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)

There hasn't been any more comment here for a while. Does anyone see any kind of consensus forming? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Here is a suggestion: Since it seems clear that most of us agree that stale pages or projects should at some point be deleted, why don't we. Notify each user on there user talk page, with something similar to the following.
You're User Sub-page or Project page has been inactive for some time, please revisit your page and do one of the following:
  1. Mark it for deletion under QD U1 or in x amount of days (say 30 for argument sake) the page will be deleted.
  2. Resume editing of You're page, at which point it won't be stale and no need to worry about deleting it.
Or something along these lines. Much like they do for inactive admins, give them a time to bring them current, or face in this case deletion instead of De-Sysoping. Enfcer (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • That would work for me. My comments:
  • We might want a guideline on how long to wait after the last edit before placing such a notice. I'm leaning toward a year at the moment, but three years and four years were mentioned before. Should it be the same for WikiProject pages as for other things?
  • If the notice is placed on a draft article, I think any change by the owning user would be enough to "un-stale" it. On a WikiProject page, it would be nice to see something showing that the project is active, such as mention of current work done in the subject area by project members.
  • With WikiProjects, if the notice is placed and there is no response, before deleting we could ask at Simple Talk if anyone would like to take it over.
Those are my thoughts. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone object if I remove the {{in progress}} from those 14 pending deletion. Maybe its just me, but I see that and think we have a lot of discussions going on, and this could take awhile since this discussion has stalled out. -- Enfcer (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I think we should delete them all except for the chess project. There is enough consensus. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have stalled by nearly a month now, and we still have 12 user pages that are hanging around clogging up requests for deletion. I've read through the discussion above a few times now, and I think the 'outcome' of it could be summed up as follows:

  • Where a user has been inactive for three years an inactive user page may qualify for deletion via RfD, but this time frame is flexible in the case of very new or very old editors.
  • For WikiProject-style pages these should remain unless they are little more than an idea and a list of names. Some may require clean-up, but this requires further discussion as we don't currently have any real policies about them, beyond the fact that they are not officially 'allowed'.
  • For all userspace pages efforts should be taken to contact the owners before an RfD is filed. This includes via email, talk page and other wikis where the user is active.

In relating this to the existing RfDs around half would be eligible for deletion at first glance, although I haven't dug too far. Either way, they would all meet the above "criteria" if we went with the lowest suggested activity time, which is one year. They all show little prospect of becoming active or used in the current community and, therefore, should probably be deleted.
However, that said, I am not sure whether there has been sufficient discussion here to create a new policy or guideline - the majority of the input has come from two users, with a further four commenting in total. Personally I have no opinion on the matter - they are not harming anything by existing, but I understand why others would want them removed.
With this in mind I think that each of the twelve RfDs needs re-opening and "resetting" to run for one week and each is discussed by its own merit. Any further userspace pages can also be nominated for discussion per normal policy. More discussion needs undertaking both with regards to criteria for userspace discussion and WikiProjects (I'd support re-visiting the guidelines there) at this time. I have carried out the work with regards to the RfDs, although if anyone feels this wasn't appropriate please do revert me. I also abstain from providing a !vote on the RfDs as a result of this.
Tl;dr: 12 RfDs have been re-opened and reset for discussion under standard RfD procedure. Further discussion is required on creating a variation to this policy for user pages, and with regards to WikiProject "policy". Goblin 00:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Pmlineditor!

  • Since the RfDs were re-opened under the standard procedure, I have started closing them. Mostly, the !votes supported deletion, so I have accordingly closed them. I'm assuming if people opposed deleting them, they would have posted on the RfDs by now. If anyone opposes a closure, feel free to revert it / bring it up in deletion review. Thanks. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggested move: Low Saxon to Low German[change | change source]

As the article Low Saxon is about Low German, it should be moved to Low German.Sarcelles (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking at what enwiki has, "Low Saxon" and "Low German" both seem to be ambiguous terms. Enwiki says that both terms are used. Wouldn't we just be changing from one ambiguous term to another? I also note that we have "Low German" as a redirect to "Low Saxon", so we do have both uses covered. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Note that I am not a linguist, but German is my mother tongue. Note that "Niederdeutsch" (Low German) is the name for a number of dialects spoken in the Northern part of German, and the eastern Netherlands. "Niedersächsisch" (Low Saxon) is more specific for a number of dialects. "Platt"/"Plat" is generally the name for the own dialect. So, no to an extent merging these is probably problematic. --Eptalon (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Difference[change | change source]

I want to know what is the difference between and simple wiki?--Ilkinhemidov (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

And also i can see little information this wiki about any article--Ilkinhemidov (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

This wiki uses simpler and less complex English than It's purpose is a stepping stone for people learning English and younger children. -DJSasso (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Redefining LGBT Category[change | change source]

Hey, I was wanting to redefine the LGBT category to include people/pages related to LGBTQIA+ that aren't necessarily lesbian, gay, bisexual, or trans related. Input? Category_talk:LGBT Gray (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss at Category talk:LGBT, not here. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Subdividing category "French politicians"...[change | change source]


I think it would be a good idea to split the category, as follows:

  1. Kingdom of France (843) - French Revolution (1789)
  2. French Revolution / Reign of Terror / Napoleonic France (1789-1852)
  3. Second Republic / Third Republic / France during World-War II (1852-1945)
  4. Modern France (since 1945)

I know that we currently do not have enough entries for all of them, but in the medium term we should consider subdividing the category. Any opinions? --Eptalon (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

If we don't have enough for all of them, maybe we could just have two for now -- one for modern France and one for everything before that. How many entries would fit the latter? --Auntof6 (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the category, we get Richelieu (For 1 above, 16th century), Robespierre, Danton and Napoleon (Bonaparte) (2). For the remaining 20 or so, most were active after WW2, but we would have to look at that in detail. --Eptalon (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't forget the ones in subcategories. Also, could there have been anyone who would fit both? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
And don't forget not everything needs to be subdivided. There will be categories with hundreds (some even thousands) of articles in them and that is perfectly fine. Trying to come up with arbitrary categories is not really a good idea. -DJSasso (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Any categorization that is not purely random is arbitrary. Looking at the subcategories, most of them are either in "Modern France" or "Second Republic...". People such as Charles De Gaulle are likely in both. Looking at what we have, the category (1) may not get three people, but we likely have at least three entries for the others. If there is no formal opposition, I'll therefore go ahead and create categories (2-4) as listed above, at the beginning of October. --Eptalon (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Well not really. This is arbitrary because you are choosing random dates as the cut off. And choosing non-defining categories to do so, for example a politician from 843 has little to do with a politician from 1789. That is a 1100 year difference vs Modern which is 70 year category. It is completely recentism as well. You are just creating categories for smaller category sake. When you have them all in one single category in this case then it is easy to see why they are all in one category because they are all French politicians. I don't agree with this subdividing at all. There are only 24 articles in the category, why are we even contemplating subdividing, remember we try to have as few categories here as possible. -DJSasso (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree with DJSasso on this one. Previously I've been sold to the mantra that 'more is better' when it comes to categories, but I've come around to the view that, actually, 'less is more' here - unless a category is getting *massive* (Hundreds, if not thousands of entries) arbitrary splits are pointless and only serve to overcomplicate things. I'd be against this split - it's of more use as a whole. Goblin 14:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC) I ♥ DJSasso!
When I looked at creating the categories I looked at the articles we have. Other than that, French Revolution / Napoleonic France is a grouping commonly found. The same holds for France after the Second World War. Subdivisions make sense in areas where we have many articles. So, yes, we definitely need to talk about the cutoff points. --Eptalon (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
It may be a common grouping in general but is it a common grouping for politicians. I doubt anyone would lump politicians from a 1000 year span into the same "category" in the outside world. You have to remember categories aren't just for sorting articles, they are intended to be a defining characteristic of a person, where if you talked about the person you would immediately describe them as being that thing. With such subjective categories you can't do that. There are some categories that just won't ever be split. Take a look at how subdivides it. The closest they have to what you are suggesting are very specific types of politicians. For example "Politicians of the French Third Republic" or very specific time periods "20th-century French politicians‎". Not sweeping generalizations. And again they have many hundreds of articles compared to our 24. In most cases here I wouldn't split a category until we fill atleast one full category page (ie 200 or so articles). But that last bit is just my personal opinon. -DJSasso (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Look at this Category in FRWP.- To clarify: Ancien Régime is the period 200 years before the Revolution (of 1789); Deuxième Republique (2nd Republic) 1848-1852; Deuxieme Empire (2nd Empire, that of Napoleon III) 1852-1860; 1860-1870 is known as "Empire libéral"; Troisieme Republique /Third Republic 1870-1940; Quatrième Republique: 1946-1958. Regime de Vichy: 1940-1944. Commune de Paris was a brief period of uprising in 1871. As you can see the subcategories I propose are not that far fetched...--Eptalon (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

