Pages currently being considered for deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheere (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

@Fram: raised the outing concerns both at this AfD and at the related Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1181#h-Incorrect_draftifications_by_User:NenChemist. There was no point in prolonging the AfD when no one was arguing for deletion, but I'm not sure whether the Outing concerns are sufficient to delete it even IAR, so bringing here for discussion. I'll also notify Liz on her Talk. Star Mississippi 14:39, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought outing (claiming editor X is real life person Y, without disclosure by X and irrespective of whether it is correct or not) was a bright line policy, requiring blocking and oversight or suppression. At least, that's what is done when "outing" even the most obvious case is done on e.g. ANI. But perhaps this only applies when someone with enough wikifriends is being outed? Anyway, that's a general ramble, thanks for starting the MfD, I just don't understand why it takes so much effort in this case. Fram (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Irrespective of whether or not the initiator of the AfD should be blocked or not (at the very least, even if OUTING doesn't apply - and it likely does here - WP:ASPERSIONS does), the AfD probably shouldn't stick around regardless of the accuracy of NenChemist's accusations. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Antonio Riano Borges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Non notable entity....background information on editor

• related to disruptive and conflict of interest at Antonio Riaño and Draft:Wiki Meters .... More background information available HereMoxy🍁 21:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete bit confused about what is going on here. The editor in question's behaviour does not look constructive (especially making an attack page directed at User:Meters). Are they trying to take down an article of someone related to them? Anyway delete the draft as an unsourced BLP. SK2242 (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unsourced BLP. MFD is a content forum, so I won't try to explain or comment on the user's conduct, but I won't be surprised to see their name at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:47, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Originator was indefinitely blocked, and an unblock request declined, without the drama of WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Havimii/Elnaz golrokh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Inappropriate unsourced BLP content. Elnaz Golrokh is salted.

See also Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 360#elnaz golrokh. —Alalch E. 16:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unsourced BLP. SK2242 (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unsourced BLP. The history provided by the nominator is noted. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As an unsourced BLP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think "unsourced BLP" is in itself a good enough reason for MfD deletion (blanking is adequate), but claims like the one in the fifth sentence do up the ante slightly. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think drafting on a living person with zero sources whatsoever is incompatible with Wikipedia, and allowing it for newcomers is a failure to to make an important point.

  Nominating at MfD, and the regular SNOW deletions, is creating good evidence to support broadening WP:BLPPROD to draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:John K/Causes of World War I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

WP:COPIES violation of Causes of World War I. Srf123 (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Would it be too much trouble for User:Srf123 to ask or notify User:John K, the page author, who is still an active contributor? BusterD (talk) 11:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought Twinkle notifies automatically, probably the option got unchecked when I was creating. Anyway they got mentioned here, so will know now. Srf123 (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a COPIES violation, unless the author has a legitimate explanation and is planning on using this to make improvements to the mainspace article. SK2242 (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a copy of a mainspace article, which is a content fork that is not updated when the article is updated. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a violation of WP:COPIES. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Shine Private Basic School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Too soon. A quick search found me absolutely no sources, only listings on Itch.io and YouTube. Fails the general notability guideline and video game notability guideline. ✶Antrotherkus✶^✶talk✶ 21:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, pinging @Armend XD. ✶Antrotherkus✶^✶talk✶ 21:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because we're here and this is completely hopeless with no chance of ever being accepted, but generally there is no point in nominating drafts at MfD for notability concerns. That's why we have G13. Also see WP:NMFD SK2242 (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity, and it is not obvious that this draft is hopeless, or that it has no chance of improvement. If we delete this draft because we are here, we will send an unintended signal that we will review and delete useless drafts. See Leave useless drafts alone, because the review of drafts to delete them ahead of their expiration date will be an intensive use of volunteer time. Do we, the editors at MFD, really want to review 20 or 30 dead-end drafts every seven days? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Its a brand new with no coverage. Now its on Mfd is should be gotten rid of. scope_creep^Talk 13:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: “WP:TOOSOON” is a reason to put it in draftspace, not to remove it from draftspace. Keep per WP:NDRAFT. Existing AfC processes serve, let them play out. This draft has not been REJECTED, and it has not been tendentiously resubmitted, and no deletion reason from WP:NOT is suggested, so it is unworthy for listing at MfD. MfD is not for the curation of all of the worst drafts. nominating this here defeats one of the mains purposes of draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bar (establishment)/None Records (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This page seems to have never been a sub-page of Bar (establishment), but was actually the correct sub-page of Bar/None Records. Redirecting is a bit pointless as this is neither a search term someone would use nor does it have any significant history. Gonnym (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Talk:Bar/None Records. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Support moving. / RemoveRedSky ^{[talk] [gb]} 14:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• History merge the pre-2024 edits with Talk:Bar/None Records (so all the talk page history is in the one place, then delete. I'd do the history merge now if it wasn't for the MFD. I consider the addition of WikiProject tags to be significant enough history to preserve, when possible. Graham87 (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Per User:Graham87 SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Historic places drafts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

