This page is for talk about the proposal and possible ammendments. Please begin a new conversation by adding a new topic. Thanks. // The True Sora
Just a proposed addition.
6. No userbox tags in the article and article talk space.
I'm concerned that if POV is acceptable in the userbox space, then talk pages will get cluttered with POV tags. Megapixie 23:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The italicized part of #4 is inaccurate.
"4. The Userbox: namespace will only be allowed to be used on pages in the User: namespace and WP:UBX, leaving the Template: namespace to be explicitly used for main articles."
Templates also are used in Category:, Help:, Portal: and Wikipedia: namespaces. The statement could simply read,
"4. The Userbox: namespace will only be allowed to be used on pages in the User: namespace and WP:UBX." Rfrisbie talk 23:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
How about: The Userbox: namespace will only be allowed to be used on pages in the User: namespace and WP:UBX, leaving the Template: namespace to be explicitly used for main articles and related pages.
Some people need to see the line "Template namespace" is for articles only to accept this poll.-- God Ω War 23:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
What about templates that only belong on user pages that are not userboxes? like {{Template:Userpage}}-- Rayc 02:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about breaking the proposal, but if you can get Grue onboard, that will go along way of establishing consensus. Plus, it might even change Jimbo's posistion as well.-- Rayc 01:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Just moving up something from the rename proposal. See Wikipedia:Template messages/User namespace and Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace for lists of a more complete range of userspace templates. Rfrisbie talk 13:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
If boxes are moved from template to a new namespace, will user pages have to change any wikicode to refer to the new location? Thanks, Andjam 12:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I assume deleted userboxes will be restored before being moved? — Ashley Y 20:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I propose using "User template:" and "User template talk:" instead of "Userbox:" (and "Userbox talk:").
— Ashley Y 21:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I object to "Usertemplate:" as it breaks the convention throughout the wiki not to run words together (though people still break it here and there). That's why we don't have "Usertalk:". — Ashley Y 04:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I prefer Userbox:. This is for userboxes, after all. Plus i also think it looks better and sounds better than Usertemplate - • The Giant Puffin • 07:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Note: as no consensus has been reached here (2 for User template:, 2 for Usertemplate:, 2 for the status quo), I think we'll have to leave it as the status quo for now. However, it this changes, you can start the poll over again. For now, this has been closed. // The True Sora 11:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Tony Sidaway just deleted a couple of userboxes, {{user cannabis}} and {{user cannabis opponent}}. Is there a point to this exercise? Will admins simply ignore the concensus forming here and run amok, deleting templates without listing them anywhere or seeking any sort of review? I can't look at the templates to see if they meet T1, but I'm having a hard time assuming good faith when there's an active effort to reach consensus on whether userboxes should be deleted and admins actively flouting the effort. Jay Maynard 15:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Policy is decided by consensus, not a supermajority vote. In my opinion, the userbox issue is too divisive, and the establishment of a new namespace is too significant, to be imposed on the rest of Wikipedia without a consensus. I'm certainly not going to make the final decision here, but it's clear to me that consensus has not been reached. -- bcasterline • talk 15:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
So I suppose T1 and T2 had consensus then. Being that they are policy.-- God Ω War 20:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I found a discussion of Consensus vs. supermajority. I was wondering if anyone can direct me to the comparable discussion of Supermajority vs. superminority. There seems to be a lot of that going on at Wikipedia too. ;-) Rfrisbie talk 23:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that all Wikipedia: namespace articles that are wikiproject articles should be allowed to have userboxes, because these often have userboxes associated with them that it is useful to show these for users to take. I vote support either way, though. – Xolatron 20:13, 24 Telona 2006 (25 May)
Ironically, the comments on this page might not reflect the opinions of the entire community (or even a representative subset)—vote stacking was used to get some here. See [1], for example. Perhaps more exposure would make that irrelevant, though. I still think this proposal is (probably) a (mostly) good idea, but would it let vote stacking continue? Ardric47 02:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
And as I've said before, vote stacking isn't a problem. Take Jimbo's bridgecruft example from the email list: A non-notable bridge comes up for deletion, and a message goes out to all the wiki-bridgers. The final vote tally is one vote for delete with a rational, and 10 for keep without rational. The consensus of this vote is delete, no matter how many no rational keeps are brought in. If one of the keeps gives a rational, then it's no consensus. If that rational also refutes the delete rational, then it's a keep. If more admins would close based off of consensus (ironically, acting more like Tony Sideways) then userbox vote stacking wouldn't be a problem.
