Wikipedia talk:Userbox migration/Archive 3

message: It sounds an awful lot like "The Final Solution", and given that it's German, uh, yeah.--Rob T 14:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Rob, we have discussed about this before (here though now most in the talk archives, here and here). So far the result was maintaining the status quo. If you have a good new name (where good = not clunky) feel free to suggest it. Personally, I don't really mind what it is called (though I might object to tjstrf's Wikipedia:The opinion of certain dutchmen regarding the proper placement of userboxes, now a widely accepted method on the english wikipedia). CharonX/talk 22:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Bob"? Rfrisbietalk 22:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We may want to change the way we reference this 

message: I've seen the redirect template , and I have also had userboxes on my own userpage redirected by bots. The question I have is, if I adopt a box, am I responsible for perfoming the redirects? Do I have to get myself a running bot? Do the people who currently have bots simply sweep the template boxes for redirects occasionally? And how do I know who is using a box in either my userspace or template space in order to inform them more directly that having the redirectbox show up in its place? --BlueSquadronRaven 20:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some folks who move boxes also bypass the redirects, but many don't. I prefer to bypass with WP:AWB. It's a semi-automatic tool that also can be used to leave messages as edit summaries, as well as on talk pages.:Category:Wikipedia GUS userboxes was created as a way to keep track of what pages still need bypassing.Some folks work on that list and are whittling it down too. "What links here" lets you know where a box is transcluded or linked.Rfrisbietalk 21:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is responsible for bypasses and redirects? 

message: Wikipedia:Userboxes/Pets is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Pets. Please weigh in. Rfrisbietalk 19:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Userboxes/Pets is up for deletion 

message: :Comment: The migration of the boxes should be done with pagemoves. The userbox template pages are simply moved instead of their contents being copied. This too could be automated.This is the only way to avoid breaking userpages and maintain template edit history (important for our site license).
::Comment: The trouble is, this removes them from Template: space. While that might be considered part of the German solution, the issue of userboxes in Template: space has not been resolved. Certainly people would complain if various other Template: pages were moved to user-space. —Ashley Y 04:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: How about contacting them (using a bot in high-usage cases) and explaining them the rationale. Ask them to comment on this idea, offering their alternatives. CharonX/talk 17:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: Why not, instead of associating a template with any particular user, move the userboxes to subpages of User:Template? After all, there doesn't appear to be an actual user named Template, and someone can block the username if they haven't already. It makes sense: User:Template/... for a user template. Seahen 22:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the talk page. It's not a popular idea. -Mira 23:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes more sense (to me) than associating them with individual users with whom they may have no connection at all. CameoAppearance 10:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Question?:- Assuming a user moves userbox templates to, or an archive page of, their userpage, which is then automatically linked to from multiple other users. If that user then comes into conflict with wiki and leaves, resulting in their userpage being deleted.Would that not then lose all userboxes stored thereon, thus affecting all other linked userpages? Richard Harvey 11:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Answer Yes, theoretically this is possible. However as many admins also support WP:GUS it should be easy to get the box archive temporarily undeleted and then moved and adopted into another archive. CharonX/talk 13:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're confused.Deleting a userpage does not delete everything in that user's userspace, it just ... deletes the userpage.Since the userboxes won't be on the userpage anyway it won't matter.Of course, I suppose if one user leaves another is welcome to adopt the userboxes from his archive if he wishes.--Cyde↔Weys 22:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think in this special case (and hoping and praying that we won't see another userbox war) we should simply contact admins that have shown a postive stance towards userboxes like User:Grue. CharonX/talk 00:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments moved from project page

message: There seems to be plenty of precedent behind moving boxes, bypassing redirects, then deleting original boxes..and even gallery pages, e.g., :Category:Wikipedia GUS userboxes. But what about the "not here anymore" deletions, e.g., Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 August 13#Two user templates? This amounts to a de-facto CSD something of the order, "Unencyclopedic userbox." The "controversial" topic gallery pages had warnings from Jimbo and such about not creating new boxes in projectspace. They are basically gone. Now, we're into the "worthy/unworthy to be with the Babel boxes" mix. How do we sort these out in a way that is at least as orderly and respectful of differing viewpoints as the more touchy boxes? Rfrisbietalk 16:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting userboxes - What's the process? 

