Wikipedia talk:User pages

Deprecated format tags

Legobot has received a few messages from users quoting this page. I just boldly added an L3 about the depreciated tags. I’d prefer that @Legoktm have more documented support for its approved task. Dw31415 (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I think this rule is not necessary. This may already be covered by Help:HTML in wikitext#Obsolete/deprecated elements, though I am not sure if that applies to user pages. 『π』BalaM314〘talk〙 00:00, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Can I keep the <center> tag on my user page for sentimental value? I don't see how it can break anything except bots, and I don't want bots on my user page anyway. As a presentation only element, even if a browser drops support for it it wouldn't affect accessibility. 『π』BalaM314〘talk〙 00:13, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Anastrophe because I think he would be interested in this discussion 『π』BalaM314〘talk〙 00:18, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I probably burned bridges on both ends on the legobot talk page trying to impress that 'autocorrecting' deprecated tags on userpages is silly and unnecessary. The spirit of conventional behavior is not to muck with a userpage that isn't one's own, unless there is a serious/significant problem with the userpage (as in, people soapboxing their various political allegiances on multiscreen userpages - which I wholeheartedly agree is a significant issue, even if it's barely ever actually enforced.). Apparently some people feel that old tags should be taken out behind the barn and put down.

I'm resigned to someday someone forcing the change, and me getting sanctioned for 'edit warring' on my own userpage - though by then, I will probably just resign myself to the intrusion like a good little sheep. I'm aware that user's don't own their talk page (per the above limitation(s)), but for pity sake, they're deprecated tags, not content, so if my page suddenly starts displaying "<font size=1>", well by god let it just freaking display that. No bits or bytes will be harmed in the balance.

I definitely agree that old tags can have sentimental value, and your rationale in support of that. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 01:12, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I think "Their use should be avoided on Wikipedia." is pretty clear. Wikipedia includes User pages. Wikipedia:HTML5#Obsolete elements and attributes repeats the sentiment, saying "These elements and attributes should no longer be used on Wikipedia pages." Change is constant, both on Wikipedia and everywhere else. We had an RFC about these bot edits in 2023, and the bot edits to fix obsolete tags were broadly supported. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

That's fine. I would only zero in on the distinction between "should" and "must". cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 03:30, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

The text "Bots and other users may edit pages in your user space or leave messages for you, though by convention others will not usually edit your user page itself, other than (rarely) to address significant concerns or place project-related tags." is out of step with the status quo. Here's a list of bot edits to userspace, mostly filtering out edits by bots where it was specifically requested. A brief summary of what bots are actually doing based on that sample:

• Linter fixes, some of which, but not all, do affect page display
• Removal of WP:NFCC violations
• Fixing double redirects
• Removing files deleted on Commons and updating files renamed on Commons
• Fixing AfC submissions (e.g. missing timestamp)
• Fixing redirected categories
• Substituting templates
• Remove protection templates from unprotected pages
• Removing templates following TFDs

Depending on your point of view, some of these are also "silly and unnecessary" or "serious and significant".

I would change the text to something like: "Other users may edit pages in your user space or leave messages for you, though by convention others will not usually edit your user page itself, other than (rarely) to address significant concerns or place project-related tags. Bots will perform standard maintenance work in your user space."

This reminds me of Wikipedians wanting to have redlinked categories on their user page (I was one of them), largely for sentimental or protest reasons. But it interfered with the work that category-focused editors were doing and cluttering their lists, and so they were either removed or forcibly created and we moved on. Linter work is similar, we have a project-wide cleanup ongoing, and yes, one or two intentionally unfixed cases here and there isn't a big deal in isolation, but it does genuinely get in the way on the larger scale. Legoktm (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Completely agree with Legoktm. For the individual who only sees "their" page, it might seem insignificant, but for everyone else that works fixing these issues, having to go re-check pages over and over again is a waste of time. Also, as they've pointed out above, bots (and gnomes) edit user pages all the time. Gonnym (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

It's been a month without any further comments so I've gone ahead and made my proposed change. Legoktm (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Keeping declined unblock requests of partial blocks

Hi, all, this concept was previously discussed here, but I'd like to revisit it. Currently, policy does not allow for any declined unblock requests to be removed from a user's talk page, regardless of the scope of the block. This restriction obviously predates the introduction of partial blocks, and in the context of a sitewide block, it makes sense--a history of the user's past unblock requests is a reasonable thing to have on hand when evaluating a new unblock request, and a blocked user's talk page serves no other purpose.

