Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 164

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.

Hello everyone. I hope you are having a good weekend. Recently I came up with the idea of creating a bot that would help us insert QD templates into newly created articles. The operation would be simple: if the article is less than 100B (this is only an approximate value) and does not contain any links, references, templates, etc., QD G2 would be inserted into it. The idea here is to work with only obvious editing tests, where the editor inserted random letters/test sentence as a new page. For now, however, I haven't tried to write any bot, I just wanted to ask if the community would mind if it was possible. Thank you and best regards, BZPN (talk) 08:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This would be prone to too many false positives. Not everyone adds all of the content in one go. I would rather see this as a tag/log-only edit filter rather than a bot that tags for QD. No QD criteria fits this anyway. G2 is one of the most misused QD criteria in my opinion. It should be reserved for cases where it's a test. A 100kb unsourced page about Telemann's Wassermusik (its history, musical analysis, performances) is not a test page. A page that only contains:

• John was here lol
• Please make an article
• So basically idk
• etc...

are test pages and eligible for G2. QD criteria should not be applied loosely, but strictly. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 08:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have edit filters for some of the cases Eptalon (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I suppose those are Special:AbuseFilter/11 and Special:AbuseFilter/107. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 13:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fehufanga, for clarification: I meant 100B here, not 100kb (I made a typo and misled you, I'm sorry :)). BZPN (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator observation) Maybe you meant 100 bytes? 100kb (100,000 bytes) is a very long article. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 19:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, you're right, I meant 100 bytes... thanks for pointing that out! BZPN (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, there are so many things like documents and pictures that weight some kb, that it sounds more natural to say kb instead of just bytes. I didn't even notice at first, it sounded right. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 21:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An edit filter could be put in place that stops very small new articles by new users, I don't really see why very small articles need automation to be removed. They aren't exactly harming anyone. We don't get so many of them that it's a lot of man-power, and they aren't indexed, so there isn't any reason to get to them very quickly. Even if all of the above wasn't true, we would still require administrators to delete the articles in question. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, writing an abuse filter is also a good idea. However, such test edits definitely harm us - Wikipedia is not intended to test edits in the main namespace. That's why we have WP:Sandbox. Test edits only waste editors' time inserting QD templates and administrators' time deleting them. BZPN (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special:AbuseFilter/19 does exist, but it only tags the edit. From the logs the false positive rate appear to be small enough that elevating it to warn might be acceptable. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 21:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree BZPN (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Over at Manchester Victoria station, the text under Manchester Exchange is showing as:

Manchester Exchange

toward [[Template:S-line/National Rail Historical left/LNWR station|Template:S-line/National Rail Historical left/LNWR]]

I don't suppose anyone knows how to fix this?, I've updated the S line template and Template:S-line/side cell but nothing's worked, Thanks, Kind Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 22:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: This appears to be due to the presence of the previous parameter. I removed these parameters and the template should display correctly. However, if incorrect information is displayed, please revert my changes. Have a nice day! BZPN (talk) 08:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It looks like it was probably because there was only one such parameter in one place, which could cause an error between templates without this parameter. BZPN (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BZPN, Brilliant thank you so much, I have noticed though at en:Manchester_Victoria_station#Westbound_services it says Miles Platting and here it now says Terminus, I didn't know if I should just remove the template and add that name back manually ?, Thought I'd ask you first as you're amazing with this sort of stuff :), Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for fixing that too it's greatly appreciated, I certainly would've messed that up so I'm thankful and greatful you replied and helped so thank you :), Have a great day, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 13:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010, That's very nice of you :). I tried to fix the appearance to be the same as in enwiki, but the word toward kept appearing under the station name, and there was no way I could hide it. Therefore, I simply did it with a "rail line" template with appropriately set parameters. You can't tell the difference visually, but in wikicode it's a bit more complicated. I hope this isn't a problem :). Best regards, BZPN (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay I didn't even notice the enwiki one was changed, Oh no of course I don't care about the wikicode tbh - As long as it matches enwiki externally then I'm happy :), Thanks again, –Davey2010^Talk 14:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need help 2401:4900:3762:E1B5:581E:DE74:1DE6:BDA2 (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you need help with? Ternera (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's just a test, not real question. BZPN (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like someone is just testing the waters with us. Let's keep an eye out in case they have a genuine question or need assistance with something. In the meantime, shall we continue with our previous topics or explore another current event for the Simple English Wikipedia? 162.156.70.174 (talk) 02:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article about the Internet is very incomplete. It talks about how people use the internet, but gives no explanation of how it works, technically. Internet is a level 3 vital article on English Wikipedia, so it's a high priority. I'm leaving this message in hope that someone can help, as I don't know enough about internet infrastructure to write it myself. Depextual (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can discuss what the article should be? People using a browser to surf on the web, to watch TV, to make phone calls are not necessarily aware that they are using 'the internet'. Do they have to? Does it help to add complexity telling that some services are connection oriented, others are connection less, that there is a quality of service for some...

