Template talk:User United Kingdom

message: Hi, I made a few minor changes to make this template look more like the other templates. I made it so that only Great Britain is bold, I aligned the text to the left and I reduced the template width to that of the others by reducing the border width to that of the others. Hope no-one minds rst20xx 19:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: I think it was said somewhere that boxes should have no align on the box themselves or main content, because sepetate tags can be used on userpages if they so wish (i.e. in their tables). Ian13ID:540053 21:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How?  Whenever I've tried that it just doesn't work.   Deano (Talk) 21:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in theory if noalign is defined in the userbox, it will look for external aligns if applicable, style="text-align:left;" should do it. Ian13ID:540053 17:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Align 

message: There is a discussion and proposal regarding the changing of content and wording in United Kingdom location/nationality userbox templates located at Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Location/United Kingdom. - Hayter 20:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hayter - someone else has now reverted this.  I suggest you leave it as is.  Gsd2000 17:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I suggest you research further than you have. Check the original version of this template. The included category was (and still is) . From Day 1, this template was created to reflect location rather than nationality. British nationals overseas should be using a different template - this one miscategorizes them, and the change of text is precisely because of situations like this, where "comes from" is seen as interchangeable with "lives in" and confusion and miscategorisation result. I'd encourage anyone with an interest in this to read the linked discussion above, and also check out,  and . - Hayter 18:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm British, but I'm not particularly proud of it, so I don't want the  template.  I want the one that I thought I was originally signed up to, but which you changed after an overwhelming number of Wikipedians (four) voted for your suggestion.  Gsd2000 19:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So follow your own advice and create a new one. It's not my fault you've been using an incorrect one up til now. - Hayter 19:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should I????  Read the original wording of this template: [].  Why should I have to create a new one because you don't like the original wording?  If anything the template wording trumps any category it might be attached to, because you can't actually see the category unless you view the source.  Has it occurred to you that the category might have been wrong but the template wording right?  You are rude telling me to create my own one - you changed it, so politeness dictates that you should sort a new one out for the people you have affected.  Gsd2000 19:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Gsd2000. I put that box on my page because it said "comes from UK". I don't live there. The wording is also consistent with all other  templates - when I wanted a 'lives in Rwanda' box for myself, I had to create one along the lines of { { User Rwanda resident } }. I would advise you to do the same, but in fact I can't even see the box on your page, Hayter, so I don't know why the fuss? — SteveRwanda 07:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Content Change

message: Since this seems to be your sticking point Steve, let me address it for a final time. I apologise if the following sounds condescending, but it has all been said before, by others as well as I.
*The template is a location indicator. Let us assume most people are smart enough to realise this and are not as you imply, ignorant to the inclusion or meaning of a category.
*Even when looking at those who may have mistaken it for a nationality indicator, it is more than likely that the majority are in fact, in the UK, given that this is where most British people can be found. Thus, changing the text does not misrepresent this majority.
*There is possibly, a minority besides yourself who mistook this template for a nationality indicator and used it accordingly whilst living outside the United Kingdom. This minority is probably unaware of the purpose of the template. If they were, they would not use it, realising that it miscategorises them. This minority would likely appreciate the ability to substitue a template with an incorrect category for a template with a correct category. This minority has a number of options to choose from, not the least of which is .
*You propose that the path of least disruption is to change the category, but this is literally to change the meaning of the template beyond refinement of the existing purpose as I did in the first place. This is the sort of action you referred to two days ago as vandalism. Your contradiction aside, it is not illogical to suppose that there are people living within the UK who use this template despite not being British. In fact is is more than not illogical, it is not incorrect. See Ganesha who is Indian but lives in the UK and so uses this location template.
*To change the Category places all of the people who use this template in a different one to what they were in when they added this userbox to their page. For some the new category may be correct, but it is still an entirely different one.
*To change the category miscategorises people such as Ganesha. 
*To change the text means that the aforementiontioned and hypothetical minority have userboxes on their pages that show text which is incorrect for them. But given that their use of the userbox already displays incorrect text on their page (see bottom and listed categories), this is merely a brighter sign that they are using the wrong template.
You have accused me of changing the meaning of this template. When it was explained to you that I had not done so because the template was already a location indicator, you claimed that the original purpose of the template was secondary to what most people use it for. This is perhaps a fair point and worthy of discussion, except you have not contradicted the logical supposition that the majority of people use it for the reason it was created. Your entire argument favouring a change of category is based upon your unsupported claim that most people don't really care about the category, so long as the text is okay. This is an opinion, not an extrapolation and as such is weightless in considering what would cause least trouble. I repeat, with exasperation rather than antipathy, you are being unreasonable in refusing to consider logical reasoning over your own opinion. - Hayter 12:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Least Disruption

message: Could we not have one userbox template for 'comes from' and one for 'lives in'? I understand that people may want one or the other; however some people might want to show both statuses. --JoeTalk!Esp 18:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, and that will happen irrespective of this poll. The only reason there's an issue is because people already have this box on their page and changing the text could affect them without their realising it. — SteveRwanda 08:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Joe, see . Steve and I agree that there should be seperate userboxes for each purpose, but we disagree on the purpose of this one. Once it gets sorted out, either User British2 will serve as the alternate (denoting nationality), or a new one will likely be set up (denoting location), depending on the result of the poll. - Hayter 18:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One of each?

