transclude the userbox into one or more user categories. However, do not use autocategorisation without good reason.

• Most userboxes refer to a single isolated characteristic of the user; unless the characteristic directly relates to the user's ability or willingness to collaborate on certain areas of or topics within Wikipedia, a user category should not exist for it and the userbox should not be used for categorisation.
• Users of the userbox can be located using the Special:WhatLinksHere tool from the userbox template. Networking between editors with similar interests or views is best done using a projectspace essay with a signup section for editors interested in networking.
• If there is a good reason for the user category, first create the category pages and include a description that explains its purpose and scope.
• User categories must be sub-categories of Category:Wikipedians.
• Names and descriptions of user categories are subject to the same rules and restrictions as userbox content.

Userbox content

Content restrictions

• All userboxes are governed by the civility policy.
  • Userboxes must not include incivility or personal attacks.
  • Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive.
• Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for:
  • Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind (commercial, political, religious, or otherwise)
  • Opinion pieces, particularly on current affairs or politics
  • Self-promotion or advertising

Simply: If content is not appropriate on other parts of a user page, it is not appropriate within userboxes.

Caution about image use

Wikimedia Commons has a large range of icons for use within boxes. However, if you select an image from somewhere else, make certain the image has a free license. Templates (which includes userboxes and topicons) on user pages may not contain any copyrighted content not under free license; so, for example, "non-free" images are explicitly forbidden per non-free content use criterion #9 of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This is interpreted strictly and without exception. See Wikipedia's non-free use policy guidelines for more details.

Caution about colours

Please be mindful of the colour contrast guidelines at WP:COLOUR – low-contrast colours present accessibility barriers to people with colour-blindness or other visual disabilities.

Content examples

The following section is not to be considered all-inclusive. As such, other word combinations (both appropriate and inappropriate) are obviously possible.

Typical userbox content:

• This user <verb phrase> <noun phrase>.
• This user <verb phrase> <noun phrase> <prepositional phrase>.

Typical verbs:

• verbs of action: contributes (to), drives, eats, edits, plays, uses, watches
• verbs of comprehension: reads, speaks, understands
• verbs of preference: enjoys, likes, loves

Additional examples, using the linking verb is:

• This user is <noun phrase>.
• This user is a fan of <noun phrase>.
• This user is a member of <noun phrase>.
• This user is interested in <noun phrase>.

Another option is to allow changing the verb phrase using a template parameter. This is especially useful in location userboxes:

• This user {{{1|lives in}}} <location>.

To avoid the awkward third-person phrasing ("This user"), you can use "{{#titleparts: {{PAGENAME}} | 1 | 1 }}" (without the quotes) to insert the name of the user that includes it on their page (e.g. "{{#titleparts: {{PAGENAME}} | 1 | 1 }} uses second-person phrasing" produces "Userboxes uses second-person phrasing").

Potentially divisive words

Avoid verbs (often followed by the word "that") which may be used to suggest negative comparison and would thus be potentially divisive, such as:

• believes, considers, finds, knows, prefers, thinks, wishes

Avoid negative verb phrases which can be potentially divisive, such as:

• dislikes, despises, hates, loathes

Also avoid compound sentences which are positive and negative, such as:

• This user likes <noun phrase>, but does not like <another noun phrase>.

Essentially: Express what you do like, rather than what you don't like. Express what you comprehend, rather than what you don't comprehend. Express what you do, rather than what you don't. Express who you are, rather than who you aren't.

Design: How to construct the box

There are a number of box types to select from when deciding to make a userbox. The most commonly used design is the "Standard box". It has one square shaped area on the left ("id label") and a larger rectangular space on the right ("info area").

For ease of use, userboxes are typically made using maker-templates that have a number of parameters.

Parameter	Applies to	Syntax and Comments on Value Types
border-c	Border color for the overall userbox.	CSS color string as in #hex or a CSS named color. (E.g. #f00 or red or #ff0000).
border-s	Border line thickness for the overall userbox.	Unit-less numerical value for border size/width, equivalent to pixels, but do not append 'px' to the number. E.g. border-s = 3 .
id-c	Background color for the id label area of the userbox.	CSS color string (hex or name)
id-s	Text size for the id label area.	Unit-less numerical value for font-size (do not append 'px')
id-fc	Text color for the id label.	CSS color string (hex or name)
id-p	Space/padding Between the id content and the userbox border.	This cell padding uses a CSS length value. Unlike the other unit-less values, this must have a CSS length unit such as px or pt. (E.g. id-p = 8px ).
id-lh	Vertical distance between id text lines (line-height).	It is recommended to use unit-less numerical values for line-height. Optionally, CSS length units can be used for this parameter.
info-c	Background color for the info area of the userbox.	CSS color string (hex or name)
info-s	Text size for the info area.	Unit-less numerical value for font-size (do not append 'px').
info-fc	Text color for the info area.	CSS color string (hex or name)
info-a	⇦ Horizontal text alignment for info area only. ⇨	A text string of, one of: left, right, or center. Do not enclose the key word in quotes. (E.g. info-a = center ).
info-lh	Vertical distance between info text lines (line-height).	It is recommended to use unit-less numerical values for line-height. Optionally, CSS length units can be used for this parameter.
id	Specify content for the the id label.	Free-form text (E.g. id = Co )
info	Specify content for the info area.	Free-form text (E.g. info = Cobalt is Very Blue )

The id label and info content area can include text, links, and/or images, using the usual Wikipedia syntax. Typically, the info box will contain a sentence with a link or two, while the id box will contain a few letters, a symbol, or a 43px image.

Userbox types

Types of Userboxes
Code	Appearance
Standard box
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#FFF |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#039 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#FFF |id=ID |info=Content}} or {{Userbox |side-box colour |main box colour |side-box content |main box content}}	IDContent
Reverse box
{{Userbox-r |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#FFF |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#039 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#FFF |id=ID |info=Content}} or {{Userbox-r |side-box colour |main box colour |side-box content |main box content}}	ContentID
Double box
{{Userbox-2 |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id1-c=#FFF |id1-s=12 |id1-fc=#000 |id2-c=#000 |id2-s=12 |id2-fc=#FFF |info-c=#039 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#FFF |id1=ID 1 |id2=ID 2 |info=Content}} or {{Userbox-2 |side-box 1 colour |main box colour |side-box 1 content |message |side-box 2 content |border colour |side-box 2 colour |main box font-colour |box border thickness}} Note: If omitted, border colour and side-box 2 colour default to the same colour as side-box 1, and font colour is black. Default border thickness is 1.	ID 1ContentID 2
Mini box
{{Userbox-m |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#FFF |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |id=ID}} or {{Userbox-m |box colour |box content}}	ID

Userbox sampling templates

To make it easier to quote the generation code for a userbox in a uniform format, a template {{Userbox sample compact}} has been made available, which produces a picture of the userbox along with the code necessary to create it. To use it, just give it exactly the same parameters you would give the {{Userbox}} template. You must use subst:, or the template will not work properly. An example is shown below:

{{subst:Userbox sample compact|id=UBX|id-c=red|info=This is a '''[[WP:UBX|Userbox]]'''.}}

Produces:

{{Userbox | border-c = #999 | border-s = 1 | id-c = red | id-s = 14 | id-fc = black | info-c = #EEE | info-s = 8 | info-fc = black | id = UBX | info = This is a '''[[WP:UBX|Userbox]]'''. | float = left }}

UBX This is a Userbox.

There are not yet any similar templates available for userboxes created by the templates Userbox-r, Userbox-2 and Userbox-m.

Grouping userboxes

Using the Userboxtop template

Example 1

This user is a participant in WikiProject Userboxes.

This user is interested in ancient Rome.

This user wants to be your friend.

As with the Babel box, there is a box to group userboxes together. Just make a list of userboxes with {{Userboxtop|box-name}} at the top, followed by your list of userboxes, and {{Userboxbottom}} at the bottom. For example, the box to the right is created using the following list:

{{Userboxtop}}
{{User WikiProject Userboxes}}
{{User:UBX/Rome}}
{{User:Nihiltres/Userboxes/Friendly}}
{{Userboxbottom}}

Using collapsible tables

Example 2

My yellow userboxes
Sample userbox #1. Sample userbox #2. Sample userbox #3.

My purple userboxes
Sample userbox #4. Sample userbox #5. Sample userbox #6.

If you wish to group your userboxes into expandable lists in the {{Userboxtop}} template, one way of doing this is by using collapsible tables with certain classes. Wikipedia's Mediawiki configuration attempts to make this happen through a combination of ECMAScript and CSS. This method is accessible to users with ECMAScript (jScript/JavaScript) disabled, and should work in most modern browsers (it is the method used by {{Navbox}}).

