This poll originally will run for an indefinite time period, having started on May 22, 2006, 14:09 UTC and failing to reach consensus by May 29. Although it had 62% Support, it was considered not enough to reach consensus. (While there is no fixed percentage that equates to rough consensus, a figure of 70 to 80% might be considered a minimum for a policy-setting issue like this, hotly contested by both sides. Always remember that polls such as this on Wikipedia are not raw votes, but processes to try to gauge the underlying consensus, or lack thereof. The force of the arguments laid out by various sides is another important discriminator in gauging consensus.)

Current tally:
Support: 115 (62.8%)
Conditional Support: 8 (4.3%)
Oppose: 60 (32.7%)

Support[edit]

1. Support as creator. // ^The True _Sora 14:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support – Gurch 14:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support it will end wars about userboxes in Template namespace. -- Masterjamie 14:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Two edit conflicts support. Seems to be a good compromise, if both sides can accept it. Fetofs ^Hello! 14:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support in spirit. I support the idea of a separate name space in spirit but the real issue is not technical as much as political. Enough people have already said that the technical overhead of userboxes is not enough to be of concern. The issue is the political climate of what it means to be a wikipedian and if we are people with opinions or drone employees who come in to do a job and then go away. First it has to be determined if userboxes will be allowed and then the issues of where they can be hosted can be figured out. --StuffOfInterest 14:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Dominant One 14:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support as a contributor who suggested a couple of the points included above while in preliminary discussion. Users care about their affiliations, and self-expression in user space will do more good in retaining contributors than it will do harm in letting people see what POV their fellow contributors actually hold. GRBerry 14:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support. Excellent solution. --stephenw32768^<talk> 14:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support: Great idea. - Tutmosis 15:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support. Userboxes are an artifact of the fact that Wikipedia is a community, and like all such, it has sub-communities within it. People with common interests will gather toghether, no matter what efforts are made to stop them. Attempting to prevent communities of Wikipedians from forming is simply attempting to deny human reality. Unlike proposals to subst and delete userboxes from Template: space, this proposal is a true compromise. It should be adopted.Jay Maynard 15:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support, though to be fair, starting over poll doesn't feel right. I'll point out like I did in the last poll that this proposal had came up before, and that Jimbo said (two months ago) he didn't support this concept.--Rayc 15:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, the previous 'poll' was more of a discussion-to-gauge-support affair rather than an official-vote-tallying affair. I think ]TheTrueSora decided there was sufficiently strong support to close discussion and proceed to a poll – Gurch 18:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12. Support this policy sounds quite sane and straightforward. It is a compromise which I believe the majority can live with on both sides of the schism. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 16:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support even just for organization. Userbars don't seem to have a practical use in main articles. It just seems cleaner to separate userbars from templates. --Kegeril 16:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support. Would have suggested this if I knew the devs would spring for it. All-around good compromise. --Chris (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Weak Support. This seems like the best plausible solution for the "supposed" delema. → J@red  18:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Pro --NorkNork ^Questions? _fnord? 20:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support. Please let the userbox situation go to rest. It's a vicious cycle. A userbox with a POV is created, it gets deleted because the abusive administators hate our guts, we create an inflammatory userbox to show that we disagree, it gets deleted.... This would solve all of that, because the template namespace would no longer be used. Dtm142 20:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You mean a vicious circle, right? ;) --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 02:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

18. Minor support. Giving them their own userspace will just further illustrate the fact that they are already an important part of our community. Although this is just a minor issue, the most important being the T2 related debate - i.e. I don't see how giving them their namespace will stop the current gigantic waste of time related their deletion/undeletion debates.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: The T1 and T2 CSDs will not apply in the Userbox namespace. They will remain as relevant criteria for the speedy deletion of templates, and a new policy will be drafted to cover deletion in the new namespace – Gurch 20:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

19. Support. This will help to end the long debate over this issue, and prevent userboxes from impeding the progress of the encyclopedia. --Danaman5 20:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. Although userboxes do not improve nor diminish the quality of the articles created by the community, they do improve the quality of the userpages. They do this by utilizing a "show, don't tell" method of conveying information about any given user. Depending on the user's userboxes (or lack thereof), other users can gather information about that user. Userboxes also connect users, allowing them to find others with similar interests or concerns in order to collaborate or discuss. I see the point of what the opposers are saying, but why throw the baby out with the bath water? -Dave 21:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support This will finally end the userbox disputes. Tarret 21:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support We need some official agreed upon policy to stop the madness.--God Ω War 22:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Strong support - we have a winner! Stifle (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support and the poll is a damn fine presentation :) Terryeo 23:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support seems sensible. Megapixie 23:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support seems a sensible compronise. While I see how userboxes can be pointless and used as vandalism I also see the use in getting across concise and useful information about a user. As long as the new namespace is well monitored then this seems a viable and well thought out solution. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 00:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support reasonable compromise which will hopefully end the dispute. BryanG 00:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support Although I like the (proposed?) idea of using perhaps User:box/name better. In such a fashion no changes have to be made to the configuration, and they would then reside in a POV permitted section of the userspace --Charlie^{( @CIRL | talk | email )} 00:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support as the best compromise I've seen. —MiraLuka 01:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Weak Support - due to Implementation #3, I don't think this will solve anything; most of the debate will just shift to the prescribed deletion policy. However, it'll take away one negative argument that people have been using (that Template space shouldn't be for userboxes) so support for solving at least that one problem. --AySz88^-^ 01:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. Fairly strong support per AySz, and since a separation between NPOV and POV templates is a good thing. Λυδαcιτγ^{(TheJabberwock)} 02:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support. --Randy
33. Support. Sick of flamewars. Great idea. -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 03:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support. Tachyon01 04:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support -- Only one question: Will existing uses of userboxes be automatically converted, or will manual changes be necessary? Whoever has the answer, please reply on my Talk page, under heading "Userbox Policy" (create if necessary). --Tuvok 04:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    (Copying my reply here for the benefit of others with the same question).

