Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Pets

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus for now. Since WP:GUS is widely accepted, it is suggested that the remaining userboxes be userfied (I volunteer my userspace, which is always open to reasonable userboxes), and that this page -- once empty -- be speedied under CSD G6.

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Pets

Boxes on this topic are all but userfied. The remaining boxes can be easily moved. Rfrisbie^talk 18:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The majority of “pet” userboxes have been moved to userspace. These and the boxes that remain in templatespace all are listed at User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Pets per WP:GUS. If the consensus is to keep this page as part of the Wikipedia:Userboxes gallery, then I believe the related boxes should be moved back to templatespace. If the consensus is to delete this page, then the vast majority of the other life/interest/etc. gallery pages and their boxes probably should go the way of WP:GUS as well. If no consensus is reached, then there you have it…another day in the life of userboxes. Rfrisbie^talk 18:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and apparently hence move boxes back to template space). Ian¹³ /t 19:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ian. - LA @ 20:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question:So the four templates left are going to be Germanized Real Soon Now™? I'm just curious why you nominated this before clearing it out entirely, and want to make sure I understand what's going on here. -- nae'blis 21:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This WP:GUS thing is still very ambiguous. I'm "calling the question" to find out if this page is "Good to go"™ or should be resurrected. Rfrisbie^talk 21:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good to know. Delete, then, as all non-encyclopedic userboxes should be in userspace. No binding decisions, though. -- nae'blis 04:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - By that definition, then Wikipedia:Community_Portal, and nearly everything associated with it should be next. While Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, what we are talking about here is m:The Wikipedia Community. There is a lot more to Wikipedia than editing text in a main article. - Jc37 05:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. However, this section should really be expanded. Bibliomaniac15 21:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Abstain~~ Delete I won't mind either way - WP:GUS is a means to end the userbox debate, but if the people who pressed for the removal of boxes (from templatespace or otherwise) changed their mind I won't complain. If not, WP:GUS works fine too. Addendum: changed my vote to delete (several people below have voiced their support for removal of userboxes from templatespace and implementation of WP:GUS)Charon X/talk 23:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think at this point, it's time to keep moving forward with WP:GUS, not go back. —Mi ra 00:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Agreeing with Ian, above.) Quote:"It should be noted that use of [userboxes related to beliefs, ideologies, viewpoints on controversial issues, and ethical convictions] is strongly discouraged at Wikipedia, and it is likely that very soon all these userboxes will be deleted or moved to userspace. Their use and creation is not recommended at this time." - Wikipedia:Jimbo on Userboxes (Bolding, mine). I don't think that Wikipedia:Userboxes/Pets meets any of those criteria. WP:GUS is not for this kind of deletion. - Jc37 01:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, galleries are useful; seee Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sexuality where all the ubxen have been GUSified mainly to MiraLuka's space. ~ c. tales *talk* 02:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. -wipes egg off face- Delete becasue the gallery can be in userspace. ~ c. tales *talk* 02:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GUS, now that these are (rightfully) in userspace as they are unrelated to the encyclopedia, we need to get rid of the projectspace links. --Cyde Weys 04:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GUS, assuming someone feels like userfying those last four boxes. BryanG^(talk) 04:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless in its current state. Much better anyway if such userspace stuff galleries are in userspace, and User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Pets does the job. Kusma (討論) 09:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It seems to me that many who are voting delete are doing so either due to lack of quantity of UBX on this page, or because it's duplicated elsewhere. The first doesn't deal with Rfrisbie's associated question, and as for the second, there are no actual centralized galleries, instead, they are spread over several user accounts. - Jc37 11:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rfrisbie's associated question is "out of order" in any case, as this MfD only deals with one subpage of Wikipedia:Userboxes, and cannot be held as binding on the other pages. It is a decent litmus test for the mood of the community, but trying to discern intentions behind people's keep/delete votes is done at peril. -- nae'blis 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given the nature of this page, it might be seen as a "sacrificial lamb" as well. Considering WP:GUS carries even less (or is it more?) weight for the mood of the community, I expect the results of this nomination will have an impact on userbox and directory editing behaviors beyond the scope of "Pets." Rfrisbie^talk 18:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep because even though the userboxes are in userspace, I see no reason to relegate their directory to several noncentralized, harder-to-find pages in userspace instead of using what we already have: a centralized directory in the Wikipedia namespace. CameoAppearance 15:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Userboxes is not up for deletion here. A directory could still be possible, either in project space or userspace, and none of that is precluded by deleting this subpage of the old system. -- nae'blis 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but I see no reason to delete a subpage that relates to one particular topic; that'll just make it harder to locate the pet-related userboxes (which are decidedly non-controversial, unlike those that relate to beliefs, sexuality and other such things). CameoAppearance 05:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:GUS works here. Of no evident encyclopaedic purpose, belongs in userspace or maybe a Wikiproject. We're not officially endorsing userboxes other than Babel and similar, and this directory goes against that. Just zis Guy you know? 15:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cyde, JzG, et al... Joe 04:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if userboxes are userfied, can there at least be a link to the appropriate userpage from the list of userboxes? Without such a link "userfied" userboxes would be impossible to find. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 19:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support userboxes that are relevant to a user's interests and attitudes. These are very marginal from that point of view.--Runcorn 21:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.