Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 129

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hey all, can someone run a bot through this search to check if the linked word exists on simple.wikt? If the word exists, change :en:wikt: to :wikt: and if it doesn't, create a page to list them down so I can move them to simple.wikt. Thoughts? Minorax (talk) 08:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please change the word to the root form if it exists, example. Minorax (talk) 08:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the report for :en:wikt:, while this is the report for :wikt:en:. Target titles in the results of the two database queries do not exist on simple.wikt. Chenzw  Talk  09:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Minorax (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Template:Vertical header currently says "Script error: No such module "Vertical header".
The coding is the exact same as the one at en:Template:Vertical header however the EN one's fine,
Currently the only page to actually use this is User:Davey2010/JESC 2015#Score_sheet however I'm not sure if any other JESC tables (2015 and beyond) feature this,
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: Resolved. Brought over Module:Vertical header from en. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thanks very much Camouflaged Mirage for your help :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to be of some help. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a serial entrepreneur i want an article/biography on Wikipedia according to Wikipedia policy i cannot publish article about myself. Can anyone please help me to move my draft User:Syedfalak/draft to the article space (if my draft is eligible). You are welcome to edit my draft before move it to the article space (if needed) Thanks! Syedfalak (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2020 b(UTC)

Hi dear respected admins. I want to publish an article related to my company, as I'm the founder of company According to Wikipedia policies i cannot publish that article. So i just created a draft on it and i request to respected admins kindly review my draft User:Syedfalak/draft if its eligible then please move it to article space I'll be very thankful to you. Syedfalak (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Syedfalak: First, on this page you are addressing the whole community, not specifically the admins. I am an admin, but I will respond as a general community member. Your draft appears to have the same content as the version that was deleted. That deletion was because the article didn't show notability as defined for Wikipedia's purposes. Therefore it still doesn't meet the notability requirement and, in my opinion, isn't ready to be moved to article space. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: Thanks for your prompt response, as i saw many approved articles they doesn't have any reliable sources but have this tag above the article "This biography of a living person needs more sources for reliability. Please help improve this article by adding reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged or removed." so my question is that, Is my draft article cannot be move to the article space with this tag or any other tag? That can allow Wikipedia users to help improve notability and reliable sources. --Syedfalak (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Syedfalak: My comments:

• This article is not about a person, so the "biography of a living person" tag isn't applicable.
• There are two parts to showing notability. One is saying what is notable about a subject. Another is having appropriate references to support the statement of notability. The article you wrote doesn't do the first part. The sources appear to support the company's founding date and the identity of the CEO and founder. Neither of those pieces of information make a company notable.
• I'm not sure what you mean by "approved articles". If you see articles that you feel don't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, you are free to question them.
• It is true that other Wikipedians can help improve articles, but an article should have the basics to begin with. You can't expect someone else to do the work when there's no indication that the article's subject is notable.
• I did a search for the company name and there were fewer than a dozen results. Most were either primary sources or social media, neither of which is considered reliable sourcing.

If you want others to help you with the article, that can be done in your draft. It doesn't have to be in article space to be worked on. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: I've just added some more sources in about section "identity of CEO founder" can you please review it again? Is that sources are reliable or not?--Syedfalak (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Syedfalak: One thing you need to do is show why the company is notable. I don't see that right now, no matter how many sources there are. What does this company do? Why is that important? And is it well known or commented on by reliable sources? (Not the existence of the company, but what it does and why that is important). Wikipedia is not a business listing. There are millions of companies out there and we can certainly prove that they exist and who owns or runs them. But just being in existence as a company doesn't mean one is notable. Otherwise we could have an entry for every company. But we don't. This is encyclopedia. I would work first on demonstrating why this company is notable. If there are other issues (which Auntof6 comments on), addressing them won't help if the subject is not notable. And if this company is not notable for an encyclopedia, don't be discouraged. Most companies in the world are not. That doesn't mean they are bad companies or not useful. Desertborn (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Might read this and this. Hope it helps.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now i understand that my article is not eligible to be publish. Thank you so much @Auntof6: @Desertborn: and @Camouflaged Mirage:--Syedfalak (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Hindutva article is an understandably hot topic. As a result, there's quite a bit of bias in the article. Looking at the edit history, one user in particular seems to have repeatedly removed properly-cited criticism of the movement and replaced it with, essentially, propaganda/biased phrasing supporting the movement. They've also responded to someone complaining about (apparent) removal of pro-Hindutva content from the article with the phrase "we have to respond in kind", which presumably explains their behavior. How should this best be handled? Template:NPOV has already been on the article for over a month (and that particular user hasn't edited it since it was added), but the article simply doesn't seem to have gotten enough attention for its issues to be addressed. The article has also been repeatedly vandalized by trolls on both sides, but this user's persistent edits over time don't seem to have been meaningfully handled/reverted. How can this situation best be handled? — Preceding unsigned comment added by V2Blast (talk • contribs) 10:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@V2Blast: This has been a challenge on English Wikipedia as well. For this and other controversies the first best step is to bring people to the talk page for discussion instead of editing back and forth. The compromises on English Wikipedia might be useful. Also, at English Wikipedia the community at en:Wikipedia:WikiProject India might provide a mediator if useful. Right now though the conversation has barely started here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry:: Thanks for the suggestions. It seems that, since my message above, they edited the Hindutva article to add unencyclopedic, uncited original research (in response to properly cited criticism of the movement); then, after it was rightly removed for those reasons, they immediately readded the paragraph without addressing any of those issues. I've reported them for vandalism; I'll also ask for guidance from the India WikiProject on the main English Wikipedia, as you suggested. --V2Blast (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every fall since 2015 the ‘’m:Community Tech Team’’ has been holding a Community Wishlist Survey at MetaWiki. This is chance for users to ask for new features they think would be useful for their project (projects such as Simple). I would like a wp:WikiProject on Simple to communicate with other users who want to discuss ideas they believe would help and be feasible to implement.

How does one go about starting a WikiProject on Simple ? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ottawahitech: You can create the page on your userspace, and place it on the list of wikiprojects. rollingbarrels (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FNAFPUPPETMASTER:

Yes, I know that Simple does not have an official setup for WikiProjects like enwiki (see w:wp:WikiProject ). I find this is unfortunate for many reasons, which I won't go into. However, as someone who has been blocked at enwiki and as a result has become a wiki-untouchable to many, I believe starting a wikiproject in my own space will lead to nowhere. That would be a shame because such a project may be of interest to many, and co-ordinating efforts to promote new features for Simple may be very useful for this project.

btw thanks for pinging me. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the big reasons we don't do Wikiprojects is because splitting off discussions to other pages means most editors don't see them and thus get ignored because of how few editors we have. For this reason we don't do wikiprojects in the way en.wiki does and thus we want discussions of the sort you are suggesting to happen on this page so most people see them. -DJSasso (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this page is the best place for discussion. There is little enough of it as is, without trying to split it up. Also I don't think any WikiProjects will get involvement here. I made one but knew from the start it was unlikely to attract others. It was just I had a bunch of pages already, that I was using to track my own work in a topic area. So I figured they might as well be available to others too. I didn't want to discourage anyone from using them if they wanted. But pretty much they have just stayed my own personal work area. I would suspect if you started one it would be the same. Basically it is just a sign for other users that you are not afraid of others editing those userspace pages, that they aren't "just yours" to use. But in practice, I wouldn't expect others to use them much. I do wish it was different...but here we are. Desertborn (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I created a WikiProject at User:Bluerasberry/WikiProject Medicine. It is not important for me to split community discussion, and if that is the main issue, then Simple English Wikipedia WikiProjects could come with a mandate that their talk pages have to redirect here to Simple Talk. I created that page so that people from English Language Wikipedia WikiProject Medicine could navigate to Simple English Wikipedia to develop content here mostly for translation into other languages. I also wanted to curate a collection of style guides for writing medical content in Simple English. If there is a path to compromise then I would like to have a public WikiProject here instead of a private userpage project. WikiProjects are a big part of my workflow and I appreciate when they are accessible. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edit toolbar is missing while I am using the Opera browser. Anyone else having problems? If I switch to Google Chrome, it all works perfectly. Also, notifications aren't loading in Opera either.Peterdownunder (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peterdownunder, what version of opera are you using? have you enabled pop-ups? --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have version 67.0.3575.53, and pop ups are enabled for Simple English Wikipedia.Peterdownunder (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peterdownunder, Have you checked to see if Java script is enabled? It looks like you have the latest version of opera browser (never hurts to check for updates). The same case happens with me too when I use firefox, none of my scripts work, I guess each web browser has a different way of reading the Wikipedia content/data pages... Also which os are you using? --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 03:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Javascript is enabled, and I am using the latest version of Windows 10 (64bit). Peterdownunder (talk) 06:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peterdownunder, Hmmm, I don't Know what's wrong then... It might be a browser to browser thing, it happens to me when I use Firefox where none of the scripts work, but it does on other browsers. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 15:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Usually I can figure out template issues but I am not sure to do with this one. On Mount Everest you will find a huge empty area in the middle of the page. This is due to how the weatherbox under the Climate heading interacts with infobox and image. Anyone have any idea on how to remove this empty space? Otherwise it makes it seem the page ends much higher up but on scrolling down there is more. I know some whitespace may be good but that is just too much. Any ideas? Desertborn (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Desertborn: Yes, I added the "width" parameter to the table and set it to "auto" adjust instead of being forced to full screen.

• special:diff/6874614 Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you! And I appreciate the explanation since that will help me know how to fix similar situations myself in future. Desertborn (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason there's no move button. However, this is the name that most people know him by and the page name on the normal English Wikipedia. I'll add more to the article some other time hopefully. Sebastian Hudak (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seemed logical enough. So I moved it. Desertborn (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would really like to assume good faith but this page makes me hard for me to do so. Would appreciate if someone can check their edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minorax (talk • contribs) 06:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to know how to add a short description on an article? Arthurfan828 - CHAT 22:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You would add {{short description|''the short description''}} to the top of an article. We are not currently using this template though.--Tbennert (talk) 04:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can't do it on simple wikipedia. You have to do it on wikidata. Short description is pulled from wikidata except on en.wiki where they have decided to go their own way. -DJSasso (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a new wikiproject. I was told to notify the creation here --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a serial entrepreneur i want a Wikipedia page about me. As Wikipedia policy i cannot publish article about myself and one of my friend already tried to publish an article about me but an admin delete that article because it doesn't claim notability. So I've created a draft on myself with some sources, can anyone please review my draft User:Syedfalak/draft and add some more reliable sources to make it eligible to publish on Wikipedia? Or can tell me which publications are acceptable as a reliable sources? I would be very grateful if an admin help me with it. Syedfalak (talk) 04:43, 31 March 2020 b(UTC)

19:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I am a new user! Hello everyone. Do you have any suggestions for what I should do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1st Username (talk • contribs)

1st Username We have a ton-of wanted (red-linked) articles that need to be created, you can also join A Wikiproject see Category:WikiProjects if you like! --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 19:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you! 1st Username (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(I apologize for posting in English ): Dear colleagues, We are organizing a project called WPWP that focus on the use of images collected as part of various contest and photowalks on Wikipedia articles across all languages and our team needs your help with translations into the language of this community. Here is the translation link: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Translate&group=page-Wikipedia+Pages+Wanting+Photos&language=en&action=page&filter= I am sorry if I post in the won't venue. Thanks in anticipation. T Cells (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I was going through Category:Foods by nationality earlier and I'm finding mostly inconsistent article naming within that realm. While the categories are all xxcountry food, the corresponding articles are often more inconsistent (note French cuisine or Italian cuisine vs. Thai food or Shanghainese food). I don't think this should be something for me to unilaterally decide, so I'm interested in finding a consensus on the naming conventions. Hiàn (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cuisine is more complex. Any articles using it were likely created by editors not thinking it was complex or not realizing it was complex. Food would be the more appropriate title on Simple. -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would support using "food" as it is simpler. It would also be good to be consistent. Desertborn (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is to request review of the discussion at Proposed very good articles. Junedude433 has done great work on this page, and it is already better (in my opinion) than some our existing Very Good Articles. If anyone is able to have a look and comment, please do so. Desertborn (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is looking good, but will need more work. I have posted comments on the talk page. Peterdownunder (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have some time on my hands due to COVI-19, and plan to write an updated version of Twinkle for simplewiki once the next Twinkle update is released. If I do so, will an interface admin be willing to update the site-wide javascript pages? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: Ask on WP:AN for help if needed then. Thanks and Regards,--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to populate infoboxes with content from Wikidata. Simple English Wikipedia is the ideal place to develop this practice because infoboxes require plain language, and should be human readable, and because infobox content is the most popular content for translation in all Wikimedia projects, and if we actually had monitoring systems in place would be a powerful hub for applying AI quality control at scale across Wikimedia projects.

The reason why I think this matters is because Simple English Wikipedia could curate a style for using simple language in these boxes. If people here could actually make this work, then Simple English Wikipedia could manage infoboxes for all the language Wikipedias which otherwise do not have an editing community managing these boxes. It is very easy to get people to translate the terms in these boxes at scale, but very hard to organize local language discussion about what goes in these boxes.

Prior discussion about Wikidata connection is in Catalan, Russian, French, and some other languages. English Wikipedia has a pilot for this in telescopes, such as at en:Very Large Array. Other than for telescopes English Wikipedia has various reasons why expanding the Wikidata infobox pilot is not appropriate for right now. Simple English's smaller community probably could come to agreement about an appropriate pilot here.

Personally, I am very keen on getting Wikidata infoboxes for health topics because I want to provide them in various languages in the developing world where otherwise we will not be delivering content for some years. If I had good Simple English boxes then I can collaborate with the Wikimedia Medicine organization to execute the translations.

Has the discussion about infoboxes + Wikidata already come to Simple English Wikipedia in the past? If so, can people point to them? Is there anyone here who participated in these previous discussions in any language of Wikipedia? What are anyone's general feelings about the potential of Simple English Wikipedia to become the default source for infobox content for any language Wikipedia which wants infoboxes but otherwise does not have a community curating them? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, will keep our article updated. However, concerns is how will the maintance be, we have very little active editors. It cannot be having too many templates that need to be changed on a regular basis or modules that needs importation so often. It will overwhelm us. I prefer the status quo if this is too complicated. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be relied upon as a reliable source (per standard medical disclaimers) and there is no time limit. Let's see does the pro outweights the cons before implementation. Thanks for the idea anyway.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Camouflaged Mirage: The situation is not as you described. Briefly in response to some of your points

• No, there is little or no burden of maintenance in this proposal. The major labor required is conversation about implementation, and the labor of implementation and content development comes from elsewhere.
• No, this does not require many templates. We could start with any number, 1-3. English Wikipedia just has one right now. There are two kinds of setup for this - content and modules. The modules already exist and get maintained elsewhere so no labor is needed for that. For content we could just apply the existing infobox template.

If Simple English Wikipedia could actually adopt this already existing technology, then it is within the realm of possibility that Simple English soon becomes equal in importance and to English Wikipedia with very few social changes. Not unlikely also, within 3 years Simple English Wikipedia would have more content contributors and editors than English Wikipedia.

I will describe what I want and the labor it would take. Consider the biography for Margaret Sanger. There is an infobox there. Here is my proposal:

1. The Simple English Wikipedia either does nothing whatsoever, or otherwise, discusses social and community issues
2. I arrange to replace the Simple English Wikipedia infobox in that article with a template called {{Wikidata infobox person}}
3. Now instead of requiring content or editing in Simple English Wikipedia, the corresponding content comes from Wikidata's Margaret Sanger (Q285514).

The labor requested of Simple English Wikipedia editors would not be to monitor the content, but to decide what fields go into infoboxes and what the names for those fields should be.

Pros:

1. Simple English Wikipedia gets a huge amount of infobox content
2. Simple English Wikipedia gets the focus of the huge multilingual Wikidata community
3. Very likely, 1000 editors will edit Simple English Wikipedia through Wikidata within months
4. This has been done before for other language communities, so norms are established and we have some idea of what to expect
5. If Simple English Wikipedia does this, then very likely, the practice here would become the default for all language Wikipedias, which would position Simple English in a global leadership position

Cons

1. The quality monitoring systems, while very good, are still targeted to Wikidata users
2. People could edit Simple English Wikipedia from Wikidata, which would reduce the independence of this project

Further thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to see a sample of this, maybe on one of our pages? It sounds good, given that it does not require extra effort here. But there are many details it would be good to see. Desertborn (talk) 08:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Desertborn and Camouflaged Mirage: I am unable to do a quick demo here in Simple English Wikipedia because setup requires a multi-part import of templates. For now I can show you the same thing in other Wikimedia projects. If we do a pilot here then I can import the templates.

Consider English Wikipedia en:Very Large Array. Look at the box, then look at the source code of the page. See that the box comes from

en:Template:Infobox telescope

The telescope is not the best first example for Simple English because I am unclear if it is possible to simplify precise technical terms, but it is the test case in discussion since about 2017 in English Wikipedia. Telescope was chosen for English Wikipedia in part because those terms in the box are so well defined the lexicon of the field.

