Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

OMG! How do you expect new wikipedians to understand this?

This is too complex for me and i have just started using wikipedia and i have to tell you, i didnt understand a word, is there any possible way to less complicate this? Lexi lover (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep. You don't need to use Userboxes at all!
Apart from that, is there anything specific which you would like to display on your user page? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Creation of UBXs

Just a little question for some Wiki-oriented guy. How do you create userboxes? Jeremy (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This is described on the project page, at Wikipedia:Userboxes#Creating a new userbox and also at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Design and construct. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I searched the Archive but didn't find previous discussion of this: Should there be some policy governing use of external links within userboxes?

Background: Some editors (including me) at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:LightSpectra/Userboxes/CM suggest that the external link in User:LightSpectra/Userboxes/CM is problematic. Quite apart from the content of the external link, I find including external links of any kind within userboxes to be inappropriate. Wikipedia:Userboxes states, "The id and info boxes can include text, links, and images using the usual Wikipedia syntax," but offers to further guidance on whether these links should be internal or external.

At the MfD mentioned above User:Sphilbrick suggests (quite rightly, in my opinion), "I'm not happy with the link [in the CM userbox], but I'd prefer to address linking from userboxes as a general policy, rather than making a one-off decision in this case."

So, is there anything like an existing policy on this? And if not, should there be? Cnilep (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think external links in userboxen are inherently problematic. External links are allowed on userpages, userboxen are just a certain type of userpage. Really should all be dealt with at WP:UP. No comment on the present case. –xenotalk 15:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
WP:User pages suggests that user pages may include "Useful links, tools, and scripts", but that they may not include "Promotional and advocacy material and links". This seems less than precise. Should such links be useful to Wikipedia or the aim of user boxes ("to directly (or even indirectly) help Wikipedians collaborate more effectively on articles"), or simply whatever the individual user considers useful? Cnilep (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding Icons in the userbox

Hi! Well I wanna know how to add those small icons into my userbox. How to do it? --Sainsf (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What I did was find a free image I wanted to use at Wikimedia Commons and added the link to it in the userbox code. The image was always too big, but when looking at how others coded it, I saw that right after the image they added the code 45px, which cut the image down to the right size. Hope that helps. Pianotech 12:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm getting this

To the guys who made this article- you're amazing! Just added a language box. I just wondered- I've now placed the boxes on the right hand side of my user page, however my concern now is about the general text of the user page. Will the text always be at the top, therefore pushing the right hand boxes down or will it fit snuggly into place because my page is currently being redone. It was shocking before haha. Can you make sure I know when you've answered because I am rubbish at remembering that I've left comments and stuff. Thanks. Thefartydoctor (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate userboxes

I'm starting this RfC because of the inappropriate userboxes I've seen that really don't aid collaboration between Wikipedians and are in essence pure MySpacing. Userboxes such as the ones on pornography are hardly appropriate and do not belong on userpages, no one wants to know who watches and likes porn and considering Wikipedia's user base is comprised of people from the ages of 12+, such userboxes are definitely NOT appropriate.

As on the main page for userboxes it says,

"A userbox (commonly abbreviated as UBX) is a small colored box (see examples to the right) designed to appear only on a Wikipedian's user page as a communicative notice about the user, in order to directly (or even indirectly) help Wikipedians collaborate more effectively on articles."

Let me emphasise the "directly (or even indirectly) help Wikipedians collaborate more effectively on articles. How does anything related about a user's private and personal preferences help? In most cases such users may be subject to abuse. Userboxes were meant to aid collaborative efforts not to display a user's preferences in relation to pornography and anything else that is sexually explicit. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 4:39pm • 05:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

