Wikipedia talk:Userbox migration/Archive 1

message: Where to gather together userboxes? Should we just add them to Wikipedia:Userboxes as usual, or will we be forced to create a new place?
Is it OK to put userboxes under User:Userboxes, or are they more likely to be deleted by rogue admins?  User:Userboxes/Satanist got deleted once already. —Ashley Y 02:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the idea is to move userboxes to user space to get them out of the clutches of deletionist admins, as many (including more than a few deletionist admins) have claimed, and if Jimbo endorses the solution, then on what grounds are they deleted? If userboxes can be deleted by admins even in user space, then why bother? Let the admins have their way, and us peons will know exactly where we stand - nowhere at all. Jay Maynard 02:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep them on your personal pages (check my sig). If they keep deleting them there (usually claiming the Jimbo hates boxes et al) whack them with the following:This is like saying, "You may have pamphlets, but you may not mechanically print and distribute them. This is not an infringement of free speech". To put it kindly, this is counter-intuitive." State that they are not following Jimbo's suggestions as they claim, they are not following policy or consensus, and that they basically vandalize your pages. If they do it again, start an RFC or RFA. Let's see how they talk themselvs out of that one. CharonX talk Userboxes 02:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Let's see how they talk themselvs out of that one.' They do it by being 'right' in the eyes of Tony Sidaway et al - someone has already tried to RFAr Cyde over this issue (worse than simply deleting userboxes - Cyde was actually vandalizing the templates), and it was rejected. Cynical 10:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I still believe in the community. While they have Jimbo's words and T1 as an "argument" they could always say "I only did what was 'right'". However Jimbo explicitely mentions the methods known to us as 'German solution' and says it was implemented with great effect. So they cannout say "We only did what Jimbo said". And they cannot use T1 since T1 is not appicable in userspace. They have bent T1 in templatespace against its spirits (a means to kill hatespeech etc.) but there is no similar policy on userspace to bend. So they would have to act outside policy without the tinyest figleaf. CharonX/talk 11:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A few admins may still try to use T1.  I've seen the claim made that any transclusion is considered a template and thus fair game for T1.  Should that interpretation to all the way to ArbComm I'm not sure how it would hold up but it would be interesting.  In the interim, I've started converting my own on page userbox code over to an archive of userboxes.  The next task will see if starting a conversion of Wikipedia:Userboxes will work to allow people to find these user page hosted transclude boxes. --StuffOfInterest 12:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as I said above the transclusions in userspace are templates argument does not have the support of Jimbo. See my Jimbo-quote above. I too would be curious how ArbCom rules there, but I think we have a better chance with Jimbo having suggested that way.CharonX/talk 14:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The best defense will be to get enough peopple creating their own archives that it will cause too much of an uproar if one admin decides to go on a deletion spree.  To that end, I've created a cross link from my archive to your archive.  If I see anyone else out there starting their own I'll add links for that as well.  Oh, and sorry to say this, but I really don't like how you have the page name ending with a slash.  It just doesn't seem to follow usual Wiki naming practice.  Could you at least create a redirect from the non-slashed version to that one? --StuffOfInterest 14:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Woops, didn't actively notice that slash. I moved it to slashless and changed the link on your page, hope you don't mind. CharonX/talk 13:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I would list them in the Wikipedia:Userboxes area (not the user account).  If the admins start deleting the boxes from user space then they will be commiting vandalism in the absense of any dictates or concensus established policy.  The problem with User:Userboxes is that it is more or less a puppet account for an archive.  The boxes should be in a user's account and just a listing of them kept in the userboxes project page. --StuffOfInterest 02:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said below I don't mind either way (centralized directory or small number of large primary user-organized archives) both have their advantages and disadvantages. If the "no endorsement" faction feels an centralized archive would be endorsement I would go for the decentralized variant if it makes them happy, since there has been enough pain in this war. CharonX/talk 13:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There are no rogue admins, just rouge admins. Ardric47 07:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some issues 

message: I'd like to discuss an issue pertaining to the size of personal archives.  My own feeling is that a user should not create a userbox in their archive unless they are using it form themself.  This will hopefully avoid overpopulation of boxes where a user creates a bunch of them with no intention of ever using them.  Back when admins were sending userboxes to TfD one of the criteria I would use for keep/delete votes was how many pages were including the template.  In many cases there were none.  At this point the box really does become useless junk.  What do others think? --StuffOfInterest 10:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have some concers about this suggestion. If a stable centralized archive exists relatively  free of deletion wars, limiting the size of individual archives is one thing.  If a distributed system evolves as a preservation mechanism, then limiting size will be used as a weapon by deletionists. Some users ask for a specific userbox to be created for them for whatever reason.  Others often do this as a service, even if they don't use it themselves.  On counting links, the number of users for a box always will be small initially, making them vulnerable to this criterion in their infancy.  Such restrictions may be more applicable to centralized archive and directory pages than on an individual user's pages.   This suggestion would seem to work best as a guideline with some caveats, rather than as a hard and fast rule. Rfrisbietalk 11:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing jumped out at me in this.  You mention that some users will ask to have a box created for them.  If someone creates that box it should probably be hosted under the account of the user who wants to use it.  My fear is that having large archives of infrequently used boxes in user space is an invitation to some admin to go on a deletion crusade.  If the user hosting the box is using it him/herself then it becomes much harder for an admin to justify deletion. --StuffOfInterest 12:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Large" and "unused" are two different issues.  For example, see Regarding central directories below. It's probably better to separate them. Rfrisbietalk 14:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of archive 

message: I'm trying to get any related discussions started over here in separate threads so we can work out details and conventions.  Please bare with me.
Many people find userboxes through other people's pages rather than in archives.  It would be nice to give people a way to find the code for a userbox without having to bring up an edit window on another users's page.  I'd like to suggest that to get around this people hosting userboxes create a link at the end of the box text to take people to a place with the code for including that box.  For my own boxes I'm using the following:
:*
This adds a small, clickable asterisk at the end of the text which takes you to my archive page where the include code is shown.  I wouldn't recommend this as a requirement but it might be nice to have as a guideline to help users get to what they are looking for. --StuffOfInterest 12:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging boxes 

message: As above, I added a bunch of stuff, feel free to discuss and mercielessly edit it. CharonX/talk 12:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, and if you don't like them, just remove them again. They are just a suggestion, and I really won't mind. CharonX/talk 13:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I added additional info, guideline like rules and implementation example

