Forum:Userbox deletion policy

Forums: Yew Grove > Userbox deletion policy

This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 18 December 2012 by Liquidhelium.

Note: There has been a previous discussion on this, however, it would appear that no specific policy was enacted.

In my recent project to document the wiki's templates, I came across the userboxes. I have a bit of a problem with some of them though. Quite a few of them are non-RuneScape related, or used by a small amount of users that are no longer with us. In addition, we have quite a few unused userboxes. I'm proposing a few new changes to our policy section on userboxes.

Proposal 1: If a userbox is being used primarily by users who have disappeared from the Wiki for X, then it should be deleted. X is a period of time that should be discussed and agreed upon.

These are a few of the Userboxes that would be deleted if this proposal passes:
- Template:Userbox/Burning|Burning
- [[Template:Userbox/ChikoritaGod|ChikoritaGod]]

Proposal 2: If a userbox is not directly related to RuneScape, with criteria for how direct something is to be discussed in this discussion, it should be deleted.

These are a few of the Userboxes that would be deleted if this proposal passes:
- Template:Userbox/Burning|Burning
- Template:Userbox/Butter|Butter
- Template:Userbox/likes tea|likes tea

Proposal 3: If a userbox is unused, it should be deleted.

These are a few of the Userboxes that would be deleted if this proposal passes:
- Template:Userbox/Butter|BuyandSell
- The ones that are linked to here.
- Template:Userbox/Killsbluedrags|This for being too similar to RuneScape:Userboxes/Pastimes|these.

Proposal 4: If a userbox is too similar to another, then it should be deleted.

These are a few of the Userboxes that would be deleted if this proposal passes:
- [[Template:Userbox/creates userboxes for people|This]] or Template:Userbox/Createsuserbox|this.

Proposal 5: This can only pass if at least one of the above proposals also passes. This would set it up so that every Y, the userboxes will go through a test for the criteria that passes. If any userboxes fail the criteria, they will be deleted. Y is a period of time that should be discussed and agreed upon.

Note that for Proposal 5, I would be more than willing to be the user to go through and make sure the userboxes meet the criteria.

Discuss the proposals below. http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/Blaze_fire.png http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/12.png 18:58, December 4, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Support 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - As nominator. For X, I would suggest a year as a minimum. For Y, I would suggest going through every two months. http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/Blaze_fire.png http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/12.png 18:58, December 4, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose 1, 2, 5, ambivalent overall - Does this really matter? Userboxes are just a fun little diversion that people can choose to partake in if they want. You seem to think that userboxes should have to prove their worth every so often for them to be worth keeping, but that just seems wrong to me. They're all segregated under {{Userbox}} now, so you can just about completely ignore them. You would have to go to so much work, upending hundreds of userpages and perhaps pissing off a few old-timers in the process...and for what? What does this accomplish? ʞo oɔ 19:11, December 4, 2012 (UTC)

I can understand why you would be against 1, but why number 2? http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/Blaze_fire.png http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/12.png 19:46, December 4, 2012 (UTC)

It just seems like a whole lot of work and ruffled feathers for no discernible benefit. Why should we delete non-RuneScape userboxes used by likely thousands of pages? Is it worth your time? Is it worth editing someone else's userpage? Is it even worth discussing? ʞo oɔ 19:58, December 4, 2012 (UTC)

Mostly meh, but oppose #1 - What issue is this going to solve? Furthermore, messing with the userpages of people who have left (proposal #1) is just likely to annoy them. (EDIT: I see Cook Me Plox has already stated what I was writing.) FiendOfLight (talk) 19:16, December 4, 2012 (UTC)

Okay with 4 - 4 sounds okay, merge or pick the best or something, but the others are mostly unnecessary work. As Cook said, there would be so much to do, when it's just a userbox. It's not like we have a limit to the amount of UBXes we can have or something. Fsw e1 19:24, December 4, 2012 (UTC)

Honestly - I'd rather support deleting all of them and having a bot go through and fix the links than going through all of this trouble for them. They're stupid and useless but people like them on their userpages, and it's way too much trouble to be so overly bureaucratic about it all. I really want to delete that piece of crap ChikoritaGod one right now though because it's making me angry with it's stupidness.User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 19:30, December 4, 2012 (UTC)

As a personal opinion, I lean more towards you on this, but I know that a proposal to delete all the userboxes is far too radical and would get very little support. http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/Blaze_fire.png http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/12.png 19:48, December 4, 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with the ChikoritaPro one? That one is my favourite among the ones linked above, brought back memories. :( bad_fetus^talk 08:36, December 5, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral 4, Oppose Others - Out of every proposal, 4 seems like the best to cut down on userbox clutter, but only if they are essentially the same thing with a different color scheme. People like userboxes so I don't see any of the other proposals as beneficial. ɳex undique 02:01, December 5, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Is there any issues caused right now with these userboxes? Unless there is some type of conflict happening (ex. A user saying "I want a userbox for me though !!! or it's a userbox flaming another user), I don't see a reason to go out and delete the userboxes. Hair 02:05, December 5, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral all - I just don't think there's a need to mess with them. It's constant work for no benefit. 222 ^talk 05:01, December 5, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Why? There is no point in deleting them when they don't cause any harm and people enjoy them. bad_fetus^talk 08:36, December 5, 2012 (UTC)

Support 4 - The others I dislike but 4 actually makes sense. So long as they're near enough identical, why bother having them? Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 09:05, December 5, 2012 (UTC)

Support 4, Oppose rest - It's people's userspace, let them add whatever they want. 1 is silly, just because a user box isn't used by active users, doesn't mean it won't ever be. I oppose 2 for the same reasons Cook has mentioned. I oppose 3 for the same reason I oppose 1. I support 4, because why should a user box not follow the same guidelines as a normal page? If it's a duplicate, delete it. Five is meh. We shouldn't be worried about the user space, let alone waste our time on it. Haidro ^(talk) 09:18, December 5, 2012 (UTC)

Support 4 - We shouldn't bother on the userboxes while we are having loads of works to do like cleaning up articles, checking pages for vandals and updating pages. I support 4 only because it is useless to have nearly identical userboxes >.> Anyway, don't bother yourself checking the userboxes unless you happened to see one accidentally. TIMMMO ⁺⁺^{Discuss Sign} 11:59, December 5, 2012 (UTC)

Support 4, slight support 3, oppose rest - #4 sounds good, no need for duplicate templates. For #3, I guess we could do that, since nobody using them means nobody wants them on their page, or they don't apply to anyone. If anyone wants to have a userbox about that afterwards, they can create them, or request them to be created. For the rest, per above - No need to go dictator on these poor userboxes. They did nothing wrong. JOEYTJE50 TALK pull my finger 12:20, December 5, 2012 (UTC)

Overall oppose, neutral 4 - Userboxes are harmless, perhaps we can delete some unnecessary duplicates, but what's the point anyway? There are more urgent things to do than this. 5-x ^Talk 12:57, December 5, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose 1,2,5 - Basically what Cook said. There's no real problem with most of these userboxes. Don't fix what isn't broken. There's plenty of real useful things to get information on and correct data over (EoC), these issues shouldn't even be on the table in my opinion. User:Haloolah123/Sig 00:54, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose 2, neutral rest I don't have a problem with userboxes that are not directly related to RuneScape. Temu jin 02:23, December 9, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - There really is no consensus to delete userboxes, except perhaps for duplicate userboxes. While this is mostly irrelevant, for duplicate userboxes it is acceptable to delete/merge them, if someone really wants to. I'd suggest notifying the user whose userbox will be modified (chances are he or she will not care and if he or she cares that much then he or she can just recreate the original in his or user own userspace). --Liquid^Talk 05:05, December 18, 2012 (UTC)