Wikipedia talk:Userbox policy

message: : copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy):
Other efforts having failed, we still face the need to build a workable UBX policy. With some trepidation I've posted a starting point for further work. 
I should very much like users to edit the proposal directly rather than attempt to vote on it. This is a wiki; we can work it out. John Reid 05:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's certainly not bad;  I like the writing.  I think there are still basic philosophical divisions that need to be addressed, but, baring that, it looks good. 134.10.12.23 00:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Since comments should remain on the talk page, here's the diff with Pmanderson's (Septentrionalis's) comments. --AySz88^-^ 02:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From the Pump 

message: Since WP:AUM was rejected, I don't think "UBX may not doubly transclude" needs to be very strict, within reason; maybe "User templates may not transclude other templates other than "? --AySz88^-^ 23:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't stand in your way on this but I suggest that this restriction appeals to those leaning away from UBX on technical grounds. The overhead involved may be trivial -- or it may not. I think of this as a compromise between unrestricted transclusion and subst-only UBX. John Reid 06:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less strict on meta templates? 

message: Having just read this excellent work, I removed the "blasphemous" criterion (and added a bit of punctuation thoughout).  To many religions, including the one in which I was raised, the beliefs and mere existence of other adherents is often considered blasphemous.  For example, Roman Catholic Saints, or prophets not mentioned in the "King James version" of the "Holy Bible".  If we don't allow blasphemous statements as seen by one view or another, a fair amount of human history and science would not be in the encyclopedia.
:--William Allen Simpson 15:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed blasphemous 

message: From the failed Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll.
*"Templates designed for use in userspace should only be permitted where they are [...] general enough in scope that they are likely to be used by a reasonable number of editors."
*"Speedy deletions of userbox templates should cease, except as follows:
## Userboxes that are blatant infringements of applicable Wikipedia policy, such as No personal attacks, should be speedy deleted.
## Existing templates which do not meet the above criteria should not be immediately deleted. These should be substituted onto user pages, or users notified to substitute them onto their user pages. These templates should be deleted after a period of four weeks grace or once all instances have been substituted.
## Templates created after this policy comes into effect which do not meet the criteria may be speedily deleted. Any template that might debatably meet the criteria must be sent to TfD, where the sole criterion would be 'utility to the project'.
## Userboxes that don't comply with template requirements may be copied onto some special pages, from which they may be cut and paste (hard-coded) onto userpages as desired."
*"If Jimbo is in agreement, WP:CSD T1 (at least for userbox templates) might be replaced with userbox templates that obviously do not conform to the agreed userbox policy."
Do we want to add in any of these? In particular, the speedy deletion section. How is this policy to be implemented? TheJabberwʘck 17:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Templates has been working on a T2 that applies specifically to userboxes.  Obviously, these two efforts need to be coordinated.  At this point, they don't appear to me to be in agreement.  The difference seems to be around whether userboxes on "controversial subjects" are inherently "divisive and inflammatory." Until established to be otherwise, the assume good faith policy requires an assumption they are not, particularly as related to speedy deletion criteria. Rfrisbietalk 17:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, CSD is not the place to create policy. CSD is a process by which existing policy is executed. John Reid 06:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible additions 

message: In relation to the assume good faith policy, community building and collaboration
are very beneficial processes to the basic vision of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia, and as a means to that end, an online community. Userboxes are to help us create the best encyclopedia we can. (Wikipedia:Userboxes)
This statement clearly puts the utilitarian benefits of userboxes to the forefront.  They are useful for the online community because they help organize Wikipedians by topical interests, through such automated mechanisms as "What links here" and categories.  
On the other hand, factionalism that introduces bias into articles is counterproductive to the encyclopedia writing process.  However, "an article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" policy." (Wikipedia:Describing points of view}
When it comes to userboxes, I believe the potential benefits of community building far outweigh the potential costs of factionalism.  Because of this, I strongly support the use of templates for userboxes and imbedded categories for grouping Wikipedians by topical interests communicated by the userboxes.  Consquently...
* I strongly support clear policy statements that allow the creation of userboxes as templates and categories that group Wikipedians by topical interests. Rfrisbietalk 18:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community building vs. factionalism - the value of automated Wikipedian groupings 