Moving user boxes from Template: to Userbox: in no way resolves any of the serious problems they present. Divisive userboxes will still be divisive. Categories will still be attached to userboxes and userboxes will still be used to purposes that are contrary to our community's purpose. The objection to userboxes is not based on them being in template space (and contrary to common belief, there is no policy that "everything in template space has to be NPOV", that's just silliness someone invented at some point for no reason that makes any sense at all), it's based on what they are. Changing the name of a thing doesn't change its character, and it is the character of userboxes -- by whatever name they masquerade as -- that is problematic. Kelly Martin ( talk) 16:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
And maybe we would stop making divisive userboxes if admins would stop deleting harmless POV userboxes.
And there was a policy a while ago called T2. It said that templates that exist only to be in userspace that have a POV should be deleted. Dtm142 18:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but finding ways of fixing or refuting each type of oppose will allow for future consensus, if not consensus in this poll. I don't know how I got 42 votes out of 47 opposes, but here they are:
Feel free to propose fixes to the proposal under the tally. Only post refutes if they haven't been disscused ad nossium above-- Rayc 20:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me like this proposal is dead in the water because no one at the top is ever going to implement its suggestions. See this post by Jimbo. The essence of his problem with userboxes is: "The pages which list userboxes, in the template namespace, make it seem as though putting these things on userpages is a normal and accepted community behavior, when in fact it is not." Obviously, creating an entirely new namespace for them is painting them as a "normal and accepted community behavior", which they are not. Shall we just mark this proposal rejected now? -- Cyde↔Weys 03:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I don't know how far people have the time to address these questions, personally, I really don't get this debate, and I strongly suspect a lot of other people either don't know it's happening or, like me, don't understand it. I have found that a random set of my userboxes have dissapeared - e.g. my 'marxist' one has gone, while my 'council communist' one is still present. Having eventually found this page, here are a few questions:
Not having a huge amount of history in this debate, fwiw, I reckon that userboxes are useful cause they allow wikipedians to identify (i) possible POV and (ii) subject specialists. Yours, a confused wikipedian who is here to write well referenced articles, but who doesn't get what the fuss is all about, Breadandroses 15:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Further questions/points:
Breadandroses 16:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
An attempt to summarize the issues involved is at Wikipedia:T1 and T2 debates. Rfrisbie talk 00:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I have been asked before to weigh in on the technical aspects of this proposal. I have since been advised that some users could be misinterpreting the information I gave out, so let me make it clear here.
This would not require significant changes to any of the core MediaWiki code, which already supports us creating as many custom namespaces as we want. What does need to be altered is the site configuration. As I have explained countless times on IRC, this would be done if a request were filed in the right place, provided that said request directed the system admin team to a discussion demonstrating support for the addition.
I maintain that I have no opinion as to whether or not the proposal is suitable or sane. I dislike being misrepresented, however. robchurch | talk 16:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Please correct:
Userbox Policy:
We don't have a Portal namespace. It's you who have one. Vildricianus 15:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Most of the work has already been done by Rayc above, but I decided to review and update it, to see if we had consensus for the compromise. Votes opposing the proposal:
To summarize, the vast majority of the oppose votes seems to come from the "delete all userboxes" angle, while many other users are concerned that this simply sidesteps the issue without resolving the core problem (users wishing to keep userboxes vs. users wishing to delete userboxes).
On the support side the majority of argunments seem to come from mainly two different angles - users wishing to keep the userboxes and accepting the compromise and users which see this compromise as not adressing the core problem (see above) but think it is better than continuing the userbox-wars.
The poll ended with a large majority of votes for the proposal (111 support, 8 conditional support, 56 oppose). As Wikipedia is not a democracy this in itself does not mean anything, but I think it shows that a major part of the community is willing to compromise, while some hardliners do not wish to do so. Of course I am not an admin, so I cannot declare consensus or absence therof, but I might wish to ask those of power to consider carefully both sides, as well as the implications of declaring consensus or lack of it. CharonX 19:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, here are my comments on the various oppose votes:
This new namespace shows that they aren't allowed in the encyclopdia. They are part of the community, not the encyclopedia. Wikipedia needs a community to run itself, and if we keep dividing it up with this war, we have no more community.
