Difference between revisions of "Talk:437"

Revision as of 12:00, 19 March 2008

Please don't remove my edits without explaining why. ~ QtheC 12:00, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

The reason I removed the userbox is because it really isn't explaining the 436 phenomenon, and it's easily found elsewhere. Of course, we could tack it on in here... - Shiori 17:07, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

Thanks for explaining. I restored the 436 Userbox as an example of the 436, adding text telling readers to highlight it rather than leaving the hidden text as an 'easter egg.' The hidden text exists, yet it does not just like the 436, an existential dualism.

I think the point of the 436 and 437 pages, as well as 'breeniversisms' is to share the humor of this odd idea that grew out of the comments page, and that was why I created this Userbox in the first place several months ago.

Really, I think all the information on the 437 page probably belongs on the 436 page or related discussion page as it is already a reach that newer users will find 437 - it may be a little too obscure in my opinion, though 436 purists may disagree - further relegating something to 437 discussion page is even more obscure. I'm also not sure where else this Userbox could be found (other than on my user page), or whether there is a better location than this article. ~ QtheC 04:55, 11 March 2008 (CDT)

All of the userboxes can be found here: Category talk:User templates, and the 436 template is on there. We really shouldn't be putting userboxes on any pages other than that one or User pages.- Shiori 07:14, 11 March 2008 (CDT)

Why not? Seems arbitrary. ~ QtheC 20:38, 17 March 2008 (CDT)

All userboxes available are on that page. Those who know about userboxes and want to use them go there to get them. Those who don't know about userboxes will ask and be pointed to that page anyway - posting userboxes elsewhere is redundant and unfair towards other box creators whose creations don't appear on actual content pages. I don't see my Girl Tied Up userbox promoted on Girl Tied Up, for example...

~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 21:13, 17 March 2008 (CDT)

It's not a question of fairness, but of consistency. Of course, if Userboxes are okay to put on some content pages such as this one, then they should be okay to put on other content pages such as Girl Tied Up. I see another user has decided to edit out even a reference to the 436 Userbox on this page. I don't like this kind of arbitrary censorship - I think it is not conducive to the kind of collaborative effort we all want for the LGPedia. I could just as easily edit out this user's additions to the "Breeniversisms" page (that I created), for instance, and we could have a lovely editing war that no one wants. So instead, I am taking this up with a lead moderator. If the answer in this instance is that the LGPedia moderators would prefer not to have the clutter of Userboxes anywhere besides the User pages, I will respect that, even if it is not my preference here. I would still propose that links to such userboxes be acceptable on content pages - it's supposed to be fun right? ~ QtheC 23:18, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

I don't know if there's a rule, guys, but i agree with Shiori that userboxes shouldn't go on general content pages. --Milowent 21:10, 17 March 2008 (CDT)

I'm going to post what I put on the User templates talk page here, since I think it's a good write-up of exactly why userboxes shouldn't go on content pages:

The reason we don't add information about userboxes to topic pages is, not only is it not encyclopedic (do you see Wiki doing this?), but in order to have any use for a userbox you have to actually have a user page AND want a userbox. If you haven't noticed the majority of our contributors are anonymous, without user pages. I think it's safe to assume that the vast majority of people reading the wiki would have no interest in userboxes.

That's not to say that I hate userboxes (I love them!), and that's why I compromised and said we could include it here. - Shiori 23:33, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

Also, please, for the love of [deity], do NOT put the userbox information back onto the page until this conversation is completed. If you keep it up, some people may see it as vandalism (just warning you). - Shiori 23:39, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

You have it backwards, Shiori. It is closer to 'vandalism' for you to troll and delete my minor contributions abitrarily without first engaging in and completing a discussion, which is why I brought this to the attention of the lead moderator last night. How would you like it if I treated your contributions in the same way? e.g. I could just as easily delete your recent SMAD addition to the Breeniversisms page and insist you have a discussion to get approval for it before adding it there. Whether Userboxes are included on content pages is one issue and I have initiated a discussion about it both here and on the Userbox page, but your heavy handed editing/deletion of positive contributions is not welcoming or good policy and not in line with the best interests of this shared resource. ~ QtheC 06:54, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

Look, I really don't want to get in an argument over this, but you have no precedent at all to have added it in the first place. I gave an adequate explanation as to why it was removed, and we're discussing that. I don't see why you seem to think this is a personal attack. (BTW, my addition of Smad was something completely unrelated; it had its own page, and I figured it should just be added rather than floating around randomly. I don't even care for the term, so go ahead and remove if you want.) - Shiori 06:58, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

436 Userbox

Fans of the 436 may want to use this "Userbox"

humor?

i seriously don't understand what you guys are talking about. you're a bunch of goofs. - platy march 13