• 21 Aug, 2019

• By, Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Miscellany For Deletion

Pages currently being considered for deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

Wikipedia:Article creation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This article should be merged and redirected into Help:Your first article. Far fewer pages link here and it is very short; any material not found to be duplicative could be moved into that page. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 22:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Is there a bot that can re-thread the links? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Plastic Man (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

No news for this film in four years and the DCEU is officially over with the start of the DCU, therefore this is unlikely to ever be a viable article as per WP:NMFD. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 04:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I normally would lean no on deleting a draft, this one is almost surely not going to become a viable article in the near future. I'm surprised to see this was even revived, and it has not received any major edits outside of an IP since it was restored in August (the restoration nom has not edited it despite said request saying their intentions to do so). As a draft that was last deleted back in 2021, I support deletion because nothing new has come from this and is unlikely to in the near future, and this would likely just wind up back at G13 in six months anyway as a result. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, leave for G13, there is no rush. This draft has no copyright or BLP concerns, which were the reasons to worry about drafts lingering indefinitely. Someone wants to keep this alive, let them, either something will come of it, or it will be delete via G13 later. The biggest negative here is the use of MfD to curate worthless drafts, busywork. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The nominator and the other Delete voter have given excellent arguments why this draft should be Rejected if submitted, rather than merely declined. Drafts on future films are normally declined based on future film notability guidelines. The movie that this draft is about appears to be in some sort of development limbo. Drafts on this film were twice deleted as the work of sockpuppets. This draft has been restored at the request of a good-standing editor who is responsible for its content. If we were to decide to delete this draft, we would either have to develop guidelines for when drafts are deleted (other than by the calendar), or we would randomly delete drafts. In either case, some of them would end up being re-reviewed at DRV. There is no harm in allowing a good-standing editor to have this draft in draft space, and there would be harm in setting a precedent that drafts are sometimes deleted for lack of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since we're here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:TCU9999/Planet Plus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

The page User:TCU9999/Planet Plus is inappropriate for user space because it resembles a fully-formed Wikipedia article. It includes elements such as an infobox, headings, references, and formatting that are typical of mainspace articles. While it may be intended as a draft, user pages are not the proper place for article drafts per WP:USERPAGE & WP:FAKEARTICLE. Drafts belong in either the Draft namespace or a user sandbox.

On top of that, there are serious concerns in regards to the subject’s notability and self-advertising:

The company, Planet Plus, does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. Almost all of the references are primary sources (the company's website, commercial catalogs from the company site, etc.) and complete lack independent, reliable coverage. Since the subject is not notable at all and the userpage is being used to make excessive references back to the same company site and their catalog, there is no need to retain this content in any namespace at all, see WP:NOTPROMO. Nyxion💬 Talk 20:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing but promotional content Codonified (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It’s an acceptable draft. Nominator is wrong to state “Drafts belong in either the Draft namespace or a user sandbox”. Userspace Drafts should be subpages with meaningful titles. Drafts are not required to have a foreseeable pathway to notability and mainspace. The references can be said to be a directory of primary links to porn. If the user wasn’t active, I’d support blanking or soft deletion. I suggest to the user that they blank the draft during long periods of not working on it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SmokeyJoe and thank you for your input on this. You do raise reasonable points and I understand your perspective about the acceptability of userspace drafts, and appreciate the clarification that they are not required to have a foreseeable pathway to notability or mainspace. I would, however, like to expand on why I believe this particular page is problematic and why it might warrant deletion or, at the very least, movement to a more appropriate namespace:

• While, yes, it is true that users can maintain drafts in their userspace, WP:FAKEARTICLE discourages content that resembles a polished article in userspace. This page, with its infobox, headings, and formatting, gives the impression of being a fully-fledged Wikipedia article, which could easily confuse readers who stumble upon it that aren't familiar with Wikipedia and the difference between a user's userspace or the Wikipedia mainspace. Moving this content to the Draft namespace or a sandbox would resolve this issue while allowing the user to continue working on it, if that is their intention (which doesn't seem to be the case) because:
• It's worth noting that this userspace has not been edited since 13 March, 2021, over three years ago.
• The inclusion of links primarily referencing the company's website and its commercial catalog of porngraphy raises significant WP:NOTPROMO concerns. While I understand that userspace drafts don’t necessarily need to meet notability requirements upfront, the content appears to be heavily promotional in tone and focus. It serves to advertise the company rather than establish its encyclopedic value. Retaining such content, even as a draft, sets a poor precedent. Wikipedia is not a web hosting service: WP:NOTWEBHOST.

