Wikipedia talk:Userfying userboxes

message: First off, I have to say this looks to be a really good solution (if it sticks).  I'm wondering, though, what sorts of userboxes would be allowed to remain in the Template namespace.  The current proposal specifies that Babelboxes and regional userbox templates (such as Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location/United States?) could remain; I assume we could leave the four userbox formatting templates (like ) in the Template namespace as well.  Beyond that, Ashibaka suggests above that "Userboxes without points of view ... will be kept in the Template space."  We might want to think about where the line gets drawn between Template-space and Userspace userboxes (not that this needs to be nailed down firmly at this point, but it is something that is deserving of some consideration in composing this proposal).
On one side, there's clear cases where we have obviously POV userboxes that need to be migrated to Userspace, such as those listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Political Parties and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs; moving these to Userspace might also encourage more personalization of userboxes, which would avoid the more centralized 'bumper-sticker beliefs' that Jimbo and others have argued against.  On the other side, there's clearly POV-less boxes, such as many WikiProject userboxes which arguably contribute to the goal of building an encyclopedia and might deserve to remain in Template space.  In the grey middle, we have userboxes for associations based on Wikiphilosophies, such as  and ; these are clearly POV, but some might argue they're more worthy of inclusion in Template-space than non-Wikiphilosophical-POV userboxes.  There's also cases, such as indicating varying aptitude with programming languages (e.g., , , , etc.), where the helpful standardization offered by using centralized userboxes in Template-space might be lost by moving to decentralized User-pages.
These are just a few examples; those unfamiliar with just how many types of userboxes have been created might want to peruse the 30 or so subpages of categorized userboxes linked from WP:UBX.  Many will probably be clear candidates to migrated to Userspace, while the migration of others will be more controversial.  I know it's early in this proposal's history, and we're probably not to the point where we really need to be choosing which boxes can stay and which need to be userfied; however, if we can get consensus on this proposal (and I really hope we do) and we begin the migration process of removing userboxes from Template-space, we'll need to tackle these issues at some point. My thanks to those who crafted and those who continue to improve this proposal.  Hopefully this help reduce some of the polemic and uncivil atmosphere that's formed around this issue. — Jeff | (talk) | 07:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it will turn out to be not a problem, as long as we make the migration voluntary. Anyone who wants to migrate a template they made can do it, and anyone who thinks it should remain there can keep it there. Templates will continue to go to TfD as usual. Ashibaka tock 12:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good comments Jeff, I've edited the proposal to make an exception for  (if there are other completely blank templates, they can be excepted too). --bainer (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Could we keep WikiProject userboxes in the template space? - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 18:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why. Most WikiProjects have lists of participants so if you want to look for members you would simply go to the project page. Physchim62 (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template-space vs. Userspace

message: Okay. It's an interesting idea. Really. My question is, what is this going to solve? Are the concerns about vote-stacking magically going to go away because now the userboxes are in userspace? The idea that userboxes can't be personal attacks is already codified on Wikipedia:User page, if memory serves me right, and at any rate most people in this war agree that personal attack userboxes are a bad thing: the question is which userboxes are personal attacks.
I want to like this idea. I really do. I want a solution. But I can't see this making things any better. Please, somebody, convince me I'm wrong. Lord Bob 18:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This may not necessarily solve every problem with userboxes. What it will do is end the pointless discussion about what policies apply to userboxes - if they are in the user space, which is where common sense suggests they belong, then Wikipedia:User page is the basic policy that applies to them. That policy, which is an established policy, then goes on to describe how other policies (WP:NPA, for example) operate on user pages. There's no need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to userboxes. --bainer (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This solves everything. When a userbox is in template space, you can nominate it for TfD as offensive, or edit it as you like. If it is in user space, you will have to put it on MfD as a violation of userspace rules (this is rather infrequent because people know the civility rules of userspace), and people won't be tempted to edit them because they know who created them. Ashibaka tock 22:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But my experience on TfD suggests that people accept that things like incivility and personal attacks are bad anyway. The problem lies in people disagreeing on what constitutes incivility or a personal attack. I still see a solution to the wrong problem here. Lord Bob 21:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bob, I haven't really participated in the userbox issue until now, but I have noticed that many problems around userboxes stem from the disputes between users as to exactly which policies are applicable to userboxes. For example, Proposed policy on userboxes contains lengthy discussions about issues which have already been settled (at least to the extent of being regularly workable) elsewhere. The proposal aims to clarify this by having user page policies apply. --bainer (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. I think I understand the idea here now. I'm not sure I agree with it, but understanding is the first step. Lord Bob 02:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What, precisely, does this ''solve''? 