Using the codes in Help:Collapsing works much better and simpler using normal wiki table markup!

 {{Userboxtop|Example 2}}
 <table class="collapsible collapsed" style="width: 100%; background: transparent; color: inherit;">
   <tr><th style="background:lavender;">(Caption)</th></tr>
   <tr><td>
     (Place your userboxes here...)
   </td></tr>
 </table>
 {{Userboxbottom}}

Include 'collapsed' if you want the box to start closed, omit it if you want the box to start open. You can also use multiple tables to get separate collapsible parts like in the example to the right.

You can now use {{Userboxgroup}} to create this kind of box.

Using the Babel grouping system

The Babel grouping system can also be used, e.g. {{Babel|sv|no-4|in Rome}}, which generates:

Wikipedia:Babel

svDen här användaren talar svenska som modersmål.

no-4Denne brukeren/brukaren behersker/meistrar norsk på morsmålsnivå.

This user lives in Rome

Search user languages

However, it only works for user boxes with the "User" prefix, which must then be dropped for the arguments.

Also, boxes that need arguments of their own (such as {{User:UBX/Monty Python}} or {{User Translator}}) are difficult to use with the Babel system. They can be used by including parameters with magic word replacing the vertical bars and equals signs, e.g. {{Babel|fr-5|ja-2|Translator{{!}}fr{{!}}project{{=}}no}} (result below), but this behavior is not officially supported by the template, and may not work in all contexts and break at some point in the future.

Wikipedia:Babel

fr-4Cet utilisateur parle français à un niveau comparable à la langue maternelle.

ja-2この利用者は中級の日本語ができます。

-
This user likes to translate articles from French to English.

Search user languages

Using tables

Another alternative would be to table your userboxes:

{| style="margin: 1em auto;"
|+ example 6
|-
| {{User:AusTerrapin/Box:Jazz Fusion}} {{User_USAFo5}}
|-
| {{User helper}} {{User:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User Warm}}
|}

would produce the following:

example 6

This user enjoys jazz-rock fusion. This user is a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Air Force.

This user helps out newcomers. This user prefers warm weather.

To center one userbox use this coding:

{| style="margin: 1em auto;"
|+ example 7
|-
| {{User:Saoshyant/Userboxes/User oops}}
|}

which produces:

example 7

This user tries to do the right thing. If they make a mistake, please let them know.

See also

• Wikipedia:Jimbo on Userboxes
• Wikipedia:List of userbox deletion nominations
• Wikipedia:User page design center
• Wikipedia:Userbox Maker
• Wikipedia:Userbox migration
• Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries
• Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries/alphabetical
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes

Archives
October 2005 – December 2005 December 2005 – January 2006 January 2006 – February 2006

Refresh page (Purge server cache)

For userbox ideas, see Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Ideas

For Recently Created or Changed Userboxes, see Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/New Userboxes

Fair use

Could we see a bit more self regulation in this area?Geni 12:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed. Re-iterating what it says at Wikipedia:Userboxes, "The use of copyrighted work as fair use is not allowed on templates". A significant number of the interests userboxes are using fair use images, mostly logos. I've removed a small number of these but many more need to have these images removed. Based on recent events, it's likely that such activity is going to result in problems. Therefore, I'm asking (despite the presence of the above quote) if there is any defense of these images being used on the userboxes? --Durin 21:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Images size, 45px vs 43px

I've found in many instances a 45px image does not center the image properly. (Usually they have a smaller right margin) These are two examples:

This user is a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit.

I reduce it to 43px just to have it reverted at some point. I propose changing them all enmassed to 43px and then lock them down and throw away the key. Am I the only one that notices? At least I'd like to establish that 43px is an acceptable size if it improves the userbox. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• That is fine for iconified images. Howver, with pictures in userboxes 43px produces an ugly and un-needed colored frame around the picture. That's why I like to bump things up to 45px.--God of War 04:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured Userbox

I brought this up awhile ago, but I feel like this project has come to a point where I can bring it up again. I want to start a Userbox of the Day Page featuring some of wikipedia's finest userboxes. It would work somewhat like WP:FPC except without all the messy sub-pages. Some examples for userboxes of the day. Please comment.--God of War 05:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

1RRThis user prefers discussing changes on the talk page rather than engaging in an edit war.

Seperate Help Desk Talk Page

Should we create a new help talk page, where wikipedians ask question and another answer it? --RaptorX 18:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo's request

Hmmm! A complaint about pushing a POV on the Userbox page. In any case, how is mentioning that Jimbo has asked us to consider removing polemical userboxes from user pages so outrageous that it is not allowed on the page that pushes using userboxes? -- Dalbury^(Talk) 23:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, once again the notice of Jimbo's request is removed from the page, supposedly for pushing a POV, but I haven't seen anyone say what that POV is. This was a referral to Jimbo asking individual Wikipedians to consider removing polemical userboxes from their user pages. And no one has bothered to answer my question above. I think that users who come looking for userboxes should be aware of Jimbo's request. I won't insert it again, but I am still puzzled as to why what I thought was a carefully neutral statement is seen as too POV for this page. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 23:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sam Korn's compromise wording works for me, and I won't contest it. --Aaron 00:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I won't try to insert my version again, and I'm also comfortable with Sam Korn's wording. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 00:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Polemical userboxes

NPUBThis user supports the summary deletion of polemical userboxes.

At the current point in time, this box would be itself polemical. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of divisive userboxes

Some people are trying to sneak a new line of text into the criteria for speedy deletion. It says divisive or offensive userboxes can be speedily deleted. There is no consensus or talk page discussion on this, only a brewing revert war. Now Tony Sidaway has used this brand new speedy deletion criteria to try and get rid of Template:User pacifist3 which is in the middle of an active TFD. Please voice your opinion on this before some admins go on a userbox deletion rampage.--God of War 18:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

By now, this idea of 'speeediliy deleting divisive userboxes' has turned into complete anti-NPOV orgy: User:MarkSweep has deleted several times (now irreversably...) Template:No_Marxism, while other so-called 'divisive' infoboxes continue: we have here Template:User_anti-imperialist, Template:User_anti-fascism etc.

I suggest keeping them, and I also recommend restoring my infobox and banning users who have bypassed legal limits of their power in wikipedia. Constanz - Talk 10:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, those who claim Template:No_Marxism may be deleted due to 'divisive or inflammatory' nature fall into ridiculous trap -- according to their way of thinking, a lot of infoboxes should be deleted, including all pro-Marxist ones (and its socialist-communist heirs), for being divisive (bourgois exploitators, the proletariat...) and inflammatory (Class war...). Constanz - Talk 11:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It's as though a million userboxes cried out in terror, and then were suddenly silent...Dr. B 03:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Long live the Rebel Alliance!!! The Ungovernable Force 11:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion

Policy proposal to move userboxes out of template space

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet, but this just cropped up on my radar. I'm really want to AGF, but I believe it is a deliberate attempt to sidestep the public debate going on here and formulate policy which doesn't reflect the consensus of the community as a whole. It would appear that only the anti-userbox activists and their acolytes are actually contributing to it. --Dragon695 22:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

(N.B.: While the following is minimally in response to Dragon695's above criticisms of WP:UUB, it is largely in response to the general issue of userboxes on Wikipedia. Any reference to you beyond the first paragraph should be viewed as a reference to the reader and not to Dragon695.)

You'd be well advised to continue assuming good faith. For the record, I'm a supporter of this proposal and I have contributed to the discussion (leading, indirectly, to a minor change in the proposal text); I'm neither anti-userbox, nor an acolyte of those who are. Now I wouldn't call myself pro-userbox, but I've been a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes for some time and have worked to cleanup a number of userboxes to help maintain policy compliance. Until now, I haven't backed a proposal on either side of the issue, primarily because I've tried to stay away from the contentiousness on this topic. (As an aside, I've been largely unsuccessful at this, and have found a disheartening number of dicks on both sides of this debate; I really think this conflict has done more to hinder the ability to assume good faith and to raise the polemicism in the atmosphere more than any userbox could.) Not that I was necessarily being included in Dragon695's generalization, but I wanted to make it clear where I come from on this issue before discussing my support of WP:UUB.

