GUS-related pages Migration status • Straw poll  • Redirect bypassing • Userspace catalog

Archives
Archive 1: June 2006	Archive 2: June - July 2006

I'm curious--why are the userboxen being moved into individuals' spaces? I think they should be moved into a central space, i.e. User:Box, or something. Assuming nobody wants the username Box, of course... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheeEttin (talk • contribs)

Exactly; this makes much more sense to me, really. Having userboxes in the userspace of User:Box or User:Template or some other neutral, non-editing username seems like a much more elegant solution than what we have here. After all, it would solve two issues nicely: that of people being forced to use the much longer wikicodes for userfied boxen, and Wikipedians being perceived as 'owning' userboxen in their userspace. CameoAppearance 07:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea, except the user is likely to get blocked by User:Tony Sidaway. See for example User talk:Boxes. —Ashley Y 08:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "owning". That's the reason I couldn't put my finger on. In any case, I'm sure we could put a notice on the user and talk pages, saying something like "This is not a user, rather, it is a repository of a specific type of non-encyclopedic content. Please treat it as [something]." — SheeEttin {T/C} 22:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The counter-intuitiveness would seem to be the biggest head-scratcher for me. Two great advantages of userboxes (for new users especially) is that they are A)easy to find and use, and B)can automatically include you in lists of "Wikipedians who use..." Placing them in such decentralized locations is often confusing. Not to mention it's much more likely there will be duplicates, taking more space, as said above by Lady Aleena. Having a sort of repository, at User:Box, or, as suggested by CameoAppearance, using Wikipedia:Userbox as the basis seems far more elegant. — OrinR 07:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds an awful lot like "The Final Solution", and given that it's German, uh, yeah. --Rob ^T 14:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Rob, we have discussed about this before (here though now most in the talk archives, here and here). So far the result was maintaining the status quo. If you have a good new name (where good = not clunky) feel free to suggest it. Personally, I don't really mind what it is called (though I might object to tjstrf's Wikipedia:The opinion of certain dutchmen regarding the proper placement of userboxes, now a widely accepted method on the english wikipedia). CharonX/talk 22:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Bob"? Rfrisbie^talk 22:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the redirect template {{User GUS UBX to}}, and I have also had userboxes on my own userpage redirected by bots. The question I have is, if I adopt a box, am I responsible for perfoming the redirects? Do I have to get myself a running bot? Do the people who currently have bots simply sweep the template boxes for redirects occasionally? And how do I know who is using a box in either my userspace or template space in order to inform them more directly that having the redirectbox show up in its place? --BlueSquadronRaven 20:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some folks who move boxes also bypass the redirects, but many don't. I prefer to bypass with WP:AWB. It's a semi-automatic tool that also can be used to leave messages as edit summaries, as well as on talk pages. Category:Wikipedia GUS userboxes was created as a way to keep track of what pages still need bypassing. Some folks work on that list and are whittling it down too. "What links here" lets you know where a box is transcluded or linked.Rfrisbie^talk 21:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Pets is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Pets. Please weigh in. Rfrisbie^talk 19:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see GUS cited in dozens, if not hundreds, of speedy deletions of templates. Is this appropriate, given that GUS explicitly claims not to be a policy? Luna Santin 09:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... no I don't see it anywhere in the speedy rules... do you? Personally, I am quite confused here... any explianation would be nice. Thanks! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates that have been moved and have had tranclusions fixed to link to the new location are being speeding under CSD G6, which covers general maintenance tasks. Of course, a few templates are still being deleted under CSD T1 (divisive and inflammatory), but those deletions get fewer as more boxes are moved to user space. —Mira 01:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is this backed? By what existing policy or guideline? SynergeticMaggot 03:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we know what we are talking about, CSD G6 is:

• Housekeeping. Non-controversial maintenance tasks such as temporarily deleting a page in order to merge page histories, performing a non-controversial page move like reversing a redirect, or removing a disambiguation page that only points to a single article.

This however, does not describe the situation. Neither does CSD T1. SynergeticMaggot 03:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. Looks like someone needs to get around to editing it to reflect the current practices of deleting old userboxes as they are userfied. --Cyde Weys 03:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, just out of curiousity, why delete a user box instead of just moving it to the proper namespace? WP:TfD is the process no? SynergeticMaggot 03:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are being moved. But when a page is moved, a redirect is left behind, and must be deleted. —Mira 03:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But what if they're being deleted without warning, discussion, move, or redirect? Luna Santin 03:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MiraLuka, then someone should tell this to Cyde (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). We just had a template of ours deleted by this admin. I checked the log. Only a few moves done per GUS , yet there are alot of deletes per WP:GUS. A handful that are WikiProject related. SynergeticMaggot 04:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GUS is controversial in that there are people who are against it. So G6 does not apply. All user templates are still templates and must go through the Template for Deletion process, no matter the subject matter. I will NEVER use a user template that is in user space, the code for those is atrocious and ugly to look at and are NOT Babel Box compatible. The templates moved to user space also lengthen the names of those templates to make them so long that most wrap in the categories, making the categories unsightly. GUS is not a solution, it is segregation and persecution, which makes it a big problem. - LA @ 09:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they do work in Babel boxes. Instead of typing {{User:JohnDoe/Userbox/Purple}}, one would type :JohnDoe/Userbox/Purple. —Mira 19:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to this thought: "All user templates are still templates and must go through the Template for Deletion process, no matter the subject matter." You can't by-pass the TfD criteria just because you think it "shouldn't be a template." That is precisely why the TfD process exists - to determine whether something should be a template. --NThurston 18:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, you can't get around this argument by moving it somewhere outside of Template: space. --NThurston 18:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The migration of the boxes should be done with pagemoves. The userbox template pages are simply moved instead of their contents being copied. This too could be automated. This is the only way to avoid breaking userpages and maintain template edit history (important for our site license).

Comment: The trouble is, this removes them from Template: space. While that might be considered part of the German solution, the issue of userboxes in Template: space has not been resolved. Certainly people would complain if various other Template: pages were moved to user-space. —Ashley Y 04:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How about contacting them (using a bot in high-usage cases) and explaining them the rationale. Ask them to comment on this idea, offering their alternatives. CharonX/talk 17:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why not, instead of associating a template with any particular user, move the userboxes to subpages of User:Template? After all, there doesn't appear to be an actual user named Template, and someone can block the username if they haven't already. It makes sense: User:Template/... for a user template. Seahen 22:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check the talk page. It's not a popular idea. —Mira 23:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes more sense (to me) than associating them with individual users with whom they may have no connection at all. CameoAppearance 10:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question?:- Assuming a user moves userbox templates to, or an archive page of, their userpage, which is then automatically linked to from multiple other users. If that user then comes into conflict with wiki and leaves, resulting in their userpage being deleted. Would that not then lose all userboxes stored thereon, thus affecting all other linked userpages? Richard Harvey 11:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer Yes, theoretically this is possible. However as many admins also support WP:GUS it should be easy to get the box archive temporarily undeleted and then moved and adopted into another archive. CharonX/talk 13:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confused. Deleting a userpage does not delete everything in that user's userspace, it just ... deletes the userpage. Since the userboxes won't be on the userpage anyway it won't matter. Of course, I suppose if one user leaves another is welcome to adopt the userboxes from his archive if he wishes. --Cyde↔Weys 22:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• It looks to me like the real issue here is judging images from a neutral POV. Maybe an established timeline, defined objectives, voting comittee, and an Ultimate Time-Test would help. Zana Dark 16:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A major change was just made to this template. Peer review would be appreciated. --Pascal666 13:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the template is used in more than one way. The way it's probably used most often - move box, slap on template, bypass redirects, delete original - probably is the most disruptive. The less disruptive alternative is - move box, bypass redirects, slap on template, delete original. Even better would be to keep the original page in protected mode with the template, but of course, deletionist admins refuse to allow that. I would reinsert the original usage suggestion as an alternative, but it's protected and I'm not an admin. Someone sympathetic to "many paths to the same goal" will have to step in. Rfrisbie^talk 14:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of WP:GUS if you're keeping the original template? It has to be deleted eventually or it's not the German solution. And Pascal666's suggested usage of {{User GUS UBX to}} basically means it would never be used, because as soon as it would be allowed to be used it'd be ready to be deleted anyway. --Cyde Weys 14:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

I started a migration status page to help focus the arguments discussions about how to proceed with GUS. Have at it. Rfrisbie^talk 20:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, are we supposed to be talking there, or here? Either way, I'd like to comment that moving the wikiproject boxes to the wikipedia namespace is, in my opinion, unnecessary, and additionally is inconsistant with the Babel and licensing boxes being included in the main template space. --tjstrf 18:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a good place to talk. I marked two columns on that one because Wikipedia:Userboxes/WikiProjects has boxes listed in template and Wikipedia space. Personally, I don't see any need to move boxes either, but some projects choose to have boxes as subpages. Either way seems fine to me. Rfrisbie^talk 18:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, though why you put that table on the talk sub-page rather than the project sub-page, I don't know. I do know that a few projects have moved their userboxes, but I think that was the result of a misguided over-application of TGS. Or, in the case of Wikiproject anime and manga, to protect them from a certain admin who spontaneously deleted their project box, stating it was "passe". --tjstrf 18:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made the migration status page a talk subpage because it's really a part of this discussion, but too long to just add as a section. I don't care if someone moves it under the project page. Rfrisbie^talk 18:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It make a lot of sense to have WikiProject-related userboxes in projectspace rather than templatespace. It's a bit more tidy that way, and it's immediately clear who that userbox "belongs" to simply by looking at its location. Some of the WikiProject-related userboxes I've seen have had very confusing abbreviated names. --Cyde Weys 18:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, the proper procedure would be to move them to a better template name. I consider it less tidy, as they now have untidy sub-page titles. More importantly, what is the logical difference between Babel and project boxes that one should be treated differently? --tjstrf 18:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two processes which are available to move a userbox which are being blatantly ignored by some of the users who have embraced this idea, which is not policy so has no official standing. Until such time it does, which I will fight to keep from ever happening, those processes should not ever be ignored.

The first process is Requested moves. The other is Templates for deletion. If neither process has been initiated, then the userbox should remain where it is until such time as consensus has been reached for each individual box. Only after consensus can a judgement be reached where each box should be located.

Do not ignore those processes. - LA @ 16:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Weakly) Seconded. Ian¹³/t 21:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: History should be preserved when moving userboxes, in order to comply with wikipedia's licensing requirements. It seems that this important point has been overlooked on many occasions. Shame. --71.36.251.182 17:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History requirements are important, but the request cease and desist order to stop moving userboxes except via RM/TFD is sheer processlawyering. Many, many moves are performed on a regular basis on this encyclopedia without controversy or delay. Many, many userboxes have been moved to userspace without controversy or delay. Please, pick another hill to die on. GUS is working for the vast majority of users. -- nae'blis 22:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

GUS is not a solution, it is a problem. These are templates and all templates belong in template space. I refuse to accept this solution which puts these flowers in the attic and under the stairs. This is segregation and appartheid of these templates. These templates are being put in back alleys as if they were contraband.

GUS makes user template categories hard to read. Seeing a list of GUSd user templates on a user page listing makes it jumbled.

Instead of seeing in a category...

• Template:User A
• Template:User Good
• Template:User Idea

...we would have...

• User:Someuser/Userboxdir/User A
• User:Anotheruser/Userboxdir/User Good
• User:Anotheruser2/Userboxdirdiff/User Idea

Instead of seeing on a user page...

{{User A}}
{{User Good}}
{{User Idea}}

...we would have...

{{User:Someuser/Userboxdir/User A}}
{{User:Anotheruser/Userboxdir/User Good}}
{{User:Anotheruser2/Userboxdirdiff/User Idea}}

The first is easy to read and navigate, the second is an eyesore.

And what happens when one of these people who is taking in so many user templates gets tired of Wikipedia, decides to clean house, and quit? That user could db-author the lot and, when some unsuspecting admin comes along, all of those templates are deleted without a second thought. What admin cleaning up the Speedy deletions category would care if the user page has a template on it or not? The user could even hide that the GUSd template's being up for speedy deletion by putting the db inside a noinclude. No one with that template would know until the user pages with those templates transclused were loaded with a lot of redlinks. Template space is completely neutral and admins might take a longer look at what is speedied there than anything in user space. - LA @ 09:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have created a userbox to use in undo-ing inappropriate "per GUS" moves: Template:User_SUS_UBX_to can be placed in the user area when a userbox is moved back to its original Template:User spot. --NThurston 20:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that encourages anything but revert wars over the location of userboxes. —Mira 21:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No way in hell. GUS is the solution; what you are trying to do is go back to the unacceptable situation as it was way back in December. The rules on the ground have changed significantly since then and you will be blocked for disruption if you keep this up. --Cyde Weys 21:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations on taking care of all of the Zodiac stuff. I'm thinking Wikipedia:Userboxes/Humor should be next. --Cyde Weys 02:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason? CameoAppearance 08:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're utterly unencyclopedic and I don't know why we have them in the first place. I would have thought they would have been userfied long ago. Also, why is Template:User Person listed as humour? I would consider it politics or beliefs. --tjstrf 15:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have them because they're funny. That's the point of humour. CameoAppearance 02:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny? Yeah, the majority of them are very funny indeed... And regardless, they are most definitely NOT encyclopedic. Far less so than even the dreaded and much-defamed User Christian at its worst. --tjstrf 02:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How are they any less encyclopedic than, say, prattling on about one's favourite food? CameoAppearance 06:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those need to go out of template space as well. The presence of one dish of tripe does not make the presence of another dish of tripe any more palatable. --tjstrf 06:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point; I just found it interesting that although they don't contribute to the encyclopedia any more than joke userboxes do, not a single one of the userboxes on that page has been userfied, nor has it been singled out for 'taking care of'. CameoAppearance 11:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A handful have been userified, I've removed them from the directory. And I think Cyde just picked a section for the next target, the food templates will be moved eventually, I'm sure. —Mira 19:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why have the userfied userboxes been removed from Wikipedia:Userboxes? Up until now it was apparently acceptable practice to leave them on their respective pages post-userfication; why has that changed? CameoAppearance 04:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're being removed so they don't crowd the page with non-template space boxes. WP:UBX and its subpages are being deleted after all boxes have been moved to user space, and removing the ones that have already been moved helps keep track of what's left to do. —Mira 08:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am officially requesting of ANYONE and EVERYONE who can provide me with information regarding:

1. Where it was determined by community concensus that Wikipedia:Userfying userboxes (which was rejected by the community), is now acceptable?
2. Where it was determined by community concensus that WP:GUS may be used as a rationale for an editor's actions (as one might use a policy statement or guideline).
3. Where it was determined by community concensus that NO userboxes may be created in template space. (I see this addition to WP:GUS but have, as yet, found no community concensus supporting it.)
4. Where it was determined by community concensus that such templates that the community has determined that T1 applies to (those that are divisive or inflammatory), are to be allowed to be userfied prior to (or even after) speedy deletion.

What I am NOT asking for/about at this time:

1. Your opinion of whether m:deletionism, m:inclusionism, or any other -ism, is "more correct".
2. Your opinion of whether or not userboxes should exist.
3. Your opinion of where userboxes should exist.
4. That templates should not have fair use images. ("Fair use images should be used only in the article namespace.")
5. That "Templates, particularly userboxes, which are divisive or inflammatory may be speedily deleted; see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Templates. For discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Comment on project page asked for links to Jimbo's opinions, and especially Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Regarding the new Template CSD. However, Jimbo Wales has urged both caution in deleting userboxes while the policy is discussed, and, in particular, restraint in reversing others' deletions or undeletions." - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al#Divisive or inflammatory userboxes may be speedily deleted and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway#Polemical or inflammatory userboxes may be speedily deleted
6. WP:JOU
7. WP:T1D

Please either respond here, or on this talk page. Thank you in advance - Jc37 18:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]