Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:German userbox solution/Userbox

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 Speedy Keep. El_C 01:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:German userbox solution/Userbox

Speedy Delete (?) Not the right place for a userbox template. NThurston 19:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I have yet to see a rule about where userboxes must go. This userbox is designed for users who work on or support this particular "project." See similar templates at Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Userbox and Wikipedia:WikiProject Education/Userbox. —Mira 21:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No basis for claim. Rfrisbie^talk 21:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep No rules about where userboxes can and can't go (except in the main namespace of corse). There is no basis for this nomination, maybe except for a disagreement with WP:GUS? That is the answer. NThurston is the author of the Simple userbox solution, and obviously is against WP:GUS (he wrote the proposal). Speedy Close, very bad faith nom. -Royalguard11^{TalkMy Desk} 21:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per royalguard11. Jay Maynard 21:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, nomination makes no sense whatsoever. The preferred location for userboxes is userspace or projectspace (if they relate to a certain project, as this one does). --Cyde Weys 21:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; as far as I know, there's no rule specifying where userboxes can and cannot be located even though the majority are either in templatespace or userspace. (And I have to say that it's delightfully ironic to see a userbox having to do with a solution to the userbox issues being nominated for deletion.) CameoAppearance 22:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Anybody notice the irony that you are all pushing to keep a blatant POV userbox in projectspace while you are madly scrambling to force decent userboxes to userspace? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NThurston (talk • contribs).

  So are you saying you're making a point with this nomination, and don't actually want it moved? -- nae'blis 22:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• I am making a point AND I want it deleted. This whole thing is rolling forward with such gusto that there is no rhyme or reason in what's happening. Good userboxes are being moved to subdirectories in personal userspace at the same time and POV userboxes are being created as subdirectories in project space. I don't think this userbox belongs there. If the GUS is the way we're going, it should be moved just like the others that have been moved. --NThurston 22:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Close once again, this time because of WP:POINT. Project space is not the same as template space. Anything can be in the wikipedia namespace (like here) that is appropriet. Can we get a close now? This sharade has gone on long enough. His proposal was also rejected by Cyde. -Royalguard11^{TalkMy Desk} 23:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep and Close Violation of WP:POINT And per WP:SNOW Æon ^{Insane Ward} 00:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep and Close due to the fact that the nominator has actually admitted to committing a WP:POINT violataion. For that fact alone I see no reason for this to continue. Also the fact that no one else has asked to delete this makes the case to close this even stronger. --Edgelord 00:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC).
• Speedy Keep, I've got too much POV to close this myself, but this doesn't seem to be harming anything, and is realted to ti's project. Besides, any userbox that Cyde wants to keep, must be made out of gold! — xaosflux ^Talk 00:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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.