Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 158

Merge proposal

Hello fellow editors. I have started a merge proposal on John Mills (gunner). Please join in the fun with your comments! Thanks, and be well! - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 11:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@PotsdamLamb: We don't usually have discussions on these. Just use your best judgement and be sure to leave an edit summary about what you're doing. -- Auntof6 (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Redirected to this one.--Next time: leave an edit summary about what one is doing. 2001:2020:32B:D16A:9D07:3C7E:A3B1:F2FA (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

IP what are you talking about? Since you supposedly know so much and you merged them, how about if you do it correctly and remove the merge tag? Oh wait let me do that for you since you are off fixing other articles. Thanks, and be well! - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 21:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:BITE , THX :) fr33kman 13:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6 It actually states on the policy Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages#Proposing a merger it can be proposed if you are unsure. I don’t know how much can be found on the individual which is why I proposed it. Thanks, and be well! - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 21:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Quick deletion page of HarleyHoneys

Hello.

A user named User:HarleyHoneys is globally locked. Naturally, because I am an IP, I cannot request a quick deletion of the user and talk page. This reason is because of being a blocked or banned user. I am much happier being an IP, so can somebody take care of this? Thanks. 2601:402:4402:61F0:EE74:70E:72DC:65A8 (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) most of the time there is very little reason to delete user page (or even items in userspace) unless they directly break our rules. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: The IP is also globally locked. Thanks, and be well! - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 22:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

We rarely bother deleting old user talk pages unless there is problem with it. fr33kman 13:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Page that should be deleted

This page Class Clown of Lafayette College seems to have nothing of value on it. Unless it is something with news coverage it should be deleted Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 20:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

This page is about a notable person but has no content Sir Paul Marshall Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 20:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

This one is questionable but I think self promotion HGC Apparrel Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: If you think these pages should be deleted, the process is to propose either quick deletions or an RFD. RFDs are where discussion would take place. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6 Immanuelle is blocked from editing mainspace and is therefore unable to tag the articles. The first two are now tagged for QD, but I'm not sure about the third - someone else can start and RfD if they want. Kk.urban (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kk.urban: Thanks.

@Immanuelle: If you are blocked from mainspace, you probably shouldn't be asking other people to do things in mainspace for you. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

{@Auntof6: If a user is indefinitely blocked from editing all of mainspace shouldn't that just be set to the whole of the project? After all what else does it let the person do? fr33kman 13:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Fr33kman: I would take that up with the blocking admin, Operator873, but it would at least let them participate in some discussions (RFDs, things on Simple talk, for example). -- Auntof6 (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I suppose, thx fr33kman 13:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kk.urban I hope that my contributions here have been helpful and not disruptive. I'm trying to be a better user. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 01:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Immanuelle Yes, I think your contributions are helpful. I understand that you were blocked for creating complex articles and/or an excess of machine translated articles, not for anything relating to deleting pages, so I think there's nothing wrong with your request here. Kk.urban (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kk.urban thank you. Can you look a bit at the article Wet T-shirt contest, I think it is a bit pov biased (the sexism sentence) and it has an image which does not really explain it since the shirt is not wet, it is just pulled up.

I hope I can learn a bit more about the proper policy here before I request my unblock, and make a better impression on people. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 02:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Immanuelle I will change the image and the comment. I know that Wikipedia is not censored, but I strongly believe that nudity should only be found within articles about nudity, sex, health, etc. I mean that you should only see such pictures when you expect to see them (in my opinion). "Wet T-shirt contest" sounds innocent (turns out it is not), so I did not expect to see that. And if anybody disagrees with me, they can change the picture again, no problem, I will not engage in an edit war. Dream Indigo 18:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I think I did some rephrasing yesrday. I also added possible alternatives to the images we now have, including the image that was originally there. I have no issue with nudity. No matter what image is selected: the image is there to illustrate the concept. And in case of a wet t-shirt contest, what do people expect? - likely girls in soaked, now transparent t-shirts or girls that are topless. Eptalon (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I added quite a bit of content to the page. Personally, I think the images used are tasteful, even though they show some level of nudity (toplessness). But in general, such discussions are for the article talk page. As always, no one owns articles, and ifyou think an image does not serve its purpose, this can be discussed on the article talk page. Eptalon (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Durius Gund

