Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared.

Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). Purge this page

Shortcut

WP:MFD

Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information.

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, MOS: (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect or one of the 6 disambiguation pages), Event: and the various Talk: namespaces
Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.

Before nominating a page for deletion

Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

Deleting pages in your own userspace	If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}} if it is a userpage, or {{db-author}} or {{db-g7}} if it is a draft. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Duplications in draftspace?	Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace	Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding `{{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~` to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}. Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first. Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion. User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion. Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages	Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere. Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages	It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status\|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable. WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication. Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion	Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems. Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6\|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD	Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
Wikipedia:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
Wikipedia:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Wikipedia" namespace pages
Wikipedia:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
Wikipedia:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes

How to list pages for deletion

Shortcut

WP:MFDHOWTO

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted)

Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.

I.

Edit PageName:

Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion:

{{mfd|1={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd}}

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.

If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.

Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages.

Please include in the edit summary the phrase
Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
Save the page

II.

Create its MfD subpage.

The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry"

Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
Insert this text:

{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.

Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
Save the page.

III.

Add a line to MfD.

Follow this edit link and at the top of the list add a line:

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".

Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
Save the page.
If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add

{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.

If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add
{{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~
to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as
Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog
V	Feb	Total
CfD	39	39
TfD	13	13
MfD	7	7
FfD	2	2
RfD	85	85
AfD	10	10

Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.

Archived discussions

A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.

Current discussions

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.

March 2, 2025

Talk:Bar (establishment)/None Records

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]
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]

March 1, 2025

Historic places drafts

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]

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Rubbaband Mang

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)

Wikipedia:Funny biographical images

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

Comment It being unfunny (in your opinion) is irrelevant. Wikimanisbackuwu (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[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)[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]
I agree with -insert valid name here-, Move. Wikimanisbackuwu (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 28, 2025

Draft:Resignation of Joe Biden

This is a poorly developed draft that was left over from an overwrite move of the draftspace to the mainspace that was subsequently reverted. The mainspace target was deleted as a cross-namespace redirect from the mainspace, while retaining the same target in the draftspace. The mainspace target was later repurposed as a redirect to withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election, which is a more comprehensive covering of the topic which already exists as an extensive mainspace article. The "resignation" title inaccurately referring to the "withdrawal" from the election. Therefore, I see the most likely course of action to speedily redirect to withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election. Red Shogun412 (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Undecided at this time. The nominator should have left this draft alone to allow it to expire. The nominator has forgotten to tag this draft with {{MFD}}. This will never be an article, but Drafts are not checked for notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fair and reasonable critique. I wasn't sure if the timeline would still be implicated in the case of a draft speedy redirect action, I found that part of the criteria to be less clearly stated than would be preferred. Since in this case the draft's expiration is still out 2 months time, it reasons that this discussion could be closed without further review in advance of the following 7-day "old business" review period, as the proper occasion to raise this same issue will be far removed from the upcoming review period for MfD discussions. It should be no trouble in raising the same discussion for when the time is ripe for review. Thank you, and I appreciate your much welcome feedback. Red Shogun412 (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as abandoned draft. Last substantive edit was 21 July 2024, more than 7 months ago and therefore over the 6 month clock in Wikipedia:OLDDRAFT. Note abandoned drafts are speediable, but since a discussion has started here, at least someone (Robert, above) has said they are undecided, and there was a non-bot edit a few months ago (in my opinion de minimis, merely someone removing some blank lines), it's best to let the discussion run here rather than speedy (since alphabet soup of conditions aside, speedy deletion is intended for wholly noncontroversial deletions only). Martinp (talk) 03:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Martinp. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 19:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Martinp. / RemoveRedSky ^{[talk] [gb]} 01:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election although I'm not sure why the nominator didn't just do it instead of starting an MfD. Redirecting duplicate drafts to mainspace is not controversial. SK2242 (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Shogun412: please make sure the page is tagged and the creator notified when you start an XfD. SK2242 (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mztissa/New sandbox

WP:COPIES violation of an article that was deleted from a deletion discussion from a user that has not edited in seven years. Since the edit log is deleted off the original page, this page contains undisclosed authorship. Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Undecided at this time. Copies of mainspace articles does not apply to copies of deleted articles, which are often permitted in order to try to improve and recreate the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While we do allow (even supply) copies of deleted articles into an interested editor's userspace to attempt to rescue/improve/recreate them, in this instance the copy has been untouched for 4 years and the editor has not been seen in that period either. For whatever reason, efforts to improve, recreate, or otherwise reuse this text in Wikipedia articles appear to have been abandoned. No objection to keeping alive or resurrecting in user or draft space if someone who is active wants to work on this, but otherwise delete. Martinp (talk) 03:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; this is a WP:COPIES violation. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 11:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 26, 2025

User:Jooler/List of interesting or unusual place names

WP:COPIES violation of Place names considered unusual. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copy of an article and so a redundant content fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zzo38/Userboxes/AntiAntiTerrorist

The message of this userbox could very well be interpreted as support for terrorism, which is unacceptable for obvious reasons. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 12:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. While this can be interpreted in other meanings, I mainly interpret it as vaguely supporting terrorism. 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 15:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 25, 2025

User:UBX/Canada 51

Blatant attacks on another country's sovereignty are disruptive and violate WP:POLEMIC. Wikipedia is not the place for aggressive political posturing, as made clear in WP:UP, and this is especially inappropriate given this effectively calls for American annexation of Canada, which is offensive to a large majority of Canadians, including myself. This is an outrageous userbox that needs to be deleted as it is most definitely very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing. Cremastra (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made it before the Trump situation blew up as a joke, so you may delete it if you wish. I'm sorry if it offended anyone. --𝚃𝚠𝚒𝚗𝙱𝚘𝚘 (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out these userboxes (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) most of which deal with much more contentious issues than US-Canadian unionism (especially those related to Northern Ireland or Palestine) haven't seen problems despite many being years old. Should these not be nominated for deletion too? --𝚃𝚠𝚒𝚗𝙱𝚘𝚘 (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for obvious reasons. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 13:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 23, 2025

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Community (NBC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 14:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Community (NBC)

This project for the TV series Community was created by one editor and never had even a talk page created. That editor is now also blocked. There is not even anything worth saving as the page just lists a partial cast and crew list which is better listed in the actual article. Gonnym (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Much of the work of a WikiProject is done on its talk page. A project without a talk page is a stillborn project. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. / RemoveRedSky ^{[talk] [gb]} 15:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 02:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 10:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 03:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC) ended today on 3 March 2025. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action.

February 21, 2025

Template:User Palestinian liberation

violates WP:UBCR -- Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive. and Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for: Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind (commercial, political, religious, or otherwise). I'm not sure there's any conflict more substantially divisive than Israel-Palestine, and particularly a declaration of support for a one-state solution that would result in the dissolution of Israel falls under that guideline. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 08:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - far from being inflammatory, the userbox is a neutral statement of support for a political position which many prominent commentators on the issue also suppport - its Wikipedia article lists Tony Judt, Gideon Levy, Edward Said, John Mearsheimer, and several others - Jewish Currents editor Peter Beinart could be added to the list as well. While this userbox could be considered divisive, but there are many other political userboxes which would deserve the same label, and it strikes me as unfair to attempt to get rid of one which expresses a certain point of view rather than deleting them in a more systemic matter. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 07:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an express argument to avoid in deletion discussions, and I'd ask you to assume good faith as to the nomination rationale -- I nominated this one because I came across it on a user's page; I did not go out of my way looking for it nor am I going to go out of my way looking for others. If you're admitting that you think it could be considered divisive, then it's unclear why you're voting "Keep" to something that goes against content guidelines? Can't say I follow the logic there. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I do assume good faith; my intent was to comment on the potential results of this nomination rather than your motivation for making it. Second, I do not think this userbox violates UBCR, which says that userboxes must not be substantially divisive. I said the nominated userbox could be considered divisive because that's a truism which could apply to just about any of the many userboxes about political issues which the community has collectively tolerated, and since guidelines are supposed to be a reflection of community practices, I believe this userbox should be kept. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 22:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Regarding the fact that the two-state solution support and even the three-state solution support template exist, it will definitely be unfair, odd, irregular, and biased to delete it. Taha Danesh (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination: inflammatory and inappropriate for the encyclopedia. Cremastra (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and Cremastra. This is inflammatory and divisive IMHO, and no better than this userbox, with basically the same message. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 12:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per above arguments in support of keeping, migrate. it's lio! | talk | work 15:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 19, 2025

Template:User 2farleft

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_{Mas_ter} (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, House Blaster (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]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Snehasish Sarkar

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) it's lio! | talk | work 13:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Snehasish Sarkar

Stale failed attempt at autobiography Orange Mike | Talk 19:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either ignore and leave for AfC processes, or explain why WP:G11 applies. Do not bring promotional autobiographies from draftspace to MfD, that is contrary to the purpose of draftspace in containing the junk.

This draft was just today undeleted as a G13 REFUND by its author. There is no rush. Give the editor time to read the comments and tags on the draft. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: no activity on the draft since nomination. it's lio! | talk | work 07:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The accepted undeletion request means that an administrator found the page not to be G11-liable or particularly concerning BLP content. Such an assertion was not made in this MfD nomination, which only states the draft is an autobiography, a point that is not especially relevant on its own. it is further stated that the draft is stale, and stale drafts are handled via G13, not requiring extra work at MfD. In my view, there is nothing problematic in this content that we should worry about. Even if the originator wants to use Wikipedia to host his autobiography and has requested undeletion for that reason, tendentiously, with no interest in improving the draft for potential acceptance as an article, and is perfectly happy with the draft, which is a misuse of draftspace and misuse of Wikipedia, I could still argue: Even in that case, an MfD is unnecessary. The draft will be deleted via G13 again, and the autobiographer will eventually get bored. However, I prefer to say: Tendentiously requesting undeletion to continue hosting your autobiography is also a drain on editors' time, that of undeleting administrators. The user whose username is "Snehasish.bio2008" is primarily here for his bio and has retained an interest in his Wikipedia autobiography over multiple years. Therefore: delete.—Alalch E. 14:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: any response? it's lio! | talk | work 06:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:HKLionel, User:Alalch E. presents a reasonable opinion. I agree with it mostly. One point of quibble is “Tendentiously requesting undeletion”? I don’t know that this has happened. One request is not tendentious. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't have firm evidence. But there is circumstantial evidence: No edits after undeletion. —Alalch E. 10:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; doesn't rise to the level of tendentiousness where MfD deletion is a worthwhile use of time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Draft:Spider-Man 4: Fan Film

Draft on a non-notable topic with no sources given and none to be found with a WP:BEFORE. Previously existed, was repeatedly resubmitted and eventually rejected. The creator left a deletion request (link to deleted revision) on this draft yesterday after it was rejected, and it was deleted under G7, but not before they copied it to their userspace and ultimately recreated it today. Creator has received many warnings on their talk page about removing AfC templates, disruptively resubmitting their draft in ignorance of feedback, and other conduct issues, and has ignored all of them while persisting in their behavior and blanking the talk page. At this point their intent to tendentiously resubmit the draft while trying to keep its previous declines and rejection under the WP:RADAR is clear.

Also delete: User:Chance997/Spider-Man 4: Fan Film, creator's userspace fork of this draft silviaASH (inquire within) 00:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Before I Rejected the draft for some reason they blanked it then submitted it again. Anyway delete due to tendentious resubmittion, attempts to remove records of declines and content forking of a topic that has no indication of notability. SK2242 (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt both: I was going to request deletion upon seeing the draft recreated. It appears this user just wanted to erase the history of the draft's submission rejections for a pseudo clean slate. It does not appear to be a notable topic for this encyclopedia, and attempts to game the system like this are a waste of other editor's time. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I requested the draft to be deleted in the first place is because I made an error in copying the source material and apprehended the fan film and Kickstarter. I should have focused on them instead of, but I'm now focusing my intending on recreating the draft and making it better this time. Chance997 (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, can you supply us with reliable sources with which you intend to improve your draft? silviaASH (inquire within) 01:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Chance997 (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chance, that production vlog from the film's creators that you just added is a primary, user-generated source- it isn't gonna be good enough for Wikipedia. We need reliable, independent, secondary sources that give the topic significant coverage (as opposed to trivial mentions). I'm not trying to be mean, but you really don't seem to be understanding what we've all been telling you the whole time that you've been working on this draft. silviaASH (inquire within) 01:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that the only non-first-party ref presently in the draft, a GeekTyrant article, is mostly a blog-esque/low-tier source consisting of a volunteer team with minimal editorial oversight, which raises a few eyebrows for me in terms of reliability. Counting the others, which are strictly YouTube user-generated refs, there are no reliable sources to justify an article, and this does not even reach WP:GNG. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Creator resubmitted the draft shortly after this MfD began, almost certainly to yet another incoming rejection. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have Rejected the draft as an unreleased film that is not notable under future film guidelines, which state that unreleased films are seldom notable, only when production itself has been notable, which it has not been in this case. I do not reject a draft for notability reasons unless it has previously been submitted and declined. The history shows that this title was rejected, and then deleted on user request and recreated by the user. I cannot construct a good-faith explanation for requesting the deletion of a rejected draft and then recreating the draft. The bad-faith explanation is to remove the record of the rejection. I have rejected this draft as a previously rejected draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All due to tendentious resubmission and gaming the system, as explained above. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Salt in draft space, because that is likely to result in gaming the title to avoid the salting. Consider use of the Title Blacklist to prevent creation with this title or variants of the title in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the title blacklist, considering the nature of this situation. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SilviaASH and SK2242: any thoughts on the use of WP:TITLEBLACKLIST? it's lio! | talk | work 13:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chance is blocked now. However, prior to their block they seemed to have mostly given up on the Spider-Man 4 fan film draft, and instead moved onto other (equally unsuitable) draft articles.

