Wikipedia talk:May Userbox policy poll

message: If boxes are moved from template to a new namespace, will user pages have to change any wikicode to refer to the new location? Thanks, Andjam 12:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, however, we will replace the userboxes with a notification that they have changed to the new namespace before we delete them. // The True Sora 14:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Addionally, other proposals have said they'd use a bot to automatically make  the necessary changes; that should be possible with this one, too. Jay Maynard 14:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe that any time you do a move it creates a redirect. So if a bot 1) moves all boxes 2)goes through every userpage to eliminate the double redirect and 3)deletes all userboxes in template space in that order then most users will never notice a thing.--God Ω  War 15:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: also, you should specify a time period of a week or more to allow all this happen without any admins going speedy delete happy.--God Ω  War 15:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Already done, God of War: "2. A team of volunteer users will move the userboxes from their current location into the Userbox: namespace, except for those that do not meet policy 5 above. If a userbox is not moved within two weeks of this policy's implementation, it may be deleted using T2; however, we will attempt to move all userboxes we can find." // The True Sora 15:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will this break user pages? 

message: I assume deleted userboxes will be restored before being moved? —Ashley Y 20:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If an NPOV UBX has been deleted, we will (if we have the original code or get an admin to give it to us) place it in the new namespace. // The True Sora 20:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about POV userboxes that are acceptable under this proposal? Will they get replaced? - • The Giant Puffin • 20:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be difficult to recover all deleted userboxes; however the original creators would be free to re-create any userboxes that were deleted for POV reasons (but not those that constituted a personal attack or anything else against wiki-wide policies) – Gurch 23:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - • The Giant Puffin • 13:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restore deleted userboxes? 

message: I propose using "User template:" and "User template talk:" instead of "Userbox:" (and "Userbox talk:").
* It fits in with the existing namespace names. We already have "User:", "Template:" and "Talk:", as well as "User talk:" and "Template talk:".
* It clearly allows other user templates besides userboxes.
* It matches the definition used in T2.
—Ashley Y 21:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I will support this as strongly as I support TheTrueSora's proposal. Since it's now identical to the suggestion I made in February (which was quickly dismissed as unworkable), that's not exactly surprising – Gurch 22:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dumb question: Why not decide on the concept of a separate namespace now, and then decide what to call it if the idea gains a consensus? Jay Maynard 23:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *Support. per proposal. Rfrisbietalk 23:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support "Usertemplate:" too.  I'd just like something that is a plausible name for all user templates, if it comes to that. Rfrisbietalk 03:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *Negate; I still think the one-word (and two for talk) convention makes much more sense that a two-word (and 3 for talk) one, since that's how the rest of WP works. I concede, seeing Rfrisbie's reply below. I will support Usertemplate: (because I still like one word!) because, for organization, it makes more sense. // The True Sora 00:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spaces have no special meaning in MediaWiki. Just pretend that "User template" is one "word". Also note that there is no such convention: the "Talk:" space is one word. —Ashley Y 01:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that, but many users do not. Keeping some of the status quo here is important- we're trying to compromise to get this debate finished. I don't want people negating because they feel the name breaks the status quo. // The True Sora 01:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *Support if we must have a poll. —Ashley Y 01:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *Negate' - Userbox means user template. Userbox is much more succinct and nice.--God Ω  War 01:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Anyone know of a non-box template?  My second choice would be Usertemplate: (one word) --Rayc 01:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Template messages/User namespace and Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace for lists. Rfrisbietalk 02:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think these lists demonstrate user templates are much broader than simply userboxes. Rfrisbietalk 02:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Meh, shame. Still, we can always bring it up again at a later date (yes, and cause more arguments, I know). Any new namespace is better than none at all – Gurch 15:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have come up with a more general proposal at Wikipedia:Migration of usercruft into new namespaces. —Ashley Y 19:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Ashley Y.  Why don't you post a notice at the Community Portal? Rfrisbietalk 20:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, thanks. —Ashley Y 01:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User template: 

