![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I have no dog in this fight (other than an inordinate love of my own userboxes), but I want to drop in my two cents: if the templates were just done away with altogether and replaced (easily done, via subst: before deletion) with a listing of the code that creates the box on the Userbox project page, this would be a dead issue. What users decide to put on thier userpages, within reason, is thier business and nobody elses (obviously a userbox stating a desire to behead Jimbo would be blockable, but not an "I'm a Republican" box individually coded (i.e., not a template, but the actual code inserted on the page)). There is absoultely no need to have a thousand templates created when it is just as easy to list the code on the Userbox project's list pages and let people who want to use it, add it. I have at least a dozen boxes on my page, I'm responsible for creating a number of popular boxes, and I've never created a template for any of them, nor is there a single userbox template (other than the generic {{ userbox}} template that creates the box format) on my page.
As for the categorization, that's a completely different issue. -- Essjay · Talk 05:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you miss my point. What I'm saying is, instead of having the pages as they are now, with links to the templates, have the very same pages, but with the code to insert the box showing.
As it is now, if you want to add the admin template, you type something like {{ admin userbox}}. What I'm proposing is, delete that template, and replace its listing on the Userbox WikiProject's page with the actual code that you would enter, {{userbox||#FFFFFF|[[Image:Admin_mop.PNG|40px]]|This user is an '''[[Wikipedia:Administrators|administrator]]'''.}}. There would no longer be any templates to argue over, but everybody who pasted that code, which would be listed where the template is now, would have the exact same userbox, just as if they had inserted a template. -- Essjay · Talk 05:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a good start -- it'd certainly cut down on the server overhead. Of course people trying to put images labeled as "fair use" onto their talk pages would stll be violating policy (and the law, but a few people are in denial about that, so I will stick with policy) DreamGuy 06:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
According to this link from The US Copyright Office's website, Fair use entails any of the following:
It also says:
With all that mind, all that says to me is that the use of images in userboxes IS INDEED COVERED IN FAIR USE. -- Cjmarsicano 05:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
This discussion would be better held at WP:FU's talk page. For now, I suggest using language in the userbox policy which defers (and indeed points the reader) to WP:FU. — Locke Cole • t • c 08:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Copyrighted images may not be used outside of article space on Wikipedia under the fair use provision of United States law. Deal with it. Rob Church Talk 10:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Far be it for me to dictate how to address other personas here.. So here goes; This proposed policy should satisfy the complaints put forth in the god-forsaken RfC against Kelly Martin, which among many, many things resulted in the creation of this proposed policy. Anyone that has been upset by those actions brought up in that RfC should keep in mind that this is the right way to do it.. Right here. This talk page, this proposed policy. So perhaps we can all strap on a NPOV smile and calmly debate the topic at hand, and skip the bucket and ma'am comments? Mceder 07:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Enough of discussing the related Kelly Martin RfC - it's got enough to work with (over 100kb at present). So, I'd like to propose that there be some guidelines as to what areas should be covered by userboxes. I look at this list of areas covered by userboxes, and ask, Why can't we just completely delete all entries under Wikipedia:Userboxes/Colours, or why we encourage people to waste server space with Wikipedia:Userboxes/Funny? I'm all for Wikipedia:User page's guidelines, but wonder why someone can't simply write in prose (we're Wikipedia, we love prose, remember?) that they live in Australia and their timezone is GMT+11 (I think)? Currently, they can do this through Wikipedia:Userboxes/Timezones and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location, and I just don't see the point.