I agree with your suggestion that the user could blank the draft during periods of inactivity, but given the extended inactivity in this case on the page, I feel that moving the page to the draft namespace or sandbox or better still outright deletion, would be a more appropriate course of action.

~~~~ Nyxion💬 Talk 18:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with a tag. This is a draft, and drafts may be in either draft space or in subpages in user space, and sandboxes are a type of subpage, but not the only permitted type of subpage for userspace drafts. The idea of blanking it so as not to make people think it is an article is silly when there is a template for the purpose. The user should put the {{Userspace draft}} tag on it. It's a draft. Label it as a draft, and that will solve things. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Robert, thank you for writing and for suggesting an alternative way of going about this by adding the {{Userspace draft}} tag on it. While this could clarify the page's status as a draft, I still believe that this approach wouldn't actually fully address the broader concerns about its appropriateness or potential future use.

  WP:STALEDRAFT says that userspace drafts have no expiration date and cannot be deleted solely because of their age. But, when drafts are inactive for an extended period of time such as this one, which hasn’t been edited since 13 March, 2021 (just shy of four years ago), we should evaluate its content and potential. “If the draft has no potential and is problematic even if blanked”, seeking deletion is an appropriate course of action. In this case, the combination of inactivity, promotional tone, and reliance on only primary sources strongly suggests that this content has no potential to become a valid article, even with further development.

  While adding {{Userspace draft}} could clarify the page's status, this would only address surface-level concerns. It doesn't resolve the fundamental issues of promotional tone, reliance on primary sources, or namespace misuse. Blank-and-tag options, as suggested by WP:STALEDRAFT, are better suited for drafts with some potential but may have problematic content. In this case, where the issues go beyond simple formatting or neutrality concerns, deletion, in my opinion, still remains the most policy-aligned solution and I hope this may help to change your mind on keeping it. Nyxion💬 Talk 02:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of the 197 Countries of the World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This is a draft made purely by one (now blocked) editor. It is also just an unfinished list that is already covered by List of sovereign states. History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - The cost of leaving this stupid list alone for six months is zero. It will be auto-eliminated in six months. The cost of discussing the deletion of this list is measured in minutes or hours of volunteer time. Now that we are here, if we delete it, because we are already here, we establish that we will delete useless drafts when they are brought here through mistaken good faith, and will encourage other editors to bring useless drafts here in mistaken good faith. We don't want MFD to take on the responsibility of curating useless drafts, since there are thousands of them that will auto-expire, but will create busywork if we delete them because we are here. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Olufemi Oluyede (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

I created this page unknowingly that during the draft period before moving to the article space and discovered it was created by another editor which make it irrelevant again kindly assist to delete this article. Royalesignature (talk). 05:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tag this with WP:G7. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Redirect to Olufemi Oluyede . This doesn't need speedy deletion because it can be speedily redirected. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vector legacy (2010) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Purely disruptive and exhibitive of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. (Also makes browsers run slow loading it, good grief.) The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The userpage is disruptive and indicates that the user has contempt for Wikipedia's policies and behavioral norms. Cullen328 (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nomination and Cullen328. That page is purely contemptuous. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and block the user if he tries to bring it back in some form. Bduke (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a bad joke. I don't think it is meant to show contempt, but that doesn't matter. It isn't true. The user hasn't made 8,280 edits, let alone engaged in 8,280 edit wars (in which there is no winner). If one views the user page, one can see the MFD banner, but one cannot click on the link to edit the MFD page (this MFD page), so that this MFD page has to be accessed from the MFD list. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've purged the cache for the page which, for me at least, got it from a red link to a blue one that works. Skynxnex (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Is there some guideline about deleting stupid pages that overwhelm browsers? If not, should there be one? We get occasional MFD nominations for pages that abuse or misuse browsers or do stupid things or make the browsers do stupid things. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Bit of a stretch, but maybe WP:SMI, specifically CSS and other formatting codes that disrupt the MediaWiki interface ... making text on the page hard to read or unreadable. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Purely disruptive, especially on mobile where the font size is so large that there is only 2 characters per line. Regarding Robert McClenon, there is a guideline about splitting oversized articles but I doubt there's anything about browser abuse. IMO, such a page could be eligible for WP:G1, WP:G3 or WP:U5 depending on the namespace and content and WP:XfD (or WP:IAR speedy-delete if it needs to go immediately) could sweep up the rest. Otherwise, if this becomes a major problem, we could propose a new speedy deletion criterion for clear browser abuse. QwertyForest (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agreed, purely disruptive, and actively seeking editwars is immature. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: strongly agree with nom's analysis. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 22:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:SNOW delete 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:EC62:8D2D:7E28:E9AB (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: We should not encourage edit warring on Wikipedia. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Alphabet Lore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Definitely not notable. Speedy deletion was repeatedly avoided by very minor edits. It is time to delete this draft. Janhrach (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: Draft:Alphabet Lore (web series) also exists. Janhrach (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ignore: Per WP:NDRAFT. It is the purpose of draftspace to hold stuff like this. Bringing it to MfD is a net negative. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - By the way, nominating a draft for deletion also restarts the six-month calendar. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ge split by middle ring (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

The draft has experienced very little to no improvement in recent edits, and speedy deletion has been postponed by very minor edits. I strongly doubt this topic is notable per GNG. Janhrach (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Postponing WP:G13 is a deliberate feature of G13 and drafts. GNG concerns are irrelevant in drafting. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per the other similar drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: not a criterion for deletion. G13 is available only for long inactivity, and that is for a reason. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 22:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Script U (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

The draft has experienced very little to no improvement in recent edits, and speedy deletion has been postponed by very minor edits. I strongly doubt this topic is notable per GNG. Janhrach (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Postponing WP:G13 is a deliberate feature of G13 and drafts. GNG concerns are irrelevant in drafting. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The amount of community work by these MFD nominations for these Cyrillic letter drafts exceeds any work from leaving them alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: not a criterion for deletion. G13 is available only for long inactivity, and that is for a reason. Please read the criteria for deletion again before making another XFD. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 22:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closer and any future readers of this discussion: if I infer correctly from one reviewer commented on the draft itself, the edit history seems show much quacking. Are we sure this (and any other Cyrillic letter drafts whose history shows quacking) wouldn't be G13-eligible if the sockpuppeteer had abided by their block? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Script A (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

The draft has experienced very little to no improvement in recent edits, and speedy deletion has been postponed by very minor edits. I strongly doubt this topic is notable per GNG. Janhrach (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Postponing WP:G13 is a deliberate feature of G13 and drafts. GNG concerns are irrelevant in drafting. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per User:SmokeyJoe. My own guess is that a second source probably exists, which will make it a notable stub, but that is up to its authors or any other editors who make minor or major tweaks to it. Please stop ragpicking for drafts on Cyrillic letters (or other seemingly useless drafts). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: not a criterion for deletion. G13 is available only for long inactivity, and that is for a reason. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 22:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bashkir Ha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

The draft has experienced very little to no improvement in recent edits, and there seems to be an effort to avoid speedy deletion for abandonment.

I also strongly doubt this topic is notable per GNG. Janhrach (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Effort to avoid appearance of abandonment is proof that it is not abandoned. GNG is irrelevant to draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - See Drafts are not reviewed for notability or sanity. User:Janhrach - Please stop ragpicking for drafts. If they really are abandoned, a bot will nominate them for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: not a criterion for deletion. G13 is available only for long inactivity, and that is for a reason. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 22:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Awilh37/Android vs. Apple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

From my understanding, user essays are only allowed if they're directly about Wikipedia. You better fracking believe that a page called "Android vs. Apple" will almost never be directly about Wikipedia!

To put it more politely, this article isn't about the Android vs. Apple debate in a viewpoint that puts it into the perspective of Wikipedia (like, for example, WP:BFDI does) but rather reads like a kind of soapbox to share your opinions regarding the Android vs. Apple debate (which is what Reddit is for and not us) User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 00:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is an example of what userpages are not for. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - We should be tolerant of weird user pages that are not actually disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. Weakly. Near the edge of balance between userspace being for Wikipedia purposes, and the harm in encouraging people to police others’ userspace. SOAPiness pushes it to delete. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Not necessarily against the purpose of Wikipedia, but not disruptive either. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 22:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Romane Dasse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Taking to WP:MfD as was declined WP:G11. This is your run-of-the-mill vanity page written by ChatGPT, or similar, in which every single sentence is pure promotion. Wikipedia is WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA and we shouldn't be allowing promotional autobiographies in draft or user space. It's also an unsourced BLP. Fundamentally, I don't see how this draft is any different from the several hundreds that are given the G11 treatment daily. Spiderone 20:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing except WP:SPS. Blatant non-neutral self-promotion. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Spam. In my opinion, a good-faith error by the admin who declined the G11, because spam may be speedily deleted from draft space as well as user space and article space. That's why it's a G code rather than an A code. Also, unsourced biographies of living persons are deleted here, and this is an unsourced BLP. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: LLM nonsense. Fail to see how G11 is irrelevant. Which admin declined it? TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 22:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Should not have been declined.—Alalch E. 21:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User EdwardsBot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Unused userbox. EdwardsBot hasn't edited for over ten years, and its operator has vanished. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unused template per nom.—Alalch E. 14:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' per nom. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 22:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 02:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC) ended today on 29 December 2024. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action.

User:Est. 2021/sandbox/CURRENT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

The page now located at User:Est. 2021/sandbox/CURRENT was formerly a talk page for my previous account Vicipaedianus x, so –when I created this account back in 2021– I moved it into my user space an turned it into an archive. Later, on 19 June 2023, I copy-pasted all of its content to my archive located at User talk:Est. 2021/Archive/0, so I requested to merge the page history as well (specifically edits between February 2014 and February 2021, when it was a talk page) and the deletion of the former, but my request got declined, so I got stuck with a blanked subpage, and I started using it as a sandbox. I now remembered that –on 14 December 2023– I got told it was "not eligible for WP:U1 because at one time it was a user talk page, it may still be deleted by being listed at WP:MFD", so please, merge its history as a talk page into User talk:Est. 2021/Archive/0, if needed, and delete this useless duplicate turned sandbox. Thanks. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 16:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - If this is not eligible for U1 because of its history, it is enough like a U1 that it should be deleted at the originator's request. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Sigh.

  Per WP:DELTALK, the edits between September 2013 and November 2020 must not be deleted no matter how many layers of obfuscation you try to use to hide that fact.

  The request to history merge the talk page edits so the later edits can be deleted is valid and in my opinion should have been granted, but four other admins (including my past self) have improperly stonewalled it. Now that we're at a discussion venue rather than an individual-admin-request venue I guess we can override them and grant that request, so I support doing so.

  Est. 2021's insistence in getting things done this way has grown beyond reason. They've made nine distinct requests for admin actions relating to this one sandbox, all of which were declined. My gut wants to say "Keep" out of spite. But I'm better than that.

• Overall, weakly support history merge and delete, but if that's not done, strongly oppose deleting without history merging - that would set a hideous precedent that people can get their way by complaining enough. Although I guess WP:Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions#User talk pages exists, so the blatant double standard being demonstrated here will continue to exist either way. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Having reviewed the history in detail once, there is a strange odor to the history, and we don't want to just incinerate it to get rid of any possible dead animals. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Split history to put the talk page revisions back in User talk:Vicipaedianus x. Moving the talk page of your past account to a subpage of your current account is totally inappropriate. Let's say I want to read the talk page of User:Vicipaedianus x, an editor for multiple years with 278 edits. How do I do that? Obfuscating the previous account's talk page is falsifying history.—Alalch E. 10:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alalch E.: Interesting misunderstanding, but I actually I moved the talk to my archive to be transparent about the ownership of both accounts, not to obfuscate anything. Moreover, if I didn't, people could have written onto the old talk page –without me ever noticing– and hence never got an answer. You can still read any thread posted there tho. How do you do that? User talk:Vicipaedianus x should redirect to User talk:Est. 2021/Archive/0, after the page history is merged –as I personally requested multiple times. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 13:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Vicipaedianus x should be archived at that root name, and you can leave a message on your old account's talk page saying that it's your old account and that messages should be left on your current account's talk page. —Alalch E. 15:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see why the current setup is wrong? Why is is any different from User talk:Malleus Fatuorum having been page moved to User talk:Eric Corbett, or many other instances of users being renamed? If that's what we have to do to get a consensus I can accept it, but it seems like hostile hair-splitting to me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Split history and send it back to User talk:Vicipaedianus x (same !vote as Alalch; different reasoning). The problem with history-merging to User talk:Est. 2021/Archive/0 is that the history would then be intertwined confusingly with the history already there, which goes back to 2013 and the third account Marco Antonio Sorrentino. The most logical alternative would be to put the history back with the original talk page (under the redirect), which is where I at least would expect to find it. (The archive doesn't need to have the history under it.) It's not the only solution, but it checks all the boxes and makes this mess slightly less headache-inducing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All of the relevant edits to this page would fix nicely in the gap between 2012 and 2021 at User talk:Est. 2021/Archive/0. If there were actual parallel histories I would agree with you, but I don't see them here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Even though there are no parallel histories, and the result would not be confusing purely technically, it would still be less than the opposite of confusing for the practical purposes of looking at, reading, someone's talk tied to a particular account, and I am against joining talk histories from different accounts. —Alalch E. 11:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates