Wikipedia:Simple talk

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

Review of Purplebackpack89's community ban[change | change source]

What can I do here now?[change | change source]

Hello, I am interesting to read and write here in Simple English. My English is not good, I learned in my youth Russian at first foreign language, English was the language of the "enemies" ;). Today is English a world wide famous language, and I need to read English in many countries. I think, you can me help for better understand Simple English, an I can help you for better make Simple English wiki, isn t it?.

What can I do here now?

Greatings Mikota3 — This unsigned comment was added by Mikota3 (talk • changes) on 16:05, 8 March 2015‎.

@Mikota3: I have replied on your talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Auntof6, thank you very much for your answer! --Mikota3 (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Template help needed, I think[change | change source]

Template:Infobox country seems to be putting the stray characters <tr class="mergedrow"> <tr class="mergedbottomrow"> at the top of Hong Kong. Can someone please look at this? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Fixed it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

SUL finalization update[change | change source]

Hi all, please read this page for important information and an update involving SUL finalization, scheduled to take place in one month. Thanks. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Heads up -- articles flagged as course assignements[change | change source]

Not too long ago, we had the {{Course assignment}} added to quite a few articles, with the text "This article is/was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2015". I've just been looking at a few of these articles, and the text added by the apparent students is not only often complex, it is often ungrammatical and sometimes doesn't make sense. I'm just giving you all a heads up that these might need extra attention. By the way, does anyone happen to know of a central contact for this group of students? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello![change | change source]

I only wanted to say hello! I´m new hear, today I have written the article Marinilabiliaceae. Please take a look at it. I'm from the german Wikipedia and also write by the english wikipedia. All the best, --Kogge (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kogge. I am a Newbie here and in WP also, but still: Welcome here. I know your good wiki-work from the german Wikipedia. I can often read vour name there. I am also a german speaker and have also only a basic command of English and admire your bravery to write in the Great English Wikipedia. Greatings --Mikota3 (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Nice to see a german here. My english is also not very good. I can read it, but writing is difficult. I hope I will learn here. All the best, --Kogge (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Castilleja Class Project[change | change source]

This year, in honor of US Women's History Month, this group would like to create/populate pages on notable female authors who write award winning or very popular books read by middle school students. The teachers want to hold this class fairly soon--Monday, March 23, 2015, at 8am-12 noon, Pacific. They have done projects in the past and have been very careful to follow all guidelines. I will be working with them, so please let me know if you find any problems etc.--Peterdownunder (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

For details, check here:Wikipedia:Schools/Projects/Notable Female Authors--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Children's movies vs. family movies[change | change source]

We have Category:Family movies and Category:Children's movies. I'm wondering if we need both. After a discussion with User:Jim Michael, I'm not seeing a way to objectively determine what movies should go in which category. I'm usually the first to say that we don't have to do things the same way as English Wikipedia, but I do see that they have only the children's films category. Moreover, their article Children's film says that "family film" is an American term, and "children's film" is a European term. If the difference is just geographical, that suggests that the two are the same thing, or close enough, in which case we wouldn't need both.

I'd like to see us either come up with some way to determine what goes where, or eliminate one category. Comments? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I do somewhat see a difference, in the group of people the movie addresses. Fairy tales made into a movie (e.g. Cindrella, but also Bambi or Dumbo) clearly target children (aged 5-10); A 12-15 year old will usually not find enough depth to not get bored. On the other hand, there are the "standard" family movies, where there are protagonists of every age; in such a movie, a 10-12 year old will find an adolescent character with whom to identify. And finally, while Tolkien's "the Hobbit" was written as a childrenś book, it clearly targets the 10-15 year old crowd, and I doubt a 6 year old will find it interesting. I see however that sometimes, movies/books are hard to judge; in what category does "Alice in Wonderland" fall? Some of theriddles Alice comes across are clearly logical in nature, and show that Caroll had a background in Logic/mathematics. --Eptalon (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Films based on fairy tales, such as Frozen, are usually children's films. Family films are those which can be enjoyed by the whole family, such as Mrs. Doubtfire and The Nutty Professor. It is common for children's films to be marketed as family films, which conflates the two. Jim Michael (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, but being based on a fairy tale wouldn't be a good definition: there must be children's films that aren't based on fairy tales. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, Eptalon, but where do we find what age group a movie is aimed at? I suppose we could have a category called "Children's and family movies"... --Auntof6 (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I would merge the two under the name Family movies. Generally children's moves are also called family movies. And I don't think we are simple need to be so specific as to try and separate the two. -DJSasso (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Templates that retrieve info from Wikidata[change | change source]

I think we could use some of these. I just saw where a user changed population figures in several articles about French cities. Without references, it's hard to know whether those figures are legitimate. The same is true with other kinds of information. If our settlement infobox template could get population and other data from Wikidata (or other infoboxes could get other info), this would be much less of a problem.

I don't know how to set this up. Is anyone else familiar with it? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep, we need to import the Wikidata module, then use it like this: {{#invoke:Wikidata|getValue|PXXX|{{{localvariable|FETCH_WIKDIATA}}}}}. This will, if localvariable is undefined, default to the value of PXXX. An example would be as follows: {{#invoke:Wikidata|getValue|P1082|{{{population|FETCH_WIKIDATA}}}}} This would, if population is undefined, default to Wikidata's value. The local variable will override the variable at Wikidata, to clarify. Hope this makes sense, --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 18:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I think I understand. After importing the module, would we put the code you indicate as a parameter value in the article that invokes the template, or would it go into the template itself? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Either, it depends whether we want to have it apply to all articles with the template or that article only. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 20:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Biology stub[change | change source]

I noticed the Biology stub is not appearing on the page, yet does appear in the change view. Has anyone else noticed this? User:Rus793 (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Appears fine for me. Have you tried purging the cache/clearing your cookies? --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 18:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
It didn't at first for me but once I edited the page it did show. Probably just a caching issue. -DJSasso (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Other stubs show up fine, just not the Biology stub. Clearing the cache does not help. It does show up as a hidden category however. In an article I patrolled this morning, Sporosarcina ureae, I even tried viewing it in IE and it didn't show up in that browser either. I just wondered if anyone else was experiencing this. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Class Project on Notable African American Innovators[change | change source]

We will be working with about 20 students to do some editing on Simple English Wikipedia. Students will add content to pages of notable African American innovators. They will be using and library resources as their reference material. They will cite the sources they reference in the Simple English Wikipedia article. Given that multiple authors will be editing the same article, it will not make sense for them to use their individual sandbox to edit the page, so please bear with us as the pages are being developed. The class occurs from 4:00 PM - 5:15 PM United States Central Time on Tuesday afternoons. Visionovervisibility (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

For details, check here:Wikipedia:Schools/Projects/Notable African American Innovators Visionovervisibility (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Level of vandalism[change | change source]

Is it just me, or does it seem to anyone else that we've had more vandalism lately than we used to? I've been trying to think of things we could do to address it, and I've only come up with two ideas. One is to restrict unregistered editors from creating articles, as I believe they do on enwiki (their restriction might also apply to new users who aren't yet autoconfirmed). I think the software has this ability. I'm just not sure that's the kind of vandalism we usually get.

The other idea is to implement en:Wikipedia:Pending changes. Pending changes would apply only to pages that it's set up on, not all pages. It doesn't stop vandalism, though, it just stops it from being visible to people who read here but don't have accounts. This would require people to accept or reject changes to pages covered by the function. That's similar to patrolling, but it would be more important to keep up with it. It might be a substitute for semi-protection in some cases. Editors would have to be defined as reviewers, but we could start by setting up all the patrollers as reviewers since the functions are similar.

I'm not sure either of those would work well here, but that's all I've thought of so far. This wiki isn't as small as it used to be, but the editor base hasn't grown with it so we might need some automated solution(s). Any other ideas? --Auntof6 (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The first one is un-needed, we simply don't get enough bad pages from IPs to justify it. The second one could indeed be an option, which I think we should consider. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 11:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Goblin bot used to pick up a lot of this level stuff, whatever happened to it?--Peterdownunder (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Toolserver shut down, and Goblin himself is quite busy atm. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 13:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I think @Chenzw: also has access to the bot/code. Maybe he can help? -Barras talk 13:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed I have the code, the bot used to be on the (now defunct) Toolserver. Give me a day or two to recall the setup requirements and I will get it back working again. Chenzw  Talk  14:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, I think pending changes would be a good idea. We will need consensus for this before requesting for it to be activated on this wiki. Chenzw  Talk  14:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, I forgot about that bot! That could certainly get us back to a manageable level. It still might be helpful to implement pending changes for a limited number of pages, though. There are some pages that get vandalized periodically in ways that would be hard for a bot to pick up, and which are fairly complete and unlikely to need much editing. Examples of such pages are the list articles of various gods and goddesses. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The situation is that we get many bad new pages and edits which are either vandalism or incompetent. My tallies are always over 90%, and sometime much higher than that. It is very obvious that there are two main sources: long-term "professional" vandals banned from English wiki, and bored and unsupervised schoolchildren. Bad edits from the school and other IPs is so usual that the occasional good edit really surprises one! I believe bad page edits are much worse and more common since the VisualEditor was launched. Also, I see many edits aimed at others probably in the same classroom, often a kind of cyber-bullying or boasting.
I think we should try and slow down the rate of both bad new pages and vandalism on existing pages. I agree absolutely with the comment (from Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions) "Much of the incentive to vandalize is removed by not immediately showing vandalism".
We could semi-protect certain biographies with a long, long history of vandalism (such as Ricky Martin) and some content pages like cat and dog. I'm not talking hundreds of pages. How long for? Try three months for a start. Pending changes could be used for all other pages for a trial period, say three months.
I've never really understood why an editor is allowed to put up a new page without being registered. It would be good if the pending software could cover that as well. Otherwise, if we use pending on existing pages, we will get many more bad new pages, depend on it! Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Afaik, there isn't a pending changes configuration that can do that (nor Flagged revisions). We'd have to introduce something like AFC, which would be a hastle, and, in my opinion, not worth it. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 18:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I don’t think there’s any question we are getting more vandalism lately. Restricting unregistered editors is certainly an option. It is where most of the vandalism is coming from. I don’t see the class-struggle argument; registered users against unregistered users. After all, how hard is it to register? If a contributor wants to remain an IP user, then it can be with the understanding that certain limitations come with it. And the community decides what those limitations are. I think before we decide to make all patrollers reviewers, we should first take a look at which patrollers are actually marking new pages patrolled. In addition, reevaluate the protection policy and see where it can help us cut down on the vandalism. If a bot can help with vandalism and not cause collateral problems then we should use it. The bottom line is we are spending too much of our time combating vandalism. It is time better spent on improving pages and creating new ones. User:Rus793 (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes[change | change source]

Per the comments above, can we get consensus on this? I personally support. I also recommend that the review bit be added to the patroller group per Auntof6. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 14:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Personally, I do more like the system the German Wikipedia uses. I think it's generally easier than the pending changes system used on the English Wikipedia. See en:Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions. -Barras talk 16:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I dislike that system, I prefer reviewers being more selective, not autopromotion. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 16:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I personally don't like either and would prefer status-quo as long as we get the vandal bot back up and running. -DJSasso (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I currently do not think that we have reached a level of vandalism where we need more tools to "make vandalism less attractive". What we can think about though is to modify our edit filters so that they catch vandalism better. Edit filters are also able to disallow editing. The situation being as it is, we already have too few editors; those that we have (and that are not vandals) should focus on creating new pages, or improving existing ones. Personally, I don't see our admin team doing more patrolling as they already do. If certain pages get vandalised more often (likely those about sexuality or other controversial topics, such as nudity or abortion), we should consider a longer-term edit protection for those pages, and not an introduction of a completely new system. Please note that both German and English wikipedia are much bigger than we are, and what works for them does not necessarily work for us with the same ease of use. --Eptalon (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I didn't read most of the above but I disagree with enabling FlaggedRevs here. This is the Simple English Wikipedia and FlaggedRevs makes the system more complicated. Also another thing to note is that FlaggedRevs only works properly when there are enough reviewers. My understanding is that this wiki is currently having a shortage of editors so if we don't have enough users to review the edits, it will be a complete failure as at German Wikiquote, for example. See q:de:Spezial:Sichtungsstatistik: "The average review delay for pages with edits currently pending review is 1,029 d 17 h". What's the point of unregistered users making edits if they are not going to be visible for months.. Additionally, if our experienced editors here spend time on reviewing the edits instead of doing edits, how are we going to get more edits? I think the disadvantages outweigh the benefits here. Glaisher (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Also noting that WMF is not accepting any more requests to enable FlaggedRevs on new wikis. See phab:T31744#328693. There is an exception, however, to this which has been open since May last year. Glaisher (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd like us to try restoring the bot first–not that I have the competence to do such a thing. <rueful grin>
It's really important to remember, though, that New Page Patrol and Pending Changes are two completely different kettles of fish. Adding PC could help us with existing pages prone to vandalism, but it's not designed to help weed out vandalism-by-page-creation. Only NPP–automatic or manual–can do that. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Subclassing Italian painters?[change | change source]


Category:Italian painters currently has 55 entries, probably spanning from about 1200 to the modern day. In my opinion, we should subclass them. I do however see two options:

  • By century where the painter was mostly active
  • By classical period (Renaissance, Baroque,...)

Since I am no expert in history of art, I cannot judge which of the two looks more promising. If we make say 5-6 subcategories, we would end up with about 10 entries per category, assuming that they evenly span those categories. I am posting this here, because I would like to ask the community for input, before doing anything. --Eptalon (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

There's no reason we can't do both, I suppose. I have a little trouble with categorizing artists by century because it gets tricky with those who lived in multiple centuries. To me, it doesn't make sense to categorize an artist born in, say, 1895 as a 19th century artist, because they probably weren't creating notable art when they were five. They were certainly a 19th century person, but not a 19th century artist. The century category only makes sense for the centuries when the artist was working, and that can be hard to know. Some we can be sure of because they only lived in one century, but I wouldn't create the subcategories if we can't apply them to all artists. That's my two cents. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
We could create "Baroque painters/artists" and "Renaissance painters/artists" and cover with that the period of rougly 1350-1620; for the people before and after, we would need to create the appropriate categories. Italian baroque painters would then be rooted in Italian painters and Baroque painters (or artists). If it makes sense to distinguish painting from the other arts is debatable as well... --Eptalon (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Is baroque defined by time? I thought it was a style. The style was certainly most prevalent during a certain time. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)