message: Is there any reason the admins would not just move to deleting them from user space?
Not sure if this is a good or bad thing, but putting a userbox in one's user space basically gives one "ownership" over that box, meaning others who transclude it would want to subst it.
I think it's a decent proposal, but might need a bit of thinking about. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is actually the case right now, except that instead of one person having control over a box, everyone has control and can make whatever changes they want. Limiting that to one person will make userboxes less risky to use unsubsted. As for the admin thing, deleting things from userspace is better-defined and hardly ever a stressful situation. Ashibaka tock 00:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've already had revert wars over a userbox substed into a userpage. I see no reason such a thing wouldn't happen with higher frequency once userboxes are moved out of template space. I understand that this would probably be less of a problem than what currently happens, but it's still worth worrying about - maybe more so because it affects those of us that have been here longer and acquired rather unusual userpages that could easily offend many, and have so far been off the userbox deleters' radar. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Been here since 2002 and my userpage didn't get that quirky. :) This policy would make no changes to userspace, and whoever removes content from people's userpages without a discussion first is being a jerk. Ashibaka tock 01:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And Tony Sidaway and David Gerard are being jerks by deleting the userboxes. Hell, Jimbo is being a jerk. People will be jerks. Admins can be jerks without consequences. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If someone is rouge enough, they'll war over it wherever it is. No proposal can stop that. This is just about putting userboxes where they belong, and hopefully ending the pointless discussion about what policies apply to them. The circumstances in which content gets removed from user space are fairly well defined. --bainer (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Userboxes don't belong in userspace. They are templates. Templates belong in templatespace. User pages belong in userspace. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't necessarily templates. For those who insist on POV and identity userboxes, I would recommend handcoding them or using a generic template like . I would discourage userbox templates in userspace, but I don't really see that it matters. Getting POV and other divisive userboxes out of public space (i.e., template space) does matter. --Chris 20:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keith, any page can be transcluded into any other, no matter what namespace it is in. This is how AfD works, for example. Also, the reason why userboxes have been described here as belonging in user space is because in most of the debate so far, their supporters have mentioned attributes which are characteristics of user pages (they are personal expressions of users, for example) to justify various userboxes. --bainer (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, because per WP:UP, policies like WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL apply to user pages (this template was one of a range of five anti-Semitic templates). As such, under this policy, personal attack userboxes would still be deleted. However, since WP:NPOV (a content policy) generally does not apply to user pages, non-neutral userboxes would not be deleted. --bainer (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, the effect of this is a tightening of rules for user pages, as the censors look there for the userboxes. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A few comments

message: I see no reason at all why regional and linguistic boxes are more worthy of templatespace than specialization or boxes for any other form of identity or familiarity.
And does it really make sense to start migrating chunks of templatespace to non-template spaces?
Migrating userboxes to userspace would Babelize userboxes by splitting them up among individual users' userspaces. Which will mean worse things than we have now -- instead of userbox organization at Wikipedia:Userbox; it'll be spread, forked, and duplicated en masse across userspace. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the whole userbox controversy dissolves into formless chaos. Sounds good to me. The bitterness over userbox templates results from their hybrid character: they are stored in public space (templatespace) but are implemented in userspace. Each space has its own standards around freedom of expression, and people disagree on which standard applies. I say let strict Wikipedia standards (i.e., no POV or divisive identities) apply in templatespace, but I don't think we want to control people's actions in userspace to the same extent.--Chris 20:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keith, the idea was lifted straight from the German Wikipedia, where all they kept in the Template namespace was the Babel and regional templates. I can't find a page where they discussed it, I found out about this when Jimbo explained it on IRC. As for Babelizing userboxes, there's no reason why there can't be a central listing of userboxes (possibly maintained in user space) and I'm sure there would be many users who would be happy to "host" many, if not all userboxes within their own userspace. --bainer (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you propose is the only chaos I see. Where exactly do you propose userboxes be organized in userspace? Whose userspace gets to be the keeper of the boxes? You have no such place in mind, only a vague notion of some arbitrary person's userspace. You even admit that you believe there are "many users who would be happy to host many if not all userboxes" -- so, by your own assertion, there will be lots of people who will want to host userboxes. And will. And then there will truly be chaos, as everyone who wants to host userboxes does so, causing rampant userbox forking and a myriad of userspaces in which userboxes can be found. There will be no means of central organization -- as there is right now.  - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could be wrong but I believe throwing it all into chaos is the point. Without organization most of the problams that people have with user boxes goes away --T-rex 04:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrary elevation of certain box types 

