Wikipedia talk:Userbox migration/Archive 2

message: As the page itself indicates, this is not a policy. If you want to host a UBX you may, of course, do so. But do not use this page as an excuse to attack UBX, delete them, or attempt to force their userfication. UBX policy is under development at Wikipedia:Userbox policy and I strongly suggest that you resort to that page, edit it to reflect your concerns, and -- please -- move on. John Reid 20:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes#Help develop a coherent set of policies on userboxes for a more complete list of userbox policy proposals. Rfrisbietalk 21:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, you managed to lure me out of my wikibreak, happy? Should your proposal be successful and become policy, well done, should it fail to archive consensus, like all the others before, tough luck. Personally I'm not a big fan of this proposal, but that's only my opinion. However, until somebody comes up with a better idea and manages to gain consensus with it, I will follow Jimbo's suggestion and what we made out of it. We never claimed it was policy, and we explicitely stated that the best thing about it is that it actually works without the need to be one. If you don't like our carefully crafted work... "I strongly suggest that you resort to that page, edit it to reflect your concerns, and -- please -- move on." CharonX/talk 00:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not a policy 

message: While TGS takes care of the Template namespace we can take the Userfy solution Even Further to accommodate the Category namespace
Hear is a Proof of Concept
*User:X 
*Category:Wikipedians who are Awesome
**Cool thing: You don't have to even see the link
We have User:X
We dedicate a userpage as a category page it can be User:Q/Category/Y or User:Q/Category:Y .We do not even need to create the page however if we do create the page then it can link to It's Special:Whatlinkshere.
On the page we want Include a link to
User:Yskyflyer/Category:Wikipedians who are Awesome
However the link is long and we don't want it to stand out so If you want you can even have the link invisible with a Space character
 
However AWB will try to change it back. so instead we can us a Zero-Width Space or another space of our choice. (Zero-Width Space will expand when Justified but i don't think that's a problem)
​
Then View the Special:Whatlinkshere as a Category
Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Yskyflyer/Category:Wikipedians who are Awesome
--E-Bod 02:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is a good idea. Masking categories will only encourage using them for factionalization. Either use them, or use not; there is no hide. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I didn't Actually think about that use.I was thinking about it more like an easy way to identify the page such as for WP:AWB or i we were looking for a userbox to use on our page we could see what other wiipidias used in addition to userbox X.Now that you metion it it does seem sneaky and is not as good as an Ida as i had thought.(Some solutions just are too good to be true)--E-Bod 00:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for :Category:Wikipedians. I see no need to userfy it. Rfrisbietalk 01:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userfy Category 

