This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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
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
[[User:Yskyflyer/Category:Wikipedians who are Awesome| ]]
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)
[[User:Yskyflyer/Category:Wikipedians who are Awesome|]]
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)
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." — Mi r a 23:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
We do have a problem - some of the admins are putting the userboxes in userspace bit directly into T1.This needs to be reined in, at least as to the interpretation. GRBerry 04:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think it's just patently hillarious.The admins who were deleting stuff out of process advocated this as a solution to the "problem".Instead, it's just another rule to ignore. BigDT 04:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I no longer wish to be involved in the whole userbox debate, but unfortunately, I have an archive of seven userboxes at User:Digitalme/Box/Archive.If someone would be willing to take over, and bypass the redirects on several of them (I already did this on {{ User:Digitalme/Box/User wikipedia/Hope-Administrator}}, {{ User:Digitalme/Box/User ancestry English}}, and {{ User:Digitalme/Box/User Irish Ancestry}}, so these would need to be bypassed again.The other redirects have not been bypassed yet.)If you are willing to do this, then please do, no need to co-ordinate with me, unless you need help, and if you do this, please leave a message on my talk page when you are finished.-- digital_m e( Talkˑ Contribs) 23:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion arose today at the deletion review page.I think the idea of a panel is a good idea - the panel could educate and be more gentle about suggesting which userboxes just aren't in good form.I'm not sure I'd want to give the panel the authority to delete.But if it felt something ought to go, it could certainly propose deletion via MfD/TfD.And if there is at least one admin on it, it could also handle clear speedy deletions.I don't know if I meet my own first criteria, as I haven't been around long enough to have a solid track record.But I'd serve if drafted.I have the hardest time figuring who meets my third criteria - I have only one person in mind.But then, I try to ignore personalities. GRBerry 20:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
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. Charon X/ talk 00:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to bring something up (and as you may guess, I am opposed to this 'idea', but mainly due to technical reasons).
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)
Please don't worry about the database.The average hard drive in the servers can store many millions of userboxes.--
Cyde↔Weys 13:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The resolution is simple.It is a wiki, after all.If you didn't want your stuff to be edited by other people you should have uploaded it to a personal site, not Wikipedia.Users don't own their userpages and they don't own anything else in their userspace either.-- Cyde↔Weys 17:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Ian13, as far as I can tell, your argument here is that a literal reading of certain rules implies that people do, in a sense, "own" certain pages in their userspace.But everyone knows that the point of U1 isn't to allow people to hold pages hostage because they host them on their userspace.Anyone trying to wring something that unintended out of U1 would be called out immediately for Wikilawyering.Technicalities don't have any weight here.The spirit of that rule is as CharonX says above, and that's what matters.
Besides, if these userbox directories are allowed to just be organic, there will be a lot of redundancy that protects against U1-style deletions.If people get the wrong idea because the page has someone's name on it, and think that person owns that page, then they're the ones with the wrong idea, and they should be taught better.People who really feel uncomfortable editing someone else's space can always copy the code to their own space, too. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
The categories are really unnecessary and should just be removed outright.There's really no reason to be categorizing Wikipedians by their sexual orientation, or really, most of the categorization schemes that are associated with userboxes.Keep in mind categories were created to categorize articles.-- Cyde↔Weys 04:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no consensus on the claim categories don't belong in userboxes. There are plenty of useful encyclopedic purposes for Category:Wikipedians.If a particular existing category is not wanted by the community, then mechanisms exist to address this concern, such as Wikipedia:User categorisation and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion.If a category is accepted by the community, there's no reason why it can't be included in a userbox. Rfrisbie talk 12:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
There's userboxes. There's Wikipedian categories.There's userboxes and Wikipedian categories. That be three distinct issues.The Category:Wikipedia userboxes is a fourth. I believe the issue of what to do with Category:Wikipedians is sufficiently distinct that it needs a separate discussion. Userboxes and Category:Wikipedia userboxes is the matched pair.After userbox and the Wikipedian categories issues are settled, I believe the questions about mixing the two answer themselves. Rfrisbie talk 20:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The so-called German Solution is looking more like the German Pain In The Arse.One day my userboxes are gonna stop messing up or vanishing completely and I'm gonna say to myself: "Looks like they've finally dropped the German Solution".How about we just keep our userboxes and tell people that don't like our userboxes not to look at our userboxes on our personal User Pages? Sounds like commonsense to me. Gamer Junkie 05:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Funny, most of my political boxes still appear to be missing, among others.You were just being hilarious with the 'German' thing, weren't you? Gamer Junkie 14:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Examples being my "Australian Democrat" and "Social Democrat" userboxes.Got a new link for them? Gamer Junkie 15:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
