Forum:Userbox Proposal

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Userbox Proposal
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 21 June 2010 by Degenret01.

(Moved out of Forum:Move personal templates in the Template: namespace to the user's userspace) - I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 00:17, June 8, 2010 (UTC) 

Comment/Extra Proposal - Not sure how much this is related to personal templates, but what about moving all Userbox to a subsection of Template: namespace? For example, moving {{Userbox/RS name}} to {{Userbox/RS name}}? I would be willing to do all of the work. ʞooɔ 18:21, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to state the Pros and Cons while trying to not be objective.


  • Template space is more organized by moving the Userbox templates out of the "mainstream" of the Template space
    • Makes maintenance/template work easier
  • Signatures are already organized as such
    • Consistency


I'd like to address the cons. The extra work, as I've stated in the Pros section, is not unnecessary. It helps many things. It's also no work for you, as I'll do all of it. As for DEU, there's an exception in the policy for fixing red links. There, of course, would be red links on the userpages when the templates are moved. Also, I'm not changing anything. It looks exactly the same.

Feel free to add other Pros/Cons. ʞooɔ 22:49, June 14, 2010 (UTC)


I like the idea, and have been using it on the FarmVille Wiki for some time now. You might want to start a seperate forum on this, lest this one get too crowded ;) ajr 18:26, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about that, though I think they're related enough that they can share a page. You know what? New section. ʞooɔ 18:27, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
Why? It's not hurting anything right now. Just leave well enough alone? HaloTalk 18:28, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose See below... - It's not broke, don't fix it. Although they are all a specific subset of a template, we don't have all our navbox templates as Template:Navbox/stuff. No need IMHO. --Aburnett(Talk) 19:16, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

I feel that Navboxes are a bad example. Compare to something like Signatures. We don't have different (main) pages for all of the templates, we have them all as subpages. They are user-facing, and the way I see it, we don't need to clog up the Template space with all these userboxes. ʞooɔ 20:00, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As long as you do the work XD LordDarkPhantom 20:06, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Undecided - per Aburnett. And if we did this it would add a lot of code to the rsw. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 20:15, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Changed to Undecided, I see bad, the good, and I only have one userbox so I feel I don't have the best opinion on this. Please don't try to convince me directly. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 01:18, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by that? ʞooɔ 20:36, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
I think he's talking about how each user, instead of having...
      {{Userbox/highest skill|Cooking|99}}
      {{Userbox/Quest log}}
would have to have...
      {{Userboxes/User follows|Saradomin}}
      {{Userboxes/User administrator}}
      {{Userboxes/User highest skill|Cooking|99}}
      {{Userboxes/User guild|Mining}}
      {{Userboxes/User guild|Legends'}}
      {{Userboxes/Quest log}}
Not a huge deal, but a valid point. --Aburnett(Talk) 20:41, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I agree that it's not that big of a deal. And I think that the Template:Userboxes would stay as it is. ʞooɔ 20:45, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
That would make sense wouldn't it Lol --Aburnett(Talk) 20:49, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support/Request for separation of topic - More organised. That applies to both parts of my comment. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 00:09, June 8, 2010 (UTC) 

Sure, let's separate it. ʞooɔ 00:10, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
Your wish is my command. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 00:17, June 8, 2010 (UTC) 

They are fine now. No sense making unnecessary work. HaloTalk 00:37, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Support - They are disorganised, and mixing with mainspace templates. Although it may not seem to have much effect, when doing template work, or any maintenance/administrative work, it helps to know which templates are mainspace-used, and which are userboxes, as the vast majority are. Many userboxes are usually "Template:User ______" although not always, which creates more confusion. This will help to organise our messy template namespace. Chicken7 >talk 05:58, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - If Userbox/ was at the start of the template name anyways, you wouldn't need user in there as well. It could just be Userbox/Admin, etc. ajr 16:13, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea. ʞooɔ 16:59, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Pretty pointless. I don't see why we would do that. bad_fetustalk 17:36, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

