Wikipedia:Simple talk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Deletion of userpages...[change | change source]

Hello all,

there are quite a few userpages up for deletion, from users who have not edited here for some time. Before going through all these deletion requests, I propose the following solution:

  • The user in whose userspace the page is can ask for deletion (this is part of the regular deletion process)
  • If the user is not under a long-term ban, and that the page does not violate any policy, there is no reason to delete their userpage; we might want to consider marking the page inactive/old at best (after a given time, eg. three years)
  • Since we have no wikiprojects, some wikiprojects were created in userspace, we need to discuss what to do with those; they need to be handled separately, since their scope is different.

I would prefer a discussion here (possibly resulting in a guideline), rather than having the same discussion several times on the RFD board. As always, comments are welcome. --Eptalon (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Well, they are user sub-pages. The user pages themselves are not involved. In some cases there is no real content at all, so nothing is lost by deleting them. Where there is substantive content, at least a clear verdict should be required for deletion. Since we don't recognise projects officially, they have no "in principle" sanctity. In many cases they were just a whim, and nothing has been made of them. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Personally I don't see why we are deleting them. Assuming they don't violate a policy (ie an attack page) then we have to remember en:WP:NOTPAPER. (obviously that is about content but the same principle applies) We aren't restricted to the amount of space we have so there is no need to delete them. -DJSasso (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Some of the user pages in questions are for WikiProjects. There is precedent for deleting inactive WikiProjects: see here, here, here, here here, and here.
Some of the articles in question are stale user drafts. There is precedent for deleting these: see here, here, here, and here.
Eptalon suggests marking user pages as old or inactive. English Wikipedia has a WikiProject for managing abandoned drafts. We have Category:Stale userspace drafts that appears to be for this. I'm not sure what good this category is if such pages aren't eventually cleaned up. The note on this category actually mentions nominating the stale pages for quick deletion (although they would actually have to go to RfD because there no QD option for this).
DJSasso mentions en:WP:NOTPAPER. I don't think that's a reason to leave unfinished, abandoned work in place.
Our guideline Wikipedia:User page says that user subpages can have "A work in progress, until it is ready to be moved into mainspace". I would say that a work is no longer in progress if the user has stopped working on it. How long we should wait before saying the user has stopped is open for discussion.
Having said all that, I understand the reluctance to delete user subpages. Maybe we could establish guidelines for deleting them that are different from the regular RfD. We might want to let the RfDs run longer to give the user a chance to respond. We might also require that extra efforts be made to contact the user by any means available (for example, email if they have an email defined, talk page messages here and on other Wikimedia projects where they are active).
Here are some suggestions for when stale userspace drafts might qualify for deletion:
  • The page hasn't been edited in a certain amount of time
  • The editor hasn't edited anything here in a certain amount of time
  • The content on the page wouldn't be suitable for an article even if finished (not that I've seen any like that)
Since WikiProjects are for the community, and not just one user's work, not to mention that they're unofficial, criteria for removing them should be different. Possible criteria for this are:
  • No project activity recorded on the project page in a certain amount of time
  • The hosting user (if the project isn't under User:Project) and all listed project members are either banned, indefinitely blocked, or haven't edited anything here in a certain amount of time
Comments? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I go along with Aunt's general idea. As for timing, I suggest four years (which is an absolute age in wiki terms). Any project or subpage not changed for four years should be available for deletion via RfD. Should not need detailed discussion, just a period for editors to stop the deletion if they want to do something constructive with the page or project. That is the essence of these background pages. They are meant to be for preparation, helping and other active use. They are not there as some kind of decoration. It is always open to editors to write on the topics, but there is no sense to leaving unedited user sub-pages lying around permanently. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking one year. How would folks feel about three?
In any case, the RfDs in question are about to reach their one-week mark. I have moved them to a separate section where they can sit until we feel we have consensus here. More comments are welcome. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, there might be a shorter period if the editor has done nothing at all with the page, but it's different when someone has put in some serious work. Macdonald-ross (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I personally wouldn't want to seem them gone for quite a number of years. -DJSasso (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I have a thought that unused 'project' pages make it less likely that others will venture onto the territory. That is why I think we should delete rather than mark "inactive". I see young editors very much like to 'own' something, and that is a main reason for their setting up projects. At the same time any ownership tends to put others off. I think we might have a rule that no-one was allowed to set up a project without showing that several others wanted to be a part of it. I think that would reduce the number of blank projects in future. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
So for wikiprojects: (before they are set up): 1 month regular activity (in the field of the project), by at least 3 users?- If this really is a problem, we could also formalize the setup process:
  1. activity
  2. announcement on ST
  3. Setup after the usual week, if there is consensus to do so
What do others think?--Eptalon (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Remember WikiProjects aren't official in any way, making rules about them would effectively be doing so. The reason we ask them to be in userspace is so that we don't have to regulate them. -DJSasso (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes and no; it's a good point but we do already have the guideline Wikipedia:WikiProject. If we can agree on how to streamline the process of deleting old pages, and the criteria, we can add it to the existing guideline. Rus793 (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Well WikiProjects are the ones I mostly see no purpose to delete. Because that could lead to people recreating the same one over and over having lost anything that might have been achieved by previous incarnations. I can see deleting other user space stuff, but WikiProjects should just be left alone and marked inactive if they are inactive, just like is done in -DJSasso (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
WikiProjects here don't seem to ever stay active for long. We just don't have enough users to keep something continuously active for very long. None of the ones I've looked at even had records of what they've done, which is why I think we don't lose much by deleting them. I'd prefer cleaning them up. They can always be recreated when there is interest.
I don't really like the way that some of the WikiProjects are set up under a user called "Project", because there is no such user. However, having them in a central place other than userspace would make it easier for someone to say, "This project hasn't been active in X years. I'd like to reactivate it, so I'm going to take over the coordination." All the pieces could stay where they are and just be used by a different set of people. I'd have less trouble with WikiProjects being inactive in a central place like that than I do with them being in userspace. I realize that would make them more official than they are now, which could raise a different set of issues. I wonder if we could do something like that without making them official. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, the something like that was the User:Project. It was intended as a way to centralize it without making it uber official. But of course like most things wikiproject here, it just fell to the wayside. -DJSasso (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The situation case by case is that most 'projects' have either no content at all, or very little. All or almost all the editors are no longer on the wiki, and some did nothing else but put up the project as a subpage. We delete pages which have no content, and we should delete sub-pages which have no content. I would be happy for projects with actual content to be collected together on a central page, including the chess page. This might help new editors to see what can be done with a project page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Please take care[change | change source]