Enough about me. About the proposal: We're not against public debate, and we're not trying to impose a solution against consensus. We just want to offer a solution that might help to reduce the conflict before it escalates much further to the point of drastic action. The proposal was promoted, I believe, on the talk page of WP:UBP, so we're also not trying to be obscure about it. The proposal on userbox policy has served to help flesh out some of the related issues, and has also provided a place for people to sound-off with their arguments. IIRC, it originally offered debates over specific policy proposals, but that was abandoned in preference of more general, initial discussion of userboxes. WP:UUB (which stands for Use of Userboxes) suggests a specific solution: content created by users for use in describing themselves and/or other users ought to be in the User namespace (aside from a few exceptions, as noted on the proposal and discussed on the talk page). Aside from resident namespace, this proposal really doesn't make any further policy statements regarding userbox content; residing in the User namespace, userboxes would be subjected to the userspace guidelines and related policies like WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. The proposal wouldn't solve every problem, and it probably isn't going to satisfy everyone's concerns on both sides of the debate, but it does help fix a couple of issues:

1. By placing userboxes into the User namespace, it's more clear what policies and guidelines apply to them. The current situation, where userboxes are in the Template namespace, involves disputed userboxes being sent to WP:TFD which is probably better suited to discussing the deletion of article and/or project related templates. Since it's argued that userboxes ought to be less restricted than regular templates (e.g., userboxes need not be WP:NPOV or WP:CITEd), they ought not be judged by the deletion criteria for Templates. The lack of speedy-deletion criteria for templates has also meant that any speedy-deletions of userboxes (some justified, IMHO) have been officially outside of process. (Note that Jimbo has imposed a new speedy-deletion criteria for templates—seemingly created specifically to deal with the userbox-as-template situation—that says that templates that are intentionally divisive and/or inflammatory can be speedy-deleted; discussion is at WT:SPEEDY.) Having userboxes in User namespace places them under the more appropriate guidelines at WP:USER which are more suited for autobiographical/user content than the template rules.
2. Moving userboxes from the official and centralized Template namespace into the personal and decentralized User namespace also more clearly represents userboxes as being the statements of individual editors and doesn't represent any sort of (pseudo-)official position of Wikipedia/Wikimedia. This might also lend some legitimacy to the position of pro-userboxers who want to claim that userboxes represent an extension of their userspace, and that the content of userboxes ought to enjoy the same amount of freedom that has been traditionally afforded to regular user pages. This also might help to combat the problem, as claimed by some anti-userboxers, that having a centralized userbox template results in grouping people by 'bumper-sticker' ideologies. Moving from a single and established source for ideological userboxes to decentralized sources from individual users might encourage users to make more personalized userboxes to more specifically state their views. For example, instead of using the generic {{user liberal}} template promoted at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs (and thus linking oneself with the hundreds of other users of that template via Whatlinkshere), users might instead be encouraged to create their own userbox in their userspace that more accurately reflects their views (for example, "This user is a social liberal who believes in maximizing civil liberties and taking a moderate approach toward economic liberalism.")

Aside from the practical implications of the proposal, there's another reason (one I'll likely regret bringing up here) I support this proposal: the current situation is not sustainable, and (ultimately) neither is the position of the pro-userbox faction. I think (one of the few) positions which we can all agree on is that the level of contentiousness on this issue is unhealthy for the project. I'm sure both sides would like to see the divisiveness on this issue go away, but (perhaps not unexpectedly) each side wants the issue resolved on their own terms with minimal concessions. I've seen pro-userboxers who have argued that anti-userboxers want to take away their freedoms, and that we wouldn't have all this dispute and disruption of the project if anti-userboxers would just leave userboxes alone, and instead focused on the encyclopedia. On the other hand, some of the anti-userboxers (and I think Jimbo's note might be an example of this) argue that the existence of POV userboxes is what's fueling the conflict and causing much of the discord, and that removal of the POV boxes (either voluntary or compulsory) is what's needed to resolve this conflict. (Or, as Jimbo's note says, "This seems to me to be the best way to quickly and easily end the userbox wars.") Of course, if both sides essentially argue, "Division is bad for the project. However, if we can put our disagreements aside and accept my position as the best one, then we can put this divisiveness behind us—wouldn't that be nice?", then we're probably not going to make much progress toward a solution or anything resembling consensus ;-). If the userboxer wars (if they can be so-called) continue as is, I fear that the long-term status of userboxes will be unduly influenced by which side has the greater tolerance of incivility, the boldness to flaunt process and to maintain reverts, and the willingness to hit the other side harder with the mop. We cannot have a war of attrition on Wikipedia, and so the userboxer conflict cannot be sustained in its current state. Ultimately, it won't be.

The conflict won't be sustained because the position of the pro-userbox faction can't be sustained. I make this claim with neither malice toward pro-userboxers, nor with judgement against their arguments. Indeed, it's not that there aren't good arguments for the usage of userboxes—there are. Nor is it that there's strong consensus against the position of pro-userboxers—there isn't. The reason the pro-userbox position will not last is that those who exercise discretionary power beyond policy (usually exercising WP:IAR) tend to be predisposed against the pro-userbox position. I think the best and most prominent example of this is Jimbo. There's no question that Jimbo has the widest discretion in making mandates beyond policy; when the BDFL sets down a firm rule, it's going to be enforced heavy-handedly and will take precedence over just about anything else (even WP:IAR). If/when Jimbo comes down firmly against contentious userboxes (or, if he feels like it, all non-babelboxes), they'll be deleted en masse and there'll likely be nothing effective anyone else can say on the issue.

Now, obviously, we're not quite there yet. In fact, I think Jimbo's maintained a largely distant (if not entirely neutral) perspective on the userbox issue. His recent request to voluntarily remove contentious userboxes, while controversial, maintains a largely non-confrontational, civil, and fair-minded tone; he deserves to be applauded for that. He's also said (somewhere, I'm not sure where I saw him say this) that this request should be seen as a request for voluntary removal of userboxes, and ought not be interpreted as a policy statement or a mandate to remove userboxes from other users' pages. (An aside here for those unaware of the history of the userboxer wars: Jimbo initially expressed some concern upon running across Category:Wikipedians by politics. He made the statement, still listed on that category page, that he discouraged the use of the categories and related userboxes as they represent POV's that Wikipedians shouldn't bring to their Wikipedia editing. He made a similar posting to the project mailing list. On New Year's Eve, an administrator took his statement, derived a policy from it, then proceeded to begin deleting political userboxes in alphabetical order. This was, as far as I'm aware, the first instance of mass deletions of userboxes and was a major event in the beginning of this conflict.) Jimbo's sensitivity in clarifying that his recent request should be viewed as advice and not as a policy directive is something we ought to be appreciative for as well. While speaking softly, however, Jimbo's request carries a big stick: if people don't agree with his request, we might have "to go through a mass deletion (which is what is likely to happen if the userbox fad doesn't go away)". If a regular user said this, it might be fairly viewed as a pessimistic outlook; if an admin said it, that might be a threat, albeit a controversial one; when Jimbo says it, it's probably going to happen and it's likely not something we'll be able to discuss effectively after-the-fact. I have little doubt that contentious userboxes have a limited future as templates.

My fear is that this will come sooner, rather than later. For those unaware, tensions regarding userboxes have increased with the creation and deletion of a userbox identifying the user of the template as a pedophile. It was listed on WP:TFD, then speedy-deleted and restored a few times before Jimbo speedy-deleted the template himself. Jimbo then suspended the administrator privileges of five administrators who participated in the wheel war. While I trust that Jimbo is smart enough to keep cool, events like this can only hasten any impending plans for mass deletion of userboxes.

My hope is that we, as a community, can come up with a solution that will make such policy-by-fiat unnecessary. For me, I think that migrating userboxes to the User namespace might serve this purpose. You might agree with me that WP:UUB offers an effective solution; you might find some of the proposal questionable, in which case you might want to consider discussing your concerns on the talk page; you might think the proposal takes an entirely wrong approach, which is fine too. However, I urge you: Consider this proposal. Consider an alternate proposal. Consider something that can serve as a widely-acceptable compromise on this issue. The status quo (or lack thereof) regarding userboxes is not sustainable. Those pro-userboxers who wish to sustain their position will find themselves with little ground to stand on.

I'll close (finally!) with a request of my own à la Jimbo (though A request from Jeff admittedly just doesn't carry the same weight...):

If you don't want to remove your political/religious/etc. userboxes (as suggested by Jimbo), then I wonder if you might consider simply not linking to the existing userbox templates, and instead making your own in your userspace. You can use subst to include a copy of an existing userbox by using {{subst:user foo}} instead of {{user foo}}.

