Wikipedia talk:Userbox migration/Archive 5

message: I am Tbone55, and have a few Userboxes, I wanted to know how to migrate them. 
thanks. 
--'â¢Tbone55â¢(Talk) (Contribs)(UBX) 17:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the project page (Wikipedia:Userbox migration)? That tells you how to do so. If you did and still don't know, try asking at the help desk. –The Great Llamasign here 21:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a pretty good summary there. I guess that qualifies me as "one of the admins" now, so you can ask me. Although don't ask me about AWB. Ask a poor PC user instead. -Royalguard11(TalkÂ·DeskÂ·Review Me!) 01:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Sorry for not actually answering your question. I was in a hurry to answer it so I wouldn't get an edit conflict. –The Great Llamasign here 19:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Box Migration  

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

message: I have been thinking about this subject and have posted some ideas at User:Flutefluteflute/AWB, RETF & UBM. Please give your comments on the talk page of that page.  Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 13:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:UBM|Userbox Migration]] with [[WP:AWB|Auto Wiki Browser]] and the principle of [[WP:RETF|RegExTypoFix]]

message: I added a new type of userbox migration to the main article. It is called "UserPage to UserPage Userbox Migration" and can be used for moving userboxes from one userpage to another. I hope you guys like it!
Masky 23:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. I justed used the code from the other one to do user-user ones before. This should be useful too. As seen above, some people want out once and a while. -Royalguard11(TalkÂ·DeskÂ·Review Me!) 02:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Very nice! I like it alot CharonX/talk 01:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New type of Userbox Migration 

message: This recently created project seems to overlap somewhat with this page; I though a link might be a good idea.  Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what to do with that page, but a we're not affiliated is in order. This page is part of WikiProject Userboxes. For the upteenth time, we are in no way affiliated with Wikiproject Userboxes. We rejected the move, and we rejected the merge. I think furthermore the idea (as above) was to keep this as decentralized as possible. That's why this is just a page, with a bunch of people who are migrating boxes, instead of a formal wikiproject with members who's jobs include migrating userboxes (sorry for the rant). -Royalguard11(TalkÂ·DeskÂ·Review Me!) 04:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No, you can still use them.  It's ok to use boxes that are hosted in somebody else's userspace. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Userbox Migration]] 

message: (clearing the dust off the page)The userbox Template:User kkk has been nominated for deletion. It appears that it's heading for a "userfied" consensus. The problem: who would like to adopt the box? I have already said that I refuse to on principle. So, I guess that if no one wants it, we can safely delete it then. -Royalguard11(TalkÂ·DeskÂ·Review Me!) 18:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind then, someone speedied the template. -Royalguard11(TalkÂ·DeskÂ·Review Me!) 03:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TFD 

message: Houston, we have a problem... I'm trying to migrate two userboxes using the  template, but ran into a problem. The userbox templates are improperly named, as they don't start with the word "User ", therefore, the migration template doesn't QUITE work correctly. How can I still move them? I'm not familiar enough with templates to use subst:. Any hints, tips, solutions? Thanks. 0cm 01:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I put the box onto  (using the raw code). -Royalguard11(TalkÂ·DeskÂ·Review Me!) 19:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much :) 0cm 20:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Migration template problem, please help? 

message: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/User onemanonewoman is at MFD. The userfied box is . The difference between this and other times that userfied boxes have been up for deletion is that this one has several recommendations of delete! I also think that the deletion of this box would basically be a rejection of TGS/GUS/UBM and all the work that has been done here. The rejection of UBM is basically calling for the Userbox Wars to restart. -Royalguard11(TalkÂ·DeskÂ·Review Me!) 18:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, closed as keep (it must have been per WP:SNOW). Only three days were given though, so we might want to watch WP:DRV for the next couple days just in case. -Royalguard11(TalkÂ·DeskÂ·Review Me!) 23:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next Test 