    If the proposal is accepted, existing userboxes will be moved to the new Userbox: space – for example, Template:User foo will be moved to Userbox:Foo. Userpages that include the existing userboxes as templates will then need to be edited to point the template links to the new location – for example, ((user foo)) will be changed to ((userbox:foo)). Both these tasks could easily be carried out by a bot – Gurch 15:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

36. Support. Kalani ^[talk] 06:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support. Lcarsdata ^{Talk | @ | Contribs} 07:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Weak support I have no strong feelings on either side, but if this is seen as a trade-off between the two sides, let's have it a try. --Donar Reiskoffer 07:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support. Myopic Bookworm 10:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support Inclusionists get to keep their userboxes, and the deletionists get the Template: section cleared up. Great compramise, the only way I can see the Userbox War ending. And with the new userbox-specific deletion policy, the dletion process wont get clogged up with stupid nominations - • The Giant Puffin • 11:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support Probably a good idea even if POV userboxes weren't an issue. Andjam 12:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support: With everyone contributing to Wikipedia almost anonymously, it is nice to be able to have something unique and personal to individualize yourself. It's like the telermarketing ladies who make endless calls with pictures of their grandkids sitting next to their console. People making the argument that this topic is silly, and that it's not appropriate for an encyclopedia should remember that Userboxes don't go in the encyclopedia, they go in the areas behind the scenes. --Chris Griswold 13:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support--GringoInChile 13:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support It sure took long enough to get this rolling... --digital_me_{(Talk)(Contribs)} 14:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support -- Kukini 15:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support - no matter how much people want it - userboxes as a whole will probably never be outright deleted (not saying that some shouldn't or won't). Normal policies will apply as ever - but hopefully the cleanup of Template: will keep some more people happy. Ian13/talk 15:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support- hopefully we can get this debate ended soon. SSJ27Gohan 16:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support peace at any cost. Haukur 18:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support A great idea. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support — I have no problem with moving userboxes to their own namespace—seems to better organize Wikipedia. I am, however, scared by the level of NPOV (already) allowed in user pages (and by extension, userboxes). Usually such information is irrelevant to making a good encycopedia, and when it is relevant, people usually mention their biases in Talk pages related to the edits. But I guess this is for a different discussion... Erik Demaine 18:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support Would make life easier in more than one way. Aslaveofaudio 18:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support. Userboxes, for long, have transformed to a kind of "Entertainment Tax" Wikipedia has to pay to keep the editors interested and in good humour. I have no opposition to this idea as the tax is still under managable proportions. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support. DakPowers (Talk) 20:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support. I'm not entirely sure why so many people have such a problem with userboxes, nobody's forcing them to look at them, and many users have subpages for them. That's irrelevant though. People are concentrating on the extermination of userboxes and not working on helping Wikipedia in bigger ways, like expanding stubs for instance.....this looks to be an ideal solution to the whole mess. Those that want userboxes to be removed entirely, made no more, so that nobody can use them, ever, will never be satisfied. Even if they got their way they'd soon attack something else, like barnstars even. --Niroht 21:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "Even if they got their way they'd soon attack something else, like barnstars even." Really? Please read ignoratio elenchi and argumentum ad hominem. - Slow Graffiti 21:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Since you think one sentence is such a big deal, fine. --Niroht 16:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

55. Support. This is a sensible proposal to end the userbox wars. Spacepotato 21:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support. Will hopefully end this pointless war Bluap 22:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support. A separate namespace will end end the "but it's in template space" arguments --Bsmntbombdood 23:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support. I believe a separate namespace is the best solution for ending this divisive argument. ~Chris {t|c|e|@} 00:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support. A good idea to split it off to another section. This poll will hopefully now allow everyone to continue on to more important encyclopedia tasks and end this war that has continued on for far too long. --Nehrams2020 04:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support. Great idea.Iorek85 06:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support. Makes sense to me. Calilasseia 08:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 13:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support A reasonable compromise, I think. --Angelo 16:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support This could probably end the heated debate Snailwalker | talk 20:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support Better than the constant aggro over userboxes, or the waste and mess of everyone having their own user space throw-togethers - losing transclusion support would be unacceptable --Ace of Risk 21:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
66. Weak Support if we have do do anything to our userpages ourselves. Other than that Strong Support as it solves the only proven userbox problem while still giving users what they want. Compromise is good, la dee dah... Crazyswordsman 23:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support. The pandora's (user)box has been opened, they're out there, they've proliferated, and the world (and Wikipedia) has not come to an end. Everything else being equal, the reasons for in this poll are much more convincing than the reasons against. The dispute itself is a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing, and with that in mind I see no harm in userboxes. Fluit 01:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    That was cute. Twice. -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 16:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

68. Support Userboxes can be useful in recruiting editors interested in a particular topic, but we do need to get rid of some of the more nonsensical ones. Kerowyn 02:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
69. Yes, the Template: namespace should be NPOV. --Merovingian {T C @} 03:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support as per Crazyswordsman. It's a great idea. Sarsaparilla39 05:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support Caveat lector 18:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support, but I think that all WP: namespace pages should be allowed to have userboxes, as described on the talk page. – Xolatron 20:07, 24 Telona 2006 (25 May) 20:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support I think this'll probably help with all the feuding over userboxes. If a developer can be doing something better with their time, then just make a poll for whatever it is people want a developer to do instead of this :). Homestarmy 21:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support Don't use template namespace.--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 21:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support looks good Brian | (Talk) 23:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support. Switch 00:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support I like being an individual, but having it on the main user page is kinda dividing. - Xiong Chiamiov 01:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support. --Sparky Lurkdragon 02:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support -this looks good, maintains a listing, allows for users to controle their user space, takes POVs out of the template space... Mike McGregor (Can) 04:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support - Provides adequate separation of encyclopedic and community matters. Provides for concerns by delete voters that userboxes are troublesome by creating a clear distinction so that NPOV claims, even though NPOV doesn't apply to the final user pages, is out of the question. Ansell Review my progress! 05:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support as a solution to deletion problem and anyway, showing one's own POV is not to be discouraged, my previous experience here proves, that it's rather useful sometimes.--Constanz - Talk 06:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support but the name "Userbox" is too limiting - how about "Usertemplate"? Or allowing people to link user subpages as templates --Random832^T 12:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Were you not aware that the latter is already possible? It is actually possible to transclude almost any page (there are very few exceptions but they would make no sense in any case). HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

83. Very strong support per everyone above. --Cjmarsicano 15:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support While this is not a full-fledged solution to the userbox debate, it does address concerns about userboxes burdening main template space. Although userboxes will continue to tax Wikipedia servers under this compromise, their proliferation might become easier to manage. Those who argue that Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia should consider other useless endeavors, such as user subpages (user/about, user/wikiphilosophy, user/sandbox, user/a list of my favorite colors, etc.) or barnstars. Wikipedia contributors invest a great amount of time and effort into compiling and cleaning this encyclopedia, chastising them because they want the concession of a few ornamental templates is rather ungracious and counterproductive. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 15:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support per various above. A creation isn't encompassed by its creator. Peas 18:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support This is getting ridiculous, it's a group of boxes, not a time bomb! brainybassist 18:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
87. Very strong support. This is what I suggested awhile back. Just one suggested addition, the Userbox: namespace will be officially immune to CSD. --Dragon695 05:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree - there should still be reasons to delete userboxes... pure vandalism, personal attacks.. etc. Just not "its a userbox" as the only excuse. -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 06:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

