This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed Concensus Track. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the talk page or in the Senate Hall rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the discussion was Adopt dynamic copyright violation list, and delete copyright violation articles after one week.. —Kuralyov 02:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There has been concern over the number of userbox templates created recently. This discussion is regarding establishing the policy and enforcement of userbox template creation. Should we limit the creation of userbox templates, leave it as it is now, or get rid of userboxes altogether? Cast your vote below and make your comments heard.

Policy

Proposal

1. No religious or political userboxes. We are Wookieepedia, not a breeding ground for debates over religion and politics.
2. No nonsense templates. (i.e. "This user can kick twice as much ass as Mace Windu" or other such silly claims)

Comments/Suggestions for additions

• Userboxes should preferably be OOU (i.e. "This user is a fan of the Rebel Alliance" is better than "This user is a Rebel" (or worse, "This user survived the Battle of Hoth.") —Silly Dan _(talk) 04:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. RMF 04:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Userboxes must be nominated on the Userbox proposal page with the support of 5 registered users before they are made into templates. Userbox nominations have two weeks to gain the necessary votes before they are deleted; and any existing userboxes must be used by at least 5 people. Admins reserve the right to delete inflammatory or inappropriate userboxes on sight. Comments? RMF 04:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree, though I think the proposal page should be more about making sure no one objects than about getting supporting votes. I can envision a new userbox that only one person needs right off the bat but could become worthwhile down the road. CooperTFN 05:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Like "This User works at TFN?"--The Erl of the CT:Userbox template discussion ^{talk What I do} 17:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Updated proposal

1. No religious or political userboxes. We are Wookieepedia, not a breeding ground for debates over religion and politics.
2. No nonsense templates. (i.e. "This user can kick twice as much ass as Mace Windu" or other such silly claims)
3. All potential userboxes must have the support of at least 5 users at the Userbox proposal page over a period of two weeks.
4. Userboxes should be OOU.

Comments/Suggestions for additions

• I don't see a need to restrict religious or political userboxes. I understand that we're trying to be a little more restrictive than Wikipedia on this issue, but that doesn't seem right to me. Democrats/Republicans/etc. and Muslims/Christians/etc. have just as much right to identify themselves and associate with each other as Jedi fans or Imperials. —Darth Culator (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• The problem with political userboxes is that they tend to spawn many variations of the same thing (i.e. "This user is a Republican" alongside "This user supports George W. Bush", "This user suports the war in Iraq", and "This user is Pro-Life") and could easily get out of hand. Also, we would also have to create userboxes for political factions in each country a Wookiepedian resides in, and we're simply not big enough for that yet. As code on their userpage, it's all good IMO, but not as templates.

As for religion, I included that because unfortunately, there are still some pretty close-minded people out there who tend to discrimiate against others who don't share their views. I'm not saying anyone who frequents the site now is like that, but to avoid any potential harassment in the future, that is why I included it in the proposal. Like the political tags, if any Wookieepedian wants to include it as code on their page, I'm all for it, but not as a template. These are just my views on the subject, but since I'm only one person and this is a community vote, it will probably end up being irrelevent. StarNeptune 18:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• • On an unrelated note, I put up a tentative userbox proposal page, if anyone wants to check it out. StarNeptune 17:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • That looks good—but what about existing foolishness such as {{User ST vs. SW}} and {{Death}}? Do these also fall under the 5+ users rule? RMF 18:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I may do a sweep and delete all existing userboxes with less that 5 users. If they want it back, they can go to the nomination page and have it nominated. StarNeptune 18:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• I think we may have missed a point here—are users allowed to create categories (not userboxes, but categories) based on user affiliation/location/etc? Example: since I can't have my {{Userhasmade205edits}} template, could I create a category entitled Category:Wookieepedians with 205 edits? Or will user categories also be regulated? If so, how? I hate to be bothersome, it's just that I want to be prepared. RMF 20:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• My opinion is that user categories should only be used in conjuction with templates. Categories without templates are harder to regulate. StarNeptune 20:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Going back to the issue of religious and political userboxes and also in reference to Darth Curator's mention of what happened in Wikipedia (which is called the Userbox War) below, the compromise both factions agreed on was the German userbox solution, which I think it was a good solution to end the war, though I wasn't involved in it. —Mirlen 00:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement options

Get rid of them all

Pretty self-explanatory.

Support

Comments

Limit them to a few

These are the templates that are created so the whole community can use them, not just a few users. Any template boxes specific to the user (i.e. not widespread enough to be a template) should be code on userpages.

Support

1. StarNeptune 03:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
2. —Darth Culator (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
3. CooperTFN 03:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
4. —Silly Dan _(talk) 04:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Adamwankenobi 05:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
6. QuentinGeorge 05:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Lord Hydronium 05:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Xwing328 20:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
9. SFH 20:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
10. RMF 15:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
11. Atarumaster88 ^{(Audience Chamber)} 04:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
12. -- beeurd ^talk 01:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Jabbathehuttgartogg^{(Rancor pit)} 13:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
14. Imp 15:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• This is the option I prefer, mainly because creating templates that only 1 or 2 people are going to use is (IMO) pointless and not needed. StarNeptune 03:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• They're really getting out of hand. I've only personally created one, and in retrospect I probably shouldn't have. I think we need to stop their proliferation before it gets completely out of hand as it did on Wikipedia. The important thing now is to decide on the general policy, and then we'll decide how to enforce it. —Darth Culator (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• I think they should be limited to information that either is pertinent to this site, such as languages spoken, or reflects information on the person's actual life. In other words, being a Virgo who uses Firefox can stay, being a Grey Jedi (who fell to the dark side, but then went back to grey) who supports the Hapes Consortium should go. Anyone who wants a special in-universe one for their page can always make it directly, anyway. We just don't need templates for them. CooperTFN 03:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed (though I think templates like Template:User ewok may still be OK, if people really want to use them to mark that they are fans of a particular in-universe faction.) —Silly Dan _(talk) 04:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't limit it quite that much. My personal preference would be to have a "request for userbox" process in which several people would have to support a userbox before it's made into a template. Any of the ones that already exist and currently have 5 or more people using them are OK to stay. —Darth Culator (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• At first glance, this would seem to be my preferred choice—you're absolutely right, userboxes have gotten way out of hand on wikipedia (in fact, I believe the voting just ended on their own reform attempt). My only concern is that we establish a standard (i.e. userbox must be used by at least x people) and not leave it up to arbitrary admin fiat (no offense, I would just rather see it administered fairly). But templates like User-Proud and User-WL definitely need to go. RMF 04:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No offence taken. There is a policy proposal in the section above you are welcome to add to and debate on. StarNeptune 04:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• The browser ones and possibly the horoscope ones have are fairly self-regulating, because unless we have the one Lynx user contributing, those are going to be limited anyway. The in-universe ones are the real problem. I think user boxes should be used for things that you can categorize and that might be interesting to categorize. So, not the humor ones, which can be done by hand; if people want to be funny, they can make their own jokes. "This user supports" is fine, as long as it's limited. Empire, Republic, Rebellion, CIS, Jedi, Sith: I think all those are widespread enough to be used. Chiss and Hapes are iffier, but they seem to have plenty of people using them. But "This user supports the Infinite Empire", on the other hand, is taking it too far. I think these should be based on the number of people, but made so that they have broad applicability. So even if we have five users who are fans of redeemed dark side Dathomiri Mandalorians who wield gaderffii, how many more users can we expect to register that will use something like that? Or, more realistically, if we have five people who love Leia's gold bikini, as seems likely, what exactly does a user box do in that case? Basically, would a new user feel any need to include such a thing if it were not already there? Many of these custom user boxes are included as a joke or a novelty ("Hey, this one says that I want to wear Darth Sidious' robes! THAT'S FUNNY."); those aren't needed. There's no problem with jokes, but we don't need to make new templates for that. - Lord Hydronium 05:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Please tell me there isn't actually one about wanting to wear Sidious' robes......everybody knows that I've already got first dibs. http://media.ign.com/boardfaces/28.gif CooperTFN 05:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I admit it, the lynx template was halfway meant as a joke...—Silly Dan _(talk) 12:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe we could limit them a little. Some people have been going a little overboard. But what happens if they make the box in their article themselves, without making an actual user box template? -- SFH 20:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that's the idea. If you want a box that doesn't pass community approval, then you code it yourself on your user page and you don't create a category for it. And if a custom box gets widespread enough, then it will probably become a template anyway. —Darth Culator (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• OK, I admit it, the lynx template was halfway meant as a joke...: Holy crap, I meant that as a joke. I didn't even know we actually had one. - Lord Hydronium 07:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Honest, I do browse and edit with lynx on occasion! —Silly Dan _(talk) 17:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• I've made only one userbox- the fleet junkie one- and I really honestly didn't know if it was going to be worth anything. Surprisingly, that turned out well, but this recent proliferation of userboxes is getting way out of hand. I think we should keep just about all the ones we have now and remind users that they can always code their own custom userboxes within reason. Atarumaster88 ^{(Audience Chamber)} 04:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I have a sleep template that I use to specify when I'm avalible to talk. That's all. Sorry, but if this code dissmisses it, I'm objecting. If not, I could care less. --Jabbathehuttgartogg 21:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• I don't use it anymore -- Jabbathehuttgartogg^{(Rancor pit)} 13:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Leave them alone

The way it is now.

Support

1. I like my userboxes the way they are.--IG-Prime^{(Sentience Core)} 13:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Addition to the proposal rules

Does anyone else think that we should make it mandatory that users propose each of their new userboxes separately? Lately, a lot of new userboxes have been proposed in batches and I think that it isn't a very good way of doing things. It forces us to either accept all of the userboxes proposed or throw them all out regardless of their individual quality… –Sentry^Talk 22:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC) (origianlly posted at Wookieepedia talk:Userbox proposal)

Policy addition

1. Multiple userbox proposals should be presented separately so that the community can vote on each userbox based on its individual merit. Up to three userboxes may be presented for approval under one vote if and only if they are closely related in theme or are proposed as alternatives.

Support

1. Sentry^Talk 22:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
2. -- beeurd ^talk 01:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Breathesgelatin 08:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Jwebb13 23:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Mirlen 00:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Tocneppil 20:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Imp 15:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
8. --Xwing328^(Talk) 00:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

• Is anyone else interested in voting or is this vote concluded?–Sentry^Talk 00:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• I think it's done. I'll ask an admin to close it. Atarumaster88 ^{(Audience Chamber)} 02:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)