It would be very much appreciated by myself and no doubt many others, also.How is it that individuality has come to be viewed as factionalism? Defining characteristics and interests are what make us human, so why are we removing them? This makes no sense to me. Gamer Junkie 20:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm asking why political opinion should be perceived as some sort of "club" or "faction" like we're somehow drawing battle lines by doing so.I'd hardly spend my time arguing the point on Wikipedia with somebody opposed to my political beliefs, the same way Buddhists and Jehovah's Witness's don't slug it out on people doorsteps.RFrisbie, if I can host these boxes, tell me how to go about doing so, I'd be more than happy to oblige. Gamer Junkie 04:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I believe that people participating with the Wikipedia Project are entitled to express themselves, including their most contentious beliefs.I can understand your disdain for userboxes because you've explained the way you've come to view them.The thing is, not everybody will see userboxes in the same light as you do.I see them as each member's right to free speech, and to express their beliefs and opinions in a safe and intellectual environment, rather than in a place where posting said opinions could likely start a 3-hour flame war, such as a messageboard or chat room.I suppose, due to my beliefs, I would be considered a center/left person, if I were to find out that many of the members working alongside me on the "Resident Evil" articles were right-wing, this would make absolutely no difference in terms of how well written their articles are.In fact, the quality of their articles and dedication to the Wikipedia Project would determine the level of respect I would have for them.Politics and contentious issues are almost irrelevant, as articles not written from a neutral POV are always hastily edited to ensure that they are.The thing is, I agree that this isn't the place for debating morals or hot-topics, but ironically, the biggest hot-topic on Wikipedia appears to be the "German Solution". Gamer Junkie 16:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Can I get some feedback on my idea to #Userfy Category-- E-Bod 23:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
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 {{ Template:GUS UBX to}} on a page. — Mi r a 06:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
Rfrisbie
talk 14:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
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. Rfrisbie talk 02:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Here's a simple tale. I thought I would give it a go and try migrating one of the Religion userboxes to userspace.I moved the page and started bypassing the redirect with AWB. Things were going along well enough when Cyde managed to swoop in and delete the redirect page before I even finished! >;-o) [1]After I figured out what was going on (sort of), I finished redirecting and (out of what I consider to be common courtesy) recreated the page to insert a soft redirect. [2]Considering this trial run went so well, I thought I would share my experience with you all here. I’m sure others and I will be even more willing to put forth the effort needed to continue working on this peaceful transition process when affirmations from our colleagues can come so quickly. Ah, I just love consensus-building and cooperative problem solving like this. Thank you Sir/Ma'am. May I have another? ;-) Rfrisbie talk 19:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
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. ;-) Rfrisbie talk 22:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Nathanrdotcom,
I noticed you have removed many userbox links ( [3] [4]) from Wikipedia:Userboxes and have shared your activities with Cyde ( User talk:Cyde#Userspace userboxen).Of course, since WP:GUS is not policy, there's actually nothing to "comply" with by your actions.What I'm curious about is if you have verified these userboxes are, in fact, linked to userspace directories.As a good faith gesture in this process, I hope you would ensure such links exist to at least one userspace directory before you delete them from the Wikipedia:Userboxes directories.Regards, Rfrisbie talk 19:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
|
Obviously, the "consensus" for the above type of behavior is broader than I originally assumed it to be.Given Jimbo's proposed deletion of Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs [5], I encourage anyone who userfies a box to make sure it's included in at least one userspace directory as well.As one source, I've volunteered User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes. Rfrisbie talk 07:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I've created GUS's very own userbox, at {{ Wikipedia:German userbox solution/Userbox}}. 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. — Akrabbim talk 20:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
This user supports the Userbox Migration. |
Cool! I touched up the border. :-)
Rfrisbie
talk 21:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Rfrisbie talk 07:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Look, this may be quite tasteless, and feel free to crucify me for it.But, every time I see this, I think of another " German solution."And I think of a concentration camp for userboxes.I chuckled a little bit; does that make me a bad person? -- T. o. n. y 00:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
On July 8, 2006, Jimbo proposes for deletion Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs with a prod reason of "per the emerging consensus that the German solution is best".See [6] GRBerry 02:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the WP:UBX pages can be safely deleted, after checking to be sure all userboxes are linked in Rfrisbie's directories. My main concern is with userboxes becoming "lost". — Mi ra 04:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's just check for newbies on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs after 20:37, June 9, 2006, and add them to User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Beliefs. The migration of the boxes themselves then can continue to proceed from there. Rfrisbie talk 04:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
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. — Mi ra 04:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
Great! Yes, I think it was only two instances somewhere near the bottom. Zyxoas ( talk to me - I'll listen) 00:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth this is proof that English is actually a spoken language, and any written attempts are merely ways of recording that spoken language on paper (as opposed to the other way around).We've evolved vocalization over millions of years, whereas we've only dealt with writing for a few thousand years.So it's still very much necessarily a spoken language first.-- Cyde↔Weys 00:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but a/an is not an arbitrary writing principle - it's a result of the way the language is spoken! It's like how "an apkin" (a word related to "apron") changed to "a napkin". Also, English is not my first language (it's more like my third) but I'm assuming that the two errors were made by an L1 speaker (such is the nature of Wikipedia and WP:BIAS), which would be truly embarassing... Zyxoas ( talk to me - I'll listen) 09:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Not necessary, but I wonder how good you really are at Java... At least it's a real language, imagine having vb-3! So why does the napkin article not mention apkins? Zyxoas ( talk to me - I'll listen) 18:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
This is also at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes.
I am against the German userbox solution and want to see it halted and reversed. User templates are still templates and they belong in the Template space not User space. I will never use a user template from user space. The code for them is clunky and unsightly. They are hideous to look at (an eyesore) in user template categories. The simple Template:User X is so much better to look at than User:Someuser/someuserboxs/User X. It gets worse when variables are involved.
I suggest that we use template language to its fullest potential. Userboxes need to be created with variables so that the need for several under one topic or with the same theme are unneeded. Please see the following userboxes.
This will require that Category:User templates be patrolled and policed to keep an eye on new userboxes created. It will also require a useful userbox creation manual be written for novices.
I am already looking at the merger of six more groups of userboxes. There are probably plenty more out there that can be merged. The fewer userboxes there are that are saying the same basic thing, the better. It should quell the sentiment against them, make finding a favorite subject userbox easier, and hopefully keep them in template space.
If to stop and reverse the German userbox solution and keep user templates in the template space means that we must reduce the amount of user templates, then we need to find a way of keeping the content by merging as many like templates as possible and provide variable usage. That is my goal. One idea I have is to merge the 100s of language templates with 1 language template with variables so when adding it to a page it may look something like this...
Stand alone code | Bable box code |
---|---|
{{User lanauge|de|0}} {{User lanauge|en|N}} {{User lanauge|fr|3}} |
|language{{!}}de{{!}}0| |language{{!}}en{{!}}N| |language{{!}}fr{{!}}3| |
If that template were in place, and everyone used it, think of how many user templates could be deleted from template space. That template would generate template text and level colors, if we had a color convention for all languages, and add the user to the appropriate language Wikipedian category. It would probably be the most used of all templates. Also, it will show new users how to deal with variables in templates. I just wish that I could write it, but at the moment I am not that good.
If we can show those against user templates that there is a viable solution to keeping them under control while keeping them in template space, the need to userfy them would disappear. That would be a good thing.
After a merge, the old single use templates would need to be deleted. The reason to delete the mergered templates is clean-up and to make the merged template the only one available. We don't need all of the redundant ones taking up space on the servers, even if it is only a few bytes. You have to remember, those few bytes have to be multiplied by however many times that template is edited. A template that is 100 bytes, edited 10 times, is now taking up 1000 bytes of space or more.
I know that this may not reflect popular opinion. I am just hoping to keep all user templates, and they are templates, in Template space.
