![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
In the last year a number of userboxes, user sub-pages, userdrafts and even userpages have been brought before this forum for deletion, largely on the basis they violate some unwritten policy or guideline against unpopular or offensive thought (other policies and guidelines are often listed to attempt the desired end). These thoughts include, but are not limited to, UFOs, extra-planetary-origin, neo-confederacy, neo-nazi, neo-communist, atheist, various religious and political disagreements, misplaced drafts, personal preference, silly animations, sexual innuendo, humor, anti-Biden sentiment and even British English. My brief attempt to document the trend shouldn't be considered a complete or exhaustive list of episodes. Is this how we should use this forum, to remove divisive thought? I'm of the opinion that our guidance on this matter is insufficient. Ideas? BusterD ( talk) 16:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense (e.g. pro-pedophilia advocacy)
Unrelated content includes, but is not limited to: [...] Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive).
Traditionally, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user. They are part of Wikipedia, and exist to make collaboration among editors easier.
Handling inappropriate content [...] If the user does not agree, or does not effectively remedy the concerns, or the matter is unsure or controversial, then other steps in this section can be taken including uninvolved user opinions or proposing the page for deletion
Userboxes must not include incivility or personal attacks.
Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive.
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, drafts, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages.
Therefore, content hosted on Wikipedia is not for: [...] Opinion pieces
Personal web pages. Wikipedians have individual user pages, but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to work on the encyclopedia. Limited autobiographical information is allowed, but user pages do not serve as personal webpages, blogs, or repositories for large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech.
I appreciate the input so far. I would naturally find the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grayghost01/WBTS Revisionism (2nd nomination) illustrative, because after almost a week of discussion, the nominator makes it clear abhorrent user thought is one component which provoked the nomination. Given the irregularity of the nomination and the (now undone) relisting, it appears User:Sundostund felt very strongly the need to take action. This is commendable, and I don't want to make them out to be wrong, merely because they took WP:BOLD seriously. After editing as long as Sundostund, one's instincts have relevance and should be observed. BusterD ( talk) 17:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Reason: Does not meet GNG, no RS or secondary coverage. Multiple declined submissions. It should be noted that the series is directly related to " Battle For Dream Island", another YouTube series of the same genre that has been repeatedly submitted and declined multiple times and now page-created, for the exact same reasons. 118.149.76.35 ( talk) 00:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Draft:Carykh 118.149.80.216 ( talk) 06:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The state of this Wikipedia space at 7am CDT is reprehensible and not acceptable even as a joke. BusterD ( talk) 11:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
I've been trying to create a MFD discussion for Draft:Trish Leigh, but posting the initial {{mfd|1={{subst:Draft:Trish Leigh}}}} at the top of the draft seems to result in the entire article contents, rather than the link to the MFD discussion, being written into the template. Is something broken somewhere, or are the instructions wrong? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Artical of this draft already exist: Cody Brundage there is no need to keep draft around. DarkHorseMayhem ( talk) 19:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
User:ImJustThere/sandbox ( WP:FAKEARTICLE)
WP:FAKEARTICLE, WP:G5 118.149.73.92 ( talk) 05:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Please create a deletion discussion page for this draft. 216.154.16.163 ( talk) 18:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Draft talk:Under the Boardwalk (2024 film)
WP:CRUFT 2607:FEA8:761F:4600:C8:679C:9AB8:ACDD ( talk) 15:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
There are a number of drafts with the same issue that I believe are subject to deletion outside the usual guidelines of draft deletion. In each instance it's a case of WP:PUFFERY, and there has been no attempt to make the articles even remotely acceptable. They all either rely on one source (the generally unreliable Cage Match) or have no sources at all. The drafts are Future Wrestling Australia, New Horizons Pro Wrestling, Newcastle Pro Wrestling, Southern Hemeisphere Wrestling Alliance, Southern Territory Wrestling and Wrestle Rampage. I believe they are being maintained to provide the users of a record of the title reigns and they have no intention of submitting the drafts for review. I think only one was actually submitted and it was declined. This should be done as a job lot but I don't know how to do that, and I don't have the time to nominate them one by one. Addicted4517 ( talk) 05:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Given
my strong feelings about recent
infobox userbox deletion procedures I thought it valid to raise this question: A) Shouldn't we just make a list of unacceptable things a user might disclose about themselves? It's clear from recent procedures here there are concerns about the intent of various wikipedians who use infoboxes to describe themselves on their userpage. B) Would we intervene if the user merely wrote the same thing in plain text on their userpage? (ex. "I am a young adult") C) Why or why not?
