MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist


 * The following instructions were copied from mw:Extension:Title Blacklist.

The disallowed titles list is maintained as a system message MediaWiki:Titleblacklist.

This page consists of regular expressions, each on a separate line. For example:

Foo  Bar #No one should create article about it

There is no need to use "^" at the beginning and "$" at the end; these are added automatically.

Each entry may also contain optional attributes, enclosed in  and divided by
 * autoconfirmed — only non-autoconfirmed users are unable to create/upload/move such pages
 * noedit — users are also unable to edit this page
 * casesensitive — don't ignore case when checking title for being disallowed
 * errmsg — the name of the message that should be displayed instead of standard

When the action is blocked, one of the following messages is displayed together with the filter row (as $1): titleblacklist-forbidden-edit, titleblacklist-forbidden-move, titleblacklist-forbidden-new-account or titleblacklist-forbidden-upload. Generic filenames have their own custom error message, MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-custom-imagename.

There is also MediaWiki:Titlewhitelist and a global title blacklist.

Only administrators, page movers and template editors can override this list on all actions. When they override this list when creating or editing a page, MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-warning is displayed. Account creators can override this list on account creations only.

The disallowed usernames list is handled at Title blacklist by adding entries with the parameter.

Fix for the "nine consecutive capital letters" entry in userspace
Description of suggested change: I'm not sure exactly how this would be done, but could someone edit this to make it so that the filter .*\p{Lu}(\P{L}*\p{Lu}){9}.* it has begun... 15:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If there aren't too many pages that you want moved, you can ping me of which ones that would be, and I'll move them. SilverLocust 💬 22:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ❌ you may file an edit request on the page you want to move asking it to be moved. — xaosflux  Talk 23:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:RM/TR would be the more usual place to request a Titleblacklist override. SilverLocust 💬 23:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

