Forum:Profile Mastheads

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Profile Mastheads
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 7 March 2012 by Aburnett.

Currently on the Profile Masthead on userpages (that is the brown bar where it displays your username and anything else if applicable), we only have Chat Moderator, Blocked and Admin labels, also Authenticated but that isn't used. However, it is possible to add more labels in there! It could be used just as an informative or as a new feature that can be added to userpages. There is a script I found at the [[w:c:admintools|admin tools wiki]] that can add custom "boxes" into the masthead. What it does is goes in the masthead takes out whatever is there currently and replaces it with whatever is applied in the script. It takes a few seconds to load so the original page can be seen at first, like with any other script. So, should we use the script too?


  1. Allow the script, letting users with the bureaucrat, AWB, and bot right have those labels listed in the masthead, such as this.
  2. Number 1, plus allow the user of the month to be given a box such as this
  3. Number 2, plus letting users request any type of "box" at a request page, such as this.

Any other variations could be used too.

Thanks to Urbancowgurl777 for rewriting this

Script[edit source]

For anyone wanting to see the script, see below.

if (wgNamespaceNumber === 2 || wgNamespaceNumber === 3) {
$(function() {
    var i, len, html, rights = {
        "Username1": ["Rights"],
        "Username2": ["Rights", "More rights"],
        "Username3": ["Rights"]
    rights = rights[wgTitle];
    if (typeof rights !== "undefined") {
        len = rights.length;
        html = "";
        // remove old rights
        //$('.UserProfileMasthead .masthead-info').remove();
        for (i = 0; i < len; i += 1) {
            html += '<span class="group">' + rights[i] + '</span>';
        $(html).appendTo('.masthead-info hgroup');
Fixed up a bit. Ts4kNfA.png 07:59, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
Fixed a bit more. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 10:15, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
I've commented out the part of the script where it removes the existing label(s). This goes against what most people say below (especially for the "blocked" one), and can be readded by removing the double slash before it. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 20:34, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion[edit source]

Support 2 - As creator. Hair 03:52, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Remove all - Exactly what is the point of having these boxes again? Personally I'd rather get rid of them all. Having a box with "Admin" next to my name seems pointless to me, it's even less useful for "Chat Moderator"s, and "Blocked" seems utterly stupid. These are more or less vanity words that we can better express elsewhere. --LiquidTalk 04:22, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

The point of these boxes are to identify an admin faster for requests that only an admin can do. We also chat moderator so users can request a ban to be removed without having to spend as much time searching for these users. Blocked, I do see your point there being useless. Hair 04:41, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
That's what RS:AR, RS:UH, RS:CVU, {{d}}, and {{unblock}} are for. And also IRC (and S:C I guess...), since its almost certainly faster to reach an admin there. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 04:44, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
What Gareth said. There's also the IRC and Special:Chat. If you wanted to find an admin by going to a random userpage and looking for the "Admin" sign you'd be looking forever. --LiquidTalk 04:45, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
Maybe if I put this in a different way. For months, users have been used to that box at the top of the page. If it was suddenly removed from the admins and chat mods pages, wouldn't that cause questioning making some stress? Lets save the time and trouble and not remove those. Hair 04:54, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
I honestly don't think anyone would care. Who would get stressed over the loss of a little vanity box...? --LiquidTalk 04:58, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
I just thought I'd point that, unless they say on their userpage that they are, which a lot of people don't, or they are in [[:Category:Active administrators]], which only about half of our active administrators are, the profile masthead is the only way, at least the only standard, to identify what usergroups a user is in by their userpage. I'm for removing hilites, but not for removing every single acknowledgement that a user is in a usergroup. Matt (t) 05:32, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
(tab reset) I have doubts about the value of having an acknowledgement that can only be seen on the userpage. The hilite is actually nice for identification in this regard because you see it everywhere. However, once you're actually on someone's userpage I don't see why you'd need to identify him/her as a sysop... (and if for some reason you did, why RS:A wouldn't work.) --LiquidTalk 06:32, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
  • Let's remove them completely, and please don't use anything from admintools or even mention it here :P ajr 05:11, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
    Actually, let's go with support three. It could be rather fun, and doesn't hurt anything. ajr 14:50, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Support 1, neutral 2, oppose 3 - Number 1 only makes sense. However, I think a UoTM box is all-round pointless. I think letting people put whatever they want in a box is a bad idea, as it will take away the official impression that those boxes give. Matt (t) 05:41, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Changed number 2 to neutral, because I don't really mind on second thought. Matt (t) 08:47, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Support 1, Neutral 2 + 3 - Per Matt, but I don't mind custom boxes and UotM. Maybe if the UotM one also said which month and year that would be cool. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 06:27, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Support 1; strong oppose 2 and 3 - A simple, unified location to throw the important permissions (bot, etc) is fine by me. However, if we're going to let people have whatever they want in these boxes, we may as well not have any boxes at all, since they'd no longer necessarily represent the user groups. Hofmic Talk 06:36, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral 1, oppose 2+3 - 2+3 seem unnecessary, and 3 could get messy with everyone wanting unique ones. The 'crat title also seems unnecessary, but the bot/awb could be useful. Then again, all bots/awbs have a hilite, and almost all of them have one of those userboxes saying what they are, which makes the masthead redundant. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 06:41, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Support 1 and 2, Oppose 3 - Wait a second, I thought No. 1 is already implemented? Regardless, it's helpful. Also, number 2 won't hurt much and will give that little extra bit of appreciation to the UotM, as they definitely deserve it. No.3 is messy and will just be a disaster to moderate. Chicken7 >talk 08:44, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Remove all - Inferior, useless and redundant compared to our hilites system, which can be seen far more easily than those boxes. The only one with a vague use is possibly the "Blocked" tag, which saves me checking their contributions page to check if they are blocked. 222 talk 08:51, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

We can't remove these unless Wikia allows this change, even in CSS/JS. Modifying something like this would result in a violation of the Terms of Use. Ryan PM 16:12, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - We could also add something to the script that makes it possible to add custom boxes by adding <span id="ProfileBoxAdd">Cake,Pie,Bukkit</span> to your userpages, which will add the boxes Cake, Pie and Bukkit. This can be done with this:

    if ($('#ProfileBoxAdd').length!=0) {
        rights = rights?(rights.join(',')+$('#ProfileBoxAdd').html()).split(','):$('#ProfileBoxAdd').html().split(',')

The advantage of this is that it doesn't require any requests page or added code to the wiki-wide script, the disadvantage is that people could add "administrator" or something to that and act like they're admin. We could disallow anything containing "admin", "block", "ban" or "mod" (or "month" or something like that) to solve that though. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 10:46, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Support 1, oppose 2 and 3 - I am neutral about using the script I posted above to make it possible for users to add extra boxesl themselves, but having a requests page is just unnecessarily much work for such a small thing. For the bot and AWB boxes I support, because it would make it easier to see if the user is one of those, for bot tasks etc. I do agree the userboxes are already enough to make that clear, so those could also be removed. I think the current admin and chat moderator boxes, and also the suggested 'crat boxes and UOTM are not really necessary, as they would do nothing more than the hilites. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 10:46, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Support all 3 - Only if the user wants the change for the UoTM, and the requests aren't for something outrageous (Like chief mohawk grenade Mister T Norris). I believe we should keep the admin, chat mod, and blocked boxes. Is it really that bad that it says "ADMIN" on someone's page when they are in fact admins? Those of you who wish to remove that, should we also delete the userbox stating they're admins? Should we remove the bit on their page that says "I'm an admin"? Should we just remove the Administrator category? I doubt it, so why would we remove it? Because it's pointless? It's surprising how far we go to not show that we have administrators, but we keep the old things that do the exact same thing. Kevin uses the hilite, which surprises me that he wants this removed because he finds it pointless to have his name have ADMIN next to it soley in his userspace and contribs page. I like the blocked one to identify if a user is blocked at a seconds glance from the top of their profile header. I don't have any issue with a user putting up a "personal title" for others to see. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 14:55, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Like I said above, the hilite works on all pages. Everything else (the sysop userbox, category, et cetera) are optional. I don't have any of that stuff because I don't want it. There was a long while in which I had {{Userbox/adminNot}} on my page last year. However, the "Admin" sign at the top isn't optional (or if it is, no one told me yet). --LiquidTalk 15:10, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I wouldn't mind option 3 much either; these boxes are more or less useless anyways and if it really mattered to people who want to have a custom one I don't think it makes that much of a difference if we let them. --LiquidTalk 15:13, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral 1 and 2, Oppose 3 - I don't like the third option because weird, trolling names would overshadow the more important titles like "Admin" (if we implemented the first choice, that is). People could also pretend to be part of a group by typing the respective title (or a misspelled version of it) in the box. This would lead to confusion because others wouldn't be sure if an user with an "Admin" box was actually an admin or if the user just had good spelling compared to someone who was an "Adm1n."  Tien  16:43, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