There are several large lists of drafts on the following subpages:

Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Westchester County, New York/drafts

Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Williamson County, Tennessee/drafts

Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Middlesex County, Connecticut/drafts

Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Schenectady County, New York/drafts

Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Grand Forks County, North Dakota/drafts

Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Tolland County, Connecticut/drafts

These are all 14 years old, and mostly contain entries that have already been created, although some are redirects. The drafts that don't already exist as articles have little content, most of it automatically gathered as far as I can tell. These lists were created by a now-deceased editor and have not been maintained in many years. Wizmut (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Deletion doesn't save hard drive space. I don't see what is gained by deletion. I don't perceive a meaningful attribution hazard coming from this content, or any other problem.—Alalch E. 13:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This might be offtopic but I'm curious if it should be treated as something to be maintained, or simply as archival content. Wizmut (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Definitely not as something to be maintained. Maybe as archival content. Most likely it should be treated as nothing. We don't need to delete it to be able not to treat it as anything, we can just ignore it. —Alalch E. 14:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Rubbaband Mang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

By no means long-term abuse, just a few months when it was created, and an SPI case did not even exist by then. We do not need LTA pages for every blocked user, and we should not erect monuments to run-of-the-mill abuse. This page is just feeding the trolls. MarioGom (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Can’t say I’m opposed honestly - I might copy the info to a subpage of WP:NHL, but the longer it’s been the sillier it’s felt that this has an LTA page. Only other one I’ve ever written was for a legitimate long-term vandal. The Kip ^(contribs)

• Weak Keep because the reason for taking Long-Term Abuse files to MFD is a Streisand effect. LTA files are proposed for deletion on grounds on Deny Recognition to the trolls and vandals who are described, but MFD is a more public process than the mere existence of an LTA file. The present process for LTA files, as far as I can tell, is that anyone can create an LTA file, and then anyone else can nominate it for deletion at MFD, which gives it more recognition than leaving it alone would. If we, as a community, think that the creation of LTA files should be controlled, then we need some reasonable process, such as restricting their creation to Checkusers and SPI clerks. Otherwise, we should just leave the LTA files alone (unless they actually contain false information). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. I, indeed, came here from the SPI case. I guess MFD is just not the right thing, because there's simply no rules governing LTA pages. MarioGom (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, there is guidance at the top of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse, but that's largely ignored. MarioGom (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - An SPI concerning this user is currently active, so the subject is at least suspected of current abuse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Funny biographical images (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Unfunny humor page that fails the letter and spirit of WP:BLPIMAGE. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 07:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting a move to Wikipedia:Unusual biographical images. Plenty of other strange and humorous lists use "unusual" as a descriptor. See Wikipedia:Unusual articles, Wikipedia:Unusual place names, et cetera. ✶Antrotherkus✶^✶talk✶ 22:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It being unfunny (in your opinion) is irrelevant. Wikimanisbackuwu (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