message: Why is this talk page included in so many categories? I appreciate that I probably added to the problem by inserting infoboxes, but this needs fixing! (I'll do my bit later if nobody else gets around to it!) --Mal 00:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Just need to subst them and remove the category (probably what everyone ought to be doing anyway). It was indeed by adding all those userboxes that this page got falsely categorised... Kind of adds to my argument about people being categorised without realising it just by adding a user box, but never mind! — SteveRwanda 07:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page is in categories? 

message: I have closed the poll (a little late), and have attempted to reach a conclusion as to which proposal passes. This result is non-binding, but does at present hopefully properly represent the community.
I declare that from what is presented on that page (any evidence to suggest some votes are invalid/vote swinging will lead to it being judged again) proposal 3 "wins", and that the text should be changed to 'This user lives in the United Kingdom'.
It has also been brought to my attention of a split between keeping the text the same (2 & 4), which could possibly have lead to proposal 3 passing unfairly. For judging purposes, I counted these by merging the votes of the concerned categories (removing the dupliates where people had voted for both). I would like to note, that should these be seen as the same aim - they still do not pass.
Another note, is that many choose the passed solution on the basis they see themselves, for example, as British, and not UKish. I would therefore urge a possible review of the working of the British/Irish... templates.
Ian13/talk 18:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't notice the duplicates on the vote before, so the real results were 17 to 19. That is very close. I still have no clue why people would change the text of a userbox? After all that is why people choose a userbox to begin with. The userbox's category is rarely noticed by the average user. I still hold to my belief that there was only two items to vote on, the first was to change the userbox text the other was to keep the userbox text as is. With the latter having sub options that resulted in taking attention away from what was really happening. Other people have noted that it is a common wiki feature to have the  to signify that the person comes from, I just don’t see any reason why we have to change the text? I can't stress this enough, people get the userbox’s for what they say... Don't you? p.s. what is "vote swinging"? -- UKPhoenix79 08:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you completely about the foolhardiness of changing the text of a userbox (especially now the British Isles are different to every other country in the world), but nevertheless, the voting options were agreed on by the disputing parties and a vote was conducted.  However, I hope the two or three individuals that sparked this off realise that many people did actually disagree with what they did, and that this will be the last time they see fit to change the semantics of a user box.  Gsd2000 12:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let it drop, GSD. We've argued about the original meaning, we've argued about the current usage, we've argued about how best to resolve it and now that we have agreed on a method and agreed to abide by the results of that method and that method has been played out to its conclusion, what makes you think you have a podium to lecture Mal and I on how we conduct ourselves about Wikipedia? Even by combining two different proposals to make one, #3 still won out, meaning that the majority of people who voted agreed with my reasoning. When politicians win elections by 51%, they don't apologise to those who voted for someone else or feel they shouldn't run again because of it. This is the last word I'll say on this regardless of any response you might make but part of a "gentleman's agreement" as discussed earlier is accepting a result with good grace. The majority of voters disagreed with you. Sure, some people who voted for any of the proposals seemed to do so under short-sighted vision, but that was foreseeable. We agreed to abide by the results of the poll. I assumed that meant putting a halt to the debate and refraining from sniping at each other once it had finished. - Hayter 21:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not exactly sure what your problem is, Hayter, and I do not like your bullying tone ("let it drop").  I was replying to someone who seemed not to be accepting the result, indicating that I did not agree with it but that was the result.   I was also offering a concluding thought that given the acrimony the text change to a userbox caused, and the great amount of time and effort to resolve it, that people who wish to do the same in future will think twice first.  If you view this as sniping or an attempt to reopen the debate - which it patently was not - that's not my problem.  I did not attempt to change the result and I did not personally insult anyone.  You do not own this talk page, and I shall have my say if I wish to.  Gsd2000 21:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it should be known the only example I found of a user attempting to change someones vote was from the change-the-text opinion, and what with the edit war, this has not been the nicest page. I hope we can all consider it over now - and that any further content discussion later will be done so peacefully. I do ask however that this poll is not used as an outright reason to revert. Ian13/talk 09:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I see you stated on Lamest edit wars, a page devoted to "the most petty things" that "It only got resolved by a straw poll vote"... yes, a poll in which you not only voted, but contributed your opinions not once, but twice, going so far as to say about your viewpoint "I can't stress this enough"!  So I hope you are also laughing at yourself here. :-)  ps I have now subst-ed my userboxes so that I never become embroiled in a debate like this again.  Gsd2000 15:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I would suggest we all go for a drink somewhere to try and put this silly nonsense behind us, but I don't live in the UK, so that won't be possible  — SteveRwanda 12:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have already been put up for public ridicule by UKPhoenix (somewhat hypocritically, I felt) - lets not embarass ourselves any further by prolonging this silly debate.  The vote is closed, and the wording change stays.  And with that... I am unwatching this page in order to not get embroiled in any more of this nonsense.  Gsd2000 21:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, and can we please remain civil. Ian13/talk 16:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was only after I made my vote that I looked over this templates history and the discussion that I realized how silly this is... and yes Gsd2000 I did laugh after you pointed out that I became involved with this discussion also :) So I’m glad that I only made a few comments involving this template... The discussion still goes on and I'm still finding it funny... But realize that I am in no way laughing at anyone in particular. Just coming from someone, now looking in to this whole convoluted situation makes me realize how serious the discussions became over such a small thing. I do hope that you also realize that in no way was this meant to ridicule, but to allow you to sit back and laugh at the silliness of this whole mess (c:= -- UKPhoenix79 06:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template talk:User United Kingdom/usagepoll|Poll]] results