You can also use the {{Userbox}} formatting template to make your own userbox (use of this and related templates is described on Wikipedia:Userboxes). In particular, you're encouraged to take advantage of the versatility available in making your own userbox by creating more personalized and specific userbox content (rather than relying on the generic userboxes you used to use). You can use your own userboxes directly on your user page, or you can create a subpage for each userbox and use the subpages as you would templates. Keep in mind that your new userboxes, along with everything else on your user page, must comply with User space guidelines, as well as with our policies on civility and no personal attacks. If you choose to make a userbox as a subpage template, you'll also need to make sure it won't be speedy deleted under the criteria for speedy deletion of templates. If you need help with any of this, feel free to ask me.

Using your own user page for userbox content instead of using Wikipedia's template system helps to put user-related content back where it belongs. By using your own userboxes instead of the generic ones available, you can express yourself more specifically and independently. If you agree with my request, take a look at Wikipedia:Userfying userboxes, a proposed policy which seeks to migrate userbox contents out of the Wikipedia Template namespace and into the User namespace. If you want to show your support, you can add to your page {{User:Ashibaka/Userbox/Migration}}, which is—most appropriately—a userbox in the User namespace. — Jeff | (talk) | 10:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

(FYI, I included that request from a template, so I've said some things in there that I've also said above.) Thoughts on the matter, as always, are appreciated. — Jeff | (talk) | 14:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Jeffrey. I really like what you have said, and how you have said it. I personally have let myself become a little too involved in some of the discussions, but I think that WP:UUB is workable, and I support it. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 18:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I second/third/nth this proposal - I totally agree with everything said and am beginning to export all userboxes created my yours truly as of now. Hopefully more people will follow. Deano (Talk) 10:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

EU and UN

Please excuse, does anyone know why the anti-UN and anti-EU userboxes are not working anymore? Thanks,Salva 19:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Both were speedy-deleted. — Jeff | (talk) | 14:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Internet service providers

Can someone tell me what, if any, point these userboxes serve? Morgan695 22:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think they allow regular users/editors to break free of the NPOV for a bit. I see them as a harmless and socially acceptable way to blow off steam.Steppenvalve 19:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Specifics not blankets

Please consider my proposal, Wikipedia:Unacceptable userspace material, which is intended as a means to minimally quantify "bad" materials in userspace which the practice of including on userpages has a detrimental effect on Wikipedia, as opposed to making overbroad blanket restrictions. The goal is to maintain the liberal use of userspace while addressing concerns of divisiveness and objectionableness, avoiding template deletionism, and providing a defined standard on which compulsory userpage amendments can be based. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

As I've replied elsewhere, I see that leading to constant fighting over where the limits are, and hairsplitting to decide what goes and what stays. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 00:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Latest from Jimbo

I mentioned in my piece elsewhere on this page that we (the community) needed to work toward some sort of solution before Jimbo imposed a severe one by fiat. The latest two statements from Jimbo indicate that he's still not to the point of pushing harsh action, but I think it's fair to characterize his remarks as showing continuing discomfort about the current situation:

1. In an IRC chat, Jimbo was informed by User:Tony Sidaway that, over the past six weeks, the number of userboxes has increased from 3500 to 6000 and that the number of politics-oriented userboxes has increased from 45 to 150. His response was, "My only comment on the userbox situation is that the current situation is not acceptable."
2. In a posting on the mailing list, Jimbo further responded to this serious increase in userboxes with this:

Having said that, I heard today that the number of userboxes, and in particular the number of very problematic userboxes, has exploded. I think this is seriously Not Good For Our Loving Little Community.

I am not doing anything about it just yet, but I am willing to concede that my nonviolent social request that people knock it off and think about what it means to be a Wikipedian has not gotten very far.

As far as I can determine, and I am very much aware that I am here prejudicing the terms of debate, this is a cultural battle between wikipedians and people who have stumbled into this cool site they heard about on CNN where you can write whatever the hell you want and argue with people for fun.

So, there's still time to come to a solution on our own, but with as much polemicism around, I'm admittedly not as hopeful as I was earlier. — Jeff | (talk) | 10:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that'll bridge that divide, all right. Good work, Jimbo. —Andux^␅ 11:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

In many of these Jimbo comments, I am seeing rather too little 'good faith' for my liking. Ian13/talk 13:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" doesn't mean ignore plain evidence of deliberate provcation. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 14:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I hardly think any of the userbox argument has been 'fun' for anyone. I am also interested in what evidence of deliberate provcation exists and if it really is arguing for the fun of it. Ian13/talk 15:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes containing personal attacks on other Wikipedians and some of the userboxes created after User:Pedophile was speedy deleted were obviously (IMHO) intended to provoke a response (i.e., they were trolls) and clearly displayed a lack of good faith in their creation. Some of the responses to Jimbo's request that Wikipedians consider removing polemical userboxes not only failed to assume good faith on Jimbo's part, but were also clearly intended to provoke a response by heaping all kinds of abuse on Jimbo. And, if people really are arguing just for the fun of it, they are doing a poor job of it and need to go find some place else to have that kind of 'fun'. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 15:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

While your hurt feelings are regrettable, they do not meaningfully alter the force of Jimbo's comment. Phil Sandifer 14:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. Some guy sat infront of a metal box and glass screen, whacking little plastic squares won't annoy me. The moving electrons might though - should enough of them pass through my heart. Ian13/talk 15:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians need to have some identity. Jimbo's definition of a Wikipedian, just my impression, is someone who contributes a ton of information with no emotional leanings whatsoever. While Buddhists all over the world are celebrating this ideal, I just don't think it's a realistic goal. We're all living breathing human beings with thoughts, beliefs, opinions, passions, hopes and dreams firmly rooted in our personalities. We can't just ignore them. It's a physical impossibility. Humans are by nature POV. All we can do is turn the volume down on the POV and give it anger management. Denying users a certain level of induviduality actually hurts the community in my opinion. It's like taking all the hollidays out the school year. Sure, the kids may learn more and retain more but they are also miserable. Stick the fun in there and work is of higher quality and they tend to care more. I think the same holds true for Wikipedia or any other community of human beings. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 06:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would say, based on his comments on the wikien mailing list, that Jimbo is quite appreciative of the individual differences of Wikipedians. His concern, as I understand him, is the way in which userboxes are being used to express, not individual differences, but group solidarity for POV positions. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 11:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

And he is, not to put too fine a point on it, wrong. Voluntary disclosure of the POVs of as many editors as possible helps the encyclopedia maintain NPOV by keeping biases in the open and therefore easily countered. Rogue 9 14:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Encouraging non-template userboxes

In tackling the helpful statistics provided by Tony Sidaway (mentioned in the above section), I wonder if there's anything to be done that would help encourage people to use non-template userboxes on their own pages instead of creating new templates. Now, I'm not saying this as just another plug of WP:UUB—I've already stated my case for that. My reason for raising this issue is that, it seems to me, that a number of those 6000 userboxes might have limited appeal and usage. (I'm going to go checking the Whatlinkshere for some userboxes, so I'll have a better idea if I'm right on this.)

We ought to consider that a userbox that's only going to be used by a few people might not need its own template; instead, the userbox could be used inline using the {{Userbox}} formatting template. It's interesting to note that Wikipedia:Userboxes doesn't describe a userbox as a template in its introductory paragraph (though userboxes are obviously most commonly found in templates). Instead, it describes a userbox as simply, "a small coloured box that allows users to add small messages on their user pages." To our credit, it also says under the "Before making a userbox" subheader that, "If you wish to put your userbox in a template (and list it here), evaluate whether there is a need for your userbox." However, if there are indeed userbox templates out there that are barely used, those creating the userboxes might not be following this advice. It's probably true as well that there are cases where users have had good faith assumptions that someone might have some need for such a template, but the userbox ultimately remains unused.

I'm not necessarily advocating any kind of formal criteria that must be met before a userbox can be created. If it's expressed that userbox template creation should be used only where's there's a need and that userboxes of more limited appeal are best placed directly on a user's page, I would think that people could be trusted to use their common sense in deciding whether or not to make a new template. Then again, we have expressed something similar on the page, and that's not stopped us from creating an average of nearly 60 new userbox templates per day. Maybe, more prominent placement of the statement discouraging needless template creation might help the problem. Alternately, we could give a prominent placement to a statement encouraging people to use their own personalized userboxes directly on their own pages instead of using templates. I'm sure there's other solutions as well. I'm not bold enough to make the change right now, but I'm throwing this out to the community in hopes of ideas. Underused (or nonused) userbox templates are hardly the most pressing or important of concerns on the site right now, but slowing and/or reversing the growth of unneeded userbox templates might help to take a little pressure off the volatile "cultural battle" over userboxes. — Jeff | (talk) | 10:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you are correct. If people did consider a little more the need for a template, then I think there would be a few less. The problem is - how do we reduce the number of userboxes at present. Ian13/talk 15:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

We could run a bot to subst them all onto userpages and then delete all userboxes, allowing people to manually code them as they want. Phil Sandifer 15:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that although it would be good to remove quite a lot of these boxes, some are useful too and I personally would propose keeping them due to their high usage. Maybe keep all boxes with 100+ users and any babelboxes as templates? Ian13/talk 15:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I can tell you from experience that getting people to agree on what boxes should or should not stay in template-space is like herding cats. —Andux^␅ 16:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Untill people learn to respect our fair uses policies we are going to continue to need lists of who has got what.Geni 16:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Move NRA user boxes?