message: See Wikipedia:Mackensen's Proposal.
Appearing on Wikipedia talk:Mackensen's Proposal: The statement "Shouldn't all of this discussion go on WP:UBP WP:UPP WP:UUB Wikipedia:Userbox policy or User:Misza13/Userbox Gallery Poll or Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes/Proposals? Kotepho 22:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What poll? I'm almost sure Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll has nothing to do with this proposal. To answer your question, I would suggest taking a look at WP:MACK, which is where most of the discussion is happening now. Personally, I much prefer this proposal, but Mack's poll is getting a lot of attention. TheJabberwʘck 17:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:MACK is neither a policy proposal nor a compromise. Is is a draft of the terms of surrender for all Wikipedians who use userboxes, dressed up in sheep's clothing. D. G. 20:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree about the wolf analogy. So far, Mack has been very honest about his intentions, at least on the poll page. And regardless, Wikipedia:Mackensen%27s_Proposal/Straw_Poll is doing an excellent job of clarifying the multiple issues involved. As I said, I don't support Mack's proposal either, but I like the kind of conversation that's going on there. TheJabberwʘck 22:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked a bit more and participated in the discussion, and I think you have a point. I may have been quick to judge Mackensen's intentions. I still think the initial proposal blows, but it seems there is a frank effort going on there, which is terribly good news. We must fight for order. D. G. 02:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This would be a perfect policy. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which "this" do you mean? Rfrisbietalk 13:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no heartburn with this proposal, unlike WP:MACK. Unfortunately, I don't think anything like this will win the favor of the admins who have been opposing WP:MACK as too lenient. I'm not sure there is a bridge across this divide. Jay Maynard 13:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind that the poll that got 61%, just a little bit short of the necessary supermajority, actually had quite a few who opposed because it was not lenient enough towards userboxes. D. G. 21:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative proposals 

message: This policy looks good to me, however point 6 (the one about falsly claiming to be a member of a group e.g. medical practicioners) strikes me as being impossible to enforce - for the most part it is impossible to determine someone's occupation/hobbies/interests in the real world unless they choose to disclose them. I agree in principle that people should not deliberately mislead, but in the end, participation in Wikipedia is anonymous, so it's possible to invent any back-story. The only way you'd find out that someone wasn't, in fact, a medical practitioner (to continue the example), would be if they started making blatantly erroneous edits to related articles, in effect blowing their own cover. Chrisd87 17:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rule 6 

message: The rule about no offensive images mentions "cartoons of the Prophet" without naiming which prophet is meant, and says that further concerns are outlined below, yet I can't see that there are indeed any such. I fear to clarify myself without seeking some sort of consensus, but this needs to be clarified. Jay Maynard 17:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cartoons of the Prophet" 

message: As the template suggested, I edited the proposal to reflect my concerns (and those of others, as seen above). There are (imho) a couple of reasons why 'cartoons of the prophet' should not be included specifically in the policy:
*What is sacred to one religion is not sacred to everyone else. Religious opinions deserve no more protection than political opinions or secular moral opinions. (for those who might wonder, I am not an anti-religion fanatic, I am actually religious myself)
*The Jyllands-Posten cartoons (sorry if I misspelled that), which is what I presume this mention was aimed at, would already be covered by the 'non-free images'-type prohibition. 
Cynical 19:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed 'cartoons of the prophet' 

message: I think we should include language specifying the acceptable uses of userboxes for members with a shared goal (such as Babel) and the unacceptable uses (such as soliciting outside support for a position on deletion-related matters).  It'd be helpful to have these things explicitly stated somewhere. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Acceptable/Unacceptable uses?

message: I wanted to voice my strong support for the general tenor of the policy as currently  written.  The limit of 64 seems to be a new addition but I think is a good idea.  I pretty much overdosed on Userboxes when I created my user page and only have about 34. Eluchil404 17:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 64 = four cubed. For those of us who choose to count with only the fingers on one hand. John Reid 22:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a rediculous rule that should be removed if it hasn't been already. Let people do what they want with their userpage so long as it isn't inflamatory. If that's overdoing it on userboxes, so be it. It's not effecting you. It shouldn't "diminsh your reputation" because you're not great with your userpage. I've seen many great editors with rather lackluster, cluttered userpages. - Mike 20:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Limited number of userboxes?