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)
 * We already have a similar in spirit rule for blacklisting full-width characters, and have since 2008 (MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-custom-fullwidth). * Pppery * it has begun... 04:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've created an error message at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-custom-curly-quote (not currently used). The exact rule to add would be . Does this seem reasonable to anyone else here? * Pppery * it has begun...  02:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I intend to add this in a few days if there are no further comments. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 23:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I recognize I'm late to the discussion, but I would like to raise an objection&mdash;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. &mdash; gabldotink [ talk &#124; contribs &#124; global account ] 21:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added the curly quote to Template:New page DYM so titles with curly quotes show a "did you mean" box even if no redirect exists like Second Hundred Years’ War. Does that satisfy you? And for the record the search bar in my interface will automatically take you to the version with the straight quote even if no redirect exists. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Remove string annamalai
The topic is notable, but why is it on the blacklist? Toadette ( Let's talk together! ) 21:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * See the entry in WP:DEEPER and Talk:K. Annamalai. Curbon7 (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Obscure and unusual blacklisted terms
I can't help but notice that some of the blacklisted terms are either quite obscure or pretty much outdated as of 2024. I get why topics like BFDI and [blatantly offensive terms] are blacklisted. However, I don't fully understand how seemingly random and not-so-obvious terms like  and   (and their variations) get blacklisted, especially those lacking any rationale. What are the rationales behind a lot of the "obscure" and unusual blacklisted terms (such as those already mentioned) and whether some of them should remain blacklisted at this moment? AlphaBeta135 talk  15:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Usually because some specific spammer in the past tried unusually hard to create an article with that title. For the chaos entries the target appears to have been Sockpuppet investigations/Jude Enemy. Since that specific SPI has no hits in over a decade it's probably safe to remove, but what's the point? The punctuation entry you listed is related to Grawp according to the comment a few entries below it, but in any case two commas in a row is never a valid title so there's no reason to remove it.  There are definitely some other removables of the first sort, and some more where the blacklisting has failed, i.e there's still a blacklist entry trying to stop the creation of Ryan Hampton (writer), which was created circa 2019 and survived AfD. * Pppery * it has begun...  19:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Other rules that appear to have failed:
 * (Aalisha Panwar)
 * (Janhvi Kapoor)
 * (Alexa Curtis (entrepreneur))
 * (SahBabii) - I think, as I have no idea what the intended target for this blacklisting is.
 * * Pppery * it has begun... 04:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * (Kobi Arad) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * (Samuel Somerville, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football) * Pppery * it has begun... 21:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Here are more blacklisted terms that I either find a little outdated or not very straightforward:
 * AlphaBeta135 talk  22:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * BU Rob13 is the name of a user who has since courtesy vanished. It's probably not needed years later, but is harmless.
 * I have no idea what the purpose of "ge orrg" is - it dates back to 2008 and can probably be removed, but is also unlikely to appear in a valid title and hence harmless
 * 'H' is presumably a Grawp remnant of some sort and can probably be removed.
 * "Mixing Sailors" is exactly what it says on the tin. Whatever this is has apparently been going on for years, i.e Mixing Sailors (created 2010), Mixing.Sailors (created 2015), Mixing×Sailors (created 2017). There have been evasions like Draft:Mïxing/Saïlors as recently as 2023 so I think it still servers a purpose.
 * Untold News was trying to stop spam on a specific organization, deleted as Untold News, Draft:Untold News, etc. I probably would not have blacklisted this with so few deletions, but it still makes sense.
 * Impressions Business Professional - see Draft:First Impressions for the Business Professional, Draft:First Impressions for the Business Professional.(BOOK), etc.
 * HIGH19.com is apparently for Sockpuppet investigations/Dsdgfgsa/Archive, which seems to have died, but unless this website becomes notable there's no point to removing it.
 * Brian Peppers - see Deletion review/Log/2007 February 21/Brian Peppers. I think its best this mess not be unearthed.
 * Vandalism is Terrorism is apparently a title one specific page-move vandal used over a few days in 2008. I doubt it ever did anything useful. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * BU Rob13 is here for good reasons I would rather not elaborate on. I would not recommend removing it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what the purpose of "ge orrg" is - it dates back to 2008 and can probably be removed, but is also unlikely to appear in a valid title and hence harmless
 * 'H' is presumably a Grawp remnant of some sort and can probably be removed.
 * "Mixing Sailors" is exactly what it says on the tin. Whatever this is has apparently been going on for years, i.e Mixing Sailors (created 2010), Mixing.Sailors (created 2015), Mixing×Sailors (created 2017). There have been evasions like Draft:Mïxing/Saïlors as recently as 2023 so I think it still servers a purpose.
 * Untold News was trying to stop spam on a specific organization, deleted as Untold News, Draft:Untold News, etc. I probably would not have blacklisted this with so few deletions, but it still makes sense.
 * Impressions Business Professional - see Draft:First Impressions for the Business Professional, Draft:First Impressions for the Business Professional.(BOOK), etc.
 * HIGH19.com is apparently for Sockpuppet investigations/Dsdgfgsa/Archive, which seems to have died, but unless this website becomes notable there's no point to removing it.
 * Brian Peppers - see Deletion review/Log/2007 February 21/Brian Peppers. I think its best this mess not be unearthed.
 * Vandalism is Terrorism is apparently a title one specific page-move vandal used over a few days in 2008. I doubt it ever did anything useful. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * BU Rob13 is here for good reasons I would rather not elaborate on. I would not recommend removing it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Failed rules
The following rules appear to have failed:
 * 1)  (added by  in 2017 - the subject it is targeting now exists as Kobi Arad after being accepted by  at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive344 / Administrators' noticeboard/Archive344.
 * 2)   added by MER-C in 2017) - the subject it is targeting now exists as Aalisha Panwar after being accepted by  at AfC.
 * 3)   added by  in 2018 - the subject it is targeting now exists at Janhvi Kapoor, which was only ever extended-confirmed protected and has been stable as an article since 2019.
 * 4)   added by  in 2020 - the subject it is targeting now exists at Samuel Somerville after discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 165
 * 5)   added by MER-C in 2017) - article subject exists at Ryan Hampton (writer) and survived Articles for deletion/Ryan Hampton (writer)
 * 6)   (added by MER-C in 2017 - article subject exists at SahBabii).
 * 7)   (added by MER-C in 2020) - subject now exists at Alexa Curtis (entrepreneur) after Administrators' noticeboard/Archive345)

Is there any reason these rules shouldn't be deleted? They make it harder to create talk page archives, deletion discussions, etc. and provide no apparent additional value. The last one also matches many people other than the intended target. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 00:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say "failed", the point isn't to stop the articles ever being created, just to stop the sockpuppets repeatedly recreating unsuitable pages. If they've been created by someone in good faith and also reviewed before being moved over the salted titles, in my view that's what's supposed to happen and so the rules were actually successful. One thing though: I would carefully check the histories of the articles created after salting to ensure there's not a hijacked article in the history, that's a common way of evading salting and history splits/merges may be necessary. Otherwise I say go ahead and remove the entries, they're no longer needed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm more cynical than you are. And Special:PermaLink/839309087 for SahBabii is an outright failure IMO Anyway, that's irrelevant now, and none of these seem to have been hijacks. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  16:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 00:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)