Can one please take care that the article of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 is not being vandalized? Ophedi (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I have looked at the history of the article and it has not yet been vandalised. However seeing as it is in the headlines of most newspapers and news programs it is going to get alot of attention. But I am one of many editos here who are keeping an eye on it so if it is vandalised it will be quickly reverted.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
One cannot speculate in articles in this manner. Wikipedia is an objective encyclopedia and not a crystal ball. Especially on subjects like in this particular case, one should be very keen on what is said and whether objective resources are used. When I'm concerned, case is closet now. Ophedi (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Pack animals?[change | change source]


I just wrote the article Pack (canine), but I see several problems, that I am not able to resolve:

  • The German article (which talks about the behaviour of mammals forming 'packs') also has an image of a group of lions, hunting together. Last I checked, the lion was classified as cat-like, and not dog-like.
  • The article lacks references
  • English is not my mother tongue; so I am not the ideal candidate to describe flocking behaviour

I would be gateful if the community could take a look....--Eptalon (talk) 08:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look. Yes, cats are not dogs! There are a large number of mammal species which live socially in large or small groups: Baboons, elephants, wildebeest, deer... It's almost easier to list the exceptions! Most are treated on their own pages. We have more general pages:
I'll write to you again after I've thought about it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Personal settings[change | change source]

I recently changed my settings to include a few provisional ("beta") features. I think the way to implement such setting changes needs to be made more transparent. There is a button to revert to default but no button to implement changes. I just guessed and hit the enter key, which resulted in the changes being saved (according to a pop-up). How about a "save changes" button next to or under or over the revert button? (Myabe there already is one, but I sure couldn't find it.) Kdammers (talk) 03:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I see a "Save" button to the left of the link that says "Restore all default settings (in all sections)". Is that anything close to what you're talking about? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Where? How far left? Is it in the column on the left some-where?Kdammers (talk) 05:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not in the far left column (the column that includes the interwiki links and has the Wikipedia logo at the top). It's right in line under where the names of the features and text about them are. I'm using the Monobook skin. If you're using a different skin, it might appear different. If you need me to, I can post a screenshot to Commons and give you a link to it. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I didn't see any-thing right in line under the names of the features. Please send me a screenshot. Thanks. Kdammers (talk) 06:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Beta features screenshot.png

Here it is. If you click on it, you can see it in a bigger size. It shows the very bottom part of the display on the Beta preferences screen here on Simple. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't see that button on my screen. I am using Mozilla on MS 7,in Korea. Kdammers (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I guess it's just a local or personal problem. So, if no one else has it, it's no big deal, since I can just hit "Enter" to save changes. Kdammers (talk) 09:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Kdammers, are you sure that you're the only person having this problem? Is it still happening? Does it happen to you at other projects? What language do you have set under "Internationalisation" in your User profile for Special:Preferences? If you want, I can file a bug report about this. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know any other current editors, so I don't know if I'm the only one who had this problem. I am on a different computer with , I believe, the same settings (a crazy mix of Korean and English for languages,but my Wiki pages seem to come up entirely in English). Here, the button is quite visible. If I get to it, I'll check on the other computer.Kdammers (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Kdammers, I'm glad that one computer is working, but if it's still a problem on the other one, then please let me know your web browser, operating system, and anything else that you think might be useful. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Transport categories[change | change source]

A while back we had a discussion about the fact that some transport-related category names used the word "transport" and some used "transportation". I have just gotten finished standardizing them: they now all use "transport" (at least all the ones I could find). This is simpler and in line with other Wikimedia projects. Please use this standard when creating new categories. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Boy bands?[change | change source]

An IP user has added boy band categories to a number of music group articles (see here). I'm not sure it applies to all the groups where it was added, but I'm not clear when a group is considered a boy band. Could someone take a look at the user's changes and see what you think? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

We've already been round this once recently. 'Boy bands' does not mean bands with only male members. It is specifically: band of young males delivering music and lyrics aimed at a female pre-teen or "tweeny" age-group. The lyrics have a characteristically saccharine style. Definitely not rock groups or older men. The En wiki article says they are mostly vocal groups. Type species: The Monkees or The Osmonds. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Mac, and thanks for taking the category back off of some of them. I figured it was something along those lines. I definitely don't think of Queen as a boy band! --Auntof6 (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)