The userboxes Template:user NRA, Template:user NRA Life, and Template:User NRA Instructor seem to be improperly categorized under Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs. This is a non-profit, nonpartisan, multifaceted organization of approximately 4.3 million members engaged in broad activities such as law enforcement training, education, supporting wildlife conservation, and multimedia publishing. It seems more appropriate to list these in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Interests under “Affiliations”. Accurizer 16:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

My theory on userbox limiting

Ok I just had a realization; if someone has an absurd amount of userboxes, he does himself a disservice because people will usually automatically not look at any of them, or maybe just one or two. This is opposed to someone having say 4 userboxes, in that case someone will usually look at them all in one glance.

The reason for this IMO is that the human concious mind can usually juggle up to only 7 things in its short term memory, and people can usually only count up to 6 or 7 just by glancing say 6 stones. Any more than 6 or 7 and the mind seems to just ignore it all because it is beyond that threshold. Thus, the optimum number of userboxes for someone to have is 6 or 7. Beyond that, people will probably just pass them all over and read none of them at all.

The point of my theory is that maybe people should just be limited to 6 or 7 userboxes. This would cause less strain on wikipedia (people wouldnt be in like 50 catagories), also this would have a side effect of limiting so-called "polemical" userboxes, because people would think long and hard what userboxes to have since they are limited, thus eliminating pointless or uninformative userboxes.

Anywayz, just a theory.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 19:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, you can always just break your userboxes up into categories of 6 or 7. :p --AySz88^-^ 20:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Userbox Deletion

Who deleted some of the belief userboxes? --Shanedidona 20:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

As well as a lot of politics userboxes. CG 20:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

So... you deleted some? --Shanedidona 20:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No, not me. I'm just pointing out to the fact that a lot of userboxes were deleted by User:Grenavitar by CSD T1. Unfortunatly a small part has been reverted which led to a lot of POV. example: {{User Israel}} was undeleted while {{User Palestine}} wasn't. I hope the Userbox policy will be finished soon. CG 21:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoda thunked that admins and deletionists couldn't be trusted to make unbiased decisions in the absence of a clear policy? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 01:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What does T1 Mean? --Shanedidona 01:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

T1 is a new speedy deletion criterion that includes divisive/polemical/inflammatory content. --Cyde Weys 01:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

T1 means that the admins can delete whatever the hell they please because anybody can stretch a subjective criterion. Rogue 9 14:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

For those not aware, there have been a number of userboxes deleted by a number of admins as part of a deletion spree based upon the aforementioned T1 criteria. (In my earlier comments on this page, I was under the mistaken impression that mass deletions might not happen until Jimbo formally backed them.) Deletions of userboxes (and subsequent recreations, etc.) can be monitored using this very helpful tool. I should also point out that User:Pathoschild has been going around and semi-automatically subst'ing in deleted userboxes, as part of his userbox project. He also has a practical and equitable policy proposal that I think both sides would be well advised to consider. — Jeff | (talk) | 02:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Is the fact that a userbox used a fair use image good enough grounds to have it deleted? Wouldn't the easy thing be to just remove the image? I have seen this as a reason for some of the deletions. Station Attendant 04:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It isn't part of the speedy deletion criteria, but I'm not surprised that it is grounds for deletion. If you read the actual Criteria for Speedy Deletion, the relevant criterion (T1) states that templates (including userboxes) can be speedy-deleted if "polemical or inflammatory". Inclusion of fair-use images is not covered under T1 or any of the general criteria for speedy deletion. Including fair-use images in user pages or related templates is—in case anyone's unaware—a violation of policy, and so they certainly ought to be removed from any userboxes. The "easy thing" would indeed to be to remove the fair use image (and I'd advise anyone who sees such images to do so). However, for those more concerned with mass deletion of userboxes than ease of modification, such considerations are not in play. Checking the logs, I do see that User:Doc glasgow has removed a number of band-related userboxes due to fair use images. Now, I'm fairly certain I've seen that user remove fair-use images from userboxes before, so I doubt it's a case of him not knowing the less destructive alternative. I'd suspect that it's more of a case that an atmosphere of on-going mass userbox deletions makes it easier for those pre-disposed to deleting userboxes to do so instead of taking more moderate and proportional action. In any case, I'd say you're probably not getting your band userboxes back in their old form. I'd advise you (and those in a similar situation) to instead make your own replacement userboxes for personal use on your own page. There's instructions on Wikipedia:Userboxes on how to do this. (Remember, though, that the fair-use criteria also apply there, and that you won't be able to use the fair-use images [or any others] that served as an excuse for the original userboxes' deletion.) — Jeff | (talk) | 06:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

POV Userbox Suggestion

I wonder if objections would be satiated if we make POV userboxes an explicitly POV-countering tool by rewording them along these lines (as an example):

• User (Sun):+ : "This user admits to having a pro-(Sun) POV." or "This user attempts to prevent his pro-(Sun) POV from entering articles." or "This user tends towards supporting (the Sun)."
• User (Sun):0 : "This user feels he has no bias towards (the Sun)."
• User (Sun):- : "This user admits to having a anti-(Sun) POV." or "This user attempts to prevent his anti-(Sun) POV from entering articles." or "This user tends towards opposing (the Sun)."

Or even:

• User (Sun):++ : "This user's pro-(Sun) POV discourages themselves(himself/herself) from editing articles about it." (or reword of this)
• User (Sun):-- : "This user's anti-(Sun) POV discourages themselves(himself/herself) from editing articles about it." (or reword of this)

Of course, not all userboxes would have to have the same wording, they would just need to somehow make it clear that the box isn't advocating/advertising the POV, but is expressing a possible bias in encyclopedia-writing.

Comments? :) --AySz88^-^ 14:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That all is fine, as long as it's done with non-transcluded userboxes. If anyone tries to create a template for something like that, I, for one, would support its immediate deletion. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 23:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Er, why would you object to putting them in templates?

(To anticipate one possible objection: I think this does fix the "What links here" problem, since anyone who actually wishes to inject POV probably would use the "no bias" userbox (if any userbox at all), so it'd be no use to anyone trying to votestack or form some sort of clique (i.e. it speaks to a rejection of cabals , so it can't be a proxy for them). Personally, I would punish any attempted abuse, not delete the userboxes.)

I think this sort of thing might be part of some compromise, perhaps? --AySz88^-^ 04:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This wouldn't work - many people may hold a particular view, but don't feel that it is a POV which affects their Wikipedia editing, therefore they would not add these boxes. Whereas, if people put ordinary userboxes (non-transcluded, vote-stuffing is bad) saying e.g. 'This user supports political party X' then other users can decided for themselves whether that view is affecting the person's edits Cynical 08:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with keeping the current style of userboxes ("This user supports party X") is that the userboxes are being interpreted as advocacy or the promotion of a POV in their editing, not as an anti-POV measure. (If people were recognizing POV userboxes for their anti-POV potential, this whole blowup wouldn't exist...) Banning transclusion might reduce vote-stuffing (though I don't see why the same problems wouldn't arise with, say, a search for the text of the box) but the existance of the current userboxes, whether in User or Template space, looks as if POV is accepted or encouraged within the workings of Wikipedia.

I'm not sure that I understand the first part of your post. Wouldn't someone that "may hold a particular view but [doesn't] feel that it is a POV which affects their Wikipedia editing" use a + or - box? Do the wordings need to be changed to make that more clear? --AySz88^-^ 18:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

In the context of the current proposal at Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll, I think it would change "Advocacy or POV declaring are specifically excluded." to "Advocacy is specifically excluded. Declarations of possible bias in the Template space should/must also discourage, or acknowledge the discouragement of, bias in encyclopedia-editing and other Wikipedia activities." --AySz88^-^ 21:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No more userboxes can be created

See the discussion here. Basically, while we haven't decided on how to deal with extant userboxes yet, we are all pretty much in agreement that no NEW ones should be created, as that will just make whatever ultimate solution we decide on harder to implement (because there'll be more userboxes to subst, delete, userfy, whatever). Thank you for understanding. --Cyde Weys 02:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"...the creation of any new userboxes is prohibited per new policy..." Can you point me in the direction of this new policy that's mandated such a moratorium? I was under the impression we were still trying to figure out what policy is to be implemented. While "pretty much" everyone might be in agreement of this at the DRV subpage, there are people discussing other proposals out there that wouldn't go so far against userboxes. The Pathoschild proposal (which will hopefully get a better name and shorter link), for example, is receiving support and recognizes some limited uses for userboxes. It would permit the creation and use of userbox templates that benefit the encyclopedia (as defined in the proposal). There would be a moratorium on creating userboxes that don't meet this criteria, but not the full moratorium you're claiming is policy.

