FANDOM


Forums: Yew Grove > Proposal to delete certain userboxes
Replacement filing cabinet
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 21 July 2014 by Coelacanth0794.


Userboxes are pointless and inane. They serve pretty much no purpose whatsoever and cause the following problems:

  1. Moving an image causes massive amounts of pages to be linked in Special:Whatlinkshere. This makes it very annoying to clear out.
  2. Same thing happens with deleting an image.
  3. Quite a number of them are dated. For example, pretty much every one listed here have little to no bragging value nowadays. Oh, and don't forget these.
  4. Since it seems a number of users who use them are inactive, it also means not much people know about them, hence they'll remain dated.

Now I'm aware that certain people would love to have userboxes on their pages, so I'm suggesting only to eliminate the following:

Thoughts? --Jlun2 (talk) 10:49, July 8, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - Per Jlun. Temujin 10:52, July 8, 2014 (UTC)

Support - At first, I was all "wtf no", but then I actually read some of the ones on the miscellaneous page. "User hates Mobilising Armies"? "Laughing about Rammernaut hitting the wall"? "Hates Jagex for not making pineapples edible while whole"? What the frig? Some of them are very outdated, like the ones stating if the user hates or likes FunOrb. C'mon, we can do better than these. 7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko) 12:12, July 8, 2014 (UTC)

But I do like funorb, and I don't like that they basically broke the whole thing. I actually wanted to go play some AOG but it just broke. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:54, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

uw0t - How is bragging value a valid argument? Maybe I really like that I own an iron pickaxe and would like everyone to know. MolMan 12:17, July 8, 2014 (UTC)

Support - I'm in line with Stinkowing. The Task Set ones for example, are kinda relevant. "I complete the Varrock Tasks" ... ok ... but isn't there other modules you can also show in your profile that can display the same thing? The OP is right, a lot of them are dated, and not useful enough to keep updating to go along with all of the future content Jagex pumps out. --Deltaslug (talk) 13:12, July 8, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Related discussion at RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Template:Userbox/Item. --LiquidTalk 16:56, July 8, 2014 (UTC)

Partial support - Leave Miscellaneous section (it does have some useful and still relevant userboxes), delete others listed. 5-x Talk 17:53, July 8, 2014 (UTC)

Delete all userboxes - The only "relevant" ones I can think of can be replaced with the skills template and quest & task list template. Therefore, I don't see a need for any userboxes, kill them all with fire. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 18:23, July 8, 2014 (UTC)

Get rid of them all - None of them serve any useful purpose. Suppa chuppa Talk 18:50, July 8, 2014 (UTC)

Comment at above two - You say that because you don't use any. Some find them fun, nice additions to userpages. There are many, many userboxes that deserve to stay. 5-x Talk 19:27, July 8, 2014 (UTC)
While some may find them to be worthwhile, that doesn't mean they can't all be removed because of the drawbacks simply having them, updating, and maintaining them bring. If userboxes were all text-only, maybe I would consider keeping them. Even still, I dislike how the template namespace is used for something that is completely personal. We have the RS:NOT policy for a reason, and I think many userboxes break this policy or skirt around it. I have already deleted a few hundred such userboxes in the past, but there's only so much I can do by myself without the use of a bot. Perhaps there is a bit of personal bias here since I dislike them both aesthetically and concept-wise, but I really do feel that it's about time for them to go. Suppa chuppa Talk 20:05, July 8, 2014 (UTC)
Here you go. You know what it's like to have userboxes with redlinks on your userpage because no one can figure out how to fix the link in the template? We've deleted countless userboxes and no one cared. Using the RS namespace for userpage junk - no. I agree with Suppa above. They can make their own userboxes within their userspace. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 20:22, July 8, 2014 (UTC)

Confused support i think I see a lot of discussion about removing userboxes entirely. If thats the case, I will smack an oppose so hard down your throat you'll be in a concussion. --Sucy_orb_2.pngScuzzy BetaLuna_Nova_sigil.png 20:31, July 8, 2014 (UTC)

Why User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 21:11, July 8, 2014 (UTC)
TIL simply saying "I oppose", or threatening with concussions, is a good argument. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:35, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

Additional proposal - I think that RuneScape:Userboxes/RuneScape Religion and RuneScape:Userboxes/Kingdoms should also be eliminated. Temujin

Oppose - Come on guys, this is a really bad idea. This reminds me of the often-suggested idea of desysopping inactive admins -- despite a lot of talk and a lot of support, the argument in favor of that proposal essentially boils down to "I don't like inactive admins". In this case, the main argument seems to be "I don't like userboxes". There are some exceedingly minor maintenance reasons for why batch-deleting userboxes might make sense (and I'll explain why they're minor), but those don't outweigh either the maintenance required to remove the userboxes, nor the negative effects of getting rid of them. With both this current thread and the inactive admins one, there's been popular support for removing an unpopular entity -- either the old admins or the userboxes -- but really no good reasons to do so. People here are attacking the content of the userboxes rather than the merits of deleting them.

Reading through the comments so far, there are kind of two different proposals: the smaller, original one is to delete a subset of userboxes deemed silly or otherwise useless. The more significant one is to delete all userboxes, which has gained some support. Both are bad ideas, but for different reasons.

I am strongly opposed to deleting individual userboxes, because there's really no rhyme or reason for which ones stay and which ones go. What makes Userbox/Spell bad but Userbox/Pastimes okay? There's no logical dichotomy to be made here. It's easy to look at a dumb userbox and spout off about how dumb it is, but that's ducking the issue. We're going to delete userboxes because they don't have a "brag" factor anymore. No more quest userboxes because the completionist cape exists. No more spell userboxes because nobody trains like that in EoC. Are you fucking kidding me? Is that really the criteria now? I can't imagine trying to explain your reasoning to someone who already has that userbox on their page.

Furthermore, we really shouldn't have to justify the continuation of individual userboxes. Space is cheap, they're already there, some people like them, and it's much more work to remove them than it is to potentially maintain them (see next part). What harm is keeping {{Userbox/Kong}} bringing upon us? Because I can certainly tell you the harm of removing it.

I also think the argument of maintenance is mostly hot air. I don't have exact numbers, but it looks to me like only about 10% of the userboxes in the last two years have had their images modified. Since most of the userbox icons are inventory images and we've gotten nearly all of the inventory names settled, I see no reason why many userboxes should need to be edited in the future. It's not a serious issue, especially since we have scripts and bots now that can deal with the moving relatively easily. Compare that to the resources we'd need to wipe out the userboxes -- there are 3206 different users who have at least one userbox on their page. Removing them properly is not a trivial task. There are users with separate pages for their userboxes, some of which are linked in navboxes (Blaze fire12, while others are transcluded onto userpages. How about 5-x, who references the userboxes in the text on his page? How are we going to deal with those automatically in a way that doesn't just leave a hole in all the userpages? Deleting the userboxes is many times more time-consuming and difficult than any future maintenance could reasonably be.

That's part of a larger issue, which is that batch-deleting userboxes is, in my opinion, a massive violation of RS:DEU. It's one thing to fix a broken link or replace a filename, or in particular cases to comment out large parts of userpages if needed, but you can hardly classify removing userboxes as "maintenance". Userboxes are part of the content of userpages, and the people who put them there presumably...like them? I don't use any userboxes (besides the occasional User:Cook Me Plox/DGAF), but if I did and I came across my page one day and a bunch of stuff was missing, I'd probably be confused and maybe a bit angry, especially, if like above, I had other stuff referencing the userboxes. I don't think we necessarily have the right to edit their userpage for content on a whim. You might argue that the people who have userboxes are long gone and don't care anymore, but that's simply not the case -- over 500 users with a userbox on their page have been active in the last year. And even if they weren't, it still wouldn't be a good idea. Without significant reason to the contrary, we shouldn't be messing around with retired/inactive userpages even if we're sure they won't come back (which we're not).

This is all ignoring the fact that anyone could go and host the userboxes wherever they wanted, in their userspace, thus preserving the appearance of everyone's userpage and continuing the supposed maintenance hassle. What's to stop me from porting all of the subpages of Template:Userbox to User:Cook Me Plox/Userbox, and then changing the links? Nothing! That would solve Suppa's concern about RS:NOT, but not anything else. The reason userboxes are generally put in the template space is because multiple people use them, and it makes little sense to have a userbox in a single person's userspace that's going to be used by potentially hundreds of people. It makes even less sense to have each person have their own copy of userboxes, but those are really the two options if they're in userspace. Four years ago, the userboxes were scattered all over the template namespace and I made a proposal that moved them all to subpages of Template:Userbox. If you think things are bad now, look at some of the previous names! Moving them to various areas of userspace will fragment them worse than they were before then. The point is, anyone including me could move this all to the realm of userspace, which would make this entire thread moot.

Look, I get that people think userboxes are stupid. I do too, but I'm not in favor of deleting them, because I realize that they're harmless things that make some people happy. Don't let your personal preferences precede sound decision-making, because right now you're just trying to delete userboxes for the hell of it. You can complain about the uselessness of {{Userbox/Gudix}} all you want, but that's really not the issue. I don't see how this proposal is in the best interests of the wiki. ʞooɔ 10:28, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

You forgot to make a point about how extremely inefficient userboxes are. I think this can be solved if I modulize them. MolMan 11:46, July 9, 2014 (UTC)
Did you really have that much to write about userboxes? My god... Ancient talisman Oil4 Talk 13:07, July 9, 2014 (UTC)
^ User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 19:03, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't like userboxes either, but I am strongly opposed to this piecemeal approach to userboxes. Like Cook said, there is no consistency or formulaic way to decide which ones stay or go. The standard is literally which userboxes have someone who cares enough to drag us through a Yew Grove discussion on the specific userboxes (or at least an RfD).

As for the maintenance aspect, I would argue that this is no different than if I were to add red links to my userpage, for example, or old files, and we had to go through and comment those out or replace them. In some aspects, I would say this makes the job easier since in some cases only the userbox template has to be edited, rather than every single userpage that uses it.

The proposal to delete all userboxes in my eyes has more merit than the original proposal to delete some userboxes. However, I don't see how removing all userboxes solves anything. I, like kooC, see that as a violation of DEU. This is actual content on peoples' pages, and even if we removed userboxes from the Template space, someone can always move it over to the userspace, perhaps as User:Boxes for RSW or User:RSW Userboxes or something, and then these userboxes would be instantly untouchable and we would be forced to maintain them. I think we can all agree it's easier for maintenance if we kept them in the Template userspace. --LiquidTalk 16:26, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Cook -- Megadog14Talk 21:03, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

blah - I'd say delete the ones that are not used, but if they're still used, who are you to say they're not relevant anymore? Just because you're a higher level now doesn't mean everyone has a skillcape in everything? Oh and "how about get a summoning cape then go brag about it" is just incredibly ignorant. Level 99 is still not an easy goal to reach for everybody, so it's just ignorant to say people shouldn't be proud of something before reaching the final goal. Also, it's just a bunch of subpages of a single template page, so I don't see how it's "filling up" any space. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:54, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - After watching this for a few days wondering why this was such an issue, Cook has kindly goneover my thoughts in his post. I fully expected the suggestion to delete them all, and whilst I appreciate some people have no love for them that doesn't mean we should all go without especially given the widespread usage of them along with how much of a userpage they can make up. User:Cqm/Signature

Question - Why is it the Kongregate one in particular that you find strange? Of all the miscellaneous userboxes that seems like one of the last dumb ones. Ancient talisman Oil4 Talk 20:19, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

He thinks it's website advertisement. MolMan 20:23, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

Delete all - Per above. This stuff doesn't belong in template namespace. Ancient talisman Oil4 Talk 21:15, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - Cook's great wall of fine stuff sums up most of why this is a bad idea. We (especially me) have this odd penchant of performing large scale useless tasks when there's plenty of useful stuff to do. I'd like to repeat Cook on the bragging rights thing, though: Are you fucking kidding me?

Maintenance, as it was already said, is not a big deal. Not only is it really just a thing for the job queue, because these are transcluded and only one edit is needed, but this poor reasoning can be applied to other parts of the wiki, and we don't seem to give it a second though. What if we decided to remove the hyphen from the skill icon names? This would affect AnselaJonla's signature, which is used on more than 7500 pages. Item's change name, and I know it wasn't too long ago that I had to fire up the ol' bot to fix Dragonstone ammy --> Dragonstone amulet. The whole point to make templates is so that when a change is made, it's made everywhere. If you fixed the template, you probably fixed most of the pages. If you want to see if there are uses not from the template, it's as easy as this:

<dpl>
notuses = Template:<Template>
imageused = <File>
</dpl>

This proposal asks for more harm than good. Points 1 and 2 are the same and both have already been refuted. Points 3 are 4 and just plain stupid. I don't like userboxes; if there wasn't a reason not to delete them, I'd probably stand by idly and laugh at their demise. But that's not the case, and this seems like a waste of time; a gun jumping solution to an already maintained problem. If you think people don't know about userboxes, you may need to think again. Here comes AnselaJonla again: She's the most active new user welcomer, with a link directly to RuneScape:Userboxes in her welcome template. Until the end of last year, she (and remember she's also a very active editor constantly appearing in recent activity) also had a clear link to her list of userboxes at the top of her page. Coelacanth0794, Spineweilder, Battleben are all active editors (showing up in recent activity all the time!) as well who have userboxes on their pages.

