Talk:Userbar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An editor has requested that a suitable Open Directory Project category be found or created for this article.
Remove this template after one has been found or created.

1 Proud Qantas Supporter userbar
2 Userbar standards
3 UserBar Standards Shouldn't Really Be Enforced That Strictly
4 Userbars and Wikipedia
5 Factual accuracy disputed?
6 From Talk:Userbox

[edit] Proud Qantas Supporter userbar

This userbar is using horrible formatting not consistent with the userbar standards. It is a bad example and I will remove it. --Chrisjustinparr 23:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It is one of the variations of userbar invented by myself, other variations include userbar animations, they are already noted in the main article. -- CMB Transit 20:35, 24 May 2006 (BST)

If the image is removed, then the reference to the image should also be removed. It's frustrating to be given an example, without the corrisponding image. 84.67.251.85 22:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbar standards

I've seen other userbars use different fonts than the one in this article. (see the generator above). Is there a site which lists these standards? If not, then we should rename it to something on the lines as "Userbar characteristics", and mention that most/almost all userbars look look as such. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 00:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Userbars idea was inspierd by some gfx tutorials with similar idea (i don't know that it was in same standards in present userbars). The the first userbars site was userbars.com and theres was set the standards and it was bar with:

Size: 350x19 (not 350x20 size)
Font: Visitor Font any TT1 or TT2 or iven BRK version only diffrents is of this fonts is that you need to change to diffrent size. Text is also surounded with back bounder in 1px size.
Grid (some people calls it scanlines) uselly black with distance betwwen one 1 pixel, becouse sometimes may crap gfx then is not used.
1px Bouder - This is known "signature stuff" gfx's standard ;p
Glass effect in any shape (not only half-eclipes, but thay are most popular)

Most tutorials use this standards (you can see it over [1])but some people use some unstandard stuff like diffrent font or even size's ;p or newbies in userbar makeing doing userbars with diffrent font. --Shadowriver 00:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I used to think the standard userbar font was Hooge, since most pixel fonts looked like it. It doesn't seem to be like that, though... Cctoide 10:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I see someone rewrited standards... it's looks better, clearer and not too restricted then last ones ^^ Good job! Shadowriver 13:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UserBar Standards Shouldn't Really Be Enforced That Strictly

I think userbars at the end of the day are a piece of art uniquely designed by their author/designer. If we use that view point then of course it brings into the equation the issue of "What differentiates a signture from a userbar?" I guess common things are their size and the fact that they should represent a single like/dislike/hobby/etc etc which can easily be used by anyone. Signatures on the other hand come in a variety of sizes and are often alot more specific making it difficult to allow general usage.

In conclusion we run a userbar site and find that some people like the visitor font whilst others are happy to get something different? I think in the long run only the size should really distinguish what a userbar is!

Lastly whilst we're on the topic how do I get our site listed on the main userbar wikipedia page along with the other sites? Our site is http://www.signaturebar.com. Thanks [TradeDemon]

This is why i renamed standards to characteristics ;) here its most common stuff that userbar contains -Shadowriver 19:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a, no, a number of paragraphs should be devoted to how childish, pointless, and, above all, annoying these god-forsaken things are!!

[edit] Userbars and Wikipedia

I belive that to keep Wikipedia family friendly, we must remove the Adult userbar link. I will do that.

I agree... I was going to remove it, but wasn't exactly sure... Daniel15 02:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Note though that it is wikipedia policy that articles are not censored for minors Rafy 05:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully nobody has a problem with this, but I'm adding links to The Userbar Animator and The Userbar Designer that had previously been removed. These sites are pretty popular in the userbar community and I don't feel that they need to be excluded while there is an External Links section. I'm sure they will be beneficial to people looking for information on userbars. --Drunnells 23:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Factual accuracy disputed?

Why is this page tagged with "The factual accuracy of this section is disputed."? It doesn't say "A Userbar MUST have these characteristics", it says "Many userbars have the following characteristics" (and indeed, many of them do)... --Daniel15 (^Talk/_Contribs) 01:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Talk:Userbox

I've redirected userbox to this page; the following discussion was on the talk page. —Slavepersona (contact) 02:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn't cite a source. Couldn't think of one. But c'mon, Wikipedia needs an article on userboxes. Before you delete the article (whomever you are), please see if you can find a way to improve it instead. RobertAustin 23:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on Userboxes, just it is in Wikispace rather than article space, since these are specific to Wikipedia itself. The link to follow is: Wikipedia:Userboxes. I turned your article into a redirect to this pre-existing page. StoptheDatabaseState 23:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It's time to INTEGRATE Wikispace with Wikipedia! Why does one have to remember WP:Userboxes?

When - IF NOT NOW ALREADY- will Wikipedia be recognized n a culural par with Windows/Microsoft and Google? Lets see: Microsoft, Windows, Google, ..., Userbox, Userboxes.

There is not much in Userbar anyway to explain to a reader what a Userbox is!--Ludvikus 04:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your analogy isn't very accurate. The correct list would be Microsoft, Windows, Google, and Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't explain Michigan potato farming techniques, either, but that doesn't mean we must have it regardless of notability or verifiability. —slavepersona 04:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

When one types in "Userbox," they usually mean "Wikipedia:Userboxes" not "userbar." That should not redirect here, it should redirect to "Wikipedia:Userboxes," and I tried to change it, but unfortunately someone made it protected so people with common sense can't do anything to make this site a little more user-friendly. Beggarsbanquet 18:07, 16 December 2006 (EST)

Userbox and Userbar are encyclopedic articles; Wikipedia:Userboxes is a Wikipedia information page. We should not redirect encyclopedic articles to Wikipedia information pages for the same reasons an Encyclopedia Britannica article will never say "See also internal memo 20061217-01 on page i371". Following is a list of reasons (from archived discussion) we should not redirect Userboxes to Wikipedia:Userboxes.