This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
Blacklist curly quote?
Per MOS:CURLY, we should almost always use straight quotes in titles. There are currently ~20 articles with curly quotes in the title, and for a while I was moving one every few days to use the proper symbol, indicating that the rule is being rampantly ignored. I suggest we enforce it by adding ’ (which seems to be much more common than the other characters) to the title blacklist, with a custom error message and possibly with restrictions on namespace. Thoughts? * Pppery *it has begun...04:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize I'm late to the discussion, but I would like to raise an objection—redirects.
As an example, the page Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (with the curly mark; redirects to Alice's Adventures in Wonderland) received about 48 pageviews in the 90 days before 28 June 2024. I'd say that's more than enough people to accomodate. They're finding the page by using the curly apostrophe, and that means that the redirects are useful. If the redirects don't exist, then a user will simply be shown a confusing and unhelpful 404 page.
On the date of 31 May 2024's featured article highlight, where the page Hundred Years' War was linked to (although it was not the featured article itself), there were 209 pageviews of the redirect with the curly mark (Hundred Years’ War), even though the redirect itself was not linked to. I don't know exactly what this means, but the redirect here is also clearly very useful.
Many of the redirects do already exist, but for future articles (and several current articles) they may not. That means that users have to ask someone with permissions to create the page, which, unfortunately, people usually don't take time to do, meaning that the redirect doesn't get created, meaning THE END OF THE WORLD!
The Wikipedia search bar converts curly marks to straight marks (just like how it's case-insensitive) if needed, but if an exact match exists instead (such as a redirect) it will take the user there instead; so some of these pageviews might have been okay even without the redirects. However, links and direct URLs are not converted, resulting in the confusion I was talking about earlier.
I suggest that the protection level for the ’ mark should at least be leveled down to allow autoconfirmed users to create the page, so that redirects with curly apostrophes can be created. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ]21:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Star Mississippi made a reference to salting in the SPI, but I don't think that anything was ever salted; this gave me an idea to ask for action here. I think that there was significant discussion, with multiple editors expressing concern over this activity. From where I see it, blacklisting should be a net positive. Thanks for considering. —Alalch E.14:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I misread the logs and thought @CactusWriter had SALTed it.
The legitimate Aleksandar Trajkovski article greatly limits what we're able to do here without interfering with its talk page archives and other subpages, and (more hypothetically) nominations for deletion. (Lots of other titles containing "Trajkovski", too.) I suppose we could blacklist everywhere except in the talk and Wikipedia namespaces. Trying to look for disambiguators would be futile.Initial analysis here. Are the draft pages (deleted) and/or user pages (not deleted) problematic? Anything whose creation should have been prevented that doesn't show up on that list? —Cryptic15:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a Cyrillic-titled draft at Draft:Александар Саша Трајковски, so perhaps what should also be prevented, that is not in the list, are the following: Mainspace page with titles including Александар Саша Трајковски, Александар С. Трајковски, Саша Трајковски. In general, variations without "Aleksandar", i.e. Saša Trajkovski, Sasha Trajkovski and Саша Трајковски seem plausible to me.Creation of drafts and user pages is not a real concern in my view. Blacklisting everywhere except in talk and project would be great, and blacklisting only in mainspace seems OK to me as well.(Side note: the oldest page in the list is from 2010). —Alalch E.17:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first two non-Aleksandar variations are caught by the sa\w+a\b alternative. Cyrillic titles would have to be blacklisted separately, and since false positives are less harmful here - we can handle edit requests to create redirects, which is all they should ever be - they can be covered with something like (Александар|Саша).*Трајковски. Blacklisting in mainspace only is difficult, since the match is done on the full page title and mainspace titles are defined by not having any of a long list of other namespaces' prefixes; but easy enough to allow Draft: in addition to the Talk: and Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: mentioned in the description of my query. —Cryptic17:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request preemptive creation protection of "American Communist Party"
After a unanimous vote for deletion. The same author of the deleted page has started recreating the same content in different titles. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That regex won't match any of your redlinks (nor any other pages that have been created, whether existing or deleted). quarry:query/85144 shows hits for Wikipedia talk:discord\/talk.*. No strong position on the merits, but they do look slim to me. —Cryptic04:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[tT] isn't needed either; the regexes here are case-insensitive.Having looked at the deleted content, this looks like the sort of abuse that'll just move to a different title. See Wikipedia:Salting is usually a bad idea. That said, still I don't have a strong objection if some other admin wants to do this. —Cryptic04:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think this is that useful, those disrupters will just create a different title - and I'd rather have them create nonsense buried there where it is easy to find, delete, and block them. — xaosfluxTalk11:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Description of suggested change:
The first two entries in the "excessive punctuation and repetition" section look like they're trying to use lookahead assertions, but they use incorrect syntax; lookahead assertions should use equals signs where these rules use less-than signs. However, it's not really necessary to use lookahead assertions here anyway, so we should just replace these malformed lookahead assertions with strings of exclamation marks.
No, they don't look like they're trying to use lookahead assertions. They look like - and are - negative lookbehind assertions. [!?‽¿]{3}(?<!!!!) matches any sequence of three !, ?, ‽, or ¿ characters in a row except three of ! - for example, Foo??? and Foo?!! and Foo?!‽ are all matched, but Foo!!! deliberately is not. It's not immediately obvious why that behavior is intended, but it clearly is; and your patterns would for example forbid Foo‽‽!!!!! but not Foo!!!!!‽‽, which is nonsensical. The move-only pattern works the same for sequences of two or more. —Cryptic20:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, for some reason I didn't read the first exclamation mark in each bracket as part of the assertion syntax—I read it as part of the assertion text itself. TTWIDEE (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Protected edit request on 9 October 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Error message for accidental creation of WikiProjects in article space
The rule WikiProject:.* doesn't specify a custom error message, so it will just use the default error message. How about we create a more helpful error message with text like 'You cannot create WikiProject:Foo—creation of pages with titles starting with "WikiProject:" is forbidden because WikiProjects are meant to go in the Wikipedia namespace. Please create the new WikiProject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Foo instead.'? TTWIDEE (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Protected edit request on 29 October 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I tried to create a new article today called Dissenting POWs: From Vietnam’s Hoa Lo Prison to America Today and found that it is on the title blacklist. I have the article ready to go in my Sandbox. Please remove this title from the blacklist. Also, can you help me understand how this happened?JohnKent (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Diff. We won't be getting any answers out of the admin who added it, and the pages must've been oversighted (surprise!) since there's no matches in the deletion or move logs for the preceding year. —Cryptic20:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That inspired me to dig deeper. And I found phab:T380322, which I realized was a security vulnerability, but didn't get me anywhere closer to the goal. Then I looked at their logged actions at the time and found a pretty interesting picture. And, well, I found the intended target there. Doesn't change my opinion that the rule is targeting a long-gone vandal and so not that useful. But also harmless, I guess. * Pppery *it has begun...20:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Protected edit request on 19 November 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
@Pppery It seems like you've removed the one with three dots rather than the one with four dots by mistake, so you've actually unblocked some page moves that were previously blocked. TTWIDEE (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of illustrates why I haven't been actioning these requests - it works as-is, the changes shouldn't have any effect, but making any sort of change might break it. —Cryptic20:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit request 1 December 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Description of suggested change: Since the title Wikipaedo has been repeatedly recreated and deleted per WP:G10, then SALTed from creation, I think that we should make some changes to the Wikipedo regex to accommodate spellings from other varieties of English (such as paedo), as well as other ways it can be spelled, such as with the Æ ligature.