How so? I thought the idea was that they were misuse of the template namespace and shouldn't be next to encyclopedia templates. You say that they're divisive, but the only thing that's really dividing us is the war. Look at how all of us userbox supporters have been able to stay together, despite the fact that many of us claim to be atheist, others Christian, others Jewish, etc. You don't have to use userboxes if you don't want to.
We need it narrow so that there can't be further policy proposals to delete all userboxes.
They're templates, but they belong in userspace, thus they shouldn't be confused as part of the encyclopedia. Just like Wikipedia project pages aren't mixed in with the articles.
It shows how diverse the community is and that we don't all follow the same paths. We can show it without userboxes, and it probably won't get deleted. So what's wrong with using userboxes? Remember that you don't have to use it if you don't want to.
Not that hard. Once we have all the templates moved and we have policies about things like how to make a userbox, it won't be that difficult. It will be much easier to maintain than the old one.
I think that there is a greater amount of anger now over the userbox war and mass deletion than there ever will be over creating a little namespace.
Wars are evil too.
Pretty much sums itself up.
See above. Dtm142 23:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It appears to me that this is still a proposed policy and has not yet been rejected or retified as some people have claimed. However for the time being I suggest that we keep disputed policy header up to make sure all parties that claim either side know that nothing has been determined yet. — David618 t 00:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I've removed a tag from this page suggesting that it's policy, disputed or otherwise. As far as I have been able to ascertain, it was never even listed on Wikipedia:Current surveys or anywhere else. It may contain interesting ideas and may well lead to an eventual policy, but to describe it as disputed policy at this stage would require its having put forward, through the usual channels, as policy. Which it hasn't yet. -- Tony Sidaway 00:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
At this stage, I'd say that the people opposing this, who seem for the most part to be Wikipedia heavyweights, would need to be substantially mollified if this were every to stand a chance of becoming policy. A proposal that unites so many committed Wikipedians in opposition could not be accepted as policy. For the supporters, although I do recognise one or two of them (Fred Bauder in particular) I'm surprised to say that I don't recognise many of them, and those that I do recognise only seem to hang around for the userboxes and debates on them. This is worrying for any proposal, and suggests to me that the proposal hasn't been thought through by those proposing it. Those who have a long history of carefully considering proposals and thinking about Wikipedia seem to be quite remarkably unified in their opposition. -- Tony Sidaway
I dismiss all notions that somehow this policy poll was rigged or unfair. While it would have been nice to slap it on that poll page, the fact of the matter is that pretty much anyone who wanted to weigh in has done so. From looking at those who did, it seems obvious that just about all the major players got their say including many Administrators and some members of ArbCom (sorry Tony, it appears that you forgot to vote before the poll closed). Also, the number of people participating in this poll was definitely above average compared to most other consensus measuring polls, so it is safe to say that the sample was high enough to best reflect the feeling of the community. Nearly 2/3's voted in favor which I think is about as good as it is going to get in terms of consensus one way or another. The fact of the matter is that you just can't please everyone and holding out for a higher consensus just isn't practical. As for Jimbo, well he thinks that userboxes are a bad idea, however the combined consensus is that either the community doesn't care about them or feels that they are good. Barring a WP:OFFICE action, I see no reason why we shouldn't proceed, since he could have shut this poll down a long time ago. While I really want to WP:AGF, I think it is quite clear from their statements that there will still be a concerted effort by those who passionately oppose this plan to thwart consensus. Nevertheless, this has gone on long enough and their attempts to exhaust the supporters into switching to opposition has failed. People want action, not more polls. Therefore, I suggest that you open a dialogue with Fred Bauder, who is a member of ArbCom, to see if he'll be willing to run interference in the upper eschelons in terms of finding out what needs to be filed with Rob Church in order to proceed. -- Dragon695 04:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The poll showed more than 60% consensus, which is almost a miracle considering the nature of this particular debate. It seems we have reached the best consensus we ever can on this issue and both sides have agreed to compromise in large numbers. The total turnover was also very high, so the poll is likely to be statistically representative. In addition, most of the oppose votes were like "I don't like this, period", which is not a very good attitude. So why is this Proposed Policy instead of Policy. Let's just accept conensus and move on instead of trying to fight against it. Loom91 07:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm intrigued by the concept of '60% consensus'. The point of consensus is that's it's not about polls and percentages. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ talk 11:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Considering the nature of this controversy, I would appreciate anyone giving me a concrete example of a comparable policy controversy in which a policy ultimately was adopted by consensus. I also would like to see someone who does not consider this to be a censensus tell me what it would take for him or her to conclude consensus exits on this topic without simply telling me to read Wikipedia:Consensus, which is simply a guideline, not policy. Rfrisbie talk 11:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