If it makes things more organised and it's no work for you, what's the harm? ʞooɔ 19:08, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
I never stated that I found your way more organised >_> bad_fetustalk 10:33, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - If this was to happen it would need most userpages to be fixed and there is no point of moving them, it doesn't achieve anything.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 05:52, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I'll do all of the work using AWB. No work for anyone except me. ʞooɔ 16:46, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
Still, unnecessary work. bad_fetustalk 18:11, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
You could call any work "unnecessary". This will make things more organized, and it's very hard to find templates right now, because they're in no organized fashion. What I'm asking you is if this will make things better, or worse. I need no help with this at all, it should take more than six hours with AWB. I didn't make this thread to ask for help with it. I asked permission to do something that, in my opinion makes things more organized. What I don't understand is why people oppose things that will make things better at no cost to them. ʞooɔ 19:02, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
Opposing because it is hard or unnecessary work is fairly bad reasoning. All projects or proposals take some work, whether it be a little like the changing of a few words on a template, to something huge like the Music Track articles or the GEMW. You have to look at the proposal itself, and the negative aspects of when it is complete. Chicken7 >talk 06:01, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
I never opposed because its hard work because i know AWB could do it easly, I'm just saying it is a useless change and fixing something that's not broken just makes things borken. And per Lil.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 07:38, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
Something doesn't need to be broken to be able to change it. This change would not be useless at all. It's organisation, which is extremely important on a wiki with tens of thousands of pages, thousands of templates and hundreds of userboxes. When doing tasks that involve sorting through templates, it gets very confusing trying to determine what is and isn't a userbox. You can't quickly check what category a template is in without opening each individual template. Consistency and organisation are essential, and a confusing mess does not help. Chicken7 >talk 08:34, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
This is what Category:Userbox templates you just got there and all of the userboxes are there.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 08:37, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
You don't get my point. I'm not opposing because it's work. I'm opposing because it's unnecessary, and I certainly do not see how it will make anything more organised, it can only make it disorganised as it adds extra coding to the wiki, as Evil stated. bad_fetustalk 10:33, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
Lol, you're complaining about a few extra characters?! O_o There is absolutely no problems caused by that. It definitely does not make the coding more unorganised. If anything, the exact opposite, as you can easily signify which are userboxes. It is hard to see how it will make things more organised all up when template work in not your particular niche. And @Sentra, "You can't quickly check what category a template is in without opening each individual template." Chicken7 >talk 14:11, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
Well, I find it more disorganised then the current version, and just checking their page to see if they are a userbox doesn't take 5 seconds. Also, you don't really need to categorise them, as it's pretty obvious that they are userboxes.bad_fetustalk 15:12, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
You can't tell that it's a userbox just based on the name. Which is usually what you're looking at. ʞooɔ 16:36, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
When do you actually just look throught themplates to find out if they are userboxes or not?Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 00:25, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Unnecessary, wouldn't achieve anything, really. As Aburnett said, if it's not broke, don't fix it. If you're trying to achieve some sort of neater organization of userboxes, well, we have Category:Userbox templates for that. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 06:10, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

  • Sigh* The category doesn't sort those out when you're trying to find a template that *isn't* a userbox. That's mainly why I proposed this. I really don't understand why you guys are opposing this... ʞooɔ 16:36, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
Because it's unnecessary. Just click on the link and check it's category to see if it's a userbox, not so hard. bad_fetustalk 20:48, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
Opposing something because it's unncessary seems sort of unacceptable to me. It's not necessary to make images transparent, nor is it necessary to remove typos from articles. However, it is nice, and it makes the wiki better. This, in my opinion, is in the same boat. ʞooɔ 21:35, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
Cook your taking everything out of context, they make the wiki look better and need to be done otherwise we wouldn't be anywhere near as popular as it is. Making subpages in template categories, dosn't make the wiki look better. Anything it may do would be covered by them being in the userbox category.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 00:25, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
It's the same point, albeit on a smaller scale. As I've said probably five times on this thread, it makes things more organized and makes it easier to look for a template. Take, for example, {{Userbox/Quest log}}. Does that sound like the name of a userbox to you? It doesn't to me. It takes out all of the userboxes from the mainstream of the Templates, because they shouldn't be part of the mainstream. It's pretty much the same reason Signature templates are all under Template:Signatures/ . ʞooɔ 00:39, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
Lol, transparent images are necessary, as they make it easier to see the detail of the subject. It's necessary to fix typos, as it makes an article easier to understand. However, this, makes nothing easier. bad_fetustalk 15:08, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
As I explained in the clan chat, it makes it easier to look for templates, among other things. And I (and Evil) had to look through all of the Templates to find the ones that are user templates. So there's an example of a time in which that would be helpful to not have them mixed in with the main part.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cook Me Plox (talk).
it makes it easier to look for templates - That's what categories are for. bad_fetustalk 13:44, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
No. I'm talking about the Templates that aren't userboxes. If we implement my proposal, it takes them out of the main part of the template space, and you can look for the ones that are not in the Userbox templates category. It's the exact same reason all of the Signatures are organized. I doubt anyone is going to want to use DPL to look for templates. ʞooɔ 16:55, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
And when exactly will you need to do that? NEVER. bad_fetustalk 10:24, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - We don't need all the userboxes in one template; it would cause confusion for someone creating a new one who is used to how we do it now. Additionally, as shown by Aburnett above, people would have to add the prefix to all of their userboxes. Think of the people who have lots. I simply don't believe we should use the Userbox template as a hub for all of them. ShinyUnown T | C | E 02:06, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

  • Sigh* As I've said multiple times, I'll do all of the work to add the prefixes. Anyway, I don't see how it causes any more confusion than having all the Signatures in a "hub", as you put it.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cook Me Plox (talk).

