Wikipedia talk:User pages

Articles reviewing

Good day, Trust you are having a wonderful day Please I want to make some enquiries as regards the Wikipedia page. I noticed recently it takes about a month or so to review any edit on Wikipedia which is kinda different from previous years I would love to ask what causes the delay Ayyuha Sideeq (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Table in UPYES

Does anyone know why WP:UPYES has wrapped the bullet list inside a table? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Not me. It was probably an attempt at better presentation. It might be able to be improved? SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The table can be traced back fifteen years to this edit, although it's been reformatted a few times since. Significantly, the edit summary directs us to Special:Permalink/350066038#Proposed rename and copyedit. FT2 (talk · contribs) hasn't edited in over seven months. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll remove the table formatting, then. Thanks for digging that up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

RfC for proposal including changes to UPNOT and UPYES

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion § RfC: Replacing U5 with a primarily procedural mechanism. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Strange construction in article

"Users with a strong editing record and/or most of their contribution edits outside their user space should be given a little more leeway in this regard than users whose edits consist solely or mostly of user space edits or promotional-style activity"

It's missing the other half of the 'and/or' after "their user space". I can guess what it might have said, but it should probably be formally corrected. I looked back through page history and it's been like that for, well, at least fifteen years... cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

It seems mostly fine to me. The two sides of the "and/or" are "a strong editing record" and "most of their contribution edits outside their user space". "contribution edits" is a bit weird though, unless there's some definition of "non-contribution edits" somewhere. What do you think it should say? Anomie⚔ 20:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I decided to indulge the 'obsessive' portion of my nature and dug deeper. The original construct as added to the article in June 2007 was "Users with most of their contribution edits outside their user space should be given more leeway in this regard than users whose edits consist solely or mostly of user space edits." which is quite clear as is, albeit 'contribution edits' as noted is a bit odd. Perhaps a clearer form would be "Users for whom most of their contributions/edits are outside their user space should be given more leeway in this regard than users whose edits consist solely or mostly of user space edits." - that's just a first crack at it. I don't think the additional 'or promotional-style activity' example is even needed, as promotional activity is a red flag irrespective of the editing history, imo. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

STALEDRAFT: "potential", "problematic" need clarification

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)