Hello everyone,
The article Durius Gund was created in french Vikidia and in french Wikipedia (it was deleted), and I see it was created here too. But it is probably a hoax, the sources given do not mention any Durius Gund. Ecureuil 1234 (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

You are right that the sources don't mention Durius Gund, so there isn't significant coverage. You can vote to delete there I think if you want. Cleo Cooper (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

A bit more input

Hi all, sorry to bother you, I was wondering if I could get a little more input into #Category move discussion above? It's a large task (which I can handle), but before I put in a request for AWB, I'd like some comments about the task being suitable. Thanks for your time. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Partial blocks

Now that we can block a user from contributing to various namespace and/or an article or other namespaces should a indefinitely partial block of mainspace equal a total site wide block? fr33kman 13:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

We are here to create an Encyclopedia. So, our most important namespace is the main namespace. Now, it is possible that I find an interesting fact, and add that to the DYK discussion page, That's not mainspace. Or I contribute to one of the various other discussions. I do however question if an editor who is blocked from editing mainspace can be a useful contributor. So, likely, yes, it is. Eptalon (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

New RfO

A request for oversightership has started. You can participate here. --Ferien (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Redirect

a long overdue WikiProject has been made on my profile. Please help make it -- thanks! User:LOLHWAT/WikiProject Redirect LOLHWAT (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@LOLHWAT: Sounds promising. Will you be posting any specific goals or tasks? -- Auntof6 (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Possibly, but I have little time right now. LOLHWAT (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

What exactly would a Project for Redirection do? Are you planning to tag items with {{R with possibilities}} or something? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

to encourage redirects, basically. speeding it up LOLHWAT (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Are redirects particularly long winded? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

i mean as in creating more. a lot of pages have no redirects and/or are missing them. "speeding up" basically means to make more of them faster with a group of people LOLHWAT (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Few pages really need redirects. I certainly wouldn't want to see a mass effort to create more that aren't really needed. If that's what you have in mind, I think there should be a consensus that people on the project want that. We've had people do that kind of thing before and the redirects often get deleted.

What I thought might be helpful is to add templates to redirects to indicate the purpose of the redirect. For example, some are redirects from alternate spellings, or from related items, etc. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, we generally dissuade having redirects for redirects sake. The search algorithm is pretty decent now, so it doesn't help with that. Redirects are useful when there is a term that is suitable to be linked in mainspace, and has a target, but we don't just add all possible redirects to pages. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I take it you are disbanding WikiProject Redirect by your recent edits?- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

yeah ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I don't think it's really needed here for the time being LOLHWAT (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Idiotic...

... In my opinion to have a page devoted to the world's oldest person (Maria Branyas Morera). No merit in longevity and needs to be kept up-to-date. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

20-odd other projects also seem to have such a page. Would be interesting to see if they agree on who the persion is? Eptalon (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The 11th oldest person who ever lived? Seems to meet GNG to me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it depends on the coverage they get. This particular one has some reliable sources so it meets GNG imo.--BRP ^ever 07:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Two articles need to be merged

These two articles La Tomatina and Tomatina are about the same thing Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 23:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Immanuelle In enwiki, it's La Tomatina. I personally think that anyone can redirect Tomatina to La Tomatina. If it’s ok than i can do that. DIVINE 23:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@DIVINE: If you do that, please be sure to update the Wikidata entry, because Tomatina is the one that's linked. Thanks! -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking that too.  Done Thanks! DIVINE 04:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Uw-unsourced

Hi :-) I noticed that {{Uw-unsourced1}} and {{Uw-unsourced2}} do not show up on Wikipedia:User talk page warnings. Is there a reason for that (example: they are obsolete), or have they simply been forgotten?

I also noticed that there is no level3 warning. Instead, their pages suggest that we use {{uw-vandalism4}}, which is a bit bitey, in my opinion. {{uw-vandalism3}} would make a better level3 warning.

