Question 1: Per the proposal, do you support the creation of a new pair of namespaces, "User template:"/"User template talk:"?

1. Rfrisbie^talk 03:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Such a namespace clearly is out of encyclopedic space and is general enough to include all types of userspace templates.[reply]
2. Ardric47 08:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)—I see nothing wrong with this.[reply]
3. Strong support along the same lines as TheTrueSora's proposal – Gurch 12:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strong support. This would solve a whole heap of problems and agro. Waggers 09:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support if we can have POV userboxes and an established directory of them (like Wikipedia:Userboxes). Dtm142 18:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support —Ashley Y 20:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. Stops any potential crossover betwwn the two. --Midnighttonight 00:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Still allows for the mass deletion of all userboxes in the future, thus in no way legitimizes userboxes, the main rational against MUPP--Rayc 00:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment: The point of these proposals is to end the userbox war, not move it into a different location. Dtm142 22:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9. Support and put an end to this Userbox war. The Gerg 01:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support, if it might solve userbox wars, then I'm for it. -lethe ^{talk +} 07:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. End the Userbox Wars! – Xolatron 18:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Bryan 20:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support A good resolution to the current situation. —David618 ^[t] 20:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Eluchil404 03:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support per Gurch - • The Giant Puffin • 09:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Kalani ^[talk] 10:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support a simple proposal to end userboxes, while not elevating them Computerjoe's talk 15:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support with the above reasons. Daniel (‽) 18:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support --StuffOfInterest 14:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support --digital_me^(t/c) 23:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support because userfied templates and userboxen would be very hard to find without a namnespace. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 01:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support since it just makes sense. – TTD Bark! (pawprints) 16:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support, makes great sense. Herostratus 16:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support - I believe there is value in user templates, and keeping them out of the main template namespace may prevent some controversy and misuse. --Cswrye 16:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support although I strongly object to the term "usercruft", finding it the sort of term that Dabney Coleman would have used in 9 to 5 to refer to photos on one's desk etc. These are useful and valuable things -- thou shalt not muzzle the ox as he treadeth out the corn. Nevertheless, it is proper to move them into a separate space.
26. Support getting nonencyclopedia content out of encyclopedia namespace. (SEWilco 19:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
27. Support per above. Vicious Blayd 19:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose because this proposal, which I am otherwise fairly neutral about, is bundled with restoring POV and hence divisive userboxes. -- Mithent 14:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment: There is a big difference between a POV userbox and a disisive userbox. A POV userbox would say something like "This user is a Christian", while a disisive one would say "This user is a Christian and wants to annihilate all non Christians". Dtm142 16:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose, that will not save anyone from flamewars. MaxSem 15:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment:You do realize that this userbox war has caused more flame wars than the userboxes themselves ever would. Dtm142 22:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose. Non-starter and completely superfluous. We already have user pages. If you want to put a box on your userpage, do so. We don't need a separate namespace for the purpose. --Tony Sidaway 20:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose. If Wikipedia editors must have userboxes on their user page, let them copy-and-paste the Wikicode instead of using transclusion. ^BlankVerse 08:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Talk templates The proposal says "All templates intended for use mainly on User: pages be moved there." To my mind, this would also include templates for the user talk namespace, so standard vandal warnings etc. would belong in the "User template:" space. I have no objection to this (in fact, I think it's a good idea) but thought I should raise it as a discussion point. Waggers 09:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia:Template messages/User namespace and Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace for comprehensive lists of userspace templates. Rfrisbie^talk 14:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2: Per the proposal, do you support the creation of a new pair of namespaces, "User category:"/"User category talk:"?

1. Support on a personal level, though I fear the creation of these "extra" namespaces may be viewed as excessive – Gurch 12:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Weak support. I'm slightly skeptical about user categories, but if they do exist they should be in a separate namespace from encyclopaedic categories if that's possible. Waggers 09:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support, although it doesn't really matter. Dtm142 18:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support —Ashley Y 20:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support. Delimitation is good. --Midnighttonight 00:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Strong support. So it would be useful to know which cat's should contain articles, and which ones contain user pages. For example, once I found someone atted Category:User vocals to Category:Singers. If a notable Wikipedian has both a userpage and an article, the userpage should go in the User categories and the article in the Categories. --Army1987 09:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. ~Mr Inky · (T @ C) 15:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support. – Xolatron 19:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Weak Support I'm not sure that this is necessary right now. It may not be worth the effort but it is a good idea. —David618 ^[t] 20:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support --StuffOfInterest 14:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support --digital_me^(t/c) 23:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support for reasons already explained here. – TTD Bark! (pawprints) 16:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support - There are some advantages to Wikipedian categories, and having them in their own namespace will keep them more organized. --Cswrye 16:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support this as an alternative to either leaving it as it is or banning (all but a few) user categories altogether. Although votestacking is supposedly a problem, deleting user (most) user categories altogether is draconian. Herostratus 14:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. Organization is good. Vicious Blayd 19:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose, prefix such as "Category:User:Blahblahblah" is enough. Though even it seems to me m:instruction creep. MaxSem 15:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose, the following classifications are sufficient. Rfrisbie^talk 17:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
   

   Category:Categories → Category:Wikipedia administration → Category:Wikipedians

   Category:Categories → Category:Wikipedia administration → Category:User templates

3. Strongest possible oppose, the problem with userboxen IS the cats, which help votestacking. --Rory096 21:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose, as long as people don't start deleting the current cats. Though, votestacking shouldn't be a problem if people would remember Wikipedia is not a democracy--Rayc 17:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose Bryan 20:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose per Rayc. Computerjoe's talk 15:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose because categories, by their very nature, should be for everything. Just put 'user' before the names of all usercruft ones. Daniel (‽) 18:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose: KISS.--ragesoss 23:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Strong oppose. ^BlankVerse 08:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. What would go here? I don't see what this is intended to cover. GRBerry 17:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. "Wikipedia" classifies itself into two top-level categories, one for Wikipedia as encyclopedic content and one as this project. Category:Wikipedia is for encyclopedic topics about Wikipedia. "Avoid self-references" applies to pages in this category. The top-level category to organise the Wikipedia project is Category:Wikipedia administration. By definition, pages in this category are self-referencing. "Wikipedia project coordination pages should be under Category:Wikipedia administration, not in categories which contain main-namespace articles by topic." (Template and Category namespaces) Rfrisbie^talk 14:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Rob Church stated that it will be very difficult to impossible to create this namespace. Sorry. Dtm142 17:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Rob Church's actual Technical aspect comment: Rfrisbie^talk 19:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   "I have been asked before to weigh in on the technical aspects of this proposal. I have since been advised that some users could be misinterpreting the information I gave out, so let me make it clear here.

   "This would not require significant changes to any of the core MediaWiki code, which already supports us creating as many custom namespaces as we want. What does need to be altered is the site configuration. As I have explained countless times on IRC, this would be done if a request were filed in the right place, provided that said request directed the system admin team to a discussion demonstrating support for the addition.

   "I maintain that I have no opinion as to whether or not the proposal is suitable or sane. I dislike being misrepresented, however. robchurch | talk 16:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

   This was for templates, not categories, though, right? —Ashley Y 19:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Right. He said here that creating a user category namespace would be difficult to impossible. That's what I meant. Dtm142 22:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. Currently, it is policy (according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Special conventions for some Wikipedia-related categories) that user categories must have either "Wikipedian" or "Wikipedians" in the name, not "User". There are very few other guidelines about user categories. The only one that I have found is at Wikipedia:Categorization#User namespace. There are some people supporting the deletion of all user categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion since they are not encyclopedic. For what it's worth, I have proposed guidelines for user categories. If it is possible to have a "User category" namespace, I think that it will be easier to handle user categorization. —Cswrye 15:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question 3: Per the proposal, do you support the creation of a new pair of namespaces, "User image:"/"User image talk:"?

1. Again, support on a personal level, but I doubt namespaces such as these will be welcomed by the wider community – Gurch 12:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Weak Support —Ashley Y 20:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Weak Support - I'm okay with a "User image" namespace, but I don't think that they would provide as much value as a user template and user category namespace. --Cswrye 16:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support, comment below. Herostratus 14:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Weak Support. I like the idea of keeping things organized, but I question how useful this particular namespace would be. Vicious Blayd 19:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. This one at least seems excessive (at least for the immediate future). Ardric47 22:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose There are clear benefits to keeping user templates and categories separate, but I don't see any problem with having a central pool of images. In particular, if an image created primarily for use in "User image:" was then required for an article, presumably it should be moved to the main image namespace; this seems like creating work for the sake of it to me. Waggers 09:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose: there is no threshold between images that are useful only in articles and those that could be used only for userpages. MaxSem 15:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose: agree with the most recent poster. No point in creating something that has no real use. GRBerry 17:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose per MaxSem, not necessary. I don't even want to know what could be wilder than some of the things already there! :-) Rfrisbie^talk 17:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose. Not necessary, and this one might be difficult to create. Dtm142 18:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose, no point. Besides, images that are used in userspace should be free and therefore on Commons anyway. --Rory096 21:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose. Promotes users loading images solely for their pages, which uses up space and bandwidth while contributing next to nothing. IMHO, if an image is not used on an article, then it should not be on Wikipedia. --Midnighttonight 00:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose. Any image, even on a user page, must be in public domain or have a free licence. And any such image could potentially be useful for some article. So I can't see why to separate these namespaces. --Army1987 09:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose. This has very limited use; the creation of a namespace for user images seems a bit too excessive for me. ~Mr Inky · (T @ C) 15:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose. Per above Bryan 20:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Weak Oppose I'm not sure that this is necessary right now and would not be worth the effort. —David618 ^[t] 20:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose unliked userboxes photos can have a non-negligible drain on resources Eluchil404 03:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose this would surely involve a whole rewrite of the image upload script for MediaWiki? Computerjoe's talk 15:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose because it is unneccessary, and seems to have spawned simply from aesthetical reasons. What if an image was used on a userbox and in an article? There is no real justification for this. Daniel (‽) 18:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose. Per several of the above. --StuffOfInterest 14:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose per above. --digital_me^(t/c) 23:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Strongly Oppose. This appears to me to be an attempt to circumvent the prohibition on fair use images in the user namespace. ^BlankVerse 08:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose. Per above. Kukini 12:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose (see above) – TTD Bark! (pawprints) 16:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I supported this for these reasons: Most user images are pictures of one's dog or whatever, I suppose, and of little likely use in articles. Also, user images are, maybe, a different sort of locus of unfree images than article images, uploaded by a different sort of editor (maybe), and certainly of a different level of problem (though still a problem) than article images, as mirror sites etc. do not use userpage images. For these reasons it seems like good housekeeping to have them segregated. Herostratus 14:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]