Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Archive 16
 | This 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. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
RFC: Should we delete all userboxes relating to topics covered by discretionary sanctions?
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Any topics covered by discretionary sanctions are usually divisive enough to invite vandalism. With that in mind, aren't all discretionary sanction topics divisive enough to be deleted? ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 12:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Plutonical, can you give some examples of the sorts of things that you're thinking of? Not to choose a particularly thorny example, but it's what first came to mind: Arab–Israeli conflict articles are subject to discretionary sanction, so would you say that pro-Palestine or pro-Israel userboxes should be deleted? —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Tcr25: I wouldn't say userboxes relating to Israel or Palestine on their own should be deleted, but userboxes promoting an opinion on one's relations with the other (e.g. "Israel should annex Palestine" or "Free Palestine") are absolutely divisive. Same goes for Post-1992 Politics of the US. It is impossible to hold an opinion on any political figure without divided responses. Same thing also goes for COVID, as some people believe the government has gone too far in its response, while others believe it hasn't gone far enough. Overall, I just think that by default, these topics fall under the divisive category, and should be able to be deleted without prejudice. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 13:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Plutonical, two thoughts... First, I'd worry about how to draw a clear line as to what's promoting an opinion vs. being divisive. We already have some clear content restrictions on userboxes (WP:UBCR) and limit some sorts of userboxes to user namespace. If we're banning "divisive" out of hand, the caution at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics would imply that none of the political userboxes should survive such a ban. Second, sometimes the userboxes a person chooses to display can offer insight into their biases, which can be relevant when judging controversial edits. I think you need to have a more tightly defined proposal for what I think you're suggesting to be workable. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Tcr25: Arbcom draws the line for us. As for the userboxes as Userboxes/Politics, most of them would survive such a ban on account of not being directly related to the Arbcom-sanctioned "Post-1992 US Politics" topic, as many of them cover a broad range. Most of them are opinions of politics worldwide, or opinions of politics which are applied to all ranges of time, and not just the post-1992 period. Those that are probably deserve to be stricken down (I mean, have you seen the amount of Trump userboxes? I don't like the guy either, but how is all of this cruft allowed, when all it's going to do is alienate conservative editors and futher imply some sort of bias?). ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 14:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Plutonical (talk · contribs), if it violates WP:UP#NOT, then that guideline should be enforced, and such userboxes have to be within user namespace, so that should be a cue that it's personal bias, not a project bias. Maybe require such userboxes to be in a personal user namespace and not User:UBX would be a reasonable requirement, but I'm not convinced a broad ban based on "divisive" is workable. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Tcr25: Arbcom draws the line for us. As for the userboxes as Userboxes/Politics, most of them would survive such a ban on account of not being directly related to the Arbcom-sanctioned "Post-1992 US Politics" topic, as many of them cover a broad range. Most of them are opinions of politics worldwide, or opinions of politics which are applied to all ranges of time, and not just the post-1992 period. Those that are probably deserve to be stricken down (I mean, have you seen the amount of Trump userboxes? I don't like the guy either, but how is all of this cruft allowed, when all it's going to do is alienate conservative editors and futher imply some sort of bias?). ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 14:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Plutonical, two thoughts... First, I'd worry about how to draw a clear line as to what's promoting an opinion vs. being divisive. We already have some clear content restrictions on userboxes (WP:UBCR) and limit some sorts of userboxes to user namespace. If we're banning "divisive" out of hand, the caution at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics would imply that none of the political userboxes should survive such a ban. Second, sometimes the userboxes a person chooses to display can offer insight into their biases, which can be relevant when judging controversial edits. I think you need to have a more tightly defined proposal for what I think you're suggesting to be workable. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Tcr25: I wouldn't say userboxes relating to Israel or Palestine on their own should be deleted, but userboxes promoting an opinion on one's relations with the other (e.g. "Israel should annex Palestine" or "Free Palestine") are absolutely divisive. Same goes for Post-1992 Politics of the US. It is impossible to hold an opinion on any political figure without divided responses. Same thing also goes for COVID, as some people believe the government has gone too far in its response, while others believe it hasn't gone far enough. Overall, I just think that by default, these topics fall under the divisive category, and should be able to be deleted without prejudice. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 13:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely not Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions is very wide reaching, for example I see nothing at all wrong with {{User WikiProject COVID-19}} - even though "all edits about" covid is a DS. — xaosflux Talk 14:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- (summoned by the bot) I think a restriction this broad is not reasonable unless we want to more or less prohibit userboxes altogether (which we could consider – some sister projects effectively do this – but I doubt it would get consensus here). I dislike controversial userboxes too, and I'm open to putting some kind of limits on them, but I think this proposal is too broad to be feasible. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- No. Come on. Among other things, this would require deleting all user-boxes related to sexuality and gender. Is the intent here that {{user male}} and {{user female}} be deleted? What about {{user LGBT}} or {{user Transsexual}}? I am not seeing any actual evidence that these templates are actually
inviting vandalism
as is claimed, so this seems like a solution looking for a problem; but even if there were, in many cases vandalism related to them would be people trying to prevent such userboxes from being displayed, so using that vandalism as a justification to forbid them would just be giving the vandals what they want and would encourage more such vandalism in the future for anything else vandals want to see forbidden. Would we also remove {{User from Palestine}} or {{User from Israel}}? Note that while you might say "ah, well, those are not political" there are plenty of people in (most of) those cases who would disagree, ie. people who will argue that trans identities or the Palestinian people do not exist or are at least contested and that declaring one is therefore a political act. --Aquillion (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
--SirSharp (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)would like a tag that supports the right to innovate with out violation
I noticed that for this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ActuallyNeverHappened02/UBX/AHK),
The guy put multiple user boxes on one page and used code to allow the user to specify which one instead of making multiple pages. Is it better to do that, or is it okay to make a page for each userbox? Which is more preferable?
Fearless lede'r (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Plural of 'Userbox'
Hey folks. I didn't know where to put this, so I decided that the village pump would be the best idea. I have seen some userpages referring to the plural of userbox as 'Userboxes'. However, I have also seen some userpages referring to the plural as 'Userboxen'. Which one is correct? Are both correct? Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Fakescientist8000 I can't see any reason this needs a formal RFC. — xaosflux Talk 17:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- This has to be a joke, right? And since it's not 1 April, let's not disrupt the RfC boards, especially as you didn't provide an RfC category and so threw a big red error message, quite apart from the fact that your RfC totally lacked any statement or timestamp, and so failed WP:RFCST in more ways than one. Don't waste our time. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I thought I knew what I was doing until I really didn't
So I was trying to make a userbox like
Template:User from Latin America
But I was only able to get this far user:jmjosh90/sandbox/userbox/missionary I thought I had filled in the right things for the option to work, then when I moved the page, everything fell apart. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Jmjosh90 (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Where?
Where would this be categorised?Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
History of the userbox
Hi everyone, I'm doing a Signpost article on userboxes (User:Urban_Versis_32/sandbox/Signpost/1). I need some help with the History of the userbox segment, so if anyone is familiar on userboxes, information would be greatly appreciated (Please reply below). Also, I'm open to accuracy-checking on the article if anyone wants to do so (It's nice to have a fresh eye sometimes). Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk / contribs) 18:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Look in to Wikipedia:Userbox migration; Wikipedia:May Userbox policy poll and its talk; "The German Solution" ended up being one of the main compromises to end the Great Userbox War (circa 2006). — xaosflux Talk 18:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll add that to the history! Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk / contribs) 18:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Which section of Wikipedia:Userboxes/Expertise...
Would {{User stat}} fall under? This one is about sports statistics, and I don't even know it's under "humanities" or "social sciences". This template is currently unused. 137a (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)