message: Personally I feel this could work without an "official" central directory, provided one or more dedicated users take it upon themselves to provide a large selection of boxes and/or links to other major archives.
This would avoid the "official endorsement" problem seen by some users.
Personally, I don't care either way. CharonX/talk 13:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there should be an "official" directory.  For starters, it should include the "skills," "editing interests" and "wikiaffiliations" userboxes.  If some type of userbox is too "POV," e.g., "non-wikiaffiliations," then a "grass-roots" directory/directories would be useful. Rfrisbietalk 14:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd concur that there should continue to be a directory outside User space.  At least for the first few months, it should also contain pointers to grass-roots directories that are preceeded by educational text about why these are no longer in the existing directory.  (It wouldn't hurt if the grass roots directories also have links back to the official directory.)  GRBerry 15:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the German version does have a link from the Babel-userboxes directory to a major personal directory, so there should not problems there. Let's just make sure it does not look like an "endorsement". CharonX/talk 15:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about using Categories, with various sub-categories for listing the boxes? --Hunter 14:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favour of that, but fear that those who wish to banish userboxes from the template namespace would also want to see them banished from Wikipedia's categories. Waggers 11:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding central directories

message: I have started recovering the religion section at User:Ashley Y/Userboxes/Religion, including creating userboxes that express POV (e.g. "This user is a Christian" rather than "This user is interested in Christianity"). —Ashley Y 00:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might take a look at User:BigDT/Religious User Boxes, which is I recall many of the religious userboxes, if I recall correctly as they stood in mid-May.  GRBerry 01:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This highlights one fear I have with the userspace solution.  We could easily end up with massive duplication of efforts.  Please, before creating a new userspace box, check around to see if another one may already exist.  First, take a look in Wikipedia:Userboxes to see if what you plan to create is there.  If not, do a search on the exact text string you want to use.  Finally, check a few of the existing user space archives.  After that, if you don't see what you want, then create a new one. --StuffOfInterest 01:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not necessarily a bad thing.  A certain amount of redundancy provides robustness; that's why the internet was invented in the first place. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I'm templating many of these. —Ashley Y 02:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So who is the central userbox user that is going to store the templates--Rayc 02:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't one.  The "templates" are spread around among the user community as sub-pages.  A central archive is a much bigger target than having many users with a few boxes each.  My personal rule is that I'll only host a userbox which I use on my own page.  If others want to use it as well then great. --StuffOfInterest 02:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: exactly do you propose stuff is moved to? Who has a right to claim stuff like that? A vital flaw I feel... Ian13/talk 09:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Different people can set up directories of the userboxes they see fit to list.  It'll be a fairly organic process, and there will end up being a small handful of big directories, with a lot of overlap.  At least that's what I'm seeing; I don't know about anyone else. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just picked one of the subpages at Wikipedia:Userboxes and decided to take all of the userboxes from that page. Other people are just displaying the ones they've created themselves, or just the ones they use. I think it will be harder to find a specific userbox, if you're looking for one. But it will also be fun just browsing through all of the available directories. —Mira 09:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I bet we'll end up with directories with different... atmospheres.  I think it'll be really interesting, the structure that develops organically.  Some people will probably maintain directories of directories, and a lot of redundancy at all levels will keep the whole system robust, in case some individual disappears or deletes all their stuff. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't it be simplest to just make sub-pages of User:Template? After all, there appears to be no user named Template, and we can always block that name if we haven't already. I don't much like the idea of associating a userbox with a particular user if many people use it. Seahen 01:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you suggest might be simpler, but it won't fly.  Associating userboxes with a particular person makes someone somewhat responsible for their content, perhaps.  Even if that's not the case, the point is to discourage them, not facilitate them.  Template space facilitated them way too much, and in a too official-seeming way.  Maybe if they're rather blatantly deprecated, by not even allowing them to be hosted in a common area, people will start to ask why, and maybe find out a way of thinking about Wikipedia that won't incline them to the same mode of expression, at least that's what some of us hope. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whose userpage... 

message: I tried moving two WikiProject userboxes and then bypassing the redirects with WP:AWB. The two new pages are  and .  AWB worked just fine with two "Find and replace" settings, e.g., "tl|User WikiProject Psychology" → "Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Userbox" and "User WikiProject Psychology" → "Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Userbox" in that order so that the "tl" versions are found before they're changed.  I did goof up my edit note for pyschology so I left an apology on the affected talk pages.  This is a relatively painless way to move userbox templates out of templatespace.  How would you suggest improving the process of how I did these? Rfrisbietalk 22:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A "move and bypass redirects" approach 

message: In addition to "archives" for hosting userboxes, userpage "directories" are important to help find userboxes of interest.  These directories can list userboxes from wherever they are located, not just those archived on a particular user's page.  As an example, I am starting to migrate "pet" userboxes to my userpage area.  As naming conventions, I add userboxes to "User:<Username>/Userbox/<Userbox name>". and directories to "User:<Username>/Userboxes/<Directory name>".  After I move templates, I bypass all the redirects using WP:AWB. This process updates individual userpages, the related WP:UBX subpage and my own directory.  My basic edit summary is "Bypassed userbox redirect from [[Template:<old name>]] to [[User:<new name>]]. See Wikipedia:The German solution."  You can see an example directory at User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Pets. Rfrisbietalk 14:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userpage directories 

