User talk:Osiris/November 2013

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 24

Re: Question

Yes, I understand where you are coming from, I would prefer them to stay. But as you have said it does make sense to get rid of some of the intricate parameters. Either that or change it so they are more comprehensible by the users of the Simple Wikipedia. So I do agree with you there. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I wondering and thinking we do need to improve the {{Infobox U.S. state}} template, but seeing as how it would be transcluded on quite a few pages, I have made a sandbox and testcase at User:Clarkcj12/sandbox/Infobox U.S State and Testcase of it at User:Clarkcj12/sandbox/Infobox U.S State I was wondering if you would be okay with that and review it before I do it. The main reason why I have thought it needed updating is the reason being that the current way it is laid out and formatted is in wikitable format. But we have the {{Infobox}} template which allows doing of that but also allows for easier expansion if necessary, or modification. So I was wondering what you would think, as you are one of the editors that last edited it. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few functional changes that I can see from a glance. Those would need to be fixed first, but it would be good to call the base infobox template. From what I can see:
  1. alt-text parameters for the images;
  2. a parameter for specifying the demonym;
  3. a parameter for specifying the state anthem (with a link to List of U.S. state songs;
  4. a parameter for specifying other languages spoken apart from the official language(s);
  5. an option to include 2000 census data as a secondary alternative to 2010 data;
  6. an option to merge "capital" and "largest city" into one line;
  7. parameters for specifying the Lieutenant Governor;
  8. a parameter for linking to the preceding polity (like Kingdom of Hawaii on Hawaii);
  9. parameters for specifying the state legislature (including the upper house and lower house);
  10. a parameter for specifying how many seats the state has in the federal House of Representatives (with a link to lists that don't exist at the moment).
Most of these, I think, are okay. The main problem is, however, that almost all of the parameters are required. This means that unless you edit all of the transclusions beforehand, we're going to get infoboxes with curly brackets in them. The only one I would personally not bother with the "Lieutenant Governor" (it's just another thing that will need updating). The legislature divisions, as well, might not be worth bothering with.
Some of the links are changed and will no longer be valid:
Equally important are some of the efforts made to simplify the language. In our version:
  • "Population" is written as "Number of people"
  • "Median household income" is written as "average income"
  • "Elevation" is written as "Height above sea level"
  • "Mean" is written as "Average"
  • "Admission to Union" is written as "Became part of the U.S."
For the new parameters, "Before statehood" could be written in more simple terms. Osiris (talk) 03:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have made some modifications to it now as have been suggested let me know what you think. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks great. What's also great is that you've eliminated all the new parameters that were required, so you won't have to update any of the transclusions before you edit the template. Osiris (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So I am guessing its okay, to transfer it over now? --Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Osiris (talk) 07:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────┘
I have also created a new sandbox of the {{Infobox settlement}} infobox as such currently it uses HTML code to make the infobox instead of calling the Infobox template. You can find the sandbox of the new template. That I have made to propose updating, at User:Clarkcj12/sandbox/Infobox settlement with the testcase at User:Clarkcj12/sandbox/Infobox settlement/testcases Let me know what you think and if I need to change anything. I have brought this up to you, as currently that template is transcluded on alot of pages, and is protected as it is a highly-visible template. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Before I do that, though, I'd like to get an answer about this Finnish infobox. You say that you agree with me about the intricate parameters, so can I re-disable (or remove, even) those statistics parameters and delete the subtemplates that go with them? We also still need to work out this number infobox. Can I remove the base fields and whatever templates calculate those values? Osiris (talk) 04:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I haven't gotten back sooner. Yes, you can. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that I did transfer the precentage done template over. Which was a mistake, that I did not mean to do. While the other templates, that I transferred over were used by or called by the templates that were the main templates. So that's why I did that, but I agree I have been doing to much with the templates, and will slow down on that aspect and focus more on editing the articles, as such needed whether it is to simplify them or to add an infobox or such, to expand it in the areas that are necessary. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The settlement infobox is really big, but I've spent a little while comparing them. You'll need to copy over Template:Infobox settlement/columns first and then it will probably be fine. Osiris (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did do. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say you can probably change them over now. Just be on the look out for any errors that might result. Osiris (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inverter

Well done trying to rescue this one. I looked at it the other day when the changes were made and just groaned. I then decided it was time to go to bed and leave it for another day, but then I forgot which article it was. If only everywun could speek the Englich as goode as me.--Peterdownunder (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the user knows more about inverters than I do (which is nothing), and we'll end up making a really good team. Osiris (talk) 07:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT people categories

