Wikipedia:Userboxes/Userbox location straw poll

Discussion revived on Userboxes/Userbox location straw poll 2.

Please note: This is a non-binding straw poll of opinion.You are not voting on a proposal. Please help by expressing a preference on the items below or by adding a new item . Feel free to discuss your opinion in more detail on the talk page.

Userbox pegboard
How to use the userbox pegboard: Place your username (see examples – using three tildes "#" ) in any cell for which you think it is the best match for a userbox type and namespacecombination.Types in ALL CAPS represent groups of types. Add any comments under the applicable group or on the talk page.

Languages
Comments:
 * 1) Keep Template namespace clear of all userboxes. In Wikipedia namespace only if related pages exist. Everything else in User namespace. Rfrisbietalk 02:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Babel has an encyclopedic purpose, the others in this section do not.GRBerry 03:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Maybe this poll should list Babel userboxes separately, so people can vote on grammar, non-iso, and programming boxes all at once. Philbert2.71828 22:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Explaining my vote on the Babel boxes - I think what I had in mind was simply this: Babel templates would be acceptable to me in either Wikipedia or Template namespace. Thinking again, I suppose Template space would be better, if only because the are already located there, but if someone would be willing to do the work, I would have no problem seeing them somehow moved over to Wikipedia space (possibly under/as subpages of Babel). — Mi  r  a  04:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) There are no problems having userboxes in template namespace, the problems are caused by people unhappy that userboxes are in template namespace and seeking to impose their own solution against consensus. Stifle (talk)
 * 6) Consensus is important.Process is important.Both have been woefully ignored by the userbox deletionists.Where userboxes are housed is a smokescreen issue.Those who want userboxes gone will continue to delete them, regardless of process, consensus, or anything else.That's been demonstrated in TfD and elsewhere.As long as the boxes don't appear in Main space, their existence in Template space is a non-issue, important only as a proxy for the goal of deleting userboxes. --Ssbohio 17:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) I don't particularly care one way or the other, as long as they all stay and are easy to copy.They could all be moved to userspace for all I care. Crazyswordsman 03:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) I agree with Crazyswordsman, but I also see no real problem with the userboxes remaining in template space; however, I think that WP:BOX should continue to function as a repository for userboxes regardless of where they reside. (I've heard some rumours that it won't serve this function if the German solution is used for all userboxen.)CameoAppearance 08:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Babel boxes are no different from any other userbox. If other userboxes go to userspace, Babel boxes should go there too. User:Angr 15:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) It's not as if we're going to run out of template space. The only boxes going into userspace should be those which are blatantly unencyclopedic and have nothing whatsoever to do with running an encyclopedia. Anything remotely related to our ends may as well stay in template space; it's not as if MediaWiki suddenly shuts down if you have too many templates in templatespace. If we're gonna have templates all over the place, why even bother having a template namespace? Luna Santin 04:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) I agree with Angr that babel userboxes should be treated the same as any other userbox. However, I believe that every userbox should be allowed to exist in the template namespace. I don't understand the point of the counter argument, other than the fact that userboxes are usually unreleated to the encyclopedia. It seems to me that the argument that userboxes should not be placed in the template namespace is an opinion. Why is it so bad to let userboxes in the template namespace...they are templates. I also beleive that all userboxes help to represent the community. We should all support the representation of the community. After all, where would Wikipedia be without the community? Shardsofmetal [ Talk 01:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) I think even Babel userboxes should be in userspace as long as there is a directory like Userboxes which list all userboxes in themes. --Bisco 17:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Life, status and situation
Comments:
 * 1) Everything except educational qualifications and professional expertise to userspace.Those can be template space as the contribute to editing.GRBerry 03:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) I like GRBerry's idea in theory, but there are a lot of possible degrees, with new majors appearing now and then, and lots of things could be considered professional experience. The only way to deal with every possibility might be to have a blank box, like "This user has a ____ degree in ____." Philbert2.71828 22:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Consensus is important.Process is important.Both have been woefully ignored by the userbox deletionists.Where userboxes are housed is a smokescreen issue.Those who want userboxes gone will continue to delete them, regardless of process, consensus, or anything else.That's been demonstrated in TfD and elsewhere.As long as the boxes don't appear in Main space, their existence in Template space is a non-issue, important only as a proxy for the goal of deleting userboxes. --Ssbohio 17:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Everything except zodiac signs and personality test results can stay in template space; I find both to be uninformative, uninteresting and unhelpful. CameoAppearance 08:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Politics, opinions and beliefs
Comments:
 * 1) The problem is, if you allow "Template:User gay" in template namespace, you have to allow trollbait like "Template:User coprophiliac", etc. To have one without the other would require constant judgement calls. This applies to politics, religion, etc. also. Herostratus 14:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Consensus is important.Process is important.Both have been woefully ignored by the userbox deletionists.Where userboxes are housed is a smokescreen issue.Those who want userboxes gone will continue to delete them, regardless of process, consensus, or anything else.That's been demonstrated in TfD and elsewhere.As long as the boxes don't appear in Main space, their existence in Template space is a non-issue, important only as a proxy for the goal of deleting userboxes. --Ssbohio 17:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) All the template spaces are deleted anyways. -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 01:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Interests and tastes
Comments:
 * 1) These are harmless. That which is harmless should be allowed in template namespace. Herostratus 15:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Consensus is important.Process is important.Both have been woefully ignored by the userbox deletionists.Where userboxes are housed is a smokescreen issue.Those who want userboxes gone will continue to delete them, regardless of process, consensus, or anything else.That's been demonstrated in TfD and elsewhere.As long as the boxes don't appear in Main space, their existence in Template space is a non-issue, important only as a proxy for the goal of deleting userboxes. --Ssbohio 17:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Right. We don't need to get rid of a template if it's made clear where it should be used. --Gray Porpoise 02:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) These are pointless, insofar as creating an encyclopedia is concerned, and could just as easily be incorporated into the text of a user's page. As such, if a userbox for these topics is truly desired, it should be in userspace. -- BlueSquadron Raven 19:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) I have two comments on the food. First, all userboxes about eating habbits/disorders/where you eat should be userfied. Second, all userboxes that say this user eats/drinks this should be deleted. -Royalguard11TalkDesk 21:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia-related
Comments:
 * 1) "Wikipedia" userboxes should be created in Wikipedia namespace only with a related page, e.g., Sister projects. Rfrisbietalk 02:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) In Wikipedia space for admin, beauracrat, etc... status on Wikipedia or any other WikiMedia project, plus up to one per WikiProject.GRBerry 03:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) I voted for template namespace because, from this page, this namespace is used to duplicate the same content across more than one page. That sounds like the idea behind a userbox to me. Compare that to the Project namespace, which is for pages about Wikipedia. I think WikiProject userboxes are only indirectly about Wikipedia. But, if someone wants to change the description of the Wikipedia namespace to allow Wikiproject userboxes, that would be fine with me. Philbert2.71828 22:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Consensus is important.Process is important.Both have been woefully ignored by the userbox deletionists.Where userboxes are housed is a smokescreen issue.Those who want userboxes gone will continue to delete them, regardless of process, consensus, or anything else.That's been demonstrated in TfD and elsewhere.As long as the boxes don't appear in Main space, their existence in Template space is a non-issue, important only as a proxy for the goal of deleting userboxes. --Ssbohio 17:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Userboxes specific to a Wikiproject can and should be created as subpages of that Wikiproject, to illustrate its being attached to that project and lessen the appearance of the project being under the control of any one individual. -- BlueSquadron Raven 19:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Even Wikipedia userboxes should be located in userspace. The corresponding page (if there is one) can use it like a template and/or link to the box. For Licensing: if it's a userbox (used as a mere statement on userpage) it should be located in userspace. If it's a widely used and needed template for licensing it should be proposed to become a licensing template in template space, if there isn't no alternative available. --Bisco 17:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Most Wikipedia-related userboxes, such as WikiProject boxes and admin boxes, haven't been an issue. They are prime examples of good user boxes and relate directly to actives on Wikipedia in an appropriate manner. -- Ned Scott 07:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Other userboxes
Comments:
 * 1) Consensus is important.Process is important.Both have been woefully ignored by the userbox deletionists.Where userboxes are housed is a smokescreen issue.Those who want userboxes gone will continue to delete them, regardless of process, consensus, or anything else.That's been demonstrated in TfD and elsewhere.As long as the boxes don't appear in Main space, their existence in Template space is a non-issue, important only as a proxy for the goal of deleting userboxes. --Ssbohio 17:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) It would be nice if people didn't vote more than once for the same thing. -Royalguard11TalkDesk 21:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Applicable policies, guidelines and ArbCom rulings
The policies, guidelines and Arbitration Committee rulings that apply to userboxes should be based on...