message: I'm sorely tempted to edit this page but I've already had enough direct input. I would like to answer some of the questions raised here and some currently mixed in with the policy itself; then I'd like to hope that some good editor will rm those questions from the policy text -- since I'm not sure how helpful it is for any policy to question itself. 
I've noticed some editors referring to policy points by number; this fails if points are added or removed. 
* No false membership claims -- I agree that in many cases it will be difficult or impossible to prove a violation of this point. I still feel it may be wise to set the rule. Perhaps I'm wrong. IANAL. 
* Cartoons of the Prophet (peace on him) -- There are many prophets but only one is frequently referred to in this way. It's difficult for non-Muslims to understand what exceptional offense some Muslims take at any depiction of the Prophet, even a serious, respectful one. Some things are magical and powerful in some cultures that have no importance in another. It's been said that some people fear and hate cameras, for they obviously steal men's souls and imprison them in a square of paper. I don't believe this but I'm courteous enough to refrain from photographing and offending those who do. Likewise, I refrain from hanging pictures of the Prophet in my office -- let alone cartoons. This is an example of a restriction on UBX content, not article content -- where I support the display of the topic. 
: If you disagree, rm the restriction. It's your fatwa. 
W	This user is a Wikipedian. This is the only userbox.
* Acceptable uses -- It may be unwise to attempt to restrict uses of UBX (as opposed to content and form). Both content and form are at least somewhat objective. Intention and use is not so clear. The UBX shown here (an ill-favoured thing, sir, but mine own) has acceptable form and content; it's intention is quite confrontational: a wry comment on the totalitarian nature of attempts to suppress diversity of expression. My experience has been that my wit was either too weak or too dry; other editors have not correctly inferred my intent. And that's okay, too. 
* Hard limit (64) -- Why 64? Why not? Sixty-four UBX should be enough to cover all serious memberships and biases, with quite a few left over for humor and silliness. If you feel 10 or 600 is a more appropriate hard limit then edit this page. 
: This was originally written to say No penalty results from excessive UBX display under the hard limit. This qualification was rm, indeed making the entire policy point meaningless. I suggest either restoring the teeth or rm the whole point. 
: Absolutely everything done consumes resources. This is a hard fact of life, the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Whether you consider UBX wasteful depends entirely on your point of view: Is the value obtained worth the cost expended? I suggest that community consensus (not universal agreement) has emerged on this point: As the number of UBX increases, their individual value decreases. Factions at either extreme believe that all UBX have zero (or negative) value or some undefined but constant and important value. The hard limit represents the moderate view. 
* UBX placed by other users -- Truly, I did not think about the possibility that anyone would ask others to populate their own user pages. If someone should make such request, then I can't imagine why anyone would object. 
Well, that's already more than 2¢. I definitely don't feel any need to impose my views on the community; I only want those who raise issues to get answers, for whatever they're worth. I'm delighted that so many editors have taken an interest and participated by remolding this policy nearer their heart's desire. If we continue to work together on this, I'm sure we'll arrive at something we can all accept. Then, we can move on. John Reid 10:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question time 

message: UBX may not be constructed to be deliberately inflammatory, destructive, or obscene. This clause is to be interpreted liberally Opens floodgates of abuse. We saw the turmoil what happened when T1 was interpreted liberally. Adding a clause that actually encourages that will only make things works.
Also what kind of userbox should be in templatespace, what in userspace? Or does this ruleset just equalize both. That also improves nothing.
The hard limit of 64 userboxes per page is, honestly said, dumb. Some will feel restricted by it, some will critcise the number and some will feel that it says "have up to 64 userboxes on your page".
Finally the entire suggestion reads somewhat vague. Which is exactly what we do not need for a such hotly debated issue. Relying in WP:SENSE is fine if people agree what common sense is regarding a subject. A vague ruleset will only result in additional discussion whether rule this or that applies or not, and make things even worse than compared to the discussions regarding T1 we had. CharonX/talk 00:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Points of criticism

message: I've been bold and added 15 and edited 12. Feel free to be bold in disagreeing with me. Reasons for editing are always useful, though, so:
* Edited 12 so that we don't get some wikilawyer coming up with some utterly unreasonable UBX that might work under these rules, but would be captured by the rather more general rules in the wider wiki.
* Added 15 so it's clear these things are unofficial and user-voluntary; this isn't always obvious to new visitors, so the policy might as well tell them, if they're that interested. Grobertson 16:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: The proposed policy currently has very little activity and as it was not adopted in general use I'd like to mark it as historical, if nobody objects. I'll check back in a few days, so please voice your opinion if you disagree. CharonX/talk 18:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection from me.  It never seemed to generate much discussion.  Eluchil404 19:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marking this as historical 

message: can we propose this as an offical policy now? --T-rex 16:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't recommend it, as it has no chance of being adopted, having been overtaken by events (WP:GUS).  Eluchil404 17:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the WP-novice, could you please clarify why WP:GUS obviates or supersedes this proposed policy? Didn't realize I needed to be conversant with all interwiki policies as well. Williamborgtalk 02:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't.  WP:GUS isn't even a policy (stated at the top of it's page).  It's a suggestion of what to do with controversial userboxes - those that promote advocacies (such as religion and politics).  This policy is for all the rest. - Jc37 19:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy looks good

