Wikipedia talk:Userbox migration/Archive 5

User Box Migration

I am Tbone55, and have a few Userboxes, I wanted to know how to migrate them.

thanks.

--'•Tbone55•^{(Talk) (Contribs)(UBX)} 17:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the project page (Wikipedia:Userbox migration)? That tells you how to do so. If you did and still don't know, try asking at the help desk. –The Great Llama^{sign here} 21:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• The basic idea is quite simple: move the userboxes via pagemoves from templatespace to your userspace to a good location (like from "Template:User SomeUBox" to "User:Tbone55/Userboxes/SomeUBox") and possibly then add your boxes to one of the big archives out (or feel free to add them to my small archive). Finally, you should update incoming links to the old location (Template:User SomeUBox) to point to the new one ("User:Tbone55/Userboxes/SomeUBox"). After that the old location should have no more incoming links and may be deleted - feel free to contact one of the admins here to do that. If you need a hand or some more details, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Best wishes! CharonX/talk 00:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty good summary there. I guess that qualifies me as "one of the admins" now, so you can ask me. Although don't ask me about AWB. Ask a poor PC user instead. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Sorry for not actually answering your question. I was in a hurry to answer it so I wouldn't get an edit conflict. –The Great Llama^{sign here} 19:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Testing...again

Test case number 2 has also resulted in a speedy keep. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Gerg/Userboxes/User Republican for the full discussion. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• (I know I will be accused by Centrx that I "advertise" something, but since it does affect WP:UM I feel I should post it here.) In related news, Dmcdevit speedy deleted User:Xiner/Userboxes/Pro-Life Pro-Abortion under T1 and its right now under deletion review. I won't mind seeing a proper MfD on it (and abiding whatever the result may be), but those speedy deletions always give me the creeps. CharonX/talk 16:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Next test case (or not). {{user browser}} was nominated for MFD (yes, MFD) at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User browser. So, I told them to renominate at TFD, but I'll ask here if anyone wants to adopt it in the meantime. I personally think this one might be one of the more useless userboxes (like the food ones), so I'm not going to adopt it. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Userbox Migration with Auto Wiki Browser and the principle of RegExTypoFix

I have been thinking about this subject and have posted some ideas at User:Flutefluteflute/AWB, RETF & UBM. Please give your comments on the talk page of that page. Flutefluteflute ^{Talk Contributions} 13:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

New type of Userbox Migration

I added a new type of userbox migration to the main article. It is called "UserPage to UserPage Userbox Migration" and can be used for moving userboxes from one userpage to another. I hope you guys like it!

Masky 23:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I justed used the code from the other one to do user-user ones before. This should be useful too. As seen above, some people want out once and a while. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Very nice! I like it alot CharonX/talk 01:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Userbox Migration

This recently created project seems to overlap somewhat with this page; I though a link might be a good idea. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to do with that page, but a we're not affiliated is in order. This page is part of WikiProject Userboxes. For the upteenth time, we are in no way affiliated with Wikiproject Userboxes. We rejected the move, and we rejected the merge. I think furthermore the idea (as above) was to keep this as decentralized as possible. That's why this is just a page, with a bunch of people who are migrating boxes, instead of a formal wikiproject with members who's jobs include migrating userboxes (sorry for the rant). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

theres a girl named scepia and all she did was take my user boxes so now i have too delete them and find new ones--Masterlauryn 23:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)masterlauryn

No, you can still use them. It's ok to use boxes that are hosted in somebody else's userspace. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

TFD

(clearing the dust off the page)The userbox Template:User kkk has been nominated for deletion. It appears that it's heading for a "userfied" consensus. The problem: who would like to adopt the box? I have already said that I refuse to on principle. So, I guess that if no one wants it, we can safely delete it then. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind then, someone speedied the template. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Migration template problem, please help?