message: I've stated a page with all the TFD/MFD/DRV decisions involving userfied userboxes that I can find/remember at User:Royalguard11/userboxes/precedents. If anyone finds anything, or if I've missed anything, feel free to add to it. I know that there are a few TFD cases that had results of defer to MFD, but I can't remember months/days. This should make it easier to refer to past decisions and precedents, and it will make them easier to find. -Royalguard11(TalkÂ·DeskÂ·Review Me!) 23:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking hard, but I'm not sure if I can recall any additional. I'll check my contributions, maybe I'll find something. You're doing a real good job Roayalguard, serious props :D Edit: Before I forget it, I recall some deletion nominations for userboxes at TfD, but all of them got closed (default keep) since they were faulty nominations and the nominators pointed to MfD. CharonX/talk 03:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precedents 

message: Has anyone seen this page? I think we need to implement a solution. you take a look at User talk:Scepia where hate has been generated over "ownership" of content that no one has ownership of. Can we move all of them to UserBox's userspace? It puts them in the User Name space, and no one has ownership. Can we do something like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mckaysalisbury (talk • contribs) 
:No and no. We've talked about this before, and the answer is no. The idea was to decentraize this, and nobody owns anything. -Royalguard11(TalkÂ·DeskÂ·Review Me!) 22:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I'm not sure, but I think you misunderstood. User:UserBox makes for a nice place to store stuff, that emphasizes lack of ownership. I referenced User talk:Scepia, because on that page, he has been flamed with people who think that he is "stealing" ownership. Scepia has moved userboxes to his space, as per wikipedia policy, and it has generated a lot of ill feelings. I think something should be done, and I think the User:UserBox solution does that. It isn't decentralized, and I can see how that might be a disadvantage, but I'm not sure. Can you point me to where this discussion occured about no decentralization? McKay 20:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See #The user "UserBox". -Royalguard11(TalkÂ·DeskÂ·Review Me!) 21:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:UserBox]]

message: "All controversial and divisive userboxes, including those currently in Wikipedia:Userboxes will be migrated out of template space into userspace or an appropriate subpage, such as a corresponding WikiProject."
Scratching me head here guys... what's so disturbing about Judo? --Mal 18:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because it doesn't fall under T1 doesn't mean it belongs in templatespace. A TFD would most likely result in a userfy decision. Some people might see it as unencyclopedic. Although, being good at Judo could provide some first-hand encyclopedic knowledge. -Royalguard11(TalkÂ·DeskÂ·Review Me!) 23:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judo is "controversial" and/or "divisive"?!? 

message: Am I the only one who finds it curious that  and  are busily migrating userboxes to  (current listing)?  Is this just flying under the radar?  Is it because Metsbot's daddy is , an admin?  Maybe I just missed the memo.  This certainly looks like a missed opportunity for a rousing round of wikidrama.  Could someone clue me in?  I'm so out of touch, I might as well herd my herd over to UBX and retire from the boxen wrangling business. ;-) Rfrisbie 16:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, odd. No idea either. Still, as long as no admin takes er... rash actions against that user, I approve. In any case, I'll use a wait-and-see approach before I do anything. CharonX/talk 21:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

text: I don't really care as long as nothings get mass deleted. Mets is a BAG member and an admin, so I trust that he knows what he's doing. I think I'll keep my userbox archvie for the moment though. -Royalguard11(TalkÂ·DeskÂ·Review Me!) 21:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As usual, there seems to be one set of rules for admins and something else for the rest of us.  I really am ready to migrate out all of the boxes at User:Rfrisbie/Userbox and all of the directories at User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes.  Any takers? Rfrisbie 22:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mets is really good to work with and his bot is pretty efficient.  You could contact him directly.  --NThurston 22:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll probably give it a go. Rfrisbie 22:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks NThurston :-).  Anyway, Rfrisbie, I would recommend against moving all the userboxes out of your userspace and updating transclusions, as that would require thousands and thousands of edits, but if you really think it's necessary then I would do it (you should also read User:UBX first so you are clear on the use of that user domain). âMETS501 (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mets501, I'll take you up on the offer, reluctant as it may be, to migrate the boxes at User:Rfrisbie/Userbox. Rfrisbie 02:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Mets501! All of these boxes (plus many others) now can be found at User:UBX. :-) Rfrisbie 21:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I have decided the time is ripe for me to divest myself from hosting userboxes and userbox directories.  If anyone would like to host User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes and its accompanying subpages, please let me know. Rfrisbie 02:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd happily host them at User:UBX, if you want, but I think fixing the transclusions would just been tons of extra unnecessary edits, unless you are using your m:right to vanish or something of that sort. âMETS501 (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Feel free to make the moves. Fixing tons of transclusions is up to you. I can only assume it would be far easier for a bot to do such things than how I did it.  I'm not claiming a right to vanish, just the right to divest myself of the userboxes and directories. Rfrisbie 02:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you don't mind if userboxes which already transclude your subpages continue to (or really, they'd be transcluding a redirect)?  I will start the moves in a couple of days. âMETS501 (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite follow the question, so here's what I prefer.  All userboxes and directories will be moved from User:Rfrisbie.  All redirects at User:Rfrisbie created by these moves will be bypassed.  All subsequently empty redirects at User:Rfrisbie will be deleted.  I believe this is the general process you have followed with the userbox migrations you have made to date.  Whatever timetable works for you is fine with me. Thanks. Rfrisbie 03:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it's 16,679 edits though, so it will take a LONG time, assuming you're still sure you want it done :-). âMETS501 (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know. They didn't walk over there on their own. >;-o)  Since time is an illusion, I'm in no hurry.  Thanks again. :-) Rfrisbie 15:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry you feel the need to get out Rfrisbie. I know that you did just a ton of work with this from WP:TGS. You definitely have all our thanks for that.   Good luck in the future though! -Royalguard11(TalkÂ·DeskÂ·Review Me!) 21:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  The main reason I got into this little activity was I felt too many users were being mistreated by too many admins.  This uneasy truce seems to have held well enough.  The addition of admins like yourself and Mets501 willing to champion and protect boxes is a good sign.  The common sense addition of a proxy user site is the golden opportunity I've been looking for to bequith my legacy and move on.  This place is just too darn annoying to stick around forever. Rfrisbie 00:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, the good old times... well, they were not good... Anyway, take a good breater mate, it really helps to clean one's mind (did the same a while ago) - but don't think you can escape the lure of wikipedia - sooner or later you'll be back :D Still, in the meantime, enjoy your break. We'll (well, mainly Royalguard and the rest of the crew, me being the usual lazy git I am) hold the fort. CharonX/talk 04:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, my "wikibreak" is a bit of a busman's holiday. I'm still playing by the continuation rule and trying to tie up as many loose ends as I can. But for me, the load has lightened considerably.  I didn't say I quite or retired, but I will be a bit more picky on how I get involved.  I definitely won't get involved in any more epics like this one. :-) Rfrisbie 15:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox directories looking for a home 