message: I see no reason why instraments should be allowed to stay in the template space despite the others.  Creating exceptions like this just opens the doors to going right back to where we started. I realize that these userboxes are very non-controversal (although I don't see how they help the encyclopedia), but I think we need to be against most exception (I do see the need to keep babel) --T-rex 20:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, Babel should have only ISO languages, and only the standard levels 1 thru 4. I guess regional userboxes will be OK, although I can concieve of possible abuses, so they would have to be watched. I think project userboxes should also be OK. If a project is involved in POV pushing, we should deal with the project; the userbox will be taken care of that way. There may be an argument for including programming languages that are useful in Wikipedia. At first, I included some programming language userboxes on my user page, but then I realized that my knowledge of BASIC, Pascal and plain ole' unextended C weren't much use in Wikipedia. Off hand, I can't think of anything else that should be allowed in template space. -- Dalbury(Talk) 21:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned above, the German Wikipedia had exceptions for Babel and regional templates. I've edited this proposal so that only Babel templates and blank templates (such as ) are excepted. Regional templates could get into problems where they are for areas which have disputed sovereignty, or disputed naming, so they can probably go into user space. Other types, like instruments, may be non-controversial but it's probably best to have as few exceptions as possible, for ease of use. --bainer (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, something along the line of This user is a resident of the Republic of Texas is entirely possible. -- Dalbury(Talk) 22:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't quite understand the instrument exception either. Babel templates have caught on internationally becuase they are useful in writing an encyclopedia. Linked to categories, I can use them to find, say, a Farsi-speaking editor to tell me whether a new page in Farsi is junk or not. Regional templates can serve a similar purpose: "Does this village near Heidelburg really exist? I can't find it in German Wikipedia." or similar such questions. Other userboxes, say  are simply useless for encyclopedic work, although if someone really has the urge to tell me on their user page that they drink orange juice I guess it does nobody any harm. Finally there are all the templates about which people feel strongly enough to fight over them at AfD... The logic of the German solution seems to be to treat the Template: namespace as part of the encyclopedia, so that only templates which can be shown to be encyclopedically useful are placed there, while retaining users traditional freedom over their Userspace within the long-standing restrictions of WP:NOT a webspace provider and WP:USER (neither of which are nearly as controversial in practice as userbox templates. Does this provide any philosophical backing for decision making? Does anyone agree with me? ;) Physchim62 (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with regional userboxes is that they could be put to pushing a POV. The same goes for any other category of userbox that might be argued to be useful for building an encyclopedia. We even have TfD fights over free-lanced pseudo-babel boxes. I think it would be best to limit templated userboxes to the real babel boxes and the generic (empty) userboxes, at least to begin with. Any other types of userboxes, if allowed in template space, would have to be carefully set up to prevent POV pushing. I also think that template space has always been part of the encyclopedia. Userboxes started as babel boxes, and as such were a genuine aide to developing Wikipedia. Some other userboxes crept in under the same rationale, and then users started adding some 'fun' ones. The increasingly blatant and confrontational POVs in userboxes are a recent phenomena. I certainly was surprised at the explosive growth in userboxes in the last three months. This incursion of POV into template space, under the guise of being protected because userboxes are used in user space, is a danger to the principal of maintaining NPOV in Wikipedia. I don't think it's a matter of changing the status of template space. I think it is a matter of pushing the POV stuff back into user space, where it belongs. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Dalbury^^ in that babel should be all that is in the template space... like I said If you give a mouse a cookie... --T-rex 03:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Recent experience suggests that it will be extremely difficult to draw these lines, and that it would be much easier to draw the line as narrowly as possible. --bainer (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What should be moved to userspace? Everything except Babel and regionals. Physchim62 (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instruments Excempt 