Should we not also talk about the dangers of impersonation, of people getting blackmailed or exploited in one form or another? What do you expect he article to be? Eptalon (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I expected to see more about the technical infrastructure of how it works. Depextual (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I agree there should be more on that. Just need to keep it as simple as possible. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Thread-starter' has removed "Hotspot (computers)" from 'Related pages'.--One is suggesting that user:Depextual should maybe focus more on using Talk-page, if s/he is not dead sure about relevance of stuff in the article. (If it was only a one-off honest mistake, then no big deal, in a Good-faith perspective ...). 2001:2020:345:9919:652F:B1E5:8E63:3ED4 (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a mistake, I just thought it wasn't very useful as a link as there's already a link to Wi-Fi. It's okay to keep that as a link. But I will be removing the red links. Depextual (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing from "Related pages", is fine. (Removing from the main body of the article - no, don't do that.)--If this post is regarded as polite, then fine. 2001:2020:345:9919:516E:786F:F685:925 (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay with me. Depextual (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Depextual - i suggest that you go to the relevant Talk Page, and make suggestions about new sections (that also English-wiki is using).

If you can start any one of the following sections, then that might be good place to start:
Infrastructure, Service tiers, Access, Mobile communication, Internet Protocol Suite, Internet protocol, IP Addresses, Subnetwork, Routing, IETF; Applications and services: World Wide Web, Communication, Data transfer.--Good luck (while i fix other articles, and wait and see what specifics you will bring to the table.)--If this post is regarded as quite polite, then fine. 2001:2020:319:AC4F:F053:6E48:DDFF:F61C (talk) 08:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following link, mentions some specific challenges/'problem'

simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Depextual&oldid=9926815
. 80.67.37.2 (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not have the word WiFi/Wifi or Hotspot.--Anyone can add that (while i try to figure out which Fun fact, i will choose to add to the article). 80.67.37.2 (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WiFi and Hotspot are now included. Depextual (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Outline and 'overview' ", is now a section in the article.--It is largely copied from
  "Outline of the Internet" (article) at En-wiki.--If several users can check out if our section, is on the right track - then that will be fine.--The 'lede' of that section, should likely be merged into the lede of our "Internet" article.--Good luck (but not for me, in regard to that). 2001:2020:345:9919:516E:786F:F685:925 (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall Jenner is now a good article, thank you to everybody that has helped the article get to this point.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 09:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FusionSub Congratulations! Kendall Jenner had Good article, thank you Raayaan9911 10:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Could people kindly review User:Davey2010/sandbox2/VW Golf and let me know their thoughts please?, The individual articles (Volkswagen Golf Mk1) etc have already gone live but they can be changed too,

I'm not a great lover of the way the sources are throughout the sentences as you seem to lose readability ?, I don't know if I really need to list the years for every model, Maybe these are too detailed,

Anyway wanted to get peoples feedback before pasting this to the Golf article, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 19:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your article looks great. I have no objections to it and support its replacement with the current article. Best regards, BZPN (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your feedback it's much appreciated, Happy editing, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 12:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Davey! The article looks great, but in my honest opinion, if you cite the same exact source, I'd only link it once per sentence. For example, when you say something like "from YYYY^[11] to YYYY^[11]", you only need one ref tag in my opinion (unless you are citing two different sources).

Btw is it OK if we make minor changes to your sandboxes? I would never change a sentence or something big like that, I just wanted to remove an extra comma in the second generation section. I don't like changing someone else's sandbox without asking first (unless I'm removing vandalism, but that's not the case, obviously). Happy editing! :) ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 14:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dream Indigo, Thanks so much :),

The cite thing - For instance 1992-1998 - I'm only able to cite the 1992 year and not the 1998 year so doing it your way I thought would confuse people into thinking only the 1998 bit is mentioned and not the 1992 bit too - Does that make sense ?, Readers wouldn't know that both years are cited when on some years only one year is cited and not the other,

Of course you're more than welcome to edit it and change things I don't mind - the more help the better :), Thanks again for your feedback it's greatly appreciated, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 14:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see, I understand. Yes, it makes a lot of sense. In that case, the article is perfect as it is :) And thanks for telling me, and no problem. Kind regards ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 15:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aww thanks so much! :), You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, Warm Regards –Davey2010^Talk 15:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]