message: A major change was just made to this template.Peer review would be appreciated.--Pascal666 13:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, the template is used in more than one way. The way it's probably used most often - move box, slap on template, bypass redirects, delete original - probably is the most disruptive.The less disruptive alternative is - move box, bypass redirects, slap on template, delete original. Even better would be to keep the original page in protected mode with the template, but of course, deletionist admins refuse to allow that.I would reinsert the original usage suggestion as an alternative, but it's protected and I'm not an admin. Someone sympathetic to "many paths to the same goal" will have to step in. Rfrisbietalk 14:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: We all have our viewpoints on the right thing to do. I disagree with you on deleting the original page. Obviously, you win. So be it. Every once in a while, I'm going to point out a dissenting view from your hard line position.That's the point. I originally created the template to replace the in-your-face "page deleted" message with some options on how to migrate redirects along with the boxes. I agree the way I move most boxes now, immediately bypassing redirects, doesn't need the template. It's really only useful now if there's a delay between moving and redirecting. Rfrisbietalk 14:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, the template does not "links to a cetegory to alert others to its redirection." It links to the old and new userbox pages. It's added to :Category:Wikipedia GUS userboxes, primarily for bots to do the redirect bypassing...later. If "you" are going to do the redirect bypassing, there's really no need to use "User GUS UBX to". Just do the bypassing then list the original page at the category's talk page...and it will magically disappear. That's the same amount of work for you, and no real disruption to the user pages. Rfrisbietalk 21:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|User GUS UBX to}} 

message: I started a migration status page to help focus the arguments discussions about how to proceed with GUS. Have at it. Rfrisbietalk 20:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, are we supposed to be talking there, or here? Either way, I'd like to comment that moving the wikiproject boxes to the wikipedia namespace is, in my opinion, unnecessary, and additionally is inconsistant with the Babel and licensing boxes being included in the main template space. --tjstrf 18:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a good place to talk. I marked two columns on that one because Wikipedia:Userboxes/WikiProjects has boxes listed in template and Wikipedia space. Personally, I don't see any need to move boxes either, but some projects choose to have boxes as subpages. Either way seems fine to me. Rfrisbietalk 18:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, though why you put that table on the talk sub-page rather than the project sub-page, I don't know. I do know that a few projects have moved their userboxes, but I think that was the result of a misguided over-application of TGS. Or, in the case of Wikiproject anime and manga, to protect them from a certain admin who spontaneously deleted their project box, stating it was "passe". --tjstrf 18:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the migration status page a talk subpage because it's really a part of this discussion, but too long to just add as a section. I don't care if someone moves it under the project page. Rfrisbietalk 18:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It make a lot of sense to have WikiProject-related userboxes in projectspace rather than templatespace.It's a bit more tidy that way, and it's immediately clear who that userbox "belongs" to simply by looking at its location.Some of the WikiProject-related userboxes I've seen have had very confusing abbreviated names.--Cyde Weys 18:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In which case, the proper procedure would be to move them to a better template name. I consider it less tidy, as they now have untidy sub-page titles. More importantly, what is the logical difference between Babel and project boxes that one should be treated differently? --tjstrf 18:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Migration status page 