message: As a result of discussions elsewhere, I've realized that amoving templates to user space is a problem. A major concern with the current system of userboxes is that templates allow recruiting of like-minded users in POV pushing campaigns. Another thing is the question of just how one moves a template out of template space. I think the proposal should drop mention of templates in user space. Userboxes can be created and copied without resort to templates, and I think that is how we should go. -- Dalbury(Talk) 11:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You just hit the "move" tab and in the "new title" box, type something like "User:Myusername/Userboxname". The software will sort out the namespaces. As for reusable userboxes, I don't think that's a problem per se, in that I think it's acceptable for users to have a userbox on a subpage which other users can transclude. --bainer (talk) 11:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it may work technically, my concern is that templates allow recruiting for POV pushing, and I think any policy on userboxes has to address this issue. Moving templates to userspace doesn't do so. -- Dalbury(Talk) 11:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not the issue this proposal is intended to resolve. The point of moving userbox templates to userspace is to place them squarely under the jurisdiction of WP:UP, neatly sidestepping the issue of which policies apply in template-space. Concerns about POV-pushing should go in WP:UBP. —Andux 12:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sidestepping it is. I can't support it then. -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As we say back East, light dawns on Marblehead! - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  templates in user space 

message: Now this doesn't really bother me, since all my userboxen are safely subst:ed in my userspace. But MediaWiki allows custom namespaces (we already have Portal and Portal_talk) so why not just get the developers to create a User_Template namespace and stick them all in there? -- Gurch 16:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Errm, because the vast majority of userboxen are not encyclopedic! Play around in your userspace if you must, after having read WP:USER, but Wikipedia is NOT a free webspace provider. Physchim62 (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the whole point, the User_Template space would be subject to the same rules as userspace, i.e. no fair use images, relaxed NPOV, content doesn't have to be encyclopediac and so on. There's no danger of this making wikipedia into a webspace provider, stuff would still be subject to deletion - probably through MfD - if nobody was using it or if one user decided to dump a whole load of personal junk only useful to them in there -- Gurch 16:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Politically that's a wonderful solution, but I doubt that it would be seriously considered, as creating a new namespace is a pretty significant thing. On the other hand, it would create the "missing link" -- a templatespace that people don't try to argue is encyclopedic. (Even though Template: is not. No one has been able to show any templates containing encyclopedic content. They are purely administrative and organizational, not encyclopedic.) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a namespace is a great idea. But for the sake of convenience, perhaps it ought to be Ubx:.  seems a bit too long compared to . --Nintendorulez talk 17:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just make a new namespace? 

message: I moved the section below to here because we need to sort it out, and not argue about it on the proposed policy page.
:# As long as userboxes are used as templates, they will be subject to submission to TfD, negating any supposed reduction in such nominations.
:#* This is incorrect. Content on user subpages goes to WP:MFD, regardless of whether is is used as a template.
So if templates on user pages nominated for deletion go to MfD instead of TfD, won't that just be shifting the arguments to another venue? I don't foresee any real lessening of nominations of templates for deletion. -- Dalbury(Talk) 13:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User subpages go to MfD: can't you just see the processtrolling that would go on if it were otherwise, and in both directions (Ah, but it's a template! Ah, but it's a user subpage!). Physchim62 (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates in user space - TfD or MfD 

message: #Seeing that it is not in the template namespace, people will be less reluctant to edit the code on their own page
#It encourges users who create these userBoxes to be personally responsible for their content
#user boxes would be "owned" by someone so that problems can be addressed with a single person rather then a group
#Recently template Muhammad Cartoons went onto votes for deletion because it had limited usefulness. User coffee and User swedish fish and the like are less usefull, and moving them out of templates removes the double standard
#User pages will continue to look the same
#dublication is more likly, and as a result will limit the size of the list in "what links here"
#there is no longer any legitamate claim for the use of fair use images in userboxes
::::::::::::::--T-rex 17:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why this is a good idea 

message: The User namespace is for User pages.  Sub-pages are for that particular user's personal use.  In other words, a user is can tansclude a sub-page containing a personal template, but it should not be used by anyone else.  This is an end-run around Template namespace intent and deletion policies. -- Netoholic @ 10:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolutely not 