Houston, we have a problem... I'm trying to migrate two userboxes using the {{User UBM UBX to}} template, but ran into a problem. The userbox templates are improperly named, as they don't start with the word "User ", therefore, the migration template doesn't QUITE work correctly. How can I still move them? I'm not familiar enough with templates to use subst:. Any hints, tips, solutions? Thanks. 0cm 01:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. I put the box onto {{Kafka's Castle}} (using the raw code). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 19:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) 0cm 20:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Next Test

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/User onemanonewoman is at MFD. The userfied box is {{User:UBX/onemanonewoman}}. The difference between this and other times that userfied boxes have been up for deletion is that this one has several recommendations of delete! I also think that the deletion of this box would basically be a rejection of TGS/GUS/UBM and all the work that has been done here. The rejection of UBM is basically calling for the Userbox Wars to restart. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, closed as keep (it must have been per WP:SNOW). Only three days were given though, so we might want to watch WP:DRV for the next couple days just in case. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Precedents

I've stated a page with all the TFD/MFD/DRV decisions involving userfied userboxes that I can find/remember at User:Royalguard11/userboxes/precedents. If anyone finds anything, or if I've missed anything, feel free to add to it. I know that there are a few TFD cases that had results of defer to MFD, but I can't remember months/days. This should make it easier to refer to past decisions and precedents, and it will make them easier to find. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking hard, but I'm not sure if I can recall any additional. I'll check my contributions, maybe I'll find something. You're doing a real good job Roayalguard, serious props :D Edit: Before I forget it, I recall some deletion nominations for userboxes at TfD, but all of them got closed (default keep) since they were faulty nominations and the nominators pointed to MfD. CharonX/talk 03:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

User:UserBox

Has anyone seen this page? I think we need to implement a solution. you take a look at User talk:Scepia where hate has been generated over "ownership" of content that no one has ownership of. Can we move all of them to UserBox's userspace? It puts them in the User Name space, and no one has ownership. Can we do something like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mckaysalisbury (talk • contribs)

No and no. We've talked about this before, and the answer is no. The idea was to decentraize this, and nobody owns anything. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure, but I think you misunderstood. User:UserBox makes for a nice place to store stuff, that emphasizes lack of ownership. I referenced User talk:Scepia, because on that page, he has been flamed with people who think that he is "stealing" ownership. Scepia has moved userboxes to his space, as per wikipedia policy, and it has generated a lot of ill feelings. I think something should be done, and I think the User:UserBox solution does that. It isn't decentralized, and I can see how that might be a disadvantage, but I'm not sure. Can you point me to where this discussion occured about no decentralization? McKay 20:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

See #The user "UserBox". -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

See User:UBX for another version of this approach that was created by an admin with a bot. Rfrisbie 16:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• UBX subpages Rfrisbie 17:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports: Examples of userfied UBX boxes in Wikipedia space directory. Rfrisbie 17:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Judo is "controversial" and/or "divisive"?!?

"All controversial and divisive userboxes, including those currently in Wikipedia:Userboxes will be migrated out of template space into userspace or an appropriate subpage, such as a corresponding WikiProject."

Scratching me head here guys... what's so disturbing about Judo? --Mal 18:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because it doesn't fall under T1 doesn't mean it belongs in templatespace. A TFD would most likely result in a userfy decision. Some people might see it as unencyclopedic. Although, being good at Judo could provide some first-hand encyclopedic knowledge. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply RG. A pretty obvious reason really, now that I rememmber all the hassle regarding userboxes while back. I was just momentarily bedazzled and confuddled when I went to look for the explaination - it was scant, and the creator of the template (me) wasn't informed of the change. As a matter of fact, it came on the tail of my nice wee animated GIF, that I had uploaded for the userbox, having been deleted. I was about to investigate, then I noticed the box itself had gone soon after! Boy I could've crushed a grape that day, I can tell ya!

Anyway, what I did find irritating was the lack of edit history after the move .. thus I can't find the history (or name of) the animated Gif which had been deleted, to find out why it had been deleted. I had wondered if I included a source reference when I uploaded the image. If you're an admin, and you've got a spare five mins, I'd be mightily grateful if you could investigate for me. In any case, cheers. :) --Mal 20:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:UBX