• I mean, making a list of "funny biographical images" so people can point and laugh is obviously a BLP problem. But there's also an important criticism here, which is that it's more of a BLP violation to have all of these unflattering images actually being used in people's articles in the first place. I suppose I'm at delete simply because I don't trust that that the list will be used or maintained appropriately, but there's a real problem here that does deserve attention. Many of these images are a) not a meaningful free alternative and b) worse than nothing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A move would also be an improvement. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • To your last sentence, it's a great point. I have personally removed images of terrible quality from BLPs for that exact reason: they are worse than nothing (e.g. Jared Lorenzen). It's perhaps something we should discuss over at WT:BLP. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wikipedia:Unusual biographical images. The framing of these images as "funny" seems disparaging, contrary to WP:BLPIMAGE, and often doesn't fit (is an image of an attempted presidential assassin really funny?) However, Wikipedia's penchant for strange biographical images has been discussed externally (1, 2, 3), and thus is definitely noteworthy among Wikipedia enthusiasts. If we are to reframe this article around unusualness rather than funniness, which seems to be the de facto criteria anyway, we will have a list akin to WP:Unusual articles, which indeed includes BLPs. -insert valid name here- (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am struggling to see how this take aligns with BLPIMAGE: "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @The ed17 it doesn't, but in the context of it being a humorous easy as well as the fact that Wikipedia has no firm rules allow many pages like this to exist. Wikimanisbackuwu (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

    Even with context these images are still "unusual", that isn't a bad thing either, it just means they aren't what is usually expected for a bio image. It's also not disparaging since well... we're not belittling them or anything. Some of these photos may be a little embarrassing at worse but at the end of the day, these people are in the public eye and have made the choice to be, if they see their articles they can always WP:APoY and replace the photo. Anyway yeah I support a Move. 7kk (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    My intentions with this move are to redirect the quality of unusuality from the person onto the image itself. BLPIMAGE doesn't prevent any and all photographs that could be seen as unflattering from appearing on Wikipedia; if it did, Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph would not be an article. In that case, we have an article on it because multiple outlets delivered commentary about the photographs themselves, as we are attempting to do here. -insert valid name here- (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with -insert valid name here-, Move. Wikimanisbackuwu (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

  Move: The new name would make the subject of the list clearer. I don't find that much humor, but I do find it interesting. TansoShoshen (talk) 06:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to unusual but keep. I fail to see how listing them as unusual images would be any worse than using them in the articles. Funny is maybe not the greatest word for this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User 2farleft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Userbox in violation of WP:UBDIVISIVE and seems to indicate a WP:BATTLEGROUNDish mentality. Likely also violates WP:POLEMIC. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Usesbox expresses an opinion about Wikipedia. It does not express ill-intent or any form of threat, nor does the userbox establish the aspiration for a battle ground. Jerium (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: Please elabarate as to why your reasoning for this userbox would violate the above-policies and guidelines you've referenced, thank you? Jerium (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UBDIVISIVE is explictly violated. Avoid verbs (often followed by the word "that") which may be used to suggest negative comparison and would thus be potentially divisive, such as: believes. WP:POLEMIC is the weakest, it's true, but: Very divisive...material not related to encyclopedia editing. WP:BATTLEGROUND follows - users who express this kind of belief tend to edit in a very specific manner that is not conducive with WP:NPOV. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: But that kind of thought is an WP:AOBF assumption, anything can happen, even to those that disagree with the message of the userbox. Jerium (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an extremely relevant, important, and sensitive concern or perception, and Wikipedia must not be perceive-able as censoring it.