message: User:Winhunter/Userboxes/EFF User:Winhunter/Userboxes/No-CCP
Both have been deleted, the reasoning being "T1 deletion as per CSD and Tony Sidaway arbcom case." —Mira 23:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess those who believe all userboxes should be deleted don't care that Jimbo endorsed the solution. Who deleted them? Where did you find this out? Have they been listed on DRV yet? Has any admin (yes, User:GTBacchus, I'm looking at you) undeleted them? Jay Maynard 01:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jay, remember, good admins don't undo each others actions without dialogue.I'm talking with the deleting admin, who quite explicitly doesn't believe that all userboxes should be deleted. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. Please let us know what the result of your discussion is, so that we can have a better idea of whether this compromise will work. Jay Maynard 01:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: For that matter, is the deletion recorded somewhere, so us peons can find out who deleted it, when, and why? Jay Maynard 01:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely; follow the redlinks above, for example, and click on the deletion log link. The hard part is remembering how to get to the log for a page that's been deleted and then salted; check Special:Log and enter the name by hand in those cases. -- nae'blis (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am especially curious which ArbCom case NicholasTurnbull is talking about. --Hunter 02:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ArbCom case is located here. See also the above section. —Mira 03:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: User talk:NicholasTurnbull#German solution.Please feel free to follow our discussion, and jump right in if you see fit.I would request that we all endeavor to keep our conversations about this issue at a mutually respectful level; I will certainly appreciate a reminder if I forget to do so.My chief concern right now is to avoid re-entering a "war" mentality.Please, let's all work together on that goal. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am having a hard time seeing this as anything other than a shot designed to defeat TGS as a solution to the war. As such, I'm going to stay the heck out of the discussion, and hope that I'm proven wrong. Jay Maynard 03:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am thinking, should we bring this case to the ArbCom? I am not again NicholasTurnbull but would like to have the ArbCom to rule on this once and for all, so they make a decision on GUS and whether past ruling applies to GUS userboxes or not. --WinHunter(talk) 03:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't consider taking someone to ArbCom before you've tried to have a person-to-person conversation with them.Besides, the ArbCom doesn't rule "once and for all". Remember, that they don't think of themselves as a legal body, establishing binding precedent, and you'll get along with them better if you don't either. It's very hard, but think outside the bun. ArbCom said that recreations in userspace of any deleted content may be treated as recreations. They didn't say they have to be. It's pretty hard to argue that one couldn't logically apply that ArbCom result to this situation (if one were thinking legalistically). It's much easier to argue that, hey, why don't we choose not to apply that ruling, even though we could. It's much easier to argue that a smart driver wouldn't take that route, because a smart driver would be thinking about the social aspects of his actions as well as the technical ones, because this is a Wiki. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish, that would yield a binding solution on this issue once and for all.--Cyde↔Weys 03:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cyde, don't you know that Wikipedia:No binding decisions is official policy? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:No binding decisions - "However, some decisions are binding until those who made the decision recall it. This is mostly limited to the bans imposed by Jimmy Wales, the Arbitration Committee, and the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation. These decisions can be reviewed by and appealed to the source body." and that is why I would like an ArbCom ruling on this (The decision on T1). --WinHunter(talk) 03:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read carefully. This isn't a ban. It's almost a truism around here that ArbCom decisions do not make policy.I'm looking for a link - gimme a sec. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Here: Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Rules.Look at the box on this page - it's even more policy than policy.It says: "Former decisions will not be binding on the Arbitrators - rather, they intend to learn from experience."It even has that link in it. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Former decisions will not be binding on the Arbitrators - rather, they intend to learn from experience." - I understand the decisions by ArbCom does not have any binding effect on the Arbitrators themselves, but the decision on T1 has a binding effect on T1 unless it is overturned by another ArbCom decision. (The ArbCom decision I quoted did not distinguish between userboxes in userspace or template space) --WinHunter(talk) 04:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You are right though, it is not and will not be a once and for all decision, but at least we get something for now. --WinHunter(talk) 04:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I would contend that, with the enactment of the German Userbox Solution, the atmosphere has changed since that ArbCom decision, and we've reached one of those points where learning from experience is kind of begging to happen. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The biggest problem of all is that GUS is not a policy. So all admins are free to apply ArbCom decision on it as they see fit. I understand that the atmosphere has changed, and that is the reason I wish ArbCom to rule whether that ruling still applies on userbox in userspace. --WinHunter (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess GUS not being "policy" would seem to be the problem, if you weren't thinking of this as a Wiki.I think the biggest problem is a combative atmosphere and a lack of ability or willingness to see from multiple perspectives and understand one another.Those criticisms apply to all "sides" equally, as far as I can tell. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I think we have a problem

message: I really should stay on my wikibreak (as I can feel my tempers flaring up) but I'm honestly considering putting the latest deletion of Userspace userboxes on a RfC for the deleting admin. Since I know I'm a bit hotblooded sometimes, I'd rather like your input on what to do should the userspace deletions keep up, instead of blindly rushing forward. CharonX/talk 00:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that this is going to wind up as an RFArb at some point, unless Jimbo gets off dead center and makes policy. If an RFC for the deleting admin is what it takes to get there, then we might as well get it started; I see little profit in further delay. Jay Maynard 00:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC and RfArb? 