  • RfC comment. I don't particularly think that sexually-related material is the issue. Something that bothers me is when users disregard the guideline to say what you support, not what you oppose. I've seen boxes that say "This user is not interested in [fill in topic covered on Wikipedia]". But, per WP:NOTCENSORED, I'd rather not have a blanket prohibition against certain kinds of content on user pages, beyond policies that already exist. One can always deal with situations on a case-by-case basis. Users whose pages cross the line can be reported to WP:ANI, and inappropriate-seeming boxes can be nominated for WP:MFD. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment - I understand Wikipedia is not censored but we need to draw the line with what is and isn't acceptable WP:UBX and WP:NOTCENSORED contradict each other, on WP:UBX a userbox is meant to "help Wikipedians collaborate more effectively on articles." yet on WP:NOTCENSORED it says Wikipedia is not censored and sexually explicit material is permitted and so on and so forth. How does knowing if someone loves and actively homoromantic material help each other collaborate, sure there are relevant articles but that's out of how many articles? —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 2:47pm • 03:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, I understand what you mean, and I guess I would say it goes both ways. I've seen boxes saying that the user dislikes material like that, and that's just as counterproductive, if not more so. For that matter, I don't find it particularly enlightening to be told that a user likes a particular food or beverage, although I'm also free to pay no attention to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • We should allow all user boxes other than those with content that would be inappropriate even outside of a userbox. There's nothing special about a userbox that should dictate what can go in them. —Soap— 21:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with Soap (allow). These infoboxes contain no material that isn't allowed on userpages as regular text. Why does putting the material is in a small box make it inappropriate? — GorillaWarfare talk 21:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
    • While nothing in it can't be on talk pages, userboxes as per WP:UBX clearly states that userboxes are for the purpose of assisting collaboration between Wikipedians. How does knowing which type of pornographic material a user may/may not watch help? —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 8:43am • 21:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
It probably doesn't foster collaboration. However, to me it makes no sense to disallow content that would be allowed if it was copied and pasted onto the page. It also seems to be a bit of a nonissue. If a user is upset about having trouble collaborating with another user because of a userbox, he or she can remove the userbox if it belongs to him/her, or simply ignore it. — GorillaWarfare talk 00:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Allow for reasons stated so well by User:Soap and User:GorillaWarfare. And, if necessary, perhaps it’s time to change WP:UBX. — SpikeToronto 21:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Allow for reasons stated above. Using common sense, I would say userboxes should not be censored because they let other users get a sense of what someone is like. Of course, is it is clearly disruptive, we can treat them on a case by case basis. Userboxes are simply too diverse to be covered by a single policy. Netalarmtalk 22:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I support what Netalarm is getting at. Sure a userbox allows other users to get a sense of what someone is like, if we do deal with problematic userboxes on a case by case basis I'm sure we can remove the inherently problematic userboxes altogether as I'm pretty sure most users don't need to know what sort of porn a user does or doesn't watch. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 10:29am • 23:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Your tone seems to suggest that you are on some sort of moral crusade … — SpikeToronto 23:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm not on a moral crusade, I'm just following UBX policy and after noting the introductory paragraph and then being reminded of NOTCENSORED I noticed a contradiction and now it's not so much violation of UBX policy but contradiction between policies. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 1:29pm • 02:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
        • I just worry that it’s the thin edge of the wedge, a slippery slope. If we start removing userboxes that offend us (e.g., ones dealing with porn), where will we stop? Will we begin flagging the images in articles dealing with sex and sexuality? Will we flag the articles themselves? I think that WP:NOTCENSORED should trump WP:UBX. WP:NOTCENSORED is kind of like the Wikipedia nation’s constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 03:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Allow - I agree along the same lines as Tryptofish and as SpikeToronto states maybe it's time to change Wikipedia:Userboxes. Mlpearc powwow 02:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think there are plenty of inappropriate userboxes, but pornography isn't necessarily worthy of a blanket ban to me. Userboxes that are divisive or otherwise foster a BATTLEGROUND approach ["This user hates X"] would be among the problematic types to me. Overall, I'm not sure that any sort of blanket ban is the most appropriate approach. BigK HeX (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - not to add to the drama already, but as long as it doesn't advocate nazism or pedophilia, who cares. Tommy! 04:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think userboxes are great—to a point. They allow Wikipedians to get a feel for one another's personalities, etc. That said, I agree with Fridae. There are some things that are just a little too much information. Userboxes about porn should be out, especially because of the large amounts of underage Wikipedia editors. Side note: I also find humongous userboxen to be extremely annoying. But that might just be me. --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 05:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
    • @Tommy: Porn-related userboxes are as inherently problematic as those you mentioned. Userboxes are meant for aiding collaboration between users not for advertising which type of pornography you advocate, watch or are otherwise advertising in your userpage, in fact all these nude images of people that aren't on articles should be deleted, if someone wants to watch porn they can go to the relevant site. Such images really don't contribute to any articles and are highly suggestive. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 5:27pm • 06:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Allow The existing policies and guidelines are perfectly adequate; there is no need for specific control over user boxes. (Aside: I personally dislike user boxes). It is absolutely impossible to give a comprehensive definition of what, precisely is 'porn' and where the line is to be drawn. When does art become porn? We're all going to have opinions...and that's fine, we can discuss any specific cases, as necessary. But we don't need big long lists of complicated rules. Chzz  ►  08:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Allow. In general, I agree with Soap: I believe there would be very little point in preventing users from showing a "I like porn" userbox on their talk pages, when the same users could write it as regular text and nobody would complain... Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Zing! Seriously, that sums it up quite nicely. Personally the only userboxen I use are related to what I actually do on Wikipedia, along with a warning that I might do stupid things if /I log in before I have my coffee. Others feel that they should post a userbox for every television show, political party, food, beverage, role playing game, and so on that interests them. I find that absurdly silly but essentially harmless. In short, if we are not talking about banning all userboxen that are not directly related to what one actually does on Wikipedia, then we are talking about deciding what people are allowed to tell us they like and what they are not allowed to tell us they like. Aside from pedophiles and other overtly criminal acts there is no precedent, no need, and no valid reason to limit the boxes. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Allow- Basically userpages are there for you to tell other editors what you are interested in and what you like to do. This is helpful as it allows users with certain characteristics to find users with similar characteristics. This is the purpose of certain UBXs adding you to a category. If a user wishes to have a pornographic UBX on their userpage who cares. If you don't like it, don't look. It's really difficult to regulate stuff like this. WP:NOTCENSORED allows pornography based articles and images (in reason). There isn't any reason for this not to extend to userpages. ♫Mr. R00t Talk♫ 19:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • COMMENT  Just to play devil’s advocate, if userboxes are supposed to contribute to the collaborative efforts of Wikipedians, then knowing — as an example — that a certain wikieditor likes gay porn is useful if one wants to collaborate with him on one of the hundreds of wikiarticles about gay porn, gay porn films, and gay porn performers. Thus, banning such userboxes might actually serve to hinder one’s collaborative efforts! Moreover, as I have already said above, if such images in userboxes — and the userboxes themselves — offend, then you will necessarily want to remove all of the sexually explicit images that accompany articles such as Foreskin and Pre-ejaculate. Where will it stop? You may want to stop with just userboxes, but once you’ve started that snowball down the hill, there may be no stopping other censors and exclusionists. — SpikeToronto 23:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe categories would be better for that kind of thing. --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 03:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Section break

New Proposal: That all userboxes that aren't particularly constructive and true to the original purpose of userboxes, which is to aid the collaborative efforts between users, get removed. They aren't helpful at all. If a user doesn't particularly like certain topics then they are by all means entitled to his/her opinion, but if they're going to make or use a userbox for such purposes it isn't helping us build an encyclopedia at all. Sure you can say you like gay porn, but you don't need to use an image. In fact I don't see why images of porn actors/actresses and any other suggestive material that isn't used on articles isn't deleted already. Wikipedia is a collection of knowledge not a user's personal stash. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 10:57am • 23:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

  • I disagree. "Userboxes that aren't particularly constructive" is so subjective -- we'll end up with huge arguments on which are appropriate, and I don't see starting WP:Userboxes for deletion or something like that. I say let them be. Which userboxes are helpful and which are not is not something anyone can really judge. I say allow any userbox that isn't against other Wikipedia policies (no personal attacks, threats of violence, etc.) — GorillaWarfare talk 01:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I disagree. I don’t like this idea of starting the discussion all over. It wipes out all of our dissenting votes and comments in just a few keystrokes! Stick with the original proposal and see it through, even if the weight of consensus is against you. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 03:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Fridae's Doom, I think you're a great editor, but we have bigger fish to fry here. Tommy! 04:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternate proposal As this is just quibbling about what can and cannot be in user space and we already have WP:MFD for that we really don't need to have this discussion. If anyone has a problem with a specific userbox they can nominate it the old fashioned way at MFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Is the Venus de Milo filthy porn, or is it 'armless?
  • Strongly oppose any specific guidelines I suppose that means I'm supporting Beeblebrox's proposal - but then again, that proposal seems to be to do nothing anyway. Mostly, I hope we can end this debate.
I rarely post lengthy responses, so please forgive me for a bit of a rant on this one occasion.
I dislike user boxes in general. However, attempting to create specific rules about such ephemeral concepts is fraught with difficulty. Consider what you said earlier, FD. "Scantily clad", "Suggestive poses". If I come out with some example pictures, we could all argue and debate for months and months about which we, personally, considered 'scantily clad' and a 'provocative'.
You said userboxes "that aren't particularly constructive" - this is weasel wording. Such vagaries in our guidelines damage Wikipedia, because they are open to wild interpretation and result in lengthy (largely pointless) discussions. A related essay is Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep.
If there is a specific case of something that you consider objectionable, then a) ask the user if they'd mind changing it, and failing that, b) seek input from other editors and consensus. We don't need complex guidance to tell us what really really should be common sense.
  • A. Wikipedia is not censored - that is, we do not impose any specific ruling over and above the laws of the land our servers sit in.
  • B. That does not mean we gratuitously seek to cause offence.
  • C. The existing processes of discussion and consensus, in which we can evaluate whether or not a specific template/page/image is in line with the goals of the project are perfectly adequate, and indeed are the only sensible way of assessing matters like this, because we operate within a global environment with many and varied opinions on these matters.
It is utterly impossible to write concrete rules on these subjects. The existing guidelines are just fine, and in essence what they say is, that nothing is set in stone, but for {{DEITY}}'s sake, please use common sense. Don't try to offend others, and if others are offended, please be considerate. Yes, we have pictures of naked ladies. They help understand and illustrate some topics such as art, biology, or whatever, but that doesn't mean they should be splattered all over the place.
In the interests of sanity, considerable discretion is applied to userspace. FD, you currently have a userbox which contains the word "Dick", for example - and as I understand it from this recent debate, some people think that is worth a medcab rant about. I suspect you will agree that, if you were taken to WQA, RFC, arb or whatever for your use of that userbox, you'd think it all a bit silly? I certainly would. Whereas if someone objected to that specific userbox, they could simply ask you to change it. (If we then needed discussion, because you wanted to keep it, I suspect consensus would support you...but that is beside the point).
I've often said that if only the extraordinary effort put into these types of debate could be funneled into article edits, then Wikipedia would be one hell of a lot better than it is. Now - applying this principle of common sense, can we draw this debate to a close, and go edit something, please? End of sermon; apologies for length. Chzz  ►  18:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I suppose you're right userboxes remind us not to take things too serious very well written Chzz. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 12:22pm • 01:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Singular or plural

Why is this article's subject in the plural? An attempt to find an article for "userbox" led me to "Do you mean Users?" with no option to create a redirect for "userbox" to "Wikipedia:Userboxes". Opbeith (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Need for front page listing

This is the Hardest page to find for newbies, I think it should be on the front help page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamiyouareyou (talk • contribs) 14:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The page will turn up if you search for it. Cheers, theFace 20:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

How the hell?

It's been a while since I've made a userbox (like 4 years). Apparently either stuff has changed or I've completely forgotten how to do this. I've made an original userbox on my user page and I have no idea how to create the shortened code for other people using it that you find on the gallery page. So basically, how do you assign a name or whatever to your userbox? Also, frankly, the entire article is really confusing and doesn't clarify the userbox process. Also, it's practically copy/pasted from the page devoted to userbox creation and design. ProudlyAnon (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep!--82.18.195.5 (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

User Translator/Proofreader 2

See: Wikipedia talk:Translation#User Translator/Proofreader 2. Cheers, theFace 21:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Content restrictions in userspace

At present, the Content restrictions section doesn't accurately reflect that the usual rules are significantly relaxed for userboxes in userspace. Which namespace? mentions this, but it's not clear that this overrides the content restriction section. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 03:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand the issue. A userbox is just a way of putting info on a page, and naturally it is not permitted to contain incivility, attacks, advocacy, or any of a number of other bad things which we don't bother listing per WP:BURO, regardless of where it is used or in what namespace it lives. It might be ok to put some inoffensive inanity in a userbox which was hosted in userspace, while the same might be an inappropriate use of Wikipedia space (which is intended more for collaborative stuff to maintain the project, rather than personal exclamations). Which restriction are you suggesting does not apply in userspace? Johnuniq (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that current consensus, or at least the majority opinion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bedford/userboxes/America Held Hostage, does not appear to support this. It seems readily apparent to me that userboxes shouldn't be exempt from the rules you mention, but this is not a universally shared view. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 09:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The mob can and do get it wrong from time to time. My guess is that that userbox snuck through because of the comparatively low level of its POV obnoxiousness. We are not going to get correct results every time. Johnuniq (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
That's more or less what I figured — see User talk:RL0919#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.2FUser:Bedford.2Fuserboxes.2FAmerica Held Hostage for my discussion with the closing admin. To me, the userbox still appears to be a violation of both the userbox guidelines, and the userpage guidelines from which they are derived. Since neither RL0919 nor the userbox's orginator seem interested in further discussion, I'd appreciate input from an uninvolved third party. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that the only way to remain sane and participate at Wikipedia is to not care about the stupid results that occur from time to time. The fact is that a significant minority of editors think that it is amusing for a userbox to use insulting and obviously false terminology directed at one's opponents, and debating borderline cases like this one will not be productive. Johnuniq (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Except that decisions are often cited as precedents, even when they aren't binding. It's not a question of that single userbox, so much as whether userpage standards are relaxed for userboxes. The more boxes like this exist, the more likely it is for new ones to be created, whether out of endorsement or retaliation. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree about that, and your line of reasoning is something I have employed from time to time (mainly in MfD discussions about games and other nonsense in userspace). As the page notice suggests (seen in a header when editing this page), it may be helpful to plan a proposal to tighten the wording here, then present it at WP:VPR. I have emphasized "plan" because I have often seen quite a good idea get correctly and quickly rejected because of a weak initial presentation. If you care to draft something, I would be happy to offer my opinion. Any tightening would have to be very minor, just an emphasis that personal views are never appropriate in Wikipedia space, but may be acceptable in userspace (provided they don't violate the stated requirements, or probe the boundaries of those requirements). Johnuniq (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I brought it up on VPR a few days ago, to no response. VPM might actually be better for this kind of thing. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 11:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/Archive_11&oldid=1149653771"