Wikipedia talk:Migration of usercruft into new namespaces

message: :It's a bit early for a poll, isn't it? It's been up less than 24 hours. —Ashley Y 03:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't want it delete it. Rfrisbietalk 03:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw Poll 

message: One of the primary objections to userboxes, usercats etc. is that it enables vote stacking. I would only support this proposal if it were possible for the 'what links here' to be disabled in the proposed new namespaces. Is anyone aware if this is technically possible? Cynical 23:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you feel about "Wikipedians" categories, which allow the same thing? —Ashley Y 03:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't understand this at all. Why do people even talk about vote stacking? So far as I can tell, there's no such thing, and even if there was, what on earth has it got to do with userboxes and "what links here" figures? It's not as though estimates of the popularity of a proposal are ever based on how many pages link somewhere, and userboxes don't have any kind of influence over polls. I contend that "vote stacking" is an entirely mythical beast, its alleged relationship to userboxes quite preposterous, and we should no more bear it in mind when determining policy about userboxes than we should hang garlic around template space to protect it from vampires. Zerrakhi 05:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to sound like a crackpot conspiracy theorist, but it is definitely occurring. I could provide an example, if necessary. Ardric47 08:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An example that went unnoticed at the time (i.e. the closer of the poll was unable to take vote-stacking into account, which would obviously negate its effects) would be welcomed – Gurch 12:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't checked whether this went unnoticed at the time, but see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Cyde and CAUBXD. Ardric47 22:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An example that a non-admin could actually see would be better.  (If you have no other way of testing what a non-admin can see, you can always log out and look at what an IP user can see.)  Reviewing what is available for the CAUBXD (the better information is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Fredil Yupigo/CAUBXD), it seems that the thing 1) was a serious risk of being a vote-stacking tool, 2) had not yet been used as a vote-stacking tool at the time of deletion, 3) clearly did not go unnoticed.  User boxes intended or used for vote-stacking ought to go to the great bit bucket in the sky (or below the ground) - but even this doesn't need to be a CSD - it could, for example, be reverted and protected by an admin while a TfD discussion occurs (there are probably even better solutions).  I have yet to see any other asserted example of a vote-stacking userbox (I've seen this one before), so trying to argue for eliminating all userboxes that assert a POV on the basis of one known incident strikes me as ludicrous.  GRBerry 16:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote stacking 

message: I started reading this and thought "great!"... and then, I read on to category and thought... good... and then I went on to the image section and thought... maybe?  The reason is a matter of scope (at least for categories).  I think that the encyclopedia should be completely separate from administrative work (of which users are arguably a part).  So, user template does make sense... and I would completely agree... but, I was thinking maybe there should be a breakdown on the level of what should ideally be in an encyclopedia and what shouldn't be.  This would mean that NPOV, selfref, policy2, and userboxes are all templates that belong segregated from the templates for Islam, Christianity, Communism, etc.  I came to this conclusion not when reading the first proposal--because splitting off user templates is simple... but because splitting off user categories is difficult... and user images is even more ambiguous.  Splitting categories into two is almost counter-intuitive.  You have a root which is for everything and then you'd have one top-level category be :Category:Wikipedia administration... what more do we need than that?  Making a new name-space seems a little odd... especially if we're only doing it for users... and not all Wikipedia administration...  So, I think that should definitely be more broad in scope and not just for users.  Images are just a little ambiguous.  I'd say no one would argue that :Image:Grenavitar.jpg should be in "User image:Grenavitar.jpg"... I can't think of any article it could be used in... since we don't have man with kangaroo head... but... what about [:commons:Category:Images_by_gren|some of these images]?  I uploaded :Image:Paternoster Square gate.jpg primarily because I liked it and thought it may have some use... you would also have to deal with issues like this with the commons... unless, any user image will necessarily be language specific.  Those are my thoughts on the subject... and, I guess we'll see what happens.  gren グレン 09:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: Ultimately, I think this discussion is putting the cart before the horse.  What is most important is deciding what usage is acceptable, not where things are kept.  If two groups of things have different standards for acceptable use and are easy to confuse, then they should be kept in different places.  If the standards are the same, they can be in one place.  If they are impossible to get confused about, they don't need different spaces.
In my mind, the biggest advantage that the proposal under discussion at Wikipedia:May Userbox policy poll offers is item 4 of the policy, which reads "The Userbox: namespace will only be allowed to be used on pages in the User: namespace and WP:UBX."  That needs a little loosening (the appropriate xFD, deletion review, and on a WikiProject page).  But it establishes a solid fence that there are items acceptable only in user space.  This is written more vaguely "relevant mostly to the User: space", and leaves a grey zone that makes me uncomfortable.
I personally believe that graphical boxes which express a POV are fine in user space, and unacceptable in an article.  (Even if an attempt to balance in text was made, the nature of a graphical element would too readily constitute undue weight.)  I'd rather fence in POV boxes very solidly than vaguely. GRBerry 18:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment - Use is More Important than Location 