Support - Per Chicken. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 22:49, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support - After looking Cook and Chicken's points, I'm starting to like this idea. We will be able to make userbox names more concise, as well as organize them more effectively. --Aburnett(Talk) 22:27, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to change two userboxes as a test to see how easily this could be done. This will be accomplished by using AWB. Making the list, I will use What transcludes page (all NS) and What links here (all NS), and remove duplicates. I'll then use Find & Replace to change the template. If anyone has objection to this test, please say so. ʞooɔ 22:35, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Killr833 and Lil Diriz 77. Also I don't mind you doing your little test, but leave my userpage alone at the moment since this proposal has not yet reached consensus. Therefore, I'm reverting your edits to my userpage since I did not ask for you to edit it as part of your test. Thank you. [1] N7 Elite (Ready to talk now?) 00:27, June 13, 2010 (UTC) Support - After I realized what an ass I've been over such an insignificant thing, I realize that this could be a great idea after all, especially since it would make userboxes more organized. [2] N7 Elite (Ready to talk now?) 19:49, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that RS:UCS trumps RS:DEU, because if I had left it alone, it would have created (what will soon be) a red link. ʞooɔ 02:11, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
You should have waited around 24 hours before you started the test because most people didn't have time to oppose like bicycle. Also if you have finished the test and got the results you probably should revert everything to how it was as there is no consensus yet.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 04:27, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
I fail to understand the problem. What did I change? Nothing, unless you look at the source. It's like changing an image name when the image has been moved. And no one gets mad over that. There's an exception in RS:DEU, for red links. As keeping it as such would have created a red link, I changed it. ʞooɔ 05:45, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict with Cook's revision)I'm going to agree with Cook on that. His example is exactly the one I was going to cite. There's nothing that's really being changed. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 05:48, June 13, 2010 (UTC) 
I didn't have any exceptions to what you did but if you are going to ask if anyone has any exceptions, give them time to respond instead of asking for exception then doing it almost straight away.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 06:00, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
This hasn't passed yet, how can you possibly run a test for it right now? >_> bad_fetustalk 10:24, June 13, 2010 (UTC)'s a test? >.> I really don't understand why you're so uproarious about this. ʞooɔ 18:32, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
What's the point of testing something that hasn't passed? What if it fails? bad_fetustalk 19:25, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
What, exactly, was the harm done? ʞooɔ 20:17, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
If a test fails, then you collect data on why it failed to bring into the proposal. While I agree this test might have been slightly unnecessary, it's certainly nothing to get upset about. Cook, I'm going to restore the two templates as redirects, so if users do not wish to participate in this test, they do not have to. The redirects can then be dealt with pending the outcome of this discussion. --Aburnett(Talk) 21:02, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, that seems to work for all parties involved. ʞooɔ 21:04, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Personally, I support this because it's organization by definition, and that's a good thing whether or not it gets used often. Also, the previously mentioned comparison to Template:Signatures/Username is a relevant example supporting this proposal that I think should be addressed by those in opposition, and I think that someone who knows how to make a userbox also knows how to add a few extra characters to the location of the userbox. Since Cook volunteered to fix the userboxes that already exist, I personally see no reason for opposition. Leftiness 04:38, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Also, I'd like to say that this isn't really about organizing the userboxes as much as organizing the rest of the Template space. So I think the point about just having the category is kind of moot. ʞooɔ 15:59, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Slight oppose - I think it would be unessecary work, but its a good idea. The first point of this is the winning bit for me... too much work! SplâshTâlkSîgn hêrê 18:24, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'll do this myself. Once this is approved (which I believe it will be), it'll be about one or two days before the reorganization is finished. So no work for anyone but me, unless of course they want to help. ʞooɔ 19:00, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure - Can we get an up or down on this? I'd like to either start on this or forget about it. ʞooɔ 23:26, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - It's up to those in opposition to address the fact that we use Template:Signatures/Username for the same reasons that this proposal suggests we use Template:Userboxes/Userbox. Opposers also need to come up with a reason why organization of the template space, which this is by definition, is a bad thing. His "little userbox test" wasn't detrimental; he proved with a test that the proposal has no visible effect on the page and that it organizes the template space, and he edited a few characters on your user page to prevent a red link. Since Aburnett kindly explained the purpose of a test and created redirects, you have no reason to still be upset. Finally, it isn't "pushing it under a rug with a quick closure;" nothing productive has been said for days, the thread's been open for weeks, and I honestly don't think there's anything more that can possibly be said against this proposal, so Cook requested that a neutral sysop come to the thread, read it, and perform the duty that we sysop'd him for by deciding whether this proposal has consensus. Leftiness 19:41, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Closed No real arguments exist for this not to be passed as CookMe has stated he will do all the work. This is passed.--Degenret01 00:28, June 21, 2010 (UTC)