whitelist
Discussions:
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Whitelist article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days  |
 | This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
|
| On 19 April 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Whitelisting to Whitelist. The result of the discussion was moved. |
| On 9 July 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Whitelist to Allowlist. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Move?
I'm not sure about the above-described move from Whitelist to Whitelisting. Looking at the content, the opposite subject is Blacklist (computing), not Blacklisting. GregorB (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
"Inclusive?"
The article mentions changing the term in favour of something "more inclusive" but fails to explain why it's a problematic term in the first place. Wikipedia is not a place for activitism... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.196.98.141 (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- It is true Wikipedia is not a place to practice activism. However, it is also true Wikipedia is a place for mentioning how activism is impacting or has impacted the world as a whole or even a particular article subject. I will not immediately re-include a mention of the current controversy, because I would like to hear others' thoughts on the matter: Should we include in this article, without taking a stance, the current controversy regarding racial insensitivity, whether that insensitivity is real or perceived?
- ~ JDCAce (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I was asked to remove the terms "whitelisting" and "blacklisting" at work because they were not "inclusive" enough. The terms "whitelisting" and "blacklisting" appear in NIST 800-171 R2, are technical terms that have been in use since at least the 1980s, and have nothing to do with race. While Wikipedia may not be the place to practice activism, perhaps there should at least be some mention of the fact that the primary casualty of the Left's war on language is truth. Tpkatsa (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Speaking of NIST, they've deprecated the term whitelisting in favor of more inclusive language. 72.93.105.66 (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- See https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/whitelisting 72.93.105.66 (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Requested move 19 April 2022
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) NW1223
Whitelisting → Whitelist – Wrong name, article is about "whitelist" not about "whitelisting". Eurohunter (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom. --Spekkios (talk) 09:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support as per nom. Kpddg (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support as per nom. I also think we could redirect "Whitelisting" to "Whitelist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urban Versis 32 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Requested move 9 July 2023
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Not moved and WP:SNOW closed (non-admin closure) :3 F4U (they/it) 07:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Whitelist → Allowlist provides some influence on the usage of terms, and as other companies stated to move away from the controversial terms, I think the article title should be a non-controversial, like allowlist, and the controversial whitelist term be mentioned in the article. Also, check the other discussion in Talk:Blacklist (computing)#BlackList Controversy. — Arthurfragoso (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Close as redundant; we don't need two separate move requests. For the record, this should also count as an oppose. O.N.R. (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose as above. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per ONR—blindlynx 01:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose but not on procedural grounds, whitelist remains as a common name and we're not here to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Killuminator (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RGW. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose as common usage, never heard the term "allowlist". Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
This article uses material from the Wikipedia English article Talk:Whitelist, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license ("CC BY-SA 3.0"); additional terms may apply (view authors). Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
®Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wiki Foundation, Inc. Wiki English (DUHOCTRUNGQUOC.VN) is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wiki Foundation.