Wiktionary talk:Usernames and user pages

Real names with hyphens or apostrophes

I think we should allow hyphens and apostrophes in the case that they're part of the person's real name, and the username is only reflecting this. While we don't actively encourage users to use their real names here, we certainly don't want to discourage them to, and one of the nice things about MediaWiki is that it makes it possible. (I actually feel roughly the same way about diacritics, but with diacritics at least I see the motivation. With hyphens and apostrophes it seems like overkill. Especially, usernames with hyphens are less confusing than usernames with spaces.) —Ruakh_TALK 00:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Babel boxes

Why should Babel boxes be allowed when they're just as useless as other userboxes? Angr 14:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: Because that's what we voted on (see Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-08/Babel userboxes). Long answer: They're not allowed when they're just as useless as other useboxes; they're only allowed in the specific case that they're useful, which is always. ;-)   —Ruakh_TALK 19:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. The only time I can imagine Babel boxes being useful is when a user here can't speak English and wants to notify other users of that fact and of what language(s) he needs to be addressed in instead. For users who can speak English, it's utterly irrelevant for English Wiktionary what other languages they speak. And since Wikimedia projects don't make decisions by voting, that poll is invalid anyway. Angr 14:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's useful if you're looking for someone who speaks a specific language, which happens a lot. It's also useful if you're trying to give an example that the other person will understand, and English examples won't work. It's also useful in that it emphasizes what Wiktionary is about: all words in all languages. —Ruakh_TALK 16:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new wording

The possibly acceptable parts of the current guideline boil down to:

1. No offensive or illegible usernames

   as these hinder discussions.

   It is acceptable to have an illegible user name if you have a legible signature; you must change an username considered offensive.

2. No controversial userpage content

   as it does not help the project and can lead to unnecessary disagreement between editors.

   Controversial or offensive userpages may be blanked or deleted.

3. {{Babel}} boxes are encouraged, other userboxes should not be used

   because it was voted thusly.

   Other userboxes may be created if the community agrees on their utility.

• Those who persist in violating these guidelines may be blocked indefinitely, but a reasonable attempt to resolve the situation will be made first.

Shall we start discussing how this can be made acceptable, given that it seems unlikely to be deleted. Conrad.Irwin 10:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, on all counts. —Ruakh_TALK 19:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've only just seen this, but I too agree with all the above. Thryduulf 15:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others - kept

Kept. See archived discussion. 09:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Usernames on other projects.

Currently, some of our advice is contradictory: we advocate Latin-alphabet usernames, but also recommend using the same username across WMF sites (presumably including non-Latin-alphabet sites, where most users have usernames in the local alphabet). It would be nice to be able to give clear guidance on this, especially since users from non-English projects (whom this would affect) are more likely to have difficulty expressing questions and understanding advice at Wiktionary:Information desk. —Ruakh_TALK 18:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. We should encourage users to have at lease part of their signature use Latin characters for ease of reading by English speakers, but there should be no requirement of the username in this regard. With the coming of SUL it will probably be unenforceable anyway. Thryduulf 15:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, with SUL we will have many users that don't have Latin usernames; this policy (advice) is unworkable. The exclusion recommended should be names containing @ or whatever, or otherwise not being names. (somewhat murkily worded) If a user is creating a username here it should be Latin/Roman letters, but we should make it clear somehow that usernames from other wikts/wikis are okay. Robert Ullmann 15:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I was gonna basically say the same thing. I've logged onto the Wiktionary in Japanese, Hindi, Persian (etc.) to fix interwikis and stuff, but they don't delete or block my username for using the Latin alphabet. The point is well taken though, about being difficult to type. "Back to the drawing board" as they say. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion regarding offensive usernames

I've just started a discussion at WT:BP#Offensive usernames and how to handle them that would benefit from the opinion of those who watch this page. Thryduulf 15:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Currently

Has there been a discussion/consensus on the use of the {{currently}} user box. If not, I'd like to start that off by saying I see no problem with it and would like it allowed. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 15:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I just checked through the userpages of the 50 most recently-sysopped active admins (i.e., Wiktionary:Administrators#administrators from Cynewulf (talk • contribs) onwards) to see what sort of illegal userboxes we're using. {{currently}} is on a bunch of them; likewise {{wikipedia}} (and its ilk). We should therefore allow them both. {{Word of the day}} and {{userpage}} are also both quite common, though I'm not sure if they count as "userboxes". If so, then we should allow them; if not, then I'm not sure if this page needs to address them. {{User unified login}} and {{MultiLicensePD}} each appeared once, but again, possibly not "userboxes". —Ruakh_TALK 04:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Added {{currently}} and the sister project boxes to the allowed list. I wouldn't not have considered those other templates as "userboxes". If no one has a problem with that, we can mentioned the distinction on the main page. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 15:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

SUL

Would anyone object to a Single-User Login box like w:Template:User SUL Box (see a non-templatized example at User:Arseny1992)? It tells people the project of one's main account. I think it could be a more general and esthetically pleasing for many users to do this than {{User Wikipedia}} and {{User Commons}}. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 01:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, you could transwiki it and have it ready in about two minutes. Mglovesfun (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

