User talk:Jack/ABs

Rules

Due to the size of this list, some guidelines have been put in place, so please follow them. Any breach of these guidelines may result in your guestbook being removed from the list. These rules were updated on the 1 May 2015.

1. Do not change the first 7 names in the list.
   
2. Keep your name on one line, this may mean making your username smaller.
   
3. Do not put any notes after your username.
   
4. Keep your name in the same format as the rest.
   
5. The list should not be alphabetized.
   
6. Add your guestbook to the end of the list.
   
7. Only remove guestbooks when the user is clearly inactive, or if their guestbook is deleted.

Rules discussion

Sounds good. I've actually been watching the page, and maintaining it myself whenever people mess up and stuff. - DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 15:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but I didn't really understand your edit to it recently.. Jack?! 19:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest alphabetical order; it's quite disorganized. · AndonicO ^Engage. 16:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs to be shown where the next person puts it. Not alphabetical order because then no-one knows who's new. Chubbennaitor 18:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been keeping it updated as well. I think these rules are good. On a non related note there are many people that havn't acctually got this list on the sign pages but they have added their name to the list. Maybe say if you do not have the list on your page then your name will be removed from the list? ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 08:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Everyone who is on that list and who was not added by themselves was added by me. I am thinking of removing some of them, especially the completely inactive users. It is not in alphabetical order on purpose, as Chubbennaitor said earlier, because it is more chronological than alphabetical, as I believe it is better this way. Jack?! 23:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Besides, you nominated this page for deletion didn't you, Andonico? Jack?! 23:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought

Well I was thinking about this. Shouldn't we remove the links that dont acctually go to a seperate page but just to the users user page? Such as :

► Soccer5525

This goes directly to his user page and therefor shouldn't really be on the page. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 07:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the guestbook on his userpage. If it isn't then remove it. Chubbennaitor 08:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently already fixed by that user...—LaPianista! ^«talk» 00:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetized

Sniperz11 alphabetized the list. I have just undone this edit in good faith. My reasoning is above as this has already been proposed and was turned down due to the fact that it should be in the order of "new users" so people that sign guest books can see what is new. I welcome any comments here. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be kept as it is. We can easily see new additions. The main use of this page is to find new guestbooks. I don't think anybody uses it to find out "Wikipedians who have guestbooks" or anything like that. So it's better to keep it in this order rather than alphabetical order, where you'll have to check the page history to find new entries. Chamal ^Talk ± 16:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah but if they just add there names on the board then it's quite easy to see new people. Chubbennaitor 18:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Addshore. The page shouldn't be alphabetized for reasons you stated and for reasons such as I wish to keep the first 10 users in that order. Jack?! 17:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for explaining, and sorry for that.... However, just a question... isn't there any way we can make it autosort, like for eg, we can choose if the list is to be datewise or alphabet-wise. TIA (Thanks in advance). Sniperz11_@^CS 11:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Owch, there probably is, but that's some coding I don't know. It's kinda date order if people just add their name on the end. Jack?! 18:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

maybe we could do this.....

Perhaps we could add "<!-- put link at bottom -->" to let people know where to put there link.Confront (talk) 08:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It changes constantly though. Chubbennaitor 17:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I added hidden comments. MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 05:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

They haven't helped. Chubbennaitor 15:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if people refuse to read the comment, of course it wouldn't work. MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 02:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The size of this

Thanks to those who've been at least trying to keep this thing neat. I added a show/hide box as it got far too big for my liking. Any opinions are welcome. Jack?! 17:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's great! I'll look for any problems. -download | sign! 20:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've used some includeonlys and noincludes to make this look better. MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 19:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou guys, your help is really appreciated. Jack?! 22:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the includeonlys here are completely useless and confusing. I'll remove them if there are no objections.

|Click [show] to view<includeonly> guestbooks</includeonly>! -download | sign! 02:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't see the comment because of them. Go ahead. Chubbennaitor 07:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the edit because the "includeonly" is used when it transcludes onto other pages (guestbooks) and since there already is a "Guestbooks" heading, I didn't repeat the word "guestbooks" again. MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 02:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no point for that; it only makes it more confusing. -download | sign! 02:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