No, they couldn't. The custom boxes would need to be added by admins, and I certainly wouldn't add an "adm1n" or "buraeucrat" box to anyone. Option three is the most viable one here, since it is fun and allows users to customize their userpages more. And has no potential for abuse. If we limit each user to three, then there are no problems. I can manage the entire thing myself if nobody else wants to. ajr 20:16, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I forgot that only admins would be able to add the boxes. But there are many other ways to customize one's userpage, and I still wouldn't take a practical box seriously if it were among unpractical boxes, no matter how "creative" the latter were.  Tien  03:42, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Support 1; Oppose rest - Inconsistent, sloppy, pointless, unprofessional tags for users to brag about that do absolutely nothing for the wiki. No thanks. Ronan Talk 20:24, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the current ADMIN, CHAT MODERATOR and BLOCKED tags do display all of the qualities you mention. ajr 20:30, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
Whereas your bright idea of a quality addition to the wiki is having CAEK written at the top of your page. Nice Ronan Talk 21:33, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
That isn't my proposal at all. It would be just "caek" in lower case. Seriously, who spells caek in capital letters??? ajr 23:29, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
With the script, it HAS to be all upper case, even if entered lowercase. So it would be having to spell CAEK in all upper case. Hair 03:47, February 15, 2012 (UTC)
Yea but it would be in one of those cool fonts that make uppercase small so it doesnt look like it's uppercase. -- 20:52, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

Support 1, neutral 2, oppose 3 - I don't really see the relevence or importance of adding the UotM tag. It's not like they're part of a usergroup that gives them access to tools that others not in the group don't have. And as for 3, if people want to mess around with what's in ithe masthead, they can use the occupation etc to do it. However, the addition of the crat and bot tags would be nice. Could we also add in Bannedfromchat to that? It could help identify any looked over cases or ban evaders more quickly What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 20:52, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Support Banned from chat - per below. cqm talk 01:02, February 15, 2012 (UTC)
Yes it would be possible, If admins want to always update it on the mediawiki... or we could ask a staff member to let chat mods to be able that certain mediawiki page or something else, hopefully. Hair 03:47, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Support 1, neutral 2, oppose 3 - UotM could easily be a novelty thing, but option 3 is taking it a little too far in my opinion. Has anyone considered whether it would be a permanent addition or merely a month long addition, being re-assigned at the end of the month. If it's the latter I don't really see the point. Just seems like extra work for not a huge gain.

'Crat, AWB and Bot seem like relatively useful additions, as does Bannedfrom chat (suggested above by Ciph). Perhaps Rollback or Custodian too? Although Admin and 'Crat would override them naturally. In all honesty they seem cosmetic but not every editor knows about hilites, and not every admin/'crat has the userbox to identify themselves as such. Ease of identification to newer users is a good thing to me. cqm talk 01:02, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Rollback and Custodian doesn't seem that necessary since I haven't seen a user searching for specifically a rollbacker, easier just to undo it. Hair 03:47, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral 1, 2. Oppose 3 - I just don't like it. Most of the points above summarise my views. Users already have significant opportunity to customise their user space. Raglough 01:58, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Support all 3
1. Allowing this would make looking for a crat easier w/o looking in all those categories.

2. People could just put UotM with 3. but I like 3. so I'm neutral on this one.

3.Implanting this would allow for more creative user pages.--Cake detail.pngCaek iz ossumChocolate cake detail.png talk om nom 01:59, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Remove all - It's just vanity, which is pointless. --Saftzie (talk) 22:22, February 16, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - For the people that want all of them removed, do you also want the banned one removed? That is actually useful, as there are no hilites and you don't go to find a blocked person, but you go to find out if a person is blocked. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 00:38, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it's also sort of a wall-of-shame thing. (And a similar box appears at the top of the contributions page, one click away from the userpage.) I'm not that in favor of forcibly removing it for everyone, but I'd rather be able to opt-out of the ADMIN box on my page. --LiquidTalk 00:40, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - Proposal 1 will be implemented. Users with bureaucrat, AWB, or bot rights will receive the appropriate label in their masthead. --Aburnett(Talk) 20:21, March 7, 2012 (UTC)