Preferably, these concerns should be written up as user-essays, or project-essays if multi-authored. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reluctantly per above. Dw31415 (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and Userfy, per WP:UBM. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per SmokeyJoe. SK2242 (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:UBDIVISIVE is dead letter, a silly provision. WP:BATTLEGROUND is a behavior pattern and offers no insight into deleting a userbox, and WP:POLEMIC is about "very divisive" material, "statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities ..." etc., and this is not at that level.—Alalch E. 02:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Calling WP:UBDIVISIVE a "dead letter" presumes the conclusion. It's true if and only if we act as though it's true. I see no fundamental reason why we should do that. The only function of this user box is "civil" POV pushing. (And yes, I'd say the same thing about a userbox saying that Wikipedia has gone too far to the right, or that it's too reflexively centrist.) People who want to claim that Wikipedia is "censored" will do so regardless of whether this userbox exists or not. Keeping this userbox on those grounds would be indulging the sealions. XOR'easter (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Maintaining an opinion on one’s Userpage is not sealioning. It would be sealioning if they kepted posting the opinion on other pages.

  Wikipedia is left-leaning by many measures. The degree is a subjective opinion, and it is ok for editors to express opinions on their Userpage.

  Deletion of others’ opinions is censorship. Especially if it is motivated by dislike of the opinion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Policy writing is hard, and while I commend all efforts, the first approximately half of UBDIVISIVE is legitimate "who comes up with this stuff" material and has got to be the worst Wikipedia guideline. It says to avoid "believes, considers, finds, knows, prefers, thinks, wishes" as "potentially divisive" :)) —Alalch E. 03:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, obviously violates both the letter and the spirit of WP:UBDIVISIVE and WP:POLEMIC; implicitly declaring an intent to push Wikipedia in a particular direction also violates WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:TEND, and WP:CIVILPOV. The "free speech" defenses are baffling; the purpose of a user page isn't personal expression, and Wikipedia is not a debate forum. The purpose of a userpage is to support writing an encyclopedia, not self-expression; userboxes that interfere with that have to go. And broadsides against the entire encyclopedia (as well as, implicitly, huge swaths of its editors) certainly violate that principle. Raising narrow, specific issues is reasonable, because it contributes to actual improvements; "the entire encyclopedia needs to be moved more in this ideological direction" is not - it is drawing a line in the sand and engaging it ideological chest-beating. --Aquillion (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:UBDIVISIVE discourages hostility, not personal perspectives. WP:POLEMIC applies to attacks, which this is not. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 12:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. we have a few of these self tags that let us know why some are not doing well here.Moxy🍁 07:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The userbox does not attack other editors, promote bad-faith editing, or call for action against Wikipedia. It merely states a perception—one that should be open to discussion rather than silenced. Manuductive (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This userbox simply expresses a personal belief about Wikipedia’s ideological shift—it does not attack editors, promote bad-faith editing, or call for action. WP:UBDIVISIVE discourages hostility, not personal perspectives. WP:POLEMIC applies to attacks, which this is not. Many userboxes express opinions about Wikipedia, and selectively removing this one would suggest censorship of dissenting views. Maintaining open discussion means allowing differing perspectives, even critical ones. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 12:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, as I do fully understand why this can be seen as a WP:BATTLEGROUND issue, but ultimately the editing patterns of any given editor will be enough to indicate if they're attempting to WP:RGW or running afoul of policy, with or without this userbox. If some editors view Wikipedia as being skewed a certain way, much like we have various editors with views on Wikipedia, so be it. It's substantive policy breaches that cause the issue here, rather than opinionated userboxen. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per ser generally, although I agree with the deletion rationale to an extent and might even be convinced to change my vote.

Unlike others, I do "strongly believe" that this toes the line of both WP:UBDIVISIVE and WP:POLEMIC:

-there is nothing in the aforementioned about "hostility" specifically, meaning that at the very best we might only justify this as an exception to that guideline, with the "avoid" being a generalistic idea rather than a hard rule;

-and as for the latter it pretty much definitionally is polemical, not to mention implicitly targeting a specific group of other editors for their personal views, as opposed to examining the content they might contribute (although that part can be critiqued, as I detail below).

However, I also feel like the mere expression that "X as a whole is too left-wing or right-wing" falls juuust short enough of displaying battleground behavior to truly run afoul of the spirit of these guidelines, as it's more of a generalistic assessment rather than a focused "call-out", and it could just as much be argued to examine the content itself, rather than the editors.