Am I the only one who finds it curious that MetsBot (talk · contribs) and DyceBot (talk · contribs) are busily migrating userboxes to UBX (talk · contribs) (current listing)? Is this just flying under the radar? Is it because Metsbot's daddy is Mets501 (talk · contribs), an admin? Maybe I just missed the memo. This certainly looks like a missed opportunity for a rousing round of wikidrama. Could someone clue me in? I'm so out of touch, I might as well herd my herd over to UBX and retire from the boxen wrangling business. ;-) Rfrisbie 16:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, odd. No idea either. Still, as long as no admin takes er... rash actions against that user, I approve. In any case, I'll use a wait-and-see approach before I do anything. CharonX/talk 21:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've also been wondering about that, and have assumed Mets was unaware that this was tried before. I'm keeping my fingers crossed and hoping nothing happens. —Ashley Y 07:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care as long as nothings get mass deleted. Mets is a BAG member and an admin, so I trust that he knows what he's doing. I think I'll keep my userbox archvie for the moment though. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

As usual, there seems to be one set of rules for admins and something else for the rest of us. I really am ready to migrate out all of the boxes at User:Rfrisbie/Userbox and all of the directories at User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes. Any takers? Rfrisbie 22:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Mets is really good to work with and his bot is pretty efficient. You could contact him directly. --NThurston 22:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll probably give it a go. Rfrisbie 22:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks NThurston :-). Anyway, Rfrisbie, I would recommend against moving all the userboxes out of your userspace and updating transclusions, as that would require thousands and thousands of edits, but if you really think it's necessary then I would do it (you should also read User:UBX first so you are clear on the use of that user domain). —METS501 (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Mets501, I'll take you up on the offer, reluctant as it may be, to migrate the boxes at User:Rfrisbie/Userbox. Rfrisbie 02:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mets501! All of these boxes (plus many others) now can be found at User:UBX. :-) Rfrisbie 21:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course admins get to do things the rest of us don't. Look at the mess surrounding List of Internet phenomena for more examples. I'm about to give up on Wikipedia permanently because admins can get away with stuff that gets regular users blocked. -- Jay Maynard 22:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! Hold it a minute with the harsh words for admins. :-) This has erupted in mass confusion and controversy, while all I have been trying to do is satisfy all parties. Please forgive me for the confusion, which I think many of you are caught up in. I have explained what User:UBX is for fully on the user page (User:UBX). Thanks again. —METS501 (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Userbox directories looking for a home

I have decided the time is ripe for me to divest myself from hosting userboxes and userbox directories. If anyone would like to host User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes and its accompanying subpages, please let me know. Rfrisbie 02:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd happily host them at User:UBX, if you want, but I think fixing the transclusions would just been tons of extra unnecessary edits, unless you are using your m:right to vanish or something of that sort. —METS501 (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free to make the moves. Fixing tons of transclusions is up to you. I can only assume it would be far easier for a bot to do such things than how I did it. I'm not claiming a right to vanish, just the right to divest myself of the userboxes and directories. Rfrisbie 02:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

So you don't mind if userboxes which already transclude your subpages continue to (or really, they'd be transcluding a redirect)? I will start the moves in a couple of days. —METS501 (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite follow the question, so here's what I prefer. All userboxes and directories will be moved from User:Rfrisbie. All redirects at User:Rfrisbie created by these moves will be bypassed. All subsequently empty redirects at User:Rfrisbie will be deleted. I believe this is the general process you have followed with the userbox migrations you have made to date. Whatever timetable works for you is fine with me. Thanks. Rfrisbie 03:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's 16,679 edits though, so it will take a LONG time, assuming you're still sure you want it done :-). —METS501 (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know. They didn't walk over there on their own. >;-o) Since time is an illusion, I'm in no hurry. Thanks again. :-) Rfrisbie 15:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you feel the need to get out Rfrisbie. I know that you did just a ton of work with this from WP:TGS. You definitely have all our thanks for that. Good luck in the future though! -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The main reason I got into this little activity was I felt too many users were being mistreated by too many admins. This uneasy truce seems to have held well enough. The addition of admins like yourself and Mets501 willing to champion and protect boxes is a good sign. The common sense addition of a proxy user site is the golden opportunity I've been looking for to bequith my legacy and move on. This place is just too darn annoying to stick around forever. Rfrisbie 00:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the good old times... well, they were not good... Anyway, take a good breater mate, it really helps to clean one's mind (did the same a while ago) - but don't think you can escape the lure of wikipedia - sooner or later you'll be back :D Still, in the meantime, enjoy your break. We'll (well, mainly Royalguard and the rest of the crew, me being the usual lazy git I am) hold the fort. CharonX/talk 04:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my "wikibreak" is a bit of a busman's holiday. I'm still playing by the continuation rule and trying to tie up as many loose ends as I can. But for me, the load has lightened considerably. I didn't say I quite or retired, but I will be a bit more picky on how I get involved. I definitely won't get involved in any more epics like this one. :-) Rfrisbie 15:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mets501! All of these directories now can be found at User:UBX/Userboxes. :-) Rfrisbie 21:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Petition to stop the Userbox Migration