Their namespace location
Support policies, guidelines and Arbitration Committee rulings based on userbox namespace location, sign here with # ~ :
 * 1) Rfrisbietalk 02:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC): The namespace context of a userbox should determine what policies, guidelines and ArbCom rulings apply.
 * 2) — Mi  r  a  03:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC) agree with Rfrisbie; userboxes located in user space should be treated differently than those in template space, according to the policy guideline at WP:USER.
 * 3) * Note. WP:USER is a "guideline." :-) Rfrisbietalk 03:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) **Oops, thank you for pointing that out. — Mi r  a  03:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Some things need to be forbidden in template namespace, while they can be allowed in user namespace. Charon X /talk 10:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) – Gurch 15:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) TZMT (de:T) 17:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) &mdash;  getcrunk   what?!  20:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 9)  Donald Albury ( Talk )  12:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Meyer 04:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC) but I think it's alright to keep most user boxes in template namespace. A user can keep a user box or other template in his own namespace if its expected to be primarily for personal use, in which case different rules should apply to it than to one in template namespace.
 * 11) Ssbohio 17:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC) : Userboxes should be subject to policy based on in what context they are used, not where they are stored.Since they are templates, logic dictates that they should be stored in the Template namespace.Since they are used in the User namespace, they should be subject to the same policies as other items used in the User namespace.Fictitious arguments aside, reality is that userboxes never should show up in Main space, and that their storage location is wholly irrelevent.
 * 12) NThurston 17:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC) : Agree with Rfrisbie, with Meyer's addendum.
 * 13) WikiSlasher 10:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Per CharonX.
 * 14) Bisco 18:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC) I agree with User:Rfrisbie: alway applying by the context of the namespace. But I disagree with User:Ssbohio. I my opinion that could only cause more trouble. A template used in userspace would fall under two different policies. Then someone must say what policy is to be used first and should overrule the other. But if eg policies for userspace are applied exclusively then why should it be kept in template space at all? (The same goes vice versa). Agree with User:Meyer when they are handled like two different templates. The one in template space and the one in userspace.

Oppose policies, guidelines and Arbitration Committee rulings based on userbox namespace location, sign here with # ~ :
 * 1) Herostratus 15:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Ian ¹³  /t  11:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Since the statement makes no sence. Userboxes are userboxes, no matter where they are. Feel free to try and put 'bad' stuff on your userpage, but just because WP:USER is a guideline doesn't mean laws and other policies don't apply.
 * 3) John Reid 16:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) CzechOut 00:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Policy
Support


 * 1) ArbCom should always rule on matters based on policy as expressed by community consensus. John Reid 16:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) CzechOut 00:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

De-regulation
Support


 * 1) Strongly SupportWikipdia admin have no business interfering in the self-identification of its users.Userboxes serve a useful function in identifying the possible biases of editors.No definitive link between the userboxes one flies and the egregiousness of one's edits has ever been definitively established.Aside from banning the use of userboxes entirely, there is no way to regulate this issue without it being a form of censorship.If admin are not willing to ban the use of even supposedly uncontroversial tags, like native-speaker, Wikpedia project, and professional tags, then everything must be allowed and fully supported through the use of Wikipedia main space.Wikipedia's best approach to this issue is to ensure that all user boxes live in the same space, and that all users have equal opportunity to upload and link to any user box of their choice within an intuitive heirarchy. Wikipedia admin should spend no time debating the merits of the content of any user box.CzechOut 00:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Centralized Wikipedia namespace userbox directories
Centralized userbox directories should be allowed in Wikipedia namespace...

