Wikipedia talk:User pages

Deleting non-moved usertalk archives

I see that WP:DELTALK has a specific carveout that lets users delete talkpages that have been archived by bot, and therefore don't (shouldn't) have notable histories to retain. I understand the difference here, but if someone U1s both their usertalk and their usertalk archive, and the first one is correctly rejected, shouldn't the second one be as well? SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Why should the second one be as well? Anomie⚔ 23:20, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I suppose the question is whether people should be able to read the discussions easily without needing to figure out which revision in the primary talk page will give the information they're looking for. But if they just deleted discussions all the way through, instead of archiving them, we'd have the same problem. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. The reason deletion of copy-paste usertalk archives is allowed is the same reason that blanking messages from your own talk page is allowed in the first place; deleting the archive retroactively pretends you had blanked rather than archiving hence the two allowances are one and the same. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 01:11, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok, got it. takes note for future U1s SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

NO-TABLES and ACCESSIBLE

I support User:FaviFake‘s de-tableisation, per his edit summary:

turning into a simple list per WP:NO-TABLES, "significant items should normally be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely tabulated". White it technically doesn't apply outside mainspace, it is more WP:ACCESSIBLE and generally good practice. No other page uses a similar format for so much textual information

I would like to see the bold subsection titles returned to standard headings, for similar reasons.

I also note the proliferation of too many WP:LINKBOX advertised recommended shortcuts. Many shortcuts defeats the benefit of shortcuts, the balancing of costs of jargon barriers and the benefit of jargon efficiencies. Parallel recommended shortcuts double the barrier without increasing efficiency.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks!

I would like to see the bold subsection titles returned to standard headings, for similar reasons.
if this is done, it should also be done in the WP:UPYES section.

Disagree on the linkboxes, they're useful. FaviFake (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

User: page draft articles

I am looking at WP:FAKEARTICLE, WP:STALEDRAFT, and {{uw-userpage}}. Given a situation in which:

• A brand-new editor creates a User: page (it is 12 hours old; it cannot be a stale draft).
• The User: page looks like a finished article, not a temporary sandbox being used as a workspace for a Draft: (which FAKEARTICLE permits, and which {{uw-userpage}} incorrectly claims is disallowed).
• The User: page is probably intended to be a real article, except that the user hasn't figured out how to do that (consider, e.g., all the newcomers who paste their articles into noticeboards or talk pages).

should this page say that the page should be moved to a /Sandbox or Draft: space? Or that it should be deleted? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Does WP:USERPAGEDRAFT not already cover it? Anomie⚔ 21:51, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Maybe? But I see deletions such as User:Homeclosetorganizers, usually because they're "promotional", and I wonder whether this guideline does/should recommend that such pages be moved instead of being deleted, unless the admin would actually db-g11 the same content if it were in the Draft: namespace. We don't need blatant advertising ("Buy now for the low price of $19.99 today!") in any namespace, but if "The Example Company specializes in organizing home closets" wouldn't get db-g11 in the Draft: namespace, and this guideline wants things looking like an article on the User: page to be moved to a /sandbox or Draft: page instead of being deleted, then maybe we could be clearer on that point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I think you picked a bad example to use as your test case; that user page is a clear case of a promotional account making a promotional user page (using lines such as We help homeowners transform cluttered spaces into functional, beautifully organized rooms.). I would have deleted that in any space, and I'm not usually one to delete drafts as G11.

Now, as far as the general question goes, yes, I will often move an article-in-user-space into the draft space for further review (I also do this for drafts that end up in the Talk namespace but get tagged as WP:G8). There's no point in making the user recreate a page in the proper namespace when all we have to do is move it for them (along the lines of "forgive them, they know not what they do"). Primefac (talk) 09:38, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I haven't seen the page in question, but I assumed from the username that it was a business writing about itself.

Do you think this page is clear enough about what to do? For example, should it say "If it makes a Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance, then either tag it with template {{userspace draft}} can or move it to their sandbox. If it's overly promotional, stubbify it, but please retain any cited sources"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:UPNOT

What is the procedure for proposing additional items to be added to What may I not have in my user pages so that they can be reported and removed? Specifically, userboxes that claim unearned service or longevity awards, WikiProject membership, or administrator status. Celjski Grad (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we should remove these userboxes completely (ie we should discontinue them), or are you saying we need clarification on when to remove (example: the user is lying about being an admin)? Blueboar (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Likely the latter, distributing the unearned qualifier over the whole list. Anomie⚔ 19:05, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok… to address each of these individually:

1) I don’t think there is such a thing as an “unearned” Wikiproject userbox. They are not earned. Anyone can join or leave a Wikiproject at any time.

2) I would hesitate to remove Longevity/Service userboxes… It may be that they are counting years of editing as an anon IP, or under a previous user name… and so it isn’t always clear that they are not “earned”.

3) If a user is falsely claiming to be an Admin, we definitely should remove the userbox… and should probably report the user at ANI. Blueboar (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

(Despite point 2, there are cases where it is abundantly clear that they were not earned.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:28, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I would still suggest going to their talk page and asking them why they are claiming to have been around for so long… and if they don’t have a reasonable response, then I would remove. Blueboar (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Under which policy could a user remove or report such false valor from being displayed on another user’s page? This is the reason for my request to add to UPNOT. Celjski Grad (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

To be honest, out of all the things that we could be doing to build the encyclopaedia, policing other users' service awards seems a pretty low priority. Despite the appearance of the service ribbons, this is Wikipedia, not the military. The only claim in your initial post that is a real concern is falsely claiming administrator or other advanced permissions, which is covered by WP:FAKEADMIN. —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 06:02, 23 August 2026 (UTC)