I've partially reverted your changes to bring back instructions on how to use {{Userbox}} to "roll your own", since it's likely that any policy will prefer non-template userboxes over template userboxes in some situations. I've also restored some mention of content that still applies in user-space (no fair use images, no personal attacks, etc.) I'm not removing your claim of new policy, as I'm assuming that there's some policy statement mandating such a moratorium that I yet haven't seen. Thank you, as well, for your understanding. — Jeff | (talk) | 03:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The basic reasoning is "It's a Good Idea". It's something that the vast majority of people, even the pro-userbox people, can agree on. If you read Jimbo's statements it's very clear that he does not want the Template: namespace used for userboxes and their deletion is imminent. Given that, it makes sense that we shouldn't be allowing people to create more userboxes in the Template: namespace, which will just make the inevitable deletions more time-consuming and will piss off more people, as it's easier to see something just created get deleted than something that's been around for a bit. A moratorium on the creation of new userboxes is consistent with any finalized userbox policy that is likely to be made. --Cyde Weys 03:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

(Hope you don't mind, I moved your comment so it wouldn't split mine.) Have the vast majority of people agreed that we should have an absolute moratorium on userbox creation? I've read all of Jimbo's postings (that I'm aware of) on the matter, and while I agree that it's clear he wants POV-boxes out of template space (and I can't say I disagree with him), I don't think it's as clear that he wants all userboxes out of template space. His original objections to userboxes were based on the POV-boxes, and while the conflict's probably made him more critical of userboxes in general (and who could blame him?), I haven't seen anything "very clear" from him that he wants all userboxes gone from template space. He's said (yesterday), "...there is a strong consensus that having various sorts of advocacy userboxes is problematic, especially when they are promoted in the Wikipedia namespace..." (emphasis mine). On Saturday, he said, "I've become more and more convinced that the right thing to do is to take any and all userboxes which don't fit some very very narrow "practical" uses into people's personal userspace." His main problem seems to be with advocacy, and not with all userboxes. I certainly don't see anything there that would justify calling a moratorium policy. (While Jimbo certainly does have the power to directly mandate new policy, comments from the mailing list don't necessarily represent him stating new policy. As has been quoted elsewhere, Jimbo has said "...in this entire userbox conflict, I have actually done absolutely nothing. There have been no decrees from me, no mass deletions, nothing but a serious attempt to engage a wide variety of people in serious discussion.") In short, I don't see that Jimbo has mandated a moratorium against all userboxes ("advocacy userboxes" perhaps).

I also don't see that we can claim the moratorium is based on a "new policy" if it's only the case that it's claimed that it will be consistent with expected, but as yet nonexistent, policy. As I mentioned above, the Pathoschild proposal would permit userboxes in template space if they had some benefit to the encyclopedia. The terms used in the proposal (which admittedly might be too broad) would include WikiProject userboxes, geographical userboxes, and statements of general interest. If the Pathoschild proposal is the policy likely to be made (and I'm clearly biased in hoping that it is), a moratorium on all userboxes would not be consistent with it. In case anyone's thinking along these lines, the Pathoschild proposal isn't some strictly pro-userbox proposal. It has the backing of some of the more anti-userbox Wikipedians, such as Tony Sidaway. (I've also found that Doc glasgow contributed much of the text about a month ago; I don't know his current views on it, so I wouldn't want to represent him as a supporter of it). So, clearly, if it's your position that gets adopted into policy, then a full moratorium will be in order. If its something like Pathoschild, we'll have a moratorium on advocacy userboxes and other userboxes that don't serve the project.

Now, I'd really like to revert that statement off the main page that an absolute moratorium is part of "new policy"—that's not accurate language. However, I'm not all that taken to drastic changes without consensus if it looks like a compromise might be in order. I'm certainly sold on the concept of decreasing userbox growth. I'd think it appropriate to refactor the page towards the primary goal of specifying "how to make your own userboxes for your own user page", rather than "here's how to make a new template". (I talked a little about this elsewhere on the page under the header "Encouraging non-template userboxes".) The page should encourage user page userboxes when possible, but allow for (greatly minority) cases where template-space userboxes might be permitted (subject to future policy). I'd probably also think it appropriate to put out a moratorium against advocacy/belief-based userbox templates. I think Jimbo's statements are quite clear on this point (especially his comment on /Beliefs). With CSD-T1 being interpreted as it is, such templates are definitely going to be deleted, so it makes good sense to stop their creation as well. However, I don't think we ought to be stating such a moratorium on all userboxes (especially being so heavy-handed in claiming it's in enforcement of undefined future policy), when there's valid policy candidates with support from both sides that would not be consistent with a complete ban of userboxes in template space. Thanks for your time and consideration. — Jeff | (talk) | 04:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's too hurtful to keep the moratorium in effect for all userboxes for at least a few days until further clarifications are made as to exactly which userboxes might still be allowed in Template: namespace. It's been made quite clear that a lot of them are not acceptable. In the mean time people can just code new userboxes directly into their userspace. And I agree with you about refactoring this page to place the focus on userspace userboxes rather than Templatespace userboxes. --Cyde Weys 04:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's too hurtful, but it's unnecessarily heavy-handed—especially for users already angry at the speedy deletions. How about we use less firm language? As I said, I think most would agree that advocacy userboxes are out, so we can be firm on those. Instead of a strict moratorium on others, how about we "heavily discourage" them? Say, something like:

The Criteria for Speedy Deletion of templates, which allow for the deletion of inflammatory or polemic templates, are currently in active enforcement. Existing advocacy-based userbox templates are being removed, and any newly created advocacy userboxes will be immediately deleted as well. The use of other userboxes in templates will also soon be limited, as the template namespace is to be used to serve the goal of writing an encyclopedia. Until a policy is agreed upon to determine the use of userboxes as templates, the creation of new userbox templates is heavily discouraged at this time.

Then we give the alternative of "rolling your own" later on the page. It's not perfect, but I don't think it's particularly harmful to present this as strong advice (with the warning further that restrictions are coming) instead of as a mandate. — Jeff | (talk) | 05:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for removing the reference to policy from the main page. I just saw that. — Jeff | (talk) | 05:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Debate over keep / don't keep userboxes have taken away soooo much time from editing, however, until a policy is implemented, or we get something like specific ruling from Jimbo or a Arbcom case of Everyone v.s. Everyone else ruling; a moratorium on userbox creation does not appear to have a consensus at this time. If I've cleary missed something SPECIFIC to the contrary of this, please reference it here. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 03:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a simple question for you: are you in favor of or opposed to the moratorium? --Cyde Weys 03:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Great loaded question. I am opposed to a moratorium of the creation of all userboxes. I totally support speedy deletion of inflamatory userboxes, but do not think we have either a clear ruling, or community consensus on what comprises "divisive". (e.g. Someone making a box that says This user is a male is gender divisive, but is it harming the community?). xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 03:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, this debate also seems to have a lot more to it then a polygon, but doesn't get to the pure "don't describe anything about yourself on your userpage". Some feel it is a good way to avoid being able to find editors with like ideals, but without spilling the beans I can think of at least 3-4 immediaet other ways to link to them. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 03:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen the latest comments from Jimbo? He's made it quite clear that template space should be for encyclopedic content only and that userboxes should be removed from it. In this light it makes sense to prevent the creation of new userboxes in template space. That's all the moratorium does. It doesn't matter whether the userbox is "divisive" or not, it just shouldn't be in template space. --Cyde Weys 04:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I would be fine with moving ALL userboxes to User: space somewhere, but do not agree that they should all be required to be transcluded. Many of the boxes are collaberated on by many editors, and I believe that they can contribute positively to community building. A problem is that there is currently no approved place within the User: namespace for placing these without running in to WP:OWN issues related to userspace and/or not having user space pages for non existant users, although I'd welcome a proposal to accomidate this. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There are a variety of proposals to deal with userboxen, but all the viable ones include removing userboxen from the template namespace. In this light it only makes sense to restrict creation of new userboxen in template space. If you read Jimbo's statements though he really doesn't like userboxes at all. They encourage a sort of bumper sticker mentality which gives a false impression about what Wikipedia is really about. --Cyde Weys 04:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Rather then go on about what we don't agree with, I'm hoping that by defining common goals we may get to an amicable solution quicker:

Quick recap on things that someone might agree on (?) :

• Many templates primarily for use in the user: namespace may not be approriate to be housed in Template: namespace
  • User: and/or Wikipedia: namespace may be a more approriate place for these items
• Templates that meet the community standards for Inflammatory or Personal Attacks are not approriate anywhere.
• Templates designed to express a point of view are generally inapproriate to be categorized.
• Templates expressing a skill-set may warrant categorization.

Endorsements:

1. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Anti-endorsements:

1. I cannot in good conscience endorse this policy. Cjmarsicano 05:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
2. If I read it correctly, the reason for Jimbo saying the first bullet point isn't because those templates are meant for the User namespace but because he feels those boxes are advocacy or advertising. I think moving them into User space does nothing to solve the primary problem. --AySz88^-^ 06:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Nearly all templates primarily for use in the User: namespace are not appropriate to be housed in Template: namespace.
  • User: or Wikipedia: namespace may be a more appropriate place for these items, although the better solution would be having them inline on the pages they are used.
    • The best solution is to use your own words, not silly colored boxes.
  • The only exceptions that currently come to mind are "This user is an admin" and "This user is a member of WikiProject _____".
• Templates that meet the community standards for Inflammatory or Personal Attacks are not appropriate anywhere.
• Templates designed to express a point of view should not include categories, period.
• Categories that are primarily used in the User: namespace should be deleted unless there's a very good reason for them to exist.

Endorsements:

1. Cyde Weys 04:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Agree with 1, 3 and 4, disagree with 2 because there are no "community standards" for what inflammatory userboxes are. Putting that into effect is essentially giving admins a blank slate. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 22:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Anti-endorsements:

1. I cannot in good conscience endorse this policy. Cjmarsicano 05:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
2. (copied from above) If I read it correctly, the reason for Jimbo saying the first bullet point isn't because those templates are meant for the User namespace but because he feels those boxes are advocacy or advertising. I think moving them into User space does nothing to solve the primary problem. --AySz88^-^ 06:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess I have to agree with AySz88 here. The best solution may be just to delete all userboxes immediately so that users don't have a chance to subst: them into their userpages. --Cyde Weys 06:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Er, I think that might be a bit too heavy-handed. I feel userboxes have an incredible potential for good if it becomes impossible for people to interpret them as advocacy / POV userboxes stop being advocates of POV (depending on your POV on userboxes :p ). (See above) --AySz88^-^ 18:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So you would irrevocably harm the project by making it more difficult for users to have userboxes displaying what POVs other editors should watch out for and neutralize? Rogue 9 14:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The project has been damaged by use of userbox template "what links here" lists and/or category entries created by userboxes, and continues to be so, including an incident just yesterday. On the other hand, I have asked for someone to cite any case where an article was improved by referals to POV userboxes, and no one has offered any case yet. I think it's clear that the greater danger is in allowing POV userbox templates. Using {{subst:Userbox}} is fine, but no templates or categories for anything POV and/or not contributing directly to building a quality encyclopedia. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 17:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I maintain that informing the userbase of xfD polls in progress, which we all are entitled to participate in, does not harm the encyclopedia. Rogue 9 14:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Every page nominated for deletion gets a notice template. If you have the page on your watchlist, you'll know. If you review the xfD pages regularly, you'll know. The problem is when a select group of editors is informed of an xfD, as that is usually an attempt to have a particular viewpoint prevail in the discussion. You have a right to participate in xfD discussion. I maintain that you don't have a right to be recruited as part of a select group. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 17:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, those who attempted to abuse the userboxes have been found out (User:Jason Gastrich for example) and any potential harmful contributions from them carefully watched by others, which probably isn't the type of benefit you're talking about, but a benefit nonetheless. It's difficult to mention any specific improvements since, to me, the main positive effect of userboxes is the make the user aware of their own biases, which is probably hard for other people to notice. Abuses, on the other hand, are a lot more visible. --AySz88^-^ 15:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

But, we only know about the ones who have been caught. We don't know how many have gotten away with it. And I strongly suspect that in most cases the POV userboxes reinforce biases, rather than leading the users of them to work to eliminate them from their editing. We have ample evidence of the dangers of POV userboxes as templates. The benefits claimed all seem to be theoretical. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 17:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

But then, "those who have gotten away with it" is theoretical too, no? :p As seen in the Jason Gastrich case, it looks like very few people can be notified (on the order of a couple) before someone he tried to notify cries foul, and that's not even a POV userbox, where more people are watching closer. I don't really think it's possible to do something like that without having someone getting suspicious of why a silent majority suddenly sprang up. In their current form, yes, POV userboxes tend reinforce bias in peoples' minds, but I think they can (again, see above) be reworded to make a positive intent clear and promote NPOV in encyclopedia matters. --AySz88^-^ 20:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

FOUL!?

• FOUL! Does that mean we can't create a userbox for Wikipedia:WikiProject Hello! Project then? This is ridiculous. You might as well say no more articles. --CJ Marsicano 04:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You are welcome to create the userbox for that WikiProject, just put it somewhere like Wikipedia:WikiProject Hello! Project/Userbox. Or a better idea would be to write the code on your WikiProject page and encourage the users to copy that onto their userpage. The bottom line is it shouldn't be in Template: namespace. --Cyde Weys 04:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • There are a number of projects that have userboxes already, and some of them are in templatespace. I'm not sure I see why these project specific userboxes (or messageboxes for that matter, there are MANY projects with messageboxes.. see my user page for usage, I have two there) have to go in projectspace exactly... could you elucidate? ++Lar: t/c 19:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
      • The general case for the deletion of the vast majority of userbox templates is that they don't help build the encyclopedia and/or are unencyclopedic content. This same claim can't exactly be made about the WikiProject userboxes, though, so I don't know if this rationale is so strong. I still think it'd be preferable for them to be moved into WikiProject space though because, at least to me, Template: should be mainly for templates that are used in main articlespace and WikiProject: is thus a good place for WikiProject-related templates that are exclusively used in User: space. --Cyde Weys 19:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I've been following all this discussion fairly closely for quite some time now, so you don't have to repeat all the claims about why or why not userboxes are or are not divisive, disruptive, etc... I guess my issue here is that you seem to have come up with some rather blanket provisions and are claiming them as policy without giving cites to where they are actually mandated as such, and without the consensus process having arrived at them as policy (independent of mandates). The consensus process seems to be coming to rest at a set of policies rather different than the draconian ones you are claiming are policy. ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Keeping manual userboxes up to date

A lot of userbox templates have been eliminated, under the hungry deletionism opened by WP:CSD#T1. In many cases these boxes have been subst'ed. In order to prevent rampant forking of common boxes, we should set up example code pages where the most up-to-date form of a manually generated userbox can be maintained. Those who want to use that userbox code can then put those pages on their watchlist so they can stay up to date with modifications. We could store those pages under appropriate subpages and sub-sub-pages of WP:UB. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

<sarc>Wouldn't it be a lot easier for others to just transclude them </sarc> -- xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 22:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yar, and it would even save space. Of course, WP:WINP, though not that that precept has affected the argument against UB templating. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why userboxes need to "updated". Presumably if a user puts userbox code (no more transclusions assumed) on their userpage they are happy with it, and if they aren't happy with it, they should modify it upon placement. Userboxes are about "free expression", right? Isn't it a good thing if everyone's userbox is slightly different? Why should they all have to be kept uniform and conform to whatever "updates" were coming down the line? A lot of revert wars were triggered by userboxes linked to by dozens, even hundreds of userpages, because one user would change its look to what they considered "best", which would change it on every other userpage it was used on, this upset other people, etc. It's pretty ugly. There's absolutely no reason userboxes should be standardized. Indeed, they should be as individualized as someone writing freeform prose on their page describing their beliefs. --Cyde Weys 22:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming you meant banned-from-Template-space advocate/POV userboxes, not stuff like the Babel boxes or Wikiproject boxes? --AySz88^-^ 21:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Retaining deleted UB templates

What is WP:UB doing in regards to deleted userbox templates? Are they being removed from the WP:UB lists? It would seem better overall in the spirit of this project to maintain deleted UBs on the appropriate pages, available as copyable source. We shouldn't let the arguments over what belongs in templatespace affect the ability to organize boilerplate userspace material. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

User:MarkSweep's mass removal of categories from templates

User:MarkSweep has just done a mass removal of category tags from Userbox templates [1]. Basically rending most of this user categorisation empty. What is the current view on this? --Salix alba (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That it should all be reverted, but would be too much work to do. POV-based userboxes will probably be replaced by interest-based userboxes, and the same for usercategories ("this user is interested in Christianity", not "this user is a Christian"—just like WikiProjects exist by field of knowledge, not by bias), or a similarly drastic change, so whenever a coherent userbox/usercategory policy exists, such vigilante action will no longer be necessary and all the problems being caused right now by such wide-scale actions can be reversed with the help of bots, etc. All of the changes can be fixed and reverted at any point in the future, so if MarkSweep likes wasting his time to push an agenda, I see no point in denying a fellow human being his chance at brief happiness. That's how I see it, anyway. :F Plus I'd rather the discussion on a userbox policy continue than have it be sidetracked by yet another rogue-admin-beatdown. There are more important things to do. Like, oh yeah, encyclopedia. :o -Silence 11:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding ("this user is interested in Christianity", not "this user is a Christian"—just like WikiProjects exist by field of knowledge, not by bias): Are you saying that stating one "is a Christian" is being biased? - dcljr (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Just my $.02, but I think that userbox categories should stay, for two reasons. 1. Wikipedians with similar interests may be interested in meeting eachother, so having UB Categories isn't too terrible. 2. For collaborations. For example, I have {{User AFOL}} (That's: Adult fan of Lego) on my userpage. I might sometime in the future want to build on an article such as Lugnet, so having a category Wikipedian AFOLs would be pretty helpful if I was looking for others to help with editing such an article. I feel strongly that Categories in Userboxes can really help the project. Reuvenk_[T][C] 00:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

MarkSweep deleted all these great userboxes. MarkSweep is also a vandal. He vandalized my userpage and insulted me on my talk page. He needs to get banned. The Republican 03:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

He has just deleted the Pimp userbox (which I made) because he said it was orphaned. I recreated it and can be found on my userpage. The Republican 22:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think userboxes should be kept, because if an administrator wants to delete the userbox, he/she should contact the creator of the userbox and tell the creator whats right and whats wrong. Then the admin should suggest ways to better the userbox not delete it! Userboxes show one's way of expressing themselves, and if that gets taken away, its like loosing the right to vote for your own government! Funnybunny 01:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm! -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

What? Is there something wrong about my user history? Funnybunny 03:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll let others decide for themselves. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 10:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I must admit, I spend most of my time editing my own userpage but not real articles. But, who else wouldn't, right? Funnybunny 21:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have your priorities out of whack. Please read Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 23:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least I have threee successful edits to the main part. Funnybunny 01:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Other languages

And what of the userboxes on the other wikipedias?--ikiroid | (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you ever make new user boxes?

well?

Pece Kocovski 23:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You can make all the userboxes you want on your user page (well, no personal attacks, no copyvio, no fair use images, no categories). Use {{subst:Userbox}}. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 01:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Respect

Some respect would be nice. I think it is quite obvious that something like "This user thinks that niggers stink" should be speedy deletable. The question is where are the boundaries. In my opinion anything that attacks others rather than endorses something or represents legitimate criticism should be speedy deleted. That in my eyes includes "This user does not tolerate Marxism" or even "fascism" as long as we allow to have political party user boxes given that there are marxist and fascist parties around and we cannot set up double standards for them.

? ? ?

ROGNNTUDJUU! thinks that users who cross out flags show a lack of respect for those represented by them and therefore created this template.

02:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Debate

A heated debate is going on, which I am actively involved. It's about the Userbox redirect page. Some people want it deleted, because it is a "soft" redirect (whatever the hell that is). Some people, like me, want it kept for convinience, the benifit of new users, its part in userboxes in general, and its part of a vendetta to delete most userboxes, which users like MarkSweep are invovled in. Feel free to put a comment on the disscusion page or its entry on the RFD (under March 2nd). I'd also appreciate your comment on my talk page. Thanks. The Republican 00:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a cross-namespace link, which is deprecated because it breaks when Wikipedia is mirrored by other sites. This should be deleted as a technical problem, not because it has anything to do with userboxes. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 11:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

are there any warhammer 40000

userboxes?

Pece Kocovski 11:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I certainly hope not. Your userpage is provided to help you contribute to Wikipedia. It is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 12:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you try to rephrase that, it does unfortunatly sound a little uncivil. Thanks! Ian13/talk 14:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Warhammer 40,000 is a valid and noteworthy Wikipedia topic. As long as you are using the userboxes to help explain your interests in editing Wikipedia articles and get in contact with people who could help work on them, I don't see how anyone could conceivably object to that. See Wikipedia:Userboxes/Games for the page where such a userbox would be, if anywhere. And don't mind the somewhat-less-than-polite initial reception; userboxes are a touchy subject for many Wikipedians these days. Although it's orphaned and has only existed for four days, a little clever, in-depth searching (i.e. guessing) allowed me to find the userbox you seek: {{user 40k}} is a Warhammer 40k userbox. Enjoy! -Silence 14:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

How do you make userboxes?

Is there a page for that?

Pece Kocovski 23:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC) Just type in the url for the box you want like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Nameformybox The "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User" should remain the same. The rest is up to you.--God Ω War 16:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

whats an url? Pece Kocovski 23:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You really shouldn't be making new userboxes at this juncture. They're on their way out. And as for URL, this is Wikipedia, you know. You can find out here. --Cyde Weys 00:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If you do want to make a new userbox, you should probably be making it on your own userpage using {{Userbox}}, rather than making a new template. Instructions on how to do so are at Wikipedia:Userboxes—the project page that this talk page is attached to. — Jeff | (talk) | 01:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the UBX policy?

What happened to the userbox policy and its poll? It seems that activity has stopped. CG 19:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No consensus either way (61% support), so a new one needs to be drafted somehow. --AySz88^-^ 20:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It's already underway, it's just being done a bit differently this time. --Cyde Weys 20:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you give me the link? CG 20:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The actual policy isn't being done in the public eye until it is actually implemented, but here's an idea of what it may look like: Wikipedia:Proposed template and category usage policy. --Cyde Weys 00:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't being done in the public eye? Why? Is it classified? ;-) CG 17:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

We all know what happened the last time it was done in the public eye ... vote-stacked to death by Myspacers. --Cyde Weys 01:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Umm, any vote you reach in secret won't be valid.--God Ω War 01:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking this his user contribs, He might be talking about this page: Wikipedia:Userfying_userboxes.--God Ω War 02:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

<--

(edit conflict) I'm not sure I understand - I hope you're not talking about your own proposal as if it's an official policy in progress, and it's probably a bad idea to not be looking for others' comments especially as it seems people are finding problems with it. --AySz88^-^ 02:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

For reference

All the userbox policy proposals I'm aware of (with commentary):

WP:UPP → Userbox policy poll

Would have effectively banned transclusion (without substitution) of any templates except those which "declare a relevant skill, speciality, editing interest, or membership of a valid wiki-grouping."

WP:UBP → Proposed policy on userboxes

Same as WP:UPP, but would also ban images in userboxes.

WP:UUB → Userfying userboxes (formerly Use of userboxes)

Similar in effect to WP:UPP, but without the draconian limits on transclusion, so 'cluding templates from user subpages is fine as long as they don't violate policy.

WP:UUSM → Unacceptable userspace material

Largely restates existing policy and common-sense expectations of user conduct, with a few curveballs thrown in at the end.

WP:TCU → Proposed template and category usage policy

Cyde's proposal. Similar in effect to WP:UUB, but also covers categories. The present wording has one or two loopholes/ambiguities I'd like filled in, but it seems like it could turn out to be a fair compromise proposal.

—Andux^␅ 04:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The missing principle of the anti-UB crusade

From WP:UP: What can I have on my user page?

Anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project. It's a mistake to think of it as a homepage: Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider. Instead, think of it as a way of organising the work that you will be doing on the articles in Wikipedia, and also a way of helping other editors to understand who they're working with. (emphasis mine) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

New series of userboxes

I created a series of "This user is glad to help in" userboxes here. I think that that's what userboxes need to do: offer easier way to collaboration and interaction between users. What are your thoughts before I templify them? CG 12:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best to delay creating new userbox templates until userbox policy is settled. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 13:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Help with a userbox

First off, I hope I'm asking this in the right place (I was directed here by someone in the Help area). I noticed that there currently is not a category for Wikipedian Insurance Agents. I created a userbox for this, and display it on my page, but am unable to find out how to both create this new category as well as how to link my userbox to it. Any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. --Mtgkooks 18:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)