Talk:437

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.

Saying Userboxes are not encyclopedic is an empty argument. It's like saying they are not allowed on content pages, so therefore they should not be allowed on content pages. The boundaries of what is included in 'encylopedic' are abitrary. A better argument against including Userboxes on LGPedia content pages would be that they are confusing, add clutter, mess up formatting, or take up space without adding much useful information (if these are true and cannot be fixed easily). But there may be stronger reasons to include Userboxes on content pages - they are fun, they encourage participation in LGPedia, they add a method for motivated individuals to put a touch of creative/humor into the LGPedia, they actually are well formatted and do not take up that much space, etc. Even if Userboxes are not widely used on content pages, perhaps they should be selectively included, e.g. on character description pages, or video description pages, or on other LG15 related topic pages, or on fan topics such as this one about the 436. Different decisions might apply to different pages. A Userbox might belong here, as an "other example" of past 436 usage, but not on a video summary page, for instance. ~ QtheC 07:17, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

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)

I have already addressed your relegation of that info from the content page to the talk page - it's not really the purpose of the talk pages to hide bonus content on them. ~ QtheC 07:17, 19 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. The reason I keep removing it is because it's your change that was disputed, not my removal of it. In a dispute situation, the page gets reverted to the state it was in before the disputed information was added, and then a conversation takes place as to why it is being disputed. You don't get immunity because "you were here first". 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)

Actually, first you deleted my contribution without any comment or explanation, stepping on my toes. When I asked for one, you gave an initial reason above which was that it did not "explain" the 436. That isn't true, but I modified my addition to include a comment to clarify that it was an example of the 436 to address your explanation. Then you deleted it again. So I changed it to a text link rather than actually putting the Userbox on the page. And you deleted that. Eventually, you said that the Userboxes are not 'encyclopedic.' I have addressed that above. This is a bit silly, but there it is.

What is more troubling to me as someone that wants to play by the rules and make occasional positive contributions to this resource is your attitude that you can arbitrarily delete inoffensive content/edits repeatedly in the way you have here. It's disrespectful and unwelcoming. If there is something that is obscene or makes a personal attack or something egregious like that, sure it should be deleted quickly. But for a minor content addition, it is not good policy for users to delete each other's edits first and expect the author to somehow gain approval before getting the material in question restored. That's no way to operate, and this conflict is the result. You need to attempt to reach an compromise/agreement first before deleting such material, not the other way around. ~ QtheC 07:31, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

Fine, it can stay (for now) until we can get an admin to comment. DO NOT add the userbox back to the LG15 Today page, though. That is adding something disputed to a page. DON'T DO IT. - Shiori 07:37, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

As an aside, the only reason I'm allowing this is because I don't want to argue over the same points. People are agreeing with me in spades, but you're not seeing it. What we should be doing is removing all reference to userboxes from the 437 page and this talk page, and leaving this comment to the Userbox page, where it belongs. - Shiori 07:40, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

436 Userbox

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

436	This userbox does not exist.

humor?

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