—
Lady Aleena
talk/
contribs 06:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. >< Richard 06 12 UW 16:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Rfrisbie talk 17:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Can we replace the "Per the German solution" boxes with simple redirects? — Ashley Y 07:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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
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
[[User:Yskyflyer/Category:Wikipedians who are Awesome| ]]
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)
[[User:Yskyflyer/Category:Wikipedians who are Awesome|]]
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)
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." — Mi r a 23:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
We do have a problem - some of the admins are putting the userboxes in userspace bit directly into T1.This needs to be reined in, at least as to the interpretation. GRBerry 04:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think it's just patently hillarious.The admins who were deleting stuff out of process advocated this as a solution to the "problem".Instead, it's just another rule to ignore. BigDT 04:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I no longer wish to be involved in the whole userbox debate, but unfortunately, I have an archive of seven userboxes at User:Digitalme/Box/Archive.If someone would be willing to take over, and bypass the redirects on several of them (I already did this on {{ User:Digitalme/Box/User wikipedia/Hope-Administrator}}, {{ User:Digitalme/Box/User ancestry English}}, and {{ User:Digitalme/Box/User Irish Ancestry}}, so these would need to be bypassed again.The other redirects have not been bypassed yet.)If you are willing to do this, then please do, no need to co-ordinate with me, unless you need help, and if you do this, please leave a message on my talk page when you are finished.-- digital_m e( Talkˑ Contribs) 23:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion arose today at the deletion review page.I think the idea of a panel is a good idea - the panel could educate and be more gentle about suggesting which userboxes just aren't in good form.I'm not sure I'd want to give the panel the authority to delete.But if it felt something ought to go, it could certainly propose deletion via MfD/TfD.And if there is at least one admin on it, it could also handle clear speedy deletions.I don't know if I meet my own first criteria, as I haven't been around long enough to have a solid track record.But I'd serve if drafted.I have the hardest time figuring who meets my third criteria - I have only one person in mind.But then, I try to ignore personalities. GRBerry 20:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
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. Charon X/ talk 00:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to bring something up (and as you may guess, I am opposed to this 'idea', but mainly due to technical reasons).
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)
Please don't worry about the database.The average hard drive in the servers can store many millions of userboxes.--
Cyde↔Weys 13:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The resolution is simple.It is a wiki, after all.If you didn't want your stuff to be edited by other people you should have uploaded it to a personal site, not Wikipedia.Users don't own their userpages and they don't own anything else in their userspace either.-- Cyde↔Weys 17:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Ian13, as far as I can tell, your argument here is that a literal reading of certain rules implies that people do, in a sense, "own" certain pages in their userspace.But everyone knows that the point of U1 isn't to allow people to hold pages hostage because they host them on their userspace.Anyone trying to wring something that unintended out of U1 would be called out immediately for Wikilawyering.Technicalities don't have any weight here.The spirit of that rule is as CharonX says above, and that's what matters.
Besides, if these userbox directories are allowed to just be organic, there will be a lot of redundancy that protects against U1-style deletions.If people get the wrong idea because the page has someone's name on it, and think that person owns that page, then they're the ones with the wrong idea, and they should be taught better.People who really feel uncomfortable editing someone else's space can always copy the code to their own space, too. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
The categories are really unnecessary and should just be removed outright.There's really no reason to be categorizing Wikipedians by their sexual orientation, or really, most of the categorization schemes that are associated with userboxes.Keep in mind categories were created to categorize articles.-- Cyde↔Weys 04:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no consensus on the claim categories don't belong in userboxes. There are plenty of useful encyclopedic purposes for Category:Wikipedians.If a particular existing category is not wanted by the community, then mechanisms exist to address this concern, such as Wikipedia:User categorisation and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion.If a category is accepted by the community, there's no reason why it can't be included in a userbox. Rfrisbie talk 12:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
