Wikipedia:Simple talk: Difference between revisions

Simple talk
	Shortcut WP:ST This is the place to ask any questions you have about the Simple English Wikipedia. Any general discussions or anything of community interest is also appropriate here. You might also find an answer on Wikipedia:Useful, a listing of helpful pages. You may reply to any section below by clicking the "change this page" link, or add a new discussion section to this page. Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~). Please add new topics to the bottom of this page. Please note that old discussions on this page are archived periodically. If you do not find a discussion here, please look in the archives. Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page. Some of the language used on this page can be complicated. This is because it is used by editors to talk to one another, so sometimes we forget. Please leave us a note if you are finding what we are saying too hard to read.	Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
Are you in the right place? See WP:AN to speak to an administrator. See WP:RFCU for CheckUser requests. See WP:OS for oversight. See WP:RFRB to request the rollback feature (which administrators can grant). See WP:VIP to report vandalism. Add this page to your list of watched pages — Purge    change

I just wanted to let everyone know that there is a discussion at the English WP to add a more pronounced link here for articles that are common between the 2. This is primarily due to input from the Article feedback tool, where many users have voiced their frustrations at the complicated articles there. The links to those discussions are (here) and at the English Wikipedia Village pump (idea lab) (here).

As a side note, I think it would be good to do something here that could load the readers to the corresponding English WP article if they want more details about the article they read here. Kumioko (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I commented. Osiris (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've also commented in both places. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
How would you feel about putting the English Interwiki link non the top here also if applicable? It seems this would be a useful thing to do here as well. That way if the reader wanted to learn more about the subject they could clikc that and jump over to EN. Kumioko (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was just discussed and rejected a couple of weeks ago in this discussion. The reasoning being that our primary link isn't necessarily to English Wikipedia since many/most of our readers come from languages other than English. It has been discussed prior to that as well at least one other time I can remember. (not to say we shouldn't discuss it again) -DJSasso (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the discussion on en is a direct result of the discussion here if I remember correctly they were not impressed with our response and went to en to propose the same idea there. Or it may be that it was in the opposite order. Either way its kind of ironic its back here again. :) -DJSasso (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is rather ironic. I am still pretty new here so I don't know all the history of things yet and didn't realize there had already been some discussions. It makes sense though. On one hand the argument makes sense but on the other, Simple is rather hidden and unknown so most editors from EN or anywhere else wouldn't know its here unless they went their first and got referred. Its just my opinion but it makes sense to me to keep Simple, well simple and then if the reader wants to get more details and see the bigger words they can go to EN. So having a prominently displayed link makes sense. Of course there are going to be occasions where the 2 don't line up but thats ok too.

I also think that it will draw more traffic here, which again is a good and bad thing. We could hope that the positive contributors outnumber the vandals it would attract but its hard to tell at this point. Certainly we would get some of both I would think. There was a suggestion on my ENWP talk page about putting a promo to Simple in the ENWP newsletter to maybe attract some more users and interest here. Again it seems like a net positive to me but what do you all think? Is that something that would be of benefit to the project? Kumioko (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposal on en to put simple on top because its an obvious destination from English for those wanting a simpler version. But not with the opposite direction because people wanting more information/detail are likely to go to their own language wiki for such. That being said your other ideas about promoting the wiki are all good with me. I think it has been done a time or two in the past but we can always use more promotion because our perpetual situation here is that of needing more editors. :) -DJSasso (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for us a link at the top of the En wiki list is the most useful thing to have. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems that there is a general agreement that some additional promotion of the project on En is good, does anyone have any suggestions for what to say? I can draft something up and post it for discussion and review but I thought someone may already have something we could use. Kumioko (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had started this before, an attempt at creating a joint 'advertising' between WP:SN and their Signpost. Time really got a hold of me, amongst other things... Would be good to see an article in the Signpost highlighting that we're here... *waves* Kennedy ^(talk) 12:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'll draft something up over the weekend and drop it here so everyone has the opportunity to comment on it. Kumioko (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When looking an English Wikipedia article that is is too complicated we could add a link to the simple article as a stop-gap, as if a flag. I suppose it would be good practice to add a flag template for jargon. A link on the talk page between simple English articles and English Wikipedia might be good. Kathybramley (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Below is a blurb I wrote up to add to the Sign post at English Wikipedia to promote this site.

Are you interested in expanding your role in other MediaWiki projects outside the English Wikipedia? Do you find that the the English Wikipedia is too hard to read, use or edit? Try the Simple English Wikipedia version of Wikipedia. It uses fewer words and easier grammar. At the start, it was designed for people learning English. Its style may help readers understand difficult concepts. With less that 90, 000 articles, less rules and easier to read articles it offers possibilities to editors who may feel limited in what they can do in the English Wikipedia.

I anyone has any suggestions please feel free. Kumioko (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Altough..as well -> At the start, it was designed for people learning English. Its style can help understand difficult concepts, without the language posing a problem.? --Eptalon (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the message above based on Eptalon's suggestion. Would anyone have a problem going forward with this message? Kumioko (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "Its style can help understand difficult concepts, without the language posing a problem." is awkward (a subject is lacking, and the second half is repeating a point already made). Better and simpler is "Its style may help readers understand difficult concepts". Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea I reworded the above based on your suggestion. If there are no more comments by Friday I would like to submit it for the next applicable version of the Signpost.Kumioko (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let everyone know I posted a topic to the Suggestions page of the Signpost over at EN. I'll post back here if there are any comments. Kumioko (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion you've posted still needs some fine tuning. "With less that 90, 000 articles," should be "less than" and no space between 90,000. Its also rather short... Kennedy ^(talk) 16:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point and we just crossed the 90, 000 article threshhold yesterday. We can probably make it longer. I left it out here for a while and only a few folks commented. If you have some suggestions for expanding it let me know. Kumioko (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't posted sooner. Was going back and forth with some folks via Email. So, the Signpost pretty much shot down our request because we haven't done anything "notable". With that said once we hit 100, 000 articles they said that should be a sufficient achievment to have a note.

We also might be able to get a notice in the WikiProject section, since its not really a WikiProject though, not sure that will work or if its the appropriate place for it.

In general, and why I never really get into reading it myself, it seems the Signpost is mostly tailored for EN.Wikipedia and only adds external things if they are important in relation to them. Sorry. It was still worth a try though. I'm sure there are a lot of folks who would edit over here if they knew about us, they just don't know. Kumioko (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see where it's getting the redlinked category Category:Port Authority Trans-Hudson‏‎. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's in {{PATH HOB-33}}. I have removed the reference to the category, but it may take a while for the system to catch up with that change. Chenzw  Talk  10:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 11:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank all the editors who include links to Wikimedia Commons in articles. At the same time, I would like to ask that these links be included only if Commons actually has something on the topic. I've seen several new pages recently with Commons links where the link doesn't go anywhere. It's good to include the Commons link when Commons has something related, but not all articles need Commons links. Thank you! --Auntof6 (talk) 07:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just found my way here upon noticing an edit summary in main wikipedia article Elks Temple (Boise, Idaho), an article I had created. The version of that article here in simple Wikipedia doesn't show any much attribution of the Wikipedia article's authors is edit history, seeming to show a brand new article creation. A bot adding a link to the Wikipedia article does not convey authorship credit, any more than the corresponding bot adding to the Wikipedia article conveys authorship to the new simple one.

Was this one article started correctly here, or not? What are guidelines/policy for showing attribution here?

In general, this seems like a great project. Cheers, --Doncram (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles can be attributed either by edit summary or by a template on the article's talk page. In this case, a template was used (Talk:Elks Temple (Boise, Idaho)). For more information on attribution, see WP:TA. Kind regards, -Mh7kJ (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Doncram I'm glad to see you made your way. I'm still learning the ropes here but I think generally the idea is to give attribution to the Article on the corresponding project where the content came from and by extension that gives attribution to all those editors, bots and IP's participated in the articles development there. I could be wrong but that is how I perceive it. Kumioko (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most standard way is to use the template on the talk page. Used correctly, this should reference a specific revision of a page at the other wikipedia project. There is no other meaningful way to attribute, short of importing the page (and hopefully, simplifying it). --Eptalon (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, simpleWP! Enjoy 2013. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 12:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal for listing Simple at the top of the language links on English Wikipedia is now being voted on. [1] It is not going well. I'm surprised at some of the things that have been said. Anyway, even if you joined in with the earlier discussion, you will need to plunge in again. Nothing you said before will count, only what is on the voting page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I added a configuration to Wikipedia talk:How to write Simple English pages, for Miszabot to archive the page. Most of the discussions are over 6 months old. Archival settings are to leave 4 threads on the page, no matter what, and to create a new archive once 125k content is reached. Currently, the whole page is about 50-60k, but discussions go back a few years. Does anyone have an opinion on automatically archiving (low traffic) project talk pages? --Eptalon (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I see no point on it if talk pages get so little traffic like that. It isn't hard if the page does hit 100k to archive it manually. That being said there is no harm in it either. -DJSasso (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its easily automated, and given that the posts on the page in question are not "linear", letting the bot decide is easier than spending time figuring out which post was done on what date, and if that date was six month ago, or earlier. Use a computer for repetitive, boring tasks.... - If we can reach general agreement, I think the system could be extended to other Wikipedia-space low-traffic talk pages. --Eptalon (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't like archiving on low volume pages as it makes it harder to find old conversations without much benefit (ie I have to go search through archives when they could easily just be on the talk page). The only reason to ever archive is that the page size is too big so it causes slow page load times. This isn't the case on low volume pages. I won't oppose it if people think it would actually help, but I don't think it provides a net benefit and is potentially an annoyance. -DJSasso (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be helpful, especially after looking at the page given as an example. I don't imagine there's much need to read threads years old, and if there is a need theres an archive. Go with the bot imo. Kennedy ^(talk) 12:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It came up to me while I was adding some links to articles. Why do we call minor changes like that? Minor can be quite a difficult word: it is not here for example. Can't we change it into "Small changes" instead? --Mark91it's my world 11:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thought. I think though minor also means trivial, or not important, but a small edit could be quite important and therefore not minor. Is there another word?--Peterdownunder (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this has been discussed in the past. You might want to look through the Simple Talk archives. There were no words that accurately matched what minor means if I remember correctly. For example a minor edit can be a very large edit. And a small edit can be a very big change which wouldn't be a minor edit. -DJSasso (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mmhh I see what you both mean. I found this related discussion. What about calling it a "simple" change? Or do you think that would be even more confusing? --Mark91it's my world 16:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because technically all changes here are simple...(or supposed to be) -DJSasso (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to everyone who volunteered last year on the Wikimedia fundraising 'User Experience' project. We have talked to many different people in different countries and their feedback has helped us immensely in restructuring our pages. If you haven't heard of it yet, the 'User Experience' project has the goal of understanding the donation experience in different countries (outside the USA) and enhancing the localization of our donation pages.