message: I think we should put the userboxes on my sockpuppet's page, User:Userboxuser. There is even a template for him, Template:ubxusr, so to use it use  which will turn out as . Also, a shortcut is located at U:UBX --GeorgeMoney T·C 16:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a bad idea, as it will only cause more controversy. (See Tony Sidaway's statements above.) —Mira 16:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 2nd that. --StuffOfInterest 19:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please don't create any more role accounts for the purpose of hosting userboxes.  All userboxes under those accounts will be deleted or userfied. --Tony Sidaway 18:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And then brought back under DRV. —Ashley Y 19:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it much easier to just not use role accounts, and then avoid the whole deletion/DRV cycle? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If you are User:Userboxuser, then you're in a better position to complain if a rogue admin deletes stuff in your space. If you can do that, it should work. I was going to use User:Userboxes, but the owner has apparently left Wikipedia. —Ashley Y 20:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My god. Can someone please explain what the problem is? —Gennaro Prota•Talk 20:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure... it has to do with user accounts being created just as userbox storage places.  Tony's saying don't do that, that userboxes should be stored in the user spaces of regular user accounts; at least that's what I'm hearing him say.  I think Ashley objects to that, but I'm not sure why. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Tony Sidaway has been making vague threats to delete stuff out of User: space. —Ashley Y 20:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The easiest way to deal with "vague threats" like that is to think of Wikipedia the way Tony does, specifically regarding the role of written policy.  He's making perfect sense, from that perspective.  Interpreting Wikipedia policy legalistically is a risky move; that's not a threat. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this perspective leads to wheel-warring and complaints. I don't think this is the model for good editing or admin behaviour, and I don't think we should be bound by one editor who behaves like that. I recommend people build consensus instead. —Ashley Y 21:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um.... it's not one editor.  It's how the site's been working for years. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, if there's a consensus for something, go ahead and organise it and let people know about it, even create a policy document if you like. I think saying "Special pseudo-users should not be used for the purpose" is a perfectly reasonable opinion, and possibly even the start of a discussion on the issue, but right now that's just one editor and hardly policy we are currently bound by. —Ashley Y 03:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I don't understand - how is User:Userboxuser in a better position to complain than you would be if a rogue admin deletes stuff from your own space? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our own space is also good, but we might want a central place. Actually I'm thinking more for the "directory" pages than for the userboxes themselves. —Ashley Y 20:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I guess I was imagining that certain people, whoever wants to, would host directories in their own user spaces, and there would be a certain amount of interlinking among them.  Isn't that what people have started to do already? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, User:UBX/Userboxes/General Nav is a good tool to keep track of that status. Rfrisbietalk 20:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have for religion, but if it's considered acceptable I might move it to a more central place so others can feel a bit freer about editing it without worrying about whether I "own" it. —Ashley Y 20:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that concern, but I think we'll just have to help people get over ideas about ownership.  I sort of imagine lots of people having small collections of userboxes, copied from directories they like, or self-made, and then people will probably copy the ones the want to share to their favorite directories, which will become known as places where people come to compare and swap userboxes, and you'd be more of a host than an owner.  It'll all be quite organic, I imgaine; wikis are good at that. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well right now for example I have User:Ashley Y/Userboxes/Religion and BigDT has User:BigDT/Religious User Boxes. It would be useful if there were a neutral space where we could merge them together into a single page and avoid duplication. If you look at User:UBX/Userboxes/General Nav, you see the beginnings of a bunch of random stuff that could benefit from organisation. —Ashley Y 20:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've said several times, if you were only listing those which you yourself put on your user page there wouldn't be nearly as much duplication.  I only have one religion box in my archive being that it is the only one I have on my user page. --StuffOfInterest 20:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support organization, but I don't think avoiding redundancy is a good idea.  Redundancy provides a certain robustness, which is a good thing.  It certainly seems a strange battle to choose, if there's good faith opposition. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A certain amount of redundancy is a good thing.  I just believe that users should have a personal stake/interest in the boxes they choose to host.  Otherwise, we'll see a lot of wasted resources and effort on boxes which will never see a single users page. --StuffOfInterest 21:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My immediate concern has been preserving userboxes before they get speedily deleted: despite Jimbo's requests not to, the mass deletion has been continuing, albeit at a slower rate. I'm not sure I really want to hold on to all of them forever, I might try to get others to claim them once the dust has settled. —Ashley Y 04:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, a lot of people think that a lot of userboxes violate the "spirit" of the project, but it's hard to point to one particular rule that's specificly about them.  It's been a contentious issue for a while, and the "rules" regarding userboxes are in a state of flux, but you should understand that that's the usual story with "rules" here - the most experienced Wikipedians don't think in terms of rules at all.  (Look at pillar 5 under WP:5P.)  Anyway, the compromise that we seem to be coming to with userboxes is to move them from template space to user space, which makes it clearer that they aren't part of the encyclopedia project, but once in user space, we're going to let people say what they want with them, pretty much, and see how that works out.  It's what they do on the German Wikipedia, hence the name of this page.  I hope that addresses your question better. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation. In all honesty, this is quite disheartening. Of course I don't care about userboxes and I'll remove all of them from my user page. But a similar phenomenon is happening with the Manual Of Style: tons of changes are being made without notice... I don't think one has to read the manual again every morning. I understand that no rule is set in stone but a relative stability is necessary, especially considering that the maintenance tools available here are near to zero and pretty much everything is done by hand. Thanks again for your reply. The previous comments are not addressed to you, of course. —Gennaro Prota•Talk 00:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to put? 

message: This TfD worries me somewhat. Will this plan still work if the boxes can be brought to TfD? —Mira 23:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At some point, we ought to decide whether TfD or MfD is the appropriate forum for userfied templates.  I can't see that it matters much one way or the other, but we might as well be consistent, eventually. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if it wasn't obvious, I think they should go to MfD. —Mira 23:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's so unobvious, to me anyway, that I'm going to ask you why you think that.  Why? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant if it wasn't obvious in light of my comments above. But I think the most basic reason is that, as silly as it may sound, they aren't in template space. —Mira 00:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where do user pages and user subpages usually go?  Let's be consistent with that...  GRBerry 00:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MfD. —Mira 00:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I guess I was hoping for a reason other than "semantics" or "inertia".  Like I said, I don't think it matters much.  There's template space, and there's pages that are clearly designed for transclusion only, and there's a pretty good reason for taking either of those to define what is a "template". -GTBacchus(talk) 00:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, part of the point of this proposal is that the new userboxes will be governed by the more lenient rules of userspace. Treating them as templates seems to defeat that point. —Mira 00:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a point.  I wouldn't oppose using MfD; just be prepared to explain it n times, where 'n' is any arbitrary large number. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, guess I'd better practice. —Mira 00:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like what templates are good for. ;-) Rfrisbietalk 01:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TfD problem?