message: There are two processes which are available to move a userbox which are being blatantly ignored by some of the users who have embraced this idea, which is not policy so has no official standing. Until such time it does, which I will fight to keep from ever happening, those processes should not ever be ignored.
The first process is Requested moves. The other is Templates for deletion. If neither process has been initiated, then the userbox should remain where it is until such time as consensus has been reached for each individual box. Only after consensus can a judgement be reached where each box should be located.
Do not ignore those processes. - LA @ 16:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Weakly) Seconded. Ian¹³/t 21:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thing:History should be preserved when moving userboxes, in order to comply with wikipedia's licensing requirements.It seems that this important point has been overlooked on many occasions.Shame.--71.36.251.182 17:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: History requirements are important, but the request cease and desist order to stop moving userboxes except via RM/TFD is sheer processlawyering. Many, many moves are performed on a regular basis on this encyclopedia without controversy or delay. Many, many userboxes have been moved to userspace without controversy or delay. Please, pick another hill to die on. GUS is working for the vast majority of users. -- nae'blis 22:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: (Strongly) Here here!! --NThurston 18:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: GUS is the solution to the problem of some admins deciding that Template: space must be kept simon-pure. No, having userboxes there was not a problem, but the wars over them were, and the GUS is the compromise that silenced those wars (at least for now). It's the way things will be, and there's no chance in hell it'll be reversed. Jay Maynard 15:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cease and desist out of process deletions and moves 

message: GUS is not a solution, it is a problem. These are templates and all templates belong in template space. I refuse to accept this solution which puts these flowers in the attic and under the stairs. This is segregation and appartheid of these templates. These templates are being put in back alleys as if they were contraband. 
----
GUS makes user template categories hard to read. Seeing a list of GUSd user templates on a user page listing makes it jumbled.
Instead of seeing in a category...
*Template:User A
*Template:User Good
*Template:User Idea
...we would have...
*User:Someuser/Userboxdir/User A
*User:Anotheruser/Userboxdir/User Good
*User:Anotheruser2/Userboxdirdiff/User Idea
Instead of seeing on a user page...
 
 
 
...we would have...
 
 
 
The first is easy to read and navigate, the second is an eyesore.
----
And what happens when one of these people who is taking in so many user templates gets tired of Wikipedia, decides to clean house, and quit? That user could db-author the lot and, when some unsuspecting admin comes along, all of those templates are deleted without a second thought. What admin cleaning up the Speedy deletions category would care if the user page has a template on it or not? The user could even hide that the GUSd template's being up for speedy deletion by putting the db inside a noinclude. No one with that template would know until the user pages with those templates transclused were loaded with a lot of redlinks. Template space is completely neutral and admins might take a longer look at what is speedied there than anything in user space. - LA @ 09:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GUS is the solution to the problem of some admins deciding that Template: space must be kept simon-pure. No, having userboxes there was not a problem, but the wars over them were, and the GUS is the compromise that silenced those wars (at least for now). It's the way things will be, and there's no chance in hell it'll be reversed. Jay Maynard 15:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addendum 

message: I have created a userbox to use in undo-ing inappropriate "per GUS" moves: Template:User_SUS_UBX_to can be placed in the user area when a userbox is moved back to its original Template:User spot. --NThurston 20:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how that encourages anything but revert wars over the location of userboxes. -Mira 21:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: GUS is the problem. John Reid 05:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undoing "per GUS" moves 

message: Wikipedia:German userbox solution/Userbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Miscellany for Deletion page. Thank you. -Mira 21:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MfD nomination of [[Wikipedia:German userbox solution/Userbox]] 

message: Congratulations on taking care of all of the Zodiac stuff.I'm thinking Wikipedia:Userboxes/Humor should be next.--Cyde Weys 02:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any particular reason? CameoAppearance 08:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're utterly unencyclopedic and I don't know why we have them in the first place. I would have thought they would have been userfied long ago. Also, why is :Template:User Person listed as humour? I would consider it politics or beliefs. --tjstrf 15:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have them because they're funny. That's the point of humour. CameoAppearance 02:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny? Yeah, the majority of them are very funny indeed... And regardless, they are most definitely NOT encyclopedic. Far less so than even the dreaded and much-defamed User Christian at its worst. --tjstrf 02:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How are they any less encyclopedic than, say, prattling on about one's favourite food? CameoAppearance 06:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those need to go out of template space as well. The presence of one dish of tripe does not make the presence of another dish of tripe any more palatable. --tjstrf 06:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point; I just found it interesting that although they don't contribute to the encyclopedia any more than joke userboxes do, not a single one of the userboxes on that page has been userfied, nor has it been singled out for 'taking care of'. CameoAppearance 11:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A handful have been userified, I've removed them from the directory. And I think Cyde just picked a section for the next target, the food templates will be moved eventually, I'm sure. -Mira 19:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humor next? 

message: I have just adopted and userfied the boxes pertaining to English Premier League teams from Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports/Football. There are some bozes which are not actual templates but just the raw code. I will probably create boxes for those teams in due time, so that they continue to be available after that page is deleted. I don't know if I will yet get ambitious and get ALL the FA teams, but I'llkeep you posted. --BlueSquadronRaven 20:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EPL 

message: Why have the userfied userboxes been removed from Wikipedia:Userboxes? Up until now it was apparently acceptable practice to leave them on their respective pages post-userfication; why has that changed? CameoAppearance 04:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're being removed so they don't crowd the page with non-template space boxes. WP:UBX and its subpages are being deleted after all boxes have been moved to user space, and removing the ones that have already been moved helps keep track of what's left to do. -Mira 08:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The straw poll does not show a consensus for that. —Andux␅ 00:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userfied boxes and WP:BOX 

message: I am officially requesting of ANYONE and EVERYONE who can provide me with information regarding:
#Where it was determined by community concensus that Wikipedia:Userfying userboxes (which was rejected by the community), is now acceptable?
#Where it was determined by community concensus that WP:GUS may be used as a rationale for an editor's actions (as one might use a policy statement or guideline).
#Where it was determined by community concensus that NO userboxes may be created in template space. (I see this addition to WP:GUS but have, as yet, found no community concensus supporting it.)
#Where it was determined by community concensus that such templates that the community has determined that T1 applies to (those that are divisive or inflammatory), are to be allowed to be userfied prior to (or even after) speedy deletion.
What I am NOT asking for/about at this time:
#Your opinion of whether m:deletionism, m:inclusionism, or any other -ism, is "more correct".
#Your opinion of whether or not userboxes should exist.
#Your opinion of where userboxes should exist.
#That templates should not have fair use images. ("Fair use images should be used only in the article namespace.")
#That "Templates, particularly userboxes, which are divisive or inflammatory may be speedily deleted; see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Templates. For discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Comment on project page asked for links to Jimbo's opinions, and especially Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Regarding the new Template CSD.However, Jimbo Wales has urged both caution in deleting userboxes while the policy is discussed, and, in particular, restraint in reversing others' deletions or undeletions." - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al#Divisive or inflammatory userboxes may be speedily deleted and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway#Polemical or inflammatory userboxes may be speedily deleted 
#WP:JOU
#WP:T1D
Please either respond here, or on this talk page. Thank you in advance - Jc37 18:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been wondering about this myself... CameoAppearance 21:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Information

message: I believe I originally asked this somewhere else, but it was never answered; either way, I'd like to know why Wikipedia:Userboxes is now being considered an unsuitable location for a centralised userbox directory (the function it used to serve), as opposed to directories in userspace (of which there are currently several, so none can really be considered 'centralised'). CameoAppearance 21:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the anti-userbox admins don't want people to find userboxes, and so they're slowly stamping them out. Jay Maynard 22:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to be so negative. WP:AGF, and at the very least realize that both sides on the Userbox debate have always had the best interest of the Wiki in their minds, according to their own perspective. Userspace directories for Userfied boxes seems sensible, leaving Wikipedia:Userboxes for the project and Babel boxes similarly sensible. (Well, if not sensible, at least internally consistent.) --tjstrf 03:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a problem with it, so long as WP:UBX gets some kind of pointer to one (or even several) of the userspace directories at that point; otherwise, I can see it being unnecessarily hard for new users to find the non-project/Babel boxes. (Having something like that now would be nice, if we're going to remove userfied boxes from the Wikipedia-namespace directory, but it isn't necessary quite yet.) CameoAppearance 05:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are links to the main user space locations in the "Gallery" section of WP:UBX. -Mira 07:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I wish I didn't feel so negative about it...but the comments about userboxes from admins like Cyde and Tony Sidaway have left a very bad taste in my mouth that will take a long, long time to go away. I'm having a hard time assuming good faith in the face of actions, especially by Tony, that demonstrate a lack of it. Jay Maynard 12:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I wish I could AGF too, but Cyde has clearly demonstrated a lack of willingness to even abide by the language of GUS (and been repeatedly called on repeatedly to no avail).I have been told that WP space and userspace are both legitimate locations for userboxes.Therefore, I fail to see why both WP and User can't be acceptable locations for directories.I think Cyde needs to play open and fair else I fear that the supposed compromise that is called GUS will eventually fail.I predict that unless the anti-userbox folks start abiding the truce, the free-speech userbox people will start creating them again in a centralized location, and what have we gained?--NThurston 13:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if that does happen, then I'll have just been right about The German Pacification not really resolving anything, and we'll restart from scratch. Even if we didn't gain anything, we learned one thing that won't work, so we can try something else next time. --tjstrf 22:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I do think there's one notion out of this discussion worth considering: a central gallery. Perhaps when all is said and userfied, the Wikiproject:Userboxes area would be a good spot for a central gallery, linking to boxes spread hither and yon. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:BOX being phased out 