I'm sure there are many other potentially offensive things we might list so users recognize exactly where the boundaries exist on personal disclosure. BusterD ( talk) 11:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
It appears that some users think people may be able to disclose their age via userbox. Win. BusterD ( talk) 01:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
This is a request: Same reason as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle for BFB (2nd nomination). The topic will never meet WP:GNG, the draft focuses on a BFDI spinoff and the mainspace ( Inanimate Insanity) has also been salted. Pure fancruft. 118.149.86.40 ( talk) 20:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure where this should be brought up but Category:Articles Archived by "Project Archive" seems a bit irregular, the tag is visible on articles but maybe it should be applied to talkpages instead? The project itself seems to be a proposal, not an active project, so I can't post this same message to the project talkpage (yet). ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused about the interpretation of these. FAKEARTICLE says if it is looks like an article it might be deleted, but STALE says a user draft can be left indefinitely. Can a draft article be left indefinitely at a users top user page rather than a subpage? For example User space drafts prevented from being moved to the main space only because of the GNG are not to be kept indefinitely.
There seems to be a lot of conflicting information between these rules.
An additional and related question, NOTSUITED says templates intended for articles should not be used, does this include navigation templates for topics intended to be included in articles ("Part of a series on...")? Seems like it would. Does this also get into FAKEARTICLE territory if the user page and spammed with such navigation templates? —DIYeditor ( talk) 06:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
In the last year a number of userboxes, user sub-pages, userdrafts and even userpages have been brought before this forum for deletion, largely on the basis they violate some unwritten policy or guideline against unpopular or offensive thought (other policies and guidelines are often listed to attempt the desired end). These thoughts include, but are not limited to, UFOs, extra-planetary-origin, neo-confederacy, neo-nazi, neo-communist, atheist, various religious and political disagreements, misplaced drafts, personal preference, silly animations, sexual innuendo, humor, anti-Biden sentiment and even British English. My brief attempt to document the trend shouldn't be considered a complete or exhaustive list of episodes. Is this how we should use this forum, to remove divisive thought? I'm of the opinion that our guidance on this matter is insufficient. Ideas? BusterD ( talk) 16:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense (e.g. pro-pedophilia advocacy)
Unrelated content includes, but is not limited to: [...] Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive).
Traditionally, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user. They are part of Wikipedia, and exist to make collaboration among editors easier.
Handling inappropriate content [...] If the user does not agree, or does not effectively remedy the concerns, or the matter is unsure or controversial, then other steps in this section can be taken including uninvolved user opinions or proposing the page for deletion
Userboxes must not include incivility or personal attacks.
Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive.
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, drafts, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages.
Therefore, content hosted on Wikipedia is not for: [...] Opinion pieces
Personal web pages. Wikipedians have individual user pages, but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to work on the encyclopedia. Limited autobiographical information is allowed, but user pages do not serve as personal webpages, blogs, or repositories for large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech.