message: I understand that categories make vote-stacking easier; there is also the argument that such things should not mess up Category space. What concerns me is that the same arguments might apply to any central directory of userboxes, given the "what links here" functionality. I would rather see such directories exist. —Ashley Y 04:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless user pages are not searchable anywhere (including on Wikipedia itself and on search engines like google), things would not change. Adding categories just make things easier for everyone and does not make things worse anyways. --Hunter 05:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have problems accepting the idea that categories of users interested in certain articles are fundamentally harmful to Wikipedia. I have seen (and been involved in) cases where the exact opposite is true, a POV is being pushed and is successful because too few editors had a different viewpoint. IE- the NPOV looses. I say, deal with vote stacking where it is discovered, but vote stacking can occur by many more methods than user boxes with categories, and a sense of community is created when groups which have similar interests can discuss and contribute to articles. DavidBailey 03:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories and vote-stacking 

message: Where to gather together userboxes? Should we just add them to Wikipedia:Userboxes as usual, or will we be forced to create a new place?
Is it OK to put userboxes under User:Userboxes, or are they more likely to be deleted by rogue admins?  User:Userboxes/Satanist got deleted once already. —Ashley Y 02:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the idea is to move userboxes to user space to get them out of the clutches of deletionist admins, as many (including more than a few deletionist admins) have claimed, and if Jimbo endorses the solution, then on what grounds are they deleted? If userboxes can be deleted by admins even in user space, then why bother? Let the admins have their way, and us peons will know exactly where we stand - nowhere at all. Jay Maynard 02:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep them on your personal pages (check my sig). If they keep deleting them there (usually claiming the Jimbo hates boxes et al) whack them with the following:This is like saying, "You may have pamphlets, but you may not mechanically print and distribute them. This is not an infringement of free speech". To put it kindly, this is counter-intuitive." State that they are not following Jimbo's suggestions as they claim, they are not following policy or consensus, and that they basically vandalize your pages. If they do it again, start an RFC or RFA. Let's see how they talk themselvs out of that one. CharonX talk Userboxes 02:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Let's see how they talk themselvs out of that one.' They do it by being 'right' in the eyes of Tony Sidaway et al - someone has already tried to RFAr Cyde over this issue (worse than simply deleting userboxes - Cyde was actually vandalizing the templates), and it was rejected. Cynical 10:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I still believe in the community. While they have Jimbo's words and T1 as an "argument" they could always say "I only did what was 'right'". However Jimbo explicitely mentions the methods known to us as 'German solution' and says it was implemented with great effect. So they cannout say "We only did what Jimbo said". And they cannot use T1 since T1 is not appicable in userspace. They have bent T1 in templatespace against its spirits (a means to kill hatespeech etc.) but there is no similar policy on userspace to bend. So they would have to act outside policy without the tinyest figleaf. CharonX/talk 11:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A few admins may still try to use T1.  I've seen the claim made that any transclusion is considered a template and thus fair game for T1.  Should that interpretation to all the way to ArbComm I'm not sure how it would hold up but it would be interesting.  In the interim, I've started converting my own on page userbox code over to an archive of userboxes.  The next task will see if starting a conversion of Wikipedia:Userboxes will work to allow people to find these user page hosted transclude boxes. --StuffOfInterest 12:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as I said above the transclusions in userspace are templates argument does not have the support of Jimbo. See my Jimbo-quote above. I too would be curious how ArbCom rules there, but I think we have a better chance with Jimbo having suggested that way.CharonX/talk 14:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The best defense will be to get enough peopple creating their own archives that it will cause too much of an uproar if one admin decides to go on a deletion spree.  To that end, I've created a cross link from my archive to your archive.  If I see anyone else out there starting their own I'll add links for that as well.  Oh, and sorry to say this, but I really don't like how you have the page name ending with a slash.  It just doesn't seem to follow usual Wiki naming practice.  Could you at least create a redirect from the non-slashed version to that one? --StuffOfInterest 14:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Woops, didn't actively notice that slash. I moved it to slashless and changed the link on your page, hope you don't mind. CharonX/talk 13:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I would list them in the Wikipedia:Userboxes area (not the user account).  If the admins start deleting the boxes from user space then they will be commiting vandalism in the absense of any dictates or concensus established policy.  The problem with User:Userboxes is that it is more or less a puppet account for an archive.  The boxes should be in a user's account and just a listing of them kept in the userboxes project page. --StuffOfInterest 02:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said below I don't mind either way (centralized directory or small number of large primary user-organized archives) both have their advantages and disadvantages. If the "no endorsement" faction feels an centralized archive would be endorsement I would go for the decentralized variant if it makes them happy, since there has been enough pain in this war. CharonX/talk 13:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There are no rogue admins, just rouge admins. Ardric47 07:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some issues 

message: I'd like to discuss an issue pertaining to the size of personal archives.  My own feeling is that a user should not create a userbox in their archive unless they are using it form themself.  This will hopefully avoid overpopulation of boxes where a user creates a bunch of them with no intention of ever using them.  Back when admins were sending userboxes to TfD one of the criteria I would use for keep/delete votes was how many pages were including the template.  In many cases there were none.  At this point the box really does become useless junk.  What do others think? --StuffOfInterest 10:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have some concers about this suggestion. If a stable centralized archive exists relatively  free of deletion wars, limiting the size of individual archives is one thing.  If a distributed system evolves as a preservation mechanism, then limiting size will be used as a weapon by deletionists. Some users ask for a specific userbox to be created for them for whatever reason.  Others often do this as a service, even if they don't use it themselves.  On counting links, the number of users for a box always will be small initially, making them vulnerable to this criterion in their infancy.  Such restrictions may be more applicable to centralized archive and directory pages than on an individual user's pages.   This suggestion would seem to work best as a guideline with some caveats, rather than as a hard and fast rule. Rfrisbietalk 11:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing jumped out at me in this.  You mention that some users will ask to have a box created for them.  If someone creates that box it should probably be hosted under the account of the user who wants to use it.  My fear is that having large archives of infrequently used boxes in user space is an invitation to some admin to go on a deletion crusade.  If the user hosting the box is using it him/herself then it becomes much harder for an admin to justify deletion. --StuffOfInterest 12:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Large" and "unused" are two different issues.  For example, see Regarding central directories below. It's probably better to separate them. Rfrisbietalk 14:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of archive 

message: I'm trying to get any related discussions started over here in separate threads so we can work out details and conventions.  Please bare with me.
Many people find userboxes through other people's pages rather than in archives.  It would be nice to give people a way to find the code for a userbox without having to bring up an edit window on another users's page.  I'd like to suggest that to get around this people hosting userboxes create a link at the end of the box text to take people to a place with the code for including that box.  For my own boxes I'm using the following:
:*
This adds a small, clickable asterisk at the end of the text which takes you to my archive page where the include code is shown.  I wouldn't recommend this as a requirement but it might be nice to have as a guideline to help users get to what they are looking for. --StuffOfInterest 12:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging boxes 

message: As above, I added a bunch of stuff, feel free to discuss and mercielessly edit it. CharonX/talk 12:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, and if you don't like them, just remove them again. They are just a suggestion, and I really won't mind. CharonX/talk 13:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I added additional info, guideline like rules and implementation example