88. Support. Anything that will put to rest the userbox wars is good in my book. I also voted to support the "user template" namespace. I don't think we need both namespaces. Take your pick. -lethe ^{talk +} 07:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support, support, support. Finally. This is what I've been waiting for. —Nightstallion (?) 07:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support. Seems fair enough. Molerat 12:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support. People are individuals, and therefore have opinions and views. The major reason for the split is that some userboxes have no use in template space as they don't contribute to the encyclopedic content of wikipedia or because they are humourous. This proposed policy is a good compromise and offensive userboxes will still get deleted - wheras ones that aid other users in contributions - including ones that aren't NPOV showing a user's Point of View on a subject. (2 theoritical examples follow...) For example, user1 has ((User Elitist)) on their userpage (which is one's view of themselves) and is in a debate with user2 about a contribution. user2 looks at user1's userpage and sees the userbox, and thinks "ah, this person might be hard to compromise with as they think they're always right" so rephrases what he wants to get across to user1 and a compromise is met. Another exmample: someone strongly opposed to subjectA wants to look for someone that strongly supports subjectA for help in an article related to subjectA so the article comes across as neutral instead of being weighted to either side - both users are knowledgable in subjectA and collaboration between them is likely to result in a more in-depth neutral article than someone that's neutral and doesn't know much about subjectA. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 15:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 15:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support This is not a perfect solution. It does not resolve the core issue (people who think userboxes are a waste of time and space vs. people who think them to be a vital part of their freedom of speech). Still, this will bring the long-needed peace and allow tempers to calm, it is a solution, a solution both sides might be able to live with (for a while), not a perfect solution, but it will do. Thus it gets my support. CharonX 18:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
94. Strong Supportand put an end to this time wasteing userbox war! The pro-userbox side gets to keep thier precious Userboxes and the anti-userbox get to get the "junk" out of template space. The Gerg 21:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support seems to be reasonable --Zoz (t) 22:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
96. Strong Support I would prefer keeping userboxes under the template namespace but this would stop the debate while allowing userboxes to be used on multiple pages. This is by far the best resolution with very few flaws. —David618 02:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
97. Strong Support. This would solve many problems of userbox deleters like Cyde who complain "does not belong in template space". Freddie 02:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support. Would also need some sort of Userbox Talk capability.Tobias087 09:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support. Johnny Pez 09:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
100. Strong Support if it can stop nasty deletion of userboxes and all these nauseating debates. Josie dethiers 14:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
101. Strong Support It's either this or have more fighting amongst users. Given the alternative, I see no reason to oppose this, even if it gives userboxes their own space. --D-Day ^{What up? Am I cool, or what?} 15:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support. If I understand this right, it would mean that some people would be happier as regards some technical URL related distinction, whilst all the people who want to display userboxes could do so. This seems fine. As far as I can see, none of the Opposition comments, below, give any reason for their position other than that they don't like userboxes in general, regardless of URL semantics; in which case they should not oppose, but be neutral, on this question. I am prepared to alter my vote if there is any evidence, as opposed to speculation, that userboxes in anyway harm the project of making a good encyclopaedia, or encourage harmful attitudes toward that project. Breadandroses 17:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
103. Srong Support. Need I say more? ~Linuxerist E/L/T 20:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support. I am not sure i support endless, separate user description pages..we'll have to recognize wikipedia as something else. But wikipedia should be owned and developed by everyone. U can't really draw lines over or around user expression or 'a little bit about myself'..unless it infringes on the articles and other users. This looks pretty much like an an important VOTE by humans. max rspct leave a message 22:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
105. Strong Support! A great idea which I hope will bring all this useless userbox quarelling and crusaded to an end :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support per creator. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
107. Strong Support. This will resolve one of Wikipedia's most damaging conflicts agreeably. Loom91 06:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
108. Strong Support. It's great that Wikipedia strives for neutrality, but userboxes are a useful reminder that encyclopedias are written by real people with points of view. I think that's a terribly important thing to remember, while striving for neutral point of view in the main namespace. Moving out of the Template namespace seems to solve the problem. --Grace 06:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support. Like it or not, userboxes are here to stay. Might as well shift them away from the template namespace for administrative efficiency as well as transclusion priority (If that can be done, I assume it will be done with UB vs TMP). --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 07:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support. I love my userboxes, but I understand that they don't belong in the Template: namespace. Yay for Userbox:! --AndreniW 07:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support Fred Bauder 13:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support Barneyboo (Talk) 11:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
113. Support. — TKD::Talk 02:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
114. Strong Support - POV userboxes fulfil a very useful function in letting us know which editors are most likely to be biased. For example a user displaying a religious userbox on their page cannot be expected to be capable of maintaining NPOV on any religion-related article as criticism of their religion goes against religious dogma. --Col. Hauler 15:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
115. Support. Well, we're not exactly in the age when Encyclopedia Britannica was the only viable encyclopedia, and as such, the modern encyclopedia has changed. This is an online encyclopedia, and should be treated as one. It also increases understanding between users and their edits; one party can see what the other party thinks, per the edit. ^^What Col. Hauler and others have said.^^ --Anarkial 16:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
116. Strong Support Sounds like a great solution, giving both sides more or less what they want. End to the Userbox Wars? The Halo (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support Takes the userboxes out of Wikipedia: space, yet allows those of us who like to use them that opportunity. Works for me. Denni ☯ 22:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
118. Support --MissyP89 01:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support Canæn 23:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support[edit]

1. Rfrisbie^talk 15:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Because this is not a technical issue, a technical change cannot solve it. Any designated place for userboxes must be part of a comprehensive set of policies, guidelines and practices about userspace that: (a) support collaboration instrumental to the development of the encyclopedia and (b) protect the project against clear and present threats to its mission.[reply]

   Comment: I wouldn't say that the politics behind the issue automatically render any technical solution worthless. This is not a policy about user space; we already have extensive guidelines that suggest suitable content for user space. I agree that an offical policy would be better – if you feel like drafting one, by all means go ahead. Since userboxes are designed solely for user pages, any policy on acceptable user page content, if introduced, would apply with equal force to userboxes. However, in the absence of such a policy, users are permitted to express their beliefs and points of view on their user pages, provided certain universal policies (such as No personal attacks) are followed. As the proposal above states, userboxes would be subject to these universal policies, and hence would be treated in the same way as userspace – Gurch 18:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Everything you state can be applied to "Template:User <userbox name>". Changing the location by itself only shifts the battlefield. Addressing the core issues directly precludes the need to move anything. In effect, changing physical space is neither necessary nor sufficient to solve the problem. Rfrisbie^talk 19:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Not really, Rfrisbie. The reason T2 exists at all is because userboxes aren't NPOV, but the Template namespace is supposed to be NPOV. The battlefield isn't shifted, it's changed completely, because a major aspect (T2) is removed. // ^The True _Sora 19:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I've asked before, but no one has ever cited the policy that establishes "Template namespace is supposed to be NPOV." Will you please cite the applicable policy. Rfrisbie^talk 00:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   • View the "policy in a nutshell" on WP:NPOV. "...This includes reader-facing templates..." There's your citation :) // ^The True _Sora 00:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   • Sorry to be picky, but my understanding is that "reader-facing templates" refers to article space. User pages are not part of article space. The userboxes are editor-facing templates. :-) In any event, this all boils down to a definitional issue. If consensus agrees some new space is subject to user page rules of the road, then it's an improvement over the status quo. Rfrisbie^talk 03:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Would prefer this to be called "User template:" or somesuch for generality, otherwise support. —Ashley Y 19:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
   • • I like it! ;-) Rfrisbie^talk 19:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   • Well, I had originally drafted it as "User template:", but seeing as all the other namespaces are one word, I think making this a different one would be foolish policy. // ^The True _Sora 19:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   They're not, actually, consider for instance "User talk:" and so forth. Of course this would mean a parallel "User template talk:". In any case it would cover T2. —Ashley Y 19:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   • Well, you always could "be bold." I would think a two-word name is anything but "foolish" if it more accurately denotes the nature of the namespace, especially if more than userboxes are added. Rfrisbie^talk 19:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
   • Oh, how's this? "Usertemplate" :-) Rfrisbie^talk 19:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Not all namespaces are one word. The brand new Main Page namespace isn't. Dtm142 18:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   • If you feel so strongly about changing it, bring it up on the talk page; as I said, ammendments can be proposed and will be added if supported by the community. However, I will be voting against, as I feel Userbox: is more common knowledge then Usertemplate:. But like I sai,d you can propose it. // ^The True _Sora 20:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   See talk. —Ashley Y 21:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose in favour of Wikipedia:Migration of usercruft into new namespaces, otherwise Support. —Ashley Y 19:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose the name - I think the names in Wikipedia:Migration of usercruft into new namespaces are better, otherwise Support. — CJewell (talk to me) 02:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support moving userboxes and warning messages, other user templates, and various self-referential/unencyclopedic templates to a new namespace, as in Wikipedia:Migration of usercruft into new namespaces. Ardric47 02:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
   1. Note that this does not mean that I endorse the content of all userboxes. Ardric47 22:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Conditional support. I prefer Wikipedia:Migration of usercruft into new namespaces. If that fails (and it shouldn't), this makes for a fairly reasonable alternative. Waggers 09:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support. Just one condition: You said that userboxes will only be allowed in the userspace and on WP:UBX, but there are other pages that might want to use userboxes too; for instance, many Wikiprojects will want to display their own userbox(es) on the project pages. ~Mr Inky · (T @ C) 15:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Support, agree with inkuh. Use of userboxes should not be limited to wikipedia:userboxes and user:. Also, people might write policy or essays relating to userboxes in other places in the Wikipedia: namespace. Pcu123456789 00:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7. Doesn't fully address concerns This doesn't address the basic claim that userboxes are a bad thing held by a substantial minority. It is likely to simply shift the debate to the deletion policy of the new Userbox space. We need to achieve consensus on that issue otherwise we will just be making work for the developers without ending the underlying debate. Eluchil404 03:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. I like the idea, but it should be made more generic, as per voters above and Wikipedia:Migration of usercruft into new namespaces. dewet|✉ 09:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

1. Oppose. Delete them all. Userboxes serve no purpose that has anything to do with building an encyclopedia. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose. Giving them their own namespace further elevates the special status of userboxes and further legitimizes them as being the sort of thing that we encourage people working here to spend their time on. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose. Per bunchofgrapes. Userboxes cannot improve the encyclopaedia. IMO, a namespace should only be given to things which can better than Wikipedia. I like userboxes, but I think they should remain as tls. Computerjoe's talk 18:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment on above two: the fact is, people want to individualize. As has been shown throughout this debate, the majority of users want to keep userboxes. That being said, keeping userboxes inside the Template namespace is worse to Wikipedia, because then POV items are going into the Template namespace- which is supposed to be NPOV. Computerjoe, it's not going to remain as it is, because T2 is going to delete almost all of the userboxes that we currently use. // ^The True _Sora 19:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   The template namespace needing to be NPOV, is I think, a red herring. If that policy exists at all, it shouldn't: Articles must be NPOV and therefore templates that are transcluded in articles must be as well, but that doesn't mean all templates must be. I don't think ((test2)) is "NPOV" for example. The problem I have with userboxes being in the template space isn't that they are POV; it is that it makes userboxes appear to be an officially sanctioned entity: something that newcomers are encouraged to spend their time and emotional well-being on. This proposal exacerbates that: it is worse than the status quo. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   What about userboxes in the User: space? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computerjoe (talk • contribs)

   I agree that the issue of contributors spending time on non-encyclopediaic matters is a significant one, and while I have no position on it myself, I welcome discussion of the issue. However, if userboxes are considered a waste of time, how about the time spent creating userpages? Giving userboxes a namespace puts them on the same level as userpages, which also have their own namespace. Are you suggesting that all time spent in userspace is wasted? If so, then should we all delete our user pages? – Gurch 19:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   This doesn't seem like the right forum to reopen the debate about why userboxes are, in some people's view, a particularly pernicious waste of time, well beyond that of user pages; just note that it is well established that some including myself hold that view. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Ah, nothing like the word "pernicious" to settle an argument. I concede :D – Gurch 20:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose, this sidesteps the issue. Some userboxes should go and some should stay. I don't care where they are. BrokenSegue 19:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment: If you believe some userboxes should go, fair enough. But if you don't care where they are, why are you opposing a proposal to move them? Having their own namespace will not prevent them from being deleted, as the proposal makes clear. In fact, under this proposal a new deletion policy will be drafted – implementation of this proposal will almost certainly lead to more userboxes being deleted. With respect, I suggest that it may be in your interests to support this proposal – Gurch 19:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   What I was saying was that where they are does not effect whether they should be deleted or not. By moving them I believe we are avoiding the true issue and legitimizing all the boxes (Note: I think babel boxes are fine). Why waste time and energy moving them, if it won't change anything? The third point of the implementation (encouraging a new policy) is both vague and easier said then done. Why not start with a new policy and then make the new namespace? Please explain how this policy (the one I am voting on) will lead to more deletions. A new policy could do that, but not this one. People keep saying this solves the problem, it doesn't. BrokenSegue 20:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I personally don't think this will lead to more deletions. My rational for writting this proposal is the fact that neither side will give up in this fight- the deletionists want almost all of the UBX deleted, while the inclusionists want them all kept. Neither side will give up. However, by putting this proposal into effect, we fix a core issue, that of the POV in the Template namspace. The inclusionists have shown that they are the majority, and that they want to keep the UBX. At least if we move the UBX to a new category, while they may not get deleted, they are at least out of the way of WP-related templates. // ^The True _Sora 20:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   BrokenSegue: I accept your point. I certainly hope a new userspace policy will emerge at some point whether or not this proposal goes through – Gurch 20:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   TheTrueSora: Yes, this move is a start, at the very least. The "inclusionists" and "deletionists" (I'm a little reluctant to use those terms) may still end up slogging it out to decide which userboxes are kept, but at least TfD will be free to focus on encyclopediaic matters – Gurch 20:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. Userboxes don't belong in any namespace other than the User: namespace. The User: namespace was designed for user-oriented material, and userboxes are user-oriented. -- bcasterline • talk 21:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Can User: pages be included as templates? No? And you wouldn't support a proposal to do so? Catch-22. --Random832^T 12:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Actually, yes, userpages can be used as templates. --Durin 11:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose why legitimise nonsense? --Nick Boalch\^talk 21:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose My opinions on userboxes themselves aside, I don't think that creating a new namespace (a major change!) will alleviate the problem. ~MDD4696 21:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Edit conflict oppose. WP:ENC, remember? If you need otherwise useless stickers on your page then go ahead, but just write them in pure HTML/WikiSyntax. Misza13 ^{T C} 21:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose, a Userbox namespace is the last thing we need. the wub "?!" 22:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose Ha, ha, ha - shall we have a namespace for furry dice as well? --Doc ^ask? 22:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Had half of Wikipedia spent six months arguing about what should be done with furry dice, this may well have been proposed – Gurch 15:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11. This is an encyclopedia. Martin 22:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose I am neutral in the Userbox dispute generally, and supported the earlier straw poll and WP:MACK; however, explicitly permitting POV userbox creation in its space is a bad idea. POVs are infinite in variety -- the space will multiply like a rabbit colony, and maintaining the space will way too much time to be of benefit to the encyclopedia. Xoloz 23:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. This plan neglects to include the step where we delete all the userboxes; once this oversight is rectified I'll be happy to support. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose Only if we do like .xxx and firewall the whole lot off (preferably at Wikipedia's proxies). All previous namespaces are very important, and have very solid reasons behind their existence (except for maybe portal.    or help) Per Doc, we don't create namespaces for relatively unimportant classes of pages (eg. "Deletion:" or "Poll:" or similar would get used much more, but those aren't broken out). --Interiot 23:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose A change that drastic may make alot of otherwise content, contributing users very angry. --Syhususi 00:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose - a technical solution to a cuktural problem won't work. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose, the userbox problem is not primarily that they are in Template namespace, it is whether they should exist at all. This granting of POV userboxes legitimacy unless they can be proven to be a personal attack (which is likely to be debated - is saying 'I hate the British' a personal attack on everyone in Britain, or just POV and fine? How about 'I am a white supremist, and think that other races are scum'?) is not to my liking either. As suggested above, they'll multiply like rabbits as soon as they're given their own playground, while the anti-userbox people still keep trying to delete them. We're also trying to make an NPOV encyclopedia here; why do people need to express their POV? They shouldn't be using it when they contribute to articles - an ideal, yes, but having userboxes saying 'I hate the British' makes it rather easy to just shrug and point to your box when you start writing things like 'The British are known for making poor judgements and being inhospitable to foreigners'. -- Mithent 12:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If the problem is that userboxes exist at all, then there will never be a solution to the problem, because there will never be a consensus on whether they should exist at all. Getting rid of userboxes is not an option. The only options are 1) the status quo; 2) this proposed finesse; or 3) some other proposed finesse. Johnny Pez 10:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

18. Oppose there cannot be "Userbox" namespace until there is a reasonable definition of userboxes. Will support if the namespace would include all templates intended to be used on user pages only.  Grue  18:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This point is currently under consideration on the talk page. Feel free to add to the discussion – Gurch 19:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

19. Oppose Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a clubhouse. ike9898 18:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: But it is a community. I think Maynard summed it up above in his his comments in his "support" of the proposal. Fluit 01:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

20. Oppose While it would fix some problems, I don't like any policy that condones userboxes. --InShaneee 19:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose. Per previous comments about a technical solution to social and political problems. - BanyanTree 22:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose because it doesn't solve the problem, and it doesn't help Wikipedia. Tuf-Kat 00:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose as they are templates, which is to say bits of reusable code. No need to break. 69.255.49.246 10:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose. As Zoe said in the first 'oppose' vote, "Userboxes serve no purpose that has anything to do with building an encyclopedia." They waste contributors' time which should be spent improving articles. Userboxes do little to individualize a user's user page - while they make it unique, they are of no significance. How many people actually read others' userboxes? (That is, other than to see if there are any userboxes they might want to add to their own user page.) If many do, they should stop and spend their time contributing worthwhile, enyclopedic content. After all, this is an encyclopedia - not MySpace. - Slow Graffiti 20:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment on above: 1) Who are you to tell a user how he should spend his time? 2) What makes you think they'd spend the time they're spending on their user pages now on improving the encyclopedia, instead? Jay Maynard 21:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment The above comment makes it seem like this is all about free expression. Userboxes also can be used as gathering points of people who edit the same types of things, inlue of a wikiproject. I also remember a while back someone was doing a poll on how many engineer wikipedians we had. The problem people seem to have about this type of POV gathering is that it leads to vote stacking. Votestacking is a problem because their are many admins that think wikipedia is a democracy, and close vote based off of percentages instead of consensus. Take for instance this "vote". It's a supermajority, but not a consensus. So if wikipedia was a democracy, the userboxes votestacking potential would be a problem and userboxes should be deleated. Since Wikipedia is not a democracy, votestacking shouldn't be a problem, and the colaberation effect caused by the boxes helps the encyclopedia. Of course, "bad" boxes can be created, but so can bad articles. Rayc 23:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    1) A concerned user. 2) Condoning userboxes supports further time spent on user pages. Like I said, this is not MySpace. To Rayc - yet people get far less offended when their bad articles are improved in comparison to their bad userboxes being deleted. - Slow Graffiti 03:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

25. Oppose. It's firstly an encyclopedia. I wouldn't like policy about userboxes and userbox users should rather edit articles. NCurse 20:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Maybe they'd spend more time editing articles if they didn't have to worry about corrupt admins deleting their userboxes. Plus, nobody created an account just to have userboxes. They are just a fun part of our community that gives us a more communityish feel. Just because lots of people are passionate about their userpages/boxes doesn't mean that they don't edit/vandalise articles. Dtm142 00:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Ok, but I think Wikiproject would deserve an own namespace not userboxes. There are much more important things on wiki than userboxes. In my opinion any kind of userbox could be created but without category. They wouldn't be templates just own-designed boxes. So you couldn't use them to recruit people by topic, religion... It doesn't need own namespace. NCurse 06:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

26. Oppose Per BrokenSegue, Grue and Tuf-Kat, I don't trust the new userbox namespace Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose - What in the hell is so special about userboxes that they deserve their own namespace?! I can think of a dozen better things that deserve their own namespace. Userboxes are just one of a variety of silly things people put on their userpage. They're not even a good way to present information - they're just a fad. Legitimizing them by giving them their own namespace is absurd. How about we split apart the category namespace first, so that Wikipedia maintenance categories aren't in the same namespace as encyclopedic categories? That seems like a much better use of developer time than adding a namespace for userboxes. --Cyde↔Weys 03:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose per above. Naconkantari 03:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Oppose Create and legitimize a My Space area of Wikipedia? That sounds like an awful idea. Rx StrangeLove 05:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Oppose, making a new namespace won't really solve anything (and it will encourage more crap, which even I agree is bad). Everybody knows template:User space is for userboxen, and indeed template: space doesn't mean anything at all in respect to encyclopaedic content, as it can be displayed anywhere. Userbox deletionists should stop using "get this encyclopaedic content out of templatespace" as a reason to delete anyway. --Rory096 05:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. We have too many proposals about these stupid boxes and this is one of the stupider ones. Kotepho 15:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Oppose Opinions should be hand written, not templatised, and belong in userspace, not a new namespace. Per Bunchofgrapes, Doc, Cyde (!), GTBacchus, etc. Proposal means well but is not a good idea IMHO ++Lar: t/c 15:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Oppose As above, this is a technical solution to a cultural problem. It doesn't make the problem go away, just shifts it into an unnecessary extra namespace. --kingboyk 15:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Oppose As above it's a broader issue than just the technicalities of where they live. --pgk^(talk) 20:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment And as the proposed policy is written it addresses more than just the technicalities of where they live. Would you care to read the proposal again? GRBerry 20:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Not really. --pgk^(talk) 21:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

35. Oppose. No, absolutely not. It's not where they are; it's what they are, and how they're used. Userboxes have been profoundly counterproductive, and creating new namespaces to accommodate them would only worsen the problem. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Oppose. No indeed. This is a terrible precedent. I also find this proposal to be premature. Mackensen (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment on above: Why, just because it came to a vote before your non-compromise? Jay Maynard 21:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Okkay, I'll withdraw the supposedly insulting accusation of bad faith...too bad the folks on the other side of this issue won't withdraw theirs. Then again, it would destroy their argument. Jay Maynard 01:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Replied on your talk page. Mackensen (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, someone tell me where I'm assuming bad faith? Has good faith assumption become impossible? All I said was that I didn't like the precedent this would set and that it was too early (for any proposal, mind you). The emotional intensity this provokes in some is completely out of proportion to its importance here. Mackensen (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

37. Oppose. This goes against what Wikipedia is and promotes what Wikipedia is not. Bastique▼^parler _voir 21:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Oppose per Mindspillage. Keep WP:ENC in mind. Misza13 ^{T C} 21:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. Per Mindspillage, Zoe, Bunchofgrapes, Mackensen, etc.--Sean Black 21:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Oppose per all of the above. I wish to respond to a comment above. Someone, I noted not who, claims that "a majority of users want to keep their userboxes". This is, frankly, false. A majority of users on Wikipedia don't give a shit about userboxes one way or the other. I will freely accept that a majority of users who feel strongly about userboxes want to keep them, but this factlet is really quite irrelevant -- as is this poll. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrong. A majority do care about their userboxes. Look at this TFD, 185 to 28. Most users never find out about these polls. In this rare exception, everyone that had a userbox up for deletion was notified. The majority was overwhelming. Retraction?--God Ω War 06:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    So what you're saying is that 185 out of 47,206,118 (which is 0.00039% BTW) want to keep the specific userboxes referred to in that discussion. Doesn't seem that overwhelming. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    By that twisted logic the semi-protection poll should not have passesd. After all, only a hundred or so editors voted so that means less than 1% of wikipedians care about it. Not Overwhelming indeed.--God Ω War 21:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    That was five months ago man. A lot of people have soured on userboxes since then. --Cyde↔Weys 06:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    At least I back up my arguments with links instead of making wild assertions that have no basis in reality.--God Ω War 06:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Says who? I disproved the ludicrous assertion that a "majority" of Wikipedians care about userboxes months ago. Johnleemk | Talk 13:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

41. Oppose as per Bastique. --Improv 22:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Oppose: there are undoubtedly various sensible ways of doing this, of which this is not one. Until people sort out whether they are here to build an encyclopedia which happens to have a community of developers, or a community which happens to be parked next to an encyclopedia on which they occasionally perform some desultory work, I suspect that such a solution will not be forthcoming. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Oppose (changed vote, based on further reading/thinking) per inshanee: While it would fix some problems, I don't like any policy that condones userboxes. -Quiddity 18:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    By saying it would "fix some problems", you admit that this is a step in the right direction. So why won't you endorse it?--God Ω War 21:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Because while it would "fix some problems," it would also create some, and doesn't fix the main problem. It isn't step in the right direction - it's a sidestep. I think Durin's point (below) is valid. - Slow Graffiti 16:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