What I want of Simple English Wikipedia is to establish any infoboxes like that here.

A more commonplace and less scientific example is in Catalan Wikipedia, where they use Wikidata-based infoboxes for many things including biographies. See ca:Margaret Sanger and try clicking the edit boxes there. Documentation is at ca:Plantilla:Infotaula persona/ús, and currently, no similar documentation or infobox development exists in English.

The new editing model to notice is that structured data goes to and comes from Wikidata. If for example someone edits the occupation for a person through Catalan Wikipedia (to Wikidata), and no one has added this information in Simple English Wikipedia, then the Catalan editor's edit would appear here in Simple English Wikipedia, assuming that there is a Simple English name for that occupation.

Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our infoboxes generally follow en.wiki's infoboxes. As they switch over we will naturally switch over. We already have a number that pull from wikidata. We generally try not to have such templates get too far out of wack with en.wiki's as it helps with maintenance over here. In saying that I don't really think we should switch over until the infoboxes at en.wiki switch over. -DJSasso (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Djsasso: Which ones already pull from Wikidata?

I am not looking for a mass shift right now. I am seeking a pilot of some number of articles to see how it would work to collaborate across languages and projects. Do you already have a pilot for this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose "Wikidata linked infoboxes for Simple English Wikipedia", a pilot project to do the following:

1. Create a documentation page for Wikidata infoboxes here on Simple English Wikipedia. I will direct the talk page from there to here at Simple Talk
2. Import Wikidata-based infobox templates and modules from other Wikipedias, including English and Catalan, for deployment into Simple English Wikipedia
3. Deploy Wikidata-based infoboxes in Simple English Wikipedia in not more than 100 articles to start
4. Solicit comment continuously from beginning
5. Call for judgement, probably within 3 months, where options for next steps might be
   1. More infoboxes, perhaps 1-10,000
   2. or remove existing ones
   3. or watch and wait longer

Success criteria

1. No existing editor at Simple English Wikipedia gains a labor burden
   1. I think that I can do this project without obligating anyone to do things for me
   2. I gratefully welcome support and collaboration though
   3. The response which I want most is social and ideological support for this pilot and its possible progression
2. Everyone has fun
3. existing editors here at Simple find the changes as either good or tolerable
   1. The content is tolerable
   2. Any technical changes, like the templates, are tolerable
4. Simple English Wikipedia gets more conversation and contributors
   1. Increased participation in the Simple English part of Wikidata
   2. Increased participation here in Simple English Wikipedia itself

Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative Support for a limited trial, sticking closely to what is already being done in enwiki. But I do have a lot of questions still. As the lone member of WikiProject Mountains, I wonder what this would mean for Infobox mountain. One concern is that a lot of the info may not be in wikidata and it would be a huge task to load it into wikidata. Also we have references often in the infoboxes. I do have some concern how those would be handled. For example, in the Mountain inbox it is not uncommon to have a reference that is later used again in a different part of the article. If the infobox is converted we would need to likely move those into the article itself? Is that correct? Otherwise we would lose those references. So while I have tentative support for the concept, I still worry about how it will be implemented. Desertborn (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Desertborn: Probably good first cases are articles which do not have an infobox at all. By posting an infobox where none existed, we should be bringing in content without changing what anyone else already posted. Depending on labor and anyone's interest, anyone could attempt to address any of the several complicated situations by editing, discussing, and proposing a best practice. If we do the pilot then I would start the list of challenges, and the two you described would go on that list. Yes, I think as you say, moving the citation from the infobox to the body of the article seems like the best practice, and moving content from here to Wikidata would be another best practice. I recognize the tentative nature of your support and I am ready to consider any compromises you might request, if you want more caution from me. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Having data that updates automatically will help so much with upkeep. Questions: Are your first 100 articles all coming from medicine/health related articles? How will you choose articles that don't have an infobox, since it is random which ones do? Once a wikidata infobox template is finalized and everyone loves it, will the regular infoboxes redirect? Or will that fall under the new page patrollers to know which infoboxes to add? Thanks!--Tbennert (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tbennert:

• sorts of infoboxes - A different infobox is required for each sort of article, and I would have to different technical setup to try each one. I anticipate that immediately on import people would request changes, and the changes would apply to all the boxes, so having fewer sorts of boxes is easier especially until we understand how this works. "Biography" is the most common type of box and probably the easiest to present. "Telescope" is the test case in English Wikipedia, but that was chosen because its fields are technical language and there is a very tight editing and reading community in that space. I personally am interested in medicine and would find a pilot there very valuable but for several reasons this would be very hard.
• status quo boxes - If this pilot were very successful then I would expect the status quo boxes to still be in use for years, possibly 5 years. Individual editors would have to adopt the wikidata boxes one article at a time, and there would only be a complete shift with near unanimous support. The way I am imagining for now, we have a pilot with 1-100 Wikidata boxes and use those as conversation items to understand what can go wrong, what Wikidata can give, and what would be required for next steps.
• finalizing the Wikidata infobox template - Some things are very easy, like dates and locations. Some things are very hard, like any freeform text currently in infoboxes or any concept in an infobox for which there is not a corresponding Wikidata item. I think with a demo the limits and challenges would become much more obvious. There will be challenges and an early step would be to identify them and estimate how much time and labor it would take to address them. There is a lot which I do not know, and I think nobody knows.

Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose at this point. I think Blueraspberry misunderstood what I meant about upkeep and massshifting. The issue isn't the change over, the issue is that the vast majority of what we do for infoboxes (and templates in general) here is to be in synch with en.wiki because most of our pages start as copies from en.wiki. If our infoboxes do not match en.wiki's then we have issues with duplicating and/or with having to constantly change what people bring over with our way of doing things. Your proposal comes from a good place in that you assume it will save us work, but you misunderstand how the community works here. In the end at the current time it would actually lead to much more work here for our editors. This is why I mentioned that our infoboxes will naturally switch over to pulling all their info from wikidata as en.wiki switches over as our infoboxes match theirs (for example telescope now pulls from wikidata because the en infobox does). It isn't the upkeep of the infoboxes themselves that will necessarily cause the work, but that it will change everything about how we bring stuff over to our wiki. When it comes to templates it is a very bad idea for us to be out of synch with en.wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Djsasso: Can you please think of your demands which this proposal should meet to gain your support? I want some progress, and I think now is the right time to begin something, but there is no need to be hasty and lots of room for compromise. To start I will offer (1) to set up a project page with good limits (2) not to start anything without getting further comment on that more detailed proposal and (3) to design the proposed pilot in ways to be minimally disruptive. This is a test of technology and while I think people would only take this pilot seriously if it were live in Simple English Wikipedia, it could be in a few low traffic articles. I started discussion at 100 articles but trying only 1 is possible, and I hope that no harm could reasonably come from that. For various reasons I think that English Wikipedia will not have leadership in this, but that Simple English could make an inspiring case. I am not in a hurry, and do not expect your support at this time, but I will share my intent to draft a more complete proposal to address the concerns I am hearing now and I would appreciate your very direct criticism there when I publish that. I admit, there are big challenges here, and even I am not sure about this, but I want the proposal to be available. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you want to test it out on the Simple English Wikipedia to later make a case for using it on larger projects, like the English Wikipedia? Vermont (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vermont: Not exactly. My motivation is that many people in the world learn English as a second language, and I want Simple English Wikipedia to grow as a hub for translation into many languages. I actually want the infoboxes for small language Wikipedias, and I feel like if we could make these in Simple English Wikipedia, then they could spread to every other language from here. I would like every language Wikipedia to have some people editing here in Simple English Wikipedia. English Wikipedia will probably be one of the last Wikipedias to accept Wikidata infoboxes. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/question - I personally was very excited when Wikidata was launched, because of the potential of referencing structured data with a common schema, across wikis. That said, I have a few questions about this plan:
  • What does it mean by "tolerable... template changes"? A huge proportion of editors here are not that template-inclined, so one's definition of tolerable will vary. What kind of template changes do you expect will occur in the (a) 0-3 months after implementation and (b) 4-12 months after implementation?
  • Regarding the increase in editors editing this wiki through Wikidata, what is the expected editing volume? 1000 editors is a relatively big number for the current local community to deal with, all the more so if a significant proportion of the 1000 editors edits frequently. Increased activity on this wiki is a double-edged sword - the local community may not have the manpower to keep up with the influx. Chenzw  Talk  14:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that before actually starting I should make a documentation page on Simple English Wikipedia page somewhere for the pilot. I could send conversation here but I think everyone would need a page describing expectations, limits, approximate schedules, and goals. Thanks for the questions and ask more, but here is what I have for now:

• tolerable technical requirements: The 95% of typical editors who want to add content to infoboxes as is will not be exposed to any code. People who edit the fields of the infobox would have to enter the code. Look at ca:Plantilla:Infotaula_persona/ús#Paràmetres to see the table on the right. There are English language words in bold, "birth", "disappearance", "death", etc. Suppose that for "Pseudonym" someone in English Wikipedia wanted to change that to "other names". They would have to edit the word "pseudonym" in the template, which should be a matter of search and replace, and although they would see code, changing single words is easy. To rearrange the sections, like adding a new section comparable to "personal data", that would take more cut and paste manipulation. None of this requires coding skills but also we do not have good Wikidata template documentation.
• increase in editors: There will be several kinds of new editors. Here is my guess for the types of editors and a count for the next 2 years if we have a pilot:

1. people who edit Wikidata in their own language, and send information from Wikidata to Simple English through the automated language conversation - 800 editors
2. people who edit Wikidata in Simple English, which if you did not know, is an option - 100 editors
3. people who come from any other wiki project to see and try Wikidata infoboxes in English language, and who comment here - 50 editors
4. people from other language Wikipedias who examine the infoboxes here to bring them into their home wikis - 30 editors
5. finally, people who for whatever reason hear about infoboxes, but then come to Simple English Wikipedia to explore - 20 editors

My own wish for this pilot is that Simple English Wikipedia becomes a hub for every Wikipedia's discussion of what should go in infoboxes of any language. Wikidata is inappropriate to host that discussion, and individual languages have major differences in their boxes and do not discuss them among themselves. Simple English Wikipedia is a great forum for multilingual people to meet to discuss the common elements of various language Wikipedia articles, and the infobox is a great start. I expect that mostly experienced Wikipedians would be the early base of this. These are all guesses! Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? You mean you have a proposal, and need to convince someone, and want to testbed here at simple? I am opposed to such testing. Use betacluster for this I guess? Thanks much.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support limited pilot as detailed above. Very interested in the possible benefits, both as a contributor to Wikidata and a contributor to Simple. Hiàn (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a pilot project as described.Peterdownunder (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since I noticed this section getting some recent comments again, I should mention again we technically already have a limited pilot happening on this wiki. Because we try to keep our infoboxes in synch with en.wiki we have the same pilot happening at the moment that en.wiki has. I think expanding it past what en.wiki has will be a problem for us because of how often pages are copied over from en.wiki. If our templates are different from en.wiki templates they simply won't get used (this is already sometimes the case when we don't have the most recent version of what en.wiki has yet) or we will see people creating duplicate templates by creating the en.wiki ones here in addition to these ones. Or worse they will replace the template code we have with the on that is already on en. All of which means we either have less information that we would have, or we have editors having to undo goodfaith edits more often by people who don't realize the situation. -DJSasso (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Could someone import en:Template:Olist to Template:Olist please,
No idea what the template is but it's currently needed at the Covid-19 article,
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a redirect to another template, which we already had. So I went ahead and created it. Desertborn (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Desertborn, Ah okay many thanks for your help, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question. Ronald Reagan has been a VGA for some time now and not once have I seen it pop up on the main page. I am aware there are queues and that as every day passes so will a new VGA be displayed. Can someone with main page experience be able to see if everything's good? Has a user seen it pop up on the main page? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I saw it last week or so --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 16:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be working alright; I've also seen it before on the main page. Vermont (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As you may all know, some articles contain links to Wiktionary that are completely invisible, such as example. However, I find it problematic that these look exactly like regular links, with no way to know that you are leaving the site and entering somewhere else.

I propose that Wiktionary links be templated and changed into something like this: example. This will make Wiktionary links much more clear that they are part of a different site to avoid confusion, and also making it much easier to locate such links. Is there any problems with this procedure? Naleksuh (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary links are a different shade of blue when I see them -- they're a little more aqua. In any case, I oppose this proposal because 1) it would be more complex and 2) it's not the preferred way to link to sister projects. If we were going to make any kind of effort relative to Wiktionary links, I'd rather see us getting rid of as many as we can. Some of them should be regular local links, even if they end up red links, and some could be replaced by simpler terms. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Auntof6, reflecting on what you said, yes, I also see them as a different color --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would catch a reader's attention too much on pages that use Wiktionary links more than a couple times. Personally I think it looks nicer, but I think the problems associated with many small icons like that outweigh the benefits of distinguishing the links. I also see the different shade of blue that Auntof6 mentioned, but I'm sure most average readers won't notice that unless they read a lot of our articles. Vermont (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary Link Wikipedia Link Ah, this is true, they are a different shade of blue, very slightly. However, I still find that this is a very small difference. Perhaps the differences in blue shades could be increased, if this would make a difference. However, even then I still think the Wiktionary icon would make it more clear that the link is going there. Hopefully this will solve User:Vermont's problems about having too many icons or being flashy, by simply having Wiktionary links being a different color (although they are already a different color now, it is not very noticable, and in addition it's not a good idea to give information solely by color, people might be colorblind. Naleksuh (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While more contrast in the colors could be helpful, for me this is something I think we should keep the same as other projects. We are separate from other Wikipedias, but we are part of the Wikimedia family and we use the same software. I wouldn't want to see us change something that would require ongoing maintenance. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a solution in search of a problem. Definitely no on the icons as that would cause undue weight to go to the links. We want the links to wiktionary to be seemless. -DJSasso (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Djsasso: The problem is being blindsided by being taken to a different site when clicking on a link that should go to Wikipedia. Such a change should not be seamless in my opinion, because it's something to be known before clicking on the link. All external links already have an icon for this exact reason, and there doesn't seem to be much problem there. But if the icons are a nogo, are there any other possible ideas? Naleksuh (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But technically it's not another site. Its within the Wikimedia family unlike external links and as mentioned above it already is differentiated. -DJSasso (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose I think the current links are fine, if you hover over it, it says "wikt" also the link is a little bit different color --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 23:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why being taken to wiktionary is a problem, I do not see it as an external link, it just takes you to our dictionary. There are many words that need a definition which are not suitable for a Wikipedia article.Peterdownunder (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These pages talk about the same thing. I see no reason these should be kept separate. Interstellarity (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merging WP:SEW into WP:About. Basically the same page, and putting the content together could be very useful. I'd be happy to do the merge, and update the new single page, if there is consensus to do so. Best, Vermont (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the merge. I'd wondered in the past why there were two separate pages. Desertborn (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This seems reasonable. Hiàn (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Just make it as concise as possible will be good as the 2 pages seems long enough on it's own. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia:Introduction and WP:Welcome should be into one article. Although I'm not formally proposing that WP:Simple start should be merged as well, I would like to know your thoughts on that as well. Interstellarity (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose All three pages serve different purposes. Introduction is the first page of an interactive tutorial. Welcome is a welcome page and Simple start is a short "quick start" handbook. -DJSasso (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunately all 3 are severely outdated. I've put it on my to-do list for tomorrow, though I'm not sure I'll have much time. I also noticed that the Introduction tutorial only has two pages. I hope to expand that as well. In regard to my opinion on merging, I don't think it's necessary provided the differences in them are more solidified. Simple start is helpful for people looking for a place to contribute, the Introduction would be a good tutorial if it was a more in-depth and not last updated in 2013, and Welcome could do with a reformatting/rewriting to get it more up. The student tutorial, linked to from a few pages, hasn't seen an update since 2007 either, which I hope to work on soon. Vermont (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• To be fair, if the information is correct still, a last edited date from a long time ago doesn't necessarily make it out of date. Some things never change. -DJSasso (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep. Simple start has a lot of recommendations of work to do, like interwiki linking, that is out of date. Other stuff could have terminology switched, or expanded. Vermont (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've tried to make a few improvements to WP:Welcome, although I am sure it can use more. While I do see the argument for merging, their purposes are different. But looking at page views, really only Simple start gets much use. I'm neutral for now. Waiting to see what others think. Desertborn (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create article on Kalinga in simple English can you please guide me how I have to write on it? Kashish pall (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered your question on your talk page. Peterdownunder (talk) 10:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that IP user pages here use binary gender pronouns: "We have to use the numerical IP address to identify him/her." Can this be rewritten to use gender-neutral language, like the corresponding IP user contribution pages on English Wikipedia? I would have linked to or started a discussion on the template(?) in question, but I could not find it through a search or looking at the source. Thanks, Jamie7687 (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie7687 is Mediawiki:anontalkpagetext the template you're referring too?,

If so I agree the him/her part should probably be changed to "We have to use the numerical IP address to identify the user". –Davey2010^Talk 20:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the one; thanks for finding it! --Jamie7687 (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haha no worries! :),Happy editing, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 20:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I tagged MooseBox Episode List for qd, but twinkle did not log it, any solutions as to why this might have happened? --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 22:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also tagged another page (not naming this page per wp:deny) Twinkle also did not log it --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 22:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi greetings, I'd like to put forward a new suggestion. We know patroller permission allows the user to patrol new pages and autopatrol their own articles. But it is better to separate these two rights into different user groups. Because, there are different users who create large number of good pages with less problems. But they may not eligible for become a new page patroller (or they may not like involving in metapedianist areas). Giving auto patrol rights to such users will reduce the backlog considerably. Also NPP can be kept as a separate right to users who knows the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Autopatrolled can be given to NPRs when they are eligible. This is only my suggestion. It is up to the community to decide whether to accept it or not. Thank you.--Path slopu ^(Talk) 13:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We actually really only use the partoller/autopatrolled for the autopatrolled purpose. We don't actively promote people patrolling in the same way that en.wiki does (so we expect that it will look like there is a backlog). So we tend to mostly treat it as only being for the people that are good enough to be autopatrolled and as such we tend to just give it out when we see users have been around and created enough good pages to warrant it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per what @Djsasso: said, I do not feel that this is really necessary at this point. Only people who are trusted to make good articles are the ones who should be vetting them. -Examknow^talk 13:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Triple  (change conflict) )I will say this isn't good idea for various reasons. 1. per DJsasso. 2. Here in simple, let things to be simple. 3. Per that people shouldn't be patrolling if their own articles need patrolling (the person ought to know what a proper article is and to create one to be more empathetic to content creators. 4. I don't see what is broken here that we need this. Most of the new pages are either ok or are obviously problematic (it's easy to notice the autopatrolled users - we are only a few here) and the community seems to be able to patrol pages even without the need to see the unpatrolled list. Good idea though, thanks for raising up. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is able to distinguish from a good article and a bad article, then they are capable of writing a good article, and vice versa. As such, I don't see a reason to separate the rights. Vermont (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Vermont --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 17:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

what i wanted to say by adding a sidebar called family tree users can post about their family. if most of the user do this there will come a point where one user can link to other user family and discover more members in their family. Other people can search for a particular people and discover their family members. The people who update should have an wikipedia account and they only have to fill in their full name place of birth and nationality, additional details can be filled if needed that is their blood type, photo etc . these users can create the family members that they know of. Wikipedia is used by almost all the people so there is a great chance that people will fill out this. I hope you consider this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susmitpr (talk • contribs) 16:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be new here so I suggest you read our policy on what Wikipedia is not, specifically the section that addresses genealogy and family trees. Hiàn (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WikiTree, it is a genealogy wiki.Peterdownunder (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've nominated Operator873 for checkusership, and as we haven't had a CU nomination in a number of years, it seems important to note it for the community here. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder we have an RfCU in progress. This is just as important if not more so, then an RfA, as these deal with advanced rights, functionary accesses from the WMF and really need community involvement to grant them. If you have not voted yet please consider doing so, if you have thank you for your involvement with the Simple English Wiki. -- Enfcer (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems due to close. I see more than 25 legit votes, 7 days? Or am I wrong? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank all the members of the community that supported my run for Checkuser. I'm truly honored and flattered by the unanimous support I received. Thank you all, very much. Operator873^talkconnect 04:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Camouflaged Mirage: You have to remember hour of the day as well. -DJSasso (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Though we don't have an In The News Section like English Wikipedia, I have a feeling that our readers and editors will benefit from a COVID header on the main page like English' Main Page. The header would be made up with links as seen on the template relating to COVID. Just a general thought seeing that this is a major pandemic, many readers are perhaps worried and looking for straight up simple information on what's going on either from deaths to impacts of the pandemic. Ideally the header would say:

COVID-19 pandemic(Disease, Virus, Testing, Impact, Recession, Misinformation, Quarantine, Isolation, Vaccine, Deaths)

Just a general thought. This would also increase edits/awareness of COVID-related articles from our users. Maybe it would be placed under About Wikipedia or Selected Article (since there's room there). Just a general thought I added Quarantine and Isolation for users who may not know what they mean or are looking for further info on it. Of course this would be temporary as whenever the pandemic "ends" so will the header. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I think this would be a good idea.Peterdownunder (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also in support. It seems it would be helpful. Vermont (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I support too. I think we should have started doing this a month or two ago.-BRP ^ever 13:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support as well. Desertborn (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of it, but I don't think all of the articles (as listed in the example above) are detailed enough to be linked from the main page like the English Wikipedia equivalents. We might want to work on those pages before we try putting them on the main page. Single sentence stubs for example probably shouldn't be linked from the main page. -DJSasso (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Djsasso: Besides Quarantine and Isolation, the articles are non-stubs/have enough information. Should we remove Quarantine/Isolation? Expanded all articles, they are no longer too short or stubs as they have enough information for a general understanding. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should be moved to Talk:Main Page, anyways Support --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 15:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is linked at Talk:Main Page, but should probably stay here on our main discussio page because few people would see it at Talk:Main Page. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Support this idea too, however, I am of the point of DJSasso. Let us put our best out there, good idea for this COVID information panel. In the longer term, we might want to consider an ITN if there are enough interest. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is this a go? All articles listed on the header are no longer stubs. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there is support to do it. The issue now will be figuring where and how to put it on the page as main page can be a bit tricky as a lot of it is automated so we wouldn't want to break the automation. Your suggestion under the selected article is probably the best. Just have to make sure it works with the automation that happens there. -DJSasso (talk) 11:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Djsasso: I see. Where do we get started to see if it'll work with automation? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This sounds like a great idea -Examknow^talk 14:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scince the title of this thread is about infoboxes, how do I add one to a page? Atarian 11:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Infoboxes are a template that you add to the top of a page. Depending on the subject there are different infobox templates. The easiest way to see how to add one might be to look at another article in the same subject and see what it is using at the very top of the page. It should start with {{Infobox and then continue down untill it is closed by a }}. All you have to do is paste the appropriate one to the top of the page you are editing and change the fields to the appropriate information for that page. -DJSasso (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! im an IP so I know nothing. Do you think using the xkcd simplewriter thing would be a good measure for simplicity, or people would only use words not in the simplewriter only if needed?? (i dont really know anything because this is m first "edit" on SEW.)--141.156.181.66 (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Bumpf[reply]

Here's a link for those unfamiliar with it: https://xkcd.com/simplewriter/

141.156.181.66, it looks like you're trying to use the name "Bumpf" for editing here. Is that correct? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an interesting tool, and you should be able to use it to write simply. I will have a play to see what it can do too.Peterdownunder (talk) 02:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched before to see if this has been proposed, but the only thing that came back was this one entry from March 2010, more than a decade ago. As this encyclopedia continues to expand, and we have significantly more articles now than we did then. Unlike the DYK section, where things have to be interesting, this can be used for straight facts - major historical events, release dates, births, deaths, etc. I think we have enough articles on here to be able to create at least a 4-point bulletin list for every day of the year. I understand that this is the Simple English Wikipedia, and that we don't need to copy everything the standard English Wikipedia simply because they do it, but many other languages have this feature, including ones that have fewer articles. Also, unlike the DYK section, which seems to be manually updated, once the full year has enough entries, it could be refreshed every day. We don't have very many articles in rotation for the featured article list, and the DYK section can take a while to update. An "On this day..." section would help keep the main page fresh. Can this be done, and would anyone else be supportive of this idea? ~Junedude433^talk 01:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have enough users to do this here. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have the editor capacity to use on something like this. It is a nice idea, but it would draw more editors away from the actual things we need like content work. -DJSasso (talk) 11:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. We already have a page for every single day of the year, and each of them have a list of events already written in simple English. We could literally just pluck it from there. If necessary, I would be willing to shoulder much of the responsibility myself. ~Junedude433^talk 15:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Images and Help:How to use images appear to cover the same thing. It would be good if they could be merged. I think Help:Images is a better title because it's shorter.Naddruf (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished my first article here: User:Naddruf/History of Ireland. I got the information from various Wikipedia articles, but many were unsourced, and I had to find new sources and summarize what they said. What can I do to improve it?Naddruf (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that you're definitely getting the hang of this. It is mostly simplified, and you are comprehensive in its content. The only minor complaint I have would be the variety of sentence structures. Nearly every sentence is a basic, simple sentence, and that's not bad, but you can use simple compound or simple complex sentences to tie ideas more closely together. Otherwise, I would say that that is a pretty decent article. If this is the type of work you plan on doing, I think I can speak for all of us by saying we look forward to more of your contributions! ~Junedude433^talk 02:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can combine some sentences together into complex and compound sentences. I agree it sounds clunky, but I wrote it like this because of the guidelines here: Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages.Naddruf (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Made some comments on the talk page: User talk:Naddruf/History of Ireland. Peterdownunder (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Junedude433: You are correct that varying sentence structure is usually considered good writing. However, one of the aspects of simple English is that it doesn't use compound sentences. Complex sentences can also be harder for English learners to understand. Therefore, simple sentences are preferred. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet all of our good and featured articles have varying compound sentences or complex sentences. ~Junedude433^talk 00:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then that needs to be fixed. When we have proposed good and featured articles, not everyone knows how to evaluate for that. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I mean "complex" I don't mean "difficult" or "complicated." I literally mean complex in the grammatical term. An example would be "I enjoyed the apple pie that you bought for me." Broken up into two sentences, that would be harder to understand since the ideas are disconnected. ~Junedude433^talk 14:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Request for checkusership under way for Vermont. As this is a trusted position, it is in keeping with policy to announce the RfCU and request participation from the community at large. Operator873^talkconnect 19:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone merge these together? See wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_129#Proposed_merges. Interstellarity (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! As I had indicated in the discussion, I'm happy to work on it, especially now that there is consensus for the change. Starting now. Best, Vermont (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the merge. If there's any issues with it, feel free to change it or I can take a look. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how many editors look through our community archives, but there are a few of those pages that are almost completely unreadable because the fonts are all over the place - example here. This is due to an unclosed font tag in Yottie's (Yotcmdr) signature. I suspect the issues have become visible lately because of the replacement of HTML Tidy with RemexHTML (also see mw:Parsing/Replacing Tidy/FAQ and phab:T89331).

I have identified the relevant replacement required and would like to seek approval to make this correction via AWB. According to a scan of the latest database dump, a total of 130 pages will be affected, with a majority of them being user talk pages. 34 of them are community discussion pages (Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespace). The full list of titles is available at User:Chenzw/Unclosed font tags (1). Chenzw  Talk  05:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From a random sampling, I got three pages. User_talk:92.4.37.139 and User_talk:75.133.78.5 seem to be very mild, but pages like Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ChristianMan16_5 is definitely a huge problem. I Support fixing this. Naleksuh (talk) 05:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems just to be uncontroversial maintenance, so no issues there. I think I've noticed this elsewhere with other user's signatures as well, and will bring it up to you if I come across them again; I'm not as experienced/able with identifying and fixing such issues using AWB as you are. Best, Vermont (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an uncontroversial fix. I often fix these types of things when I stumble on them. I say go ahead and do it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Just a quick update, turns out that the previous version of my reegx inadvertently left out some other instances of the signature issue. I have updated the list in my userspace with the new list of pages (now 183 total). Chenzw  Talk  04:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All done, please drop me a message if anyone notices anything strange with other discussion pages. Chenzw  Talk  17:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this a new WikiProject, guideline page says to list/notify here --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to point out here that this is perfectly possible by using the title blacklist. Chenzw  Talk  19:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chenzw: As I said yes it is possible from other angles (i.e. "abuse filter and such"), but not through page protection. Even knowing this, he still wanted to close it for some reason. Personally, I don't think it matters what it used from one way or another, as long as it gets the job done and is relatively friendly to the user attempting to create the page, as although it is likely to be zrcook, it could also just be a new user. Naleksuh (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This issue also happens so infrequently, is it really worth the time. It is just like how we do not immediately page protect a page, unless it gets a lot of vandalism from multiple sources in a relatively short amount of time . This is a similar example. Do we really need it here? In my opinion we can handle it through normal means now without the need for automation. -- Enfcer (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yup happens so rarely that there is no need to try and code around it. Takes two seconds to handle and also lets us know the type of editor pretty quickly. We just close it as WP:NOTNOW and move on. Or if its out and out vandalism delete it. -DJSasso (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Djsasso: Thegooduser's request is in response to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zrcook9494, which was deleted. Although I agree it happens rarely and there's no need to have an automated system of handling it, his goal was to prevent bad-faith RfAs (not the WP:NOTNOW that you linked). Naleksuh (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which is why I mentioned if it was vandalism delete it. -DJSasso (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I closed the discussion because i thought it was not possible. And from these continued discussions, I would have closed it as 'not worth it' --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 20:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! On Simple Wikipedia, is there a way that I can get the UI to use the words that the normal English Wikipedia UI does? It is confusing to have "Contributions" changed to "My changes", "Edit source" to "Change source", etc. Thanks, DemonDays64 (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)! (please ping on reply)[reply]

Nope, unfortunately the simple versions are our English version on this wiki so it isn't possible for you to change it. You will get used to it once you use it for a bit. Everything is still in the same place as well so that helps. -Djsasso (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know I am a new user here and I am posting a lot, but I have a strong concern about the article creation process. I noticed that many of the new articles are unsourced, and I think any unsourced articles are a problem for the viability of this site. So I broke a rule and created a test article just to see what messages I would get during page creation. All it shows is:

While there are links to several policies about writing articles, these messages don't even mention that you need references, let alone reliable sources. That is desperately needed. Additionally, I think there should be a checkbox where you have to acknowledge that there is at least one reference. This kind of issue is was causes people to call this a failed encyclopedia. Naddruf (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While mentioning that information should be referenced is a good idea as that is a best practice, it is not a requirement for the creation of a page. So a checkbox would be inappropriate as users are not required to have references when they create an article, not even on en.wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Compare these messages with the English WP template message:

This gives much clearer guidelines. Looking at the newly published articles on enwiki, hardly any are unreferenced. This is partly because enwiki doesn't allow unregistered users to publish articles. Simple WP doesn't have this rule, so there needs to be some other way to make sure articles get referenced. The problem is, if a reader sees an article that is unreferenced, they may think it is made up. If they see many articles that are unreferenced, they make think a majority of the encyclopedia is made up and therefore worthless. Naddruf (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The need for references eventually is not in dispute, no one disputes that. However, as a small wiki we are more like en.wiki used to be when it was first growing where having an unreferenced article is better than no article at all. We purposefully lower the barriers to entry to encourage article creation. en.wiki on the other hand has thousands of editors to make sure every new article has a reference. We have less than 30 active regulars. So we welcome such page creations as they help us more than they hurt us and if they are truly bad articles (as in untrue) they are generally caught and deleted right away. Sources just have to exist, they don't necessarily have to be on the page. It is one of the main points on WP:BEFORE when determining if an article should be deleted. (and I can certainly say as a regular editor and admin on en.wiki that many many many unsourced articles are still created at en.wiki every day) -DJSasso (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else agree that we should say in the new article creation messages, that you should include references? I think this is very important.Naddruf (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need references here for pages (unless it's a negative BLP). In addition, anyone who tag a page without doing BEFORE for notablity issues should not be tagging A4 if there is a stated claim, this should belong to RFD. I think it's good to include reference, but to say must need references it's not the case here, and elsewhere. What we patrollers can do is to ask the users to include or help them to add, I think this will be a more productive act than asking people to include references. In addition, new page creators might not be so apt with the wiki, so to ask them add references (or rather worse, threaten them not to give their page to get published) is outright very BITEy and we need more editors, so any potential editors here is good. I rather a user creating proper stubs without references but yet those information can be readily googled than the user stuck with the references, and then not wanting to create anything, or afraid of the text and then run off. This is clearly bad. Regards,Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Camouflaged Mirage: Why does this site not need references? WP:Verifiability is one of the three most important policies. It is extremely easy for someone to just put their opinions on a page with a complex topic, and you can't tell whether they are opinions are not, because looking them up is too complicated.

Why should users be able to create pages if they don't have references? One's own knowledge is not sufficient to create an article, because you can't prove it's right. On English wiki they say to write articles based on what sources say about them. And if you have a reference, you can just put a link on the page. It doesn't even have to be in the correct format. As long as they say where the information comes from, it's good. Otherwise it's just original research, which is the second of the three main policies. Naddruf (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do need sources, we just don't need them when the article is first created. WP:Verifiability doesn't say that information has to be immediately sourced either. Just that it does need to be verifiable. I think the problem here is that you are confusing the "perfect" state of an article with the "initial" state of an article. Even en.wiki doesn't require immediate sourcing. It is why there are many tags for indicating that things are not sourced and why we don't on en.wiki immediately delete an article that is unsourced. But Camouflaged Mirage is correct, that we would rather get a new editor editing and then once they are more comfortable here get them used to adding sources in order to make them a productive editor, rather than immediately scare them away by deleting what they created assuming it wasn't vandalism of course. This is especially important to us as one of our core audiences is children and they are a lot less likely to source immediately than an older person would. -Djsasso (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Largely per above will be my reply. WP:Verifiability just means we have to ensure the information we add is not fake, can be found somewhere, it doesn't have to be in the article. This is similiar to en:WP:NEXIST, as long as sources exists we cannot claim the page is not notable based on a lack of sources in the page. I will say my initial reply isn't that good, this site need sources, and will benefit from, but as wikipedia we don't have a deadline, we can improve to the point where all pages have sources. There is no rush except problematic creations like defaming someone, giving hoaxs etc. I will just want the bar of the page creation to be kept low, no use implementing a very hard criteria and then we lose people. Now what we need is good productive editors, and we need to do all to find them, keep them and allow them space to contribute. If someone is established, and after several / multiple attempts of communicating, they still refuses to add sources, we can then address it. Hope you understand where we are coming from. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that it is possible to have a good article without sources, but it is also common to have an article that is unverifiable without sources, as in nobody knows where the information is coming from. Personally, I don't support deleting articles that could be sourced, but most of the time, an article will be created and then neglected. Even if the user stays on wikipedia and writes more articles, they may never add sources to their first articles. But also, it doesn't seem like users are told to add sources when they make multiple articles. Several articles that I found randomly were written by users that almost never included sources. Is there some reason you think a note on the article creation message telling them to include references would discourage people from making articles that actually can be referenced?Naddruf (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with global policy, let it be known an election for Oversighter is underway for Enfcer. Due to the sensitive nature of this post and the level of trust involved, it is requested the community participate in the election. Operator873^talkconnect 16:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an excerpt or a direct quote that is worth including in an article, but the quote has many difficult words, how should it be simplified? I feel that a direct quote should not be altered since it would be dishonest and misleading, but at the same time, it needs to be simplified. ~Junedude433^talk 00:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Junedude433: That is a sticky place to be in. Would you be able to paraphrase the quote, which would allow you more freedom to simplify? Operator873^talkconnect 06:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we definitely cannot change a direct quotation -- unless the change is clearly indicated, e.g., with material placed in brackets. If the quotation "must" be included, then a paraphrase or "clarification" could be used in many cases, e.g., Paul Bunyan expressed his anger at Babe, saying " Frettle ye fuggin' azure beast, get ye off'n m' foot. Kdammers (talk) 08:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kdammers: The quotes provide an account of something that happened, but it does so in a way to provides insight and description that a simple explanation just cannot match. An example of this would be if you were writing an article about some horrible massacre that happened. Simply saying that "the people were scared and ran away" does not do an adequate job at providing information about how this hypothetical massacre affected the psyche of the locals. ~Junedude433^talk 14:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that the paraphrase could be included along with the hard-to-read quotation. Kdammers (talk) 08:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This community was granted a Simple English Wikipedia channel on the Wikimedia Community Discord server. I was asked to ensure the linked page was created and the community notified of its existence. The Discord server is for socializing and the IRC rules should be followed for it. Operator873^talkconnect 06:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need one? -Derpdart56 (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The community is still too small. Chenzw  Talk  18:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. We really aren't big enough to need one. Any issues that arise are handled on a case by case basis. Operator873^talkconnect 18:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. We don't have many large disputes, and if there are problems we can handle them on ST with community discussion. Vermont (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Too Small of a community, also Simple is Simple... ArbCom Bureaucracy is not a simple task... These things are best left for community discussion here. -- Enfcer (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DerpDart56: If you are advocating an Arbitration committee, can you point to any cases that you know of (in this wiki), preferably within the last year, where you think an Arbitration committee would have done a better job? - We do have a team of dedicated admins, who would be able to resolve problems. ArbCom is not just about a board of editors who are able to resolve disputes, it is also about many rules and policies to follow. --Eptalon (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - unnecessary as we don't have enough disputes to warrant a committee. IWI (chat) 02:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can always form one later if it becomes necessary. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but at this moment in time we have no need for one. IWI (chat) 19:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Do we have any tools here that can help with adding cites?, I tried adding "en:User:Salix alba/Citoid.js" to my Vector.JS and Common.JS but neither work and I'm too lazy to copy en:Template:Cite web and fill out everything manually,
Thanks, Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 20:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I've just memorized the format and type everything out manually. ~Junedude433^talk 01:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this or the VE add reference is the 2 tools I usually use. I don't type in any manually as far as I can avoid it. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Junedude433: - How you have the patience to do that I'll never know - I certainly couldn't :)

@Camouflaged Mirage: - Thanks for that, That tool is basically the same as Citoid, It makes no sense as to why the cite button isn't on the toolbar but hey ho, Thanks both for your help :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: You don't need patience when you can type at 70 words per minute. ~Junedude433^talk 16:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do the same thing I just memorise it, but I would support the addition of the same tool as enwiki. Maybe we would have more citations if it were easier. IWI (chat) 22:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've copied a script from EN called Citoid which converts a URL to a full cite so instead of having to fill out template:cite web manually or going to other websites -
[once installed] You simply click Citoid on the left (under tools), paste the URL and click "generate reference" and then you can copy the whole reference and paste it :),

Add importScript('User:Davey2010/Citoid.js'); // Linkback: [[User:Davey2010/Citoid.js]] to your Special:MyPage/common.js and then en:WP:PURGE the page (or use one of the keyboard shortcuts below which matches your operating system)-

Google Chrome	Ctrl+F5 or ⇧ Shift+F5
Mozilla Firefox	Microsoft Windows and Linux: Ctrl+F5 or Ctrl+⇧ Shift+R Mac OS X:: ⌘+R (reload page) or ⌘+⇧ Shift+R (Reload Page and rewrite Cache)
Edge	F5 or Ctrl+R
Internet Explorer	Ctrl+F5
Opera	Ctrl+F5 or ⇧ Shift+F5
Safari	Mac OS X: ⌘+⌥+E (clearing browsercache) or ⌘+R (update) Microsoft Windows: Ctrl+R
Konqueror	Ctrl+R
Camino	Ctrl+R

Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, is there a reason you all can't use the autocite generator on visual editor?Naddruf (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I do not like the visual editor one bit. I only use the source editor and probably always will. So I have no experience with the autocite generator in it. Desertborn (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naddruf, Like Desertborn I cannot stand VE either and only ever use it If I really have to but personally I do prefer Wikitext and more so when citing (I did actually try using VE to cite and I found it horrendous and time consuming whereas with Wikitext it's what I'm used to and found it easy as pie), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Davey! I've been using this one from Salix alba for Citoid. Is yours different or are they the same? Just thinking if I want to switch or not. As a side note, I've noticed the "refTools" gadget doesn't work here, even when enabled. I'd used it frequently over at enwiki. So I basically brought a copy of the loading script into my userspace, and use that instead of enabling in gadgets. It works and I've thus been able to use the refTools. If anyone else wants to give that a try, you can add importScript('User:Desertborn/RefToolbarLoadingFix.js'); to your Special:MyPage/common.js. Desertborn (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I get a chance I will look at the gadget. Might just need an update. -Djsasso (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Think I have it working now. -Djsasso (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it works for me now! I have disabled the script I was using and returned to using the gadget. Desertborn (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome Desertborn - They're both the same but thanks so much for your reftools script - Although I have Citoid installed on EN I never actually use it (because I prefer the Cite button on the reftoolbar which was obviously missing here),

I would urge everyone to not use "my" script and instead use Reftools as you get much more options etc etc,

Thanks again Desertborn :), –Davey2010^Talk 14:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just joined this Wikipedia recently and I noticed that there are a whole lot of new pages that aren't really prepared to be pages. There are heaps of them and I don't think they can be kept track of all the time.

I think this is the cause of IP or new users making lots of pages really really quickly, (one bad page could easily slip through the cracks), and I have an idea that making new pages is not allowed for new/IP users and instead go through a system similar to the English Wikipedia's . Thoughts? Dibbydib (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We purposefully alow IP/new user page creation because we are a much smaller community. We do it because we want to capitalize on edits by such new editors. We set the bar lower than en.wiki because en.wiki has the user base to handle such complex processes while we do not. We on the other hand seek to be simpler and capitalize on all edits we possibly can. It does obviously lead to some articles that need cleanup or deletion, but its a small price to pay. -Djsasso (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been receiving a number of emails from a well known LTA. I know who the LTA is but I won’t name them here. They were demanding I remove information from a talk page. I have contacted trust and safety but I thought I would alert all admins on here as the email may have been sent to a number of users. If anyone else has received a similar email let me know. IWI (chat) 23:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I have had a lot of abuse since also. IWI (chat) 23:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it is who I think it is, then yes we get a lot of emails from them. -Djsasso (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, occasionally, I get email from users. If it is not a regular mail/unblock request, it is usually either a request to remove information from talk/user pages, or the mail that says that some user (who isn't blocked) is really bad, and the user who wrote the mail isn't, so this user should be unblocked. --Eptalon (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eptalon: this was a well known globally banned LTA. IWI (chat) 18:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to make a Simple English Wikipedia article for "A Talking Cat!?!", but it gives me this error when I try to start making it with the visual editor or the source editor:

You do not have permission to create this page, for the following reason:

The title "A Talking Cat!?!" has been banned from creation. It matches the following blacklist entry: .*[!?‽¿]{3}(?<!!!!).*

I previously asked this question at Project:Support desk on MediaWiki's website, and was told to ask the page to be created for me. Here's the original question: https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Topic:Vmt8xfx00tall3qq — Preceding unsigned comment added by Childishbeat (talk • contribs)

I created a small stub based on en.wiki so that you can edit it. Please expand it. -Djsasso (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. However. I can't create the talk page for the same reason as I could not make a Simple English Wikipedia article for "A Talking Cat!?!" before. Childishbeat (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Childishbeat: What would you like on the talk page? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I can edit the talk page now. Childishbeat (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interested vandal fighters may want to add Peg + Cat to their watch lists. Over the last month or so, it has been getting intermittent vandalism that is not frequent enough for protection but which bears watching. Inappropriate changes include adding an image in the infobox that does not exist on Wikimedia Commons, giving incorrect episode dates, and adding dates that are in the future for such things as release dates, episode broadcast dates, categories, and maintenance tags. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appears my edit a month ago and the current version shows "No difference" [1] In that case, a protection may be in order Naleksuh (talk) 05:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Naleksuh: That doesn't follow. There is no difference because the vandalism has been reverted each time. However, the vandalism has been only every few days, not frequent enough for protection. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll watch it. IWI (chat) 13:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I'd like to make a double-check about a change that was announced in Tech/News/2020/21.

Over-qualified CSS selectors have been changed. div#p-personal, div#p-navigation, div#p-interaction, div#p-tb, div#p-lang, div#p-namespaces or div#p-variants are now all removed of the div qualifier, as in for example it is #p-personal, #p-navigation …. This is so the skins can use HTML5 elements. If your gadgets or user styles used them you will have to update them. This only impacts the Vector skin.

On this wiki, this impacted or still impacts the following pages:

• User:Jaybear/common.css
• User:SEPTActaMTA8235/DropDownToTabs.js
• User:Thesevenseas/common.css

How to proceed now? Just visit all these pages and remove div before these CSS selectors if it hasn't been removed so far.

Thank you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was noted at my CheckUser request that we have too many on this project. Though we do have seven CheckUsers, some are not active, and some who do use the right do not always respond to on/off-wiki requests. My proposal has two parts: firstly, making a public page where checkuser statistics (the number of checks done by each checkuser in a given month) are uploaded, as is done for Stewards and the English Wikipedia's CheckUsers. This will give more community transparency. The second part is to impose an activity requirement of 4 months 5 logged CU actions in 3 months; if a CheckUser does not meet that without giving to the community prior notice of their expected inactivity, they would be removed as a checkuser. This would, of course, not count checking oneself as a use of the tool. Thoughts? Best, Vermont (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC) Edited with TonyBallioni's suggestion. Vermont (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Since I raised the concern: yeah, I'm not particularly active here, but it is a bit much that a project that is by definition secondary (simple English is no one's native language) and has less users than many projects is tied for 2nd most CUs of any project. There isn't a need for that at all, and reducing the number makes sense from a data security perspective given access to CU-wiki and the checkuser list. I'd suggest something a bit stricter than no use in 4 months. en.wiki's policy is 5 logged actions in 3 months. For reference, that's the equivalent of 1-3 account checks. I think matching the en.wiki policy makes sense here, since it really isn't much of a burden and requires actual use beyond a one-off. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a better metric. Vermont (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While we might have less regular editors, and are a secondary language, because we are English based we get a lot of spill over from socks etc that come from en.wiki. To the point where often English Wikipedia admins tell problem editors to come here to "redeem" themselves, which usually just results in more issues here. We might have less users but I suspect we have much more need of the tools that most if not all of the other wiki's except other English based ones like en.wiki or commons etc. -Djsasso (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vermont:. You first pointed out that some people use CheckUser, but don't always reply to requests, but your proposals don't resolve that. I'm unclear if you see this as a problem or not. Could you clarify on that? Naleksuh (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a problem I don't have an idea on how to solve. If you have any suggestions, please share them. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, outside of de.wiki that is pretty normal. A lot of what CU's deal with is sensitive, and sometimes you get results that don't make sense so you don't want to post them. You could go with the de.wiki model, but I do not think it would help simple Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for logged actions, I am afraid this will lead to unnecessary checks just to pander that stats. I will rather put it as CU actions, just as editing Mediawiki and fully protected pages counts as sysop actions, declining a check on the SPI, declining the check on IRC pm(s), all these should count as 1 valid CU action. Thanks Vermont for raising this, I was about to do it (per my !vote on RFCU) but was in slightly inclined health hence I can't find the time to do this. I will support having this inactivity criteria laid out per 5 logged CU action/activity (which is declining CU requests and etc, or a valid 2nd opinion on the data). I am not that worried about slow responses, partly due to the 2 very active CUs we just elected, and also CU there is never a rush. I think response time shouldn't be a matrix in determining CU activity as CUs are not to be rushed. I don't want a CU declining too early or rush to accepting something that can be ducked etc. Regards,Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not a regular contributor to the simplewiki community, but note that I don't like the idea of encouraging unnecessary checks of users or pressuring CheckUsers to leave their comfort zone, as would be encouraged by a minimum activity requirement. There's no guarantee that there will be "enough" socking during any given time period for checking to occur.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This request is highly problematic: A checkuser doesn't only perform a CU request for the cases listed at the Request for CheckUser page; he/she also does requests to confirm people are using several accounts, for example to influence a vote. In the case of checking a user, it is generally not one CU request done, but several: 1) get the ip address of the user under suspicion 2) get other users editing from the same IP (if none found, repeat step 2 with ranges of IP addresses). If they are found, compare browsers, and perhaps geolocate the address. So: for a simple check per RfCU, there are quickly 3-4 checks per user listed. As all Checkusers are admins on this wiki, the usual rule for admin inactivity should be sufficient, we do not need another one for Checkusers. Same applies to Oversighters, btw. --Eptalon (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This would be highly problematic like Eptalon says, as it would cause unnecessary checks just like we have people that come and make edits to avoid the admin inactivity requirement we would have people do it for CU which wouldn't be acceptable at all. There should be no requirement that someone use their flag when they don't feel comfortable doing so for whatever reason. And as Eptalon mentions, the usual admin inactivity guideline we have catches those who go inactive for a year. We have removed a number of CUs through those means in the past already. Jesper also makes a good point that there is no guarantee there will be enough need of checks to make sure every CU can even hit activity requirements in a given period. Prior to the two recent additions I would say that was already a concern as one CU seems to catch most checks before anyone else can. Theoretically this could cause CUs to rush to make checks so that they made sure they go their checks in before someone else did which of course also brings up time of day that different CUs edit, might mean less or more opportunity to make checks. All around this is a bad idea. -Djsasso (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The problem right now is any activity requirements we put into place, is subject to being gamed. We have requirements for Admins, and we have Admins that come around only near the end of the year to make their 100 actions. Until we can come up with something that is harder to game, and still is fair, I am not sure how we can impose a sturdy, even, and impartial requirement. --Enfcer (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, it appears there is not consensus for an activity requirement. However, what does everyone think about my second proposal, which is that we make a public statistics page of the number of checks each CU has made in a given month? These such statistics are public on multiple other projects, of course no private data is leaked, and it helps give community transparency into the activity of their elected CheckUsers. Best, Vermont (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it suffers from the same issues. In that it will pressure people into making checks to bump their stats etc. -Djsasso (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of being a checkuser is that I help spot accounts that are long term problem-makers, or those that want to influence a vote one way or another. I don't see it as being the coolest because I did the most checks. And as to our system of admin inactivity: Yes, it has the benefit of being simple. Like any system, there will be people trying to get around it. But that's true for any system...--Eptalon (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok here's the issue: if we impose a requirement then CheckUsers may feel pressured into making checks they didn't need to do, which of course from an ethical perspective is bad (users who don't need to be checked, should not be checked). I agree that we have too many, but I oppose the suggestion of an activity requirement because of this issue. IWI (chat) 16:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]