message: Personally I feel this could work without an "official" central directory, provided one or more dedicated users take it upon themselves to provide a large selection of boxes and/or links to other major archives.
This would avoid the "official endorsement" problem seen by some users.
Personally, I don't care either way. CharonX/talk 13:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there should be an "official" directory.  For starters, it should include the "skills," "editing interests" and "wikiaffiliations" userboxes.  If some type of userbox is too "POV," e.g., "non-wikiaffiliations," then a "grass-roots" directory/directories would be useful. Rfrisbietalk 14:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd concur that there should continue to be a directory outside User space.  At least for the first few months, it should also contain pointers to grass-roots directories that are preceeded by educational text about why these are no longer in the existing directory.  (It wouldn't hurt if the grass roots directories also have links back to the official directory.)  GRBerry 15:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the German version does have a link from the Babel-userboxes directory to a major personal directory, so there should not problems there. Let's just make sure it does not look like an "endorsement". CharonX/talk 15:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about using Categories, with various sub-categories for listing the boxes? --Hunter 14:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favour of that, but fear that those who wish to banish userboxes from the template namespace would also want to see them banished from Wikipedia's categories. Waggers 11:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding central directories

message: I have started recovering the religion section at User:Ashley Y/Userboxes/Religion, including creating userboxes that express POV (e.g. "This user is a Christian" rather than "This user is interested in Christianity"). —Ashley Y 00:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might take a look at User:BigDT/Religious User Boxes, which is I recall many of the religious userboxes, if I recall correctly as they stood in mid-May.  GRBerry 01:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This highlights one fear I have with the userspace solution.  We could easily end up with massive duplication of efforts.  Please, before creating a new userspace box, check around to see if another one may already exist.  First, take a look in Wikipedia:Userboxes to see if what you plan to create is there.  If not, do a search on the exact text string you want to use.  Finally, check a few of the existing user space archives.  After that, if you don't see what you want, then create a new one. --StuffOfInterest 01:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not necessarily a bad thing.  A certain amount of redundancy provides robustness; that's why the internet was invented in the first place. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I'm templating many of these. —Ashley Y 02:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So who is the central userbox user that is going to store the templates--Rayc 02:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't one.  The "templates" are spread around among the user community as sub-pages.  A central archive is a much bigger target than having many users with a few boxes each.  My personal rule is that I'll only host a userbox which I use on my own page.  If others want to use it as well then great. --StuffOfInterest 02:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: exactly do you propose stuff is moved to? Who has a right to claim stuff like that? A vital flaw I feel... Ian13/talk 09:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Different people can set up directories of the userboxes they see fit to list.  It'll be a fairly organic process, and there will end up being a small handful of big directories, with a lot of overlap.  At least that's what I'm seeing; I don't know about anyone else. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just picked one of the subpages at Wikipedia:Userboxes and decided to take all of the userboxes from that page. Other people are just displaying the ones they've created themselves, or just the ones they use. I think it will be harder to find a specific userbox, if you're looking for one. But it will also be fun just browsing through all of the available directories. —Mira 09:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I bet we'll end up with directories with different... atmospheres.  I think it'll be really interesting, the structure that develops organically.  Some people will probably maintain directories of directories, and a lot of redundancy at all levels will keep the whole system robust, in case some individual disappears or deletes all their stuff. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't it be simplest to just make sub-pages of User:Template? After all, there appears to be no user named Template, and we can always block that name if we haven't already. I don't much like the idea of associating a userbox with a particular user if many people use it. Seahen 01:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you suggest might be simpler, but it won't fly.  Associating userboxes with a particular person makes someone somewhat responsible for their content, perhaps.  Even if that's not the case, the point is to discourage them, not facilitate them.  Template space facilitated them way too much, and in a too official-seeming way.  Maybe if they're rather blatantly deprecated, by not even allowing them to be hosted in a common area, people will start to ask why, and maybe find out a way of thinking about Wikipedia that won't incline them to the same mode of expression, at least that's what some of us hope. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whose userpage... 

message: I tried moving two WikiProject userboxes and then bypassing the redirects with WP:AWB. The two new pages are  and .  AWB worked just fine with two "Find and replace" settings, e.g., "tl|User WikiProject Psychology" → "Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Userbox" and "User WikiProject Psychology" → "Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Userbox" in that order so that the "tl" versions are found before they're changed.  I did goof up my edit note for pyschology so I left an apology on the affected talk pages.  This is a relatively painless way to move userbox templates out of templatespace.  How would you suggest improving the process of how I did these? Rfrisbietalk 22:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A "move and bypass redirects" approach 

message: In addition to "archives" for hosting userboxes, userpage "directories" are important to help find userboxes of interest.  These directories can list userboxes from wherever they are located, not just those archived on a particular user's page.  As an example, I am starting to migrate "pet" userboxes to my userpage area.  As naming conventions, I add userboxes to "User:<Username>/Userbox/<Userbox name>". and directories to "User:<Username>/Userboxes/<Directory name>".  After I move templates, I bypass all the redirects using WP:AWB. This process updates individual userpages, the related WP:UBX subpage and my own directory.  My basic edit summary is "Bypassed userbox redirect from [[Template:<old name>]] to [[User:<new name>]]. See Wikipedia:The German solution."  You can see an example directory at User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Pets. Rfrisbietalk 14:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userpage directories 