There is one obvious reason why we don't state what is consensus. "We don't have consensus" and "We certainly don't have consensus here mean just that: there is as yet no consensus on userboxes. All that can be stated is that there is to date a strong endorsement for the current program of T1 speedy deletions of unsuitable templates. -- Tony Sidaway 17:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing the cluelessly insulting language and the strikethroughs of legitimate opinions that some process-bound person who does not understand that Wikipedia is not a burueacracy put on the project page. On Wikipedia, we do not ignore opinions just because they didn't come within a specified interval. Consensus requires everyone to be heard, not merely those people who happened to come running fast enough. Kelly Martin ( talk) 10:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I think we all missed it, but Jimbo made a relevant comment while this poll was underway. See [2]. I think the relevant portion is the second paragraph:
"There is a middle ground, I agree. The middle ground is to let people do as they will in the user space, and merely use reason and argument to teach people over time why one ought not use Wikipedia userpages for political or other campaigns.... while at the same time saying, no, really, the template namespace is not for that, that we do not endorse this behavior. This is the solution that the Germans have put into effect with great results.-- Jimbo Wales 02:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)"
It is not immediately clear what this quote would say about this proposal. My first reaction is that he endorses the search for a compromise, but that he thinks there is a better solution than this proposal as written. Can anyone provide more detail on the German solution? A translation of their policy/guideline would be helpful to those of us who do not speak German. And lets have some thought about this before the next attempt at a compromise. GRBerry 21:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, here's the way it was organized on the German Wikipedia: There are almost non "userboxes" in the template (in German Vorlage) space, except for the standard "This user speaks XYZ" boxes and similar. All POV, interest, etc. boxes are part of the userspace - distributed amongst various userpages. I have grabbed a userpage at random of an admin called Davidshilling, note the userboxes? Click at the Babel-Vorlagen link and you will see a few userboxes. Any user may use these boxes on his or her page (he even provided a nifty copy&past link for that). If you check his userpage and view the source you will also see that some of the displayed boxes originate from other users' pages. Basically the German Wiki kept allmost all userboxes outside the template (Vorlage) space, inside the userspace. And since they are inside the userspace they are allowed to be POV, controversial, or whatever (yes, I firmly believe that there will be an editor found that feels offended by other users stating that he enjoys eating junk-food). A major collection of German userboxes offers the user Libro. CharonX 22:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
It looks like no new policy is needed, we can just go do it. — Ashley Y 18:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The community is split on the subject of userboxes. Consensus is nowhere in sight. Still, admins keep deleting boxes claiming T1 or T2. In other words, the situation is bad.
After reading
|Jimbo's comments I decided, the German solution is the solution to this mess. It moves the userboxes out of template space into userspace, removing POV from the templates, and protecting the boxes from (over)eager adminstrators and T1.
Join the migration!.
CharonX 19:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I’ve added a partial list of discussions (including this) that might help formulate " The German solution" at Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates#The German solution. Please feel free to add other related discussions. Rfrisbie talk 01:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
This is not an acceptable policy, and it has not achieved the requisite level of consensus. The single most important thing that must be done is the removal of a centralized official space for Userboxes. A userbox namespace is exactly the wrong answer.-- Jimbo Wales 10:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC) |
![]() |
from User_talk:Jimbo_Wales Diff
It is apparent that even Jimbo can be (mildly) wrong. The highest priority shouldn't be eliminating a centralized address, but rather dealing with the problems associated with userboxes, primarily through educating editors. Basic computing logic suggests that is does not matter how you define an address to something, as long as it works. Changing the prefix on a userbox address is not going to change whether it is appropriate, offensive, or otherwise. The GUS is going to cause a lot of a) inconvenience, b) hard feelings, c) chaos, and d) work and it will do nothing to address the problems arising from userboxes. -- NThurston 18:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
62% Support seems pretty decisive to me.
This page is for talk about the proposal and possible ammendments. Please begin a new conversation by adding a new topic. Thanks. // The True Sora
Just a proposed addition.
6. No userbox tags in the article and article talk space.
I'm concerned that if POV is acceptable in the userbox space, then talk pages will get cluttered with POV tags. Megapixie 23:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The italicized part of #4 is inaccurate.
"4. The Userbox: namespace will only be allowed to be used on pages in the User: namespace and WP:UBX, leaving the Template: namespace to be explicitly used for main articles."
Templates also are used in Category:, Help:, Portal: and Wikipedia: namespaces. The statement could simply read,
"4. The Userbox: namespace will only be allowed to be used on pages in the User: namespace and WP:UBX." Rfrisbie talk 23:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
How about: The Userbox: namespace will only be allowed to be used on pages in the User: namespace and WP:UBX, leaving the Template: namespace to be explicitly used for main articles and related pages.
Some people need to see the line "Template namespace" is for articles only to accept this poll.-- God Ω War 23:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
What about templates that only belong on user pages that are not userboxes? like {{Template:Userpage}}-- Rayc 02:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about breaking the proposal, but if you can get Grue onboard, that will go along way of establishing consensus. Plus, it might even change Jimbo's posistion as well.-- Rayc 01:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Just moving up something from the rename proposal. See Wikipedia:Template messages/User namespace and Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace for lists of a more complete range of userspace templates. Rfrisbie talk 13:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
If boxes are moved from template to a new namespace, will user pages have to change any wikicode to refer to the new location? Thanks, Andjam 12:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I assume deleted userboxes will be restored before being moved? — Ashley Y 20:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I propose using "User template:" and "User template talk:" instead of "Userbox:" (and "Userbox talk:").
— Ashley Y 21:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I object to "Usertemplate:" as it breaks the convention throughout the wiki not to run words together (though people still break it here and there). That's why we don't have "Usertalk:". — Ashley Y 04:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I prefer Userbox:. This is for userboxes, after all. Plus i also think it looks better and sounds better than Usertemplate - • The Giant Puffin • 07:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Note: as no consensus has been reached here (2 for User template:, 2 for Usertemplate:, 2 for the status quo), I think we'll have to leave it as the status quo for now. However, it this changes, you can start the poll over again. For now, this has been closed. // The True Sora 11:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Tony Sidaway just deleted a couple of userboxes, {{user cannabis}} and {{user cannabis opponent}}. Is there a point to this exercise? Will admins simply ignore the concensus forming here and run amok, deleting templates without listing them anywhere or seeking any sort of review? I can't look at the templates to see if they meet T1, but I'm having a hard time assuming good faith when there's an active effort to reach consensus on whether userboxes should be deleted and admins actively flouting the effort. Jay Maynard 15:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Policy is decided by consensus, not a supermajority vote. In my opinion, the userbox issue is too divisive, and the establishment of a new namespace is too significant, to be imposed on the rest of Wikipedia without a consensus. I'm certainly not going to make the final decision here, but it's clear to me that consensus has not been reached. -- bcasterline • talk 15:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
So I suppose T1 and T2 had consensus then. Being that they are policy.-- God Ω War 20:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I found a discussion of Consensus vs. supermajority. I was wondering if anyone can direct me to the comparable discussion of Supermajority vs. superminority. There seems to be a lot of that going on at Wikipedia too. ;-) Rfrisbie talk 23:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that all Wikipedia: namespace articles that are wikiproject articles should be allowed to have userboxes, because these often have userboxes associated with them that it is useful to show these for users to take. I vote support either way, though. – Xolatron 20:13, 24 Telona 2006 (25 May)
Ironically, the comments on this page might not reflect the opinions of the entire community (or even a representative subset)—vote stacking was used to get some here. See [1], for example. Perhaps more exposure would make that irrelevant, though. I still think this proposal is (probably) a (mostly) good idea, but would it let vote stacking continue? Ardric47 02:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
And as I've said before, vote stacking isn't a problem. Take Jimbo's bridgecruft example from the email list: A non-notable bridge comes up for deletion, and a message goes out to all the wiki-bridgers. The final vote tally is one vote for delete with a rational, and 10 for keep without rational. The consensus of this vote is delete, no matter how many no rational keeps are brought in. If one of the keeps gives a rational, then it's no consensus. If that rational also refutes the delete rational, then it's a keep. If more admins would close based off of consensus (ironically, acting more like Tony Sideways) then userbox vote stacking wouldn't be a problem.