What are your thoughts on the breakdown of these down by occupation? Religion? Political bent (such as feminists)? Specific LGBT category (gay/lesbian, bisexual, trans, etc.)? I'd be in favor of eliminating the first three at least. If the fourth one stays, I could also see combining gay men and lesbians into "homosexual people" to eliminate another gender-based split. Thoughts? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need for most of them, and combining gender seems like a good idea to me. I don't mind some of the occupation categories so much, although there probably many instances in that where sexuality is irrelevant. LGBT actors and sportspeople, for example, might be things that people want to search for. But broadcasters, I don't think so... But that's probably really subjective, so I don't know what to suggest there. I definitely think the splitting of most of those occupation categories is excessive. Osiris (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Not Approved Bot

I think I may have found a possible unapproved bot on the wiki the username is User:Fr228Bot as why I think it is "is" because there is nothing on its user page or nothing to hint toward that it is an approved bot by the WP:Bots as I don't see it on the list. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange. I will block it. Thanks for the note. Osiris (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome, as well, I have noticed User:198.150.101.6 kind of doing some vandalism and if you want to say cyberbulling the user User:‎Itsmeaki, but I can't undo it as it is the only contribution on those pages. And as well I have noticed User:‎Itsmeaki editing alot on one Kailash sadangi which I am not sure about which is not quite notable, and if he is still alive violating the blp policy on having sources for biography articles on people that are still living. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it doesn't look like there are any other admins around. I'll keep an eye on it, but I can't stay online for much longer. Just use your "warn" button with Twinkle to scare off the vandals. Osiris (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan POV-pusher again?

You're usually pretty good at spotting this. Would you take a look at Special:Contributions/80.44.247.122 and see if you think the changes are appropriate? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I banished that guy from Wikipedia for 6 months. Chenzw  Talk  05:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dammit! I was getting so sure that we were finally rid of him.. His appearances have dropped significantly over the last two months. I think the mass-rollbacking has to be getting the message across. I usually nuke his new pages under A3 as well. Osiris (talk) 05:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe it's just the range blocks... Osiris (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, the range blocks may have expired... I will take a look at them again. Chenzw  Talk  06:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet war in Afghanistan

Hi there, do you want to have a quick look at the latest edit to the Soviet War in Afghanistan. It looks a bit like an essay with some POV. I happen to agree with it, but I think it needs another opinion.--Peterdownunder (talk) 12:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the overall bases of many of the claims have merit, but the bias is pretty obvious and several statements, I think, go well beyond what is probably the truth. Like, for example, the lack of coverage on Communism in modern-day China and that claim about Russia being known as the "guardian of Christianity", and there are other broad statements in there that are probably unverifiable in their current state. Without sources it's difficult to verify the accuracy, and several of the claims probably need in-text attribution to make it neutral. Osiris (talk) 12:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

There is something going on, but there seems to be a ip address of User:65.64.177.102 that seems to be doing abnormally fast contributions. As it is kind of pushing every change out of the Special:RecentChanges page to quickly, do you think you can talk a look at that? --Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's just because they're sorting stubs, and it doesn't take very long to do lots of those kinds of edits. Osiris (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You again?

Do you ever have anything positive to contribute? Cos it seems to me you go around deleting perfectly valid pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 03:58, 14 November 2013 (talk) 182.250.152.161

No, probably not. But I'll stick around just for you to insult the next time you choose to visit. Osiris (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: this long term pattern of disruptive editing and harassment [1] [2] is unacceptable. Range blocked for 72 hours. Chenzw  Talk  09:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Sure

I have noticed that User:2a02:ec80:101::2:3 has been using edit summaries, that say it is a bot. So, I am not sure what to think. What do you think, or do you think you can check it out? --Clarkcj12 (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's GoblinBot4 editing logged out. We'll have to wait until Chenzw wakes up to deal with it. Osiris (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. Thank you. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have terminated the bot. It should be restarting in about 5 minutes. Thanks for catching it! Chenzw  Talk  02:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New to SE WP

Hi, thanks for your comments. The reason I haven't been adding references is that I'm editing from a cell phone and I can't copy HTML paragraphs. I can only copy plaintext paragraphs, and then I have to manually add the references, which I admittedly haven't been doing that much. I will start adding in the references from now on.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no problem. Thanks for the note. Osiris (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delinking BE850 words?

I'm curious why you're delinking these. Are the words too simple to bother linking? If there's an article, why not link to it? Should some of them not have articles? Inquiring minds want to know! :) --Auntof6 (talk) 08:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was mostly just trying to tackle a few token words that were being linked habitually without being really needed. Like in biographical articles, death was being linked in the infobox alot (liked this) and words like mother were being linked a lot just when explaining who a person's mother was. Since they're on the easiest list of Ogden's terms, I thought linking habitually like that (as though to just provide a definition for the term) was probably overlinking. I left the link if it could possibly be something that the reader would find helpful, depending on the topic (like linking to friend in a topic about social relationships, or brother on an article about family). I was really careful, but if anyone disagrees with any of the removals, then they should feel free to revert me. I wasn't planning on doing any of the other terms, just had those few that I noticed being linked a lot... Osiris (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I have added a sandbox to {{Infobox chef}} I just have let you know to review it to make sure its okay. To become the main template. As such I have made modifications so it calls {{Infobox}} to have the parameters, as well it makes some of the parameters be not required. Let me know what you think. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That looks fine, Clark. Osiris (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hello, Osiris. You have a new email! Please check it at your convenience.
You can take off this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Chenzw  Talk  05:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Osiris (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I have replied too. Chenzw  Talk  05:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Convert

I wrote en:Module:Convert and wondered whether it may be of use here. The prompt for that was a discussion at enwiki which is considering whether to switch the convert template to use the module. Someone mentioned that they were looking for a solution to problems encountered at Commons, and they decided to use the module there. That's been done and was painless, so I wondered about here. Anyway, I see you have already imported the modules, and they are in use.

It looks like convert is working ok here, but in case maintenance is ever wanted, I would prefer that the current versions of the modules were in use as they are more stable than the snapshot you got. A significant difference between the old and new version is how error messages appear. Some examples of the new style are at en:Help:Convert messages. I put some related notes at User:Johnuniq.

What do you want to do? I'm happy leaving the old version if that's what you want. I guess it's working ok as far as you know? If something is wanted, please let me know. Johnuniq (talk) 08:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnuniq! Good to see you here. Yes, your module works fantasically! It's really quite amazing. Although Wikid77 suggested that we keep using the template network, it makes upkeep for us a lot of harder, so we switched to your module back in September. There was very little to do after switching over, it just caught a dozen or so uses that were incorrect. I made a list of the issues we had here. Most of them were easily resolved, and these templates are now orphaned. There are a few templates (Template:Pop density and Template:Val) that employ some of the convert subtemplates directly, and I haven't managed to work around that. This lists all our subtemplates that are still in play (the "Listed units" subtemplates could all hypothetically be called by Template:Val, although no actual conversions are done through it).
I'll definitely update them to match your current version; I've been waiting for enwiki to make the change over. I'll try to translate the Help page too. Osiris (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please check my update at your log. I might put en:Help:Convert messages here, and edit it to suit the local environment (that is fix links, not adjust the language), and you could then update the modules whenever you wanted (the new version needs that help page because error messages link to it). You might mention how the transition went over at the en template talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I created Help:Convert messages and Category:Convert invalid units and Category:Convert invalid options. These are needed by the new version of the module, when you decide to use it. When that's done, you can delete the categories that are currently used.

You probably should add |warnings=on to Template:Convert as I did at commons:Template:Convert. Currently (with warnings off), mistakes like "|abbrev=on" ("abbrev" should be "abbr") are ignored. I did not enable warnings at enwiki because it is very likely that there are hundreds (thousands!?) of broken options in the half million converts used there, and that would overwhelm efforts to fix actual problems when the module goes live. It's likely there won't be many problems here, and I'll get around to fixing any that pop up in the categories.

If you look at the template on Commons, you will see it has an "nscat" option. That sets the namespaces for which the module will add one of the tracking categories if an error/warning occurs in a convert. The default is articles + templates (for templates that call convert). The default means the categories are not filled up with inconsequential problems on talk pages etc. Commons uses convert in other namespaces, so I added nscat. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all that's done and no issues to report. There only seemed to be one instance that needed correction [3] – not sure if there'll be more later, the job queue on this wiki is a tad slow sometimes, but I'd hazard a guess to say that's all we're going to get. Osiris (talk) 05:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, they're starting to appear now. I'll keep an eye on the category over the next few hours. Osiris (talk) 05:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like most of them have to do with Template:Convinfobox. The module doesn't like the empty fields. Enwiki's version of convinfobox won't be an immediate problem, since it uses the subtemplates of Convert directly and won't use the module at all. I changed that for us to make it use the module, and I think it was working fine until I switched the module over to the current version. Osiris (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's wanted as far as linking is concerned? In Crich, the convert is giving a warning because of the invalid "link=on" (should be "lk=on"). At enwiki we would not normally link units m or ft, so I'm not sure whether to remove "link=on" or to correct it. Perhaps links are wanted here? Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, overlinking isn't really a guideline here. There's no simpler word for "feet" and in translations it can sometimes end up as the corresponding word for a person's feet. So linking helps learners figure out the words, I guess. Osiris (talk) 06:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed a few problems, but will stop now and return in due course. I checked a couple of the corresponding articles on enwiki and, as expected, they have exactly the same problems which are being ignored because there is currently no option checking. We might never get around to setting warnings=on at enwiki, and feel free to turn it off here if you think it's too much bother. Or, perhaps leave it on for a couple more days and see if I work out how to fix the various templates. Some points:

Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting the misuses. I'll leave the warnings, and if there is anything that I can do to help progress please let me know. What do you want to do with {{Height}}? It uses the same code as en's version, but from Wikid77's explanation, it sounds like abbr=def does the same thing as abbr=mos or abbr=out (I don't know what the difference between those two options are).
  • {{convert|67|km|abbr=mos}} → 67 kilometres (42 mi)*
  • {{convert|67|km|abbr=out}} → 67 kilometres (42 mi)
  • {{convert|67|km|abbr=in}} → 67 km (42 miles)
  • {{convert|67|km|abbr=on}} → 67 km (42 mi)
  • {{convert|67|km|abbr=off}} → 67 kilometres (42 miles)
Osiris (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After pondering the templates that use convert, I have decided to change the way the module works so that it ignores unimportant problems. See en:Template talk:Convert#Changes to module for an overview of what the changes do. Please copy the new code from en:Module:Convert/sandbox to Module:Convert, and from en:Module:Convert/text/sandbox to Module:Convert/text. That will cause the warnings from the wrapper templates to go away.

Please check my edit to Template:Infobox Russian city which is intended to fix Krasnodar and Pskov and Volgograd which used to complain about precision=-2 being an invalid option. We'll see what turns up in the error categories in a few days, but it's looking good at the moment.

FYI, abbr=mos is no longer wanted at enwiki. It changes the way ranges appear by repeating the unit:

  • {{convert|67|-|79|km}} → 67–79 kilometres (42–49 mi)
  • {{convert|67|-|79|km|abbr=mos}} → 67–79 kilometres (42–49 mi)*

Johnuniq (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Osiris (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That definitely resolves the issue with {{height}}. The rest is looking fine for the moment. Osiris (talk) 11:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changeover report

The module may have problems which would need to be fixed before its use. These are documented here.

Will need to be manually adjusted to use the module:

Any converts that use 0 to mean "use the default output unit" would need to be adjusted because the module always interprets 0 as a rounding precision.

While that is correct, I recently changed my mind on it being a problem because I manually checked all usage on enwiki, and I'm fairly confident that there are no cases where it's a problem (more or less by good luck because the converts happen to not use a construction that would be a problem). See en:Help:Convert units#Default output for my current thinking. Johnuniq (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, no problem then. So is the function of the /3 subtemplate totally redundant to the module? Because if so I'll get rid of it since it also isn't used anywhere. Osiris (talk) 05:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, convert/3 is not required. However, if someone copies an article from enwiki that uses convert/3, there would be a problem until the convert/3 was changed to just convert. You can try what I did at the article above, or call me. Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Log of issues

Initial switch
  • transclusions of Template:Infobox England county were using different parameters to those required, which meant convert was being called without a value passed to the required parameter –  Fixed [4][5][6][7][8][9][10] and template adjusted
  • some uses of infobox parameters that call convert were specifying the unit when it only takes the value –  Fixed [11]
  • unit values c and f are no longer substitutes for C and F –  Fixed [12]
  • several weight conversions were manually specifying the converted value in an unnamed field (e.g., {{convert|766|lb|kg|356}} –  Fixed [13][14][15]
  • some uses had the units in the first and second fields and the value in the third (e.g., {{convert|m|ft|5.79}}) –  Fixed [16]
November update
  • instances of |abr= being used instead of |abbr= –  Fixed [17]
  • instances of |abbr=yes being used instead of |abbr=on –  Fixed [18]
  • instances of |link= being used instead of |lk= –  Fixed [19][20]
  • instances of other spelling mistakes in the parameters –  Fixed [21]

Templates employing convert subtemplates directly

Image Reuest

Hi, I'd like to know if there's any place in wikipedia which I can request an image for an article. I mean I reaquest it and an administrator uploads it. For example, this page has no image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Bassnett Wikitranser (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Is it for the Simple English Wikipedia? If it is, you'll have to go to Wikimedia Commons, because we only use files hosted there. If it's for the English Wikipedia, then this question is probably better posted there... If you don't have a specific image in mind, and it's just a general request for an image, then I think people just follow Wikipedia:Requested pictures and use en:Template:Image requested on the article's talk page. I wouldn't expect a response any time soon though. Osiris (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spider International RfD

After filing RfD and the initial consensus, there was a significant improvement of the article, that mainly addressed notability (two independent reliable sources were added), and also I have fulfilled additional suggestions regarding the tone of the article to be not advertising (I'm not a native English speaker, so I appreciated that words such as "provider" should be changed, and I did accordingly.)