See {{User SUL}}. --Bequw → τ 20:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Userboxes

I think we should try and expand the userbox policy to be clearer and more inclusive. At the moment WT:USER only allows userboxes for languages, scripts, time zones, and sister project boxes, as well as the {{currently}} template. As I see it, userboxes fall into these categories:

1. Languages. ("This user speaks English") These are allowed at the moment, but it's not exactly clear what qualifies as a language.
2. Dialects. ("This user speaks American/Canadian/British/Australian English") Many users have unofficial userboxes that say things like this, but there are no officially allowed userboxes that describe what dialects are spoken.
3. Programming ("This user is able to work with Javascript/Mediawiki templates/Python/CSS") As far as I know, these are not allowed.
4. Profession relevant to Wiktionary. ("This user is a professional translator/lexicographer/etymologist") {{User translator}} went to RFD a while ago and was deleted for consistency.
5. Timezones. These are allowed.
6. Knowledge of phonetic alphabets. ("This user knows IPA/SAMPA/enPR") We have templates for IPA, which are categorized under User scripts, but none for any other phonetic alphabet.
7. Wiktionary position. ("This user is an administrator/checkuser/bureaucrat") {{User admin}} is currently at RFDO, doesn't look like it's going to be kept.
8. Sister project boxes ("This user has created a global account/has a page on Wikipedia") Allowed.
9. Other-wiki position. ("This user is a Wikipedia admin/French Wiktionary admin/Global sysop/Global rollbacker".)
10. Specialized knowledge.
11. Works on... (in general)
12. Is currently working on... (currently covered by {{currently}}) Allowed.
13. Maintains X. ("This user runs Examplebot.")
14. Browser/OS. Could be useful for people to know.
15. Wiki-related opinions.
16. Useless junk/personal information. ("This user believes that he is a penguin.")

Personally, I think we should allow userboxes for all but the last two. Many of these could be very helpful. Thoughts? --Yair rand (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

My view is that we should allow userboxes for languages (anything we allow as an L2 language header), Scripts (including IPA, but not SAMPA or enPR). I'm uncertain about dialects, I can see the benefit of ones like "British English", "Brazilian Portuguese" and ones that are classed as languages by some and dialects by others, but not "Cockney" or "Texan" - I don't know how to draw the line though. Equally I'm not sure of the benefit of timezone boxes. Anything else you want to say about yourself you can do so without userboxes. If people want an administrator we have noticeboards for that, if people want a user who knows java then use the grease pit. So, from your list I'd allow 1 and 6, with maybe 2 and 5 as well. I don't see how allowing others would be of benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Userboxes should be allowed if they provide information that is useful to a user's role on the wiki. All the above except the last do that. The second-last option doesn't really make much sense to Wiktionary as there isn't really a 'political' element here like there is on Wikipedia with all the different philosophies towards editing. —CodeCat 21:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I would happily allow 2, 5, 7-9, 11-13. The others just don't seem relevant enough to me. --Neskaya … gawonisgv? 04:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

WT:UBV says all boxes are forbidden except after discussion. I assume that there was discussion since that vote to allow the ones that Yair lists as already allowed? Links to such would be interesting. In any event, I'd be willing to allow any that has both (1) either (1.a) a small finite number of possibilities (like enwikt user group (admin, etc.)) or (1.b) both (1.b.i) a small finite number of possibilities per userpage (like dialects spoken) and (1.b.ii) a generic template rather than a separate template for each possibility (so if we have a dialect box, and people can include the dialect name as a parameter, fine, but not a separate template for each dialect). This criterion 1 is simply to prevent an explosion of templates. And also (2) relevance, interpreted broadly, so I suppose allowing all items on the above list except the last. For example, my criterion 1 would not allow separate box templates for "inclusionist" and "deletionist" (as on enWP), as that would fail both 1a and 1bii, but would allow a box template for 'wiki philosophy", with users adding their own as a parameter. Similarly, I really see no reason at all to have separate box templates for different languages: just have a generic "This user can speak {{{lang}}} at a {{#switch:{{{level}}}|1=...|2=...}} level" in English and be done with it. Maybe languages can be an exception, though, simply because they're long grandfathered in.​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of a fill-in-your-own-philosophy box because it might encourage people to fly a flag or to take sides. As it's not a finite set, I don't see much point in putting it in a standard box either. Equinox ◑ 10:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm about 9 years late to this particular party! (But will stay for the music, if any.) Where's this discussion at - has there been a formal vote on the 16 items listed by User:Yair rand? Personally, I find User:Msh210's criterion of relevance most relevant. Using that criterion, I support including the following marked "+", and oppose including those marked "-":