In what manner is it confusing? MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 21:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The includeonlys are confusing. There is no point for them. In addition, when someone transcludes something, they expect what they transcluded to look the same. It is also unneccesary, just to avoid duplicates. -download | sign! 23:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Colour

Please don't change the colour of the bit which you add to get the list, I want it black. Thanks. Jack?! 03:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It really isn't needed, and actually looks bad. -download | sign! 03:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but I wanted something to differentiate. MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 04:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added a {{tlu}}, so it should look fine when transcluded. -download | sign! 04:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I respect that Math, but can I ask why it needs differentiating? Jack?! 01:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So the text stands out. MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 20:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

But why does it need differentiating? I'm a bit confused as to why, if there are already two links to the page. -download | sign! 20:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

I tidied up the list. I have removed the following from the list: any user who has made no edits in 2010; any user who has been blocked; any user who no longer exists. Please feel free to re-add yourself if I removed you in error. Thanks. -- Jack?! 23:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Columns

Hey. Why not just use something like:

<div style="-moz-column-count:6; column-count:6;">

And ditch all the col and col-break template? That way you don't need to worry about being symmetrical and stuff. ;) Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 11:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for it being neatened up, just against it being moved. -- bydand•talk 15:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move per discussion  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 02:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

---

User:Bydand/ABs → Template:Guestbook — Hey Bydand! Sorry to spam, but what do you (or everyone, for that matter) think of making this a bit more neat? We have numerous userboxes and other user templates as mainspace templates, so why not such a popular thing like this? Rehman 12:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If no one objects, I will move this to a template namespace mentioned above on the 17th of December... Rehman 07:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I'm against this move. In template namespace, certain users find it easier to nominate this for deletion. Keep it as it is, thanks! -- bydand•talk 15:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

But I'm sure no one would be dumb enough to delete it. I mean, it's even on Jimmy's page! :P Do you have any other concerns of why this shouldn't be moved? Rehman 09:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a good argument, but guestbooks aren't really a formal thing (then again, neither are userboxes). A mainspace template sounds risky. You should take a vote on it among all guestbook owners. Finalius (Ecru?!) 13:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have requested MessageDeliveryBot to deal with the notifications. Kind regards. Rehman 15:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Rehman, Jimmy didn't put it there himself! I'm just against it because of the reasons stated above, and I don't see any problem with it the way it is. -- bydand•talk 14:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur. It's a good idea, but a bit unnecessary. And Bydand deserves the credit for it. And Rehman, it has nothing to do with how dumb a user would be to delete it. Remember, you can't just delete a page spontaneously. Some highly formal users (to say it nicely) may find this not constructive. Jimbo, Bydand, and pretty much everybody on the list agrees that they are a good way to build camaraderie and loosen up, so I can't see why they would delete it either. Guestbooks sure beat vandalspaces (remember those!). I think it should stay the way it is. Finalius (Ecru?!) 14:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "Bydand deserves the credit for it"; the page history will of course be moved with the page; he'll still be the creator. And if ever there were a strong reason to take this off the main templatespace, we could always userfy it again... Rehman 12:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to move it, why not call it "Template:Guestbook list", so as not to confuse it for a template used to start an actual guestbook? Finalius (Say what?) 20:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Any title is fine (Guestbook list, Guestbooks, etc), so long it is a mainspace template. We could always have this userspace redirect to that... Rehman 01:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Rehman, your reasoning so far behind the move is to 'make it neater'. That doesn't seem enough of a reason to move it to me, and it doesn't seem there's ever been any trouble while it's been where it is now. I really appreciate that you're trying to neaten it up and make it easier to access and use, but I believe that it's easy to use and find as it is, but sure we could neaten it up (no need to alphabetise, reasons stated in the 'rules'.) -- bydand•talk 23:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suggestion

Just linked my guestbook here, didn't feel good to see this list like this, I mean this list should be arranged alphabetically. Believe me this change will give a good look. Up to you! UBStalk 15:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Feel free :) -- bydand•talk 02:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2021

Greetings from Poland! Nervy000 (talk) 13:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2023

Coming here to request that my guestbook be added to the list. I would do this myself, but... 47.227.95.73 (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Hyphenation Expert (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)