Ultimately, merely declaring one's political opinions, as long as they don't carry clear statements of intent to action or outright hate speech, does not seem particularly harmful to me, especially since I also think it's generally pretty valuable to allow and even encourage criticisms of Wikipedia.

I do feel this userbox might be better phrased as something like "this editor strongly aligns with right-wing (or centrist, or slightly less far-left) ideals", or perhaps "this editor strongly believes right-wing discourse should have better representation on Wikipedia", to align more closely with UBDIVISIVE and head off accusations of both WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:RGW; but at the end of the day, this is not that much different from someone proclaiming the above. And as ser says, if that opinion does come with a BATTLEGROUND or RGW attitude, then it will become clear through their editing, and will (hopefully) result in sanctions. And to add to that point, the presence of this particular userbox may well be useful to support the existence of such an attitude. NewBorders (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, expresses an idea on Wikipedia. Maybe it could be worded better, but deletion isn't what's needed here. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing stance to Userfy by SilviaASH. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but Userfy. I don't personally agree with this sentiment, but the creator is entitled to their opinion. However, this strikes me as something that ought to be hosted in their userspace rather than the template namespace, so as to make clear to anyone stumbling across it that this is an individual editor's fringe opinion, and not, as far as I can see, a popular belief held among editors. (Only eight people, including the creator, have this userbox transcluded on their userpages, so it seems safe to say it's not a widely held opinion.) silviaASH (inquire within) 11:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it is not divisive or polemic or battleground(ish). We have an article on Ideological bias on Wikipedia, so it's not shocking and/or surprising to find a userbox that expresses that opinion. And you can find dozens of news articles talking about a perceived political bias on Wikipedia as well. But in my view, editors who display this userbox should be aware that it may make your contributions to the project a target for scrutiny. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually my thought, that editors posting this userbox might face some backlash like when there were userboxes opposing same sex marriage. But it's an individual choice whether to post these userboxes on one's User page so it's up to the editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy: This should not be in template space, but is also not substantially divisive. JJP_Master (she/they) 14:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question So is Userfy a way of deleting the template? Jerium (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a way of keeping the template. Userfying produces no functional difference, and shouldn't concern you at all. It is just a symbolic gesture. —Alalch E. 17:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support userfying. @Jerium: see WP:UBM for more about userfying userboxes. In short: It is a common solution to userboxes which are controversial but allowed by our PAGs. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Userfy: could be controversial, but not enough to warrant deletion. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy, very compelling arguments made by both sides above. Ultimately I do not see any fundamental issue with keeping this userbox. it's lio! | talk | work 07:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy: This is an userbox expressing an extreme fringe opinion so it definitely shouldn't be in template space, but it does not quite crosses the line into violating UBDIVISIVE, though it probably says more about whoever uses it than about Wikipedia itself. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Logentry-rights-autopromote (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The new formatting of the user rights log entries is better than the old formatting. So, this page should be deleted so that the log entries automatically adding "extended confirmed" rights follow the new formatting instead of the old one. GTrang (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, this could likely have been better handled with an edit request. See the new text here. I prefer defaults, the original override was in response to feedback that EC grants shouldn't have been viewed as a "promotion". Both the mass change, and the nature of extended confirmed has changed over time. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "DartsWeatherRoyaltyFan automatically changed their group membership: got extended confirmed user"—is that what it's going to be like?—Alalch E. 14:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yup, it will look like this when defaulted. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. Yeah, that does seem a little better. Delete. —Alalch E. 15:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think the passive voice ("was automatically updated") better reflects how EC works than the active voice ("user automatically changed their group membership"). No objections to wordsmithing the text, but I do prefer something other than the default. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If this is the case, you should probably request that it be changed on Phabricator, since there's no reason for enwiki specifically to be different. JJP_Master (she/they) 14:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "changing" can simply entail keeping MediaWiki:Logentry-rights-autopromote and replacing the current content with new content that is more similar to the default message. —Alalch E. 17:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm with Extraordinary Writ here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates