HRWiki talk:Userboxes
From Homestar Runner Wiki
Contents |
Wikipedia User boxes
So how are those of us who already had babel boxes on our pages, but as templates, supposed to use this? Are languages eventually going into this? — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 00:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think the templates could either be converted to generic source code like the others or tweaked to fit if they don't already. — It's dot com 00:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Meant to type "tables", not "templates". — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 22:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Generic source code is good. Userboxes should be versatile, so if a user wants to change a bit of text, they can do so without creating a new template. Besides, saves a whole bunch of template creations. And that's my six cents. - Super Sam 05:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- I just have a WP:Babel box and a HRWiki:Babel box. works great! — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 10:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Generic source code is good. Userboxes should be versatile, so if a user wants to change a bit of text, they can do so without creating a new template. Besides, saves a whole bunch of template creations. And that's my six cents. - Super Sam 05:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Meant to type "tables", not "templates". — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 22:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Fun userboxes
I have a major concern with the fun userboxes. This is going to turn into the next user page crisis on this wiki. The Important notice at the top of the page says this: Please keep these boxes positive and related to your Homestar Runner experience (favorite toon, what you like to do on the wiki, etc.). Most of the fun boxes have nothing to do with one's H*R experience. If we let the fun userboxes continue, then decide they are getting out of hand, the opinions about what to do about them will be heavily divisive. This needs to be nipped in the bud, before it becomes a duplicate of Wikipedia's userbox crisis.
So what do we allow? We could say that if you want to make your own custom fun user boxes, fine, as long they don't go on the HRWiki:Userbox page. I would rather we discourage the use of fun userboxes completely, lest some users become distracted from the purpose of this wiki. Of course, this cannot be enforced. I would, nevertheless, be pleased to see the fun userboxes go. —BazookaJoe 23:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think we can't go overboard on the restrictions either. I really like the fun userboxes cuz they're that fun and they ARE all HR-related. What's wrong with a few inside references? This wiki is work, yes, but all work and no fun ... well you know the rest. However, the issue is that the fun category is so open ended, anyone can add a gazillion user boxes. My proposal is this: should any category, or the entire userbox page, get out of hand we can lock the boxes we have, and then put in place a proposal and voting system of sorts: if new boxes will be added, then can be proposed in a different page (kinda like Featured articles) and commented on wether they should be added to this page or not. --Stux 00:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any problem if people just fix it up the way they like and stick with it. Unlike Guestbooks, there's nothing requiring or even encouraging people adding to them over and over and over and cluttering Recent Changes. Plus, I didn't care for the Guestbooks much; I like these. --Jay (Gobble) 00:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think the fun userboxes are fine, as long as they are Homstar related and positive. What we don't need are negative boxes or ones that would be divisive (basically, if the subject matter wouldn't be appropriate on a user page outside a userbox (political parties, etc.), then it shouldn't go inside one either). — It's dot com 00:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- I see your arguments and do agree with you; fun cannot be restricted. But, if we have users who spend way too much time making them, deleting them, changing them, can't decide-ing them every day... that's where our crisis comes in. I want to prevent that. —BazookaJoe 00:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- We've had people do that with their signatures, though, and no one dares ban those. --Jay (Gobble) 00:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Though we are growing a little tired of can't-decide-itis with signatures, and are more readily telling people just to stick with one unchanged sig because it is associated with their identity. —BazookaJoe 01:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- We've had people do that with their signatures, though, and no one dares ban those. --Jay (Gobble) 00:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- I see your arguments and do agree with you; fun cannot be restricted. But, if we have users who spend way too much time making them, deleting them, changing them, can't decide-ing them every day... that's where our crisis comes in. I want to prevent that. —BazookaJoe 00:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think the fun userboxes are fine, as long as they are Homstar related and positive. What we don't need are negative boxes or ones that would be divisive (basically, if the subject matter wouldn't be appropriate on a user page outside a userbox (political parties, etc.), then it shouldn't go inside one either). — It's dot com 00:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any problem if people just fix it up the way they like and stick with it. Unlike Guestbooks, there's nothing requiring or even encouraging people adding to them over and over and over and cluttering Recent Changes. Plus, I didn't care for the Guestbooks much; I like these. --Jay (Gobble) 00:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Can you ever make new user boxes?
well?
Nikolce Kocovski 03:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Of course. As long as they're
positive and related to your Homestar Runner experience (favorite toon, what you like to do on the wiki, etc.)
— User:ACupOfCoffee@ 04:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I think, maybe a :this user is nice to other users.
and maybe: this user likes all that is strong bad. and lastly: this user has seem so far every sb mail.
what do you think?
Nikolce Kocovski 06:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Multiple Userboxes
If a user puts more than one Userbox section on their page, a validation error is created, as they share the title "HRWiki:Userbox". So perhaps we should note on the HRWIKI:Userbox page that all Userboxes must be in one section only? - Qermaq - (T/C) 
21:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think it's really necessary to say anything on this page. For one, how many people have more than one? And for two, there are quite a few pages out there that are invalid for far worse reasons than this. — It's dot com 01:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
To the right
Do userboxes automaticly go to the right of a userpage or do you have to make them go there yourself? -Beep 14:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- They are just like regular images. While typing the image code, do a "|left|" or "|right|" to decide which way it goes. — Seriously (Talk) 14:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks -Beep 14:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Color Combinations
As we can all see, some color combinations make it very hard to read the text. JuicyStudio to the rescue! You can test your color combinations there to see if they are accessible or not. - Qermaq - (T/C) 21:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Split Up
This page is now twice as long as the recommended length (it is 65 kb. long and pages are recommended to not be longer than 32). Is this a big enough problem to need to split this page up? Personally, I have a DSL modem, and this page has been having some upload problems for me when somebody has made a change to it. If we need to split it up, I recommend that we put all the store userboxes to a different page. So, what does everybody else think? -AtionSong 17:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