Moving user boxes from Template: to Userbox: in no way resolves any of the serious problems they present. Divisive userboxes will still be divisive. Categories will still be attached to userboxes and userboxes will still be used to purposes that are contrary to our community's purpose. The objection to userboxes is not based on them being in template space (and contrary to common belief, there is no policy that "everything in template space has to be NPOV", that's just silliness someone invented at some point for no reason that makes any sense at all), it's based on what they are. Changing the name of a thing doesn't change its character, and it is the character of userboxes -- by whatever name they masquerade as -- that is problematic. Kelly Martin ( talk) 16:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
And maybe we would stop making divisive userboxes if admins would stop deleting harmless POV userboxes.
And there was a policy a while ago called T2. It said that templates that exist only to be in userspace that have a POV should be deleted. Dtm142 18:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but finding ways of fixing or refuting each type of oppose will allow for future consensus, if not consensus in this poll. I don't know how I got 42 votes out of 47 opposes, but here they are:
Feel free to propose fixes to the proposal under the tally. Only post refutes if they haven't been disscused ad nossium above-- Rayc 20:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me like this proposal is dead in the water because no one at the top is ever going to implement its suggestions. See this post by Jimbo. The essence of his problem with userboxes is: "The pages which list userboxes, in the template namespace, make it seem as though putting these things on userpages is a normal and accepted community behavior, when in fact it is not." Obviously, creating an entirely new namespace for them is painting them as a "normal and accepted community behavior", which they are not. Shall we just mark this proposal rejected now? -- Cyde↔Weys 03:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I don't know how far people have the time to address these questions, personally, I really don't get this debate, and I strongly suspect a lot of other people either don't know it's happening or, like me, don't understand it. I have found that a random set of my userboxes have dissapeared - e.g. my 'marxist' one has gone, while my 'council communist' one is still present. Having eventually found this page, here are a few questions:
Not having a huge amount of history in this debate, fwiw, I reckon that userboxes are useful cause they allow wikipedians to identify (i) possible POV and (ii) subject specialists. Yours, a confused wikipedian who is here to write well referenced articles, but who doesn't get what the fuss is all about, Breadandroses 15:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Further questions/points:
Breadandroses 16:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
An attempt to summarize the issues involved is at Wikipedia:T1 and T2 debates. Rfrisbie talk 00:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I have been asked before to weigh in on the technical aspects of this proposal. I have since been advised that some users could be misinterpreting the information I gave out, so let me make it clear here.
This would not require significant changes to any of the core MediaWiki code, which already supports us creating as many custom namespaces as we want. What does need to be altered is the site configuration. As I have explained countless times on IRC, this would be done if a request were filed in the right place, provided that said request directed the system admin team to a discussion demonstrating support for the addition.
I maintain that I have no opinion as to whether or not the proposal is suitable or sane. I dislike being misrepresented, however. robchurch | talk 16:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Please correct:
Userbox Policy:
We don't have a Portal namespace. It's you who have one. Vildricianus 15:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Most of the work has already been done by Rayc above, but I decided to review and update it, to see if we had consensus for the compromise. Votes opposing the proposal:
To summarize, the vast majority of the oppose votes seems to come from the "delete all userboxes" angle, while many other users are concerned that this simply sidesteps the issue without resolving the core problem (users wishing to keep userboxes vs. users wishing to delete userboxes).
On the support side the majority of argunments seem to come from mainly two different angles - users wishing to keep the userboxes and accepting the compromise and users which see this compromise as not adressing the core problem (see above) but think it is better than continuing the userbox-wars.
The poll ended with a large majority of votes for the proposal (111 support, 8 conditional support, 56 oppose). As Wikipedia is not a democracy this in itself does not mean anything, but I think it shows that a major part of the community is willing to compromise, while some hardliners do not wish to do so. Of course I am not an admin, so I cannot declare consensus or absence therof, but I might wish to ask those of power to consider carefully both sides, as well as the implications of declaring consensus or lack of it. CharonX 19:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, here are my comments on the various oppose votes:
This new namespace shows that they aren't allowed in the encyclopdia. They are part of the community, not the encyclopedia. Wikipedia needs a community to run itself, and if we keep dividing it up with this war, we have no more community.
