Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Archive 3

message: For people born in some decade, or who are here and claim to be born in a particular decade.  For example I was born in 1944 so I would have the box for 1940-1944. User:AlMac|(talk) 16:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generational boxes 

message: Some kids may desire userboxes declaring themselves to be teenagers, teenage boy, teenage girl, enrollec in a particular level of schooling.
I have seen bumper stickers:
* A member of my family has _____ (very good grades) at _____ (fill in name of school).
User:AlMac|(talk) 10:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adult child boxes 

message: Can I add a featured user box of the week? So we could showcase new and creative user boxes or new user box series like the astrological sign boxes.--God_of War 20:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the Kelly Martin controversy, and an expression by some of her supporters that Userbox lovers are an unproductive sub-culture, perhaps rather than cool userbox of the week should be some kind of a barnstar identification of what userbox was most helpful in encouraging work on the Wiki encyclopaedia itself. User:AlMac|(talk) 13:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured User Box

message: Please participate in the discussion about userbox guidelines at the village pump. WikiProject Userboxes might be a suitable home for any guidelines or policies that might eventually come from the discussion. --TantalumTelluride 04:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox guidelines 

message: If and until US Fair Use Laws, as Wikipedia seems to be a majority US concern, change to disallow fair use of copyrighted images in a non-commercial and personal display of likes and dislikes, whose sole purpose is to advocate other Wikipedia user's of that users preferences and affilations, any and all users that seek to remove copyrighted images and text, used under fair use laws, from userboxes, thereby adversely affecting and changing innumerable user's personal pages without prior notice or consent, any such actions should be taken as malacious; as they are not required by any US law, damage content lowering its value and by proxy Wikipedia's, and effectively vandalize other user's personal userspace, any user, Admin, or other entity who degrades userboxes by removing graphics and replacing it with lesser text, should be construed as the actions of a vandal against Wikipedia users, polices and spirit. (also posted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Suggestion_for_Incorporation_into_Wikipedia_Rules_Regarding_Removal_of_Graphics_from_Userbox_Templates)
:MSTCrow 08:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I highly disagree with this idea. At WP:FU and at WP:FUC, we have stated that fair use images should only be used inside of the article space, not on user spaces. The userboxes will mostly be used on user pages, and they must not contain any fair use icons/photos/pictures/whatnot. The most of the problems I noticed about userboxes breaking this rule is when it comes to political parties (not ideals), sports clubs, shcools and using X product or website. All attempts should be made to find an icon that is under a free licenses, and the Wikimedia Commons is a pretty good place to start. If your stuck there, there are people willing to design these icons for you *ahem* and probably will be happy to do it and release it under GFDL or PD. Most userboxes are fine, it is just mainly those that I mentioned earlier are the most problematic, but I still believe that replacing images on userbox templates should not be considered vandalism at all, unless it is obvious vandalism (like a picture of the Democrat logo is replaced by Goatse). Zach (Smack Back) 08:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for Incorporation into Wikipedia Rules Regarding Removal of Graphics from Userbox Templates  

message: Could someone tell me the way to add code to a userbox to make it add the user to the appropriate category once in place? Thanks. Station Attendant 22:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ( turns into the users name minus the namespace bit, ensuring that they are sorted alpabeticaly, and not all under U). Optionaly add  around it to prevent the template itself from beeing added to the category. Do try to be a little conservative if you plan to create new categories though. Maybe some coordination between Wikipedia:User categorisation and this project might be in order? --Sherool (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Until such time as there is a Tutorial for people who not know the Wiki language, with sections for people who want to learn specific applications, but not yet the whole thing, could we put stuff like this in some kind of a HELP FAQ on Userbox creation? User:AlMac|(talk) 01:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this is a good idea as I was unable to find the answer by wading through the hard to navigate Wikipedia category help section. Station Attendant 02:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic category inclusion 

message: Why isn't there a userbox for anti-consumerism? (ex. "This user is an anti-consumerist.") Or, for skeptics, or people interested in philosophy?Maprov 05:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  anti-consumerism 

message: I find using userboxes very impractical at small wikis. Large wiki like English can handle this quite easily because against propagation of any extreme opinion, an oposition is found very quickly. However, smaller wikis do not have this negative feedback or it is much weaker. As you probably know, Wikipedia is like a magnet for many extremists. Userboxes become weapons in their fights. It is sad. I do believe it can be helpful at English wiki but it is very controversial elsewhere. Miraceti 21:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I fear that on other wikis they either need more strict POV enforcment, or to be avoided altogether. Ian13ID:540053 14:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem 

message: Remembrance Day isn't happy. --RaptorX 17:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here here, whilst it merits a userbox wishing anyone a "happy remebrance day" is totally innappropriate... └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording needs change

message: *I've created:  and  but I don't know in which category I should put them. Couls someone do it? Thank you. CG 18:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New templates 

message: Is it really necessary to check if every template in Wikipedia:List of userboxes has been moved to Wikipedia:Userboxes? Most of this page consists of first created userboxes and Babel boxes. I'll just delete it. Any objections? CG 21:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Wikipedia:List of userboxes]] 

message: I think TV, Movies & Radio section be split from Interests section & create a new Media section for userboxes. --RaptorX 15:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would just about suport that. Ian13ID:540053 21:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I've even made the redlink for you: Wikipedia:Userboxes/Media Morgan695 01:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I think TV,Movies & Radio section be split

message: I have added the following:
* All items in template space are governed by the Neutrality policy.
I think it's a reasonable statement and follows from our function as an encyclopedia dedicated to the neutral point of view. . --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed NPOV -> CIVIL. I feel that is more suited (sorry, i changed before I noticed this comment). I think there is some debate as to whether NPOV does apply (infact I'm not even sure that current policy governs that it does), but I think CIVIL is a good compromise for now (I hope), since I have not heard that be called into question. Replies welcome. Ian13ID:540053 22:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality policy

message: What is the maximum number of userboxes one is allowed to have on their user page?  I had quite a few on mine but an admin came through and not only deleted them but deleted the page history.  If there is some maximum number allowed then it should be specified somewhere.  --Cyde Weys votetalk 01:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe there is a maximum.  It's possible some were removed for other reasons such as fair use images or not being apprropriate.  There shouldn't be one either because you should use as many as apply I'd imagine. gren グレン 02:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the fair use image issue, just replace the image, not the box. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy  04:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't believe it was a fair use issue.  It's not like I was making up my own userboxes in violation of fair use.  If there was a problem it should have been addressed on the userbox template, not by deleting my user page.  --Cyde Weys votetalk 04:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm..I am not sure why your page was deleted either, but I still believe that was extreme to do. I only recall of one guy having his userboxes deleted, but was determined he was a sock of someone. It was probably User:N000. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy  05:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maximum number of userboxes? 

message: You should change the userbox colours to these
ITV1: Yellow or Gold/Black
ITV2: Darkish Green/Black
ITV3: Brown/Black
--RaptorX 17:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do now. Ian13ID:540053 17:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Right. The current logos seem different to what I did, and in my version the side was black. Sorry, Ian13ID:540053 16:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some looking in the history shows that Viakenny reverted with the comment 'new colours not yet effective', so I will instate once they are. Ian13ID:540053 17:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ITV Colour scheme changes

message: Would anyone be opposed to changing the name from Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sexual orientation, gender and status to just Wikipedia:Sexuality? It would make the title much more concise and easier, and the subtitle could explain what was in the caregory, ie:
Current: Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sexual orientation, gender and status, for sexual orientation, gender and status.
My Proposal: Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sexuality, for sexual orientation, gender and status. 
Opinions? I'm posting this same topic on the category's discussion page, so you can discuss there too. Morgan695
:Sounds good. Ian13ID:540053 20:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New name for Sexual orientation, gender and status?

message: I notice that a number of U.S. state userboxes are inconsistent in what they mean. For example, User_Washington says "This user lives in Washington" while User_Massachusetts says "This user is from Massachusetts."
Frankly, this suits me just fine, since I personally am from MA but live in WA. :) But clearly these boxes indicate semantically different things.
I also notice that there are a few states that have "non-native" versions. For example,  goes to the trouble of singling the user out as non-native (which IMO is a symptom of a certain xenophobia).
Seems maybe our location userboxes might deserve the sort of breakdown available to the language userboxes. Language userboxes indicate level of familiarity, from xx-0 which is "does not know" to xx-1 which is "knows a little" up to xx which is "knows natively".
I would argue for the ability to similarly breakdown state boxes. A la:
|}
- KeithTyler 19:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Image has a copyright -  don't use it - TCorp 15:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I merely copied User_Washington. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 06:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and the image is free now... TCorp 02:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location boxes: Current versus origin 

message: User:TCorp added some notes for new administrators.  Of those, I have commented out the following pending rewording:
*Userboxes are not subject to NPOV policy by definition of their nature
*Expressing a view through a userbox does not equate pushing that view (even though you may not agree with the view and feel the box justifies a speedy deletion)
*Never speedy-delete a userbox without consensus. This can only cause a backlash of Wikipedic proportion.
Firstly, I see no reason why userboxes in template space should not be subject to the neutrality policy.  It is possible to make a statement about your point of view without breaking the neutrality policy--just make it a statement of fact.  "This user thinks that the EU is undemocratic and overpowerful" as opposed to "This user opposes the overpowerful and undemocratic EU".
Secondly expressing a view in a userbox may be intended to promote that view.  We should judge them on a case-by-case basis.
Thirdly there is broad agreement (supported by Jimbo Wales) that certain userboxes are intended for the purpose of personal attacks (the ones attacking Kelly Martin are classical examples) and for promoting inflammatory viewpoints ("this user is vehemently opposed to jews", for instance, which was speedied) and should be speedily deleted.
Thus those  particular notes placed by TCorp do not seem to be in line with current Wikipedia consensus and practise. I have no problem with his two other points, but I have removed some unsightly bolding. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How ironic that you should remove that entire section, since activist admins like yourself that delete first and ask later, were the target of that original message. Perhaps you should start an anti-userbox project on wiki since that's what you seem to be doing here most of the time anyway - TCorp 17:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I endorse your edits Tony. and value your explaination. I do ask you try to AGF, and understand the motive of these edits (which I am no part of), I think the main effort is to highligh the issues that have been raised about the deletion of userboxes. Ian13ID:540053 18:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]'s edits to notes by TCorp

