Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to Moderators

• Post appeals to article notice templates (e.g. Incomplete, Stub, etc.)
• Post requests for moderator action here (e.g. blocks)
• Just need a mod? Post here or ping a mod with a question.
• Post any information or news relevant to the moderation team here.
• To request an article to be created, do not post here, try Article suggestions instead.
• Do not report technical issues here, please use the Bugs noticeboard instead.

Start a new section

Previous discussions
1 2 3 4 5 6

Open tasks

• Category:Articles with deletion requests
• Category:Articles with merge requests
• Category:Articles marked as irrelevant
• Special:NewPages

Idea

Hello everyone, this is more of a general question than one for mods but the Stub template, Incomplete template, Tone template and SloppyAI template all have the same layout code (with the box being coloured on the incomplete and sloppyai template being the only exception, but codewise is the same). I'm wondering if people would think it is a good idea if I replicate this code for its own template and replace all the code there with just the template. It would be much easier to work on, but it may be harder to add new special things on without changing the template used by it.

TL;DR is making a template to use the code used from the stub templates just to make it easier to make new ones or change existing ones okay? AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

That could be a good idea, yeah. Honestly if you're comfortable editing that kind of stuff, anything you could do to make the notices smaller and less obtrusive would be appreciated as well. I'm happy to help with text editing and stuff on them but I'm a bit useless if I have to mess around with css Keith (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Making them smaller might require a complete restructure for some, but maybe with smaller text it is fine? I'd need to test it out to see if it doesn't make it hard to read. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Keith, just wondering what you think of these two variants of the incomplete tag and if the idea works at all for making them smaller. I haven't changed div tags at all, but it is just a simple thing to make it smaller. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I think making them smaller will be more to do with reducing their title text size, and maybe boldness, to be less in-your-face (but still obvious. perhaps more like the 'revision as of...' box you can see if you click the link to the variants you just posted Keith (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah I don't know much about how to do CSS, and therefore can't do that, but I could just try looking at some resources online to figure it out like how I learned HTML. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 06:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Keith Had another go at it here and although it definitely isn't perfect, I just want to know what you think of it before I continue. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Obviously the spacing needs to come in a bit from the side, but it's certainly closer to what we want! I think changing 'incomplete' to 'verification concerns' or something might make sense (since that's what it's usually used for) Keith (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents... I like that it says incomplete and has fields to specify. I find myself using it for things beyond verification, such as how to improve the language, structure, etc. Basically I've been using it as a catch-all, which I know is against what it's intended for, but I've also noticed some users actually commit to those specific changes because it shows how an article could be improved with small efforts.

I have not been active lately, so I'm not completely certain what improvements @AnotherConsumerRightsPerson has been making to the other templates. But I think going broad could be good, while having input fields for mods or whoever to specify the issues. Beanie Bo (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I haven't made any other changes to templates except for deleting a couple, but I have to agree that the incomplete template is often used for what it isn't meant to be used for, but does make sense why; I thought for a while that it was just for articles that are better than stubs, but still need to be marked. It isn't clear by nature as it currently is on what it does unless you read the read more bit. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Keith @Beanie Bo The latest one I did hasn't really done much, but I'd say it is an improvement over the last one. I'm trying to figure out how to make text from the issue params not go right on the border right now, as that really sabotages accessibility. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Tone appeal - Smartwool

Hi, since the Smartwool EULA incident is on "Highlighted Article", I would like to ask if there's any more tone issues; and if there are, some guidance/assistance on fixing them. Thank you for your time! Raster (talk) 04:09, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

After a quick read, tone seems okay, but if you do want to help out, I think expanding it is a great step forward, as it is currently quite small. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 09:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I guess the main thing it's missing are some 'public response' bits going over public/commentator reaction to it happening Keith (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I was tired at the time I posted this, and didn't realize Keith had removed said notice 6 minutes after my edit asking for it, so the pointers are appreciated.

I remember searching a bit for public reaction, and mostly got reddit posts pointing back to the Rossmann video. Maybe someday I'll know what search terms to punch into Duckduckgo. Raster (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

If that is what comes up, it's more likely there are no sources imo and was only talked about by King Louis. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Approve deletion request

Regarding my article on Bahnhof, I have all the emails mentioned in the article, and I can share them with you. I also have other direct communications with the CEO (who is also the media contact). I did not mention those in the article to avoid making it personal.

However, I have no idea whether customers are facing the same treatment or just me, and I did not see any media reporting on it, therefore I can not get you a confirmation from a second source.

I published this article as consumer advocacy and to start documenting this company's abuse of their own terms of services.

I am sorry my article did not meet your standards. I could not find how to delete it, so please go ahead and delete it from your site. Se (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I've deleted it, but just wanted to let you know that if you do find good sources, you're welcome to recreate the article or ask me to undelete it for you to get the version as of when it was deleted. Also, most articles I see get deleted for similar reasons, so you're not alone. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to delete the article as it is - the content which is currently there is supported by the corren article. I think what @AnotherConsumerRightsPerson was referring to in their edit notice was specifically the sentence that he removed? Keith (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok nvm I was getting confused and believed that this was referring to this article: Stångåstaden kickbacks and hidden rent which also mentions bahnhof Keith (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

having reviewed the actual article this was about, I'd tend to agree with the deletion for now. If @Se can get this story in front of news orgs or major blogs or similar who can confirm it and back it up and who treat it as a story worth publishing, then we can reconsider but for now it's more of a user report, and this wiki is not intended to be the first port of call for reporting things - instead we aim to be a collection of well-documented articles that can hold up to a bit of outside scrutiny. Keith (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Notice for mods

@Keith @JakeL @UntoK I've changed lots of links, including the ones in the sidebar, because there seems to be a backend update changing the name for CRW talk pages. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Please change this yourself next time if you don't mind, as it's been a bit of a pain going through the links throughout the last 25 minutes! AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

wait, that shouldn't have happened... The projects namespace was supposed to be a new empty one to use for projects, not a name-change of an existing namespace? I'll talk to Unto about it and see what happened Keith (talk) 09:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for noticing and making things work again! This seems to have been a bug that caused some cursed mediawiki spaghetti interactions. should hopefully have it resolved shortly, and then we'll revert all changes. Keith (talk) 10:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Should we display a MediaWiki:Sitenotice while it's happening? Because I got very confused by this and ended up checking the logs to see if it was accidentally moved here. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, Unto's sorted the bug, and I think between us we've un-changed the links. Sorry about all this, and the double reversion on the Incomplete page! Keith (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

It's okay. I've also got some screenshots of me witnessing what's happening, I'll upload them now. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

How did it affect the Oneplus page GoInfo was working on? that seems doubly weird if it did anything there Keith (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

They said this just now:

It complained my "stashed changes" didn't exist, and whenever I went back to the page, those changes appeared again. Had to copy all the changes, discard the edit, and reformat the article again for it to be accepted. Seems all good now. Timing's a Biatch sometimes ay

That seems very unusual. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, hopefully I think that should just be what happened as a result of an edit being in progress while Unto pushed the change, rather than anything to do with the changes themselves. Keith (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah okay. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

You might not be able to change this, but Special:NewPages and my watchlist has been completely cleared. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Having a look, it looks like watchlist and also the Special:RecentChanges are cut off as of two days ago. Also the NewUserMessage actions are showing up there despite the human(not bot) filter being auto-enabled. I have no idea why this might be the case but I'll pass it on to unto Keith (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Also did you get what you wanted to do done? Or did you not get the project namespace finished? Doesn't look like it but just curious lol AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Looks like you did! AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

haven't put the projects in the projects namespace yet, will be doing that in the next day or so, but I think things are technically working as they should Keith (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

hey there, not sure I'm allowed to post here but here's what happened exactly :

• created my account
• created new "product" page for OnePlus AI
• while creating it, I got kicked out (it said my session was expired). Checked and I was indeed logged out after next reload of the page
• the product page was created anyway
• went to edit the product page to add all the descriptions and contents, wrote the whole article in one go
• when trying to publish, I got "non-existing stashed changes <uuid>" or something similiar, couldn't publish, couldn't go to "edit source".
• logged out, back in, the page was still empty
• when I went back to the "edit" page, the wiki page re-added my last changes and I basically lost no work on it
• still couldn't publish for the same error
• what I had to do was copy the whole contents, cancel the edit, go back to the product page and create a new edit (it asked if I wanted to discard my previous changes or keep them, I discarded), re-formatted the whole article, and it was then golden

I'm assuming my edit session got deleted on the server-side somehow but was still existing on my client-side and it got desynced that way. Don't think there's much you need to do regarding that issue, but if you're working on the backend, I would freeze all edits to avoid that in the future GOinfo (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, apologies for this - I think it got caught in the middle of a hotfix. Im the one who's to blame here because I asked Unto to 'just add a feature quickly for me, don't wait for the next patch to be ready'. I'll try to refrain from this in future unless it's properly urgent! Keith (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Appeal: GMS

(Google Mobile Services). I made the page because GMS is a powerful "card" that google uses to preserve (and grow) its monopoly. They incentivize Android app developers to depend on google-libraries and APIs. Pretty much every app on Play-Store depends so much on Play-Services that they refuse to do any basic tasks (discord and whatsapp are examples, last time I checked). I believe GMS doesn't get enough attention, and google wants it to stay that way.

However, I do agree that the article is very anemic in its current state. But I thought it was a good idea to centralize all knowledge about GMS, so that its relationships can be shown in a link-graph ("What Links Here", and similar stuff) Rudxain (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I've appended the deletion notice with something saying 'don't delete yet, we're discussing it here'. I think if you can find/add one or two non-wikipedia sources that discuss it being an issue, that would be sufficient to keep it as a stub and get rid of the deletion notice. Keith (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Is youtube still a stub?

This doesn't look like a stub to me Rudxain (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Removed stubnotice! AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Quiz

Hello, I've been working on this quiz of scope over time for a while here. I want to get input on how I could make this better as currently it is okay but not completely accurate yet and needs some more checking. Ideally this would be a part of the CRW namespace that helps people understand scope easier, but I'm just not quite there yet. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I guess it probably needs to assess notability as well as scope, and we need to decide where that line goes for the creation of an article (e.g. for forced arbitration, do we need one secondary source to have talked about the forced arbitration in order for it to be notable enough for its own article and not just a mention on the company page?) Keith (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I guess it would need a mention outside of the company page or it might be considered original research. I was thinking about that when I made this, my first idea was just to have the company page but I switched to thinking that a random Reddit post would confirm that it has been talked about and therefore can be added. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 06:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Filter change

I've changed filter 4 to stop it affecting userspace. If there are issues, feel free to revert. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks for the catch. - Atsumari (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Projects namespace is gone

Hello, I assume this is on purpose but just in case: The projects namespace has been removed entirely. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

very likely not on purpose, I'll talk to unto Keith (talk) 09:51, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@AnotherConsumerRightsPerson should be resolved now! Keith (talk) 10:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Project Talk pages are still broken with the naming, but work fine otherwise. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2025 (UTC)