Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes/Proposals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Movementarian (talk | contribs) at 20:36, 2 January 2006 (add comment to prop 4). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page is to discuss a proposed policy on userboxes commonly seen on Wikipedians' user pages; what should be allowed, encouraged, or discouraged in userboxes. It may also touch on whether certain types ought to be speedily deleted. A debate began at the Village pump policy page, and some content from that debate was used to start this proposal. If you wish, present your own proposed policy, or create a comments section below an individual proposal using a ===Level3 heading=== to discuss its merits.

Please direct any general discussion about userboxes or this discussion to the talk page.

Background

Many of you have probably noticed that userboxes have been causing a lot of conflict lately. (I don't know if the problem has been addressed here before, but I couldn't find any discussion on this page or in the archive.)

A brief history of userboxes: Anyway, userboxes started out innocently enough, as informative supplements designed to fit snugly into the Babel templates. Then the userboxes themselves were turned into templates, and the userbox templates began including category tags to automatically categorize user under Category:Wikipedians. And then, of course, a number of Wikipedians began creating humorous parody userboxes (such as {{User Geek}} and {{User n00b}}). They were accordingly assigned templates; and they, too, attempted to categorize users. I myself am guilty of creating a few humorous userboxes, although I now regret ever contributing to the disruptive process. Anyway, the silly categories and templates enventually found their way to the deletion process. Most were kept, some were deleted, some were moved, some were redirected. The resulting mess led to the recent creation of WikiProject Userboxes, which has done a remarkable job in cleaning up and standardizing the userbox templates and categories. I applaud them for their quick and effective cleanup. Unfortunately, userbox-related templates, categories, and redirects, etc. were still nominated for deletion. Recently, Kelly Martin boldly speedily deleted dozens of userboxes she thought silly and politically biased and generally "crappy". (Discussion and relevant links can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin.)

Proposal

Regardless of the outcome of the RfC, Wikipedia needs a policy regarding the use of templates for the user namespace as well as the categorization of Wikipedians. For example, should Wikipedia allow templates designed for the user namespace which blatantly support particular points of view? Should we allow templates that serve no purpose other than adding humor to user pages? Should we allow categories that divide Wikipedians into political and religious affiliations that can be used for spamming user talk pages? Should we allow categories that serve no purpose except to list users who claim to be furry? Basically, we need to establish guidelines for the creation of new user templates and user categories. What types of templates and what types of categories should be allowed? --TantalumTelluride 03:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Additional Comment: And don't forget about the double transclusion caused by many userbox templates. Granted, WikiProject Userboxes has been addressing the issue, but many users transclude the basic userbox template within specific templates. Apparently such double tranclusions are significantly more demanding of the Wikimedia servers than regular single transclusions are, and they should almost always be avoided. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits#Double transclusion and Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates.) --TantalumTelluride 04:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this would be the time to make it clear that images that are claimed to be under fair use should not be used as part of the userbox template. They were probably some of the reasons why some admins have been deleting them or trying to get rid of them, but we all need to understand that we have to have specific cause and reason to cite an image as fair use, because we are using it for an article, not for just some damn decoration on a silly userbox. Zach (Smack Back) 04:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I note to all that the above two issues on meta templates and fair-use images are the two main current tasks at the WikiProject and we are working on removing all traces of them. Ian13ID:540053 11:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal on categories in general

OK, i have realised that manye changes have been made to proposal #4, with the incorporations. Because of this, i thought i would have a proposal on whether we have categories on user's beliefs, ideologies, etc or not. I put this at the top because, as you can see, it is quite a task to navigate through this page if it is the first time you visit it.

"Therefore, userboxes that express POV should not have categories assocaited with them, however they should remain to be allowed on user pages."

If you agree with this statement (to not have categories for POV templates, sign with "Support". If you disagree (and think that POV templates should have categories) sign with "Oppose"

Comments and Voting

The outcome of this vote determines whether proposal #6 is incorporated into proposal #4

The world is a horrible place sometimes... - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 20:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
True but assuming wikipedians are violates WP:FAITH. I suggest you read it.Gateman1997 20:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose categories don't lead to anything mentioned above, and even if they occasionally would, this is no reason to prohibit all the users of good faith to list themselves in a category. Larix 20:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed policy #1

The following is my recommended policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 08:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The primary purpose of userboxes is to assist Wikipedians in locating other Wikipedians who have specific skills, knowledge, or interests in order to facilitate writing an encyclopedia. Therefore, preference is given to userboxes which serve this purpose. Userboxes which do not serve this purpose are discouraged; while they may be created and used, restraint should be exercised.

The following categories of userboxes are encouraged:

  1. Userboxes which identify an editor's ability to read or write in one or more languages (see also Wikipedia:Babel), for the purpose of obtaining translation assistance.
  2. Userboxes which identify other special skills (such as experience with proofreading, copyediting, or photoediting) of value in creating an encyclopedia.
  3. Userboxes which signify that the editor holds some specific status (such as administrator) within the Wikipedia community and can therefore assist others in need of the assistance of someone with that status.
  4. Userboxes which indicate the editor's participation in an WikiProject.
  5. Userboxes which indicate the editor's participating in a sister Wikimedia project.

The following categories of userboxes are prohibited:

  1. Userboxes which contain offensive or incivil content, or which amount to personal attacks.
  2. Userboxes which contain any content which is not suitable for placement on a user page, per the user page policy.
  3. Userboxes whose primary purpose is to express endorsement of, or objection to, a commercial product, service, or entity (such as a movie, a book series, a soft drink, or a sports team). However, userboxes which indicate a user's interest in a specific topic are not prohibited, as long as they do not amount to endorsing or opposing that topic. Your user page is not a place to endorse or advertise for any external entities.
  4. Userboxes whose primary purpose is to endorse or object to any particular political, religious, or ideological position. Again, userboxes which indicate an editor's interest in politics, religion, or ideology, or any particular subset thereof, are permissible (and even encouraged), but such userboxes should not state that the editor is a member of, supporter of, or opponent of such a position. Your user page is not a place for advocacy. (This does not apply with respect to ideological stances about Wikipedia policy, such as inclusionism or eventualism.)

Userboxes that fall into neither of the above categories are neither encouraged nor prohibited; editors may create such userboxes but are expected to exercise reasonable restraint in doing so.

In addition, userboxes must not, under any circumstance, contain unlicensed image content. Wikipedia's fair use policy prohibits the use of unlicensed media on user pages; since userboxes only appear on user pages unlicensed media may not be used in them.

Userboxes may add the page on which they are found into an appropriate category; but such categories must be categories which are appropriate and reserved for user pages. Under no circumstance should a userbox add the page into which it is included into any category which is intended to include articles.

Userboxes should not be placed in articles or article talk pages.

Userboxes should avoid the use of metatemplates.

Note that nothing in this policy prohibits a user from identifying his or her ideological beliefs on his or her user page (although doing so is generally discouraged); this policy merely prohibits creating templated userboxes for that purpose. Userbox templates should not be created that facilitate editors performing acts discouraged by the Wikipedia community. Editors are reminded that user pages are intended to be about oneself as a Wikipedian and are not intended as a general personal home page, or as a free speech zone (see the user page policy).

Comments

  • Great start. I'd like something added to say you can still add the stuff in objections 3 and 4 into your bio on your userpage, as long as it's in text not templates/userboxes. That's acceptable, isn't it? Harro5 09:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose.I think that this proposal is fine, except people should be able to say what religion, political party or ideology they support or oppose. As long as it doesn't use any inappropriate language, or act as a personal attack (which the This user hates George W Bush template could be interpretated to be) it counts as freedom of speech. The main problem we have is the sheer number of userboxes that are being created, despite a very similar or virtually identical userbox is already in use. - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 19:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the user page policy; your user page is not a "free speech zone".
  • I am in general agreement with the proposed policy. I would prohibit any userbox which automatically places the user in a category of Wikipedians by POV. I would allow any userbox stating a political affiliation (free from any sloganeering), so long as it is in very specific terms reporting facts of membership of a group. David | Talk 10:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Bourbons3 in that it should be allowed to express an ideological or religious affiliation using userboxes. As he said, it counts as freedom of speech. Further I'd like to add that while articles should have a NPOV, user pages certainly don't have to. Larix 11:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC) PS: I'm not really fond of any restrictions besides those considered with copyright or personal attacks. So this comment is not my only objection to the proposal. Larix 11:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree in part. If I'm a supporter of a particular religion, ideology, or sports team, whose business is it to demand I refrain from saying so? Provided I don't say a particular religion or group is evil, such as proclaiming Jews a plague or Islam a tool of Satan (or Islam a tool of the international Jewish conspiracy, to offend both), or that the Roughriders suck (but they do...), butt out! Trekphiler 13:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree absolutely with the proposed policy expect P3 and P4. Perhaps userboxes of those types should be discouraged (such as how images in signatures are currently discouraged, but not prohibited), but I don't think an outright ban of them is quite fair, considering that Wikipedians are free to state their political opinions without userboxes anyway. —BorgHunter (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Users should be discouraged from stating their political opinions (per request of Jimbo, if nothing else), and we should not allow the creation of userboxes to facilitate a discouraged behavior. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reasonable policy, as long as it is made clear that there is a grey area between these two that is neither encouraged nor prohibited (which would include all the "funny" ones). I'd also be in favour of stating that categories are only appropriate for "encouraged", and that "one-off" userboxes should be kept in the userspace of the user who wants it, but that might already be instruction creepy. -- grm_wnr Esc 13:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree with the discouragement of ideological stances. So long as the stance is issued in the positive ("I am a member of ..." or "I subscribe to the philosophy of ..." as opposed to "The ideology of ... is dangerous or evil") they harm no one and can contribute to disclosure of vested interest. Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 15:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly and Vehemently Disagree with the type of userboxes the proposer wishes to discourage in items 3 and 4. These items go on user pages and reflect the personalities and interests of the individual editors, and are a good way to find likeminded editors on Wikipedia, especially for WikiProjects. Going after these items is precisely what started a particular uproar against a certain admin's heavy-handed actions. --CJ Marsicano 16:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no prohibition on indicating "interest" in a topic; users are discouraged from, and prohibited from creating userboxes, which act as advocacy on an issue. A userbox that says "This user is interested in topics about Christianity" would be perfectly acceptable. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly disagree - surely this should be more liberal per CJ Marsicano's comments. Ian13ID:540053 16:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Policy #1a

Proposed Policy 1 as written except strike prohibited categories 3 and 4:

  1. -
  2. -
  3. Userboxes whose primary purpose is to express endorsement of, or objection to, a commercial product, service, or entity (such as a movie, a book series, a soft drink, or a sports team). However, userboxes which indicate a user's interest in a specific topic are not prohibited, as long as they do not amount to endorsing or opposing that topic. Your user page is not a place to endorse or advertise for any external entities.
  4. Userboxes whose primary purpose is to endorse or object to any particular political, religious, or ideological position. Again, userboxes which indicate an editor's interest in politics, religion, or ideology, or any particular subset thereof, are permissible (and even encouraged), but such userboxes should not state that the editor is a member of, supporter of, or opponent of such a position. Your user page is not a place for advocacy. (This does not apply with respect to ideological stances about Wikipedia policy, such as inclusionism or eventualism.)

and replace with:

  1. -
  2. -
  3. Userboxes whose primary purpose is to express endorsement of, or objection to, a commercial product, service, or entity (such as a movie, a book series, a soft drink, or a sports team) may not have categories associated with them, and they may not be used for advocacy of the position. Further they may not reproduce the logo or trademarked identifying mark of the product. They cannot directly link to an external site but may link to the Wikipedia article on the topic, if any.
  4. Userboxes whose primary purpose is to endorse or object to any particular political, religious, or ideological position may not have categories associated with them and may not denote nore than simple endorsement or objection, and they may not be used for advocacy of the position. They cannot directly link to an external site but may link to the Wikipedia article on the topic, if any.
  5. Userboxes that violate any of these prohibited categories may be speedily deleted and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion should be modified to reflect this policy.

(note, all the notes in Proposed Policy 1 below the allowed and prohibited sections, which are usage notes and guidelines, are kept as written. They are not reproduced here for brevity)

Proposed by ++Lar: t/c 18:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, questions, and voting

  • Support++Lar: t/c 18:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fully and strongly disagree. This is just a watered down/re-worded version of the Martin Proposal. --CJ Marsicano 19:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree it's reworded, that's the idea! (whatever you may think of Kelly or her actions (which emphatically are NOT the subject of this discussion, that's what the RfC is for), she produced a well written and comprehensive proposal, IMHO, even if you disagree with some of it) but I do not agree that it is just a watered down version. It changes the sense of prohibited types 3 and 4, which many (including myself) disagree with in her version, from prohibited completely to restricted from being used for POV pushing. I hope you'll change your view and that others will consider supporting this version. While I like a lot of the other versions and the sentiments behind them, I think some of them lack the structural benefits and clarity of wording of Kelly's version and would rather see diffs proposed, as I did, instead of complete rewrites. With many competing, slightly different, rewrites we may never get to one firm proposal that has consensus. ++Lar: t/c 20:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose, while reworded the basis of the message is the same and IMHO is much to restrictive to the userspace per the userspace guidelines.Gateman1997 20:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed policy #2

This policy that I propose comes to light in response to not only the RfC, but also the recent influx of Userbox templates on WP:TFD. It is also highly dependant on the outcome of Proposed policy #1--JB Adder | Talk 12:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most (if not all) of the userboxes available on Wikipedia have their own User category to accompany it. This puts them in a similar vein to the stub category/template pairings. Therefore, userboxes should not be judged as templates, but as a separate entity, again in a similar vein to stubs.

Any userboxes that contradict what is encouraged, or contain material that is prohibited, may be subject to nomination on Wikipedia:Userboxes for deletion. Any nominations that are sent here are given seven days while debate takes places as to whether the Userbox in question should be kept or deleted.

Users must familiarize themselves with the userbox policy, as well as disruption policy before making a nomination.

Comments

Everyone is free to expand on this proposal as they see fit. --JB Adder | Talk 12:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Giving these little boxes their own *FD is going overboard, IMO. However, they could be seen as part of the User namespace and therefore handled at the low-traffic WP:MFD instead of the already very busy WP:TFD. Always deleting template/category pairs together can be arranged. -- grm_wnr Esc 13:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, some of the userboxes exist in the template namespace, others might exist as hard code on the user pages and some exist via transclusion. I think that all userboxes and similar forks can be sent to TFD: they can be moved later on if the scope is out of reach of TFD. Zach (Smack Back) 20:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Policy #3

I thought i would put up this policy before there were too many for people to read through. I thought i would use Proposed Policy #1 as a building block, as the majority of it is, in my opinion, the ultimate solution.

Approved userboxes:

  1. Those that promote a user's details, although not too detailed or personal, as this will create too many userboxes (language, location, basic interests like sport or computers)
  2. Those that promote a user's important skills (java, html, etc)
  3. Those that promote a user's skills in terms of editing Wikipedia (copyright knowledge, high editing skills, etc)
  4. Those that promote a user's position in Wikipedia (like admin) which would help others find assistance in some way in terms of Wikipedia
  5. Those that promote a user's participation in, or support of, a Wikiproject
  6. Those that promote a user's participation in a Wikimedia sister project (Wiktionary, etc)
  7. Those that promote free speech of a moral kind (including stating a user's religion, political views or ideology without causing serious offense)
  8. Those that, to a certain extent (becasue of potentially creating an overload in userboxes) are humorous, as long as they do not casue serious offense)

Unapproved userboxes:

  1. Those that act as personal attacks
  2. Those that use inappropriate language
  3. Those that are immoral in any way, or cause serious (not minor) offense
  4. Those that break any law (i.e copyright)
  5. Those that are virtually identical or very similar to any existing userbox
  6. Those that have no use, or are orphaned

Most userboxes should not be placed in talk pages, although some can due to the fact that they were created mainly for the use of talk page placement, and dont break any of the rules of the policy.

UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 14:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Proposed Policy #4 (Liberal!)

by Deano (Talk)

As a prelude to the policy, I'll state my POV.

Personally, I think there is a fundemental flaw in all of the above. Userboxes are intended solely for User Pages, and therefore are free to be POV. What people put on their userpages (within reason) is free, so if they declare their support for a religion/country/sports team/brand/POV, then they can do that without a userbox. The purpose of userboxes is to standardise the format with which this can be achieved.

There is no obligation for anyone to use userboxes, but the userbox system a) simplifies how users display information, b) eases the ability of users to see other users' POV without having to read text. Any information found in a userbox could be put on a userpage anyway.

As for Categories. I have stated my view here several times before. At present, many userboxes are linked to ludicrous categories that are no help to anyone... the one that immediately springs to mind is Wikipedians who (don't) believe in Santa. These are an absolute farce, and trivialise the nature of Wikipedia. The Santa userbox template is fine - it's a joke and helps build a community spirit through a degree of light-heartedness. However, the Category is wholly unnecessary. Userboxes should only be linked to categories based on:-

  1. Location
  2. Schools
  3. Language
  4. WikiProjects
  5. Interests in a subject (N.B. this is NPOV)

and possibly Sports, thought those again are dubious.

Incorporated from Proposed Policy #6 below The main argument against political and biased userboxes is that they allow users with similar POVs to find each other and gang up to win edit wars, which is true. Therefore, userboxes that express POV should not have categories associated with them, BUT should be allowed on user pages. Also, there will have to be some way to address the 'what links here' issue, otherwise people can find similar POVs anyway. --end--

Userbox Policy should be a tiered system, whereby some are encouraged, the vast majority are allowed, and very few are disallowed.

Examples of each would include (excuse copying large chunks from above):

Encouraged

  1. Those that illustrate language, location and basic interests (like sport or computers).
  2. Those that illustrate important skills (java, html, etc.)
  3. Those that illustrate a user's level of participation within Wikipedia (in all aspects)
  4. Those that show participation in, or support of, WikiProjects
  5. Those that show participation in a Wikimedia sister project (Wiktionary, etc.)

Allowed

  1. Those that illustrate personal ideologies - religion, political views, ethics
  2. Those that are considered humourous but not overtly trivial.
  3. Those that illustrate support of sports teams, nations etc.
  4. Those that suggest preference in terms of television, computer games and software.

Userboxes under this category should be positive - that is to say "in support of something" as opposed to "dislikes something".

Disallowed

  1. Any userbox that may cause serious offense,
  2. Any userbox containing a direct personal attack
  3. Any userbox using inappropriate language
  4. Any illegal userboxes (i.e copyright)
  5. Any templatised userboxes that are virtually identical or very similar to an existing templatised userbox
  6. Any useless/orphaned userbox.


Comments, questions and voting

--PLEASE CHECK THE NEWLY INCORPORATED TEXT ABOVE. IF ANY VIEWS BELOW CHANGE, PLEASE ALTER--
Deano (Talk) 20:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully some people will agree with this... hopefully some people have bothered to read this far! Deano (Talk) 15:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. This proposal has my full support (for whatever it's worth). Movementarian 15:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC) (see 12 below)[reply]
  2. Support Mike Dillon 16:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support. --TantalumTelluride 17:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FULL SUPPORT! --Cjmarsicano 17:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Sceptre (Talk) 18:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Conditional support - support only if categories based on user interests are added to the list of approved categories. For example, I think it would be very useful to have a category linked to Template:User religion interest and Template:User LGBT interest, which do not express a POV on religion or LGBT issues and therefore could not be used to form voting blocs, but could be used to find interested editors for the purpose of article improvement. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 19:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support Seems perfect (In my view this policy should encompass all userpage templates, and not just userboxes (soon we will have to question what is a userbox.) However, I do have one slight issue, I feel catagories should be allowed for programming ect, since users with that certain skill can contact each other for support (should only be one catagory per. userbox series, not one for each of -1, -2, ect.). Update covers this. Ian13ID:540053 16:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Took the words right out of my mouth. Morgan695 18:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support — I see what you mean. Yeah, this is definitely many times better than the draconian Proposal #1 --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 19:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Conditional Support. I would like to see some of Proposal 5 included in this, as "One Off" userboxes don't have the same wide scale effects as a templated userbox. For example, I had a Liberal "one off" userbox that was similar to the templated Liberal Userbox, only the link was to American Liberalism instead of Liberalism. This userbox would have violated the fifth Disallowed rule about similarity to existing userboxes. If that disallow excludes "one off" userboxes and only affects templated userboxes (which makes sense), then I will change my vote to Complete Support. Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 19:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - that was implied, but I've clarified it anyway. Deano (Talk) 20:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Complete Support then. Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 20:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. This is nitpicking, but could "templatised" be applied to the first instance of userbox in that line? That would match more with what I had in mind. Any userboxes that are virtually identical or very similar to an existing templatised userbox should read Any userbox templates that are virtually identical or very similar to an existing userbox template - Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 20:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strongly Support. This should be the policy. Userboxes are nothing but extensions of userpages which are not bound by any POV rules. As such userboxes should be free to follow userpage policies already in place.Gateman1997 20:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Why is proposal 6 incorporated? I didn't see much support for it yet. And the way this page is organized now, many people have voted for this proposal without seeing the new incorporated text. I don't think those votes can be counted if they're not informed. As it is, I would oppose it as I think there needs to be more discussion about wether categories should be allowed or not. Larix 20:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - only users signed above the line have signed without reading the incorporated version, and have/will be informed of changed. If their views stay the same, its coz they agree with the alteration. Everyone after that has read the incorporated version. Content from #6 was incorporated a) it holds true in theory, b) its faults were, IMO, covered by the "interested in" section regarding categories, c) because Wikipedia is about consensus, not conflict. Deano (Talk) 20:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly! This line Deano uses as an explanation was added after my comment. Very weird. Larix 20:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. This proposal has my full support, as I think it addresses some of the concerns of those in support of proposal 1. Even if it does not pass in its present form, this is an excellent foundation to which concencus can be built upon. Movementarian 20:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Proposed Policy #5

I think a variety of one-of userboxes should be allowed as long as they don't clutter categories and are made using the {{userbox}} template. - Mgm|(talk) 12:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Yes, perhaps a "One-off" category could be created, although the number of these userboxes should be limited, perhaps by keeping track of the userboxes' use, and deleting ones that are old, no longer relavent or no longer in use. - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 17:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to be like there should be a slightly less restrictive policy on "one-off" userboxes. "One-off" userboxes are created by an individual user for his or her userpage. Rather than creating a unique template for the userbox, the user just uses the {{userbox}} template (or substs it). The real issue here is the creation of userboxes in the Template space. Basically, I suggest that there be a division between policies that apply to all userboxes and and policies which only apply to the creation of userbox templates. - Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 15:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support. Most of these one-offs can be made as user subpages, which take up very little if any server space on Wikipedia. --CJ Marsicano 19:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question about the policies proposal #1

I think much of the wrath being displayed on this issue is misplaced. I understand some of the complaints that brought this whole issue around, but I think we need to take a good hard look at things before we decide to effectively ban a harmless bit of wikifun. Userboxes for such purposes as getting a large block to AfD and RfC are inappropriate. What I fail to see is how identifying ones polical association, personal views (within reason of course), or favourite beverage in userbox format instead of writing it is harmful to the wikiproject. If the problem is catagorisation then get rid of the catagories, not the userbox. A question to those that support a proposal to ban most userboxes:

  • If I write, in plain text, that I am member of the Catholic Church or that I am a member of the Labour Party will you delete that? If not, please explain why a userbox (without catagorical affiliation) advocating the same position would be deleted. Movementarian 15:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal doesnt delete someone displaying their religios, political or any other views so long as they are appropriate. It also doesnt delete funny or harmless userboxes. This question applies to Proposal #1 - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 15:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My humble apologies. Movementarian 15:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, just thought i would point it out :-) - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 15:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Policy #6

The main argument against political and biased userboxes is that they allow users with similar POV's to find each other and gang up to win edit wars. This is true. Therefore, userboxes that express POV should not have categories assocaited with them, however they should remain to be allowed on user pages. Also, there will have to be some way to address the 'what links here' issue, so that people can't look up capitalist wikipedians like myself through that page.--Urthogie 17:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a userbox for deletion page would be nice as well, to help with sorting.--Urthogie 17:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, questions, and voting

Well thats a racist and sexist assumption, that all blacks have a certain ideology, or all women have a certain ideology. It is in fact good to find black people to work on nigger or afrocentrism and muslims to work on arab and egypt, etc.--Urthogie 19:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you said is very offensive. I said it can be a reason for dispute, not that it necessarily is. You don't have to insult me for bringing this up - especially as I'm deeply involved in battling racism and sexism. That's the entire reason I'm politically active. Larix 19:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
second thought. I've been quite busy with this whole issue, user boxes and categories. But I really don't want to take this kind of stupid accusations. I'm out of this discussion, for now. Blegh. Larix 19:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Okay, I'm in again. Being insulted is not a reason to withdraw from a policy debate. Larix 20:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly. Larix 20:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have proof that it doesnt occur reguarly? See Proposal on categories in general for voting and such on this topic - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 20:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this case the burden of proof is on you as the accuser. Especially since the view you take borders or bulls through violation of WP:FAITH.Gateman1997 20:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal #7

Let's cut the censorship and rulecruft, shall we? In regards to userboxes, all we need is two guidelines.

  • The box doesn't break WP:CIVIL towards another user.
  • The box isn't already duplicated somewhere else with slight differences.

karmafist 20:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes/Proposals&oldid=33633454"