message: Just wanted to bring something up (and as you may guess, I am opposed to this 'idea', but mainly due to technical reasons).
#How do you decide who deserves to own a userbox. Because even if no-one owns their userspace, it still has their username in the title, and as far as many are concerned they have 'claimed' it.
#*And for that matter, this may irritate the person who created it in the first place.
#If you use copy+paste, then doesn't this break the GFDL, since you don't have a record in the history of who helped make it.
#And if you move it, this creates a cross-namespace redirect.
#*To remove this redirect, you need to either:
#**subst: of which you will find many people don't want pages of unreadable code on their page.
#**Change transclusion, to which some see as vandalism, and brings up the ownership issue again.
#***And you are then basically crediting the username in the title of the transclusion as the creator/owner, which I am sure many people also may not like.
#**and much of this work is done by AWB, which means that people may not notice user-requests not to do such actions, and this semi-automated process means this is ignored.
#Then, these userboxes can be edited mainly by just the user who moved it, since realistically it is enforced that the person who's userspace it is gets to choose what it looks like.
#*This is open to abuse, they can move it and change the content totally.
#**and if the transclusion location has been changed on other userpages, then their page is inadvertently changed, commonly without themm realising, and totally changing the meaning.
#**Or they can be speedy deleted through CSD U1: "Owner request. Personal subpages, upon request by their owner".
#***Maybe a new start to the userbox war? A move and speedy spree...
Overall, I think this makes a lot more problems than it solves, and will lead in de-centralisation (I know, it's what Jimbo wants...), which in itself makes it hard for people to find templates and will lead to countless duplicates filling up the SQL database.
Ian13/talk 13:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yes, but it strains the server without need. There is more content to handle. It's not really the space I am saying, just the extra ticks (if thats what SQL calls them) that are needed to find stuff and execute queries. Ian13/talk 13:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm open to other solutions. Keeping them in templatespace caused this mess. Forced substing won't be accepted by the users. Mass deletion won't be accepted by the users. A centralized display is opposed by some powers that be. This might be more server unfriendly, though probably not much since there only will be a handful duplicates of each, worst case (and even so I suspect its only a drop in the vast amount of data in the wikispace). And regarding "owning" the boxes. If a user puts his box up for transclusion, he basically says "I'm just a caretaker of it". If a users moves boxes and then speedies them, its vandalism (or people would get away with moving articles and then U1 them). If you have a solution that is accepted by all, or know a way how to make this one easier on the servers without treading on the toes of the various sides, I'd glady support it. CharonX/talk 16:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My limited sense is that CharonX is thus far correct that most users who have started hosting boxes under WP:GUS have done so as caretakers.Whether that will hold is another question.I've seen one case of a caretaker asking others to assume the "burden" of caretaking.I've seen one case of editing a userbox that someone else was the caretaker of - I'd guess that there are more examples of this, but since I have no userboxes on my watch list, I simply don't know.Right now having multiple copies around and available is considered a good thing, which mitigates against the ownership issue.This is an issue to watch as the solution evolves, but at this time I'm not worried.The wording on the project page could easily be tweaked now to discourage a sense of ownership if multiple editors share this concern.GRBerry 17:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: As I've mentioned at times in the past, I'll only host userboxes which I have included on my own user page.My mindset is rather than being a caretakers of a collection of boxes I have a few boxes which I use and then make available to others do use as well.The archive page I keep specifically mentions that if someone wants to have a modified version they should copy the code to their own user page (or a subpage) and tweak it to their content.This may cause some forking but I feel it is better than having people scream "don't change that box, it's mine".I worry that if users try to become the caretaker of a large number of boxes they risk being branded an archive and then targeted for mass deletion.The same when proxy accounts (such as User:Userboxes) are used.My mode of operation will continue to be to host what I use personally and make it available to others to save them effort in recreating it from scratch. --StuffOfInterest 17:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You managed to respond to my second sentence without comprehending the first.Please don't worry about the database.That is for the devs, and the devs alone, to worry about, and they are not worried about this in the slightest.Please don't get worried for them or project your worries onto them and then use that as a rationale for something else you'd like to do (like whatever solution you want for userboxes).Thank you.--Cyde↔Weys 16:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But then again, there are issues with updating the tool server and the like due to the sheer size of the database. I just think that slowing down the Wiki is a bad thing. Then again, we manage to keep huge amountsof revisions okay... Ian13/talk 20:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: But it still doesn't address CSD U1: "Owner request. Personal subpages, upon request by their owner". Ian13/talk 20:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And that also shows that they are sort of considered an owner of types... Ian13/talk 20:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not discuss about formalities, ok. U1 is meant that a user may delete his own sandbox, or a subpage he created in his userspace for his own purposes etc. without having it to go through MfD. Not more, not less. CharonX/talk 21:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm just saying that they *can* delete them and the like if they want. I know its not the intention here, but they can nonetheless. I don't really mind copies of these userboxes on the userspace, it's the whole crossnamespace redirects and especially how with moving they are put under the caretakers control, with the original (Template:User *) gone. Ian13/talk 14:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'm just saying that they're no more under their caretaker's "control" in user space than they were in template space, where anyone could edit them. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ownership and deletion 

