Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 131

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Edit war or change war?

Since we don't generally use the word "edit" here, should Wikipedia:Edit war be moved to Wikipedia:Change war? I've at least created a redirect for now. Also, should the wording on Template:Uw-3rr be changed also? It's possible there could be an argument that the Edit war article adequately explains the word edit. What do people think. IWI (chat) 15:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is also editing policy, editing guidelines, and tons of interface text that still says "edit" instead of change. Since change is the preferred word here, I would recommend changing all instances to that. Naleksuh (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not prefer change to edit but using the same word for the same thing would be Simple. War is a common word but I am not sure that it helps to use it when some people are acting in good faith. The simple message could be "Someone does not agree with the change you made. Please do not try to make the change again today. If you think your change needs to be made at once, you may try the change for a second time, but say why it cannot wait in the Change summary. Please use the word Urgent to help everyone see that you have thought about leaving your change for another day. If the change is not urgent,...[agree]... " From this, we might get "Change not yet agreed" instead of "Edit War". I might prefer "Changed back. A second change must be urgent". Just a thought.--GrounderUK (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They don't teach the word edit in English schools. They do teach the word change. IWI (chat) 14:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That may be so. On the other hand, Edit is the English word that normally appears in software that allows the person using it to make a change, so it is a word that is familiar to younger people and to many others with less advanced English. As I say, I don't have a preference for which word we use but I would prefer us to be consistent in using one word or the other. Well, I didn't quite say that, so I'll try again: use either change or edit but not both.
And then we have revert and the three-revert rule, when the action is labelled undo! There is no excuse at all for revert if our English is Simple (it's less than half as common as edit). Of course, if you undo an undo, it's a re-do. But they both change back... "Take care, because we do not let you change back the same page more than three times on the same day. We may still stop you making any more changes if ..." --GrounderUK (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But you can revert without clicking undo. Although undo is a synonym of sorts. As for that, change should be use as we have a "change" button and a "change" summary. IWI (chat) 20:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's hard, isn't it? The point is that we are not consistent. We use "undo" and "change" as action words, then we say we have a "three-revert rule" which applies to a "user" and says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions..." And yet we simply want to say "Don't keep changing things back" or (if you prefer) "Don't keep undoing edits"
Then, of course, we call our changes "contributions" and the things we've changed are "revisions" and the changes between revisions are called a "difference". But if you look at a "Revision history" they stop being called revisions and become "versions", unless you actually want to compare them, when you "Compare selected revisions", which shows you a "difference". (And if, instead, you think you might like to "Edit tags of selected revisions", you'll see that "Edit tags" doesn't let you edit tags, it lets you "Add or remove tags". And if you think you want to "Manage tags", that'll just get you a list of "tags that the software may mark an edit with"...)
So you stick to editing... I mean changing. You ignore the fact that hovering over "Change" helpfully translates it as "Edit this page" and choose "Change source". You remember you were prompted to "use the preview button before saving", but there isn't a preview button and nor is there a save option. Not too hard to guess that the "Show preview" button might mean "preview"... but if you choose "Show changes", you get to see "Newest version" beside "Your text" (which is actually the "difference" against the latest "revision"). Either way, the text entered under "Change summary" is labelled "Preview of edit summary". Duly advised of the consequences of clicking "Publish changes", you guess that must mean "save"... But "If you do not want your writing to be changed and shared then do not submit it here." "Submit"? You mean "Publish"? You mean "save"? You mean "Do not click the button"! ...Simple? It ain't!--GrounderUK (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've just fried my brain. I have no idea where to start haha... What? IWI (chat) 02:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. That's not what I wanted to do. Let's go back to the start.
  1. You point out that we use "change" not "edit", so should we change "Edit war" to "Change War"? Fair point. Whatever word we use, we should be consistent.
  2. Naleksuh agrees but points out that "edit" is used in lots of other places so we should change them all. Fair point. Whatever word we use, we should be consistent.
  3. I think, "Fair point. Whatever word we use, we should be consistent." but if there are going to be all these changes, let's take a look at the word "war" too. I don't think it's helpful. So I offer some thoughts about what sort of language we might use (not using the word "edit" or "war").
  4. You say that they don't teach the word edit in English schools. Maybe not. Perhaps they should. Whatever word we use, we should be consistent.
  5. So what about "revert" and "undo"? Revert is not Simple English. Maybe we should think about "undo" instead. We already use that word. But I go back to "change back" and suggest revised wording that avoids using the words "revert" or "undo".
  6. You say, "you can revert without clicking undo". Well, yes. There is more than one way to change something back. WP:3RR already talks about "a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions"... Because that's Simple English... Unlike "Don't keep changing things back".
  7. And you say we have a "change" button and a "change" summary. Well, nothing wrong with that. Except that the "change" button has a hint that says it edits. And the "change" summary has a preview that calls it an "edit summary". Nothing like being consistent, is there?
Well, let's leave the other inconsistencies for another time. "Edit war", we can change. But let's think about that word "war". Let's think about it quite hard.
--GrounderUK (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
fwiw, they changed the edit button to publish long ago, so the edit war jargon is obsolete. you can tell a veteran from a newbie because they say edit. Slowking4 (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So it seems that consensus is to move to Change War. But what about other uses of edit that I mention above, such as similar pages like editing policy, contents of many other pages, and interface text. Is there consensus for this to be changed as well? Naleksuh (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two ways to look at this: 1) Match other Wikipedias and 2) Do our own thing.
1) "Edit War" has an advantage: It is the same term used on the English Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia (Guerra), French Wikipedia, Italian Wikipedia and probably lots of others. If someone is reading an article in their own language and then coming to Simple English to learn or make a Simple English version of the article they wrote in Spanish, it would help a lot if we used the same term. I write articles in Simple English and in Spanish and it helps me.
2) If there were no English Wikipedia and you were coming up with a name for this completely from scratch, what would you pick? "Change War" works, but it suggests coins. And do we need the word "war"? There's "Change-back War," "Change fight," "Change-text fight," "Dueling changes," "Erasing Fight." Can anyone come up with a really good word that gets right to the point and is better than "Edit war" by enough that it outweighs the advantage of matching other Wikipedias? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you (collectively) have run too fast. You dismiss 'revert' as being not simple, but it is accurate. Long ago we agreed not to be bound just by the Ogden list when we had a clearer alternative. No-one thinks Ogden did more than scratch the surface. We must be specific if we are going to use the words to describe an administrative decision. "Three reverts" is a much more specific description than three edits, changes etc. Also, the whole discussion took less than a fortnight. And, there is a lack of comments from some of our most experienced editors. We should change what we have been doing for years after such a discussion? No, the poll is far too likely to give us something we will regret. Stop being so pushy. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Just to be clear, though... I brought up "revert" because it is a less common word than "edit" and, it turns out, "edit wars" are actually about "reversions", not "changes". To relate most directly to the (current) user experience, we have first a "change" and then an "undo". Or, as IWI points out, there is some other action that has the effect of an "undo". One alternative is going back to an earlier "revision"; another is a new "change" that has the effect of moving in the opposite direction to the original change (a "counterchange", if we are not staying Simple). Personally, I don't find "revert" to be a more accurate term than "undo", here, but I can see how it might be helpful to use a term that is not directly linked to a particular form of the misbehaviour. (This is why I shifted to "change back"... but "undoing war" makes me smile!)--GrounderUK (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "edit" has a very specific meaning; yes "change" covers some of the meaning, but only some of it: Is a "change war" a contest who can change clothes fastest? - And as pointed out elsewhere, it is not just this occurrence, but many others. I feel I am here to make this Wikipedia better. I don't necessarily do this by changing a good part of the interface texts. And no, I am not a native English speaker. (And for those who don't know yet, I am probably the person who has been changing this wikipedia for the longest time, and who is still active). --Eptalon (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been thinking about this for awhile but couldn't think how to word my thoughts but Macdonald-ross has pretty much summed up my thoughts perfectly. There is a tendency to try and change a word without considering the entire phrase or idea. Changing a single word to make it simpler sometimes makes the phrase less simple. -Djsasso (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I added support to this proposal, below, I can see both sides of the argument. I certainly agree with some of the points made by Macdonald-ross and Eptalon above. Accuracy matters. What I would add is that consistency also matters, and if we are calling edits changes in some places, and edits edits in other places, that could be confusing for the target audience. Why not call a revert a change-back; three change-backs? I do see why someone would question the use of it as it comes from a phrasal verb, to change back, but in essence to revert something is to change it back to what it was. I also think that context makes it obvious what change would mean in the context of a change war, given that we already talk of changes here, not edits. The page explains what an edit war or change war is. The title of the page merely acts as an expression we would use to allude to the definition. In the scheme of things, I do not think it will have a huge impact either way; the wiki has been fine with the page as it is (edit war), and it would be fine if we changed it to change war. I do think that for consistency's sake, changing it would be a good idea. --Yottie =talk= 19:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want anyone to think I have attempted to game the system here by starting a poll. The poll is just to get an idea of what people think, it is not setting stone. Consensus should be drawn from this whole discussion. If there is strong consensus for something different than my proposal, it should be stopped. Either way, "edit war" doesn't seem appropriate, considering we don't use the word "edit" anywhere else. I see Eptalon's comment about the fact that "Change war" could possibly have other meanings. Is there a better phrase for this that we can use? The way I see it, "change war" is still better than "edit war". I also see Macdonald-ross' point that we may have moved to fast with the proposals and accuracy should not be compromised for simplicity. This is also true. As Eptalon said, other meanings may be drawn from the phrase, but we must remember that the article in question explains the phrase well. IWI (chat) 18:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

I will start a simple support/oppose poll below, as nobody has came up with another name. . Should Wikipedia:Edit war be moved to Wikipedia:Change war?