message: I am having a serious issue with Cyde's Speedy Deleting user templates in violation of GUS.In particular, GUS itself says "Parts between <<double angle brackets>> should only be performed if there is consensus between all affected users. See the userbox location straw poll."and <<No new userboxes should be created inside template space. Userboxes created there are subject to speedy deletion.[?]>> is clearly between double angle brackets.Therefore, GUS says that SD should not be performed on new userboxes in categories that according to the straw poll have no consensus to not be in Template:.I suppose the implication would be that these would have to either be left alone or go through TfD, but definitely not SD.In general, what should be the policy for dealing with admins that claim to use GUS when it's to their advantage, but then ignore GUS when it doesn't fit with their biased views?--NThurston 14:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GUS is not policy, it's not binding, and no one actually has to pay attention to it.If Cyde wants to ignore parts of it, that's his perogative.--digital_me(Talk•Contribs) 16:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So your point is that he can claim that it's policy, use it as an argument to justify deleting templates, threaten to block people for undo-ing his deletes and moves, but he's not bound by any of it?A person behaving like this is not good for wikipedia.Hence, my question, what can be done to address this situation?--NThurston 16:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And besides, if GUS is truly not policy, then Cyde is violating admin standards by deleting templates without going through appropriate channels.Without GUS, there is no CSD for an otherwise non-offensive or non-divisive template.(T1 was the CSD of choice, but it wouldn't apply to Template:User FAU.)So what's to be done in the case you are right? --NThurston 22:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If it's not policy, then why are people being urged not to create new userboxes in template space on the main page of WP:UBX? That strikes me as... odd, if nothing else. CameoAppearance 00:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's odd about "urging" people to do something that doesn't happen to be policy?It may not be policy (making a rule that hasn't yet been implemented into policy is all but impossible here), but it's what's going down. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true; I'd say something about wondering why people treated it as a rule, but posting that comment kicked off a line of thought that was expressed as the question heading the section below, so I won't bother. CameoAppearance 09:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Some of these speedy deletes were of things which would seem to reasonably 'belong' in the template namespace, specifically 'babel' boxes for writing systems, and I have reversed those. If people want any others restored either because they want to Germanize them or because there is consensus that they are allowed in the template namespace just let me know. As stated above, there isn't any policy allowing wholesale deletion of userboxes and WP:GUS only suggests (without the force of policy) such deletions under specific conditions which don't seem to apply here. --CBD 10:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate template SD by [[User:Cyde]] 

message: I've been wondering... it says, right at the top of the page, that GUS isn't an actual policy; by my understanding, that means people are given the option to move userboxes into their userspace and make new ones there instead of templatespace, but it doesn't force the community to make no new templatespace userboxes or move every single userbox into userspace (as Wikipedia:Userfying userboxes would have if made policy).
Why, then, are people treating it as if it was a policy? I mean, as far as I know there's been no consensus on what to do with userboxes or where they should be located, so why do I keep seeing things like "Userfy as per WP:GUS" at TfDs? Why is there a big red-bordered box at the top of WP:UBX telling people "New userboxes created in the Template namespace, with few exceptions, will be deleted"? (This is probably true, but it being stated there, alongside "It is recommended that new userboxes be created in userspace" and the mention of WP:GUS, makes it appear that the reasoning behind that is part of the German solution rather than people who are against userboxes putting them up for deletion (or anti-userbox admins deleting them outright).)
CameoAppearance 00:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is certainly consensus that we don't want to go back to the dark days of last year with userboxes being summarily deleted by admins, only to resurface minutes later, and the general disruptions this entailed. Ultimately, most likely, the policy will be that userboxes will be removed from Template space, one way or the other. Either those who like the subject matter of the userbox adopt them into their userspace, German style, or they will get deleted. The only reason there's no policy as it stands is because, ultimately, userboxes have nothing to do with being an encyclopedia. I suspect the higher ups are just giving everyone time to claim those boxes that someone feels should be kept. As it is, old userbox directories have started to be deleted. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there is a consensus that not every userbox must be (or will be) removed from Template:However, there is not a consensus as to what that means.This is my major beef with the GUS police - that stuff is being moved, deleted, etc. without any consistency or direction and in most cases, in direct contradiction to the current/proposed language in WP:GUS.In short, the run-and-gun implementation is premature and is likely to cause the war to flare up again.Believing that the main value in GUS is as a truce, I would hate to see it fail so early, and right now it seems that the main culprits for non-compliance are on the anti-UBX side. --NThurston 16:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I can see that it's at least cutting down on the Userbox Wars, and I definitely don't want to completely reverse it, even if I have issues with the way it's being implemented. I think it's an acceptable solution, even if it doesn't seem to me like the most elegant way to do things (although that might be a plus for some people, given some of the statements I've seen). I just want to know why it seems like the majority of people involved in the issue aren't following the "Wikipedians who want to do so are free to userfy userboxes but don't have to do it" message that I interpreted GUS as. CameoAppearance 07:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I can't speak for others, but personally, I've only been adopting userboxes that I feel strongly about either preserving through any potential real mass deletion or that are on a subject I enjoy. As such I've been adopting only a few here and there. I feel that I have a responsibility to these boxes (which I've outlined on my userbox page) but as such I'm trying not to bite off more than I can chew. --BlueSquadronRaven 08:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It isn't a policy... right? 

message: Should all userboxes be moved to namespace we will see(using Addendum's example):
 
 
 
...we would have...
 
 
 
This promotes that the userbox "belongs" to and only "reflects" to that user, when in fact it belongs to Wikipedia and the users it promotes. 
A possible solution is to give the creator of any userbox the right to block his template for possibly a period of 3 months. Once the three months are up, the template can be modified, but untill then only the user who created the template can modify it, thus keeping userboxes in template namespace and an end to warring. Chris5897 09:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it! :-) Rfrisbietalk 20:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! --BlueSquadronRaven 16:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool! 
 Rfrisbietalk 16:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I like the idea of making your own userboxes, but don't think it should be required. But I may not be understanding the proposal --tjstrf 16:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody forces you to make or substitute your own userbox. As it were with templates, you can just transclude them on your userpage, just instead of you now type  to do that. CharonX/talk 19:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Identity Thieft

