Wikipedia talk:User page design guide/User page Hall of Fame

I've been told my user page is good (I even received a barnstar for it lol), if anyone agree's feel free to put my name on the list. — Realist  2  13:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

HoF Page Edited
I'm here for the first time to work out how to tidy mine up (rather than create bells and whistles) but anyway, I checked out some random HoF examples and felt moved to removed three that, objectively, just should not be there. They are


 * User:HighwayCello The page is somewhat of a mess (eg. sections of it were incorrectly formatted and expand over multiple screen widths) and has no innovative or creative use of colour, design or content.


 * User:Violingirl 2006 version. Single-page size, standard, unvaried text layout, with purple and pink accents. One third of it is taken up with a Autograph Book with a lot of "I luv pink!" sigs.


 * User:Arsenikk end 2009 version. Entirely average, text+pic page.

I didn't take a look at many (let alone all) of the HoF pages, so this doesn't mean I think that these 3 were the only ones that ought go and the rest are ok or anything. Anyway, some of the pages up there really are quite excellent. Plutonium27 (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't blame you for removing some.. and I shouldn't talk.. cuz it's not like my userpage is a masterpiece work of art or anything but.. there are some truly horrible user pages in this list. Won't name any names... -- &oelig; &trade; 07:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The design of User:Jimbo Wales is overrated by being on this list, IMO. The content may be fine, but the list is about page design, right? There's nothing wrong with the design, as such, but nothing interesting, either. And it's not supposed to be The Hall of Fame of Neat and Tidy and Boring Userpage Design, is it? It's supposed to celebrate "unique" pages. Bishonen | talk 00:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC).
 * I took out jimbo and a lot of dead pages or pages with missing elements. There are still a lot of ugly pages here, and few decent ones.  Think I will tone done the blurb because it's not accurate. Rv7f-393 (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Purpose of this page?
The only edits in the last couple years have been adding him/herself and repeatedly updating the link. That sure seems like it gets away from what the purpose of this page is. Perhaps it's time to mark as historical? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 00:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Even I am getting exhausted from editing this page, so if I don't edit after now, then this page will deservedly become historical. « I ias! :,,.: usbk I » 00:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)