Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Userbox location straw poll

message: I'm not sure how the whole Wiki system works, but if possible, wouldn't a completely different namespace such as Userbox:Userboxes be sensible for keeping userboxes in? Is this solution of introducing a new namespace for things like this completely unfeasible, or is it just discouraged? Cheers, --mdmanser 07:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:MUPP was basically the same thing you just proposed. —Mira 07:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox Namespace 

message: Votes in the first row of a section are added to all other rows to get the true vote (eg- Bable would be 17+12=19 votes for template space).
===Languages===
UBX type   	Template namespace	Wikipedia namespace	User namespace
LANGUAGES  	12                	0                  	1
Babel      	17                	7                  	0
Grammar    	4                 	0                  	20
Non-ISO    	4                 	0                  	18
Programming	4                 	0                  	19
Note: I took out double votes. Voting for the top category means the who thing. A second vote is not needed. -Royalguard11TalkDesk 21:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pegboard tally 

message: UBX type   	Template namespace	Wikipedia namespace	User namespace
LANGUAGES  	12                	0                  	1
Babel      	17                	7                  	0
Grammar    	4                 	0                  	20
Non-ISO    	4                 	0                  	18
Programming	4                 	0                  	19
Note: I took out double votes. Voting for the top category means the who thing. A second vote is not needed. -Royalguard11TalkDesk 21:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Languages

message: UBX type                  	Template namespace	Wikipedia namespace	User namespace
LIFE, STATUS AND SITUATION	7                 	0                  	15
Education                 	8-9*              	0                  	0-1*
Health                    	1                 	0                  	5
Life                      	4-6*              	0                  	1-3*
Location                  	4                 	0                  	2
Personality               	0                 	0                  	7
Time                      	4                 	0                  	4
Zodiac                    	1                 	0                  	5
* With exceptions or split votes.
*Double votes discounted as above. Just add the top number to every cat to get the whole vote. -Royalguard11TalkDesk 22:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Life, status and situation

message: UBX type                      	Template namespace	Wikipedia namespace	User namespace
POLITICS, OPINIONS AND BELIEFS	5                 	0                  	19
Beliefs                       	1                 	0                  	1
Political parties             	0                 	0                  	2
Religion                      	3                 	0                  	1
Regional politics             	0                 	0                  	3
Sexuality                     	2                 	0                  	1
*Double votes discounted as above. Add top cat to other to get full result. -Royalguard11TalkDesk 22:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Politics, opinions and beliefs

message: UBX type            	Template namespace	Wikipedia namespace	User namespace
INTERESTS AND TASTES	6                 	0                  	19
Automotive          	1                 	0                  	2
Books               	1                 	0                  	2
Colours             	1                 	0                  	2
Computing           	1                 	0                  	2
Food                	1                 	0                  	2
Games               	1                 	0                  	2
Interests           	1                 	0                  	2
Mathematics         	0-1*              	0                  	1-2*
Media               	1                 	0                  	2
Musis               	1                 	0                  	2
Pets                	1                 	0                  	2
Sports              	1                 	0                  	2
* indicates split vote
*Double votes discounted as above. -Royalguard11TalkDesk 22:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interests and tastes

message: UBX type    	Template namespace	Wikipedia namespace	User namespace
WP-RELATED  	11                	0                  	1
Licensing   	7                 	4                  	0
Wikipedia   	4                 	3-4*               	11-12*
WikiProjects	7                 	9                  	2
Userboxes   	1                 	0                  	19
* indicates split vote
*Double votes discounted as above. -Royalguard11TalkDesk 22:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia-related

message: UBX type       	Template namespace	Wikipedia namespace	User namespace
OTHER USERBOXES	5                 	0                  	19
Emoticons      	1                 	0                  	1
Humor          	2                 	0                  	0
Seasonal       	2                 	0                  	0
*Double votes discounted as above. -Royalguard11TalkDesk 22:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other userboxes

message: I have tagged this article as needing clean-up.  It has gotten too long and unwieldly to effectively serve its purpose.  The instructions for voting in the straw poll are not clear, and it is actually quite difficult and time-consuming to cast a vote. --NThurston 12:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I urge you to not actually attempt this until there has been adequate discussion. -- Donald Albury 14:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't even know where to start cleaning it up, so let's start discussing. --NThurston 14:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up 