How so? I thought the idea was that they were misuse of the template namespace and shouldn't be next to encyclopedia templates. You say that they're divisive, but the only thing that's really dividing us is the war. Look at how all of us userbox supporters have been able to stay together, despite the fact that many of us claim to be atheist, others Christian, others Jewish, etc. You don't have to use userboxes if you don't want to.
We need it narrow so that there can't be further policy proposals to delete all userboxes.
They're templates, but they belong in userspace, thus they shouldn't be confused as part of the encyclopedia. Just like Wikipedia project pages aren't mixed in with the articles.
It shows how diverse the community is and that we don't all follow the same paths. We can show it without userboxes, and it probably won't get deleted. So what's wrong with using userboxes? Remember that you don't have to use it if you don't want to.
Not that hard. Once we have all the templates moved and we have policies about things like how to make a userbox, it won't be that difficult. It will be much easier to maintain than the old one.
I think that there is a greater amount of anger now over the userbox war and mass deletion than there ever will be over creating a little namespace.
Wars are evil too.
Pretty much sums itself up.
See above. Dtm142 23:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It appears to me that this is still a proposed policy and has not yet been rejected or retified as some people have claimed. However for the time being I suggest that we keep disputed policy header up to make sure all parties that claim either side know that nothing has been determined yet. — David618 t 00:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I've removed a tag from this page suggesting that it's policy, disputed or otherwise. As far as I have been able to ascertain, it was never even listed on Wikipedia:Current surveys or anywhere else. It may contain interesting ideas and may well lead to an eventual policy, but to describe it as disputed policy at this stage would require its having put forward, through the usual channels, as policy. Which it hasn't yet. -- Tony Sidaway 00:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
At this stage, I'd say that the people opposing this, who seem for the most part to be Wikipedia heavyweights, would need to be substantially mollified if this were every to stand a chance of becoming policy. A proposal that unites so many committed Wikipedians in opposition could not be accepted as policy. For the supporters, although I do recognise one or two of them (Fred Bauder in particular) I'm surprised to say that I don't recognise many of them, and those that I do recognise only seem to hang around for the userboxes and debates on them. This is worrying for any proposal, and suggests to me that the proposal hasn't been thought through by those proposing it. Those who have a long history of carefully considering proposals and thinking about Wikipedia seem to be quite remarkably unified in their opposition. -- Tony Sidaway
I dismiss all notions that somehow this policy poll was rigged or unfair. While it would have been nice to slap it on that poll page, the fact of the matter is that pretty much anyone who wanted to weigh in has done so. From looking at those who did, it seems obvious that just about all the major players got their say including many Administrators and some members of ArbCom (sorry Tony, it appears that you forgot to vote before the poll closed). Also, the number of people participating in this poll was definitely above average compared to most other consensus measuring polls, so it is safe to say that the sample was high enough to best reflect the feeling of the community. Nearly 2/3's voted in favor which I think is about as good as it is going to get in terms of consensus one way or another. The fact of the matter is that you just can't please everyone and holding out for a higher consensus just isn't practical. As for Jimbo, well he thinks that userboxes are a bad idea, however the combined consensus is that either the community doesn't care about them or feels that they are good. Barring a WP:OFFICE action, I see no reason why we shouldn't proceed, since he could have shut this poll down a long time ago. While I really want to WP:AGF, I think it is quite clear from their statements that there will still be a concerted effort by those who passionately oppose this plan to thwart consensus. Nevertheless, this has gone on long enough and their attempts to exhaust the supporters into switching to opposition has failed. People want action, not more polls. Therefore, I suggest that you open a dialogue with Fred Bauder, who is a member of ArbCom, to see if he'll be willing to run interference in the upper eschelons in terms of finding out what needs to be filed with Rob Church in order to proceed. -- Dragon695 04:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The poll showed more than 60% consensus, which is almost a miracle considering the nature of this particular debate. It seems we have reached the best consensus we ever can on this issue and both sides have agreed to compromise in large numbers. The total turnover was also very high, so the poll is likely to be statistically representative. In addition, most of the oppose votes were like "I don't like this, period", which is not a very good attitude. So why is this Proposed Policy instead of Policy. Let's just accept conensus and move on instead of trying to fight against it. Loom91 07:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm intrigued by the concept of '60% consensus'. The point of consensus is that's it's not about polls and percentages. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ talk 11:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Considering the nature of this controversy, I would appreciate anyone giving me a concrete example of a comparable policy controversy in which a policy ultimately was adopted by consensus. I also would like to see someone who does not consider this to be a censensus tell me what it would take for him or her to conclude consensus exits on this topic without simply telling me to read Wikipedia:Consensus, which is simply a guideline, not policy. Rfrisbie talk 11:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
There is one obvious reason why we don't state what is consensus. "We don't have consensus" and "We certainly don't have consensus here mean just that: there is as yet no consensus on userboxes. All that can be stated is that there is to date a strong endorsement for the current program of T1 speedy deletions of unsuitable templates. -- Tony Sidaway 17:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing the cluelessly insulting language and the strikethroughs of legitimate opinions that some process-bound person who does not understand that Wikipedia is not a burueacracy put on the project page. On Wikipedia, we do not ignore opinions just because they didn't come within a specified interval. Consensus requires everyone to be heard, not merely those people who happened to come running fast enough. Kelly Martin ( talk) 10:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I think we all missed it, but Jimbo made a relevant comment while this poll was underway. See [2]. I think the relevant portion is the second paragraph:
"There is a middle ground, I agree. The middle ground is to let people do as they will in the user space, and merely use reason and argument to teach people over time why one ought not use Wikipedia userpages for political or other campaigns.... while at the same time saying, no, really, the template namespace is not for that, that we do not endorse this behavior. This is the solution that the Germans have put into effect with great results.-- Jimbo Wales 02:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)"
It is not immediately clear what this quote would say about this proposal. My first reaction is that he endorses the search for a compromise, but that he thinks there is a better solution than this proposal as written. Can anyone provide more detail on the German solution? A translation of their policy/guideline would be helpful to those of us who do not speak German. And lets have some thought about this before the next attempt at a compromise. GRBerry 21:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, here's the way it was organized on the German Wikipedia: There are almost non "userboxes" in the template (in German Vorlage) space, except for the standard "This user speaks XYZ" boxes and similar. All POV, interest, etc. boxes are part of the userspace - distributed amongst various userpages. I have grabbed a userpage at random of an admin called Davidshilling, note the userboxes? Click at the Babel-Vorlagen link and you will see a few userboxes. Any user may use these boxes on his or her page (he even provided a nifty copy&past link for that). If you check his userpage and view the source you will also see that some of the displayed boxes originate from other users' pages. Basically the German Wiki kept allmost all userboxes outside the template (Vorlage) space, inside the userspace. And since they are inside the userspace they are allowed to be POV, controversial, or whatever (yes, I firmly believe that there will be an editor found that feels offended by other users stating that he enjoys eating junk-food). A major collection of German userboxes offers the user Libro. CharonX 22:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
It looks like no new policy is needed, we can just go do it. — Ashley Y 18:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The community is split on the subject of userboxes. Consensus is nowhere in sight. Still, admins keep deleting boxes claiming T1 or T2. In other words, the situation is bad.
After reading
|Jimbo's comments I decided, the German solution is the solution to this mess. It moves the userboxes out of template space into userspace, removing POV from the templates, and protecting the boxes from (over)eager adminstrators and T1.
Join the migration!.
CharonX 19:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I’ve added a partial list of discussions (including this) that might help formulate " The German solution" at Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates#The German solution. Please feel free to add other related discussions. Rfrisbie talk 01:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
This is not an acceptable policy, and it has not achieved the requisite level of consensus. The single most important thing that must be done is the removal of a centralized official space for Userboxes. A userbox namespace is exactly the wrong answer.-- Jimbo Wales 10:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC) |
![]() |
from User_talk:Jimbo_Wales Diff
It is apparent that even Jimbo can be (mildly) wrong. The highest priority shouldn't be eliminating a centralized address, but rather dealing with the problems associated with userboxes, primarily through educating editors. Basic computing logic suggests that is does not matter how you define an address to something, as long as it works. Changing the prefix on a userbox address is not going to change whether it is appropriate, offensive, or otherwise. The GUS is going to cause a lot of a) inconvenience, b) hard feelings, c) chaos, and d) work and it will do nothing to address the problems arising from userboxes. -- NThurston 18:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
62% Support seems pretty decisive to me.