I appreciate the input so far. I would naturally find the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grayghost01/WBTS Revisionism (2nd nomination) illustrative, because after almost a week of discussion, the nominator makes it clear abhorrent user thought is one component which provoked the nomination. Given the irregularity of the nomination and the (now undone) relisting, it appears User:Sundostund felt very strongly the need to take action. This is commendable, and I don't want to make them out to be wrong, merely because they took WP:BOLD seriously. After editing as long as Sundostund, one's instincts have relevance and should be observed. BusterD ( talk) 17:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Reason: Does not meet GNG, no RS or secondary coverage. Multiple declined submissions. It should be noted that the series is directly related to " Battle For Dream Island", another YouTube series of the same genre that has been repeatedly submitted and declined multiple times and now page-created, for the exact same reasons. 118.149.76.35 ( talk) 00:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Draft:Carykh 118.149.80.216 ( talk) 06:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The state of this Wikipedia space at 7am CDT is reprehensible and not acceptable even as a joke. BusterD ( talk) 11:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
I've been trying to create a MFD discussion for Draft:Trish Leigh, but posting the initial {{mfd|1={{subst:Draft:Trish Leigh}}}} at the top of the draft seems to result in the entire article contents, rather than the link to the MFD discussion, being written into the template. Is something broken somewhere, or are the instructions wrong? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Artical of this draft already exist: Cody Brundage there is no need to keep draft around. DarkHorseMayhem ( talk) 19:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
User:ImJustThere/sandbox ( WP:FAKEARTICLE)
WP:FAKEARTICLE, WP:G5 118.149.73.92 ( talk) 05:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Please create a deletion discussion page for this draft. 216.154.16.163 ( talk) 18:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Draft talk:Under the Boardwalk (2024 film)
WP:CRUFT 2607:FEA8:761F:4600:C8:679C:9AB8:ACDD ( talk) 15:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
There are a number of drafts with the same issue that I believe are subject to deletion outside the usual guidelines of draft deletion. In each instance it's a case of WP:PUFFERY, and there has been no attempt to make the articles even remotely acceptable. They all either rely on one source (the generally unreliable Cage Match) or have no sources at all. The drafts are Future Wrestling Australia, New Horizons Pro Wrestling, Newcastle Pro Wrestling, Southern Hemeisphere Wrestling Alliance, Southern Territory Wrestling and Wrestle Rampage. I believe they are being maintained to provide the users of a record of the title reigns and they have no intention of submitting the drafts for review. I think only one was actually submitted and it was declined. This should be done as a job lot but I don't know how to do that, and I don't have the time to nominate them one by one. Addicted4517 ( talk) 05:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Given
my strong feelings about recent
infobox userbox deletion procedures I thought it valid to raise this question: A) Shouldn't we just make a list of unacceptable things a user might disclose about themselves? It's clear from recent procedures here there are concerns about the intent of various wikipedians who use infoboxes to describe themselves on their userpage. B) Would we intervene if the user merely wrote the same thing in plain text on their userpage? (ex. "I am a young adult") C) Why or why not?
I'm sure there are many other potentially offensive things we might list so users recognize exactly where the boundaries exist on personal disclosure. BusterD ( talk) 11:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
It appears that some users think people may be able to disclose their age via userbox. Win. BusterD ( talk) 01:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
This is a request: Same reason as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle for BFB (2nd nomination). The topic will never meet WP:GNG, the draft focuses on a BFDI spinoff and the mainspace ( Inanimate Insanity) has also been salted. Pure fancruft. 118.149.86.40 ( talk) 20:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure where this should be brought up but Category:Articles Archived by "Project Archive" seems a bit irregular, the tag is visible on articles but maybe it should be applied to talkpages instead? The project itself seems to be a proposal, not an active project, so I can't post this same message to the project talkpage (yet). ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused about the interpretation of these. FAKEARTICLE says if it is looks like an article it might be deleted, but STALE says a user draft can be left indefinitely. Can a draft article be left indefinitely at a users top user page rather than a subpage? For example User space drafts prevented from being moved to the main space only because of the GNG are not to be kept indefinitely.
There seems to be a lot of conflicting information between these rules.
An additional and related question, NOTSUITED says templates intended for articles should not be used, does this include navigation templates for topics intended to be included in articles ("Part of a series on...")? Seems like it would. Does this also get into FAKEARTICLE territory if the user page and spammed with such navigation templates? —DIYeditor ( talk) 06:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)