message: Does anyone else disagree with the userbox migration? I find it very unnecessary seeing as putting  is easier than . This is just a stupid idea. -23PatPeter*â 02:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't. We've been over this a million times before. Get over it, it's not going to change. Just because some people disagree with this, it's not going to stop. You don't like it? Many other people don't either. Want to protest? Then be one of the userbox purists that refuses to use userfied boxes and be over it. You are not going to change anything by basically spitting in our hard working faces. -Royalguard11(TalkÂ·Review Me!) 02:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this is a tough area, but please, Royalguard, try to stay civil.  By just mentioning the fact of typing, I don't think that this user fully understands why the migration is taking place. âMETS501 (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the solution to that is obvious. Don't complain unless you know the story behind it first. -Royalguard11(TalkÂ·Review Me!) 03:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if I would be considered to "know the story behind it"....  That aside, I think the "solution" is to not bite the newbies.  Oh and by the way: Wikipedia:Consensus can change - so saying that no discussion is allowed because it's "been discussed before" is simply inaccurate, to say the least. Note, nowhere in these comments am I commenting on the current, and recent actions of userfication, merely on the questionable civility and wikiquette I've been witnessing. - jc37 11:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize then if I've been too harsh. I've just goten a little sick of everyone coming here going "oh, this sucks, it's inconvenient, ect". Although people are allowed to express their opinions, this isn't the complaints department. This isn't the place for everyone to come and yell at us or tell us what we've worked hard on is stupid. If you want to change consensus, then ask others at a more prominent place. WP:VP is a good place to start, telling us we're stupid is not. I'm not sure if anyone knows the "full story" behind this anymore (I don't even know the full extent of it, but I know quite a bit of it). But it does help if you know the basics of why (reading the page is a good start). When someone comes here and says "I think we should propose an end to the userbox standoff" then that's a good place to start. "This is just a stupid idea" isn't. -Royalguard11(TalkÂ·Review Me!) 02:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petition to stop the Userbox Migration 

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

message: There's a new attempt to purge controversial userboxed even from userspace, and even an attempt to add a new CSD criterion. See for instance
* Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#CSD-U4: Polemical userspace transclusions
* Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/Zionist
* Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/EndUN
* Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ursasapien/Userboxes/antiDIME
* Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Selfworm/Userboxes/NotCatholic (2nd nomination)
* Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 22
—Ashley Y 21:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are they for real about this? -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Why can we not simply move userboxes to the namespace http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UserBox/?  Userboxes do not belong on user pages because they are used by everyone, and do not belong in templates because they are not that kind of thing. They are their own catagory and should be dealt with as such. If all the user boxes were moved to a place like that, everyone would be happy (other than those who want them all gone, which isn't going to happen any time soon). The userboxes would have their own place at Wikipedia, and would be out of the way of anyone not wanting to deal with them. If you don't want them to come up in searches, uncheck that namespace. If you want to search only userboxes, go ahead. It makes everything simple. There are a lot of user boxes, and many duplicates. It is a very poor system as it is. Also, the same kind of thing could be done with other pages that are their own catagory but don't really have a place yet; such as to seperate tools from article page templates. SadanYagci 18:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal for that was the May Userbox Policy Poll (meaning May '06). It was rejected, and this was born from the ashes of it. Userboxes in people's archives are usable by everyone, and changeable by everyone. Nobody own's a userbox. They can't even get them speedy deleted under U1 (I've double and triple checked that). And if you ask the right people, they think all userboxes should be nuked regardless of where they are, and they don't actually have their own place at Wikipedia (more part of the culture, but not part of the fabric or Wikipedia). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Un-organized Migration 

message: This seems to have become a guideline, particularly considering the results of most of the above. I think guidelines can be recognised from existing practice.
What do you think, is this now a guideline? —Ashley Y 05:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to have taken the long road of just becoming the de facto standard, so I'd say it is a basic guideline by now. But I know there would also be significant opposition to any change of this to a guideline. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 19:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose we could start a discussion whether this is a guideline or not, purely based upon that it is commonly used. The attempt to widen T1 has failed too, and inversely resulted in a clarification that T1 does not apply to userspace, so that's a nice result too.84.145.203.25 23:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This isn't a guideline or policy. - jc37 01:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I could argue that it is now de-facto accepted by the community, and thus went the bottom-up way of becoming a guideline I feel there is little gained in arguing with you whether is a guideline or not. The important thing is that people are accepting it. Though if User:^demon speedy deletes an userbox arguing WP:UBM is not official then I know which admin I'll blame for it :p Still, I'd be curious to hear why you are against this being a bottom-up guideline. 84.145.195.64 03:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline?