Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:User pages

RfC for proposal including changes to UPNOT and UPYES

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion § RfC: Replacing U5 with a primarily procedural mechanism. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 11:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strange construction in article

[edit]

"Users with a strong editing record and/or most of their contribution edits outside their user space should be given a little more leeway in this regard than users whose edits consist solely or mostly of user space edits or promotional-style activity"

It's missing the other half of the 'and/or' after "their user space". I can guess what it might have said, but it should probably be formally corrected. I looked back through page history and it's been like that for, well, at least fifteen years... cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems mostly fine to me. The two sides of the "and/or" are "a strong editing record" and "most of their contribution edits outside their user space". "contribution edits" is a bit weird though, unless there's some definition of "non-contribution edits" somewhere. What do you think it should say? Anomie⚔ 20:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to indulge the 'obsessive' portion of my nature and dug deeper. The original construct as added to the article in June 2007 was "Users with most of their contribution edits outside their user space should be given more leeway in this regard than users whose edits consist solely or mostly of user space edits." which is quite clear as is, albeit 'contribution edits' as noted is a bit odd. Perhaps a clearer form would be "Users for whom most of their contributions/edits are outside their user space should be given more leeway in this regard than users whose edits consist solely or mostly of user space edits." - that's just a first crack at it. I don't think the additional 'or promotional-style activity' example is even needed, as promotional activity is a red flag irrespective of the editing history, imo. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

STALEDRAFT: "potential", "problematic" need clarification

[edit]

STALEDRAFT #2, #3 and #6 use the terms "potential", "problematic" and "problematic even if blanked", but the guideline gives me no handle on when these terms apply.

Clearly, "potential" is a lesser criterion than notability, but that insight is hardly helpful.

Similarly, any page not fit for mainspace is "problematic" in some way, but that also gives me no traction, as it amounts to "not #1". Three examples are given, but that doesn't help determine what other cases are covered by this term. "Taggable offence if in mainspace" is the best I can come up with, but that, again, isn't helpful, it amounts to "non-notable, otherwise mainspace material".

Lastly, what makes a page "problematic even if blanked"? It's a lesser criterion that WP:REVDEL, obviously.

Help? Paradoctor (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give examples?
”Problematic even if blanked” includes “contains copyright infringements” or BLP violations. It is like REVDEL, but REVDEL is for things at the CSD SPEEDY level of being objective and uncontestable. “Problematic” includes nonobjective problems, and so sending to MfD is suitable. It’s less than the REVDEL criteria. It is not really justifiable to call “problematic” a criterion, as it is vague and subjective. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An example of “problematic” that used to come up at MfD was perceived promotional intent by the author. This could also have been perceived COI. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bad shortcuts in the Linkboxes in the subsection “Excessive unrelated content”

[edit]

In the section, the table, Wikipedia:User pages#Excessive unrelated content, contains a lot of non-functioning shortcuts. I think a lot of editors don’t appreciate differences between WP:SHORTCUT, WP:LINKBOX, and template:anchor. As they have been stable and broken for sometime, it is evidence that they are not useful, and I suggest removing them. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary accounts

[edit]

I'd like to clarify expected handling of TAs in relation to user pages and sandboxes.

  1. Should temporary accounts be allowed to have or create user pages? Temporary accounts are, by design, not meant to persist as long-term identities. I cannot find any guidance at Wikipedia:Temporary accounts or Wikipedia:User pages addressing whether TAs should have user pages at all.
    Examples: User:~2025-31031-14, User:~2025-31737-69
  2. Should user pages belonging to temporary accounts be tagged as sockpuppets when they've been blocked? Historically, IP editors were not tagged as sockpuppet accounts, and it's unclear if TAs should be treated differently.
    Example: User:~2025-33691-15
  3. When a temporary account becomes blocked, should their user sandbox(es) be deleted?
    Example: User:~2025-33077-51/sandbox (This TA was not blocked, my mistake)

Is there existing guidance on these points, or should the page be updated to include it? Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for #1, the question is not should they but may they. The answer to that one is obviously "yes". TAs are IPs by any other name, and I don't see any reason to treat them any differently.
Also, why can a "temp" account not be long-term? We have a number of users who have contributed from the same IP for many years. 🤷 I think the naming is a bit misleading. They should be called "anon" accounts or "nameless", or something like that. Paradoctor (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They cannot be long-term because the WMF has implemented them to expire after 90 days. Anomie⚔ 02:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. Still no reason to treat them different from IPs, because that's what they are: IP users. Paradoctor (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tamzin, at Template talk:Reply to#Linking to usertalks for temp accounts, wrote "Temporary accounts ... cannot create userpages". I can't see confirmation of that at WP:TEMPA and a couple of places linked from there although there is mention of vague things that suggest it might apply here. Perhaps Tamzin has experimented and confirmed that a TA cannot create their user page, or maybe cannot even edit it if someone else creates it? Johnuniq (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked just now. I couldn't create a userpage, or subpages thereof. But I could create talk subpages. No idea whether that is intentional. Paradoctor (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm sure it is intentional. The plan is that a temporary account is temporary. If people can create a user page or subpage, they would be likely to complain later when they were no longer the creator of those pages (because they would be using a new temporary account or a standard account if registered). If a new editor thinks they might stick around, they should create a standard account ASAP. Also, there should not be a link from the temporary account to their new standard account because such a link would allow hundreds of people to view their IP. Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could create talk subpages That was what I meant with "intentional". Paradoctor (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A temp account clearly has to be able to edit their talk. I don't know if WikiMedia has a permission that controls create as well as edit. Perhaps, for simplicity, temp accounts have whatever permission is required to edit their talk, and that also allows creation? At any rate, it wouldn't make much sense to prevent a TA from creating their talk given they can edit it after someone else creates it. Johnuniq (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be talking about different things. I'm referring to User talk:foo/bar, not User talk:foo. Paradoctor (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]