1. + Languages, e.g. "This user speaks English". From a fixed list of languages with ISO codes.
2. + Dialects, e.g. " - dialects: American, Canadian"). As an optional suffix to the language parameter. From a fixed list of dialects (with codes from …?).
3. + Programming, e.g. "This user is able to work with Javascript, Mediawiki templates, Python, CSS". From a fixed list of coding languages (with codes from …?).
4. + Profession relevant to Wiktionary, e.g. "This user is a professional|experienced|amateur translator|lexicographer|etymologist|linguist". From two fixed lists of terms.
5. + Timezones, e.g. "UMT+10:00". This tells one not to expect immediate replies if one's timezone is, say, UMT-2:00. In a standard format: "UMT{+|-}hh:mm".
6. + Knowledge of phonetic alphabets, e.g. "This user knows IPA, SAMPA, XSAMPA, CXS, enPR"). This lets one know if one can code phonetics similarly to the other user.
7. + Wiktionary position. Indicates user's capacity to help one achieve a Wiktionary-related goal.
8. - Sister project boxes. Mostly irrelevant to Wiktionary.
9. - Other-wiki position. Totally irrelevant to Wiktionary.
10. + Specialized knowledge relevant to Wiktionary, e.g. "This user has written a reference grammar of w:Diyari". Helps one decide "Can this user help me?"
11. + Generally works on … (within Wiktionary, of course), e.g. "This user generally documents spoken w:Malay and its dialects".
12. + Is currently working on … (within Wiktionary, of course), e.g. "This user is currently recording the dialect of w:Malay spoken in w:Trengganu".
13. - Maintains [tool] X. Best stated on the relevant tool page.
14. - Browser/OS. Mostly irrelevant to Wiktionary.
15. - Wiki-related opinions. Best stated on the relevant discussion page.
16. - Personal information and other trivia. Totally irrelevant to Wiktionary.

yoyo (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

should be constructive toward the goals of Wiktionary

Does this add anything particularly useful? I mean if my user page were 'Hello my name is Martin', that would be acceptable, but not constructive towards the goals of Wiktionary. Perhaps a reword is in order. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's true. You do not respect the principles founding of wikimedia. It is a shame and a disgrace to the family wikimedia, which must be an encyclopedia without fixed rules. You set rules such that nobody can have user page. Of course an user page do nothing benefit to wiktionary, it is an USER page (which would disagree to wiktionnary admisibilité criterion). --Jitrixis (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Quoting above "It is a shame and a disgrace to the family wikimedia, which must be an encyclopedia without fixed rules". Erm no, this is just bull. While Wikimedia does not have fixed rules, it does have rules. Our rules just change over time like any rules, they are not fixed for an infinite amount of time. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary is a dictionary, but it's also the community that's building that dictionary. If a user-page contains information that's constructive in building the community, I think that counts as "constructive toward(s) the goals of Wiktionary". At least in U.S. culture, introducing oneself is a constructive thing for a member of a community to do. (This only applies if you're part of the community, of course. If someone doesn't have any edits, then they aren't part of the community — they effectively don't exist — and a user-page that only states their name is not constructive.) But yeah, we could definitely reword this. —Ruakh_TALK 22:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

IMO the rule should be "not destructive" rather than "(actively) constructive". A page that just states someone's name is fine by me. A page that is deliberately trolling or promotional is not. Equinox ◑ 22:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe something like "related to your work on Wiktionary" would be better. That is the reason we don't allow user boxes, after all. SemperBlotto also seems to be in the habit of deleting the user pages of new users when they have nothing Wiktionary-related on them. The delete message he uses is "contributions first, then a user page" or something along those lines. —CodeCat 20:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Not visually annoying

I'm surprised this page doesn't say that signatures shouldn't be visually annoying (e.g. some blinking red and yellow monstrosity chosen to annoy people). Equinox ◑ 22:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be good having that. Luckily the English Wiktionary has a tradition for austere signatures. tEH Un_GOl₁^aNT₀rz (i r00lz dis weeky)

That has got to be the best signature I've seen here so far. I dare you to keep it! At least for halloween! —CodeCat 23:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

WERE CAN I DOWN LOAD DIS SIGGIE PLZ???????? Equinox ◑ 20:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

"Speedy deletion" link

@Kephir: I thought the link to the speedy deletion policy was relevant to this policy. Why did you remove this link from the text of this policy? Jarble (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand what happened now: I accidentally linked to Wikimedia Commons instead of Wiktionary. Jarble (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on a user's right to remove content from their own page

I propose adding the verbiage: "The choice of whether to delete comments or to archive is at the discretion of whose user space it is in; if a user removes a comment from their own talk page it should not be restored." Purplebackpack89 01:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I propose that we not add your "verbiage". —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Other than you not liking me, what's your reasoning? This would bring us in line with the talk page policies on most other Wikimedia projects. (Also, c'mon, it's clearly definition #2 of verbiage!) Purplebackpack89 03:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

It just harms admins' abilities to keep track of warnings and corrections, which editors may be embarrassed by and want to remove, but which help us in managing problem editors in a coordinated way. By the way, this explanation is not for your sake, but for any future readers here. I'm not wasting any more of my time engaging with you. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not taking a real position here but I think (given previous discussions, and not just Purple — and myself being a serial deleter) it might be nice to establish policy on this point. ciao, Equinox ◑ 20:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I would add BTW that anyone with basic admin rights can look at the history of deleted pages and see what was there, rather like the typical "diff" view of page history. So nothing is really lost. But typical non-admin users can't see what we did. Equinox ◑ 20:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)