Not exactly sure what your point is. You're opposing on the grounds of there being no consensus and not wanting to do "exactly this" when everyone else who commented is in support. Why do you not want to rename the page? Vermont (talk) 12:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the comments above, there are serious objections. My conclusion is that it was incorrectly named "edit war" in the first place and so it should not simply be changed to the equally incorrect (but simpler) "change war".--GrounderUK (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone agrees with this, they would expect to vote oppose.IWI (chat) 18:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean.
[For the record, I am changing my oppose to abstain. I dislike both options presented in the poll. I don't think we should be having this poll at all. But, honestly, I don't think it matters to me what the outcome is.]--GrounderUK (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well the comments above would likely serve as an oppose from them. There is a reason, we typically don't jump to "Polls", we generally suggest discussion as above as its better to find consensus than a binary poll. -Djsasso (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The point was to just get an idea of the opinions of users. None of this is setting stone - it's just a poll. Consensus is not a vote. IWI (chat) 20:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can revert without clicking the undo button, as stated. Not necessarily the best solution. IWI (chat) 19:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, certainly people can. But I think "undo war" is easy to understand because one way to have such a war is to use the undo button. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't know about our target audience (mostly young people and non-native speakers, I presume), but as a native speaker of English, I would not know what "change wars" means. Kdammers (talk) 05:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But if you didn't know what the word "edit" meant, would you know what "edit war" means? "Change" is a word used throughout this wiki, including in the interface itself. IWI (chat) 20:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I could look up the word "edit" and get something of an accurate idea. Looking up "change" would give me too many options. As others have argued, "war" might not be a good choice either.

Other names

I agree with Macdonald-ross that this moved a little quickly. I would like to list all the other names people came up with in the thread here, and anyone with other ideas should add to it. My own view is that all of these are better than "change war" (though I think "Change war" is good enough to work without problems). Now that they have all had time to cook in my brain, I find I have realized which one I like most and why. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change war (subject of main proposal)
  • Change-back war/Changeback war
  • Change-text fight
  • Dueling changes
  • Erasing fight
  • Revert war
  • Undo war

Proposal for a stub category

I am not sure that this is the right place to post this, but I'm doing so anyway. I'm also not sure if I'm being simple enough, so please forgive me if I'm too complex.

The Simple English Wikipedia has many stubs. Too many stubs, in fact. Imagine if we could track them all. In fact, enwiki already does this (not that I'm trying to imitate it or something).

I propose a stub category in which the generic stub tag ({{stub}}) falls into only the stub category (which will most likely be named Category:All stubs). I then propose that each specific stub tag (that is, those tags that are not {{stub}}). For example, {{US-stub}} will be sorted into Category:US stubs. I ask that an administrator handle this request, as the {{stub}} template is fully protected.


With that, I propose that we create categories to track stubs, as described in detail above.


Respectfully, ~Prahlad balaji (t / c) 18:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Prahlad balaji: Hello! Don't worry, only the articles are in Simple English. Discussions can be held in regular conversations. We already have Category:Stubs as well as Category:Stub categories. Is this what you're describing? Operator873talkconnect 18:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As Operator mentions we do basically track them in the locations he mentions, but I should also note that stub categories here somewhat in a half-deprecated state. We try to be much more simple than en.wiki and only have the most generic stub categories possible and only create new ones when we absolutely have to and have a number of editors working on expanding stubs in that given category. See Wikipedia:Simple Stub Project for an explanation. -Djsasso (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Djsasso and Operator873 OK, but when I go to the articles in said categories, I do not see a "stub" category that appears. I use HotCat, for reference. ~Prahlad balaji (t / c) 21:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stub categories should not be added with HotCat. They should be added only by putting one of the (approved) stub templates in an article. The stub categories are hidden categories, so you might need to change your preferences to be able to see them on articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Review

  • I'd like to do an editor review here, I want to run for adminship in a few months from now, I know that these are holding me back
Low edit count
Not enough participation in other areas of SimpleWiki that I may not know even exists.

Why do I want to run for admin?

  • Not enough admins, at times when one is needed when I am online, or when one is needed, there is no active admins
  • I notice logs that some admins may have forgot to revdel
  • Help block and stop vandals
  • I do not intend to participate in irc channels, as it confuses me there
  • Help with backlogs
  • So I can Delete obvious pages that violate Wikipedia policy without adding to any qd backlogs
I know that admins are not special, and they only get a few more buttons, that's all

Can I have some feedback on me as an editor, thanks --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Me and a few other editors were discussing possible candidates for admin a few days ago. I mentioned your name, but the main concern is that you take long periods of inactivity. Now, I wouldn't say that's guaranteed to hold you back. @Only: sometimes goes up to half a year without editing, but we still value their contributions. The main issue with this is that you can only get so many admins before all rfas fail, and you would want to have as many admins as possible be active. I would prefer as many admins as possible use IRC , due to the usage of the stalkword and it being more common than VIP here. For what it is worth though, I would not oppose due to your edit count.
Here is one  Question: for you: Can you give some examples of diffs that you say admins forgot to revdel, so we can evaluate if there is a real problem or perhaps it was not revdelled intentionally.
Hope this helps you with editor feedback :) Naleksuh (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Naleksuh I don't have the diff with me because it has already been revdeled, but I mentioned to Operator873 on his talk page, that there was a revision that still needed to be revdeled, and it did get revdeled, see here, the reason for inactivity is the message on the top of my talk page, but I am starting to feel better now, so I'll start being active again. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering that the reason for the activity is entirely legitimate, I don't think that should be a consideration anyone should take. I think you would make a good administrator. You have a good understanding of policy and clearly "have a clue". I can't think of any instance where I've seen a concern of any kind with your edits. You even advised me on a couple of things in the past. Generally I would only oppose someone who I thought wouldn't use the tools correctly (intentionally or not), but you always think before you act with things like rollback. For these reasons, I would likely support promotion. IWI (chat) 02:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't conducted a thorough review yet, but would like to state for now that revision/log deletion is used in a very selective fashion. More often than not, lack of revdel/logdel is due to a conscious decision to not perform the deletion. If you can give specific examples, I am quite sure myself (or other administrators) will be able to take a look at them for you. The point about IRC: the matter of on-wiki and off-wiki communication channels has been a recurring theme in ST these few months; I should say again that no one should be pressured to hop on IRC just because many other editors are already there, and lack of participation in off-wiki communication channels should not be considered against RfA candidates. Off-wiki channels are not a replacement for established on-wiki processes. Chenzw  Talk  03:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simple English Wikipedia Social

Greetings friends. I'm trying to start a social meeting for our community and others as well, of course. The intent is to have fun, socialize, play some games, and perhaps brag about your favorite drink or snack. I will be hosting JackBox Games for entertainment and would love getting to know everyone. The first SEWP Social will be held on the Discord server General 1 voice channel and will be scheduled for Friday, July 17th at 2300 UTC (6pm CDT, 7pm EDT). No RSVP is necessary, but if you'd like to announce your intent to attend, you're welcome to respond here. I'm excited and looking forward to the first social! See y'all there. Operator873talkconnect 03:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - Stewards, functionaries, and members of other communities are cordially invited as well. :) Operator873talkconnect 03:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's 12am BST for me. Hopefully I am not working and can attend. Sounds fun. IWI (chat) 03:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice initiative! I think the community would benefit from this kind of event. Sadly it's a bit too late for me, midnight BST, as I'm working the following day. Have fun everyone! --Yottie =talk= 09:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


(bump to bottom) Hello again friends, just a quick reminder that this coming Friday, we'll be having a meet up on the Discord server at 2300 UTC. I am looking forward to seeing everyone there! Operator873talkconnect 22:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to join but I can't seem to log in. Have fun, you guys! Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For next time: Lets try using some software where the audio works reaosnably; also think about the fact that some editors are from Europe. 1 am CE(S)T is not a good time for everyone.--Eptalon (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a fellow European, I agree. IWI (chat) 00:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Dang, I missed out, Hopefully next time --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2020-32

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems

  • All queries to the Wikidata Query Service failed between 17:50 and 17:59 UTC on Thursday 23 July. Some queries failed during a longer period. [1]
  • Interlanguage links were ordered incorrectly for the past few weeks. This problem was also mentioned in Tech News two weeks ago. The problem is now fixed. [2]
  • There is a problem with the global preferences for the "Use Legacy Vector" option. Developers are working on fixing it. [3]
  • A bug in the Wikibase extension had disabled the "move" and "create" types of protection in the main (Gallery) namespace on Wikimedia Commons. New protections could not be added, and existing protections were not enforced, allowing some page moves and page creations that should not have been possible. This has now been fixed. [4]

Changes later this week

  • The video player will change to be simpler and more modern. This week, the current beta feature will become the video player for everyone on most non-Wikipedia wikis. The old player will be removed. [5]
  • Users' global.js and global.css pages will now also be loaded on the mobile site. You can read documentation for how to avoid applying styles to the mobile skin. [6]
  • Advanced item In the MonoBook skin, the searchGoButton identifier is now searchButton. This may affect CSS and JS gadgets. Migration instructions can be found in T255953. This was previously mentioned in issue 27.
  • Advanced item Bot operators can use Pywikibot to regularly archive discussions. The behavior when the bot uses counter to prevent large archives was changed. [7]
  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from August 4. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from August 5. It will be on all wikis from August 6 (calendar).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Notification about a proposed global ban of User:Eric abiog

Please help translate to your language

Dear community,

pursuant to the global ban policy, I would like to notify your community I have proposed that User:Eric abiog to be globally banned by the global Wikimedia Community.

You are invited to discuss the case in a request for comment that is running at the Meta-Wiki.

Best regards,
Martin Urbanec (talk)

Delivered by --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Wishes: FileExporter and FileImporter become default features on all Wikis

The FileExporter and FileImporter will become a default features on all wikis until August 7, 2020. They are planned to help you to move files from your local wiki to Wikimedia Commons easier while keeping all original file information (Description, Source, Date, Author, View History) intact. Additionally, the move is documented in the files view history. How does it work?

Step 1: If you are an auto-confirmed user, you will see a link "Move file to Wikimedia Commons" on the local file page.

Step 2: When you click on this link, the FileImporter checks if the file can in fact be moved to Wikimedia Commons. These checks are performed based on the wiki's configuration file which is created and maintained by each local wiki community.

Step 3: If the file is compatible with Wikimedia Commons, you will be taken to an import page, at which you can update or add information regarding the file, such as the description. You can also add the 'Now Commons' template to the file on the local wiki by clicking the corresponding check box in the import form. Admins can delete the file from the local wiki by enabling the corresponding checkbox. By clicking on the 'Import' button at the end of the page, the file is imported to Wikimedia Commons.

If you want to know more about the FileImporter extension or the Technical Wishes Project, follow the links. --For the Technical Wishes Team:

Max Klemm (WMDE) 09:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Red links?

Can I get some? LovelyCardigan (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LovelyCardigan, welcome to Simple Wikipedia. Can you please clarify what exactly are you looking for? — Infogapp1 (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
requested articles. LovelyCardigan (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may check Wikipedia:Requested pages. — Infogapp1 (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Infogapp1 and LovelyCardigan: That page lists articles that people have requested, but which are not necessarily redlinked anywhere. Special:WantedPages lists redlinked pages. Both are good places to get ideas for pages to create. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup? Renaming templates to follow en.wp

Should the templates listed in Category:People navigational boxes be renamed to a certain format? Such as "Position" of "Place". It'll be easier for editors to add it into articles. --Minorax (talk) 10:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Minorax:Not sure what you mean. Can you give an example of a rename you'd suggest? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: Template:Zambian Presidents be renamed to Template:Presidents of Zambia. Basically following a fixed format. Minorax (talk) 06:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How would that make it easier to add them to articles? I can see doing it to give them the same names as the enwiki templates, so that articles brought over from there wouldn't have to be changed. However, we could also accomplish that by creating redirects. If you really want to do it, I'd start a more focused discussion (with a name that explains what you have in mind better than "Cleanup?") and list each one you think should be renamed with the proposed new names. Some of them, such as Template:English monarchs, already have the same name as enwiki, so I wouldn't change those. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do it later, latest by tomorrow, and link it here. --Minorax (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Minorax: You could start the discussion here. I don't know another central place to do it. The category wouldn't be a good place, because it isn't the category you want to change. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 So basically, I suggest that we rename the following templates

Following the names of their en.wp counterpart would be ideal so we wouldn't have to change anything when copying stuff. Alternatively, should we create a guideline when creating templates like these? Something like Category:"Position" of "Country/Location" (e.g. Category:Presidents of the United States) --Minorax (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally our names are just the old en.wiki names and they never got moved when en.wiki got moved. I don't think its controversial to move some so go ahead. I just wouldn't do it all en mass, I typically only move them when I stumble on one that hasn't been moved. And be careful that we may sometimes have names that are in Simple English so are different on purpose, in that case just make a redirect if there isn't one. -Djsasso (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding new topics on this (the Simple-talk page)

I think just having a blue link (not always very easy to tell that the link is blue on some computer screens) is not enough. We should add something like "Click here" to add a new topic.Kdammers (talk) 06:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated reference to a single source

On a site, I saw that there was a bug note in the history section. The note said that repeated references should have a particular format (<ref name="foo">Book ABC</ref>). I don't understand what this means. Say I want to reference http//::using_simplewikipedia.orgx, what is the concrete change I should make from '''<ref>http//::using_simplewikipedia.orgx</ref>''' for an isolated citation to one that will be repeated later in the article? Kdammers (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You would do '''<ref name="foo">http//::using_simplewikipedia.orgx</ref>''' at the location the first instance of the reference and then use '''<ref name="foo" />''' for any following uses of the reference. -Djsasso (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That way the reference shows up in the reference section just once.
Here, look at the ref section for Flat-headed cat. The first source was used only once. The second source was used six times. If you hit "change source" you will see the code says <ref name="ISEC">{{cite web |url=https://wildcatconservation.org/wild-cats/asia/flat-headed-cat/ |publisher=International Society for Endangered Cats Canada |accessdate=July 14, 2020 |title=Flat-headed Cat}}</ref> once and <ref name="ISEC" /> all the other times. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2020-33

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • FileImporter and FileExporter became standard features on all Wikis during the first week of August. They help you transfer files from local wikis to Wikimedia Commons with the original file information and history intact. [8]

Problems

  • The mobile skin displays a message at the bottom of the page about who edited last. This message showed raw wikitext. This has now been fixed. Some messages in Structured Discussions and content translation may still appear as raw wikitext. Developers are working on it. [9]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from August 11. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from August 12. It will be on all wikis from August 13 (calendar).

Future changes

  • All wikis will be read-only for a few minutes on September 1. This is planned between 13:30 and 15:30 UTC. More information will be published in Tech News and will also be posted on individual wikis in the coming weeks. [10][11]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Big World Heritage Weekend 2020

Hello everyone. Following the success of the recent revival of the Big Weekend, me and Yottie have decided to coordinate another Big Weekend next month. This one will be a Big World Heritage Weekend, which will run from Friday 14 August 2020 - 11AM UTC until Tuesday 18 August 2020 - 11PM UTC. The objective of this project is to update the Lists of World Heritage Sites articles as well as create articles for any missing World Heritage Sites. There was a similar Big Weekend in 2012 that also focused on national parks. This was very successful, and we hope this one will be too. Feel free to join the conversation over on Wikipedia talk:Big Weekend, and sign up to the Big World Heritage Site Weekend 2020! Regards, IWI (chat) 18:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder, this starts in two days time! Happy editing! --Yottie =talk= 06:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PGA and PVGA process

Hello everyone, given the situation at WP:Proposed (Very) Good Articles (whereby articles seem to sit in the queue for months on end), I was wondering whether we could come up with a way to revitalise this part of the project. It is an opportunity to display some of our best work, and it seems a shame not to endeavour to write high quality, simple articles.

I am wondering whether the current process is too complex, or not clear enough. Of course, as Eptalon often points out, the lack of editors on the project also makes this a challenge.

It seems that often the articles nominated for GA are not in great shape in the first place (e.g. information missing, not simple enough, etc.). I think we might be able to reinvigorate the process by making it simpler.

My suggestion would be to rewrite the page Wikipedia:Requirements for good articles (and corresponding page for VGAs). One suggestion might include changing the requirements. There are too many bullet points as it stands. Let's keep it simple. For example:

  1. The article must be written in Simple English.
  2. The article must talk about most of the important information on the subject.
  3. The article must be encyclopaedic. It must be in the right category, have few or no red links, have good references and have pictures is possible.

Do we really need to say any more than that? Currently the first point goes without saying: all articles should be about a subject that belongs on Wikipedia. The second point would be covered by the second point above. The third point is redundant - nobody writes perfect articles, but the article will have been reviewed by other editors before reaching GA status. Point four is covered by the third point above. Point five also goes without saying. Points six, seven, eight and nine are covered by point 3 above.

I understand why we do not have (got rid of, many years back?) WP:Peer review, as it is yet another thing to maintain. Maybe there is an argument to create this page (instead of the current redirect to WP:PGA), to help make the actual PGA page clearer; articles on WP:PGA should almost be ready to be promoted. At the moment, the criteria suggest an article should be posted at Peer Review first, before being posted at PGA - but of course, as I said Peer review is PGA here, and so it ends up cluttering that page. The How to make an article good section then suggests voting, and obtaining 70%+ support from a minimum of 5 voters... but the PGA page says not to support or oppose. We need to make things clear.

I suggest having a page called Wikipedia:Article review, where editors can post pages they intend to take to PGA or PVGA. There, they can explain whether the article is going to be put up for PGA or PVGA, and other editors can leave comments to help improve the article before the nominators take the page to PGA/PVGA. This way, when the article gets to PGA, it has a better chance of passing quickly. If there are objections, an Administrator can decide to send the page back to Article review.

The other point I wanted to bring up was who PGA sits with. I do not believe it currently sits with Administrators, however it is likely that admins will be the people overseeing the process, as mediating is part of their role anyway. I would be keen for this to be clearer in the guidelines, so that Administrators should be in charge of Promoting articles, closing and archiving the discussions (much like RfD). This would not add much to their workload, as there are not an exceedingly high number of PGAs, but I feel it would help reinvigorate the PGA process and move things along quicker.

Also, while there is a rationale to voting being evil, I think that it would also help simplify the process once articles are moved from Article review to PGA. We vote (whether we call it that or not) at T:DYK, WP:RFA, so why not here? It makes it clear, and any objections can be brought up during this vote. Whether we call it a vote, or not, is optional, but at the end of the day saying I support the article being a GA because it meets the requirements or I do not support the article being a GA because it doesn't meet the requirements is a vote of sorts. Let's call it what it is. As ever, with these things, if the closing Administrator feels the article does not meet the requirements, they can send it back to Article review.

I have made an example PGA page in my userspace. I am open to suggestions, of course, but I feel we need to do something to get the process to move quicker (whether to promote or not).--Yottie =talk= 19:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know if this would make the process move quicker, but I have no objections to what you propose. The only suggestion I can think of right now is that the third point could say "It must be in the right category(ies)" because most articles should be in more than one category. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who has had PGA and PVGAs sit in the queue for months without anyone to look at it, I appreciate this post. However, I would agree with Auntof6 that much of what you wrote probably wouldn't make the process much faster. The main problem seems to be attention. Some articles are very clearly either decent enough to be worth considering, or so bad that they clearly should have never been nominated. Maybe a reason why some people wouldn't check is because there's some kind of expectation of leaving a very in-depth review (even though that's not required). One possible solution is just to better announce something on the talk page. Admins have done that in the past when someone has been nominated for some kind of rights or position, an admin often announces it, and suddenly there are at least a dozen people who chime in within the day. Having even a third of that attention for PGA and PVGA would basically solve the problem. I would imagine the only problem with this is that an admin saying "hey guys, this article looks good. Everyone should look at it!" would be playing favorites or something. I think more could be done to draw attention to these, and the effects would be incredible, not just to show our best work, but to help others. Personally, when I started out editing the Lawrence, Kansas article, I tried to use other high-quality city articles as a decent template. Sadly, there really weren't any, so I had to use the standard English version as a guide and figure out a lot as I went along. Having at least one GA or VGA for every major category of article (location, object, event, person, concept, etc.) would go a long way to help new people and maybe guide those who are looking to really make something. ~Junedude433talk 00:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not everyone thinks revitalising GAs and VGAs is a good idea. I don't, for one. The whole process on this wiki becomes intensely egotistical, with the proposer fighting tooth and nail for his or her topic. That, despite it being in principle a wiki group activity, is what has damaged it in many minds. Nor is it a good use of time on a wiki where almost every article could be improved. Often only one person wants to work on it, indeed often they resent anyone else trying! This is a dead letter, and no amount of breathing on it will bring it back to life. I had to decide long ago whether to offer up my articles for the process, and decided against. It doesn't worry me if others think differently. People have a limited amount of time to give to their voluntary activities, and they make their choices. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Derivative"

Hi, Is "copy" a simpler word for "derivative" and if so how could I incorporate that at Mercedes-Benz_Sprinter#See_also (The 2 vans listed there are derivatives of the Sprinter but not sure how I can word it),
Many thanks, Regards, –Davey2010Talk 19:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No copy doesn't really mean the same thing as derivative. Copy implies trying to be the same thing whereas a derivative is something that has evolved from something else. Remember if the word is complex and you can't find another way you can always link it to wiktionary for now. -Djsasso (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought it meant but thought I'd double check first, Okie dokie many thanks for your help Djsasso - I'll link to wiktionary, Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, you could also say something like "based on". --Auntof6 (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah brilliant thank you Auntof6, For some reason I hadn't even thought of that!, Deffo prefer that option as seems more helpful and more understandable, Many thanks :), –Davey2010Talk 20:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Copy" only refers to the same thing as "derivative" in some ways. When people said "The Percy Jackson series by Rick Riordan is derivative" they meant "We think Rick Riordan copied the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling." But "copy" is a noun and a verb and "derivative" is an adjective (except in mathematics), so they don't fit into sentences in the same places. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Derivative" would be an obscure word to many readers. Translate it as "developed from" or "got from" or "based on". That uses two words for one difficult word. Copy means copy, that is, a replica of some original form. In essence I agree with DJS above. Dictionaries can be useful, and so can Roget's thesaurus, which some editors may not have met. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

How am I doing so far? Leghoul2743 (talk) 08:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You only have three changes and one of them is this comment here. That is not enough for a meaningful evaluation of your contributions.
I looked at both your other changes. Your change at the airport page was good. You put bold on the first mention of the subject of the article. That is our standard format, so adding it was good.
In your other change, you took a correct and complete sentence and turned it into one complete sentence and one fragment. That's not good. I would revert it but I see ImprovedWikiImprovment has already done so.
If you are asking how you're doing because IWI put one of your changes back, then the answer is that is no big deal. He called your edit "good faith" meaning he doesn't think you messed up the article on purpose (and "messed up" is a strong term; the reader could still understand the article the way you had it, so it's not like it was ruined). You're not in trouble. Reversions of good faith edits are normal and we've all had changes reverted at some time or other. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Lawrence, Kansas to VGA

After a 2 year long dry spell which also saw the demotion of 3 VGAs, I am happy to announce that Lawrence, Kansas was promoted to VGA today. This represents the culmination of a year's worth of tireless work and reviews. VGAs represent the best the wiki has to offer, so please feel free to swing by to take a look at the article. Chenzw  Talk  15:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big Weekend starts tomorrow

Hello, Just a quick reminder that the Big World Heritage Weekend 2020 starts tomorrow at 11am UTC! No need to sign up, just remember to add BW or BWW to your change summary so we can keep track of how many changes people make! Check the link above for more details. Happy editing! --Yottie =talk= 18:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About User:36.69.80.239

Is IP user can add userpage?--Gomdoli4696 (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gomdoli4696: No, IP users cannot have user pages. I have deleted this one. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
oh, I see. --Gomdoli (talk) 06:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2020-34

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • If you revert an edit using the undo link your edit is marked with an undo tag. This will now only happen if you don't change anything in the edit window before publishing the undo. This is to keep users from marking edits as undos when they actually do something else. [12]
  • The new OOUI version will not work with Internet Explorer 8. This means the wikis will look strange and not work well in Internet Explorer 8. This was reported in Tech/News/2020/17. This is because keeping the wikis working with very old browsers creates other problems. [13]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 18 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 19 August. It will be on all wikis from 20 August (calendar).

Future changes

  • All wikis will be read-only for a few minutes on September 1. This is planned between 13:30 and 15:30 UTC. More information will be published in Tech News and will also be posted on individual wikis next week. This is a reminder. You can help by translating the announcement message. [14][15]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Ravi Vishwakarma

Mera naam Ravi Vishwakarma hai mere father ka Naam late Rajesh Vishwakarma Mother ka naam Manisha devi Mere Bhai ka naam Sonu hai — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:4183:3545:0:34:4676:bc01 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2401:4900:4183:3545:0:34:4676:bc01 Hello. Do you have a question about changing Wikipedia? Naddruf (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template?

Is there some template that basically says “this user is busy and won’t be on Wikipedia much”? I need it on my userpage, I’m pretty busy in real life... --sithjarjar666 (my contribs | talk to me | see my enwiki profile) 15:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SithJarJar666: Yes, Template:Busy. It could do with an update from the enwiki version with simplification IMO though. IWI (chat) 21:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. Valkyrie dimension (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Hi everyone! Just letting you all know that I have nominated Naleksuh for adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Naleksuh. IWI (chat) 01:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Note that there is an RFA open for discussion here --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'll take a look. (My changes here | Drop me a line) 03:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Polar cyclone and Polar vortex?

It seems to me that Polar cyclone (created August 2007) and Polar vortex (created January 2014) should be merged, but I don't want to make the decision or do the merge myself. The discussion page is here: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polar_cyclone

Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Words missing from Basic English (even combined wordlist)

It seems that one purpose of this site is to rely on the Basic English wordlist, in some form, for all words whenever possible. But I've noticed that some essential words are missing from both the ordinary 850 word list and Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist. For example, it excludes "buy" and "sell"; without these words many things simply cannot be expressed; yet it includes the very unlikely words "birefringence" and "valency". Has anyone found other missing words that we are in great need of? If so, is there some way they can be listed somewhere that suggests their use? Naddruf (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • We didn't create the word lists, they were created by others. They aren't a perfect reference for us, partly because they are old. Nevertheless, we don't add words to them that the creators didn't include, even words we consider simple. This does lead to issues like you describe. I would say to use those words even though they aren't on the word lists, because they are obviously simple. I do notice that "purchase" is on the list, although I would use "buy" instead; my guess is that it was a more common word when the lists were created. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the reason purchase is on the list is because buy can be confused with by. -Djsasso (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned above, those are official published lists, they were not created by us so we can't add words to them. However, the direction we give on this wiki is to use the most simple words possible when they are not already on the list. We certainly don't only use those words on this wiki, we just try our best to stick as close as possible. -Djsasso (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simple English Wikipedia Social!

Hey everyone! We will be having another gathering on Discord Sunday 08/22 at 2000 UTC (3pm Central Time). The first social was very lackluster, mainly my fault for not testing the required meeting software... heh... But we got that sorted out and look forward to seeing everyone. Remember, this isn't limited to only SEWP editors. We invite everyone so drag your enwiki, metawiki, commmons, and any other friends along too. There will be chat about events we'd want to plan, like Big Weekends, and it's an open forum for members to discuss what we want to do on-wiki. As a reminder, anything we discuss will have to be proposed on wiki for community consensus if it's a policy change. That said, I'm eager to hear what ideas you all have.

After that, we'll dive right into some JackBox games and drinking beverages ideal for the situation. "Hey Oper, what beverages do you mean," you may ask. "What ever you want to drink, of course," I respond. But be prepared to explain why it's your favorite!

There's a giveaway this time! Enter the drawing for a custom barnstar by bringing a Steward, functionary, or sysop from another wiki to the social. Kidnapping is not encouraged. (haha)

Participation entirely optional. No extra credit for attendance. And best of all, it's solely for fun. I can't wait to see y'all there. Operator873talkconnect 01:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I never here for these lol ( I'm in bed when this starts) --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegooduser: What time zone are you in? I'll move the timing around until we get it to where everyone can attend! :) Operator873talkconnect 01:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Operator873 PST, I am only here from 5PM -8PM though --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can attend much later, but I can't really speak into the mic after 21:00 UTC due to other people sleeping in my house. --IWI (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ImprovedWikiImprovement Earplug them :) --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like fun. Unfortunately, real life will keep me from coming tomorrow :( Over the Period (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When is (or was) this? At least according to my computer, here is Kazakhstan, Sunday (today) is the 23rd, not the 22nd. Kdammers (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kdammers: The social will begin 3 hours from now. Look forward to seeing you there! Operator873talkconnect 17:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who participated in the social yesterday! We had a lot of fun! We discussed future ideas for Weekend Events and how to break down larger problem categories into manageable tasks. There was, of course, lots of games. No custom barnstar winner this time. I'll come up with something else for next time. I hope to see everyone at the next social in about a month. Operator873talkconnect 13:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please just make sure you aren't making decisions offline that everyone should be able to participate in. It's fine to discuss, but let others have input before relevant changes are made. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of RD2

I was recently asked (over off-wiki channels) to consider a REVDEL action, and that was subsequently declined by me (as noted here). Our current version of the RD policy (first introduced by PeterSymonds in Special:Diff/2207151, and further simplified by Sonia in Special:Diff/2285547) states in RD2 that "It is considered acceptable to remove attack page titles from the deletion or move logs after attack pages are deleted." FT2, a sysop on EN, however, subsequently clarified on EN's policy page (about a week after PeterSymonds introduced the RD policy to this wiki) that revdel-ing of the titles must meet the "grossly improper" standard first.

A check of en:Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion shows that FT2 did not find it necessary for the clarification to be discussed with the EN community (since it was intended to be merely a clarification), but given how there has been much discussion (both on-wiki and off-wiki) of revdel use on this wiki, I am raising this to ST for visibility and discussion, if necessary. Chenzw  Talk  05:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it depends on what the goal of RD3 "purely disruptive material" is. While editors who intend to work in the anti abuse area certainly have thick skin, I see no reason why pure attacks should not be revdelled. In addition, I should point out that the edit summaries used to create pages are completely public even after the page is deleted, and as long as no summary is used there is also the first ~200 characters of the page's contents. When an attack page is deleted, the contents of the attack page can still be viewed through the page creation log, and I would say that this should be revdelled per RD3. Naleksuh (talk) 07:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a recent one where the log has remained, and it contains a cyberbullying attack in the edit summary with someones full name. In my view, this should be revdelled; there is no editorial reason to keep at all. --IWI (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My rule of thumb, and what used to be the rule of thumb for other admins but I don't know if that is still the case, if it can't be hidden by an OS you shouldn't revdel it. So I generally won't revdel an attack page in a log unless it contains libel. Run of the mill attacks don't get revdel'd. As mentioned is has to be grossly improper, which in my view is libel. -Djsasso (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​​​ This seems like a fair outlook, but I am still of the opinion that if it is an attack with someone's full name AND there is no editorial reason to keep it, there is no reason why we shouldn't revdel it, even if it doesn't classify as libel. I have experienced cyberbullying myself when I was younger, and I don't think we should be helping bullies to attack people, if we can avoid doing so.--IWI (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​​​ fix ping. --IWI (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of comes down to the argument on how much you believe wikipedia should be censored. The reason in general that run of the mill attacks/rudeness as mentioned in WP:REVDEL are not revdelled is to prevent what others might consider to be censorship and so that all things can be transparent. It allows other editors see that so and so has a history of attacking people etc. But if admins hide it, then it can be argued that it is being swept under the rug. -Djsasso (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True. Wikipedia shouldn't be censored, sure. But, still, I think we can also consider how you would feel if it were you being routinely attacked on a public website. There we can weigh between living up to NOTCENSORED, and how it may affect someone. That is a discussion we can perhaps come to a consensus on. Currently, I don't think RD2 allows such a revdel. --IWI (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2020-35

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 25 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 26 August. It will be on all wikis from 27 August (calendar).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

17:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Queston from Hamuyi

Hello. I wanted to know how to make infoboxes. I am now to Wikipedia. I really need hel

. Thank you '-'[ping me!]--Hamuyi (click for userpage) (talk (click for talkpage) 15:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! When you edit an article, you click on Insert, then Add a template, type "Infobox", then depending on what it is, you type either person, commune (place), etc. You may check what they're usually called on EN Wikipedia and see if the same template is available here. Hope this helps! --Infogapp1 (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Infogapp1: Isn't that how to use an infobox, rather than how to make one? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​ Yeah, the question was somewhat vague. It could be "how to make an infobox on a page" or "how to make a new type of infobox template". Naleksuh (talk) 05:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, never noticed. Thank you for answering my question IGP (Infogapp1)! --Hamuyi (click for userpage) (talk (click for talkpage) 15:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox/Userspace?

Can someone please create one for me, thank you. --Aoryt (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is go to User:Aoryt/sandbox and create something. -Djsasso (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I could make one and send it to your talk page. --Hamuyi (click for userpage) (talk (click for talkpage) 18:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Account creation requests

Hi all! Though it doesn't come up too often, I think we should make a process for editors who need help creating an account, usually for those caught in rangeblocks. In the past I've been referring people to enwiki's ACC, though it would seem more appropriate if we had our own mechanism. In my view, there's two viable options: the info-simple OTRS queue and the admins mailing list. For both, the process would be this: user wanting an account sends an email asking for an account and noting the issue they face, an admin looks and verifies that they are indeed unable to make one themselves, if so they create an account with a random password and the requesting user's email address, then the admin would send the information to the user and request the user then login and change the password on the new account. Thoughts? Vermont (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think it should be the admin list if it has to be anything. Still don't really think we should have created an OTRS queue since if I recall correctly it was never discussed on wiki and the admin mailing list on this wiki was intended to be the role that OTRS is now trying to fill. -Djsasso (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To note, apparently Special:CreateAccount has a feature to send a random password to a set email, making it basically entirely secure. The only question now is what the proper venue for something like this should be. Vermont (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All three of those options sound doable to me. Basically, I'm in favor of a process separate from enwiki's. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important: maintenance operation on September 1st

Read this message in another language • Please help translate to your language

The Wikimedia Foundation will be testing its secondary data centre. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to do a planned test. This test will show if they can reliably switch from one data centre to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.

They will switch all traffic to the secondary data centre on Tuesday, September 1st 2020.

Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

  • You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Tuesday, September 1st. The test will start at 14:00 UTC (15:00 BST, 16:00 CEST, 10:00 EDT, 19:30 IST, 07:00 PDT, 23:00 JST, and in New Zealand at 02:00 NZST on Wednesday September 2).
  • If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

Other effects:

  • Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
  • There will be code freezes for the week of September 1st, 2020. Non-essential code deployments will not happen.

This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. There will be more notifications about this. Please share this information with your community.

Trizek (WMF) (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should

Should I use "-" or "~"?

Like this:

(born 2020 - )
(born 2020 ~ )

— Gomdoli (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gomdoli4696: Definitely not the second: a tilde is not used for that. And if you aren't specifying the death date/year, you wouldn't use a dash, either: you would just have something like this:
John Doe (born 2020) was...
I'm assuming you were asking about specifying a person's dates in article text. if it was something else, please specify. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you would normally give a person's entire birth date, not just the year. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if I used tilde. Thank you. — Gomdoli (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving category

I want to move Category:African-Americans to Category:African Americans. The reason is that it is usually written with a hyphen as an adjective (Toni Morrison is an African-American writer) but without a hyphen as a noun (African Americans invented jazz). If it is written as two words, then African becomes an adjective describing American. This is better than African-American being a separate noun from American.

In general, can anybody move a category (I have Twinkle), or does it have to be an admin? I don't want to mess anything up. Thanks. Naddruf (talk) 04:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make a change like that without discussing it, even if you find you are able to do the move. I remember having a discussion about this at one point in the past, after which we renamed multiple categories. English Wikipedia uses the hyphen, so we should also unless there is a compelling reason not to. IMO, the reason you give is not compelling. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually English wikipedia does not use the hyphenated form as a noun, they use it as an adjective: en:category:African-American people. The only category I can see that uses a noun is en:category:LGBT African Americans which does not use the hyphen. Removing the hyphen would also make it consistent with the article, African Americans. The subcategories here are very inconsistent: there is category:African-American military personnel but category:African American politicians. In general, where can catgory moves be discussed? Naddruf (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well since the section is opened here we would discuss it here. That being said, ours should be named what en.wiki uses which is Category:African-American people. -Djsasso (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does every category move have to be done by an admin? Anyway, I think the subcategories should be consistent. Naddruf (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not all category moves need to be done by an admin. The issue here is not who should do the move. The issue is whether the move should be done and, if so, what the new name should be. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is an issue here, but I'm also wondering what to do if I come across a category with a really bad name, such as a category that corresponds to others but whose name is very inconsistent. I have used the Twinkle move button to rename articles, but I don't know if this causes trouble when done with categories. Do all the articles in the category have to be moved individually? Naddruf (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moving a category does not move the contents. It just moves the category definition to the new name. The contents have to be recategorized separately. If a redirect is left behind, a bot will eventually move things, but I don't know how long that takes. I usually prefer to explicitly move them to keep things clean, but YMMV. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My bot will wait 7 days to move the items in a category because it wants to let a cool down period happen to make sure someone doesn't revert the move first. It is very much preferable you do not move everything in a category after you rename it because if the rename gets challenged you have now made more work for the person doing all the reverting while letting it wait the 7 days harms nothing. -Djsasso (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can we move it to Category:African-American people? There is a redirect from there, so I can't do it myself. Naddruf (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep no one else commented so I can do the move. -Djsasso (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gopher (protocol)

The article for Gopher (protocol) is at Gopher (search engine) for some reason – probably an editor who thought "search engine" was a simpler way of saying "protocol". The words do not mean the same thing. The Gopher search engine is something different entirely. I can't move the page myself because the redirect has page history. wizzwizz4 (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was a vandal. wizzwizz4 (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. -Djsasso (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New warning for removing RfD template

We already have Template:Uw-qd, but sometimes editors remove the RfD templates. Would this be a good warning to fill this need? User:Naddruf/Template:Uw-rfd. See also the testcases. Naddruf (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's available now. See Template:Uw-rfd. Naddruf (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Naddruf: You've categorized it under Category:Templates used by Twinkle, but is it really used by Twinkle? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: Fixed now. And in the process I accidentally nominated your user talk page for deletion. So sorry. Naddruf (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Naddruf: Ha, ha -- no problem! We could maybe add the new template to Twinkle. I've never worked on Twinkle, though, and I don't remember who has. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Naddruf and Auntof6: I think this should be added to Twinkle. It would be useful for me as I use Twinkle. ImprovedWikiImprovment (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: Hello, I didn't get your ping; I think it's because you only used three tildes instead of four? Anyway, I agree that it might be helpful if we added it to Twinkle. Unfortunately, I don't know how to do this, it seems like it involves JavaScript, maybe something here: Wikipedia:Twinkle/Development. Do you have any ideas? Naddruf (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Naddruf: Yes sorry about that typo. Someone with experience with this can add it. IWI (chat) 19:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 I am going to edit the message slightly to spell out the full form of "admin" (along with wikilinking it). More often than not, the intended recipients of this message are not as familiar with the wiki. Chenzw  Talk  02:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irresistible...

I can't help sharing this: A new page J-PIMP says "He is a 2010 Haiti earthquake survivor because he was in a Florida jail at the time". Yes, I survived 9/11 that way by being in London... Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You and me both. I survived by not being there as well. -Djsasso (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I survived 9/11 by being in my mothers womb at the time myself...lol. Started an RfD about this one. --IWI (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I survived Homework by being finishing the work in class --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2020-36

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems

  • This is a reminder. All wikis will be read-only for a few minutes on September 1. This is planned between 14:00 and 15:00 UTC. Please check on the details on the announcement message. [16][17]

Changes later this week

  • There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Cantonese

Is there an editor who can speak/read and write, Cantonese? --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a particular issue, Thegooduser? They are not very active here, but I believe User:Minorax (I won't ping) can read Cantonese (yue), according to their babel. They say they can "read/speak only". I can't think of anyone else on simple, but there might be. --IWI (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

without the bot flag

Can I run my bot without the flag? If it is impossible, I will request for approval. — Gomdoli (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bots can be run without the flag, but if you run without approval, it will be blocked. Naleksuh (talk) 06:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gomdoli4696: Without the bot flag, an account isn't a bot account. I've blocked DaedanBot because it has a bot name but isn't an approved bot here. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: I requested for bot approval. Unblock please. — Gomdoli (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have declined the bot request, so this account will stay blocked for now. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This bot has a flag from the jawiki. I won't use this wiki because it doesn't have a flag, so could you unblock this account? I don't want my bot blocked. — Gomdoli (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: (ping) — Gomdoli (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's standard practice here. So no. Blocks are independent from behavior; we block accounts with "Bot" in the name that are unapproved by default. Best, Vermont (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thank you for your explanation. — Gomdoli (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 (change conflict)  I have asked Auntof6 a question over there, as I thought that bot requests were only dealt with by bureaucrats. --IWI (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: I answered the question over there. However granting the bot right is a different issue from blocking an account with a bot name which is not an approved bot. Non-crat admins can do the blocking. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gomdoli4696: If it makes you feel any better, my own bot account got blocked on enwiki because it didn't have bot approval there. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the bot should remain blocked while unapproved. --IWI (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical entities (roads)

I have (perhaps improperly) added a response to IWI's comments about roads in RfD. His comments are accurate, but my reply is along these lines:

"but we allow places on the basis of being on maps, however small the places. One way to go would be to define all geographical entities as notable if they appeared on a defined set of maps. Things not on the maps would need to make a case for themselves. In this case (the discussion was about a road in California) the editor has made a case for notability, so the only issue now is whether we are convinced by his case". [which evidently we did not]

As most will know, the main English language publishers offer maps of varying degrees of detail. I suppose in Britain we could use a certain level of Ordnance Survey map as the definition, because the better commercial publishers use it as a basis. Most countries have a similar organisation which could be followed. There are other approaches possible. In the UK we have decided in practice that motorways and A-class roads are notable in themselves (because their status is official) but a case could be made for any other roads which were thought to be notable. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a defined set for roads. en:WP:GEOROAD which is part of the bigger en:Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). -Djsasso (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The idea is that all roads are on a map, so they cannot be considered notable on that basis. What you said is more true for places or neighbourhoods. It is motorways and A roads generally, and any road covered a lot in sources i.e. Broad Street, Birmingham and The Strand, London. --IWI (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possiblity of an abuse filter to remind users of section headers

Hello, (should be on AN for only admin can create filters but also for wider discussion for other possible solutions). As users tend to forget to change see also --> related pages ; external links --> other websites when transwikifying pages here, is there a way to remind them via abuse filter warn when there are pages using these are about to be publish. It will be a soft prompt (i.e. abuse filter warn not abuse filter disallow) to save us from the cleanup. Alternatively, edit notices might work? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean we could tag the edits, but I don't really think that is an appropriate use of a filter that is meant for abuse. And those particular words are no different than any number of words in articles that are not changed when being brought over. -Djsasso (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
appropriate use of a filter that is meant for abuse Filters are used for more than just "abuse"/malicious edits; this is part of the reason why it is now called the edit filter (or "change filter" for simplewiki). As for the proposed change filter here, I think it could be useful, while particularly helpful for new users sometimes established editors may even forget once or twice. I don't think it's needed that badly, but also don't see much wrong with it. Naleksuh (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking along the lines of how to help users like Childishbeat ‎who repeatedly uses such headers, yes, they may change some of the text but the headers he claims to forget. In the view of editor retention, I am musing about any other approaches rather than non-stop talk page messages, threats of blocks etc. I also see these headers usage in established users time to time, and tried to fix them. The text is mainly OK just the headers. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Naleksuh reminded me to check the configuration of this wiki, it's still called abuse filter. Since we are on this, shall we per en and elsewhere change it to change filter? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realize they are used for more than that. But the point went over your head. The more edits that are tagged with tags the less they get paid attention to. It follows the same basic idea for why we don't do automated welcome messages, people ignore computer generated messages at best and at worst get annoyed by them. In these situations generally personal messages on talk pages are preferred because they are much more likely to be taken to heart. -Djsasso (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah this is true, I often hop onto a new wiki and find automated welcome messages and abuse filters stopping me from good edits which annoys me. So, although the proposal was only to warn and not tag, I still think this is a valid reason to consider not doing this. To Camouflaged Mirage, there could be other ways to accomplish using simple headings. Is there a reason you felt simply correcting them was not enough? Naleksuh (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, open to any ideas just to solve these repetitive corrections only. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Surely it should be fairly simple to create a bot that can automatically correct this. Pretty simple, considering we do not ever use the headers "see also" or "external links/other sites". Even if it used AWB. --IWI (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many people frown upon to have bots editing 'content area', but I don't think this case is a huge deal. Naleksuh (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, but this is pretty uncontroversial. --IWI (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to all ideas, maybe a script with one press will change all correctly (semi-automatic) might helps (sorry I am not good in coding though). Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AWB would make it very fast to correct these issues. But a bot script could do the same, although I'm no good at that either. --IWI (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah Bots editing content would be a no-go. There are a few of us that run AWB through the wiki every now and then fixing them. -Djsasso (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about if each bot edit was done manually using AWB. That's a bit different to an automatic script. If a bot is given AWB access for this specific reason only, it could be run manually on a daily basis with AWB. It would also mean each change is checked, in case of a false positive. --IWI (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2nd proposal: Change abuse filter to change filter

Scripts

I use Firefox, but why does my scripts not work here, and why does the font change here? --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. When you say "here", do you mean that your scripts are not working on WP:ST, or something else? Vermont (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vermont No. Every OS I install, and it's always Firefox, when I am on any Wikipedia page, no scripts work, and the font changes to an atrocious one lol --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thegooduser Are these Wikipedia scripts (the ones that run only when you're logged in), or userscripts (the ones added with a browser extension like Greasemonkey), or all scripts (not even the "language settings" icon works)? And what does the browser console say? (Press Ctrl+Shift+K to bring it up.) wizzwizz4 (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wizzwizz4 My Userscripts don't work, and i get Use of "userscript-regexframework-rfmenu" is deprecated. Use m:TemplateScript instead. load.php:4:313 in the counsel --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

summary

When you move the page, a summary of the deletion appears. (ex. G6: ...) What is this mediawiki page? — Gomdoli (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a page, it's a log; when a page is moved or deleted, a log entry is created, and shown when specified. Hope that helps, Vermont (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, it is a log entry, and the deletion reason is automatically populated from MediaWiki:Delete and move reason. This only applies if the destination page is a one-revision redirect (usually a previously moved page), and the checkbox to delete the destination page is selected from the Move interface. Chenzw  Talk  12:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​ I don't have such a checkbox, I believe it only shows for admins. Non-admins can delete pages during moves as long as it has only one revision which is a redirect to the page you are moving from. Admins have a bit more leeway on that, it seems, since the alternative option is to delete the page normally so that the target won't exist during the move. Naleksuh (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikipedia Library Collections Now Available (September 2020)


Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL owl says sign up today!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing new free, full-access, accounts to reliable sources as part of our research access program. You can sign up for new accounts and research materials on the Library Card platform:

Many other partnerships are listed on our partners page, including Adam Matthew, EBSCO, Gale and JSTOR.

A significant portion of our collection now no longer requires individual applications to access! Read more in our recent blog post.

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 09:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.

MediaWiki Rigged?

Hi. Why is that when I was reading my Draft of the Hong Kong National Security law in userspace, and after I click "Show any Page" and the page Chief-Executive of Hong Kong pops up. Is this purely coincidental or is MediaWiki watching what pages I go on? This (almost) always happens not only with Hong Kong, but with other subjects I may view, this is a bit strange... --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought probably not then clicked "show any page" and Africa Province shows up, which relates closely to a Wikidata item I worked on earlier... strange lol. --IWI (talk) 02:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so there are trackers being installed, I don't feel safe --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a complete coincidence though, in all seriousness. --IWI (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then why does it happen almost everytime? If it's a coincidence, it should not happen almost every time --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I happened to see this question after someone mentioned it on IRC. The code to find a random page to show to the user is here: [18] As you can see there is no dependency on what someone recently viewed. Weird coincidences are weird, but in the end they are just coincidences. :-) -- ArielGlenn (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably the Baader–Meinhof phenomenon. wizzwizz4 (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big Cleanup Weekend 2020

Hello everyone, just in case you hadn't seen on the Big Weekend page, the Big Cleanup Weekend 2020 will start this Friday 4 September at 11AM UTC. The focus this time will be on fixing pages in the Wikipedia Maintenance category. There are so many different things you can help with! You can find more details on the BW talk page. Feel free to sign up or simply join in when it starts. --Yottie =talk= 12:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick notice to say that the Big Cleanup Weekend 2020 has officially started! Remember to mark you edits with BCW or BW to make it easier to track our progress. You can make changes to all articles in Category:Wikipedia maintenance. A good category to look at within this is Category:Wikipedia backlog. This includes:

Happy editing! --Yottie =talk= 11:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning levels

There is a nagging question that I have had for a while now, and the question is this:

Is it permitted or reasonable for users who do not have the ability to block to issue level 4 warnings, especially when a level 4 warning has already been issued, or must they lower the intensity and use level 3 warnings? Beaneater (talk to me) (see my edits) 05:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beaneater00, there is a good guide concerning user talk page warnings here. The short answer is that you can issue Level 4 warnings, however you do not need to continue issuing these once one has already been issued. If vandalism is ongoing, please then report the issue to WP:VIP or to an administrator on their talk page or via email. --Yottie =talk= 11:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My personal take is that it is pointless to continue issuing any warning (be it level 4 or any lower level) once a final warning has been issued. In fact, I used to see a few isolated cases where a vandal was issued a level 4 (final) warning, then a level4im (only) warning. A final warning is what it is - final, and to pile on after that just makes us look stupid and probably will amuse the vandal even further. Chenzw  Talk  15:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

twinklewarn

I want to translate twinklewarn module. The date comes out like September 2020, how to change this to another language. — Gomdoli (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gomdoli4696: I am not sure what you mean. Why would you want the date to be in a different language when warning a user? --IWI (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to use this on kowiki's twinkle. ko:User:Gomdoli4696/twinklewarn.js — Gomdoli (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin closures

Per the discussion here, I have decided to start a discussion about this. SithJarJar666 closed a deletion discussion. Since we have no official policy on this, he was perfectly within his rights to do this per WP:FOLLOW (following en:WP:NAC). However, Djsasso has pointed out that this has been discussed before and consensus was that non-admins do not close discussions here, as admins can deal with all closures. I would definitely like to see if someone can find any discussions about this in the archives, so we can see what consensus was. I propose we make this a firm policy, as we cannot expect new users to understand unwritten rules. We would likely add this policy to Wikipedia:Non-admin closure, which is currently a proposed policy. I think it worth discussing whether this is still the consensus also. Personally, I see no issue in users who are not sysops closing clear keep cases. Thoughts? --IWI (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Strong support for non-admin closures. While some use cases of the non-admin closure are questionable, I don't think that just abolishing them entirely is a good idea at all (a good use case of the non-admin closure being cases like Commodore Nutt). The purpose of admins closing RfDs is because they are the ones with the ability to delete the page (and ideally have all the options available to them). But in very obvious situations like WP:SNOW-esque, I don't see why there shouldn't be a non-admin closure. Same reasons why no groups are necessary to close merge requests and a crat flag is required to close adminship requests.
While I strongly support the first three lines of that page, I'm not so sure about the last line: Any editor in good standing is allowed to close check-usership and oversighter requests, as only stewards are able to promote users to those positions. They do not have to be administrators or bureaucrats. . To me, it seems like the goal here is to make RFCU and RFOS a lot like RFB by having crats close them. However, I also don't want to add unnecessary groups to closing something, as this somewhat furthurs the idea that having groups is like executive power.
So, I go with  Neutral on who can close RFCU/RFOS, and Strong support for all others. Naleksuh (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose was not whether to make that old proposed policy page a policy, but more if we can come to a consensus for a new page reflecting the consensus of the community. --IWI (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat understood that, however the hatnote on the old page was a bit confusing. In that case, my strong support for non-admin closures still stands, however my comment about RFCU/RFOS can be ignored since that was not proposed here. Naleksuh (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe we should have non-admin closures as mentioned because it is just asking for drama. Especially considering how we have absolutely no need of the help, I have seen on en.wiki for example where discussions are "clearly" one way or the other so a non-admin closes them and all hell brakes loose because it was not actually so clear. In fact it happened very recently on this wiki where ironically it was yourself and Naleksuh who completely misread my vote as being the opposite of what it actually was. Based on that one can easily extrapolate that one of you would have closed that discussion as a non-admin because both of the votes were Keep, when in fact they were not. There is a reason why we give certain roles to admins and we don't allow just anyone to do those things, it is because we have given them the trust to know when is appropriate to close a discussion and how to close it. Since it was brought up the Commodore Nutt nomination wouldn't have needed an admin to close it anyways because it was a clearly disruptive action and it should have just been nominated for quick deletion as vandalism/test page. -Djsasso (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators have been elected by the community because they have been shown to be able to exercise good judgement, as well as discern and enforce community consensus. For that reason, RfPs absolutely should not be closed by non-administrators on this wiki (and given the small community on this wiki, you probably have already participated in those RfPs too). I don't really buy the reasoning that RFCU/RFOS can be closed by non-sysops on the grounds that only a steward can grant the right - what is a stake here, I think, is not about the technical capability to grant rights. It is about the judgement call. NACs in RFDs: I personally am not bothered much by NACs in RFDs that are unambiguously (100%) a keep result, however I would strongly urge comparatively inexperienced editors to refrain from performing NACs, and if one cannot close an RFD properly without other editors needing to step in to assist, then it would be better off to leave that RFD alone. Chenzw  Talk  02:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Djsasso. There is no need, and allowing it is simply calling for drama. Administrators are elected to mediate; let's let them do the mediating. --Yottie =talk= 10:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would say to Djsasso that both DRV discussions led to the respective deletions overturned by an admin, so are you saying these admins were wrong to do so? If not, then how can you use these as an example against NACs? Furthermore, I very clearly stated that your vote was a delete vote multiple times, so I am not sure what you mean when you say " In fact it happened very recently on this wiki where ironically it was yourself and Naleksuh who completely misread my vote as being the opposite of what it actually was". This is not true; I didn't misunderstand at all. I said it was a "weak delete" at best. --IWI (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You completely missed the point. The issue is that you both argued that the close was "clear". But both of you misunderstood my comment and completely forgot to take into account that the nomination is also a delete. The point was that what was "clear" to you was wrong. Was Auntof6 wrong to overturn it? No because she was an admin and weighed the arguments, something that a NAC doesn't do. My point was that it was an example of completely ridiculous drama that would be caused by NACs as things are brought to DRV that shouldn't be because of disagreements over what is "clear". -Djsasso (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​I also don't think that just being clear and nothing else is what constitutes a non-admin closure (enwiki uses non-admin closures heavily, to the point where i'm not sure if they should be appended with the template). I mean cases like WP:SNOW-esque, where there would be no "mediating" involved. Naleksuh (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 (change conflict) I didn't say it was clear either, but I said that since you said there is no harm in keeping, that it was more of a weak delete vote, as opposed to a firm strong delete. As a result, in my view, consensus seemed to lean towards keep. The nom's argument was not a valid reason for deletion, as stated by Auntof6, so I didn't forget about it at all. This was why Auntof6 overturned it, as there wasn't a strong enough case made for deletion. This is also very much my view. I would advise before saying such things about editors, you check to see if it is true before stating it as fact, especially in a place such as Simple talk. This kind of close would not be one done by a non-admin; this is something I agree with, however. --IWI (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But you did, not with the literal word, but you very much did. But again you are still missing the point, the point was not the specific discussion itself but the drama that came from a DRV discussion that never should have happened in the first place and would be much more common if NACs happened. -Djsasso (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So Naleksuh was wrong to bring it to DRV, I was wrong to think that consensus was not to delete, but Auntof6 was right to overturn the deletion? I'm sorry but this is two opposing views and doesn't make sense to me; either the deletion should have been overturned or not. You cannot say someone was wrong to bring something to DRV and in the next sentence say an admin was right to overturn it. It's one or the other. --IWI (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Auntof6's close, but she was right to make it because she was an admin and we empower admins to make decisions so as long as she didn't break policy she is right.. For the same reason that Eptalon's close was right, he was empowered to read the arguments and decide if they matched policy. The bringing it to DRV was just part of Naleksuh's war on admins ever since he failed his first RfA. -Djsasso (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Making comments like this about other editors is highly inappropriate and unneeded, in my opinion. I would refrain from making any personal accusations in a public setting like this especially, regardless of your views (WP:NPA). I won't comment on that further. Are you alluding to the idea that admin's decisions and opinions are more important than other editors'? Because DRV is for any errors in an admin's close; they are human and make errors, even if they are not against policy in doing so. Saying that you won't contest a decision because it was made by an admin isn't really how it works. Admin's views and opinions are not superior to others, and all decisions can be scruitinised by the community, as needed. Admins are simply users who have extra tools. --IWI (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not alluding to that. What I am saying is the community gave them the power to use discretion. DRV is specifically for closes against policy, if they did not break policy it is not appropriate to take it there. It is not for just disagreeing with an admins close. If you disagree with a close you are welcome in the future to nominate it again or create the article again after a reasonable time and then consensus will again decide if it should stay or go in a new Rfd. DRV is specifically for policy breaches. And I would point out it wasn't a PA because it was a comment on their actions, not on them which is specifically what you are supposed to do. -Djsasso (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are implying bad faith and saying something that is entirely a matter of opinion about an editor. In my view, it is very much a personal attack (or at the very least not civil), and not something I would expect any editor to say, let alone a bureaucrat. I find it inappropriate; maybe others will disagree, I don't know. --IWI (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Admins are elected to determine, interpret, and enforce community consensus. Community consensus is implemented through the closure and determination of community discussions. Non-admins, having not been elected by the community, should not be closing discussions. Vermont (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the point was to draft a policy page so that non-admins can be prevented from closing discussions in the future, rather than what happened with sithjar when the only thing anyone could say is "we don't do that here". We need this written in a firm policy. That is the purpose of this discussion. --IWI (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with making it written down. But I think you will find that most things on this wiki are not in firm hard policy to allow for flexibility. In fact I would say most of the various things we do have come from Simple Talk discussions that decide things as consensus but are never written as a "policy". It is this institutional knowledge that people talk about when they say people who want to be admins for example have to learn just by being in and interacting with the the community. But yes it is always helpful to have it written somewhere. -Djsasso (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but this is not useful for new editors from enwiki who will think they can close discussions here. --IWI (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Hello all, while non-admin closures might seem tempting, we have had at least 3 controversial closures recently (which ended up at the dleetion review). We allso do not need non-admin-closures, because we are probably the wiki with the most admins (or highest ratio admins to non-admins). In other words: finding an admin to lcose an RfD is easy. At least I am laso here to write an encyclopedia, and I do not need or want much drama over someone lcosing an RfD (in a different way that most people expect). It is the power of an adminisatrator ot close a request early, when the ocome becomes clear (and is unlikely to change). ALso, it shouldn't matter if RfD is there for five or for seven days. We don't need ayet another policy or guideline about non-admin closures. What makes this wiki interesting to many is that as it is smaller, we need fewer (hard-coded) rules, guidelines and policies. So: in short: I oppose non-admin closures, there's no need, and it will likely add drama because people disagree with the "clear result". --Eptalon (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eptalon: Are you opposed to having it written in policy that non-admin closues should not take place though? That is the discussion at hand. It would only have to be short, along the lines of "on this wiki, we don't do NACs." etc. We can't expect new editors to know otherwise. --IWI (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there is agreement, we can write it down somewhere. Ideally, we put it on the RfD page, so that new people see that closing RfDs in the task of an admin...--Eptalon (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How does this apply to non-crat closures done by admins? (Asking due to Special:Diff/7090747) Naleksuh (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a non-issue. With the amount of bot requests that come into this wiki (basically zero), it doesn't seem unusual that an existing sysop who already has delete/block buttons, and can grant rollback/patroller/flood/etc temporarily forgets that they cannot actually grant the bot flag. However, I cannot say that non-syops (who already don't have delete/block buttons) can temporarily forget that they are actually not able to delete pages. Chenzw  Talk  15:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I did in the diff that Naleksuh linked was a mistake, not an assertion that non-crats should be allowed to close bot requests. We don't need to use it to make a case for a change in procedure. Also, non-crat bot request closures is not the topic that's being discussed here. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

If we allowed NACs, I imagine we'd have rules about them similar to enwiki's. One of their rules is that NACs are not allowed if "The result will require action by an administrator". That includes delete results, because deleting requires an admin. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this wasn't a "support/oppose" discussion of whether to allow them or not, it was a proposal to have this written on a policy page. We can't expect users to be aware of any differences around NACs if they're not written down. --IWI (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_131&oldid=8894979"