Could you please review the article again? I'm thankful for you filing the RfD as it helped to improve the article. I would hope to reinstate the article, and since I have showed a commitment to improve the article, I would continue to do. Tdfdc (talk) 10:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to seem unwelcoming, but could I ask why you chose the Simple English Wikipedia as the place to write about this? I mean, the English Wikipedia is the main project, most of our work here is translating content from there for people who have trouble understanding the articles. Articles on new and obscure companies is at the very bottom of the list in terms of priorities for us. Your own priorities might be different, of course, so perhaps the English Wikipedia would be the better place to find people to work with you on this. Osiris (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, everyone is posting this kind of articles on EN.WK. But I'm not a native English speaker, and I don't think my qualification is enough to post it there. I would just prefer to have a small article, written in a simple English, and that is why I choose it here. Tdfdc (talk) 08:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well it's up to you. But it's actually a lot more difficult to write in Simple English than regular English. You have to have a very good understanding of vocabulary, the precise meaning of individual words and which ones are easier to understand or less ambiguous than others with the same meaning. You have to know where it's effective to break up sentences into shorter ones without interrupting the flow or cohesion. Osiris (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In a professional way, yes. A few years ago my vocabulary was much less than now, and I remember it approximately. So, I guess the SE.WK is for the people like me few years ago. So, if I can understand an article, and especially every word in it, it means that it is a simple English.
Btw, if there is anything you would like me to do, that is not time consuming, and possible related to Russian/English, do point me, and I will be glad to contribute too. Tdfdc (talk) 12:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you speak Russian? I needed a Russian-language native quite badly a few months ago! Anyway, I've had a look over your draft. The wording is fine, I think. The two sources you added are a good start, but they don't demonstrate a sufficient level of notability. The basic criterion for judging notability is whether the subject has had significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. The trade-show listings are trivial coverage. The PC magazine article is slightly better, but it's still not an example of significant coverage, because the article is actually about something else; it only mentions Spider International products as part of a wider discussion about something else. The last reference looks like a sponsored review, not really independent. If you want to make sure that it's not going to go through a deletion discussion again, you're going to need to find several more quality examples of significant coverage. Try to avoid product reviews. Osiris (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hope you will be needing one again some point in the future :).
Do you think it would be possible to leave the article for a month, and hopefully I and others could contribute? This company is notable in audiophile circles. Tdfdc (talk) 13:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by leaving the article for a month? I can't really support moving the page back into mainspace until there is a better show of sources. Osiris (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Many articles that have shown some notability, but perhaps not enough, are not deleted, they are tagged. Tdfdc (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Such as {improvereferences |date=November 2013} IMHO. Tdfdc (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it is a collaborative effort. But activity on this wiki is very low, and the site is not a high priority on search engines. So it is highly unlikely that any edits would be made to the article within a month, except by yourself or by editors that you invited to do so. Which is why I suggested the English Wikipedia instead, since there is a much greater editorial base (over 200 times greater) and Google usually puts them at the top of searches. Osiris (talk) 06:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about Google. But I'm not working for the company, and so I'm not concerned about this aspect. Indeed, I may invite some audiophiles to contribute. Tdfdc (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What happens if, in a month's time, there is still insufficient evidence of notability? I fail to see how moving it back into mainspace will help that. You could just as easily invite these people to edit your sandbox. Osiris (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It will be up to you to decide at that time. As you are an admin, you may opt to delete it, or more graciously to submit for RfD to seek consensus. There are 170000 hits on Google for "spider internation" (taken into quotes), so there might be additional references. Tdfdc (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't do anything without consensus, so we would have to have another RfD discussion. With the sourcing what it is at the moment, I personally feel like it would be against my better judgement to agree to this plan. If you can find one reliable and independent example of significant coverage, then I'll agree to approve it for the mainspace. If not, you'll have to get your approval from someone else. But if the only contributors were people you were going to invite to edit, then it doesn't sound like it's an issue where the page is located. Osiris (talk) 02:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to have this article to be a about a brand? Then IMHO the notability requirements would be satisfied? I appreciate that you found the wording to be okay now. Tdfdc (talk) 06:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 I don't think it really makes a difference. The general notability guideline is pretty much the same as the one for organisations; the latter just contains some more specific directions about what to do in certain cases. If you're seeing a difference that I'm not, let me know and I'll take a closer look. Osiris (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the number of references should be loosely correlated with the size of the article? (Mostly we see many references for long articles, and fewer references for smaller articles.) You may also consider, why would PC Magazine in Russia select Spider's HDMI cable for testing if the company wouldn't be notable? Spider's products are sold around the world, and the company, and the brand are notable in audiophile circles in many countries imho.
Meanwhile, may I ask you, is this source suitable for inclusion: http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/reviews/entry/spider-international-moonlight-studio-monitor/ ? Tdfdc (talk) 10:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's a standard review of one of their products. Avoid reviews because they're never a good indication of notability; it's not really about the company and their independence from the subject can rarely be verified. The "fewer references for smaller articles" concept sounds like WP:V, not WP:N. The size of the article has no impact on the notability requirements. Osiris (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean for a company, because notability cannot be inherited. I meant as a source for a product. I have seen the guidelines that suggest that products should be listed on the same article with the company, instead of having a separate article.
About "fewer references" I meant practically speaking. In theory of course you are right, but I have seen many articles and found it rather to be this way IMHO. Tdfdc (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah for the product it's probably usable as a reference, but it still has to be used with care. Usually what happens when people assess notability is that they look for the potential for sources. Those sources don't necessarily have to be on the page attached to a fact. So, for example, our article on Sony only has one reference, and that is the company's official website. It needs more references to verify the facts within the article, but not for notability because you can easily find plenty of reliable sources about Sony if you look for them. Whereas, in this case, almost everything in the article is cited, but editors have found that there aren't many sources (whether they're in the article or not) that would indicate notability. Osiris (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okey. I have two questions:
WP:N is a guideline, not a policy. Should be articles deleted on a basis of a guideline, and not a policy? Quote from the se.wk notability's guideline: "It is a good idea to follow it, but it is not policy."
Notability guideline says that "though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Could this be applied to the article in question? The rationale being that Spider's brand and the company is notable in audiophile circles, however the number of people around the world who consider themselves audiophiles, and the relevant media is quite narrow. For example, in the audiophile article on the en.wk only 3 sources are listed for audiophile related information. Should we consider significance of coverage in relation to the number of the available sources that are dealing with the topic? Tdfdc (talk) 06:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are deleted on the basis of consensus. Notability is a guideline because each case is judged separately, and its interpretation is the basis for each consensus. Theoretically, policies can be enforced without discussion. If notability were a policy, then we wouldn't have been required to have the deletion discussion. You keep saying that it's notable in a certain circle, but we need proof of that. You will find that there are a whole range of subjects that are extremely notable, but don't fit Wikipedia's inclusion requirements because they haven't been previously written about by sources that are acceptable to Wikipedia. You are suggesting changes to the established content rules. Osiris (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about the tags? I was under impression, that if the article is of good wording, but the problem is that the references are not enough, it can be tagged with {improvereferences |date=November 2013}. Why not to go this way?
Well, I'm saying that Spider is notable in audiophile circles, because I have been participating in one of the biggest audiophile forums - head-fi.org. Regarding the proof, in the three audiophile sources listed, stereophile being one of them, it appears there. I suppose there are more references. My idea is to post a message on the forum, and ask if anyone would be interested to contribute to the article. But I cannot post a message and ask the members to edit my userpage.
What is your opinion about "Should we consider significance of coverage in relation to the number of the available sources that are dealing with the topic?" Tdfdc (talk) 10:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About your suggestion of reinstating the article with a tag saying that the references need improving: tags are not intended to be left on articles indefinitely. Tags are an indication that the article might not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. We do have many articles that have been tagged for a long time, but that does not mean it is acceptable to leave them that way. It just means we don't have enough editors to keep on top of them all. At any time, a tagged article could be nominated for deletion at WP:RFD. This article already went through that process and the consensus was to delete. Now you are asking for it to be reinstated without resolving the issue(s) for which it was already deleted. Why would we do that? --Auntof6 (talk) 11:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, from the moment of consensus and till now, the article was significantly improved. It is no longer the same article that was voted on. Secondly, I'm going to add additional references and would like to ask members of audiophile community to contribute, if possible. I think its excessive to ask immediately that an article will be per standard of a candidate for GA. The article should have some development time. It's unusual that an article will be written as to no needing any improvement, especially when is done by a newbie. The article is indeed developing, and improving. The wording is fine now, two more reliable sources have been added, and one more is in works already.
Auntof6, you are putting me in a defensive position here. I would really appreciate AGF. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and improving articles is a collaborative effort. That's why I guess the tags are here. Not because there is no time to make RfD, but because there should be given an opportunity to improve articles in collaborative way. Everything I have said is in AGF, and if I'm wrong, please let me know where, and accept my apologies in advance. Tdfdc (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Let's put this back on the crux of the matter... My reason for nominating it for deletion was that the subject was not notable. To disprove this, all you have to do is provide sources. You don't have to improve the article to do that; I just want to see evidence of coverage. You can add the sources to the talk page for all I care, because the quality of the article wasn't the concern that I had. Osiris (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Osiris, as I value your opinion, could you please respond in full to my comment: "What about the tags? I was under..."
I already understand that you would like to see more references.
However I would appreciate a reply for all the points, if possible.
In addition, I would like to ask: When you mentioned 'potential for notability', where can I find it in the guidelines? While I absolutely agree with the logic of it, however I didn't see it as a part of them. Could you point me please? Tdfdc (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 No longer the same article? Please look at the diffs between the original version (which used to exist as an article) and the current version which you claim to have improved on: [22]. While the issue with the article's promotional tone has been addressed (though I think there is still a need to work on it), there is insufficient work on further proving the notability of this article. Please refer to en:WP:ORGDEPTH: "acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: ... routine ... reviews". We have also stated that participation in trade shows alone is insufficient proof of an organisation's notability. Just adding one additional reference (from PC magazine) is not enough to convince us that this organisation is notable enough. We are not audiophiles. From our (and most of our readers') point of view, this appears to be one of many other companies which just manufacture audio equipment. I would love to AGF too, but more than half of your edits have been to our user talk pages to convince us of the notability of the company (which is not working, by the way), while a significantly lower proportion of edits have been used to improve the article. The way you are going about it, I can't help but suspect that you are either working for the company, or have been asked by the company to create an article about them. Please prove me wrong, because I don't like to suspect this kind of thing from fellow editors either.

This is not just a matter of tagging the article with {{refimprove}}. There is no content on the article which can prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that the company is notable enough. I have already given some suggestions on my talk page. If you take a look at en:WP:CHALLENGE: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Chenzw  Talk  01:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the author previously stated that he/she was creating the article at the request of someone at the company. --Auntof6 (talk)

I said editors assess potential sources (either their existence, or availability), which you can find explained in WP:NRV: (the paragraph beginning with "Editors evaluating notability..."). I gave my opinion regarding relative notability in my reply above (timestamped 07:50, 27 November 2013). If there aren't many sources available on a given topic, then the topic probably isn't notable under Wikipedia's guidelines. When we talk about "notability" here, we're not talking about the dictionary definition of the term. It's entirely in relation to Wikipedia's definition; that is, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Like I said, there are plenty of very notable ("important", "significant") subjects in the world that don't fit Wikipedia's criteria of notability because they haven't been written about in (at least not in sources that are acceptable here).

Regarding the tags: I agree with the others here; they're not meant to do what you're suggesting. Either the company is notable, or it is not. A tag isn't going to make a difference, and if we don't have the evidence of notability, then we shouldn't have an article on it. Particularly when it comes to companies.

I don't see why you wouldn't be able to ask people to contribute to your userspace draft. But, anyway, this is getting a bit tedious. We've been reviewing the guidelines for a week now. If the evidence of coverage is not there, then there are no loopholes. You're no closer to convincing me of this company's notability (under Wikipedia's definition) than when you started. Let's end this, please? Osiris (talk) 07:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have already stated that I haven't been selected by the company nor working for them. Surely, they could have selected someone who is a native English speaker, would it be the case. I'm a beginner audiophile, and I came to know about the company in head-fi.org.
I'm not trying to convince that the company is notable. But I'm rather trying to establish procedural norms. It should not be considered as 'my' article, and I don't understand why it is being addressed so. Wikipedia, is again, a collaborative effort. In that particular article we have had so far two direct contributors, and two more editors who are providing suggestions.
I haven't heard that a person should develop an article in his sandbox till GA candidate standard. I feel that is excessive, and I'm expressing my view.
It wouldn't be appropriate for me to ask people to edit my sandbox. IMHO.
I'm asking to post this article for about a month, and after that to review it.
Osiris, thank you for the information about potentiality. However, it is EN.WK guideline. Are we using EN guidelines on SE? I was told that different Wikis have different guidelines.
Chenzw: You are referring to EN.WK guidelines. But I think that there are SE.WK guidelines. Shouldn't they be used and cited instead? Tdfdc (talk) 11:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't convince us that the company is notable (through the article), then that page should be deleted - it does not belong here. The norm, so to speak, is to leave the article deleted (of course, it has not been so far, because we are hoping that some improvements can be made).
Yes, this is a collaborative effort, but for one, we are all volunteers here with another commitments outside the wiki. Furthermore, you do not appear to be particularly interested in expanding this article. This being a relatively small community, it is unlikely that anyone else here will be willing to conduct research into the company to prove its notability, unless they are also audiophiles. Again, I have also left a few suggestions on my user talk page in the past.
Indeed, articles are not kept in sandboxes until they are GA standard. That would be absolutely absurd, and I have no idea who might be suggesting that. Articles can always exist as stubs. However, the article (I believe most of us are saying "your article" just to avoid confusion) is not even suitable for inclusion per our editorial guidelines.
I am unsure of your reasons for thinking so, but I assure you that no one here will be offended if you ask other people to edit your sandbox.
Because of how closely related the Simple English Wikipedia and the English Wikipedia can be, policies/guidelines which do not exist on this wiki, are inherited from EN wiki. The notability guideline on EN applies here, except where local guidelines explicitly contradict the EN guidelines (which I don't think so, for this case). Chenzw  Talk  12:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation regarding validity of En.WK guidelines here. I'll try to find more reliable sources.
Regarding keeping the article in the sandbox, Autoinf6 asked me for permission to edit my sandbox. Certainly, I have given him the permission. You can see it on your talk page. So, I think it's not straight forward as it may seem; my idea was, to post a message on head-fi.org (a popular audiophiles location) and invite them to contribute to the article. I don't know how response will be to edit my sandbox, as it is rather unusual. On a broader perspective, I think it's incorrect approach in general.