message: I appreciate that some people may be keen to get ahead and perform a migration to user space, but I urge them not to start.  Userboxes may still be as much a problem in userspace as in template space, and if they're deletable from template space they'll probably be deletable from userspace (except in some very few exceptions).
Netoholic is right to state that user pages are generally for a user's own use. If they're used as templates by people other than the user, then they'll be treated as templates. In particular, creation of copies of templates that already exist is pointless, they'll be deleted or redirected as clones should be.  And copies of deleted templates made anywhere on Wikipedia with the intention of their being used as the original templates where will also be deleted. Until such problems are ironed out and we decide whether there is a case for migration of some templates, it probably isn't a good idea to undertake any such migration. --Tony Sidaway 14:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: UserBoxes need to be migrated to your own user page. Creating a central directory of them defeats most of the propose for doing this. So I agree partially with Tony --T-rex 22:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony, userboxes will of course be deletable in user space, although the debates over their deletion will hopefully be determined by the existing precedents on user page content. Generally speaking, there is a longer history of discussion and agreement about what is and is not acceptable on userpages, or at least more than there is on what is acceptable on userboxes in the template namespace. --bainer (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Userboxes migration--don't try it

message: In support of this new policy User:Boxes has been created. To avoid creating templates in a new namespace, everything in this page must be subst. Hopefully this will be the compromise we can all agree on. Under the new arrangement Whatlinkshere does not work because everything listed here has been subst. Also, this page does not have the aire of oficial sponsorship of the Wikimedia foundation. This is made clear by the boilerplate at the top of the page. Hopefully people will accept this as a reasonable solution and stop the userbox wars.--Boxes 02:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userfication 

message: I feel that the simplest policy that would solve most of the problems is one that essentially treats the UserBoxes group/space (whatever namespace that may end up in) as an encyclopedia of UserBoxes - the group/space, as a whole, should be NPOV. Within the group/space, any POV can be illustrated. This will ensure that all POVs are given equal treatment - for example Pro-UN and Anti-UN both get a POV UserBox, and the UserBox group/space as a whole remains essentially NPOV because all POVs are given fair weight. Such a policy is easy to explain and easy to follow. Rexmorgan 06:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV vs POV 

message: Will this policy apply to babelboxes as well? I don't think there's anything wrong with them and they are an easy way of locating speakers of a certain language. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned in the section entitled "policy", the only exceptions to the proposal will be the language usage templates (the "babelboxes") and blank templates such as . --bainer (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Babelboxes? 

message: Please consider my proposal, Wikipedia:Unacceptable userspace material, which is intended as a means to minimally quantify "bad" materials in userspace which the practice of including on userpages has a detrimental effect on Wikipedia, as opposed to making overbroad blanket restrictions. The goal is to maintain the liberal use of userspace while addressing concerns of divisiveness and objectionableness, avoiding template deletionism, and providing a defined standard on which compulsory userpage amendments can be based. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And once again, I see that leading to constant fighting over where the line is, and and having to split hairs to distinguish between almost identical userboxes that will go or stay. -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Specifics not blankets 

message: There's another proposal out there for consideration which shares some similarities (as well as some potentially controversial differences) with this one: User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/Policy.  (I guess it's not technically proposed as policy right now, but it has some support.) Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes. [ed: aforementioned proposal has now been elevated to an officially proposed policy, and is now at the link listed. 02:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A similar proposal 

message: We have had no general policy on userfication of material in general. I've started Wikipedia:Userfication to address this. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Userfication]] 

message: So, what about userboxes for Wikiprojects? They are clearly part of the community building to encourage making an encyclopedia. And it would feel strange to put them in user space since they are not personal but more "property" of their wikiproject. Should we put them under the respective wikiproject? Like this? 