message: What about userboxes that have categories attached to them? The German userbox "solution" doesn't include the category that a userbox might have added before. I had to manually put Category:Heterosexual Wikipedians back on my user page because the German userbox "solution" took it out. SushiGeek 01:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The German userbox solution does not state what to do with categories in userboxes. However because of their controversial nature, I've taken to a policy of removing them from the userboxes that I have moved to my userspace and then replacing the categories on the individual userpages. This is not a claim of ownership; I would do the same to all userboxes if I had the time. All of the editors who have reverted my removal of the categories from userboxes agreed with my reasoning after I explained myself to them. In your specific case, the only reason I didn't come by and replace the category on your page is that your userpage is protected and I cannot edit it. —Mira 02:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All I'm saying is that this isn't much of a solution if there is nothing you can do about that. What is your reasoning for not including the categories to begin with, anyway? SushiGeek 02:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I can't do anything about what? About placing it on your page? Because the vast majority of user pages are not protected, and I have no problem editing them. My reasoning for not including the categories is that the point of the German userbox solution is to avoid controversy as far as is possible. Since they are controversial, and it isn't really that much work to just add the categories to your page yourself (and as I said, I replace them on any page already using them), it just doesn't make since to keep them in the userboxes. —Mira 04:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I actually agree with you. As long as they're here, I'm using them, but I would not oppose their deletion. —Mira 05:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Saying there's "no consensus" doesn't really tell the whole story.There's different kinds of no consensus out there.No consensus to delete is certainly not the same as "accepted by the community".All it takes is a few people willfully disregarding policy to create "no consensus".I'm not saying that's necessarily what's happening here, but I wouldn't blithely say that user categorization is accepted as a good thing. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was responding to comments like, "The categories are really unnecessary and should just be removed outright."There's "point of view" and then there's "bias."Once again, my main point is, "There are plenty of useful encyclopedic purposes for :Category:Wikipedians." Rfrisbietalk 18:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there useful encyclopedic purpose for :Category:Wikipedians by politics?I tend to think those are just a bad idea, but I'm open to discussing it. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For major parties such as US Democrats, US Republicans, UK Labour, and UK Conservative there probably isn't much use.For a more obscure party it could be handy if someone is working on an article about or related to the party to get some first hand knowledge by an inidividual who may affiliation with it.If nothing else that individual can point an editor towards more sources of information.Regarding general inclusion of categories, I don't think categories should be hard coded in the box.For my own boxes I list a suggested category next to the box code but just adding the box won't join a person in a category.That leaves things open to too much sneakyness for my liking. --StuffOfInterest 19:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I'd agree with Rfrisbie about the various topics flying around here.Following the thread of user categories, I would disagree about the political ones for obscure parties.Much better, and much more Wikipedian, would be to watch the articles related to the party you're involved with and about which you want to lend your expertise.If you're working on an article about some obscure party then, the experts will already be watching your edits, and are readily available to answer questions on the talk page.If they don't seem to be forthcoming there, you can find them on talk pages of related topics, and in edit histories.The user categories shift the focus from the topic to the people, and their stances, and that's not ideal.We could instead encourage very, very encyclopedic behavior, focused on the articles themselves. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:10, 18 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)