message: I think we should put the userboxes on my sockpuppet's page, User:Userboxuser. There is even a template for him, Template:ubxusr, so to use it use  which will turn out as . Also, a shortcut is located at U:UBX --GeorgeMoney T·C 16:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a bad idea, as it will only cause more controversy. (See Tony Sidaway's statements above.) —Mira 16:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 2nd that. --StuffOfInterest 19:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please don't create any more role accounts for the purpose of hosting userboxes.  All userboxes under those accounts will be deleted or userfied. --Tony Sidaway 18:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And then brought back under DRV. —Ashley Y 19:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it much easier to just not use role accounts, and then avoid the whole deletion/DRV cycle? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If you are User:Userboxuser, then you're in a better position to complain if a rogue admin deletes stuff in your space. If you can do that, it should work. I was going to use User:Userboxes, but the owner has apparently left Wikipedia. —Ashley Y 20:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My god. Can someone please explain what the problem is? —Gennaro Prota•Talk 20:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure... it has to do with user accounts being created just as userbox storage places.  Tony's saying don't do that, that userboxes should be stored in the user spaces of regular user accounts; at least that's what I'm hearing him say.  I think Ashley objects to that, but I'm not sure why. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Tony Sidaway has been making vague threats to delete stuff out of User: space. —Ashley Y 20:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The easiest way to deal with "vague threats" like that is to think of Wikipedia the way Tony does, specifically regarding the role of written policy.  He's making perfect sense, from that perspective.  Interpreting Wikipedia policy legalistically is a risky move; that's not a threat. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this perspective leads to wheel-warring and complaints. I don't think this is the model for good editing or admin behaviour, and I don't think we should be bound by one editor who behaves like that. I recommend people build consensus instead. —Ashley Y 21:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um.... it's not one editor.  It's how the site's been working for years. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, if there's a consensus for something, go ahead and organise it and let people know about it, even create a policy document if you like. I think saying "Special pseudo-users should not be used for the purpose" is a perfectly reasonable opinion, and possibly even the start of a discussion on the issue, but right now that's just one editor and hardly policy we are currently bound by. —Ashley Y 03:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I don't understand - how is User:Userboxuser in a better position to complain than you would be if a rogue admin deletes stuff from your own space? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our own space is also good, but we might want a central place. Actually I'm thinking more for the "directory" pages than for the userboxes themselves. —Ashley Y 20:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I guess I was imagining that certain people, whoever wants to, would host directories in their own user spaces, and there would be a certain amount of interlinking among them.  Isn't that what people have started to do already? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, User:UBX/Userboxes/General Nav is a good tool to keep track of that status. Rfrisbietalk 20:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have for religion, but if it's considered acceptable I might move it to a more central place so others can feel a bit freer about editing it without worrying about whether I "own" it. —Ashley Y 20:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that concern, but I think we'll just have to help people get over ideas about ownership.  I sort of imagine lots of people having small collections of userboxes, copied from directories they like, or self-made, and then people will probably copy the ones the want to share to their favorite directories, which will become known as places where people come to compare and swap userboxes, and you'd be more of a host than an owner.  It'll all be quite organic, I imgaine; wikis are good at that. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well right now for example I have User:Ashley Y/Userboxes/Religion and BigDT has User:BigDT/Religious User Boxes. It would be useful if there were a neutral space where we could merge them together into a single page and avoid duplication. If you look at User:UBX/Userboxes/General Nav, you see the beginnings of a bunch of random stuff that could benefit from organisation. —Ashley Y 20:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've said several times, if you were only listing those which you yourself put on your user page there wouldn't be nearly as much duplication.  I only have one religion box in my archive being that it is the only one I have on my user page. --StuffOfInterest 20:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support organization, but I don't think avoiding redundancy is a good idea.  Redundancy provides a certain robustness, which is a good thing.  It certainly seems a strange battle to choose, if there's good faith opposition. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A certain amount of redundancy is a good thing.  I just believe that users should have a personal stake/interest in the boxes they choose to host.  Otherwise, we'll see a lot of wasted resources and effort on boxes which will never see a single users page. --StuffOfInterest 21:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My immediate concern has been preserving userboxes before they get speedily deleted: despite Jimbo's requests not to, the mass deletion has been continuing, albeit at a slower rate. I'm not sure I really want to hold on to all of them forever, I might try to get others to claim them once the dust has settled. —Ashley Y 04:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, a lot of people think that a lot of userboxes violate the "spirit" of the project, but it's hard to point to one particular rule that's specificly about them.  It's been a contentious issue for a while, and the "rules" regarding userboxes are in a state of flux, but you should understand that that's the usual story with "rules" here - the most experienced Wikipedians don't think in terms of rules at all.  (Look at pillar 5 under WP:5P.)  Anyway, the compromise that we seem to be coming to with userboxes is to move them from template space to user space, which makes it clearer that they aren't part of the encyclopedia project, but once in user space, we're going to let people say what they want with them, pretty much, and see how that works out.  It's what they do on the German Wikipedia, hence the name of this page.  I hope that addresses your question better. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation. In all honesty, this is quite disheartening. Of course I don't care about userboxes and I'll remove all of them from my user page. But a similar phenomenon is happening with the Manual Of Style: tons of changes are being made without notice... I don't think one has to read the manual again every morning. I understand that no rule is set in stone but a relative stability is necessary, especially considering that the maintenance tools available here are near to zero and pretty much everything is done by hand. Thanks again for your reply. The previous comments are not addressed to you, of course. —Gennaro Prota•Talk 00:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to put? 

message: This TfD worries me somewhat. Will this plan still work if the boxes can be brought to TfD? —Mira 23:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At some point, we ought to decide whether TfD or MfD is the appropriate forum for userfied templates.  I can't see that it matters much one way or the other, but we might as well be consistent, eventually. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if it wasn't obvious, I think they should go to MfD. —Mira 23:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's so unobvious, to me anyway, that I'm going to ask you why you think that.  Why? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant if it wasn't obvious in light of my comments above. But I think the most basic reason is that, as silly as it may sound, they aren't in template space. —Mira 00:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where do user pages and user subpages usually go?  Let's be consistent with that...  GRBerry 00:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MfD. —Mira 00:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I guess I was hoping for a reason other than "semantics" or "inertia".  Like I said, I don't think it matters much.  There's template space, and there's pages that are clearly designed for transclusion only, and there's a pretty good reason for taking either of those to define what is a "template". -GTBacchus(talk) 00:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, part of the point of this proposal is that the new userboxes will be governed by the more lenient rules of userspace. Treating them as templates seems to defeat that point. —Mira 00:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a point.  I wouldn't oppose using MfD; just be prepared to explain it n times, where 'n' is any arbitrary large number. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, guess I'd better practice. —Mira 00:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like what templates are good for. ;-) Rfrisbietalk 01:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TfD problem?

message: I understand that categories make vote-stacking easier; there is also the argument that such things should not mess up Category space. What concerns me is that the same arguments might apply to any central directory of userboxes, given the "what links here" functionality. I would rather see such directories exist. —Ashley Y 04:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless user pages are not searchable anywhere (including on Wikipedia itself and on search engines like google), things would not change. Adding categories just make things easier for everyone and does not make things worse anyways. --Hunter 05:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have problems accepting the idea that categories of users interested in certain articles are fundamentally harmful to Wikipedia. I have seen (and been involved in) cases where the exact opposite is true, a POV is being pushed and is successful because too few editors had a different viewpoint. IE- the NPOV looses. I say, deal with vote stacking where it is discovered, but vote stacking can occur by many more methods than user boxes with categories, and a sense of community is created when groups which have similar interests can discuss and contribute to articles. DavidBailey 03:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories and vote-stacking 

message: This is a well thought out wording of the proposal. This is what I should have put together instead of the far more sparsely worder proposal that eventually became Wikipedia:Userfying userboxes, back when Jimbo first mentioned the German solution on IRC back in February or so. This certainly seems to cover all the bases. --bainer (talk) 06:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the key thing has been to stress that it's not a policy proposal to be voted on (since none of the policy proposals seem able to achieve consensus) but rather a suggestion for action that anyone can take with existing policy. I'd like to make sure this works no matter how the userbox policy debate eventually is resolved. —Ashley Y 06:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I saw the words "No new policy is needed to do this, and this is not a policy proposal. Just go ahead and do it," I knew someone had finally found it. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice work 

message: Hi guys, I've finally followed the link to Jimbo's talk page diff and I'm repentant I didn't do that before (I should have to, admittedly, but I didn't have time yesterday, when I noticed this page and, more importantly, I thought the italics text after the link was a copy of his words). Ok, he explains pretty much everything. It seems to me there is one crucial point: avoiding personal campaigns on wikipedia. This is a "two-way" issue: on one hand a userbox can express beliefs which have nothing to do with Wikipedia itself (I don't see this as a great problem; one could say the same by using words, rather than userboxes); on the other hand categorization could allow someone to "recruit" people with beliefs and inclinations which are similar to his ones. It should be noticed however that categories such as "I'm a PHP programmer", "I'm quite good at reading Spanish" etc. are useful to the project: they state skills and capabilities which might be needed for working on a software proposal or an article, for instance. Thus the problem is only with those stupid userboxes such as "I use Opera"/"I use Firefox", "I know the first 150 decimal digits of 1" etc. Honestly we can really do without them; I would go to the point of deleting them, rather than moving :) Anyway, if there are people who are willing to do the enormous work of moving them elsewhere then why not (though I think these energies could be used better). What matters for me is: can I keep the userboxes and categories *related to skills* so that if anyone needs help, say, with an Italian translation or a C++ program can contact me? Thanks. —Gennaro Prota•Talk 15:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Gennaro Prota, I moved your comments here to clarify they are part of the discussion. I hope you don't mind too much. :-)  As far as the workload involved in moving userboxes goes, if a little extra effort by a few WikiGnomes can help end the wars, or at least cut back the collateral damage to so many innocent parties, then I'm all for moving "non-encyclopedic userboxes" (whatever they are) to userspace. Rfrisbietalk 16:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for adding a note. No problem, I thought the summary could be useful to people doing the same error as me (thinking the italics text contained Jimbo's words) but everything is ok on this page too :) I'm still wondering if my understanding that userboxes and categories which highlight skills are fine is a correct or not. —Gennaro Prota•Talk 16:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Categorization or not, since user page are searchable in the Wikipedia search box and on search Engines (e.g. put ""This user is a Christian" site:en.wikipedia.org in google, people can still recruit people if they wish to do, with or without categorization. --Hunter 17:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah... I don't know why Wikipedia is degenerating so much in nonsense discussions and proposal in the latest period. But I just wanted to know if the skill categories are under discussion or not, as I hate when my user page is edited by others. —Gennaro Prota•Talk 18:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Skill and expertise categories are generally considered A-OK; I don't know of anybody who's against using userboxes and/or categories to let people know you program in PHP or speak Spanish.  I can even see a use for boxes like "this user edits using Firefox", if someone were a developer and wanted to know which browsers people were using...?  Maybe that's a stretch.  Anyway, the only problematic ones (AFAIK) are the ones like "this user believes X" or "this user belongs to X political party". -GTBacchus(talk) 19:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget the ever popoular "this user is a ...". --StuffOfInterest 19:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In most cases, yeah.  There's a lot of ways to complete that sentence. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above let's err on the side of safety and move (almost) all boxes (except for the Babel ones), less things for anti-userbox factions to get agitated about, we lose little and there is far less chance for rules creep and/or accidential (or deliberate) (mis)interpretation of what should stay in templatespace. In total - lots of less chance for new stress. (Yeah, I took the weekend off, had to combat some burn-out). CharonX/talk 19:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome back from your weekend  break.  Unfortunately, some are already trying to fight against user space moves.  I saw at least one example of an admin deleting a redirect left from a moved template to a userspace box and there was mini-dustup fought over User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes which had it go back and forth between AfD and MfD a couple of times before someone tried to list it as a speedy. --StuffOfInterest 19:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See, that's exactly what I'm talking about - it's a fight if you want it to be a fight.  What I see is that some people don't know about this solution yet, and there's some education that needs to go on.  Deleting the redirect seems proper to me, as long as "what links here" has been cleared out. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that no consideration was given to "what links here" in that particular instance.  Sorry I can't cite the specific box in question.  As for a fight, my response has been to post links to this project page when I see issues like above coming up.  Not sure if it made a difference or not to the admin considering it for speey but it didn't hurt.  I also think it is a good sign that admins like Tony have stopped by.  His endorsement, even with caveats, goes a long way towards calming things down. --StuffOfInterest 19:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Good point, GTBacchus, I'll try to avoid that kind of language in the future. I've invited all kinds of seemingly interested users to partake in the discussion here, and perhaps endorse it as the middle path. The fact that even Tony Sidaway had some postive words to say about it made me quite hopeful that we're out of the storm for good. CharonX/talk 23:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A summary (and a question) 

message: Great Idea.  To bad I found out about this after I Substed all user green energy.  Oh well I can't undo thoes 150 edits now--E-Bod 04:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Idea 

message: I think we should find a better name.  The name Closely resembles The Final Solution.  We should Definitely Credit the German Wikipidia for the idea but the tile should suggest the solution.  How about we call it
UUB
Userfy User Box
or
Userfying User Boxes
Actually nevermind 
WP:UUB Already Exists as Wikipedia:Userfying userboxes
But TGS is not a good Title.  It is not Descriptive of the solution in it's nature.  It is Just crediting--E-Bod 01:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we're open to new name suggestions - WP:DEUTSCH is actually quite nice (but also non descriptive) too, but to be honest naming is currently low priority on my list. As for the resemblance... odd, but true, the name came from [i]The German solution[/i] to the userbox issue... which was mentioned by Jimbo, but was too long for a name. Also I feel many people have currently hardwired an "Ugh - not again" reflex to anything that even mentiones userboxes... CharonX/talk 01:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I never made the connection until other people mentioned it. Maybe I'm just weird. Anyway, I think enough people have complained about the name, and Silence has given a very good alternative. I'd move the page myself, but I'm heading to bed and I don't have time to do it properly (fix redirects, etc.). If someone would like to move it, they'd have my full support, and if it hasn't been moved by tomorrow, I'll probably do it. —Mira 09:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, as the entire userbox war shows, lots of people have this class of problem: they assume that use of a name automatically implies various nasty and eeeeevil things about that person. Jay Maynard 09:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell me, where does it say that Wikipedia tries to cater to the irrational fringe? If a person is so hung up on a word which has no malicious meaning but that in their mind draws a racist connection due to their own preoccupation with the idea, then why should we accommodate them? It doesn't break NPOV or any other policy, and it follows a suitable naming convention, naming a method after the creators. --tjstrf 10:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The word that makes us think of the Final Solution in this context isn't "German", it's "The... Solution", Tjstrf—specifically, coupling these words together in this way is something I could very easily see as a neonazi euphemism for the term in question. Noone who finds the name inappropriate is accusing its originators of harboring secret fascistic tendencies, they're just pointing out an unfortunate accident; it is therefore unfair of you to turn around and accuse the title's critics of racism. In case you didn't notice, my own recommended title doesn't remove the word "German" from the title, it merely clarifies this page's actual focus (which is entirely on userboxes, obviously) and, in the process, removes some of the title's decidedly ominous undertones (which are enhanced by the unnecessary addition of "The" to the beginning, a common feature of terms meant to inspire an enigmatic dread), thus killing two birds with one stone and continuing to credit the German Wikipedia for their idea. -Silence 10:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad I'm not the only one who did a double take on seeing this. That it is in the name space only made it more puzzling, until I read it. To be honest, for a brief, horrifying second I wondered if it was a rather sick joke about exterminating Userboxes, but that's just me. It isn't a big issue, but it does feel a little strange. I second a move to something clearer. Skittle 15:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, it looks like the only problem now is which name to move it to? Opinions? —Mira 02:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change 

message: I started a template at  in order to have a friendlier message than something like .  An example of its usage is at .  I believe a more informative template about this process helps it along.  Feel free to improve it as you see fit (hopefully without deleting it ;-). Rfrisbietalk 02:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool.  But Don't you have to be an admin to edit Protected Pages.--E-Bod 02:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a start. I'm confident someone will step up to the plate. It's all a cooperative effort in the end anyway. :-) Rfrisbietalk 03:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi.  I can edit protected pages. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. There you go. Thanks! (psst!, I knew he'd volunteer) :-) Rfrisbietalk 13:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, per rename, the template is renamed to  --Hunter 17:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A friendlier "Template moved" message 

message: I like this Guiding principle so much I added a little reference to a well-known and respected expert on the subject. M. Scott Peck describes what he considers to be the most salient characteristics of a  true community.  If we all operated under this guiding principle, imagine what we could accomplish. Rfrisbietalk 03:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise is the source of community 

message: He's referring to the May userbox policy poll, not this proposal, in the first part, but I think the second is relevant (I've bolded it.) —Mira 03:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume a centralized unofficial space is OK... —Ashley Y 04:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked for more feedback.  Maybe we'll get another musing on the subject. :-) Rfrisbietalk 04:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Jimbo quote

message: Here are some recent developments on moving religious userboxes to userspace. Rfrisbietalk 18:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving religious userboxes 

message: One idea might be to undelete all speedied userboxes, and boldly move each into the space of someone who is including it. —Ashley Y 23:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undelete and move? 

message: Why is there no criticism section of the main page? I would have assumed someone at least had some objections to it. Or is there another article for that purpose, and I missed it in my scan of the page? --tjstrf 00:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, so far we did have some discussions what should be migrated and what should be kept (in templatespace), should they fall under T1 or not, should they retain categories or not, and what should be done with the redirects but I failed to see any hard criticism of the effort. Most people, even Tony Sidaway, had positive words for it. If you feel this idea lacks something, please bring it up and we will work together to improve it. CharonX/talk 01:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *I'm not so sure that this is a criticism, but I'm embaressed to say I thought of a rather different German solution the first time I saw the headline on the Community Portal... Ouch... Staxringold talkcontribs 01:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *Ah, I'm not alone in that mistake. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *I was thinking The same thing--E-Bod 01:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *:[multiple edit conflicts now]You are not the first user to raise that poit.  See Wikipedia talk:The German solution#German Solution? above.  Is the reaction bad enough to overcome that these were the words Jimbo used to endorse this solution?  I don't know.  GRBerry 01:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: [Edit conflict, response to User:Tjstrf]The biggest difference between this and the proposals I've seen is that this is not a proposed policy.  The plan (to the extent that a diverse group of us that occupied different positions in the have anything worthy of calling a plan) is to just do it.  If it works, in a while it won't be hard to get it through as a guideline.  But we'll worry about adopting it after we 1) figure out what it is and 2) make it work.  Thus far, we have basically completely postponed solving the questions "Do we keep track of these things?  How?"  I'm sure there are other such questions that need to be answered, and we are stumbling over them.  Sections of this page like Wikipedia talk:The German solution#Redirects? are part of figuring out what "the German solution" really is, and are the appropriate venue for shaping it up.  GRBerry 01:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IfAfter it works, there won't be a need to get anything through as a guideline.  That's the beauty of it. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of the German Solution? 

message: I found an interesting comparison between the English and German Wikipedias: User:Elian/comparison.  It's not massively relevant to precisely what we're doing here, though userboxes are mentioned.  It's a good read. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speaking of de: 

message: |link to userbox archive|your preferred gender pronoun}}  
I could use some help on the second one, I just can't seem to get the second optional field thingie to work right. Maybe I'm just tired. Anyway, enjoy! —Mira 09:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much! —Mira 22:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It had to happen...

message: Well, you know how it is, the lazy grit I am one becomes struck by a (possibly) good idea, and I transcluded some of the userboxes in the other archives in mine. The purpose is that while specialisation is good and necessary, some people just want to have a quick overview over the various boxes. Please take a look and tell me what you think of it. CharonX/talk 19:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what they say about ????? minds. I like it!  :-) Rfrisbietalk 02:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It had to happen - my "Meta Archive" opens

message: I have been bold and moved this page per several discussions above. —Mira 05:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved

message: I added a new functionality to pywikipediabot.  It's named "refcheck.py" and it's primarily used for something different, but you can use it to get a count of transclusions of various templates.  For instance, running python refcheck.py -count 'User vegan' 'User logic' 'User politician' 'User abortion' yields the following result:
Number of transclusions per template
------------------------------------
User vegan: 33
User logic: 9
User politician: 29
User abortion: 30
--Cyde↔Weys 05:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nifty work, thanks alot Cyde. CharonX/talk 23:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pywikipedia