To be blunt, at this juncture I think the blacklist is pointless. If Chance doesn't evade their block, it won't matter at all, and if they do, then they'll just pick another non-notable topic to try and inappropriately push an article about. In the latter scenario, we can just G5 the articles, block the socks, and salt titles as needed. Unless the situation greatly escalates, blacklisting this title or any of the other titles of their various pet drafts just doesn't look to be necessary. silviaASH (inquire within) 14:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The tendentious resubmission is a conduct issue calling for conduct action, but MFD is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning their conduct as part of the justification for the MfD nomination was unavoidable. I was hoping, perhaps naively, that the creation of the MfD in itself would be a wake-up call for them to stop this, but that doesn't seem to have happened. If they attempt to submit the draft again, considering all their ongoing conduct issues, I would say taking their case to ANI is probably justified. silviaASH (inquire within) 05:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 18, 2025

MediaWiki:Logentry-rights-autopromote

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_{Mas_ter} (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]

February 17, 2025

Template:User Mercury

Ten years ago, a troll complete changed the meaning of this userbox, so its usefullness is questionable. Janhrach (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vandalism, or send to Mercury, or encase in liquid Mercury. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's obviously meant to be humorous (and humorous userboxes are allowed), it does not insult anyone, nor will it deceive anyone. There's no harm in keeping it. Cambalachero (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and replace transclusions as needed following my general reasoning in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Jupiter.—Alalch E. 23:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. it's lio! | talk | work 09:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Jupiter

Ten years ago, a troll complete changed the meaning of this userbox, so its usefullness is questionable. Janhrach (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I assume the nominator is referring to this edit by User:Spc10K in February 2015, which changed the wording from "This user is a member of Taskforce Jupiter" to "This user is from Jupiter". SK2242 (talk) 06:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Janhrach (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No need to restore to original usage before vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: This wasn't vandalism. It was borderline-good-faith highjacking which produced an outcome that isn't exclusively bad, as it added a legitimate (khm...) item to the "User [celestial body]" series of userboxes (... which, yes, was mostly created by the same user, but not entirely, because Template:User Venus and a few similar templates had already been in existence; these templates are in the Category:Extraterrestrial nationality user templates). —Alalch E. 12:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As the one with Mercury, it's just an humorous userbox that does not make any harm. Cambalachero (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This userbox was hijacked to cause it to become a member of the "User [celestial body]" series userboxes, alongside the preexisting Template:User Venus. (Template:User TF Jupiter was subsequently created by copying the original version of the userbox to fill its role.) The hijacker also expanded the series with templates such as Template:User Titan. Most transcluders actually use it in this sense; about them:
- @User:Carnival200 (active): Hello! You have this userbox on your user page. You probably want to say that you are from Jupiter, correct?
- User:Ashing430 (inactive): It is obvious that they want to say that they are from Jupiter, in the context of their userpage, which also says that they are from Mercury, etc.
- User:Epiccomg (inactive): It is obvious that she wants to say that she is from Jupiter, in the context of her userpage, which also says that she is "currently not on Planet Earth", etc.
- User:Lylahearts (inactive): It is not entirely obvious that she wants to say that she is from Jupiter, in the context of her userpage, which is more serious in what is being stated, and she also says that she is interested in astronomy; however, there are more templates from the "User [celestial body]" series. It is much more likely that the user is saying that she is from Jupiter, Titan, etc.
- @User:Awesomewiki64 (semi-active): Hello! You have this userbox on your user page. You probably want to say that you are from Jupiter, correct?
- User:Ninney (inactive): It is obvious that he wants to say that he participates in the Taskforce Jupiter, from the context of his pretty serious user page, which states that he is a member of the Mars task force, etc.
- User:Markerqueen (inactive): From the totality of the circumstances, it is 100% certain that this user wanted to state that she participates in the Taskforce Jupiter
- User:Thor Dockweiler (inactive): It is obvious that he wants to say that he participates in the Taskforce Jupiter, from the context of his pretty serious user page, which states that he is a member the Astronomy WikiProject, participant in the Constellations task force, etc.
- ~~@User:37ophiuchi (active): Hello! You have this userbox on your user page. You probably want to say that you participate in the Taskforce Jupiter, correct?~~ Update: This user removed the userbox in the meantime.
Keep and replace it with {{User TF Jupiter}} on the userpages of Ninney, Markerqueen, and Thor Dockweiler. Awesomewiki64 and 37ophiuchi probably do not need other editors changing their page, and they have been alerted.—Alalch E. 13:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. it's lio! | talk | work 09:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates