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)

Special:UnconnectedPages[change | change source]

Just a reminder that Special:UnconnectedPages is a good place to look for anyone wanting to find articles on Simple Wikipedia that may need flagging for deletion or merging. Not all of them of course, but it is a good indicator that an article may not pass Simple Wikipedia's notability criteria. It lists all Simple Wikipedia articles that have not yet been connected to a Wikidata item. Worth a check. Cheers. Delsion23 (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That list is not in any way an indication of pages that need deleting or merging, or that the subject is not notable. There are many reasons for a page not to be in Wikidata. It could be that there is no exact match for it in other Wikipedias (only exact matches should be added in Wikidata interwiki links). The person who created the article might not know about Wikidata or how to add things there. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Have to agree with Auntof6 here. It would be very unwise to determine to delete articles based on them being on that list. -DJSasso (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I go through this list most days. The ones that are left are generally the ones that I have not been able to connect with other articles on Wikipedia via Wikidata. I simply can't find another Wikipedia that has covered the topic. I believe it is a very good indicator of whether the topic in question is notable. If no other Wikipedias are covering the topic, it's an indicator that it may not be notable, and so it should be checked. It may turn out that it is in fact a notable topic that just happens to not yet have a topic on any other Wikipedia, in which case, no need for deletion or merging (of course). I'm in no way saying that the articles in the list should be merged and deleted, or that presence on the list is a justification for deletion or merging. I'm just saying that those articles are the best ones to check as you're going to have a better hit rate. Cheers. Delsion23 (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I still don't want to encourage people to look for things to change or delete based on that page. If no other Wikipedia is covering a topic, it might be a fairly new topic, a topic of little interest, a topic that's covered in a Wikipedia whose language you don't read, a topic that's covered as part of another article, a topic whose articles just haven't been added to Wikidata yet, or something else. We'd be able to review requests for deletion, but please do not merge any without a good reason. Getting a good match for Wikidata is not a good reason: not everything has a match there, and there's no requirement to have a match. Also keep in mind that pages with the same name on different Wikipedias might not match, and there is no requirement for them to match. For example, our page Android is about the artificial lifeform. On enwiki, en:Android is a dab page.
By all means, look at this page to find things that may need links added in Wikidata, but don't force any matches. Link pages in Wikidata only if the match is exact. Really, your suggestion about using this list makes me concerned for our articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I give up. If you're concerned about my edits then specific examples would be more helpful. Delsion23 (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Note for vandalism fighters: hiding the most offensive stuff[change | change source]

Some of you might not know that the admins can hide the content and/or edit summaries of edits in some circumstances. It's called revision deletion, or "revdel". After using that function, most users can no longer see the parts that have been hidden. There are only certain things this can be used for. Some things it is not used for are personal insults and words that might make people uncomfortable but aren't actually considered offensive. (For example, a user once asked me to hide a change because a vandal had added the word "poo". I had to tell him that that word wasn't really offensive.) The link I gave has more detail.

When you undo vandalism that contains profanity or other truly offensive things, feel free to drop us a line to ask us to use revdel. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Change in renaming process[change | change source]

-- User:Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:22, 9 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)

VisualEditor available on Internet Explorer 11[change | change source]


VisualEditor will become available to users of Microsoft Internet Explorer 11 during today's regular software update. Support for some earlier versions of Internet Explorer is being worked on. If you encounter problems with VisualEditor on Internet Explorer, please contact the Editing team by leaving a message at VisualEditor/Feedback on Happy editing, Elitre (WMF) 07:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC).

PS. Please subscribe to the global monthly newsletter to receive further news about VisualEditor.

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)