message: Morgan695 removed the following note from "Contents".
*Userboxes reside in template space and are public Wikipedia content; some statements that are permissible in userpage may not be suitable for userboxes.
I have restored it because it's a factual statement.  It is acceptable to say on your userpage that you're vehemently opposed to Jews, but the userbox template making that statement was speedied. Userspace is in general recognised to have some limited privilege, but template space is public and statements there are subject to more stringent rules (though I agree that the details are yet to be fully worked out). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think it should be expanded to the extent of only under WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, but its up to you, I will not force it. Ian13ID:540053 22:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize. Also, I've added what you said here and above to "Notes on usage". Morgan695 22:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly what would be permissible on the User page that wouldn't be permissible in a userbox should probably be noted, or if it hasn't yet been established note that too. --AySz88^-^ 03:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]'s restoration of a note removed by [[User:Morgan695|Morgan695]]

message: I am attempting to catergorize these userboxes better. I have seperated location from politics and beliefs. Tommorow I am going to resort the political boxes out of the regional location categories and give them their own page.--God of War 05:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  categorization 

message: This  declaration disrupts userbox design and adds thick borders and paddings to them in the previews due to Wikipedia's CSS file. I propose we remove all the  declarations from the preview tables in the category pages.
====With ====
	
	
	
	
====Without ====
	
	
	
	
Update: added  to the above.
As I can see it in Firefox, the table without the wikitable declaration shows the userboxes as they were designed.
Discuss. - TCorp 21:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could care less, but my advice is to be bold.--Urthogie 21:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No borders at all would be better. Borders distract from the userbox design. - TCorp 00:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but I feel that everything sort of runs together without borders; there's no barrier between one row and the next, and thus no immediate visual connection between each box and its corresponding code. —Andux 02:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You can make a request at Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Ideas . Hope this helps - • Dussst • T | C 21:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposition to remove {{mono|1=class="wikitable"}} from preview tables 

message: Update: added  to the above.
As I can see it in Firefox, the table without the wikitable declaration shows the userboxes as they were designed.
Discuss. - TCorp 21:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could care less, but my advice is to be bold.--Urthogie 21:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Without {{mono|1=class="wikitable"}}

message: Code              	Result
                  	
                  	
	
Better? —Andux 23:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No borders at all would be better. Borders distract from the userbox design. - TCorp 00:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but I feel that everything sort of runs together without borders; there's no barrier between one row and the next, and thus no immediate visual connection between each box and its corresponding code. —Andux 02:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You can make a request at Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Ideas . Hope this helps - • Dussst • T | C 21:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: With {{mono|1=border="1" cellpadding="3"}}

message: Did anyone else get this message from Jimbo on their talk page?
I wonder if you might consider...
I wonder if you might consider simply removing your political userboxes and asking others to do the same. This seems to me to be the best way to quickly and easily end the userbox wars.
Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian.
I think rather than us having to go through a mass deletion (which is what is likely to happen if the userbox fad doesn't go away), it will be better to simply change the culture, one person at a time. Will you help me?--Jimbo Wales 10:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't get that, but you're right. Funnyish ... mostly scarily criptic. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 09:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note from Jimbo

message: Is anyone competent enugh in the ways of userboxes and willing to make a box that says something along the lines of "This user supports the HRC"? (and then have an HRC logo on it).  By the way, the HRC is the Human Rights Campaign.  If so, please contact me on my user page.  Thanks! -- Brian1979 19:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: HRC

message: I noticed that, in an edit today, User:Zanimum removed Template:Templar from the listing at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Funny stating, in the edit summary, that he or she didn't "see the funnyness of a religous affiliation".  However, as far as I can see at the present moment, Zanimum didn't follow through to list that template elsewhere.  As the template exists and it is a user-template, it should be listed somewhere in the user-template listings.  It would be great to have consensus on the template's placement. I don't really care where it placed as long as it's placed somewhere in the user-template listings. Thanks. --Aquarius Rising 00:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Templar template

message: how about creating a userbox request page where some wikipedians who don't know how to create userboxes or who doesn't want to waste their time on creating thier own userboxes can place their requests ofr userboxes???
i apologise if there already is a page like that, if so can anyone put the link here or on my user talk page.--Wikipedian DOG 10:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does already exist.  See Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Ideas. -- Francs2000  11:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already found it, thanks anyway!--Wikipedian DOG 12:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Userbox request page

message: Ashibaka has taken it upon him or herself to delete images from some of the userbox templates. 
Could we ask that he or she not delete images unless and until there is a final consensus on the issue of images on userbox templates?
Ashikbaka's contibution log (which indicates where there was done):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Ashibaka
--Aquarius Rising 02:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image deletions