I would appreciate, even though I'm the major contributor so far, for the article not to be called 'my article', but rather 'the article'.
Osiris suggested that the whole Audiophile field may not be notable, because of a limited number of reliable sources in the field. Do you agree with it? I personally think that everyone knows what audiophile means, and subsequently, what audiophile equipment is. Is the general public interested in audiophile equipment? Well, in my opinion many people are in fact audiophiles, even if newbies, for the people would like to get the clearest possible sound. There are many qualities to quality sound, it is sound stage, reproduction of highs, mids and lows, sensitivity, etc. And, even if some people don't 'name' those qualities, they are intuitively appreciating them in a good audiophile equipment.
That's why I have suggested, if you agree that audiophile topic is relatively notable, and at the same time the number of sources is limited, to approach the notability guidelines with a 'common sense', and 'exceptions can apply." Tdfdc (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "Osiris suggested that the whole Audiophile field may not be notable": No, I didn't. I said that if there isn't significant coverage of a given topic, then the topic isn't notable under Wikipedia's guidelines. Whether that applies to audiophile equipment I haven't said, because I haven't assessed the topic's coverage. I have, however, assessed the coverage of Spider International, and found it to be not notable. If you don't want to invite people to edit your sandbox because you think it's unusual, then you'll have to find other means of collaboration. I suggested one above, but you didn't like it. I also said that I won't approve moving the page back into mainspace until there is better evidence of notability. That stance will not change. You are free to look for approval from other users, but you won't get it from me as long as that issue is outstanding. Osiris (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Osiris, you have said: "If there aren't many sources available on a given topic, then the topic probably isn't notable under Wikipedia's guidelines." That was your reply, and you were reflecting to my mention that on the Audiophile article in the EN.WK there are only 3 sources listed for the Audiophile field. Tdfdc (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also said that evaluating notability does not only involve the sources listed on the page. A quick glance at Google Books, Google News and Google Scholar brings up dozens of sources on the topic. This isn't about whether the Audiophile field is notable. You're wasting my time. Osiris (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Aiello

The page you deleted, https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_R._Aiello, was part of a class project through the APS Wikipedia initiative. I believe I had the appropriate badge on the page. Tomcuth (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I thought you had finished with it. I guess we can restore it as a draft in your userspace if you'd like? The subject has to be proven to be meet our notability requirements. I spent some time looking for references about him, but couldn't find much that wasn't already associated with him. Osiris (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden

When categorizing settlements in Sweden, you forgot to add å, ä and ö where it should be. Shold we ask a bot to fix that? J 1982 (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I omitted them deliberately so that it would be easier to add them for regular users. Since most English-language natives won't have diacritics on their keyboard. I don't know what the standard guideline is, but I've created category titles with diacritics before only to have them renamed. Osiris (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I've done these both ways, and I don't know what the guideline is, either. One thing you could do is create a category redirect with whichever spelling isn't used for the category. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Hey, how's it going? I was wondering if a user like me can update the DYK. Just a metaphorical question. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. The refresh rate says five days, but I've been updating them after seven days since Oregonian2012 left. I think that's running pretty smoothly, and we seem to just scrape together a queue full every week, so maybe we should change it officially. You'll find the "Updating instructions" on any of the queue templates. Osiris (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I screwed up the time reset. Help. I didn't mean it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine. A bit early for the update, but it's no big deal. Osiris (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess your ten days thing sound better. I was just seeing how it goes so that I'm more prepared for the future. Although I could use some help with the time reset. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seven days, you mean. I don't think you did anything wrong, just press the "purge" button afterwards. Osiris (talk) 09:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sorry for the trouble. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Osiris/November_2013&oldid=4679366"