message: Did a ReOrg of the policy list. Attempting to have it follow themes, of sorts.
* A.) Userboxes as constructs (code and images).
* B.) Content
* C.) Placement
* D.) Uniformity of rules and Deletion policy
-Jc37 20:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ReOrg

message: I think that the proposed rule "...UBX are not vehicles to blatantly promote external links or affiliations..." should be further extended to disallow all links except to personally-owned websites and IM Websites; in this way, there would be no "advertisments" at all.
Yes?
Anthony 19:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promoting External Links 

message: "Some userboxes have been designed by users to express allegiances or concerns.  Some of these are offensive to most Wikipedians; some to nearly all; and all of them (of all types) offend some. Some users wish to see all of them deleted; others oppose any curtailment; and the rest, a majority, wish mostly not to be annoyed by them and fights over them. Specific legal, technical, and social concerns have been raised."
::::I removed the "Controversy" section, since this is about policy, not past controversies. Compare the text to the template at the top of this talk page. - jc37 02:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: "UBX are to be created in Template: namespace or User: namespace only. If created in Template: namespace the UBX must begin with "User " (for example, Template:User Someubxname). Only UBX created in Template: namespace are to be indexed at Wikipedia:Userboxes. Those created in User: namespace should not be displayed there. These three locations are the only places that UBX may be displayed."
Although the current standard is to have "User" as the first word for userboxes, I would like to suggest "UBX" as the first word.
I've done a fair number of searches through template space and elsewhere, and "User" doesn't disambiguate well from "User:" 
UBX requires no disambiguation (unlike user, or box), and would be an additional way to make clear exactly what these templates are and are to be used for.
(This is comparable to how all Wikipedian categories are being changed to include "Wikipedian" or "Wikipedians" in the cat name for clarification.)
Any thoughts? - jc37 13:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problem with UBX. However, due to the volume of boxes which are in the template space, I advise you try and make contact with a developer to see if a giant SQL query could automate the migration process (or a bot even). Ian¹³/t 16:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Userbox name

message: Strong Support This is a necessary next step in achieving a workable, long-run solution.  --NThurston 19:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal 

message: I thought I had pointed out the reasons for the edits in each of the edit summaries, and the policy itself says Please note that this policy proposal is new and still under development. You might wish to edit this proposal to reflect your concerns rather than contest it on talk. So I edited the proposal to reflect my concerns. Most of the edits were WP:KISS based, removing stuff that is redundant. Some of the edits (especially the removal of the fixed image size limit) falls also under WP:KISS - I think it is common sense that images shouldn't be 234x586 pixels in userboxes, but adding those fixed limits sounds like buerocracy and instruction creep (see . The one non-WP:KISS is was regarding the D&I clause which I feel would just  extend WP:CDS-T1 to userboxes also in userspace, and since lots of good userboxes were deleted claiming T1 I think we can live without explicitly extending that one. If something is really that repugant or offensive I think we can find to remove it under other criteria like WP:NPA or WP:USER or simply XfD. So, that were my reasons for my edits - I tried to contribute in best faith to make this a policy I could agree to. See m:instruction creep
:I think I understand your reasoning, and actually only disagree with a couple, but the reason I suggest commenting out, rather than removing whole sections is, as you can see above, this discussion is ongoing, and rather than create more problems through arbitrary deletion, it seemed better to suggest talking it out on the talk page.  There is, after all, a difference between editing text (for grammar, etc) and simple deletion. And I have a hard time accepting "anything" as KISS at the moment as far as UBX discussions are concerned. (If in doubt of that, take a moment to re-read this talk page.) I think we could probably safely comment out the image size, and the double transclusion lines, and see what people think, but please note up higher on this page, why they were included.  And I think WP:T1D is important to reference, for many, presumably obvious, reasons.  Let's see what others have to say... - jc37 02:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, T1 is a pretty important issue for userboxes, but look at the way it was formulated - this was T1 would be extended to userboxes not only in templatespace, but also in userspace. And since it was quite abused in the past and userspace does not have a T1-like criteria I thought "maybe let's not give those admins that way out". After all, what would we do if a template violates the D&I criteria if we did not include this extension? In templatespace T1 would be applied anyway (since there T1 applies) and in userspace we would use MfD or rely on common sense with really bad boxes. So what would we lose by not including it? A little speed by deleting boxes. What would be the risks of including it? Expanding the T1 criteria to userspace and exposing all the boxes there to speedy deletion by admins that would use T1 as an excuse. And I think we don't want that. CharonX/talk 11:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edits 