I'd like the community to seriously consider why we need to use up the server space with so many userboxes, when a majority don't need a userbox. I quote myself from the world's biggest RfC debate: "People wonder why Wikipedia always want more money from donations; well, using up server space with boxes declaring you like chocolate and support an obscure sub-branch of a political ideology probably aren't the best use of that space." Am I right, or am I right? Let's get down to business and make ourselves a policy. Harro 5 08:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Userboxes aren't important enough to make a policy about. No policy is needed. If we're here to build an encyclopedia, let's build the encyclopedia already instead of wasting our time with instruction creep. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 08:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
This is never going to go anywhere. Might as well send it to mfd or bjoadn now. karmafist 10:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
This now serves as a way to stop the polluting flood caused by the WP:RFC/KM debate. Maybe if we get back to consensus we can avoid an arbitration case involving possibly over 100 editors who voted on the RfC. Harro 5 08:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Given the amount of interest this topic has generated, I think it is clear this is more then just a joke. -- DragonHawk 07:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I personally feel a policy for userboxes is too specific, and that it should be userpage templates, where all of the discussed would apply just as much. If it is to say here, can I ask for a definition of userbox, otherwise can we move to 'Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userpage templates'?. Ian 13ID:540053 20:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
-- God_of War 21:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Should be make the page move? Harro 5 02:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I am withdrawing from the discussion of this "proposed policy"; it is premature to hold a vote on it at this point, and what I see going on is an attempt by a vocal and organized faction of the community to ramrod its view of "policy" through without bothering to see how the broader community -- not to mention that portion of the community that is actually interested in writing an encyclopedia -- feels about it. I do not believe that this discussion will lead to community consensus, nor will it lead to a policy that benefits the encyclopedia, and I will not feel bound by any "policy" it creates if that policy does not reflect our core values. Cheers. Kelly Martin ( talk) 21:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I, too, have made the decision to withdraw from the userbox debate. When this proposal began, there were two (initially one) proposals made: one concerning what was acceptable and unacceptable ( Kelly Martin's proposal), and one concerning the process of removing non-abiding userboxes ( my proposal)--the original Proposals #1 and 2. These policies have been slowly morphed and melded into Proposal #10, proposed by TCorp. However, along the way, there have been proposals made left, right and center which have been little more than rewordings of earlier ones, yet attracting differing opinions from the same users. In the end, I very much doubt that a true concensus will ever be reached in this, bringing us back to Square One. -- JB Adder | Talk 05:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I have no dog in this fight (other than an inordinate love of my own userboxes), but I want to drop in my two cents: if the templates were just done away with altogether and replaced (easily done, via subst: before deletion) with a listing of the code that creates the box on the Userbox project page, this would be a dead issue. What users decide to put on thier userpages, within reason, is thier business and nobody elses (obviously a userbox stating a desire to behead Jimbo would be blockable, but not an "I'm a Republican" box individually coded (i.e., not a template, but the actual code inserted on the page)). There is absoultely no need to have a thousand templates created when it is just as easy to list the code on the Userbox project's list pages and let people who want to use it, add it. I have at least a dozen boxes on my page, I'm responsible for creating a number of popular boxes, and I've never created a template for any of them, nor is there a single userbox template (other than the generic {{ userbox}} template that creates the box format) on my page.
As for the categorization, that's a completely different issue. -- Essjay · Talk 05:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you miss my point. What I'm saying is, instead of having the pages as they are now, with links to the templates, have the very same pages, but with the code to insert the box showing.
As it is now, if you want to add the admin template, you type something like {{ admin userbox}}. What I'm proposing is, delete that template, and replace its listing on the Userbox WikiProject's page with the actual code that you would enter, {{userbox||#FFFFFF|[[Image:Admin_mop.PNG|40px]]|This user is an '''[[Wikipedia:Administrators|administrator]]'''.}}. There would no longer be any templates to argue over, but everybody who pasted that code, which would be listed where the template is now, would have the exact same userbox, just as if they had inserted a template. -- Essjay · Talk 05:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a good start -- it'd certainly cut down on the server overhead. Of course people trying to put images labeled as "fair use" onto their talk pages would stll be violating policy (and the law, but a few people are in denial about that, so I will stick with policy) DreamGuy 06:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
According to this link from The US Copyright Office's website, Fair use entails any of the following:
It also says:
With all that mind, all that says to me is that the use of images in userboxes IS INDEED COVERED IN FAIR USE. -- Cjmarsicano 05:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
This discussion would be better held at WP:FU's talk page. For now, I suggest using language in the userbox policy which defers (and indeed points the reader) to WP:FU. — Locke Cole • t • c 08:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Copyrighted images may not be used outside of article space on Wikipedia under the fair use provision of United States law. Deal with it. Rob Church Talk 10:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Far be it for me to dictate how to address other personas here.. So here goes; This proposed policy should satisfy the complaints put forth in the god-forsaken RfC against Kelly Martin, which among many, many things resulted in the creation of this proposed policy. Anyone that has been upset by those actions brought up in that RfC should keep in mind that this is the right way to do it.. Right here. This talk page, this proposed policy. So perhaps we can all strap on a NPOV smile and calmly debate the topic at hand, and skip the bucket and ma'am comments? Mceder 07:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Enough of discussing the related Kelly Martin RfC - it's got enough to work with (over 100kb at present). So, I'd like to propose that there be some guidelines as to what areas should be covered by userboxes. I look at this list of areas covered by userboxes, and ask, Why can't we just completely delete all entries under Wikipedia:Userboxes/Colours, or why we encourage people to waste server space with Wikipedia:Userboxes/Funny? I'm all for Wikipedia:User page's guidelines, but wonder why someone can't simply write in prose (we're Wikipedia, we love prose, remember?) that they live in Australia and their timezone is GMT+11 (I think)? Currently, they can do this through Wikipedia:Userboxes/Timezones and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location, and I just don't see the point.
I'd like the community to seriously consider why we need to use up the server space with so many userboxes, when a majority don't need a userbox. I quote myself from the world's biggest RfC debate: "People wonder why Wikipedia always want more money from donations; well, using up server space with boxes declaring you like chocolate and support an obscure sub-branch of a political ideology probably aren't the best use of that space." Am I right, or am I right? Let's get down to business and make ourselves a policy. Harro 5 08:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Userboxes aren't important enough to make a policy about. No policy is needed. If we're here to build an encyclopedia, let's build the encyclopedia already instead of wasting our time with instruction creep. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 08:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
This is never going to go anywhere. Might as well send it to mfd or bjoadn now. karmafist 10:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
This now serves as a way to stop the polluting flood caused by the WP:RFC/KM debate. Maybe if we get back to consensus we can avoid an arbitration case involving possibly over 100 editors who voted on the RfC. Harro 5 08:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Given the amount of interest this topic has generated, I think it is clear this is more then just a joke. -- DragonHawk 07:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I personally feel a policy for userboxes is too specific, and that it should be userpage templates, where all of the discussed would apply just as much. If it is to say here, can I ask for a definition of userbox, otherwise can we move to 'Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userpage templates'?. Ian 13ID:540053 20:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
-- God_of War 21:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Should be make the page move? Harro 5 02:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I am withdrawing from the discussion of this "proposed policy"; it is premature to hold a vote on it at this point, and what I see going on is an attempt by a vocal and organized faction of the community to ramrod its view of "policy" through without bothering to see how the broader community -- not to mention that portion of the community that is actually interested in writing an encyclopedia -- feels about it. I do not believe that this discussion will lead to community consensus, nor will it lead to a policy that benefits the encyclopedia, and I will not feel bound by any "policy" it creates if that policy does not reflect our core values. Cheers. Kelly Martin ( talk) 21:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I, too, have made the decision to withdraw from the userbox debate. When this proposal began, there were two (initially one) proposals made: one concerning what was acceptable and unacceptable ( Kelly Martin's proposal), and one concerning the process of removing non-abiding userboxes ( my proposal)--the original Proposals #1 and 2. These policies have been slowly morphed and melded into Proposal #10, proposed by TCorp. However, along the way, there have been proposals made left, right and center which have been little more than rewordings of earlier ones, yet attracting differing opinions from the same users. In the end, I very much doubt that a true concensus will ever be reached in this, bringing us back to Square One. -- JB Adder | Talk 05:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)