replies: text: Bingo! Rfrisbietalk 04:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  (reply copied from above - DavidBailey double posted that paragraph?) I don't think anyone's suggesting that categories of Wikipedians interested in certain topics are harmful, the problem is categories of Wikipedians according to the side they've taken on some issue.Could you clarify how you're presenting a counter-example?I really don't see how it's any more difficult for "groups which have similar interests to discuss and contibute to articles" in any scenario that anybody is suggesting.What exactly are you arguing against? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Why? All of the 'German' boxes recently deleted have been restored (overwhelmingly) after deletion review. Ergo this seems to be working fine to me. --CBD 12:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Examples? There was one 'missing' box on your page, and that just because it hadn't been updated to link to the new location. --CBD 12:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Both deleted and page protected by Doc glasgow in May.Any good faith admins want to "fix" them? Rfrisbietalk 16:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who's willing to host them in their userspace?Give me a location, and I'll move the history and put a friendly soft redirect in the old spot. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: They are already fixed.--Cyde↔Weys 16:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By "already fixed," he means what Doc did. Rfrisbietalk 17:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These two? Template:User Australian Democrat and Template:User Social Democrat... No that isn't the right title for the first one.Anyone? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:User Australian Democrats Rfrisbietalk 17:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Rfrisbie.Now, where shall they be hosted in user space? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Gamer Junkie, you're really asking how membership in factions can be viewed as factionalism?I would question why you think of your individuality in terms of club memberships.Besides that, nobody is suggesting that you aren't allowed to exhibit defining characteristics and interests, in fact, you're quite welcome to do so. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk to GTBacchus about that. Rfrisbietalk 11:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, that's a fair question.Political parties are types of clubs, so I think it's clear why I chose that word.Also, if you say "this user is Pro-choice" or "this user is Pro-life" (just to grab an example), you're declaring yourself to be on one side of a polarized dispute- that's a faction.If you're pro-choice, and you see a pro-life box in someone's space, it encourages you to get a pro-choice box for your space, thus factionalism and polarization is further encouraged.If, on the other hand, a userbox says something like "this user is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Abortion and works on abortion-related articles", that still lets people know that you're somehow focused on the issue, but you haven't made it about taking a side, you've made it about encyclopedic interest, which gives you just as much individuality, in a way that's much more related to the work going on here than just saying "this is what side I'm on, for this particular issue".Just taking a side is like saying that's all there is to the issue - this is my "side", the conclusion I've reached, and that's that.I'd rather have an encyclopedia written by people who practice the habit of taking nuanced views of things, and avoid easy dichotomies and easy answers.I'm not against you having strong views, and telling us about them, but your userspace here is supposed to be about how you relate to the encyclopedia, not a personal webpage of who you are - there are so many websites that are set up for that, and Wikipedia really isn't one of them. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I nominate Gamer Junkie to host these userboxes! >;-o) Rfrisbietalk 23:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't there already a collection of political ones... oh, I can find them pretty easily I suppose.... User:Ashley Y/Userboxes/Politics seems to be the place to put political stuff.I've just left a note asking whether Ashley minds if we userfy other political boxes to that space. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories with userboxes 

message: It has been my understanding that this template is supposed to be used on a userbox page after links to that page have been changed to the new links. I've come across many user pages recently that have not had their links corrected. Please correct these links before using  on a page. —Mira 06:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might get a better response if you contact those folks directly. Rfrisbietalk 14:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will do that next time I go through pages. I was heading to bed last night and didn't have time for much more than a quick note here. —Mira 15:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Part of the problem may be the need to list each userbox in a different location... the links cannot be consistently updated to just one format because the boxes have been relocated all over. However, in most cases 'Babel-X' and 'UBX-X' calls to a germanized userbox will automatically pick it up in the new location because of the built in  feature in those templates. Thus, changing a 'babel-5' call to 'babel-X' may fix some broken links. Similarly, for direct calls like {{user <whatever>}} changing them to  should work in most cases. Might help to simplfy some of these transitions. --CBD 12:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I usually do change "Babel-#" to "Babel-X" when I come across it. Thanks for the other stuff, I'll try to remember to change those as I find them. —Mira 15:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see, and contribute if you would like, to the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#German_userbox_solution. — xaosflux Talk 13:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of {{[[Template:GUS UBX to]]}} 

message: I know at least three of us have been thinking about some sort of straw poll.Anyone who is interested in combining drafts, giving feedback, etc., is welcome to take a look at User:Rfrisbie/Sandbox.Rfrisbietalk 14:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to GTBacchus, GRBerry and CharonX for your reviews and feedback. :-) Rfrisbietalk 02:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft straw poll(s) 

message: A straw poll designed to address userbox namespace location and related issues now is available. Please share your views at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Userbox location straw poll. Rfrisbietalk 02:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll 

message: What exactly is wrong with keeping Wikipedia:Userbox as is after the (hypothetical, it would appear) userbox migration? I don't see the point of creating a new repository for them and using the original to inform users not to make new boxen in templatespace. CameoAppearance 11:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Userbox 

message: More work needs to be done on everything listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion.Unfortunately, since most of those userboxes started off as "this user is" rather than "this user is interested in" (and most people put them on while they were still "is"), they don't accurately represent anything, and will probably need to be remade in userspace from scratch rather than simply redirecting.--Cyde↔Weys 05:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something tells me that's the very reason no one has done much work on them. —Shayltalk 06:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A German Wikipedia list of religion userboxes includes a number of "Dieser Benutzer ist" religion userboxes without any need to be remade from scratch.That's a fundamental reason for this "solution" responding to Jimbo's May 27, 2006 comment. The middle ground is to let people do as they will in the user space, and merely use reason and argument to teach people over time why one ought not use Wikipedia userpages for political or other campaigns.... while at the same time saying, no, really, the template namespace is not for that, that we do not endorse this behavior. This is the solution that the Germans have put into effect with great results. Rfrisbietalk 08:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion userboxes 

message: FYI, here's a conversation from User talk:Nathanrdotcom#Removing userbox links from Wikipedia:Userboxes.A consensus of two appears to be sufficient to move the process along. ;-) Rfrisbietalk 22:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Cyde and I happen to agree - "it's not policy, just go ahead and do it". If you had read my edit summaries, I linked to the main page of WP:TGS (which is the same link as WP:GUS). There are links to a few userbox directories on that page (also see the bottom of the page where a directory is shown) so people do know where to look. I don't feel I need to unnecessarily link to two things as it's redundant. I also don't feel I need to create a big neon sign telling users GO THIS WAY when people can just read WP:TGS and find the info they need there. Listing every possible link in an edit summary is just completely unneeded. — Nathan (talk) / 20:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The German implementation features do include leaving some userboxes. e.g., babel, in "encyclopedic" spaces and directories, while others have links to userspace directories.That's basically what's developing here - two sets of archive spaces, two sets of directories and some links between them. Rfrisbietalk 21:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing userbox links from [[Wikipedia:Userboxes]] 

message: I've created GUS's very own userbox, at . It makes it a little bit easier to spread the love. One thing though, I couldnt' get the border to show up; I tried to get it like Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes/Userbox, but it didn't work.Any help would be appreciated. —Akrabbimtalk 20:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *cough* *hack*  :) Perhaps they could be merged? —Shayltalk 21:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Variety is the spice of life in userspace!I'll make sure both of them have a listing at User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Userboxes. Rfrisbietalk 00:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That works too. :D —Mira 02:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I finally made the ShaylMira connection! 
 Rfrisbietalk 07:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, I didn't even notice that I did that. I'm trying to stick to one account per discussion, but I keep forgetting which one is logged in. Sorry for any confusion. —Mira 07:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah! Not that argument again... We already had to move this from WP:The German Solution because of people griping about the name. For the last time, German does not equal Nazi.--tjstrf 00:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Y'know, it does kind of sound that way now that you mention it (and now I can't get the image of a userbox concentration camp out of my head *snrk*), but that doesn't necessarily mean that the name needs to be changed to something more awkward to avoid the association. I don't really think it's possible to completely circumvent that. CameoAppearance 09:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a reason why it's called the German userbox solution. —Akrabbimtalk 21:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you want it called anyway, Wikipedia:The opinion of certain dutchmen regarding the proper placement of userboxes, now a widely accepted method on the english wikipedia.? We should credit the originators in the title somehow, and it's clunky enough as is. --tjstrf 19:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GUS userbox 

message: I just archived this page because it was getting huge. I don't think I caught any active discussions in there, but if I did, I'm sorry. —Mira 04:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived

message: This page keeps talking about "an Userbox", it's actually "a Userbox". What matters is not the letter used but the sound. "User" begins with a consonant (just like you say "write an x" or "he was an honourable man" and "it was a horribly bad film" or "'deceit' is written with a 'c', not an 's'"). I just thought that I would let you all know. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 08:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have fixed the two instances of this that I found. —Mira 22:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I just checked my contributions and saw that it was I that made the grammatically incorrect contribution. Whoops. (May I still keep that en-3 babelbox on my userpage or should I downgrade?) CharonX/talk 16:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I must admit, I'm not as good at Java as I used to be, probably should go down to 2 there. During the pratical stages of my university time I programmed plenty of Java, alone and in a team, but lately I fear I've become a bit rusty. And yeah, I agree that Visual Basic is not a real "programming language"... CharonX/talk 23:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick grammar lesson 

message: At least one user, Rfrisbie, is so zealous to implement this solution that he is sweeping user pages changing references to user boxes he has "userfied" to point to templates he has in his own namespace. While I have no problem with complying with changes in WP policy, I realize that user pages are the property of the community, and the changes in question are intended not to change the appearance of the edited user pages, I still feel this action goes beyond the limits of etiquette. 
Just changing the controversial template to a redirect would have been enough for most users to educate themselves on this policy and update their pages themselves. If it's an issue that requires the user's attention as soon as possible, then a talk page note would have been the way to handle it. But unless I have something so terrible on my page that it's removal is a WP emergency, then I ask the respect of letting me make the change myself. -- Meyer 23:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, guilty as charged.However, after doing literally thousands of redirects, I've received only a handful of objections, such as Meyer's.The issue for me is moving a page without cleaning up the redirect mess is more irresponsible than stopping halfway.There's no way to do this without offending someone, so once again, I apologize for offending Meyer.However, not bypassing redirects is more offensive IMHO. "Redirects should be bypassed in a timely fashion." is one of the steps outlined under Migration of the Userboxes.That's what I did and will continue to do, unless a groundswell (which should have arrived by now) tells me to stop. Rfrisbietalk 23:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've been using the soft redirect warning , but there still remains many of these that are left unnoticed for a considerable amount of time, such as subpages devoted to userboxes, which are for the most part overlooked by their respective users.Controversial or not, I don't have the time or desire to go through all of the hundreds and change them; if it's going to be done at all it should be relegated to a bot (I would hope Rfrisbie has more encyclopedic tasks to occupy himself with). I'm assuming that the goal will be to mark the old templates for speedy deletion, but you can't do that with hundreds of pages transcluding them. After thinking about it, after a certain amount of time either the users need to be notified directly or they should all be changed to the new userfied box. How long do we want these dead soft redirects to sit there? —Akrabbimtalk 02:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indefinitely. Dead templates on user pages do no harm to encyclopedic content. Active users will eventually notice the user box and fix their page; inactive users' pages can stay that way permanently if they never come back. -- Meyer 02:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I was just wondering about the possible server load. Just having them deleted and gone would be a burden off my mind and the servers', but if it's not a problem, then that answers my question. —Akrabbimtalk 02:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, no, the soft redirects are deleted after a period of time.The point of GUS is to get them out of the official namespaces, not leave a bunch of pointers behind.--Cyde↔Weys 04:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing user pages 

message: I really don't understand the purpose of GUS. If we're just going to send each userbox to a separate user subpage, and then place each in a directory, we might as well keep it as it is now. Why are we doing this? --walkingencyclopedia 14:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try reading some of the history.There is a large faction, including Jimbo, who want to make a clear deliniation between encylopedic and user related content.At one extreme is those who want to remove any and all non-enclopedic content no matter where it resides.At the other end are those who say anything, anywhere, anytime.GUS is an attempt at a middle ground to let people express their opinions while still keeping the encylopedia relatively clean.It is much mroe of a political compromise than any sort of technical issue driving this.After watching the war rage for over half a year, this solution appears to be calming things down at least a little bit. --StuffOfInterest 14:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, it does seem like it could work. Thanks for the info.--walkingencyclopedia 14:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It basically was a way to stop the debating. It doesn't actually solve anything, except for the people who think that which server folder something is in determines whether it is a problem or not. But if everyone agrees to ignore a problem, and does so, then I guess the problem has been dealt with, at least until it gets brought up again. --tjstrf 14:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty much indifferent about this now. I think everyone should just mind their own businesses. We should just all be able to use the userboxes as we please. You don't have to even place userboxes if you don't want to. Wikipedia is based on American soil, therefore, we have a right to democratic principles.--walkingencyclopedia 16:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect. Private entities are not generally required to abide by the 1st Amendment. You have two rights here: the right to fork and the right to leave. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also arguably the right to edit, but that one's an administration-granted right (similar to voting in the U.S.), not an inalienable one. And walkingencyclopedia, the thing to realize is that, prior to this debate, there were a ton of userboxes which basically just insulted people. (Indeed, there probably still are a few dozen floating around) So this was a rather important argument to have even if it didn't resolve the primary issue it was meant to address. --tjstrf 17:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What exactly is the point of doing this??? 

message: I feel like I'm reading a bible quote at the front of some religious tract handed to me on the street. I realize that the guy is the {co}founder of Wikipedia, but the point of Wikipedia is that information - and the process of managing it - is run horizontally and not hierarchically. Why was I looking at this page? Oh yeah, to figure out what this "German userbox solution" is all about. Now I just don't care. – Morganfitzp 05:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the concern.Having been part of the campaign of the "userbox wars" immediately prior to the creation of this page, I understand why it is there.If you missed the "war" and were productively editing, congratulations!Hopefully by this time next year that can go away and we can all agree that this has been accepted by the community.When this started, there were concerns that one faction wouldn't accept any compromise and a belief that that faction felt vindicated in their position by earlier comments by Jimbo.GRBerry 06:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like someone missed the "Jimbo is a one-man supermajority" clause in the rules. ;) Basically, a major reason we're trying this is because Jimbo so, so including that in the list of reasons is just honesty. Otherwise, we'd probably still be arguing over it. If you think thus saith Jimbo smacks a bit too much of religious pronouncement, you're probably right, but that's how things occasionally have to work. --tjstrf 09:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Jimbo says"?

message: I have created a template [referencing what is said on the project page] saying roughly 'If you migrate a userbox I am using to userspace, please change the userbox on this page'. It is intended to be used on userpages to signify that you don't mind [not that many people do]. If the general consensus is that it will be useful, I will add a link on the project page. Hope it helps. ><Richard0612 UW 16:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, anything that helps the process is fine with me. 
 Rfrisbietalk 17:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done ><Richard0612 UW 20:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GUS Template 

message: Can we replace the "Per the German solution" boxes with simple redirects? —Ashley Y 07:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Per the German solution" boxes