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

In the verifiability section, aren't government policies, regulations with propagandas/agendas allowed to be cited there?

I'm just wondering if this can cause concerns for staffs in this wiki, for example like this one (there's english translation but it's all google translated and for full texts translation it's locked behind paywall, so apologies for that) Justarandomguy111 (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you rephrase your question? I'm not sure exactly what you're asking or how the link you shared is relevant Beanie Bo (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

please delete all pages created by this user

this user creates chatgpt raw output articles. While i dont doubt the relevance of the information, the method of creation is odd, and frankly, detrimental to this website's reputation. Plankton (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I’m not going to myself, but can one of the mods post a reminder to not do that? ChatGPT can be decent starting point if undetected and people keep updating it and it feels less sloppy, but this is out of hand. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 05:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, those ones are particularly bad. if they don't come back and clean them up by tomorrow I'll probably just delete them, as they're pretty much unusable as starting points Keith (talk) 09:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

So many pages with stub/incomplete notices

Hey there, I've been messing around pressing the random article button for a while. I've noticed that about 9/10 articles on this wiki have either a stub notice or a incomplete notice. I understand why : this wiki has limited resources to polish these articles and also wish not to add friction for article creation not to deter potential contributors. However, in my opinion, it kinda ruins the image of the website. It looks unpolished, unfinished and amateur.

Is there some plan to eventually add a little friction to the system, to incentivize polishing and finishing articles. I understand this can be complicated, but right now articles are being created with a title and maybe two or three links and then left there to rot. Dont get me wrong, I am also guilty of this, though i wish i werent, and i wish there was a system preventing this kind of low-effort-good-faith contribution.

thank you for hearing me Plankton (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Not a mod and this may be completely wrong (especially as I don’t use discord) but I think they just want to make articles for now and later polish them. The thing is that I’m pretty sure this is how Wikipedia developed, with just making articles and later on polishing. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 05:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

There will absolutely be a tightening of standards later down the line, but ultimately the reason it looks unfinished is because, at present, it *is* unfinished. There'll be a lot of work needed to get it to the point where the articles have the kind of average quality we'd want them to. At the moment we really can't afford to be picky with contributions, and have to embrace the 'something is better than nothing' mentality. Keith (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Can a mod please remove this?

Can a mod remove the sloppyai tags on my userpage and my sandbox page? The abuse filter is making impossible to remove. Just delete the part that says SloppyAI which is in the first paragraph on both. Thanks! AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 07:01, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a SloppyAI notice Beanie Bo (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

You will see SloppyAI with two curly brackets around it, not the full notice. I forgot to clarify. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Do you mean where it says: "Apparently, adding template Template:Sloppyai is a crime." Beanie Bo (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Done {{Smiley}} Beanie Bo (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Well that didn't work Beanie Bo (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

To do it, click the source button and then try. What happened was it put <nowiki> tags around it (which basically make it ignore wikitext) because it detected wiki markup in visualeditor, which it doesn’t allow. Putting this in source: . I can’t believe I had to do that just to remove it though! AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

deletion request

i wish the page Category:Trading_card_companies to be deleted.

argument : it is redundant with Category:Playing_card_manufacturers

Both have 1 element : Nintendo, though the latter is embedded within Category:Game_manufacturers and the former not, thus it can be deleted Plankton (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

deletion request

i wish the page Category:Information_technology_companies to be deleted

argument : it serves no purpose. all items should be moved to Category:Technology_companies

please it will help tidy things up : an impossible task. Plankton (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done (about to do when first typing this) but it might take a little bit to move everything over. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

deletion request

I wish the page Category:Canadian_Internet_Providers_-_Circumvent_CRTC_protection_-_Time_based_increases.

argument : It is a byproduct of an old spelling mistake. I've cleaned up the mess a bit. this page now needs to be deleted Plankton (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

actually all pages in Special:UnusedCategories Plankton (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done partially (only removed the specific category you mentioned) but a Special:UnusedCategories cleanup will be done by me in the near future. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, you can also use the Deletionrequest template for this as although it might not be done very quickly, it is generally cleaner and easier for admins. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

will do. I didnt know i was allowed to use it. Plankton (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, anyone can use that to mark an article. It won't delete it, it just adds a notice for a mod to delete it (although it can be a bit slow at times!) AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

page categories.

Hi i'd like some clarification regarding categories.

from what i've noticed, each page has a category with the page name as a name. ex: Apple has a Category:Apple.

Now, does that mean all other "tags" go in Category:Apple or should they go in Apple ? Or both ? (by "tags" i mean "Category:Technology_company" or "Category:Video_game")

Please clarify this as both methods are currently used through this wiki.

Thank you for your time and hard work. I want to help out more but this question needs a definitive answer before Plankton (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I’m pretty sure all tags are meant to go in the category:Apple, although some pages may have lots of categories when there’s only a few in the actual category for it (or none if there’s no category). AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I’m also going to link to Consumer Rights Wiki:Categorization because of how good it is as a resource for learning about categories. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

thanks. i hadnt found that page. i will give it a good read Plankton (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I've added the 'nocat' parameter to Citation needed

Just letting mods know because if you see ANY issues with the citation needed template, then please immediately rollback the edits I have made. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

My submission is fine and the notice is not accurate nor able to discern context of the submission

The sources are actually threaded conversations. I'm not sure how the bot thinks a link to a threaded forum is a news article.

I worked hard making sure my first submission was encompassing.

Yes the "titles" of the forum posts sourced may not be the same as my wiki title here as those are not my posts and would you rather not put the titles of the forum posts?, i made sure to include a "why it matters" section to clarify certain aspects stated in those threads that pertain to the issue at hand. The topic INSIDE OF THE THREADS on the forum posts were exactly pertinent.

If my submission is eligible for deletion then i'm unsure how anything gets published here. I seriously think the bot that looks over submissions needs refinement if it flags my submission like that. Also, realistically a submission page with form fields is the way to go for this. Normal people are not wiki site gurus and template perfect people. They will never use the site. I understand this is outside the scope of this particular message, but I think there are some people that have a very good grasp on wiki sites, template adherence, shortcuts, that completely confusing to a normal person cite page that gets linked and overall these people are flagging posts that normal people are trying to make. The average person that comes into contact with company issues that this site proclaims to want to address will not be able to abide by the standards of a wiki style submission process if this is the outcome of when they sincerely try to contribute. (Again, it should just be form fields and a submit button.)

Nevertheless, I am posting here as directed by the robot. 66.191.58.153 09:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

On the off-topic remark (I do not know what your original submission was), I agree that the Visual editor UI could be a bit easier to use.

Some important "Insert" items like Citations should not be under a "More" menu (Windows 11 right click vibes); it took me about 15 minutes to find a source and add my first proper citation despite being a somewhat tech-savvy person. (Although, I started here making edits and thus did not see the Citation "tutorial" within the Create an article page, only the

There could also be a quick link(s) within the editor (like the ? button) to CRW's Wiki policy with helpful description like "Contains rules, writing guidelines and the mission statement to ensure the Wiki remains credible."

In my opinion, starting to edit wikis really feels like booting up CS 1.6 as a first timer, going on multiplayer servers and getting 20 deaths in a row for not already knowing how to wallbang. This is okay for late night LAN parties, not so motivating when people make their first contribution and get edit summaries that aren't directly constructive in their email.

Nevertheless I could be wrong on these points. I appreciate discussion and feedback. Raster (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

There are a lot of quirks with MediaWiki in general (the software is 20 years old at this point), and especially for this new wiki that has a lot of bugs and UI stuff to work out. There's supposed to be a major UI haul within the next few months or so, so hopefully that will address some of these issues you mentioned.

Ctrl+Shift+K is a keyboard shortcut for adding citations. Beanie Bo (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Which article specifically are you referring to? Beanie Bo (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Spam articles

I've checked Filter 13's log and there seems to be a consistent stream of spam articles shown there. Should we block the users doing this? I assume so, but I want to be sure. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Normally, we would consider this, but the types of users that end up filling up this log tend to make several accounts at a time, making blocking effectively useless. JamesTDG (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Question on wiki scope

This wiki has a Legislation category, covering existing legislation.

I'd like to write up my ideas for things that could be considered for future legislation (as a matter of fact, I started: User:CorpoBlight/Product quality - and manufacturer incentives). But after I started, I began to wonder if it was in-scope for this wiki or not. If too far away from the preferred direction of this wiki, any suggestions for a different wiki where it would fit better? To be clear, I am not a lawyer. CorpoBlight (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Appeal deletion of xbox

Xbox was proposed for deletion based on its not having been edited in a long time. I think it should be kept. The Microsoft article has several items that would be appropriate for xbox. I have seen enough commentary on xbox and the direction it is going, etc. that I am sure there are sources out there to make a good article. There are a lot of pages that link to the page, so it is probably important. Having stubs helps the wiki grow. Gives a place for people to expand. Gives reminders of, oh yeah, that thing. Creating a stub article is a pain, why should somebody have to do it again? If people propose deletion just because something hasn't been worked on in a while, what do they want? Editors to periodically go around and touch every article they think is worthwhile? Drakeula (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @Drakeula, The Wiki tends to remove articles that have not been worked on in order to improve the perceived quality of the place. If you wish to fill in the article accordingly, I can gladly remove the deletion notice from the article for you. JamesTDG (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Where is this policy documented/explained? There are several problems with the policy which I would like to be sure have been discussed, and I am interested in participating in the discussion.

In this case the article has sat unmodified for at most 2 months. That seems absurdly short for a timeout.

The policy feels very manipulative, "work on this or the article gets it." Xbox is not my priority, but it will probably be someones. It is a shame to lose what progress is made every time somebody has other things in their life.

I have a few main interests (AI at the moment), but dabble in lots of other things. I would rather be free to improve things here and there as I feel. The policy plainly penalizes that work style.

(The Mary Condo follower uses a hammer to put in a screw because the screwdriver did not bring them joy. The eclectic person uses a hammer to put in a screw because they can't find one of their dozens of screwdrivers among all their other tools.)

In general this policy seems extremely short-sighted for the wiki. Why should I work on this wiki if anything I am working on will be deleted if I get busy for a couple of months, or after I move on to other things? So I will not adopt the xbox article, but I will try to advocate to extend protection for it and all the orphans, and thereby help grow the wiki.

I have more to say, but will save it until I find what has been said and the right place to say it. Thanks. Drakeula (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @Drakeula, the Xbox article has been in an excessively unfinished state for more than a month. Policy generally states that we need to remove barely-developed articles after 1 month. Our general expectation is that if a user is going to create an article, that they at least fill in the framework within 1 week of creation, but we give extra leeway.

Of course, please remember that just because a page is deleted, it does not mean that it cannot be made again! JamesTDG (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd say there is a difference between starting an article, and literally just filling in the page creation form and nothing else. On the Xbox article, even just the amount of text you've added is enough for me to be happy leaving it as a stub instead of deleting it (and as such I have removed the deletion notice). Keith (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with both points. While the Create a Page flow suggest a standard for an acceptable article: "if you're not going to be able to get the very basics of a page created today (a basic statement of wht {{sic}} the article's about with a couple of references), it might be better to make a draft in your user space." which suggest people disobeying the notice not reading due to the attention spans of today; I have to ask if there are measures that prevent or atleast warn articles being published with (1) no citations or (2) sections with template infoboxes. (I would verify this, but don't want to accidentally create a page as a result. If such a system isn't present yet it's understandable, probably harder than I imagine to implement it.) Raster (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @Raster, because the wiki is intended to allow users without accounts to create pages, we cannot design a system to remind them to work on their unfinished articles. JamesTDG (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @JamesTDG, I don't mean "remind", I mean "prevent" like how one would disable a submit button in a webpage if some requirements are not met. Apologies for any unclear wording on my side Raster (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @Raster, unfortunately this is not a system we can enforce without excessively modifying the codebase of MediaWiki. JamesTDG (talk) 03:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@JamesTDG, that's understandable. Thank you for the reply. I was going to suggest putting such a warning in the new page info boxes, but not sure where to put in a way people will actually read it. Raster (talk) 03:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, to be a bit more specific, because pages are created through the form, a page will always be first created as an unfinished template. that's why we generally leave a day to allow newly submitted articles to be edited into their 'starting state' before worrying about article notices and so on. Keith (talk) 07:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Template "Userspace Draft" copied from wikipedia

I tried to use the Userspace_draft template, only to find that it didn't exist. I started with the source of that template from wikipedia, updating the wording a bit and deleting quite a bit.

I commented out a chunk that caused an error "Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "["." I couldn't see how the chunk in question could cause that error, so someone with more mediawiki template experience may wish to take a look. CorpoBlight (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Warning: Prohibited words detected?

It's telling me this, but it won't tell me what I've said wrong.

Can't save the page as a result. How can I find out what words are wrong so I can remove them. I can't find a list anywhere on the site + the error doesn't really tell me much. Also, the page I'm editing has a deletion request...but it will be fully populated with reference once I can edit and save my copy. Thanks in advance for your help. 84.239.50.131 07:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, this is because of the abuse filter, which blocks edits it thinks are harmful. The edit it blocked you from sending seems completely fine and was a false positive, so I'll make the change on your behalf. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'm also here because I ran afoul of this filter. My edit does affect about every line of the Article Suggestions table (it's an attempt at alphabetisation) so I can see it looking Big and Awful to an automatic filter! Neuropirate (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done the edit and also confirmed you so you won’t have to deal with the filter that stopped you again. Also nice work putting it in alphabetical order! AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you to @AnotherConsumerRightsPerson for getting the edit, but I just wanted to add that if you create an account, then after a few edits you won't need to worry about the filters or similar. Keith (talk) 07:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you to @AnotherConsumerRightsPerson as well.

And you know @Keith, you make a good point. This was kind of supposed to be a one time thing...but maybe it shouldn't be. I'll go ahead and register. 84.239.50.131 16:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)