message: There are problems with this straw poll which prevent me from accepting it as legitimate, which is sad because I actually thought that some of us were interested in working on a consensus.  It has become apparent to me that this is a bully-pulpit for the deletionists.  --NThurston 01:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? CameoAppearance 05:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is apparent to me that the location and structure of the straw poll creates a bias towards those who are active in proposing and supporting the GUS (and this is not just because the poll results are headed that way).  Here are the specific issues that I have: a) its location - as a subpage of the GUS, it is arguable that most people would infer that it only relates to how to implement GUS.  This is likely to create a bias towards those that are active in the discussion of GUS (pro or con), and as with any project, this attracts more pro people than con people.  b) its structure - it is extremely difficult to place votes in its current form.  Those who are interested in userboxes, but don't know or care much about GUS as a compromise are likely to be deterred by the complexity.  c) some admins are using it incorrectly to justify consensus.  I have seen other proposals on this issue labelled "rejected" (see MUPP) because there weren't close enough to 80% or more.  Yet, people are moving forward using even unfavorable straw poll votes to justify doing stuff.  d) Any attempt I have proposed to make the straw poll more accessible or available to the broader userbox community has been quickly opposed and usually reverted, and for reasons I cannot fathom, people keep claiming that that I am only proposing this due to my biases?!  It was a long time ago that I agreed to work with the GUS to help find consensus and a workable solution (biases aside), but now I see that certain deletionists are not interested in consensus and have created a bull-dozer to push their point of view.  Hence, I no longer see the straw poll as a valid tool for informing decisions or justifying actions. --NThurston 12:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Valid 

message: If I am understanding things correctly, they cannot check ISP address after 4 weeks.  That means that this poll as it stands is no longer useful, since anyone who voted a month ago, could vote again with a sock puppet.
Also, the "belief" section has become moot per WP:JOU.
I suggest that we name this historical, and start again. - Jc37 17:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why start over? Are you claiming the results aren't valid? If so, what are your reasons? -- Donald Albury 18:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we only count opinions from the first month, the poll's results would be "no concensus". All opinions after that are apparently not verifiable as I mentioned above.  As this is apparently the only place where concensus is attempting to be reached, if we are to continue the discussion, we would require a new poll, to "start fresh", in order to guarantee accuracy. - Jc37 18:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see User:Dalbury/Pegboard, which is the tally as of July 19, 27 days after the poll opened. That looks like much the same pattern as the current tally, with the non-encyclopedic userboxes consigned to userspace by approximately two-thirds of the participants. Note that this is not a typical straw poll, but an attempt to see where Wkipedians think different kinds of userboxes should be kept. I don't think there is any question that non-encyclopedic userboxes would not be moved out of template space, it's just been a question of when, and just where do we draw the line between userboxes that contribute to building an encyclopedia and those that don't. -- Donald Albury 21:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I interpreted this pegboard as a resounding and suprising defeat of GUS, but now I just realized how utterly confusing this pegboard is - does a peg in the "main" overarching box count the same as one in each subcategory?  —AySz88\^-^ 06:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wanted all userboxes in a higher category to go in one space, you added your name at the top. If you wanted userboxes in different sub-categories to go in different spaces, you indicated that for each sub-category. I thought the instructions were pretty clear, and only two or three participants in the straw poll added their names in both a higher category and it's sub-categories. Those cases have been accounted for in the various tallies that have been posted. -- Donald Albury 09:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the instructions do say "Place your username ...in any cell for which you think it is the best match ...", which can be interpreted as every best match in every row.  It's also a lot more than "one or two" (I count about five on a glance) but if it's already accounted for.... *shrugs* —AySz88\^-^ 12:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Out of Date

message: I'm betting a lot of users have been discouraged by the confusing format of the straw poll (as in, when you go to add your name). It took me forever just to vote for what little I did. I'm not sure how useful the data we get off these polls will be. -- Ned Scott 07:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - it's a complete waste of time figuring out how to cast a vote. Does anyone actually still care about this issue? Although I'd prefer template namespace, I care less everyday. --WikiSlasher 10:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said in August, I am surprised that nobody has slapped the historical tag on it.  So I will do so.  If we find reason to poll again, a new poll should be done.  GRBerry 19:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  discouraged by format