Only for userboxes created in template and Wikipedia namespace
Support Centralized userbox directories in Wikipedia namespace only for userboxes created in template and Wikipedia namespace, sign here with # ~ :
 * 1) Rfrisbietalk 02:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC): "Official" directories only for "official" userboxes.
 * 2) Allows people to point to a directory of higher status userboxes with encyclopedic value.GRBerry 03:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Definitively useful, if we keep the number and types of boxes small. Charon X /talk 10:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) TZMT (de:T) 17:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) &mdash;  getcrunk   what?!  20:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6)  Donald Albury ( Talk )  12:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Meyer 04:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC) If a template deserves to be "advertised" for common use in a central directory, it should first be in template or wikipedia namespace.
 * 8) Ssbohio 17:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC) : For all userbox templates, logic dictates that they should be created in the Template namespace.Therefore, I support having a directory for all userbox templates, since all userbox templates should be stored in Template space.
 * 9) Ian ¹³  /t  11:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC) To put the userboxes anywhere else will hardly help, so since they should all be in the template space since they are templates, it is logical that a directory for them should be here.
 * 10) -Royalguard11TalkDesk Only "official" userboxes should be in a centralized space.
 * 11) WikiSlasher 10:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC) As long as most userboxes are included in these spaces. Otherwise I'd vote oppose.
 * 12) &mdash; MrDolomite • Talk 14:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Centralized userbox directories in Wikipedia namespace, only for userboxes created in template and Wikipedia namespace, sign here with # ~ :
 * 1) Weak — Mi  r  a  03:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC) I do not believe that one userbox directory, located at Userboxes, would be harmful or terribly controversial. However, I also do not think that a Wikipedia space directory is absolutely necessary.
 * 2) per MiraLuka. Stifle (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Per above. --StuffOfInterest 19:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong oppose Bisco 18:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC) There should be a centralized directory for all userboxes that can but doesn't have to be in wikipedia space. With all userboxes I mean all the templates which are used to make statements etc. on userpages. If some are used for other purposes then they can have a seperate directory.

Comments:

For all userboxes
Support Centralized userbox directories in Wikipedia namespace for all userboxes, sign here with # ~ :
 * 1) Weak — Mi  r  a  03:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC) See above.
 * 2) Strong LC@RSDATA 06:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, and keep the actual userboxen themselves in userspace (except for babel and project things. babel should be in templatespace and project things should be in subpages of the project).It doesn't make GUS a half measure, since all the content is in userspace, but nobody would be able to find a directory in userspace. --Rory096 06:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per Rory096 – Gurch 15:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Support per Rory096. &mdash;Andux␅ 19:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. It will keep down the duplication of effort if one single directory structure is maintained.This is even more so with the boxes spread across user space. --StuffOfInterest 19:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per Rory, except for the comment on userbox location. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Ssbohio 17:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC) : For all userbox templates, logic dictates that they should be created in the Template namespace.Therefore, I support having a directory for all userbox templates, since all userbox templates should be stored in Template space.
 * 6) Strong Support per StuffOfInterest, and also because I see no reason why Userboxes shouldn't list userboxen in userspace or the Wikipedia namespace. CameoAppearance 09:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Strongly Support because it's a ridiculous waste of time to move them from this centralized, intuitive location.If Wikipedia is going to continue to allow the use of userboxes at all then they should be in the least confusing, most central area possible. This is not an issue that has shades of grey.Either they're allowed or they're not.Shunting them off to user space will only worsen the problem the "German solution" is ostensibly meant to solve.If we go "all-in" with this "sweep them under the user space rug" approach, we'll only see more and more "objectionable" user boxes.Far better to support self-identification fully (i.e. in main space) and let the chips fall where they may.Censorship is a worse fate than any perceived lack of neutrality. Besides, I've yet to see any proof that there is a correlation between the userboxes one chooses to display and the egregiousness of one's edits. It would be interesting, and revelatory, to study the userboxes flown on the user pages of those who have been banned to see if there is any relationship whatsoever between the two phenomena.I doubt there is much of one.Trolls don't bother with elaborate user pages.So why not believe in the good intent of most users and leave them where they are?CzechOut 00:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) --Bisco 18:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC) It would be good but doesn't have to be in wikipedia space.

Oppose Centralized userbox directories in Wikipedia namespace, for all userboxes, sign here with # ~ :
 * 1) Rfrisbietalk 02:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC): Too divisive.
 * 2) Makes WP:GUS a half measure.GRBerry 03:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Some might see this as an "endorsement" of userboxes one frequent point of dispute. And GRBerry has a good point too. Charon X /talk 10:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) &mdash;  getcrunk   what?!  20:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5)  Donald Albury ( Talk )  12:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Meyer 04:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Templates in user namespace should be treated as private, to the extent that anything on WP is treated as private. If the user wants to encourage others to use his template, he should move it to template or wikipedia namespace.
 * 7) Ian ¹³  /t  11:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC) GUS should have been deleted a long time ago anyway.
 * 8) -Royalguard11TalkDesk Can't have the boxes in userspace seeming to be "official". That's what we're trying to get away from.
 * 9) &mdash; MrDolomite • Talk 14:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments: IMHO, the question of protection, as I understand you to pose it, is independent of location, because your concern is about deletionists who ignore process.They can ignore process anywhere. Since I'm not an admin, I can't delete a userpage.Some admin would have to agree.As far as editing goes, anyone can edit any (unprotected) userpage, so all the rules of editing apply here too. See this Sexuality directorymove for a recent example of an administrator restoring a deletionist's attempt to eliminate an entire class of userbox listings out of process. To me, the "simple" answer is for admins to step up like Xaosflux and Xoloz (User:Xoloz/UBX/User Christian) have to stand in the way of rogue admin workplace bullying. Rfrisbietalk 19:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) On July 8, 2006, Jimbo proposed for deletion Userboxes/Beliefs with a prod reason of "per the emerging consensus that the German solution is best".See GRBerry 02:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me.To help facilitate the migration of wayward userboxes to userspace for this and any other group of userboxes, I volunteer the directories at User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes, such as User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Beliefs, as a means for keeping track of them.I also volunteer User:Rfrisbie/Userbox as an archive location for userbox subpages.My basic stipulation is that you follow my request posted on each directory page.
 * You are welcome to edit this User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes directory page, as long as you honor all applicable policies and guidelines. It is recommended this directory be updated in one of three basic ways:
 * If you move a userbox linked here to userspace, and then bypass redirects with a tool such as AWB, this page will be updated as part of that process.
 * If you copy-and-paste a userbox linked here to userspace, please update the links here to reflect the userspace location.
 * If you create a new userbox, feel free to add it to a directory.
 * Rfrisbietalk 03:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Although the "user box problem" and the German solution have some exalted promoters, I can't see where the consensus has formed that user boxes are indeed a problem for WP or that WP:GUS will improve the situation. -- Meyer 04:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stepping up, Rfrisbie.However, what protection will userboxes in userspace have against deletionist sentiments?What protection would a userbox have if you yourself opposed it?In Template space, userboxes are protected from arbitrary deletion by process.Since process is important, I have to stay with my determination the Template space is the necessary & proper place for shared userbox templates. --Ssbohio 17:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Ssbohio.

Centralized User namespace userbox directories
Centralized userbox directories should be allowed in User namespace...

Only for userboxes created there
Support Centralized userbox directories in User namespace only for userboxes created there, sign here with # ~ :

Oppose Centralized userbox directories in User namespace, only for userboxes created there, sign here with # ~ :
 * 1) Rfrisbietalk 02:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC): Too restrictive.
 * 2) — Mi  r  a  03:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Agree with Rfrisbie here.
 * 3) Charon X /talk 10:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) TZMT (de:T) 17:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Meyer 04:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Users should be free to keep most anything they want in their own namespace within reason.
 * 6) Ssbohio 17:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC) : User namespace is not the place for shared community resources, like templates.Userbox templates, and their associated directories, should be kept as they were, in Template space & Wikipedia space, respectively.
 * 7) WikiSlasher 10:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong Bisco 18:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC) There should be a directory for all userboxes with the same kind of usage on userpages, even if they are located in different namespaces.

Comments:

For all userboxes
Support Centralized userbox directories in User namespace for all userboxes, sign here with # ~ :
 * 1) Rfrisbietalk 02:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC): Allowing "official" and "unofficial" userboxes together in User namespace centralized userbox directories allows the reader to see the differences among the types.It also optimizes organizational efficiency of User namespace directories.
 * 2) — Mi  r  a  03:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Once again, I agree.
 * 3) Agree, but it should highlight that those boxes allowed outside User space are of more value to the project. GRBerry 03:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support mainly because there's no point modifying the userspace policy just to prohibit this – Gurch 15:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Meyer 04:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Users should be free to keep most anything they want in their own namespace within reason.
 * 6) WikiSlasher 10:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC) per above
 * 7) Bisco 18:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Agree with User:Rfrisbie and User:Gurch. I think it could be on a usersubpage or better a specially created user. I think there will be users maintaining the directory voluntarily, either way.

Oppose Centralized userbox directories in User namespace, for all userboxes, sign here with # ~ :
 * 1) Oppose, if the directory is created as a "special" user, e.g. User Box or User Userbox. Gives us a single point of failure. If some editor in good standing is willing to do that in his own namespace, I'll Support instead. Charon X /talk 10:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, if you've created a userbox then someone else could claim it, then it would be like a stolen idea. Pronoun 17:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I thought if you publish it on wikipedia, you release it "to be stolen". --Bisco 18:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Ssbohio 17:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC) : User namespace is not the place for shared community resources, like templates.Userbox templates, and their associated directories, should be kept as they were, in Template space & Wikipedia space, respectively.
 * 2) Strong Oppose as per Ssbohio. CameoAppearance 09:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Violently Oppose Moving them to user namespaces does absolutely nothing in pratical terms, EXCEPT make it more confusing.There is very little wrong with the current method of using the template space for the exact purpose for which it was created - templates.The Template:User yyy taxonomy is simple, clean and works to effectively create a "User area" within the template space.I fail entirely to see how this is any different in practice from having a "User area" that is only a subpage of user pages.The obvious solution is the simplest one - declare the Template:User yyy area to be a "User area."No messy moves.No long and unwieldly userbox names, etc.--NThurston 14:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Kill them all! Ian ¹³  /t  11:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Strongly oppose because it's a ridiculous waste of time.Whether Wikipedia allows userboxes to be derived from main space or user space is irrelevant.If Wikipedia is going to continue to allow the use of userboxes at all then they should be in the least confusing, most central area possible. This is not an issue that has shades of grey.Either they're allowed or they're not.Shunting them off to user space will only worsen the problem the "German solution" is ostensibly meant to solve.If we go "all-in" with this "sweep them under the user space rug" approach, we'll only see more and more "objectionable" user boxes.Far better to support self-identification fully (i.e. in main space) and let the chips fall where they may.Censorship is a worse fate than any perceived lack of neutrality. Besides, I've yet to see any proof that there is a correlation between the userboxes one chooses to display and the egregiousness of one's edits. It would be interesting, and revelatory, to study the userboxes flown on the user pages of those who have been banned to see if there is any relationship whatsoever between the two phenomena.I doubt there is much of one.Trolls don't bother with elaborate user pages.CzechOut 23:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * 1) See User:GRBerry/Userbox migration for a centralized userbox directory in User namespace, and User:UBX/Userboxes/General Nav for a centralized userbox template in User namespace. Rfrisbietalk 02:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that User:GRBerry/Userbox migration is a temporary solution, and the input here will help determine whether or where it is kept.And if you give feedback about form, layout, etc... we'll promise to read it, and may even implement it. GRBerry 03:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That applies to User:UBX/Userboxes/General Nav as well. :) — Mi r  a  03:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think having a centralized directory could bring trouble unless the directory is kinda "homegrown" i.e. as a subpage of a good user, who then may of course say "edit it, if you want". Creating special users for that kinda invites trouble. Charon X /talk 10:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) &mdash;  getcrunk   what?!  20:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Fair enough compromise. Crazyswordsman 03:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) I've suggested this elsewhere before, but, perhaps the best place for a new central directory of userboxes would be in subpages of Wikiproject:Userboxes. -- BlueSquadron Raven 08:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Blanket comments
Per Userbox policy:


 * 1. UBX are to be created in Template: namespace or User: namespace only. If created in Template: namespace the UBX must begin with "User " (for example, Template:User Someubxname). Only UBX created in Template: namespace are to be indexed at Userboxes.Those created in User: namespace should not be displayed there. These three locations are the only places that UBX may be displayed.


 * 2. UBX created in Template: namespace must be 238 pixels in width and conform loosely to the standards of Template:Userbox.

Note that the only difference between UBX permissible in template space and those permissible in user space is form, not content. The categories listed on this page are irrelevant. If content is acceptable anywhere in this project, it is acceptable in template space; if we don't want it there, we don't want it anywhere. Namespacing UBX solves nothing.

UBX are never permitted in Wikipedia namespace. They are permitted to be displayed only on the template pages themselves, user pages, and Userboxes subpages. Naturally, any user may create a userspace directory of UBX; see:


 * 13. Each user is free to place any number of UBX on his or her own user page or subpage.

This is all according to the current policy proposal. If you disagree, edit the policy.

For the purposes of this poll, I object to any attempt to circumvent the process of policy formation. This comment should be counted in every section as a "vote" upholding the standard set at Userbox policy. John Reid 16:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)