I think it's quite odd how Wikipedia – the place that prohibits images in signatures and friendly, nonchalant conversation on talk pages – has no problem with userboxes. Per WP:USERBOXES, you can argue strongly that userboxes are actually a benefit to the project. Editing one's userpage is often the first edit a person makes after registration. A userbox is probably the first template they use. Some people may also not know exactly what they want to say, but then they see a userbox they like and decide to put it on their page. There you have it, userboxes not only let a user individualize a part of their own userspace, but it also teaches them how to utilize one of the most important things to know for editing.

This proposal comes off as a snide diatribe. Can we focus on actual issues? Like turning everything into Lua. MolMan 00:02, July 11, 2014 (UTC)

"Can we focus on actual issues? Like turning everything into Lua." It's not like deleting userboxes takes a lot of resources, and besides you can hardly expect everyone to continually work only on lua. The argument doesn't make sense. Ancient talisman Oil4 Talk 07:54, July 11, 2014 (UTC)
The very last sentence was said in jest. And deleting userboxes takes more resources than it does to do the alternative, which is make one edit to the userbox to fix an image. MolMan 12:34, July 11, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose per cook Keg of beerAtlandyBeer 01:22, July 11, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - per Cook. We have no right to edit userpages simply because we see this inoffensive content as unnecessary. Riblet15 22:36, July 11, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I do not believe that there is any merit to any argument vaguely pertaining to DEU or the modification of people's userpages or the removal of content from people's userpages. We all know that subst: exists, and if we were going to delete any number of userboxes, it would be illogical to not go around subst:'ing them first.

I additionally have a suggestion that perhaps an acceptable criteria for the deletion of a userbox could be if said userbox is inherently obsolete. I raise that idea because this has not had the slightest shred of relevance whatsoever for three years and it still existing is encouraging seriously bad practice and I want to kill it with fire.

  1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 01:32, July 12, 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, let's substitute the templates! That'll solve the maintenance problem... ʞooɔ 01:38, July 12, 2014 (UTC)
I fixed your signature, cook. MolMan 01:39, July 12, 2014 (UTC)
More seriously though, this is by far the worst idea in this thread. Substituting the userboxes increases the number of places you'd need to do image maintenance by a factor of 100. It has no positive effects but significant negative ones -- the only thing it would change is adding 50,000 new places to check if images exist.
I also don't like your suggestion for deletion criteria -- obsoleteness should not be the motivating factor. They're userboxes. ʞooɔ 01:53, July 12, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm honestly starting to think this wiki is allergic to fun. Per Cook. 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 26px-Brassica_Prime_symbol.svg.png 06:02, July 13, 2014 (UTC)

That reminds me, I need to propose to delete RS:EM, because it contains Smile and Big smile and other happy emoticons. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 16:26, July 13, 2014 (UTC)
THE WIKI IS NOT AN AMUSEMENT. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 19:16, July 13, 2014 (UTC)
FUN FUN FUN (PS. no we're Wikipedia duh) 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 26px-Brassica_Prime_symbol.svg.png 19:18, July 14, 2014 (UTC)
By the OP's logic, we should delete the Konami Code thing we have in place. Which I would be OK with...but in any case, I still think some of them need to be deleted on the grounds of being outdated... 7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko) 01:50, July 21, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Cook. Also, I'd just like to note that it's pretty funny how the majority of comments prior to Cook's comment support deleting userboxes, but as soon as he comments pretty much everyone starts opposing. Wahisietel rejuvenated chathead Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon 18:37, July 13, 2014 (UTC)

I was abstaining for a bit. Also, that's what a discussion is for. All this means is he had agreeable points. MolMan 18:42, July 13, 2014 (UTC)
The famous wall-of-text effect Ancient talisman Oil4 Talk 09:00, July 15, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - I like user boxes and I dont see the harm. it seems like the OP hates them and that is the only point for this. --User:Heavyoak/Signature 11:36, July 15, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I feel like we had this discussion before. Blaze_fire.png12.png 12:49, July 15, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Cook, also, I get quite the nostalgic feeling when I look at them, with special regards to the older ones (hope I'm not the only one who feels that way) and I just can't see what harm they are doing. Hardly malicious, are they? User:Ruud10K/Signature 14:07, July 17, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah we should totally copy Jagex and keep them for nostalgia. <.< User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 03:55, July 20, 2014 (UTC)
Rekt Blaze_fire.png12.png 01:18, July 21, 2014 (UTC)

Closed - No userboxes will be deleted. Honour Coelacanth0794 Talk Square sandwich 02:02, July 21, 2014 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.