Forum:CT:Userbox Proposals

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Userbox Proposals


This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was any userboxes that recieve downvotes can be deleted within the day, if the ratio is above 1 for/5 against—Green Tentacle (Talk) 15:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wookieepedia:Userbox proposal Wookieepedia:Userbox proposal/History

Look over the proposals page. Go on, do it. Then look over the history to the past two weeks.

Notice anything, er... stupid? (Got to remember NPOV...) Well, over the past couple of weeks, there has been a "flood" of sorts, with different proposals that most no one will ever use. (Shock Troopers > Stormtroopers? Supporting IG-100 Magnaguards and AT-RT Drivers?). Being one of the people who often operate the queueing, these get really annoying to have to add to the history.

So, I've come here,, bringing three new rules for the WP:UP page:

  1. Any userboxes that recieve downvotes can be deleted within the day, if the ratio is above 1 for/5 against.
  2. Any userboxes that support an IU character or group of characters (i.e., "This user supports"- as the start, "Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, Leia, Vader, etc." as the end) THAT FALL UNDER A SPECIFIC ORGINIZATION (i.e., Rebel Alliance, Republic, Remnant, Empire, Vong, etc.) can be deleted on sight.
  3. Any comparing userboxes, IU or OOU, can be deleted on sight. (i.e., Character is better than Character, Faction is better than Faction, etc.)

NOTE: This does not disallow the creation of "Supporting" userboxes for a particular faction, just characters.

We'll vote on them separately.

Numero Uno

Any userboxes that recieve downvotes can be deleted within the day, if the ratio is above 1 for/5 against.

Support

  1. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 14:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Gonk (Gonk!) 14:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 14:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    Imp ATATatarismall.png 20:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. JMAS 20:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. jSarek 21:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Enochf 18:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. -Solus (Bird of Prey) 19:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Chack Jadson 19:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Riffsyphon1024 05:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Green Tentacle (Talk) 12:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Against Instruction creep but for removing annoyances that become a permanent part of the history page and sit on WP:UP for two weeks uselessly. Wildyoda 01:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. NighthawkLeader 06:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oh yes.--Valin Kenobi 21:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. THANK YOU! Stake black msg 23:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Do this and not the ones below. They'll be taken off soon anyway with this rule, and we avoid making too many rules that apply to highly specific scenarios. - Lord Hydronium 22:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. This one's the best one. It actually gives decent userboxes a chance. --Ryluk Shouja(Bounty Hunters Guild)09:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. I don't see the need to codify everything. Atarumaster88 15:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Imp ATATatarismall.png 12:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. No; if it's tanking that badly, the nominator can do what I've done in the past and just delete the bloody thing themselves. Jwebb13HoloNetSith Emblem 23:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, most users who post the bloody userboxes aren't smart enough (unlike you) to stick around the page to see what the consensus is, and then make a decision to remove their proposal. And, those that do stay around can't seem to note consensus enough to find out that their userbox proposal is doomed. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 00:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Am I the only one who ever finds themself thinking that maybe Hannibal Lecter had some good ideas at times like this? Jwebb13HoloNetSith Emblem 00:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Evir Daal 13:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. But it is fun to see how many Oppose votes there is! Jedipilot94 22:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • Should the rule also say somethingthat it will be deleted if the vote is 0-5 against as well since some nominators don't vote for their userboxes, or is that implied in the rule? NighthawkLeader 07:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I always assume that anything someone proposes, whether it's a template or a rule change or anything, automatically has their support, unless otherwise stated. Jwebb13HoloNetSith Emblem 08:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure whether this is the righ place to ask, but since there are many more support votes than oppose, when is this rule going to be put into action? NighthawkLeader 03:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Archived

These options have been proven by User:Lord Hydronium that they fall under the above vote. Do not vote here

Numero Dos

Any userboxes that support an IU character or group of characters (i.e., "This user supports"- as the start, "Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, Leia, Vader, etc." as the end) THAT FALL UNDER A SPECIFIC ORGINIZATION (i.e., Rebel Alliance, Republic, Remnant, Empire, Vong, etc.) can be deleted on sight.

Support

  1. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 14:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Gonk (Gonk!) 14:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 14:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    Imp ATATatarismall.png 20:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. JMAS 20:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. jSarek 21:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. -Solus (Bird of Prey) 19:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Yay! Chack Jadson 19:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Riffsyphon1024 05:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Green Tentacle (Talk) 12:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Well, it's getting ridiculous! Darth Seth 17:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Against Instruction creep but for removing annoyances that become a permanent part of the history page and sit on WP:UP for two weeks uselessly. Wildyoda 01:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Stake black msg 23:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Yay for opposing too many rules! Atarumaster88 15:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Imp ATATatarismall.png 12:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • I'd say keep those kinds of things as custom userboxes, but I don't really care enough either way to cast a vote on this one. Jwebb13HoloNetSith Emblem 23:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Numero Three-o

Any comparing userboxes, IU or OOU, can be deleted on sight. (i.e., Character is better than Character, Faction is better than Faction, etc.)

Support

  1. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 14:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. This user supports Jorrel's half-assed use of the Spanish language. Gonk (Gonk!) 14:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 14:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    Imp ATATatarismall.png 20:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. JMAS 20:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. jSarek 21:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Enochf 18:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. -Solus (Bird of Prey) 19:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Chack Jadson 19:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. --Windu223 18:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Riffsyphon1024 05:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Green Tentacle (Talk) 12:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Against Instruction creep but for removing annoyances that become a permanent part of the history page and sit on WP:UP for two weeks uselessly. Wildyoda 01:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. NighthawkLeader 06:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Stake black msg 23:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Valin Kenobi 19:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 00:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Yay for no glut of rules. Atarumaster88 15:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Imp ATATatarismall.png 12:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Gonk: Don't you mean

Espa-nish This user supports half-assed use of the Spanish language
 ?
  • Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 14:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Now what about supporting species? We have some that were approved, some that weren't. Gonk (Gonk!) 20:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmm. Good question. If it were up to me, I'd remove all from their respective templates and then repropose them, according to notability. But, seeing as that may make people mad, I won't. I agree, though, that something has to be decided. Anyone else have any bright ideas? Or think that my reproposals is a good idea? Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 20:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm opposed to all of these ideas. Not because I don't think they're good ideas, but because I think we've added a lot of rules recently, and this isn't particularly needed, IMO. Helpful, possibly, but not a necessity. Atarumaster88 15:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm bang alongside you on this one. Those things never get approved anyway, so making a rule to prevent something that's already as likely as the sun rising in the west is to happen just seems more bureaucratic than we need to be. Besides, unless we can make the people who propose these things use a custom userbox saying that "This user is a twit," seeing who proposed something like this or supported its adoption as a template can warn you ahead of time to not expect intelligent input from them and allow you to avoid disappointment. Jwebb13HoloNetSith Emblem 00:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Except usually, the nominators who put these (and by these I mean the ones I outlined) up either never come back or would never remove them. And, you have to look at this from the perspective of the people who consistantly deal with these annoyances: No one likes to have to sift through the crap to post them on the History page, and no one likes to sift through the crap posted on the History page to find one that they need. This comes from a person who does deal with these on a regular basis. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 00:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
        • True. I never handle transferring the results to the history page, so I don't have to deal with the irritation the same way. Jwebb13HoloNetSith Emblem 00:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.