message: I think that all Wikipedia: namespace articles that are wikiproject articles should be allowed to have userboxes, because these often have userboxes associated with them that it is useful to show these for users to take. I vote support either way, though. – Xolatron 20:13, 24 Telona 2006 (25 May)
:Good point, for example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating#Templates. Rfrisbietalk 20:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  These userboxes are least likely to be out-of-bounds on POV, but I would expect them to be most at risk for vote stacking.  Of course, the projects can always have sections on relevant deletion debates, so I don't think the project userboxes significantly increase the vote stacking risk beyond what having a project in the first place does.  (I'm assuming most project participants have the project page on their watchlist.)   GRBerry 20:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: They're allowed to have userboxes now, and they will be allowed to have them after this passes through.  Don't worry. Dtm142 21:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording in this proposal is restrictive.  It should be adjusted accordingly. Rfrisbietalk 21:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the proposal will allow all userboxes, POV or not, so it's not a problem. // The True Sora 21:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, "4. The Userbox: namespace will only be allowed to be used on pages in the User: namespace and WP:UBX." does not include WikiProjects. Rfrisbietalk 21:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I suggest that the question is changed to include that a substed version of the userbox may be placed on those project pages, as well as Wikipedia:userboxes. Dtm142 14:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:wikiproject articles 

message: Moving user boxes from Template: to Userbox: in no way resolves any of the serious problems they present.  Divisive userboxes will still be divisive.  Categories will still be attached to userboxes and userboxes will still be used to purposes that are contrary to our community's purpose.  The objection to userboxes is not based on them being in template space (and contrary to common belief, there is no policy that "everything in template space has to be NPOV", that's just silliness someone invented at some point for no reason that makes any sense at all), it's based on what they are.  Changing the name of a thing doesn't change its character, and it is the character of userboxes -- by whatever name they masquerade as -- that is problematic. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people's idea of divisive is way over the top. If it were up to them, everything would be offensive. You cant please everyone. Wikipedia is not censored, so why censor people's opinions? This may be an encyclopedia, but it needs a community to run it - a community that currently has little trust for people with Admin power. A template saying "This user is a Christian." is, apparently, divisive and offensive? I beg to differ, and wonder how these people get to the computer without being offended by everything. People claim that half the problem is the fact that Template space is being taken up by userboxes that do not belong there. This proposal eliminates that problem. Wikipedians are not robots, and many want to voice their opinion whether the Admins want it or not. If admins didnt keep nominating userboxes that dont need nominating, people would still have faith in Admins and the Userbox Wars would end a lot sooner - • The Giant Puffin • 17:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: KM, these are good points, IMHO.  Where are the policy discussions that directly address the issues you bring up?  I would be happy to discuss them there. Rfrisbietalk 17:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Regardless, it addresses the concern that Template space is only for encyclopedic purposes. If anyone on any side views this as a be-all, end-all solution, he is deluding himself. But it will go a small way towards ending the War. Λυδαcιτγ(TheJabberwock) 04:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thats why POV things should be moved to their own space. Why should admins always get their way? The community needs normal wikipedians more than it needs admins - • The Giant Puffin • 19:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Even though some admins attempted to act as if it were otherwise, T2 was a proposed criterion for speedy deletion that did not gain consensus support. Rfrisbietalk 19:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor will it ever, we just simply won't allow that. Dtm142 21:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pointless 

message: Yes, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but finding ways of fixing or refuting each type of oppose will allow for future consensus, if not consensus in this poll.  I don't know how I got 42 votes out of 47 opposes, but here they are:
*Delete all userboxes, they are not WP:ENC , 12
*Sidesteps issue 10
*Creating a new userspace unpresedented/ userspace enough, 6
*Don't legitimize/condone userboxes, 5
*Bad/premature proposal 3
*POV in userspace bad 2
*Will make people angry 1
*Supports usertemplate 1
*Polls are evil 1
*Per all 2
Feel free to propose fixes to the proposal under the tally. Only post refutes if they haven't been disscused ad nossium above--Rayc 20:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose types 

message: I have been asked before to weigh in on the technical aspects of this proposal. I have since been advised that some users could be misinterpreting the information I gave out, so let me make it clear here.
This would not require significant changes to any of the core MediaWiki code, which already supports us creating as many custom namespaces as we want. What does need to be altered is the site configuration. As I have explained countless times on IRC, this would be done if a request were filed in the right place, provided that said request directed the system admin team to a discussion demonstrating support for the addition.
I maintain that I have no opinion as to whether or not the proposal is suitable or sane. I dislike being misrepresented, however. robchurch | talk 16:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical aspect 

message: Please correct:
Userbox Policy:
:1. The Userbox: namespace will be created on Wikipedia, much like how the Portal namespace exists on Wiktionary.
We don't have a Portal namespace. It's you who have one. Vildricianus 15:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, you don't.  I removed that part. Dtm142 18:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal namespace on Wiktionary ? 

message: It appears to me that this is still a proposed policy and has not yet been rejected or retified as some people have claimed. However for the time being I suggest that we keep disputed policy header up to make sure all parties that claim either side know that nothing has been determined yet. —David618 t 00:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  That way, we can reach a post poll consensus, and eventually replace it with a different template (hopefully the green checkmark). Dtm142 00:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After Tony Sidaway's removal of the disputed tag, I support the former  tag. Unless there are objections I will change it back. —David618 t 01:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status after the Straw Poll 

message: I dismiss all notions that somehow this policy poll was rigged or unfair. While it would have been nice to slap it on that poll page, the fact of the matter is that pretty much anyone who wanted to weigh in has done so. From looking at those who did, it seems obvious that just about all the major players got their say including many Administrators and some members of ArbCom (sorry Tony, it appears that you forgot to vote before the poll closed). Also, the number of people participating in this poll was definitely above average compared to most other consensus measuring polls, so it is safe to say that the sample was high enough to best reflect the feeling of the community. Nearly 2/3's voted in favor which I think is about as good as it is going to get in terms of consensus one way or another. The fact of the matter is that you just can't please everyone and holding out for a higher consensus just isn't practical. As for Jimbo, well he thinks that userboxes are a bad idea, however the combined consensus is that either the community doesn't care about them or feels that they are good. Barring a WP:OFFICE action, I see no reason why we shouldn't proceed, since he could have shut this poll down a long time ago. While I really want to WP:AGF, I think it is quite clear from their statements that there will still be a concerted effort by those who passionately oppose this plan to thwart consensus. Nevertheless, this has gone on long enough and their attempts to exhaust the supporters into switching to opposition has failed. People want action, not more polls. Therefore, I suggest that you open a dialogue with Fred Bauder, who is a member of ArbCom, to see if he'll be willing to run interference in the upper eschelons in terms of finding out what needs to be filed with Rob Church in order to proceed. --Dragon695 04:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pushing Forward 

message: The poll showed more than 60% consensus, which is almost a miracle considering the nature of this particular debate. It seems we have reached the best consensus we ever can on this issue and both sides have agreed to compromise in large numbers. The total turnover was also very high, so the poll is likely to be statistically representative. In addition, most of the oppose votes were like "I don't like this, period", which is not a very good attitude. So why is this Proposed Policy instead of Policy. Let's just accept conensus and move on instead of trying to fight against it. Loom91 07:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How nice of you to dismiss legitimate concerns as "I don't like this, period". Johnleemk | Talk 08:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you take a look at the oppose-vote summaries above, you will notice that more than half of the oppose votes spring from the "delete all userboxes, don't endorse userboxes, remember WP:ENC" category. CharonX 10:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, a good number of the support votes gave no reason or 'good idea', while others just voted support in the hope that this policy would solve all the disputes, which 1/3 opposition suggests is not the case. That most of the oppose voters do not agree with userboxes (or, in my case, POV userboxes) in no way makes their thoughts less valid. -- Mithent 16:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The reason it's not policy is because it's bloody stupid.  I do not see consensus for this proposed action.  This policy should be listed as , if you ask my opinion. Kelly Martin (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I shall remember that "bloody stupid" is a good argument for you, Kelly Martin. In any case, a large majority wants this wars to end and a minority (less than 1/3) don't want to compromise. Please come to terms with that, with the current majority situation even if there is not consensus yet, it is more likely that a compromise of this kind will become consensus than substing or delting all userboxes. CharonX 10:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Policy changes don't get pushed through with a "consensus" like this. Other proposals such as Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion have failed with >70% support. Johnleemk | Talk 11:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, an almost 2/3 majority also don't meant the community "rejected" the proposal, right? CharonX 11:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've rejected policy before with 75% support, so, yes. Kelly Martin (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: We don't have consensus. You're asking people to explain why. The answer is that the idea isn't accepted by enough editors.  An example of policy adoption by consensus established through a straw poll is the new speedy deletion criteria in April, 2005. Another example is the adoption of the three revert rule as enforceable policy in November, 2004. --Tony Sidaway 12:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: We certainly don't have consensus here -- one third of the people polled didn't agree with the proposal! The poll may give us a basis for working towards consensus on this issue, but no more than that. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 12:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the examples.  However, both Tony Sidaway and Nick Boalch have simply stated1 what is not consensus without specifying what to them is consensus in this case. Rfrisbietalk 13:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't this policy yet? 