message: How would user templates actually work?  Would they need a new syntax for them?  Current templates are transcluded using curly braces ... obviously you can't just overload that notation, seeing as how there could be naming conflicts.  Everything should be done ambiguously, so you'd know which namespace the template was being transcluded from without having to check whether templates of those names exist in either or both of the two template namespaces.  --Cyde↔Weys 21:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like this:  —Ashley Y 21:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All non template namespaces already work like that.  For example, if you go , you end up with . Dtm142 23:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Right. AFAIK this means there's no technical effort to doing this beyond creating the namespace pair. —Ashley Y 00:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User templates 

message: I'm not sure I understand the rationale behind this proposal. Virtually anything can be transcluded -- it doesn't have to be called a "template" or "user template". Why is it is necessary to create a new namespace? -- bcasterline • talk 01:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the proposals to migrate them into user subpages both failed, and some admins have a problem with them being in the template namespace. Dtm142 02:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: The May Userbox policy poll has been ratified as an official policy on the English Wikipedia. Rfrisbietalk 20:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, I didn't count to ten, check the history for details. Rfrisbietalk 20:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, we've got 90% (questions 2 and obviously 3 are dead, I think) though a far too small sample size to be considered anything near "consensus" yet. —Ashley Y 20:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not this one, the "May poll." Sorry for any confusion. ;-) Rfrisbietalk 00:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's better described as an edit war over the status of the May proposal (I use the term jokingly - all members are behaving just fine). Any attempt to accept/reject it is quickly reverted. I hope this one goes better. – Xolatron 23:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I cannot imagine what would possess anybody to claim that the May userbox policy even had a possibility of establishing policy.  It was so inadequately publicised that it didn't even make it to Wikipedia:Current surveys.  Moreover only 112 of those polled supported it, while nearly 60 opposed.  It isn't anywhere near being accepted. --Tony Sidaway 12:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New userbox policy 

message: ...creating and maintaining a separate wiki for user-related material, crosslinked with the main Wikimedia projects (Wikipedia, Commons, etc). I think this would allow Exopedianism and Metapedianism sit far more easily "beside" each other rather than "on top of" each other. Regards, David Kernow 01:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Put the time and effort into... 

message: Questions 2 and 3 are obviously dead. Question 1 might have consensus if it scaled up, but I think Jimbo said that a new namespace was out of the question. Shall we mark this as "rejected"? —Ashley Y 04:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's time for taps. Rfrisbietalk 12:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've marked it rejected. —Ashley Y 01:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great effort. Here's a big Thanks! :-) 01:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that was a big mistake.  Wikipedia works by concensus, it is not a dictatorship.  Jimbo's opinion is the opinion of one wikipedian, and should be treated as such.  Closing the poll because concensus hasn't been reached is fine; closing it because someone thinks that that's what Jimbo wants (without even asking him if that's the case) isn't.  If I'm wrong, and Wikipedia isn't free - why do we keep calling it "the free encyclopaedia"? Waggers 09:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dead? I mean, the straw poll on the first question (user templates) is 27-4 in favor. That makes a strong argument for adoption, not rejection. The third question (user images) is 20-5 against, a strong tendency toward rejection. The second category (user categories) is 15-9 in favor, which is 63% but on such a small sample I'd say it's up in the air. However, the discussion has gone dead, it's been here long enough, and we need to complete this. Here's what I'm going to do: start a new section here in the talk page for people to marshal final arguments. Barring a breakthrough in brilliant argumentation or a big change in numbers, I think the user templates should be considered adopted, the user images, and the user categories we'll have to see. Obviously anything adopted will just mean a petition to the developers, which quite probably will be rejected if the report of what Jimbo said is true, but that's a different issue altogether. I'll also relist on the RfC as an alert that final arguments are being solicited. OK? Herostratus 20:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead? 

message: Based on poll data, there seems a strong trend to accept the user templates and reject the user images. User categories is a bit up in the air, but probably defaulting to "not adopted" unless new arguments or supporters appear. Neither side has an especially strong advantage in logic or argumentation, it appears. Are there any editors who have not previously commented, or editors who have a new argument, to change these results? Herostratus 20:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Closing arguments?