message: I must admit I'm disappointed after I read this summary (though I do wonder why - I should know you better after your oh-so-innocent anti-GUS userbox and the other propaganda) All you do is seemingly run a long-term smear campaign against it. "GUS is the problem" "GUS solves nothing" "forced... under false pretenses". I recall your first edit regarding GUS containg the oh-so friendly "and -- please -- move on". In the end, I think, we have the same goal - we want to keep userboxes. And I'm honestely sick of this faith-war. So I took your suggestion and edited Wikipedia:Userbox policy into something I could agree to. But as I said before, unless you can build a majority for this policy (including admins that are willing to oppose userbox-unfriendly admins) please don't go around pissing in our well. You may not like GUS, but be honest - would you rather have GUS or the deletion sprees of the past. And until this page manages to fly as a policy you only get to choose between those two options. If you still want to say to me, into my face "I'd rather not have GUS", please do so - but please also tell Tony, Cyde, Doc, Mackensen, and other admins that userbox hunting season is open again. CharonX/talk 01:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you're attempting a merge. I hope your efforts bring us closer to a consensus on the substantive issue. Thank you. John Reid 00:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempt to merge 

message: I've created a new essay on different userbox personalities from all that I've seen on Wikipedia. I also had some help from NThurston. If you wish, change it, praise it, ect. Most of the talk about it is happening at WT:UBM. Note: This is just an essay written in a humorous manner, but may help describe the many different opinions on Wikipedia. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 23:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new Essay on Userboxes 

message: Considering the arguements about "official" namespaces, and such, I find the existance of this category up for CfD ironic. - jc37 11:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Continued irony

message: If this policy proposal is stabilizing, what's still needed to make it so?  Does stability reflect... consensus? stagnation? apathy? the perfect policy? Rfrisbietalk 00:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My two cents are down at stagnation and apathy. Major concerns have not been adressed, my attempts to change to policy to something I could support were promply reverted, and WP:UBM works. CharonX/talk 05:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should become familiar with Wikipedia before involving yourself in policy issues. As it stands, it appears you have done nothing related to the encyclopedia since you stopped the handful of vandalism reverts you did six months ago. —Centrx→talk • 21:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Watch your civility, Centrx. Admin or not, there is only so much belittlement I will take from you. Also, what did your edit add to this discussion at hand (except perhaps to marginalize my comment)? CharonX/talk 14:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I would agree here that "stagnation and apathy" about cover the issue, probably for the better --T-rex 15:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So, what's still needed? 

message: This proposal is active, not inactive; it is stabilizing and that's a good thing. I suggest it does indeed reflect actual community consensus: this is how we handle UBX these days. It's been here a good long while and everyone has had a chance to edit it to reflect his or her concerns; nobody has been excluded. No page could possibly do more to include every possible opinion. Even the UM-ers have been accomodated. 
I'll stop short of tagging it guideline but any other tag is unacceptable. I consider it still a proposal only because it is open to further editing, not because major concerns remain unaddressed. John Reid ° 04:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Radiant's comments are very true; that said, this page does accurately describe what a majority of Wikipedians do in regards to userbox protocol, and reviewing past incidents relating to userboxes, this level of instruction creep is reactive rather than proactive. If administrators (read: some, not all) cannot be trusted to act reasonably without explicit instructions, then explicit instructions makes a good treatment to the symptoms of what might be a greater problem, even if the instructions shouldn't be necessary. Note that I'm not strictly saying I agree with the proposal and everything it includes, and I'm not pointing any fingers. Oh, and if anyone makes a poll, please don't vote on my behalf. BigNate37(T) 05:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made several major concerns that have not been addressed. This page needs a rewrite to make it less bureaucratic. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and guidelines should not be written in the style of a lawbook. (Radiant) 09:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active proposal 

message: Due to "user" being the name of the user namespace (and the associated talk space), It would be rather helpful if we didn't use the word "user" to identify userboxes (especially for searching). I'd like to suggest that we use "UBX" instead. Any issues (besides needing to do a mass rename)? - jc37 03:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User / UBX

message: Just looking it over, the differences between this "policy" and WP:UBX (as of this moment) is:
*1.) Namespace clarifications (standards section)
*2.) Usage (pruned and moved to standards section)
*3.) Policy application
* #1 "may" be controversial.
* #2 needs to be reworded for brevity
* #3 Seems to be ok.
I'll work on rewording #2. - jc37 21:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pruned the usage section and moved it to the standards section. (And added the parentheticals above.) - jc37 22:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Differences

message: I haven't been paying much attention for the past while, but got the "historical" notice this morning.  In looking this over, I am very excited about how well this has resulted in an acceptable compromise.  So, I think this is winding to its natural conclusion.  What next?  Should this (finally) get merged into WP:UBX?  I can't see a reason not to.  --NThurston 18:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where now?