Does anyone else disagree with the userbox migration? I find it very unnecessary seeing as putting {{User ....}} is easier than {{User:User/lala/lala/Userbox}}. This is just a stupid idea. -23_PatPeter*∞ 02:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't. We've been over this a million times before. Get over it, it's not going to change. Just because some people disagree with this, it's not going to stop. You don't like it? Many other people don't either. Want to protest? Then be one of the userbox purists that refuses to use userfied boxes and be over it. You are not going to change anything by basically spitting in our hard working faces. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I know this is a tough area, but please, Royalguard, try to stay civil. By just mentioning the fact of typing, I don't think that this user fully understands why the migration is taking place. —METS501 (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Then the solution to that is obvious. Don't complain unless you know the story behind it first. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 03:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if I would be considered to "know the story behind it".... That aside, I think the "solution" is to not bite the newbies. Oh and by the way: Wikipedia:Consensus can change - so saying that no discussion is allowed because it's "been discussed before" is simply inaccurate, to say the least. Note, nowhere in these comments am I commenting on the current, and recent actions of userfication, merely on the questionable civility and wikiquette I've been witnessing. - jc37 11:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize then if I've been too harsh. I've just goten a little sick of everyone coming here going "oh, this sucks, it's inconvenient, ect". Although people are allowed to express their opinions, this isn't the complaints department. This isn't the place for everyone to come and yell at us or tell us what we've worked hard on is stupid. If you want to change consensus, then ask others at a more prominent place. WP:VP is a good place to start, telling us we're stupid is not. I'm not sure if anyone knows the "full story" behind this anymore (I don't even know the full extent of it, but I know quite a bit of it). But it does help if you know the basics of why (reading the page is a good start). When someone comes here and says "I think we should propose an end to the userbox standoff" then that's a good place to start. "This is just a stupid idea" isn't. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Trimming the kudzu a bit - comment

I did a bit of Kuzdu trimming on the userpage (shifting some wording, removing some striken-trough or obsolete parts, the usual stuff) - feel free to comment, change or revert. CharonX/talk 14:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Userspace Userbox Deletion

There's a new attempt to purge controversial userboxed even from userspace, and even an attempt to add a new CSD criterion. See for instance

• Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#CSD-U4: Polemical userspace transclusions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/Zionist
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/EndUN
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ursasapien/Userboxes/antiDIME
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Selfworm/Userboxes/NotCatholic (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 22

—Ashley Y 21:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Are they for real about this? -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, there are 3 more listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 27. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Un-organized Migration

Why can we not simply move userboxes to the namespace http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UserBox/? Userboxes do not belong on user pages because they are used by everyone, and do not belong in templates because they are not that kind of thing. They are their own catagory and should be dealt with as such. If all the user boxes were moved to a place like that, everyone would be happy (other than those who want them all gone, which isn't going to happen any time soon). The userboxes would have their own place at Wikipedia, and would be out of the way of anyone not wanting to deal with them. If you don't want them to come up in searches, uncheck that namespace. If you want to search only userboxes, go ahead. It makes everything simple. There are a lot of user boxes, and many duplicates. It is a very poor system as it is. Also, the same kind of thing could be done with other pages that are their own catagory but don't really have a place yet; such as to seperate tools from article page templates. SadanYagci 18:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The proposal for that was the May Userbox Policy Poll (meaning May '06). It was rejected, and this was born from the ashes of it. Userboxes in people's archives are usable by everyone, and changeable by everyone. Nobody own's a userbox. They can't even get them speedy deleted under U1 (I've double and triple checked that). And if you ask the right people, they think all userboxes should be nuked regardless of where they are, and they don't actually have their own place at Wikipedia (more part of the culture, but not part of the fabric or Wikipedia). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Guideline?

This seems to have become a guideline, particularly considering the results of most of the above. I think guidelines can be recognised from existing practice.

What do you think, is this now a guideline? —Ashley Y 05:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to have taken the long road of just becoming the de facto standard, so I'd say it is a basic guideline by now. But I know there would also be significant opposition to any change of this to a guideline. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 19:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we could start a discussion whether this is a guideline or not, purely based upon that it is commonly used. The attempt to widen T1 has failed too, and inversely resulted in a clarification that T1 does not apply to userspace, so that's a nice result too.84.145.203.25 23:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've marked it as a guideline as it seems to have consensus, has been stable for awhile, and is mentioned in the policy WP:CSD. —Ashley Y 05:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good so far, no major userbox-related flareup for a while (except that bit of trouble with a T1 deletion during a MfD four weeks agi, but that one was quickly overturned and the MfD resumed and properly finished). A week ago a box got deleted via MfD (I though it was a borderline case, but thats what consensus finding is for) and another box is heading for an overwhelming keep right now. Ahhh, tranquility and entire lack of wikidrama. 84.145.195.64 00:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a guideline or policy. - jc37 01:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

While I could argue that it is now de-facto accepted by the community, and thus went the bottom-up way of becoming a guideline I feel there is little gained in arguing with you whether is a guideline or not. The important thing is that people are accepting it. Though if User:^demon speedy deletes an userbox arguing WP:UBM is not official then I know which admin I'll blame for it :p Still, I'd be curious to hear why you are against this being a bottom-up guideline. 84.145.195.64 03:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

UBM guideline

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Any reason it's not a guideline? Over the last year, it has been accepted by the majority of the community, and many userboxes have been migrated according to UBM. It has become a de facto guideline, so why not just call it what it has become? -Royalguard11(T·R!) 18:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Being the pet project of several editors with bots doesn't make it a guideline. The biggest problem with it is that there is no process of reversal. Anyone who opposes userfication of a specific userbox may be merely "run over" by this, and have little to no recourse. Compare to DRV for XfD discussions. Or how we have a multi-tiered dispute resolution process. In addition, there's the question of ownership. Not to mention that the current concensus (AFAIK) is that userboxes are allowed in template space. (See Wikipedia:Userboxes for more information about userboxes and namespaces.)

But all of that aside, it's never been a Wikipedia guideline, it's always just been a "just do it" essay.

I hope this clarifies. If not feel free to ask. - jc37 22:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but Wikipedia:The German solution was never the "pet project" of several users. It was the solution to the overheated debate on userboxes and where they belonged. If you actually look through the talk archives, you'll see that there never was an ownership question. The boxes are adopted by a user, who does not own them. Anyone can still edit them and use them at their pleasure. And no, a user can't speedy delete them under U1. That was addressed months ago with the overwhelming consensus among all wikipedian's was the answer was no (look under CSD). And you don't need to tell me what pages to look at. I was part of the migration, and still have an archive hosted in my userspace. So no, I don't need any clarification, because I was part of the movement. So you might just want to watch who your talking down to. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 23:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

First, I am not, and was not talking "down" to anyone. My apologies if you took it that way.

Second, I was and have been involved with The Userbox Discussion since before that page existed, and during its whole lifespan. As I had presumed you knew, since you and I have been in discussions together in the past. But I understand memory is a fleeting thing (the things that I know that I have forgotten from my youth...)

And no, there was never "one" solution to the debates, there were several (including the T1 speedy criteria). Not to mention innumerable proposed policy pages. The last of which was finally merged to Wikipedia:Userboxes, after much heated debate.

The only reason that userbox migration actually happened is that a few users with bots userfied en masse. It was still quite in dispute at the time. But without a dispute resolution process, what could the users do but give up in the face of the boxes being moved dispite their concerns?

Honestly, the whole page could be summed up by:

• Any userbox concerning an issue or a philosophy (including politics or religion) in template namespace should be userfied to userspace. (Followed by some statement of "just do it"...)

The rest are allowed in template space, and any that don't, likely don't belong in userspace either.

I've thought about MfDing the page for quite a while, but I think in the end, some sentence like the above would get merged to WP:UBX, and the migration pages marked as historical. Shrugs. WP:UBX already states pretty clearly what's allowed in each namespace. Do we really need a page which is essentially a statement to Be bold? Probably not. - jc37 23:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, T1 was never a solution, it was a clique of admins unanimously deciding what is and isn't allowed on wiki. And the bots really just got involved this year, while most of the work was actually done Summer-Fall 2006. The consensus at that time was that all the politically charged boxes, religion, philosophy, ect boxes should be moved. The only people mad were the ones who couldn't find a userbox (and some people did actually complain about "their" userbox being moved). I'm not sure the consensus has swung full 180 back to all boxes in template space yet (most politics boxes are still in userspace). I know that Tony is mostly inactive, Cyde left the userbox debate a while ago along with Mackenson, and I'm not sure Doc's been involved for a long time, so the anti-userbox people have mostly moved on. If you need to see where WP:UBM has been cited, you can look at User:Royalguard11/userboxes/precedents. Most of those have ended the way they did because of UBM. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 23:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Taking your thoughts in order:

• X "...was never a solution, it was a clique of admins unanimously deciding..." Y - Sound familiar? Perhaps nearly every other notice at WP:AN about "admin abuse"? : ) - It doesn't matter what X was, whether we're talking about T1, Userbox migration, or just about anything else under discussion on Wikipedia.

• Incidentally, as I recall, T1 was hugely discussed (as was an even more controversial T2, which never found consensus). But I don't either one of us wants to get distracted in a T1 discussion... (Besides, I think it's been well tempered by the last Userbox policy initiative discussion, which resulted in clearly showing that it's potential negative comparison and general negativity which are in general to be considered "divisive" in relation to T1.)

• "And the bots really just got involved this year, while most of the work was actually done Summer-Fall 2006." - This is 2007. And I seem to recall several involved even from the start. (I honestly don't wish to go into questions of "good faith" of the bot owners, because there is simply no way to know, and I would like to presume good faith.)

• "The four" - I think it's likely a case of them just not caring anymore (something about more important things to concern themselves with), and the fact that the community itself had/has developed a bit of fatigue about the whole thing. There are more than a few users who "just want the whole thing to just go away"... (And of course, user fatigue about a topic does not equal community approval.)

• Also, after reading over the list of examples you provided, most of them followed the "State what you like, rather than what you don't like. State who you are, rather than who you aren't." It seems that there was a sense that the community felt this way even back then... Which may be part of why they weren't deleted in the end?

Anyway, to simplify, I realise that there are those who like the idea, and those who don't. At this point, however, it's somewhat verbosely duplicative of a part of Wikipedia:Userboxes (and a whole lot of "other stuff" which only exists on the page for historical responses to critics), with a credo of "Just do it", with little to no accountability or user recourse for dispution of action. (Not to mention that the "migration" is often misconstrued by editors to mean that no userfied userbox can be deleted, which is obviously quite simply not true.) Or put another way, it's a combination of several essays explaining the whys and hows of userfication, combined with references to several existing policies and guidelines for presumed justification (as essays often do), and a suggestion to WP:IAR, and Be bold. It's not a guideline. - jc37 06:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moved the discussion here for transparency. Feel free to join in, or to continue the discussion below, obviously. - jc37 19:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• Proposal I propose that this is indeed a guideline following how policies are made The codification of current convention and common practice which already have wide consensus. These are proposals that document the way Wikipedia works. and the definition of guideline A guideline article is any page that: (1) recommends actions that editors should either take or avoid; and (2) reflects consensus.. CharonX/talk 01:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There are essays which would meet that criteria. (WP:SNOW comes to mind, for example.) This isn't a guideline.

Incidentally, I've been considering putting this up for MfD. I'd be interested in your thoughts as to why you feel what this page proposes is a "good idea". - jc37 10:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* You are the only one that contests that this is a guideline. List the page at MfD if you want, though I seriously doubt you'll like the result - but maybe it would give you a new perspective. I don't believe I'd be able to convince you anyway (see the our long discussion about T1 and userspace). But what I'll do is gather some outside information, like posting a notice at the village pump or a RfC CharonX/talk 13:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Honestly, I don't think there are many who even care anymore, which is, I think, more to the point. Though I would be interested in the results of a village pump/RFC/whatever discussion. And as I read back over my comment above, it came across a bit harsher (at least to me) than intended. I sincerely am looking for perspectives which explain how this is useful for the future. From what I saw in the past it was essentially: "this is what we did, and no one stopped us". Or in other words "being bold". Which is a part of WP:IAR. Which is part of why this can't be a guideline, even if it's kept. - jc37 18:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's alright. I see two main points on why this should be kept, and in fact should be considered a guideline. First of all, it has been accepted as a "solution" to userbox troubles. If a userbox is listed at TfD for being not-NPOV (which almost all the TfDs of userboxes boil down to) the whole "I hate that box, Wikipedia should be NPOV, delete it!" / "OMG! That is a totally reasonable opinion. Don't delete my userbox!" circus can be avoided by userfying the box - and the argument cited is often "per WP:UM / WP:UBM". On the other hand, should the userbox issue flare up again this page acts as a sanity check or indicator of the consensus at the end of the 'wars, along the lines of "We already have gone through the whole issue. Look here, a compromise was found, unless you find a new consensus, stick to the old one and don't unilaterally go against it." In that sense, I feel it grew beyond simply IAR, because it reflects current practice on how userboxes are handled on Wikipedia. CharonX/talk 19:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand that your concerns are about NPOV userboxes, and mine are about divisive/polemic userboxes. If you look over the current guidelines on Wikipedia:Userboxes, NPOV concerns are already dealt with (as are divisive concerns). These were a result of several discussions over a couple years, the last of which resulted in the "Userbox policy proposal" being merged with WP:UBX. We just need to get the enthusiastic userbox creators to actually read and follow the guidelines : ) - jc37 02:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think this should be a de-facto standard in WP:UBX. Why not merge this into the main Userbox policy page? Given that it's applied anyway, and that would cement its status as part of said guideline, I think that would be the best solution. Otherwise, I would support this being recognized as a guideline. -- Kesh 20:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggested in a discussion above that something like the following could easily be merged to WP:UBX:

• Any userbox concerning an issue or a philosophy (including politics or religion) in template namespace should be userfied to userspace. (Followed by some statement of "just do it"...) The rest are allowed in template space, and any that don't, likely don't belong in userspace either.

Though I'd also like to see it clarified that divisive userboxes don't belong anywhere. WP:UM (or any other page for that matter) does not suggest or allow that such userboxes are "saved" by being moved to Userspace. - jc37 02:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the divisive must be deleted argument... Who decides WHAT is divisive? The user who slaps a CSD note on a userbox? The administrator who deletes a userbox citing T1? Even the userbox "This user hates the colour red" is - technically - divisive, as it definitly divides users in two groups: The users that hate the colour red, and those that don't (or don't say). In a way it is like saying "inappropriate userboxes must be speedy deleted on sight" and leaving the definition of inappropriate up to the deleter - and I'm against a blank cheque of this type; both from my philosophy (stick to the rules, the right of free expression, tolerance even to things we do not approve of) and the troubled past we had with userboxes - I am just no longer able to assume good faith that this kind of ruling would not be abused. CharonX/talk 13:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that Wikipedia:Userboxes makes it rather clear what can be considered divisive. And use of the word "hate" or words like it, is a clear example. I think that the idea that some things may not be considered "as bad" as others (like hating a locally opposed sports team, or the colour red), is actually what is problematically subjective in this case. "I want it" seems rather close to WP:ILIKEIT. - jc37 15:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I chose "hate" on purpose here. I don't believe in "free speech" where people can only say what they like, but not what they don't. This ain't a game of taboo. Ok, how would you see a userpage that contains the following: "I'm John Someguy, a 22 year old female student. I like to do sports and appreciate a good meal, but I really can't stand spinach (yuck) nor the color red (as it reminds me of blood). Currently my work on Wikipedia is focused on..."? Acceptable or would you ask the user to change something? CharonX/talk 20:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What happened here? All the sudden "hate" is an evil word and MFD's about? If I wanted a userbox to say "I hate the Edmonton Eskimos", that's ok. Someone can just as easily create a "I hate the Saskatchewan Roughriders" userbox. Banning the word "hate" is a horrible idea. How about "I hate rapists"? Under your rules, I can't even say I hate the lowest scum of the earth (FYI, don't defend rapists). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 18:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)