However, I feel that this is unnecessarily punitive for users who are only partially-blocked; their talk pages are not just dedicated to appealing their block, and having a huge reminder of their block permanently on display feels unnecessary and discouraging, like a permanent scarlet letter for daring to try to appeal their block.

One of the questions asked in the previous discussion was whether there is an easy way for admins to see unblocks without requiring them to be live on the page; one such solution would be the use of edit filter 1389, which tracks the removal of declined unblock requests. The removed unblock requests could then be seen using a url such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog?wpSearchTitle=User+talk:Example&wpSearchFilter=1389. We could probably include such a link in the text of the unblock template itself, for easier access. This is admittedly a bit more legwork for a reviewing admin, but I feel like it's fair for us to take that on, rather than force every user to look at what was possibly a hasty or ill-considered unblock request when trying to talk to a partially-blocked user about unrelated Wikipedia business.

The actual proposal I would make to edit the page would be to simply restore the word "sitewide" as it was prior to the archived discussion, but this time with a bit more community consensus behind it. Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:06, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Completely agree that this is a step in the right direction, so consider this a support if that's helpful.

But I don't think it goes far enough. The whole rule is punitive. Accept that the admin is always right? Good, blank your talk page and move on to other sites. But dare to question the block? Now you've got page, possibly with your real name (or a name traceable to you) as a title, where someone calls you words like "time wasting" and "incompetent". Forever. For something childish you did fifteen years ago, when you were, in fact, a child. I would suggest replacing the rule with one of the following:

• Declined partial unblock requests may be removed at any time. Declined sitewide unblock requests may not be removed for the first month (year?) after the decline.
• Declined unblock requests may be removed at any time. However, the declined unblock request must be restored before any further appeals to the same block. Failure to do so may result in the new request being summarily declined.

Or, just do away with the rule entirely. I understand the desire to prevent "Mom and Dad" appeals. But are they really such a problem as to justify this? The page history is always there. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

My original proposal is I hope the minimum that we can get consensus for, but if people are willing, I'm certainly open to relaxing the rule further or removing it entirely. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:38, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Recommended changes to WP:UPYES

The section on disclosures currently (13:29, 30 May 2026 UTC) reads:

Significant editing disclosures (voluntary but recommended)

• Things other editors may find helpful to understand, such as alternative accounts (if publicly disclosed)
• If you are editing for or on behalf of a company, organization, group, product, or person (etc.) and being paid by that company, organization, group, or person (etc.), you are strongly encouraged to place a paid contribution disclosure on your user page. You must disclose your status as a paid editor before making any related edits; see WP:PAID for instructions on where and how you can do this. This applies even if you are not specifically being paid to edit Wikipedia.
• If you have a close connection ('conflict of interest' or 'COI') with a company, organization, group, product, or person (etc.) that you intend to edit about, it is strongly encouraged to disclose that in order to gain a good working relationship with the editing community. Editing must always be neutral and within encyclopedia norms. Editors tend to distrust concealed conflicts of interest and agendas. Openly disclosing such interest

The "voluntary but recommended" is inconsistent with the second bullet point below it, which discusses paid editing which must be disclosed. I recommend the section be updated as follows:

Significant editing disclosures

• Required:
  • If you are editing for or on behalf of a company, organization, group, product, or person (etc.) and being paid by that company, organization, group, or person (etc.), you are strongly encouraged to place a paid contribution disclosure on your user page. You must disclose your status as a paid editor before making any related edits; see WP:PAID for instructions on where and how you can do this. This applies even if you are not specifically being paid to edit Wikipedia.
• Recommended:
  • If you have a close connection ('conflict of interest' or 'COI') with a company, organization, group, product, or person (etc.) that you intend to edit about, it is strongly encouraged to disclose that in order to gain a good working relationship with the editing community. Editing must always be neutral and within encyclopedia norms. Editors tend to distrust concealed conflicts of interest and agendas. Openly disclosing such interests increases respect, invites others to help, and shows a desire to edit appropriately.
  • Things other editors may find helpful to understand, such as alternative accounts (if publicly disclosed)

— ERcheck (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

publishing

Hi, I created my first page following all the guidelines which has been awaiting the chance to go live for several months. Is this common? What or who gives the final OK to go live? Thanks! LittleSinners2026 (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you referring to Charley Lang? It has been in the article space since 30 March. Primefac (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes I am. What does "being in the article space" mean? LittleSinners2026 (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Visit Charley Lang. You should see the article. That means it is treated the same as all other articles. We call that "article space". If you click the history tab at the top of the article you can see each change to the article. That includes "14:46, 30 March 2026" when you moved the page from your sandbox to article space. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2026 (UTC)