I am (still) searching for volunteers to spend some time on a Skype chat with me, reviewing their own country's donation pages. It will be done on a 'usability' format (I will ask you to read the text and go through the donation flow) and will be asking your feedback in the meanwhile.

The only pre-requisite is for the volunteer to actually live in the country and to have access to at least one donation method that we offer for that country (mainly credit/debit card, but also real time banking like IDEAL, E-wallets, etc...) so we can do a live test and see if the donation goes through. **All volunteers will be reimbursed of the donations that eventually succeed (and they will be very low amounts, like 1-2 dollars)**

By helping us you are actually helping thousands of people to support our mission of free knowledge across the world. If you are interested (or know of anyone who could be) please email ppena@wikimedia.org. All countries needed (excepting USA)!!

Thanks!

Pats Pena
Global Fundraising Operations Manager, Wikimedia Foundation

Sent using Global message delivery, 21:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I've written an article (Supertramp (album)) on this wiki for the first time. It's about a music album, so I added the template {{italictitle}}, but it doesn't seem to work: "Supertramp" isn't italicized. I noticed the same problem occurs on Selena (album). How can this be fixed? Greetings, Mathonius (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Osiris (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! Thank you very much! Mathonius (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, a category for a decade (such as Category:1960s television series) is for series that had first-run episodes during the decade. A category for a specific year (such as Category:1960 television series) is for series that first aired during that year. The year categories are subcategories of the decade categories. It seems a little strange to have the subcategories be for something a little different from the parent categories, but that's how it seems to be set up. Does anyone disagree? If that's right, then I'd like to put text on each category describing it. The text would be something like:

• For decades: This category is for television series that were on the air in the 1960s.
• For years: This category is for television series that started in 1960.

Opinions? --Auntof6 (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A city/populated place is notable in itself. So far, so good. I do however claim that to be worthy of keeping, the article about the place also needs to fulfill certain citeria:

1. The stub needs to contain some basic facts: The place is part of a larger area, and has a certain number of people living there. Unless we are talking about a village, there will also be an urban area/conurbation, with a population that is worth mentioning.
2. Unless we are talking about Sleepyville, which is a suburb of TheBigCity, and everyone is a commuter, there will be some kind of economic activity that is predominant in or around the city. Usually such things are worth mentioning. Smaller places are focused on one kind of economic activity, perhaps even one company,with bigger places some variation can be seen.
3. There might be some cultural heritage, almost any city has a place of worship, or some other sights interesting to those who visit. Mentioning them is usually helpful.

Mean as I am, I like being brutal. New creations of cities/populated places that do not state information from at least two of the three categories above should be deleted, after some time (1 week). How many stubs 'X is a place in Y,Z' do we have? - For those living in X, or tohse interested in geography, this should not be difficult to do, and it would prevent us from getting mass-created stubs no one dares to delete.--Eptalon (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is close to being a proposal for the proposed deletion process on EN. And yes, I am in favour of this. We are not supposed to be a directory of every place in the world. Chenzw  Talk  16:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're indeed being brutal lol and those one-liners if not improved after one week could become temporary soft redirects such as the one I've just created today about an Allier commune. ONaNcle (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eptalon why do you insist on wasting so much time on this topic, you bring it up over and over. Just because you don't find these small articles useful doesn't mean they aren't. A stub is just a starting point, it is where articles will start from. There is no time limit on en and an article that is short is better than no article at all. If you don't like the articles don't read them. -DJSasso (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]