message: I'm removing the cluelessly insulting language and the strikethroughs of legitimate opinions that some process-bound person who does not understand that Wikipedia is not a burueacracy put on the project page.  On Wikipedia, we do not ignore opinions just because they didn't come within a specified interval.  Consensus requires everyone to be heard, not merely those people who happened to come running fast enough.  Kelly Martin (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was stated that the poll has a closing time. And it needs to have one, otherwise we would have to wait for weeks or months, "just in case somebody else votes". It works this way elsewhere on wikipedia, so it should work here. If people are truely intrested in discussing, instead of just voting, they are welcome to talk on this page. CharonX 11:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense.  There are polls on Wikipedia that have remained open for multiple years.  Especially on a contentious issue like this one, where consensus has not yet formed, holding the poll open is the appropriate -- and the Wikipedian -- thing to do.  I have no idea what you mean by "voting, instead of discussing"; as I read it, the poll is a discussion (as are all polls on Wikipedia).  Remember, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.  Kelly Martin (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry. You're right, it probably shouldn't be closed yet. But should we put forward another closing date (es: one week after the orgiginal one). And if no one is voting often by then, it will close. I think that whatever the result of this is, by two weeks the ratio of support to oppose will be fairly constant. By then, whatever the result may be, even if it is no consensus, I think it will be time to make it policy, end it completely, or draft a new proposal. – Xolatron 19:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:MUPP can not become policy unless there is consensus. Unforutunately this proposal only has ~60% approval about 15-20% below what might be considered consensus. I believe this poll should remain open for the time being. I doubt consensus will be reached in a weeks time. The only chance of consensus by leaving it open and allow the larger number of pro-userbox editors to realise what is happening. —David618 t 19:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  By creating a user box! (No, I didn't say that!) Stephen B Streater 19:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaving poll open 

message: I think we all missed it, but Jimbo made a relevant comment while this poll was underway.  See .  I think the relevant portion is the second paragraph:
 "There is a middle ground, I agree. The middle ground is to let people do as they will in the user space, and merely use reason and argument to teach people over time why one ought not use Wikipedia userpages for political or other campaigns.... while at the same time saying, no, really, the template namespace is not for that, that we do not endorse this behavior. This is the solution that the Germans have put into effect with great results.--Jimbo Wales 02:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This text is not a part of a historic epic's poetry. Can't we just approach him and ask what he meant? Although he is "Jimbo", he is also a part of the community. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Approaching Jimbo is easier said than done.  Sometimes he responds to comments on his talk page but more often than not he doesn't.  As for what he said, by that it looks like that there is nothing explicitly wrong with userboxes as long as they don't reside in template space.  Based on past discussions from all sides personal attacks would be precluded but statements of belief or affiliation would not.  What is not addressed in his comment is transclusion.  It says nothing about transcluding a box from one user page to another.  Template space is not involved with user space to user space transclusion.  His comment seems to say nothing against a user (or users) creating a library of boxes which others can transclude. --StuffOfInterest 21:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we can, but I also think Jimbo knows that the community sometimes gives "undue weight" to his comments when he has no intention to set policy.  So I think it is better to try to figure out what he meant first, and then ask him if we are way off base.  And I think that a good solid explanation of the German solution might avert any need to discuss further.  GRBerry 21:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my post below. CharonX 22:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I propose instituting a Guild of Jimbologists for discussion of possible interpretations of Jimbo's rare pronouncements, with the goal of eventually creating a widely-accepted exegesis. —Ashley Y 22:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And God one or more possibly supreme beings or natural forces spoke (or cause vibrations in the time/space continuum, possibly emulating speech): Let there be Knowledge. And there was. And after a while, the aformentioned being(s) or natural forces said (or oszillated): Oh bugger this. So much knowledge and so little understanding. The majority of these things has a hard time to tell their appendages from their backsides. And now they started to choose those worst at that as their leaders. Time for a break. And the creator/s/ing forces took a break, but remembered that someone should aid those creatures in the meantime, lest they end up like the last few times. So Jimbo was created. And Jimbo spoke: What a mess... let's organize knowledge and wisdom first of all... and find a way to distract most of the creatures in the meantime... and so Wikipedia was created. CharonX 00:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo Made a Comment while the Poll Was Underway 

message: Ok, here's the way it was organized on the German Wikipedia: There are almost non "userboxes" in the template (in German Vorlage) space, except for the standard "This user speaks XYZ" boxes and similar. All POV, interest, etc. boxes are part of the userspace - distributed amongst various userpages. I have grabbed a userpage at random of an admin called Davidshilling, note the userboxes? Click at the Babel-Vorlagen link and you will see a few userboxes. Any user may use these boxes on his or her page (he even provided a nifty copy&past link for that). If you check his userpage and view the source you will also see that some of the displayed boxes originate from other users' pages. Basically the German Wiki kept allmost all userboxes outside the template (Vorlage) space, inside the userspace. And since they are inside the userspace they are allowed to be POV, controversial, or whatever (yes, I firmly believe that there will be an editor found that feels offended by other users stating that he enjoys eating junk-food). A major collection of German userboxes offers the user Libro.CharonX 22:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But, but....doesn't that allow vote stacking through what links here??  In seriousness, this seems like a really good solution.  I've been playing around with a policy proposal of the day that incorporated this idea along with one page (Wikipedia:Userboxes) to act as a central index.  Being that one policy vote is just finishing now it seems to early to throw yet another one to the wolves. --StuffOfInterest 22:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, what the heck.  I threw together some ideas I've had which turned out to be along the same lines as the German solution and stuck it here.  Probably won't float but we've got to keep coming up with ideas until we find one that works. --StuffOfInterest 23:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You mean like User:Boxes. It is technically user space.--God Ω  War 05:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I don't think having a central archive in user space is a good idea.  It encourages people to just mass factory create new boxes they never have any intention of using themselves.  My preference would be towards the transclude pages having to be attached to a user account which is actually using the box.  Have the Wikipedia:Userboxes project page point towards those transcludes to help others find it but don't allow people to just spam out a pile of junk such as "I eat cabbage stew" when the user won't include it on his/her own page. --StuffOfInterest 11:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I’ve added a partial list of discussions that might help formulate "The German solution" at Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates#The German solution.  Please feel free to add other related discussions. Rfrisbietalk 23:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How it is done in the German Wikipedia 

message: The community is split on the subject of userboxes. Consensus is nowhere in sight. Still, admins keep deleting boxes claiming T1 or T2. In other words, the situation is bad.
After reading |Jimbo's comments I decided, the German solution is the solution to this mess. It moves the userboxes out of template space into userspace, removing POV from the templates, and protecting the boxes from (over)eager adminstrators and T1. Join the migration!. CharonX 19:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I have put the ones I use in User:Ashley Y/Userboxes and one more I found in User:Userboxes. Also we might want to create Wikipedia:The German solution, with the explanation that it is not a policy proposal but a call for action by any who will under existing policy (and broadly in line with Jimbo's comments). —Ashley Y 21:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two questions - are you going to delete the template: versions after doing so (cause if not, it doesn't really solve the problem), and will they still be allowed to be listed at WP:UBX, cause if not, how will people find them? I guess that was more of two opinions than really questions. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 22:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, the template versions will deleted and userboxes will remain solely in the userspace. Users wishing to use them can either use them as pseudo-templates from the userspace or subst them, their choice. CharonX talk Userboxes 00:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest you create in userspace a catalog equivalent to Wikipedia:Userboxes.  The easiest way to do this is to work one page of that catalog at a time.  A catalog in User space helps create the impression that these are deprecated, more so than a catalog in Wikipedia space.  And having a catalog at all also provides a location to put educational text about userboxes, furthering Jimbo's preference to educate the community as to why they are not good.  GRBerry 01:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like User:Boxes and User:Userboxes? —MiraLuka 01:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I feel a war a-brewing, and frankly see no purpose.  I think it is BAD procedure to simply move forward with something, especially when there is no consensus.  You are going to waste a lot of time moving things somewhere, only to have someone move them back, etc., with effectively no result.  The real goal of your purpose eludes me, but I think you somehow are rooted in the sanctity of the "Template" designation.  Instead of this, I propose that we would be better off to pursue activities that promote community and understanding.  See WP:SUS for a solution that actually has a chance of accomplishing somthing useful. --NThurston 17:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:BOLD |Boldly]] going forward (cuz I can't find the reverse)

message: This is not an acceptable policy, and it has not achieved the requisite level of consensus. The single most important thing that must be done is the removal of a centralized official space for Userboxes. A userbox namespace is exactly the wrong answer.--Jimbo Wales 10:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jimbo's comment about this proposed policy