44. Strongest Possible Oppose per all above. Raichu 23:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. I've seen some sensible compromises. I don't think this is one of them. The very thought that we'd elevate the boxes to this level seems odd. They aren't that important. - brenneman ^{L} 07:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. People who are against userboxes will be against them wherever the userboxes are, same for the people supporting userboxes. The location doesn't matter, and I think this proposal achieves nothing. In fact, I think that principle B is wrong. Template namespace doesn't need to be NPOV, it's only for articles. Conscious 09:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree - articles should be NPOV, and so templates transcluded into articles should be NPOV (they're part of the article), but there's nothing otherwise magical about Template namespace. If this proposition is not true, many users who have voted support since 'it gets userboxes out of Template' may have voted differently. The other main reason to vote support seems to be out of hope that this will resolve the whole dispute, but the only people I see it satisfying on the anti-userbox side are those whose only objection to POV userboxes is that they're in Template, which I don't think is many. -- Mithent 12:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

47. Oppose: I fail to see how this solves the chief problems surrounding userboxes in the first place. I readily grant that I've not been involved in this debate on a day to day basis, so I may be missing some points. But, I think a decision on this really needs to come from higher up. There's little in the way of common ground, and I think this proposal shows that; it's very bland, virtually unoffensive unless you are (as some have been) bothered by the elevation of userboxes to their own namespace (I'm bothered by it too). This compromise smacks of legislation in the real world on controversial topics that results in real little change. The problems will remain. --Durin 11:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: How come? They aren't in the official template namespace, so they don't need to be NPOV. They will no longer meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Dtm142 16:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

48. Oppose, Wikipedia is not some place where you are to push your POVs through userspace. The POV userboxes should all be removed and I don't think there is any need for separate namespace. The community exists for the encyclopedia and not vice versa. --Andy123 talk 08:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. Oppose. What the heck? This doesn't actually solve anything (does nothing to address the concerns about vote stacking or myspace-ness, and people who are concerned about unencyclopedic content in the Template: namespace are going to be just as concerned about a new namespace entirely for unencyclopedic content). What it does do is put a certain subset of templates that are frequently unrelated or actively detrimental to the project on a level equivalent (software-wise) to Wikipedia: pages or other important parts of the project. --Robth^Talk 19:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. Oppose per WP:NOT. - Amgine 20:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. Oppose. The problem with POV userboxes is not where they exist but that they exist. Everyone's page doesn't have to be as boring as mine, but WP:USER and WP:NOT are clear on what WP is and isn't, and we're here to build an encyclopedia, not push a point of view. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 20:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. Oppose. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and I don't buy the arguments that userboxes help build an encylopedia. Moving them to a separate namespace will change very little. In addition this proposal is only half a proposal. It is basically saying lets move all the boxes without a firm idea of what to do with them when they are moved. Agreeing the deletion policy for the new namespace will be just as divisive, if not more, than anything going on at the moment. RicDod 08:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53. Oppose per the more moderate comments above. I am neutral with respect to userboxes but, like it or not, we need a settled community for the encyclopaedia to be built. Let people have their userboxes if they wish, let them express their POV with them if they wish, provided they do not violate current relevant policies and guidelines. Anything that you can create with text and images on your userpage should be capable of being wrapped up in twee, ugly or attractive (depending on your POV) little boxes. WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:NLT, WP:IUP and WP:USER cover it all. The problem we have here is that there are two extremely polarised camps who are incapable of finding common ground, shaking hands, moving on and getting on with the task at hand - building an encyclopaedia. I applaud the proposer's attempt to end this most "divisive and inflammatory" five month feud, but the proposal will not resolve it unfortunately. The battleground will merely shift to a new location, so it is fundamentally flawed. I am tired of all the pointless "debate", bad faith, ill temper and wasted energy that this whole issue has caused. I have no idea how or when this will be resolved, but here's a proposal: Anti-Userboxers - go and write some articles; Pro-Userboxers - go and write some articles. Where's Henry Kissinger when you need him? --Cactus.man ✍ 10:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
54. Oppose per Mindspillage, Mackensen, Bastique and others. Move them to meta: or something. Alphax ^τεχ 13:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
55. Oppose. Mindspillage, Mackensen, Cyde, Durin, and others all make good points. This proposal would not solve any of the problems userboxen bring; it would elevate userboxen to a status they don't deserve; it would make the userbox problem worse. Not a good idea. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
56. As per Alphax and fuddlemark. I don't feel strongly about any userboxes but the most blatantly factionalist and divisive ones, but this doesn't serve a real purpose. The userspace exists for users to have their private place to communicate something about why they're here, and what they do here. It's also there for their own sandboxes, etc. -- not to institute another MySpace. The namespaces are here to serve the encyclopaedia, not the other way round. Johnleemk | Talk 13:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
57. Oppose. If wikipedia users want to get together to the improve the encyclopedia, then they become editors and they can participate in wikipedia development projects that are built around project pages. All other user activities can take place in the usual way on community pages and on user pages without any need for "user boxes" or any other templates that have nothing to do with building the encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 18:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
58. Oppose. There is no serious community opposition to Jimbo's objective of the progressive annihilation from template space of divisive and unnecessary content. We have user space, where personal content is severely deprecated, but tolerated. There is no need for a further space and absolutely no possibility that the developers will be persuaded that a further userspace is required in addition to the one we already have. --Tony Sidaway 01:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
59. Oppose. Creating a new namespace for some types of templates doesn't mean they will stop being templates. Besides, it's redundant with the User namespace, where userbox templates can already be located. --cesarb 01:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
60. Oppose (change from abstain). I don't this this technical solution solves the underlying issue. I also think POV user boxes risk damaging Wikipedia by creating factions. Stephen B Streater 19:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment As I see it, the opposers are ahead. This is not just a numbers game. The strength of the argument counts in the consensus. And the strength of the arguers. Stephen B Streater 19:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And as the supporters see it, they are ahead by far. Maybe you should look at the talk page - could you respond to any of the arguments in A brief review of "oppose" votes, now that the poll is closed? Currently both sides have reasons why they are "winning", but we need the each side to address the reasons why the other side thinks it is winning. – Xolatron 22:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The point of the consensus we're supposedly aiming for is that neither side 'wins'... --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 22:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Then the supporters are wrong. I've been waiting more than a few days for someone to respond to my criticisms of this proposal, but apparently nobody has. It's also demonstrably clear that by our standards of policymaking, there is no consensus for adopting this policy. Proposals with >70% support have been failed, and I see no reason why userboxes (which aren't even part of the encyclopaedia) merit special treatment. Johnleemk | Talk 15:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polls are evil (can we have a rational discussion?)[edit]

1. Kim Bruning 23:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think it's been tried. Λυδαcιτγ^{(TheJabberwock)} 23:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If rational discussions fail, then polls will fail harder ^^;; Kim Bruning 00:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rational discussions just make matters worse, because then start rational, but never end that way. // ^The True _Sora 00:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then we are lost and must abandon all hope. :-P (But seriously, I don't think it's that bad) Kim Bruning 10:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain / Neutral / Comment[edit]

1. An alternative to a “new userbox physical space” is a new userbox virtual space. This alternative clearly designates the allowable space for userboxes without requiring structural changes to Wikipedia namespace. It also requires this virtual space to be subject to the same policies and guidelines as user pages. The result is that userboxes are wholely within the domain of the project, not the encyclopedia. Rfrisbie^talk 16:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment: A 'virtual space' of this kind would in fact be in the article namespace, in the same way that the WP: redirects are in the article namespace. They are tolerated because they are just redirects, userboxes would be another matter. Also, the "structural changes" mentioned are quick to implement and will not affect the rest of the encyclopedia (you'd likely never even notice a userbox namespace existed just from browsing, same as the MediaWiki namespace) – Gurch 18:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is something like "User:Box/<userbox name>" in article namespace? Rfrisbie^talk 18:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I confused your idea with another proposal that suggested prefixing userboxes with Userbox: but not actually implementing it as a real namespace, which would cause the problems mentioned above. This was an error on my part.

A User:Box/<userbox name>-style configuration would work, by all means. I see the username has already been indefinitely blocked and set aside for the purpose, which would streamline the process. Assuming new users didn't mistake this "Box" for an actual user, this is a possibility, and like this proposal it would finally do away with the userbox issue. I'm certainly not opposed to the idea – Gurch 18:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While that would work, it would be by no means official- I'm looking to create an official way of proceeding with this. // ^The True _Sora 18:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a good point, this idea seems more like a workaround than a solution, and would still require yet another policy to be drafted in order to work. Given that the overhead for making a namespace is minimal, although I'm not opposed to a workaround, I still say we go with this solution – Gurch 18:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything is official as soon as it is adopted as policy. Whether the "reserved space" for userboxes is "physical" or "virtual" is simply "detail." Rfrisbie^talk 19:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point (note the distinction between "policy" and "guideline", though) – Gurch 19:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Distinction noted, e.g., below. Rfrisbie^talk 21:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about Template:User <userbox name>? I think this is the best option.  Grue  18:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Grue, what you said is the current way it is done; however, as T2 notes, the Template: namespace is supposed to be NPOV. That's why T2 exists at all- to delete the non-NPOV temlates from the NPOV Template: namespace. My namespace would be declared to have POVs, and so it would be legal to have most of the current templates. // ^The True _Sora 20:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no T2. Template space is not supposed to be NPOV and never was.  Grue  16:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Grue, then how do you explain this, otherwise known as T2: "Templates that are designed for user pages and express viewpoints on controversial issues, personal beliefs, ideologies, or ethical convictions"? // ^The True _Sora 16:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: If moved out of Template space, what other current policies and guidelines would apply to the typical issues cited? Rfrisbie^talk 21:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Policy:
    • WP:NPA
    • WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site
  • Guideline:
    • WP:User page

All of the above would apply. In fact, that's what policy 5 in the proposal is based on. // ^The True _Sora 21:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm asking what other policies and guidelines apply. For example, since I don't know, exactly what policies apply to "votestacking"? Rfrisbie^talk 21:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, votestacking wouldn't apply, as voting is not related to userboxes (except on TfD, which wouldn't be used for UBX anyways). The guildelines and policies you listed above would apply to UBX; the one I think is the most important is the one on userpages. So long as that one applies, UBX and userpages are on the same level, deletion-wise. // ^The True _Sora 23:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. Stifling communications to promote votestacking is a common argument used to justify eliminating userboxes. Rfrisbie^talk 02:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. CommentThis edit explains the true purpose behind this proposal -- to allow the inclusionn of all POV, personal attack userboxes. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Exsqueeze me? What part of "WP:NPA still applies" says "personal attack userboxes are allowed"?! Jay Maynard 22:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Ask the person who is contending that POV userboxes will be allowed. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   "POV userbox" != "personal attack userbox". User pages are not required to be NPOV. (If you claim they are, please provide a link.) A userbox that says "This user is a Republican" is not a personal attack unless you consider calling someone a Republican to be so. Jay Maynard 22:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not talking about a userbox that says "This user is a Republican" (although I object to all userboxes which have nothing to do with creating an encyclopedia). But what about a userbox that says "this user opposes gay marriage" or "this user thinks black people should be taken out and shot"? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   "This user opposes gay marriage" is not a personal attack. If the wording was, "This users wants to kill all the gays," yes, it would be a peronsal attack. My original essay had reasioning behind this. Look at the policy above: all userboxes must conform to the policies which pertain to userpages. Therefore, WP:NPA would still be applicable. A POV userbox is one that says "This user is pro-choice." An attack userbox is one that says, "Kill all the pro-lifers." It's a fairly big line to cross. // ^The True _Sora 22:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Indeed. I have no problem with "This user opposes gay marriage"; it's a legitimate declaration of POV. The other userbox you cite would, I presume, be just as much against Wikipedia policy if it were placed as plain text on the user's page. The violation of policy there is not specific to userboxes. Even that, though, is not a personal attack; that would be more like "This user thinks Jay Maynard's TRON costume is a disgrace and fat guys like him shouldn't wear spandex". That would seem to me to obviously run afoul of WP:NPA. Jay Maynard 22:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm tempted to put that on my user page :D. Anyway, yes, there is a significant difference between a point of view and a personal attack, and what's more, this difference has been with us since the beginning and will remain with us regardless of what happens to the userboxes. Bias is not permitted in articles but is permitted on user pages and so, by extension, in userboxes. Personal attacks aren't permitted anywhere – Gurch 23:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Abstain [Change to oppose Stephen B Streater 19:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)]: I don't think this tackles the major issue which is current lack of consensus, which cannot be fixed with a technical solution. My own view now is that there are three types of userboxes, typified by this example: "I am an expert in Green Energy", "I use Green Energy", "I want everyone else to use Green Energy". All are factual. I think the first two should be allowed on user pages, but not the last. Stephen B Streater 10:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss on the talk page. Suggested amendments should be made on the talk page, and only included if consensus is reached.