And what does "instrument userboxes" mean? Wikipedia:Instruments or what? And why are they listed in the suggestion as an exception? And why should alma mater userboxes get an exception? In that case it would be natural to add an exception for professsions since that much better can indicate expertise in a certain area, then for membership in organisations since that also indicates certain knowledge, then for...
Note, I have not yet come to a point of view in these matters. There are so many good (and bad) arguments for and against all sides.
--David Göthberg 02:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll for a proposal that has moved further along than this, and that would allow project userboxes to remain in Template space. That proposal would allow userboxes that advance the development of Wikipedia to remain in template space, but would ban userboxes that announce a point of view from Template space (while still allowing epression of personal viewpoints on user pages. Instrument userboxes are for musical instruments. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 12:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject userboxes and exceptions 

message: Even in the user space some respect would be nice. I think it is quite obvious that even in the user space something like "This user thinks that niggers stink" should be speedy deletable. The question is where are the boundaries. In my opinion anything that attacks others rather than endorses something or represents legitimate criticism should be speedy deleted. That in my eyes includes "This user does not tolerate Marxism" or even "fascism" as long as we allow to have political party user boxes given that there are marxist and fascist parties around and we cannot set up double standards for them. 
? 30px? ?	ROGNNTUDJUU! thinks that users who cross out flags show a lack of respect for those represented by them and therefore created this template.
 02:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Respect

message: ===Problems===
# Moving a template from template space to user space is a book-keeping procedure and has no overall effect on the appearance of the encyclopedia's userpages.
# The template transclusion mechanism would still provide the same viral effect as now.
(How are either of these "problems"?) Ashibaka tock 20:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Transclusion is a problem, because it allows anyone to use "what links here" to assemble a POV-pushing group. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 23:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Use subst:, as in . -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 23:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the same thing as migrating templates. (Although it's a valid alternative to migrating them.) --Tifego 18:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments moved from project page

message: # Moving a template from template space to user space is a book-keeping procedure and has no overall effect on the appearance of the encyclopedia's userpages.
# The template transclusion mechanism would still provide the same viral effect as now.
(How are either of these "problems"?) Ashibaka tock 20:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Transclusion is a problem, because it allows anyone to use "what links here" to assemble a POV-pushing group. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 23:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems

message: Users may opt to migrate their userboxes right now, although this is not a policy. They can do this by moving templates they created into their own userspace, and editing the necessary pages on Wikipedia:Userboxes.
*Comment there are two users (User:Userboxes and User:Boxes) which seem to have been created to host userboxes.  Should we migrate the existing ones to either of those? Lefty 01:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Use subst:, as in . -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 23:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the same thing as migrating templates. (Although it's a valid alternative to migrating them.) --Tifego 18:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-policy migration

message: The exceptions are too broad.  Let's examine this line:
::Only userboxes which provide a clear benefit to the encyclopedia should be placed in the template namespace. This includes boxes which state a user's editing interests, skills or expertise, WikiProject affiliations, etc., and userbox creation templates such as Template:Userbox. All other userboxes belong in user space.
That is waaaay, waaaay too broad.  "Editing interests" leaves it open to basically allowing every current userbox to continue existing merely by changing the wording from "This user is a _______" to "This user is interested in ________".  It doesn't solve anything.  A proposal that would solve things would be to limit template: and category: to encyclopedic content and encyclopedia maintenance only.  See Wikipedia:Proposed template and category usage policy.  --Cyde Weys 01:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My impression is that interest and skill userboxes are widely accepted; most people only take issue with boxes expressing beliefs/affiliations unrelated to Wikipedia. Your policy, incidentally, is worded in such a way that it might be taken to ban Template:Userbox itself. —Andux␅ 02:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Nothing would be "interspersed"—user categories fall under the :Category:Wikipedians heirarchy, which is kept strictly separate from normal encyclopedic categories. —Andux␅ 02:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the problem, they don't.  I've seen userbox categories scattered all over the place.  If they all did start with Wikipedians  then that would be one thing, but they don't.  And there's really no need for them anyway.  Here's an example: some admin speedily deleted the category "Seniors with Senioritis" which was created as a category for a joke userbox and the deletion was strongly contested!  That's absurd!  --Cyde Weys 02:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: POV and humor categories probably do need to go, but there's no reason to throw out interest and skill categories along with them; even if they're miscategorized or poorly named, it's easy enough to fix. —Andux␅ 02:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't agree with user categories but I am willing to compromise on them provided that they all start with "Wikipedians".  They most definitely should not be scattered about randomly in category space.  --Cyde Weys 03:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't like it 

message: This might sound crazy, but I think the userboxes which are POV (such as saying you like or dislike something) do actually provide a clear benefit to the encyclopedia. When a user is honest about what their views are on their userpage, it gives other editors more clues as to what their intentions behind edits could have been, and what sorts of biases they might be likely to (perhaps unintentionally) introduce. And it can be enough to stop a user from accusing another user of some bias upon realizing what their actual views are.
Also, disallowing POV statements (political, etc.) on user pages could make it more likely for users to try to introduce those views into articles. A lot of people feel the need to express their views somewhere, and it's better to channel those views into userpages (and contained in userboxes) than as POV claims or vandalism elsewhere on Wikipedia. --Tifego 19:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been covered before. POV userboxes have been used to recruit editors in attempts to impose a POV on articles and deletion discussions. That is a known danger. The benefit you claim has not been demonstrated. Many of us see POV userboxes as encouraging POV-pushing, as a way of bragging about one's biases, and therefore encouraging editors to apply those biases to their edits, which is inimical to the spirit and policy of Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 22:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the big green box on my user page for views on this. --bainer (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mostly agree, except... I don't agree with the implication that using a box made by somebody else corresponds with getting the viewpoint it expresses from that person/box. I choose ones that happen to match what I would have said, and make my own when I can't find any box for a certain view I have. I think the inclusion of categories in such userboxes in unhelpful, however. I don't see a practical use for being able to search through all catholic/vegetarian/adult/whatever wikipedians. --Tifego 01:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: POV userboxes encourage factionalism and turn Wikipedia into a warzone between various factions.  I've already seen this happen on four occurrences (Catholic "Alliance", Jason Gastrich AFDs, FSM DRV, and UPP).  And all four times POV templates were being used for vote-stacking purposes.  It's not possible to deny this; the facts are all there, in plain sight.  And let me echo Donald Albury: I've heard much of these supposed benefits of "disclosing one's biases", but in practice, none of it has ever been demonstrated.  --Cyde Weys 00:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay rights in Iraq. That's where I saw it for the first time. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 00:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Ahem.  I only found WP:UPP because of the attempt to pre-apply it on my user page.  I assume that some of the other Oppose votes were for that reason, as well.  — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is a way to "force" a template to subst'd -- a bot using "what links here" to subst them.  — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV userboxes 

message: All possible arguments have been made. Time for a poll so we can move on. John Reid 23:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sign with #~~~~
#Support - I started this proposal, so I probably should support it. It did go in some funny directions, which may have killed it, but I still support the central thrust of the proposal, which is to treat userboxes like user pages, not like templates or project pages or any other type of page. That was the fundamental purpose of this proposal and I think it may have been lost amongst the musical instrument userboxes. --bainer (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Sign with #~~~~
# Oppose As someone said in the discussion above, there is quite a vagueness in "contributes the encyclopedia". For instance, some would argue that stating one is of a certain religion is POV, while others would argue that it indicates knowledge in a certain field. And besides, moving the templates to the userspace only moves the problem, the POV presented by userboxes, to a different arena; it does not eliminate it. joturner 23:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Sign with #~~~~
#Meh. I feel that more work is needed before this proposal is ready for a vote. —Andux␅ 06:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll 

message: :Sign with #~~~~
#Support - I started this proposal, so I probably should support it. It did go in some funny directions, which may have killed it, but I still support the central thrust of the proposal, which is to treat userboxes like user pages, not like templates or project pages or any other type of page. That was the fundamental purpose of this proposal and I think it may have been lost amongst the musical instrument userboxes. --bainer (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Endorse

message: :Sign with #~~~~
# Oppose As someone said in the discussion above, there is quite a vagueness in "contributes the encyclopedia". For instance, some would argue that stating one is of a certain religion is POV, while others would argue that it indicates knowledge in a certain field. And besides, moving the templates to the userspace only moves the problem, the POV presented by userboxes, to a different arena; it does not eliminate it. joturner 23:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: :Sign with #~~~~
#Meh. I feel that more work is needed before this proposal is ready for a vote. —Andux␅ 06:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral

message: This poll seems to have played itself out. I suggest that the proposed policy has been rejected by the community. John Reid 20:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing 

message: Please see Wikipedia:German_userbox_solution, which is basically the exact same thing as this policy. It was mentioned by Jimbo in May as the "middle ground" of the userbox debate. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 18:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was initially mentioned by Jimbo on IRC in February, that led to this proposal. The German userbox solution is much more well-rounded and developed though, I highly recommend it. --bainer (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The German Solution