message: Well, so far WP:GUS has performed well, there aren't any more userbox wars and all in all I think we have more supporters than opponents. Still, one of the issues for those against WP:GUS is that it is - as it was intended to - not a official policy. It can operate effortlessly within the existing policy and guidelines setting, but still it is a "just do it" solution. So, to give those, who would prefer an official policy regarding userboxes, the peace of mind, I wondered if we should step forward and propose this as a policy. Of course this would mean we would have to tackle two issues we had avoided so far - the location of the types of userboxes (see the straw poll) and the question of archives (though I think our existing userspace archives perform admirably). Since this would be a big step I'd like your input. CharonX/talk 12:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. Still - a poll would clear up a few matters. I would express concerns that it will be bias though - most people coming here are likely to support it. Ian¹³/t 17:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm ambivalent on this; I don't see a problem with userboxes remaining in template space (and I think that WP:UBX should continue to serve its original function as a repository for all userboxes), but I do recognise that GUS has largely put a stop to the userbox wars of days past and I'm grateful for that. As for day-to-day use, the lengthened names are mildly annoying but still tolerable to implement. CameoAppearance 23:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but a list of userboxes can be obtained by running a quick SQL on the db to find Template:User *, but this sort of organisation cannot take place with userboxes dispurced all over the userspace. Ian¹³/t 16:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If GUS is performing, as you say, as intended, without being official policy, then leave it that way. Instead, go the opposite route. Propose as policy that any non-encyclopedic userboxes (Babel, and other such boxes... use the straw poll as a guide but use some judgement) be eradicated from template space with extreme prejudice. Then, we can put this behind us and concentrate on the more pressing issue: organization of a directory across multiple user pages. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A hideous idea, rotten to the core. GUS has been shoved by brute force down the throat of an unwilling community, greased by the soothing tones of "this is not policy, this is not a proposal, it's entirely voluntary". My main objection to GUS, indeed, has been the assumption of policy that its boosters wield as they rampage through UBX-space. I'll not hand them another jar of Vaseline. John Reid 02:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Going official?

message: The last days, some admins on the German Wikipedia deleted userboxes which are clearly POV (although they're in userspace), such as "This user likes beautiful women" without community consensus. Even the central userbox directory Benutzer:Libro/Liste von Benutzerbausteinen was deleted, and now there are several discussions about this: deletion review, proposed policy (and talk page), another proposal ... it reminds me on the situation with template namespace userboxes at en:. TZMEverything is notable 17:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those userboxes didn't get deleted because of "POV" but because they were outright sexist and demeaning to female users. --84.137.46.161 17:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A nice example of what we have to look forward to - rouge admins determining on their own what is offensive ("inappropriate anywhere on Wikipedia") without any discussion or consensus.Some will not rest until every userbox they do not like has been hunted down, drawn, quartered and lit on fire near the Village Pump. And the whole compromise will be dead. --NThurston 20:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Umm ... what's wrong with beautiful women? And many were actually deleted with an AfD (no seperate TfD/MfD there) reason "non-encyclopedic". You can find an overview of all the discussions going on there at :de:User:TZM/Babelkrieg. TZMEverything is notable 19:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Er. "Yanks"? :) But seriously it just looks like someone is complaining that crappy userboxes sometimes get deleted from the German Wikipedia.Well that happens here too. --Tony Sidaway 06:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I will once more, just for you, explain the origin of the name for GUS. First of all, "Userbox" is, I hope, clear to you. "Solution" because it aims to (re)solve the issues/problems/controversies that arose (see Userbox). "German" because it was first used in the German Branch of Wikipedia, as in "indicating the origin" - see "european cars", "american barbeque", etc. I am not certain where that, in you mind, it became "muddle-headed Yanks just too foolish not to follow the leader?" CharonX/talk 10:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry if this has been gone over before, but which particular rejected proposal are you saying the actual de: policy is closest to? -GTBacchus(talk) 10:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Deal. I've already stated below that I don't mind any kind of sensible namechange. CharonX/talk 13:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think it's good, but on de: it does not work 

message: I'd invite everyone to comment on the merge request here. I could've sworn we just went through one of these.... -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 23:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Merge? 

message: In the Dutch Wikipedia, we have one template for user boxes which can be filled ad random (see :nl:Sjabloon:Gebruikersbox). That's close to simply substituting them, but slightly less technical. A major advantage is, in my opinion, that you can go on putting new silly user boxes on your page without actually creating new ones and saturating the user box category. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 16:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is more or less what the meta-template  is for.Here it is used more as a template for buliding templates as people would rather have a short reference on their page rather than a large assembly string to get the desired look. --StuffOfInterest 18:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the Dutch solution? 

message: I don't know if it is a common practice to move all boxes of one category to a certain userspace, but when we start moving MLB boxes, move them all to my userspace, . This will make things easier to make links to. I already moved , so if you want to move MLB boxes, move them there. If one is already on some other userspace, then don't don't bother moving it to mine, unless want to. aido2002 19:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When you're ready to move the MLB boxes... 

message: Okay, just because. How about changing the name of this page to Wikipedia:Userbox migration? Rfrisbietalk 11:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a simple redirect would be better. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you say a little more about what you have in mind? Rfrisbietalk 17:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds like a good name to me. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The reasons are twofold. First, the proposed name is descriptive of the actual activity this represents. Second, it eliminates the recurring objection to negative connotations of the current name. Rfrisbietalk 19:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with it, as long as WP:GUS and WP:TGS still redirect to it. After bypassing many boxes, and leaving see WP:GUS on it. Anyways, the new shortcut would be WP:UBM then? Maybe people will losen up if we rename it (ie, the people tying to merge/move/defeat it). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 23:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Renames should never screw up redirects. I would expect nothing less here. Let's have at least 12 shortcuts! Two more... WP:UM, WP:UBXM? :-) Rfrisbietalk 00:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trying to beat out Template:Fact and Venom for the title of most gratuitous redirects? Jokes aside, I don't see how changing the name would make the people who are opposed to it less opposed. As a compromise, how about WP:German userbox migration? Has a nice abbreviation, WP:GUM. --tjstrf 00:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, WP:GUM sounds nice, but whatever you want to call it, no objection from me either way. Hell, call it "Bob" if you want to (hmmm... WP:BOB ;) - the only important thing that GUS/UM/GUM/TGS/BOB works, and it does. CharonX/talk 13:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, if we put up a requested move, does it trump the requested merge? So, who wants to put up the requested move. I think we have enough support here. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 22:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason a move would interfere with a merge.One could easily move a page while talking about whether or not to merge it with another page.To move, we really just need to pick a target, and there's really no reason to go through WP:RM that I can see. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: So, where are we with this? Are we moving, or are we staying? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 22:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there isn't precisely consensus for a title, but Wikipedia:Userbox migration seems to be a likelier candidate.Who wants to do the honors?Maybe we can use the WP:GUM shortcut anyway, if people like it so much.After all, WP:GUS and WP:TGS will end up redirecting there, and they make even less sense, except historically. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then lets just go with a simple poll: Wikipedia:Userbox migration, yes or no? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 22:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, what's the point?I just moved the page.If someone complains, we'll sort it out. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I changed the links around above to prevent panic as people search for the new box (ie, they were red before). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 22:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops.Thanks. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another name change proposal 

message: Ok, I just did it.If that was a bad idea, we should find out soon enough.There are certainly lots of other details to rename and references to change.I already moved  to .There are plenty of other loose ends to chase down, which I'll work on over the next few days, until they're done.Anybody who wants to help with that - cool.Anybody who wants to object to the move; please do so here, and soon. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the links around above to prevent panic as people search for the new box (ie, they were red before). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 22:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops.Thanks. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page moved - fallout

message: If we are filing "test cases" anywhere, a good example would be Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Xaosflux/UBX/User religion flying spaghetti monster not really, as it contains a userfied box that was nominated for deletion, contains ethical and satirical elements, and had a snowballs chance of deletion after debate. - xaosflux Talk 04:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I closed that one as a keep per WP:SNOW. Maybe we should add it to precidents? No point in giving, what, one more day? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 22:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test Case 

message: The former GUS userbox which I (and I'm sure many others) have on our userpages now would seem to need updating (and possibly moving). Volunteers? Or does everyone trust my judgement? --BlueSquadronRaven 17:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it, I say.Lots of things need updating and moving just now. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  has now been moved to  and now looks like this:
Hope this is acceptable to all. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: How ironic. Now we have to bypass the redirect. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 22:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a bot request would be appropriate? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:German userbox solution/Userbox