But yours are not like theirs, theirs are for very specific times, ie when France was technically a different country ie the 2nd republic etc etc. You are just lumping large sections of time together for apparently no reason other than to subcategorize. But ignoring all that you are still talking about subcatting a 24 article category which is completely unnecessary on -DJSasso (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
As an example, Cardinal Richelieu was "minister for foreign affairs" (1616/1617), so were Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord (1797-1799, 1814-1815) , en:Charles de Freycinet (1879/1880,1882,1885/1886), Aristide Briand (1915-1917,1921-1922,1925-1926,1926-1932), en:Paul Baudouin (1940, two terms), Robert Schuman (1947-1948) and Dominique de Villepin (2002). By using the same (or a similar) category for these people, we implicitly say their roles are comparable, when they aren't. Richelieu used his powers to strengthen an absolute monarch. Talleyrand first reported to an assembly, and later was appointed by Napoleon, who saw his strengths. Freycinet helped reorganize the state, in difficult times; he was an engineer, and planned/built many railways in France and Africa. Aristide Briand was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, together with Gustav Stresemann for his work with the en:Locarno Treaties. Baudouin negotiated many important treaties for the Vichy Rŕegime, but was not successful against Pierre Laval and Fernand de Brinon; both Laval and de Brinon were executed for collaborating with the Germans in WW2. Schuman's politics led to what is now the European Union; he is seen as one of its fathers (together with Jean Monnet). While all of these people where "foreign ministers", the governments they worked for were too different from one another to warrant "one" category (this is my opinion). So, the big question becomes: In what way should we subdivide/reorganise the respective categories (French politicians / French diplomats)? --Eptalon (talk) 07:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed standard wording re: movie and television reviews[change | change source]

We currently use the word "movie" instead of "film" because it's simpler. Along the same lines, I would like to see a standard wording used when talking about TV and movie reviews. Specifically, a lot of our articles about movies say that the movie "received (or got) mixed reviews". I don't think that's clear to someone with limited English. I also think it's close to being jargon. I suggest it would be better to use words along the lines of "Some movie critics liked the movie. Others didn't like it." If the community agrees, I could go through our movie articles with AWB and make the change. Comments? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not with this idea. "Mix" is a simple word, and its usage in "mixed reviews" is simple and correct. The circumlocution you suggest is ten words instead of two, and would be just as much a formula. The point to improve is the sources which support the claim of mixed reviews. If they are satisfactory, then "mixed reviews" is satistactory, IMO. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Simple doesn't always mean "short". Sometimes it takes more words to have simpler language. "Mix" is indeed a simple word, but only as it applies to the act of combining things. Movie reviews are not combined in that way: they are individual pieces looked separately. To talk about something abstract like that as being "mixed" is not a simple concept, and using the term "mixed" for it doesn't explain what it means. "Review" is not as simple a word. I think it's easier for people to understand if we just say what "mixed reviews" means. Why make the readers figure it out when we can just say it? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the idea of a review is absolutely basic to the arts. When you try and replace "mixed reviews" with a long circumlocution, it runs against almost all the published advice on how to write readable English. What you propose is much more controversial than you think. IMO it would certainly not be right to use an automated procedure to make such a change on a wholesale basis. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with Macdonald-ross on this one. Mixed reviews are a "combination" of bad and good reviews so they are combined. And I certainly wouldn't use AWB for such a change. -DJSasso (talk) 11:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, my main point was that I think the phrase "mixed reviews" isn't easily understandable to someone with limited English. Even when individual words in a phrase are simple, the phrase as a whole might not be. The wording I suggested was just one possibility, and I certainly wouldn't have to use AWB to make any changes. But if no one else thinks this would be an improvement, I'll just forget it. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The term 'mixed reviews' tells the reader nothing of use. The vast majority of films, TV series, plays etc. are liked by some critics and disliked by others. When 'mixed reviews' is stated, it usually means that the large majority of critics disliked it; this use is a euphemism. Jim Michael (talk) 01:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
If reviews are in fact mainly favourable or mainly hostile, then of course an editor can say that so long as the sources support that point of view. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Not that simple![change | change source]

I just received an email with subject "Carriearchdale left you a message on Wikipedia. May I gently point out that there is more than one Wikipedia. The word "simple" is not visible anywhere in the email only in the target of a "view message" link. — RHaworth (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

There should be a link in the email to take you to the right place. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

A new yearly chronological order to WW1[change | change source]

XKiller59- I was editing the wiki and I found that is was very difficult to find the right information as I saw many topics which didnt have any chronogical order,
so I suggest that a chronogical order to put as it would be easier to find. the information was very good and informative.