Wikipedia talk:User pages

STALEDRAFT #2, #3 and #6 use the terms "potential", "problematic" and "problematic even if blanked", but the guideline gives me no handle on when these terms apply.

Clearly, "potential" is a lesser criterion than notability, but that insight is hardly helpful.

Similarly, any page not fit for mainspace is "problematic" in some way, but that also gives me no traction, as it amounts to "not #1". Three examples are given, but that doesn't help determine what other cases are covered by this term. "Taggable offence if in mainspace" is the best I can come up with, but that, again, isn't helpful, it amounts to "non-notable, otherwise mainspace material".

Lastly, what makes a page "problematic even if blanked"? It's a lesser criterion that WP:REVDEL, obviously.

Help? Paradoctor (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Could you give examples?

”Problematic even if blanked” includes “contains copyright infringements” or BLP violations. It is like REVDEL, but REVDEL is for things at the CSD SPEEDY level of being objective and uncontestable. “Problematic” includes nonobjective problems, and so sending to MfD is suitable. It’s less than the REVDEL criteria. It is not really justifiable to call “problematic” a criterion, as it is vague and subjective. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

An example of “problematic” that used to come up at MfD was perceived promotional intent by the author. This could also have been perceived COI. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

In the section, the table, Wikipedia:User pages#Excessive unrelated content, contains a lot of non-functioning shortcuts. I think a lot of editors don’t appreciate differences between WP:SHORTCUT, WP:LINKBOX, and template:anchor. As they have been stable and broken for sometime, it is evidence that they are not useful, and I suggest removing them. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify expected handling of TAs in relation to user pages and sandboxes.

1. Should temporary accounts be allowed to have or create user pages? Temporary accounts are, by design, not meant to persist as long-term identities. I cannot find any guidance at Wikipedia:Temporary accounts or Wikipedia:User pages addressing whether TAs should have user pages at all.

   Examples: User:~2025-31031-14, User:~2025-31737-69

2. Should user pages belonging to temporary accounts be tagged as sockpuppets when they've been blocked? Historically, IP editors were not tagged as sockpuppet accounts, and it's unclear if TAs should be treated differently.

   Example: User:~2025-33691-15

3. When a temporary account becomes blocked, should their user sandbox(es) be deleted?

   Example: User:~2025-33077-51/sandbox (This TA was not blocked, my mistake)

Is there existing guidance on these points, or should the page be updated to include it? Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

As for #1, the question is not should they but may they. The answer to that one is obviously "yes". TAs are IPs by any other name, and I don't see any reason to treat them any differently.

Also, why can a "temp" account not be long-term? We have a number of users who have contributed from the same IP for many years. 🤷 I think the naming is a bit misleading. They should be called "anon" accounts or "nameless", or something like that. Paradoctor (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

They cannot be long-term because the WMF has implemented them to expire after 90 days. Anomie⚔ 02:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Still no reason to treat them different from IPs, because that's what they are: IP users. Paradoctor (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Tamzin, at Template talk:Reply to#Linking to usertalks for temp accounts, wrote "Temporary accounts ... cannot create userpages". I can't see confirmation of that at WP:TEMPA and a couple of places linked from there although there is mention of vague things that suggest it might apply here. Perhaps Tamzin has experimented and confirmed that a TA cannot create their user page, or maybe cannot even edit it if someone else creates it? Johnuniq (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I checked just now. I couldn't create a userpage, or subpages thereof. But I could create talk subpages. No idea whether that is intentional. Paradoctor (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm sure it is intentional. The plan is that a temporary account is temporary. If people can create a user page or subpage, they would be likely to complain later when they were no longer the creator of those pages (because they would be using a new temporary account or a standard account if registered). If a new editor thinks they might stick around, they should create a standard account ASAP. Also, there should not be a link from the temporary account to their new standard account because such a link would allow hundreds of people to view their IP. Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I could create talk subpages That was what I meant with "intentional". Paradoctor (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

A temp account clearly has to be able to edit their talk. I don't know if WikiMedia has a permission that controls create as well as edit. Perhaps, for simplicity, temp accounts have whatever permission is required to edit their talk, and that also allows creation? At any rate, it wouldn't make much sense to prevent a TA from creating their talk given they can edit it after someone else creates it. Johnuniq (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

We seem to be talking about different things. I'm referring to User talk:foo/bar, not User talk:foo. Paradoctor (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

My attention has been drawn to {{Deceased Wikipedian}} on a user page, where this may be a spoof. Is there precedent for how to handle this? Charles Matthews (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

We cannot assess this without knowing where this occurred. By definition, the template cannot be placed by the user to whom it applies. It's usually added by somebody closely connected to the subject. For example, I added this one myself; I had known the person in real life. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2026 (UTC)