There's userboxes. There's Wikipedian categories.There's userboxes and Wikipedian categories. That be three distinct issues.The Category:Wikipedia userboxes is a fourth. I believe the issue of what to do with Category:Wikipedians is sufficiently distinct that it needs a separate discussion. Userboxes and Category:Wikipedia userboxes is the matched pair.After userbox and the Wikipedian categories issues are settled, I believe the questions about mixing the two answer themselves. Rfrisbie talk 20:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The so-called German Solution is looking more like the German Pain In The Arse.One day my userboxes are gonna stop messing up or vanishing completely and I'm gonna say to myself: "Looks like they've finally dropped the German Solution".How about we just keep our userboxes and tell people that don't like our userboxes not to look at our userboxes on our personal User Pages? Sounds like commonsense to me. Gamer Junkie 05:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Funny, most of my political boxes still appear to be missing, among others.You were just being hilarious with the 'German' thing, weren't you? Gamer Junkie 14:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Examples being my "Australian Democrat" and "Social Democrat" userboxes.Got a new link for them? Gamer Junkie 15:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
It would be very much appreciated by myself and no doubt many others, also.How is it that individuality has come to be viewed as factionalism? Defining characteristics and interests are what make us human, so why are we removing them? This makes no sense to me. Gamer Junkie 20:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm asking why political opinion should be perceived as some sort of "club" or "faction" like we're somehow drawing battle lines by doing so.I'd hardly spend my time arguing the point on Wikipedia with somebody opposed to my political beliefs, the same way Buddhists and Jehovah's Witness's don't slug it out on people doorsteps.RFrisbie, if I can host these boxes, tell me how to go about doing so, I'd be more than happy to oblige. Gamer Junkie 04:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I believe that people participating with the Wikipedia Project are entitled to express themselves, including their most contentious beliefs.I can understand your disdain for userboxes because you've explained the way you've come to view them.The thing is, not everybody will see userboxes in the same light as you do.I see them as each member's right to free speech, and to express their beliefs and opinions in a safe and intellectual environment, rather than in a place where posting said opinions could likely start a 3-hour flame war, such as a messageboard or chat room.I suppose, due to my beliefs, I would be considered a center/left person, if I were to find out that many of the members working alongside me on the "Resident Evil" articles were right-wing, this would make absolutely no difference in terms of how well written their articles are.In fact, the quality of their articles and dedication to the Wikipedia Project would determine the level of respect I would have for them.Politics and contentious issues are almost irrelevant, as articles not written from a neutral POV are always hastily edited to ensure that they are.The thing is, I agree that this isn't the place for debating morals or hot-topics, but ironically, the biggest hot-topic on Wikipedia appears to be the "German Solution". Gamer Junkie 16:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Can I get some feedback on my idea to #Userfy Category-- E-Bod 23:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
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 {{ Template:GUS UBX to}} on a page. — Mi r a 06:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
Rfrisbie
talk 14:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
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. Rfrisbie talk 02:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Here's a simple tale. I thought I would give it a go and try migrating one of the Religion userboxes to userspace.I moved the page and started bypassing the redirect with AWB. Things were going along well enough when Cyde managed to swoop in and delete the redirect page before I even finished! >;-o) [1]After I figured out what was going on (sort of), I finished redirecting and (out of what I consider to be common courtesy) recreated the page to insert a soft redirect. [2]Considering this trial run went so well, I thought I would share my experience with you all here. I’m sure others and I will be even more willing to put forth the effort needed to continue working on this peaceful transition process when affirmations from our colleagues can come so quickly. Ah, I just love consensus-building and cooperative problem solving like this. Thank you Sir/Ma'am. May I have another? ;-) Rfrisbie talk 19:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
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. ;-) Rfrisbie talk 22:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Nathanrdotcom,
I noticed you have removed many userbox links ( [3] [4]) from Wikipedia:Userboxes and have shared your activities with Cyde ( User talk:Cyde#Userspace userboxen).Of course, since WP:GUS is not policy, there's actually nothing to "comply" with by your actions.What I'm curious about is if you have verified these userboxes are, in fact, linked to userspace directories.As a good faith gesture in this process, I hope you would ensure such links exist to at least one userspace directory before you delete them from the Wikipedia:Userboxes directories.Regards, Rfrisbie talk 19:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
|
Obviously, the "consensus" for the above type of behavior is broader than I originally assumed it to be.Given Jimbo's proposed deletion of Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs [5], I encourage anyone who userfies a box to make sure it's included in at least one userspace directory as well.As one source, I've volunteered User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes. Rfrisbie talk 07:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I've created GUS's very own userbox, at {{ Wikipedia:German userbox solution/Userbox}}. 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. — Akrabbim talk 20:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
This user supports the Userbox Migration. |
Cool! I touched up the border. :-)
Rfrisbie
talk 21:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Rfrisbie talk 07:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Look, this may be quite tasteless, and feel free to crucify me for it.But, every time I see this, I think of another " German solution."And I think of a concentration camp for userboxes.I chuckled a little bit; does that make me a bad person? -- T. o. n. y 00:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
On July 8, 2006, Jimbo proposes for deletion Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs with a prod reason of "per the emerging consensus that the German solution is best".See [6] GRBerry 02:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the WP:UBX pages can be safely deleted, after checking to be sure all userboxes are linked in Rfrisbie's directories. My main concern is with userboxes becoming "lost". — Mi ra 04:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's just check for newbies on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs after 20:37, June 9, 2006, and add them to User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Beliefs. The migration of the boxes themselves then can continue to proceed from there. Rfrisbie talk 04:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
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. — Mi ra 04:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
Great! Yes, I think it was only two instances somewhere near the bottom. Zyxoas ( talk to me - I'll listen) 00:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth this is proof that English is actually a spoken language, and any written attempts are merely ways of recording that spoken language on paper (as opposed to the other way around).We've evolved vocalization over millions of years, whereas we've only dealt with writing for a few thousand years.So it's still very much necessarily a spoken language first.-- Cyde↔Weys 00:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but a/an is not an arbitrary writing principle - it's a result of the way the language is spoken! It's like how "an apkin" (a word related to "apron") changed to "a napkin". Also, English is not my first language (it's more like my third) but I'm assuming that the two errors were made by an L1 speaker (such is the nature of Wikipedia and WP:BIAS), which would be truly embarassing... Zyxoas ( talk to me - I'll listen) 09:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Not necessary, but I wonder how good you really are at Java... At least it's a real language, imagine having vb-3! So why does the napkin article not mention apkins? Zyxoas ( talk to me - I'll listen) 18:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
This is also at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes.
I am against the German userbox solution and want to see it halted and reversed. User templates are still templates and they belong in the Template space not User space. I will never use a user template from user space. The code for them is clunky and unsightly. They are hideous to look at (an eyesore) in user template categories. The simple Template:User X is so much better to look at than User:Someuser/someuserboxs/User X. It gets worse when variables are involved.
I suggest that we use template language to its fullest potential. Userboxes need to be created with variables so that the need for several under one topic or with the same theme are unneeded. Please see the following userboxes.
This will require that Category:User templates be patrolled and policed to keep an eye on new userboxes created. It will also require a useful userbox creation manual be written for novices.
I am already looking at the merger of six more groups of userboxes. There are probably plenty more out there that can be merged. The fewer userboxes there are that are saying the same basic thing, the better. It should quell the sentiment against them, make finding a favorite subject userbox easier, and hopefully keep them in template space.
If to stop and reverse the German userbox solution and keep user templates in the template space means that we must reduce the amount of user templates, then we need to find a way of keeping the content by merging as many like templates as possible and provide variable usage. That is my goal. One idea I have is to merge the 100s of language templates with 1 language template with variables so when adding it to a page it may look something like this...
Stand alone code | Bable box code |
---|---|
{{User lanauge|de|0}} {{User lanauge|en|N}} {{User lanauge|fr|3}} |
|language{{!}}de{{!}}0| |language{{!}}en{{!}}N| |language{{!}}fr{{!}}3| |
If that template were in place, and everyone used it, think of how many user templates could be deleted from template space. That template would generate template text and level colors, if we had a color convention for all languages, and add the user to the appropriate language Wikipedian category. It would probably be the most used of all templates. Also, it will show new users how to deal with variables in templates. I just wish that I could write it, but at the moment I am not that good.
If we can show those against user templates that there is a viable solution to keeping them under control while keeping them in template space, the need to userfy them would disappear. That would be a good thing.
After a merge, the old single use templates would need to be deleted. The reason to delete the mergered templates is clean-up and to make the merged template the only one available. We don't need all of the redundant ones taking up space on the servers, even if it is only a few bytes. You have to remember, those few bytes have to be multiplied by however many times that template is edited. A template that is 100 bytes, edited 10 times, is now taking up 1000 bytes of space or more.
I know that this may not reflect popular opinion. I am just hoping to keep all user templates, and they are templates, in Template space.
—
Lady Aleena
talk/
contribs 06:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. >< Richard 06 12 UW 16:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Rfrisbie talk 17:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Can we replace the "Per the German solution" boxes with simple redirects? — Ashley Y 07:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)