Dream Indigo 21:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dream Indigo, I think it's not added to there because it was "only" added 10 years ago, compared to most of those other templates. I would agree with what you said about using uw-vandalism4, and it might be worth making our own unsourced3 and unsourced4 warnings, rather than calling it vandalism, as adding unsourced content isn't really vandalism. --Ferien (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ferien, thanks for replying. I agree, we should translate our own unsourced3 and unsourced4 warnings, enwiki has them and they would be useful here as well. In the meantime, do we add {{Uw-unsourced1}} and {{Uw-unsourced2}} to {{User talk page warnings/table}}? Dream Indigo 19:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Dream Indigo, yeah, I think it'd be good to add them. Once the other unsourced warnings have been added, they could be dropped on simple talk as well to ask for any potential feedback then add them to the table as well. --Ferien (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ferien, I added them. I may also simplify those other two now, they are very short notices, it will take a short time. Of course, I'll drop them here before "making them official" (I do not remember how to say it) :D Dream Indigo 22:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

how do i change my password i forgot what i made it

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Reatom2 (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Reatom2, Special:PasswordReset will help you with that. --Ferien (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Categorizing people who move from one place to another

How should we categorize people who move from one place to another? This is a tricky issue because we have categories based on demonyms (American sportspeople, Japanese academics), and categories that use the word "from" (Writers from Toronto). Do these mean anything in particular, or is it just "a person with that occupation who lived in that place sometime in their life"?

• For example, what if someone grows up in Japan, then moves to Canada and becomes a politician there? Do we include them in "Category:Japanese politicians" even though they were never a politician in Japan? Or do we include them in "Category:Japanese people", thereby polluting that category with pages that can't be subdivided by occupation?
• Another example, take "Category:Politicians from California", which includes Governors of California, Senators from California, Representatives from California, etc. Should it also include someone who grew up in California, went to college in California, then became a representative for Illinois?
• And then there are academics. Many articles will call a person "a Chinese academic" although they spent most of their career in the USA. Clearly this means that a person's origins can be important, whether or not their career took place elsewhere. But we have no way to indicate this.

Kk.urban (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Kk.urban :)

You raised a great point that should be talked about on enwiki as well, because it is equally as confusing there.

I have always followed enwiki and categorized people by their nationality, rather than their ethnicity. Category:Japanese politicians is a sub-category of Category:Politicians by nationality. If one has a double citizenship, I put them under both categories. I would put the Japanese-Canadian politician either under "Canadian politicians" only or both, depending on their nationality.

We have some categories by ethnicity on simple, but not as many as enwiki (none for Asian-Americans; that "Chinese academic" should probably go under "American academics", unless they have Chinese citizenship).

About categories that use the word "from", I noticed that they usually refer to the place someone was born in (I again always follow enwiki when choosing categories of people I do not know).

Some examples with famous people:

• Albert Einstein, born in Ulm, had many citizenships: "People from Ulm", "Jewish American academics", "Jewish German academics", "German physicists", "Swiss physicists" (simple)
• Pope Francis, born in Buenos Aires, Argentinian nationality with Vatican citizenship as well: "Writers from Buenos Aires" (simple) "Clergy from Buenos Aires" (en), not "XYZ from Rome"

Politicians are a tricky category, because it is a job where places matter a lot. Barak Obama, born in Honolulu, is categorized under three "from" categories (Honolulu Illinois and Chicago), both here and on enwiki.

I hope this helped a little.

Dream Indigo 20:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I posted too early I did not finish, oops! Give me a minute, please. Dream Indigo 20:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I clicked ctrl+s or some shortcut with my elbow by mistake (just guessing) and there was nothing I could do to stop it from posting my draft-answer. Sorry for that! Also nationality and citizenship are two different concepts, I know that, but I did not want to post it so early, so please forget that. Now to my actual answer. Think of this more like a brainstorming moment.

Hello again, @Kk.urban :)

You raised a great point, I have always wondered something similar.

I have always followed enwiki and categorized people by their nationality and/or citizenship, rather than by their ethnicity. Category:Japanese politicians is a sub-category of Category:Politicians by nationality. If one has a double citizenship, I put them under both categories. I would put the Japanese-Canadian politician either under "Canadian politicians" only or both, depending on their nationality and/or citizenship on a case by case basis.

We have some categories by ethnicity on simple, but not as many as enwiki (none for Asian-Americans; our "Chinese academic" should probably go under "American academics", unless they have Chinese citizenship or nationality; I would probably put them under both).

About categories that use the word "from", I noticed that they usually refer to the place someone was born in, sometimes the one they grew up in (I again always follow enwiki when choosing).

Some examples with famous people:

• Albert Einstein, born in Ulm, raised in Munich, had many citizenships: "People from Ulm", "Jewish American academics", "Jewish German academics", "German physicists", "Swiss physicists", "Educators from New Jersey" (I would personally remove the last one) (simple) "Scientists from Munich" (I would have chosen "from Ulm") etc (en)
• Pope Francis, born in Buenos Aires, Argentinian nationality with Vatican citizenship as well: "Writers from Buenos Aires" (simple) "Clergy from Buenos Aires" (en), not "XYZ from Rome"
• Leonardo da Vinci, born near Florence, Italy, worked in Milan, Rome and France a lot: "People from Florence" (simple) "Painters from Florence" (en), nothing about France/Milan/Rome
• Adolf Hitler (right now I can't think of many other super-famous people that moved from one place to another), born in Braunau am Inn, Austrian and German nationalities: "People from Upper Austria" (simple) "People from Braunau am Inn" (en), not "XYZ from Berlin"

Politicians are a tricky category, because it is a job where places matter a lot. Barak Obama, born in Honolulu, is categorized under three "from" categories (Honolulu Illinois and Chicago), both here and on enwiki.

I hope this helped a little :)

Dream Indigo 21:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no right answer. We have to exercise judgement. Rathfelder (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Non-simple and Non-notable stuff ("behind" Expand)

One article, from a cluster of c. third tier of Austrian football.--Please click on any of the instances of "Expand".--Please allow for making those "Non-expandable". (And then show, or tell (or "diff") in regard to how that can be changed.)--Justification for proposed edits: Who cares if there were some three hundre people at a game. And who cares if the referee of an ordinary game was Jack Smith or Fritz Smith. 2001:2020:30B:FEA2:F46F:4ED5:7BA5:9B10 (talk) 03:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you are proposing. Are you suggesting articles like this don't have the audience numbers and goalscorers? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The articles have "{{Football box collapsible".
One suggest that the source-code be changed to {{Football box non-collapsible. 2001:2020:339:AB7A:39B2:E82A:785:A661 (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:30B:FEA2:F46F:4ED5:7BA5:9B10

That would just mean that info would show at all times? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

After removing, "Fetahu Goal 18'
Stadium: Red Bull Arena

Attendance: 346
Referee: Oliver Fluch"

, there is nothing more to show.--This is Simple-wiki; English-wiki is the one with all the bells and whistles. 2001:2020:307:D000:DCAF:57A3:2E7D:F00C (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:30B:FEA2:F46F:4ED5:7BA5:9B10

We aren't "simple" we are the "simple English language" Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Complaint Iranian wikipedia

Hello Dear

This is Subhan Ahmad from Afghanistan. I hope you feel well. First let me thanks you from your attractive services and then let us inform you that as a wikipedia editor i have found that some iranian wiki editors and admins are trying to rob Afghan data according history, geography and more and added them to thier own Fersian data. Although we try alot to edit some of thier falls tips and data as mentioned and present them as correct but still they edit them wrong and beside warn us to be aware. Subhan Ahmad KDR (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to the Simple English Language Wikipedia. I'm not sure I can help you with things happening on the Iranian Wikipedia. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello there,this is Simple English Wikipedia, one of the several language versions of Wikipedia. Wikipedias are made by volunteers who work together. In the case of content on the Iranian-language Wikipedia, you need to talk to the people that are active editors at that Wikipedia, there's little we can do for you here (we similarly need to talk to those people). As to the content of an article, statements in the article need to be verifiable, using reliable sources. Very often, there will be more than one view on an event, so there will also be reliable souces covering the other views people have on that event. Wikipedia tries to be unbiased, what we call Neutral point of view. Usually, there is no harm in pointing out that other people have different ideas, to say what these ideas are, and to add reliable, thid-party sources.

I don't know what you mean by 'rob Afghan data according to history, geography and more'. Wikipedia is an encycopledia, and sources do not have to be in the lanuage of the Wiipedia project. Eptalon (talk) 09:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Bowls is now a good article...

I have just promoted Bowls to Good Article. Congatulations to all those who helped... Eptalon (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

About wrting an article

Hello, I wrote an Simple Wikipedia article Jaedong's Family. I'm confused about where to write an information about its sequel show. 린눈라단 (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The sequel is obviously partially lost, so some information of the sequel is not available. However, it has been covered several times in some South Korean (South Korea is a country where the show was made.) newspapers. Should it be described in one infobox? 린눈라단 (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The main show was an animated web show?--The main show will possibly not survive AFD/ RFD.--My guess is that it has already been shot down, at English-wiki. Not wiki-notable, is what I am leaning towards. 2001:2020:307:D000:DCAF:57A3:2E7D:F00C (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

However, the show was broadcast on Tooniverse in early 2000s after released on a website. --린눈라단 (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Tooniverse? Is that something wiki-notable? 2001:2020:335:CF1A:8DF0:11A:E9B2:8AD1 (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, see en:Tooniverse on the English Wikipedia. There were also a number of articles focusing on the show or season 2. 린눈라단 (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Not everything that has been shown on Tooniverse, is wiki-notable. (Or one might say that, almost nothing shown on Tooniverse, has later become wiki-notable.) 11:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC) 2001:2020:345:F8B4:5180:685C:26D2:409A (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

My intention was that the show was broadcast on multiple stations, and there were multiple articles proving to be prominent on a website. Again, there are several articles that focus on the show; an article about the show, a other article about show, an article about the Jaedong series (includes the show) --린눈라단 (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Also apologizes for confusing you. Tooniverse is one of the channels(thr channel and EBS) that broadcast the show. --린눈라단 (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviving the GA process...

Hello, earlier today, I ptomoted Bowls to Good Article. There are other articles at the proposals page. Please take a look, and leave comments. My idea would be to get 1-2 articles promoted to GA status per month.

As to sources for such articles:

• If w can get statistics about what articles have been viewed most, edited most, edited by the most number of different people, we can identify "target" articles that would likely be worthy to work on.
• Also, controversial subjects likely get more views, and edits.

Sending a message to the LGBTIQ+ community hasn't been done yet; there's one article waiting, but it has issues... Eptalon (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi! As it's only one nomination at a time, I couldn't get another one together until this had been passed/failed. I should have a steady stream of articles I have improved and think meet the criteria. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

How can we get those statistics, Eptalon? It seems like an interesting idea. --Yottie ^=talk= 13:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Eptalon & @YottieI think we can get those statistics via Xtools. DIVINE 13:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

There is Special:MostRevisions which will give you the most edited pages, although I don't find that to be super helpful. Enwiki has a tool called ORES that can give a good idea as to the quality of an article.

Fwiw, incentivising quality articles is how we create them, and I think opening up closures to any user in good standing would help move the reviews on, which to me seems like they drag on a bit. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I was more thinking of:

• Articles most accessed
• Articles most changed

with say the last 7 / 15 days. Most likely this is a database report

I know Enwp has some statistics generated a few times a month Eptalon (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

see [1] where you can gain similar info. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. According to that report, the most viewed pages (articles only) in the last month are: Slash (punctuation), Black, 2024, 4 (number), SOLID (object-oriented design), David, Colour, 6 (number), English language, 20 (number) and 24-hour clock. The most edited pages (articles only) in the last month are: Beauty and the Beast (1991 movie), Miss La Union, Elliot Rodger, Olivia Rodrigo, Deaths in 2024, Vanderpump Villa, Ovarian cancer and Alessia Cara. --Yottie ^=talk= 18:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Fwiw, I don't think we need to be super constrictive as to what articles can be GA (in terms of popularity). I would just encourage people to make articles, collaborate and improve them as much as they can. I have almost 150 Good or Featured articles on enwiki, so if anyone wishes some help, I am always here to help (if you think it would help). Obviously, just the one on simple wiki, which I hope to rectify soon! Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't say that GAs should be popular or controversial articles, what I see though: we should really aim at getting 1-2 of these per month. Eptalon (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

we tried getting an lgbt-themed article there (so far no luck), so it would really be interesting to see if it is easier to get a controversial article to GA status Eptalon (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Advanced tool question

Hi, Are there any tools out there that can remove "link=commons:Category:" from List of Toki Pona words ?, Unfortunately WP:WPCleaner lists it as a bogus file option but doesn't offer to remove them and so I was hoping we had another tool that could ? maybe AWB ?, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

If you have a regex, then you could do it with AWB. The links themselves are wrong though, surely? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I don't have AWB and have never used it, No idea the links bizarrely work and they do go to the categories but to my knowledge wikiprojects don't link in this way ? (ie it should go straight to the file), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I made a change to the first image on the page - is that what you are expecting? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Lee, It was exactly that, Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure, just need to remove anything in the link parameter. Might be something you could just do with find and replace. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Find and replace wouldn't work as each image has a different category linked, I've hidden out the links for now, Not ideal but it works –Davey2010^Talk 15:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I think I can make a regex to do that. I see that the links are all in comments now. Do you just want those comments removed? I could put it in a sandbox and do a test run for you to check. Just let me know if you want the comments removed or something else. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Auntof6, I've just undone the hidden stuff - Yes please just the "link=commons:Category:" stuff removed please if possible, Okie dokie I'll be out all day so I'll reply once I get back home, Many thanks, Kind Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 07:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Davey2010: OK, check User:Auntof6/sandbox2 and see if it's what you want. If so, feel free to copy/paste it to the article. I'll save what I built to do it, so if it needs tweaking just let me know. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6 you are absolutely amazing thank you so so much for doing this, I greatly appreciate your help and efforts, I've pasted the content and blanked your sandbox, Thanks again for doing this I greatly appreciate it, Have a lovely day, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 16:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Davey2010: You're welcome. :) It's fun figuring out the regexp code. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Quick Question

Is there any policy that states we can't have redirects in mainspace to another wikis articles?- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 09:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@FusionSub: I don't know of a policy, but it's probably a bad idea. We would lose the red links that we use to tell use what articles we are missing. Plus, if we are going to do that, 1) which other wiki's article to we redirect to and 2) we might as well just populate this wiki with redirects, which wouldn't serve our target audience. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked at the Kingdom of Mewar and was like "Wait a second, isn't this not allowed" and checked WP:REDIRECT and WP:QD#Redirects but couldn't find anything so I asked here. Thank you for letting me know.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@FusionSub: I just deleted it as having little or no info. If you see any more, feel free to tag them for QD.

Note that I'm only talking about mainspace. We do have useful soft redirects in Wikipedia space (and maybe help space and/or others). -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I was questioning about mainspace since I knew the wikispace used soft redirects a fair bit. Thanks for that!- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion for category to watch

Hello, fellow editors. If you watch maintenance categories, I'd like to suggest adding Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template to your watch list. Articles show up here if there's an invalid date, but they also show up if a dated maintenance tag is added without creating the corresponding monthly maintenance category. The category has more information about when/why pages appear there. There are currently only 2 people watching this category. If more people watch it, I think we'd get the maintenance categories created in a more timely manner.

You would need to include category changes in what you see in your watch list. If you don't know what that means, or you don't know how to do it, feel free to ask. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts from other editors on an article

Hello. I wanted to get others thoughts on this article Parish (country subdivision) which was just created. I am not finding it anywhere else and I am debating to myself if it is something we should keep. Perhaps, I was thinking, is make Parish a disambiguation page (currently it is only about churches) and create links to the various Parish lists we have. I would love to see the thoughts of others. Thanks, and be well! - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 00:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I just linked the article in Wikipedia. As for Parish, it is fine as it is because the religious meaning is the primary one. It could use a hatnote pointing to the non-religious one. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6 Where you linked it to should actually be this article Administrative division which is redirected from Parish (administrative division). It is confusing because Q56061 points to Administrative division on ENWP. Thanks, and be well! - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 01:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I linked it correctly. The content of the articles I linked is the same. I changed the target of the redirect to the article closest in meaning. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6 Ah ok. Thanks. It was just really confusing following along with the redirects and both sites. Thanks. Thanks, and be well! - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 01:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

In England parish is an administration areas within which people live. fr33kman 13:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

In Louisianna , it's the same situation. Wekeepwhatwekill  ^Spe_ak! 15:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Active talk pages

Some editors cover sensible talk pages with the standard TP cover. That's not sensible because it means the relevant content cannot be directly seen. Stop doing that, please! Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you be more specific, or give an example?

If you're talking about user talk pages, then users are allowed to remove content from their talk pages, including by blanking or replacing content with the talk header. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

What to do?

When they make good faith edits, but their summary is offensive, is rollback with a warning suitable, or is it better to request revdel? [2]. DIVINE 09:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@DIVINE: If the content of the edit is not offensive, then rollback will not work. As for revdel, it depends on exactly what is in the edit summary. Feel free to ask for revdel if you feel it's needed, but be aware that it might be declined. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Depends on how bad the edit summary is. I'd reacquaint yourself with what the level is for being revdelled. It is possible to revdel just an edit summary and not the change. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6 @Lee Vilenski i have given example over there with link. DIVINE 16:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

That link probably doesn't quite meet the criteria, but you can always ask at WP:AN. It's clearly not nice. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

That is likely an edit from LTA/GRP. He is banned by the Wikimedia Foundation and is not allowed to make any edits to any Wikipedia Project no matter if they are good or bad. (From his LTA page). 84Swagahh (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

This is from the third paragraph on the English Wikipedia's LTA/GRP page. 84Swagahh (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's GRP. I've revdeled it. fr33kman 19:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Tropical Depression Ten (2005) nominated for demotion

Hello everyone. I currently nominated Tropical Depression Ten (2005) for demotion due to it being nominated for a merger, article quality not quite as good (thorough) and enwiki has it merged as well. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, OK with me. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed fr33kman 15:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

African Americans now semi-protected

Hello all, I looked at the edit history of African Americans, and I saw that in the last few months, most edits were either racist vandalism (by IP editors) or reverting that vanalism. For this reason, I have semi-protected the page for six months. While Wikipedia is a place where anyone can edit (almost) any page, racist slurs are among the things we do not need. I have no issue at all blocking such editors. Note to all the good-faith IP-editors: you can still discuss changes on the talk page of the article, and an autoconfirmed user will post them, once there is agreement. Eptalon (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Lacking

We lack some of the literary glories of the American 20th century (I don't mean we have nothing at all):

1. Another Country (James Baldwin)
2. Rosemary's Baby (Ira Levin)
3. The New York Trilogy (Paul Auster)
4. Jazz, 1992.

Source: Times literacy desk.

Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Jazz (novel). 2001:2020:345:F8B4:5180:685C:26D2:409A (talk) 11:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I have just made Another Country (James Baldwin). --Yottie ^=talk= 13:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I have written Rosemary's Baby (novel), please proofread for simplicity & clarity. We already had Rosemary's Baby (the article about the movie). Eptalon (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Total Backlog Annihilation: Phase III

Hi everyone, I have just started phase III of the Total Backlog Annihilation project. In this phase, the aim is to clear Category:Underpopulated categories. Please visit User:Ferien/WikiProject TBA/Phase III to learn more. Thanks! --Ferien (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Article feedback 2

Hi, Just wanted to ask; are the tables at Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024#Overview hard to read/messy?, An IP believes so so wanted to seek feedback, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 15:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

For one thing, 90% of the links are redlinks Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I plan to create these, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Unlinked song names - chances of these ever being created is slim so I've unlinked those, The <country> at Eurovision articles I plan to create at some point, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 19:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I made the first table, Simple. Diff, simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&oldid=9540310 .--I removed the "R/O" stuff - it is an added detail that adds little, and borders (arguably) onto overkill. 2001:2020:327:EAFD:C04:DC72:45F5:2517 (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Another change: diff, https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024&oldid=9540337 .--Easier to read, now. 2001:2020:327:EAFD:C04:DC72:45F5:2517 (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with R/O being removed and I've removed that and replaced it with "Order"

The numbering doesn't make it hard, imho the points and place do however given all 3 sections mention voting it's therefore common sense to include it?

I certainly do believe the tables need simplifying and I commend you for at least trying to battle it but as I said the order column isn't the issue and I don't know how else it can be simplified ? Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Copyrighted?

Hello! I've came across this poster used for The Super Mario Bros. Movie and I was wondering if this is a copyright issue. As far as I know, posters are not used on this Wikipedia due to the non-free use rationale (that does not allow it to be uploaded to Commons for use). However, it was noted in the description of the file that I cropped the image and used lightning filters. it is from The movie database and the uploader has cited it as their own work. This poster is also not the theatrical release poster. Should I put it up for deletion? Jolly1253 (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Jolly1253, Unfortunately the image would be a copyright violation as I've found the image here, You may also want to tag their other file as that was taken from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt28650488/mediaviewer/rm1102993665/?ref_=tt_ov_i, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 14:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Took me a while to learn how to tag the images for deletion, but at least it's done. @Davey2010 Thank you for the helpful response! Jolly1253 (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Jolly1253, I would've done it for you but kinda blocked there lol, Brilliant thank you for tagging them, You're welcome :), Happy editing, Many thanks, Warm regards, –Davey2010^Talk 15:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Katyn Massacre

Hello, A message on my talk page today got me thinking about the facts on the Katyn Massacre article. There are currently no references on the page which talk about the numbers of deaths. Across different version of Wikipedia, including the English WP and German WP (where the page is Featured), numbers seem to range from a precise 21,857 to ranges between 22 and 25 thousand. They also distinguish between deaths at Katyn itself (4-5k) and in the related massacres. Does anyone object if we add this to the page, with references? I'm bringing it here in an attempt to stay away from the article's talk page, for obvious reasons. Yottie ^=talk= 16:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Please go ahead, but bear in mind that the 20k-25k are likely the total number. Those killed in the forest near Katyn are 4.400-5.000. Alexander Shelepin wrote in 1959 that 4421 had beenkilled in a "forest near Katyn". In 1994, a list was given to Poland by Ukraine; it contains 3435 names. A similar list assembled by Belarus contains 3870 names. 4410 to 4430 graves of Polish victims, killed in 1940 were found. Be careful about the sources you use. Eptalon (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Also: Nazi troops discovered the massacre, it would be great if we could get sources of the time (that is: likely, the 1940s). Eptalon (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Request to archive the Main Page Talk

There was a request to archive the Main Page Talk: Talk:Main Page#Request for Comments: Archiving this Page. It never got much attention. So what should be done? Kk.urban (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

This has been set up: posts older than 180 days will get archived automatically. Eptalon (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

May 17: can/should we do something?

Hello, On May 17, there's the en:International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia, which is organized by the UN, and where there are events in many cities, and countries. May 17 is about a week off. So the big question: Can/Should we (as SEWP) do something on that day? Eptalon (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, at least one thing seems to be missing: We don't have all the sub-templates that the following (linked) template has, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:LGBT.--Creating some or all of those templates, would be doing something. Thougts?--(Doing an inventory of which templates we do not have, is also somewhere to start.) 2001:2020:357:C0AA:F5CF:26E9:696A:CBCC (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done - the template has been started, simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:LGBT. 2001:2020:357:C0AA:F5CF:26E9:696A:CBCC (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Isla > Isla (given name)

Please move Isla, to Isla (given name). Then i can translate
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isla
. Thanks. 2001:2020:357:C0AA:F5CF:26E9:696A:CBCC (talk) 10:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Dream Indigo 19:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone want to look at an issue with a template?

I've been working on clearing Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters. Some of the articles are in the category because they use the parameter alt_name in Template:Infobox television. Our template doesn't accept it, but enwiki's does so it seems like that parameter should work. For the time being, I'm not removing it. Would anyone like to see if they can figure out why our template doesn't allow that parameter when enwiki's does? It doesn't look like our copy is back-leveled. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

While I'm not exactly experienced with editing templates, I can say for sure that at no point in the source does it ever mention a alt_name parameter, while using view source on EN's template brings up 2 mentions of the parameter.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It looks like we might need to update more than just that parameter. I'll keep a list as I work on these. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, for now I'm changing the parameter to be what our template expects. Later on, we can change things to match enwiki if we want to (we probably should due to things being transwikied). --

Merge proposal: Help:Gadget-HotCat & Wikipedia:HotCat

On simplewiki, we have two pages: Help:Gadget-HotCat (almost useless, but with pictures, redirects and stuff) and Wikipedia:HotCat (with useful instructions). On enwiki, en:Help:Gadget-HotCat redirects to en:Wikipedia:HotCat. I suggest we merge those two pages on simplewiki. Dream Indigo 20:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I have no perspective on which title the merged page should have. Do you? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Koavf I would personally follow enwiki and most other languages and title the merged page "Wikipedia:HotCat". Dream Indigo 22:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Sign up for the language community meeting on May 31st, 16:00 UTC

Hello all,

The next language community meeting is scheduled in a few weeks - May 31st at 16:00 UTC. If you're interested, you can sign up on this wiki page.

This is a participant-driven meeting, where we share language-specific updates related to various projects, collectively discuss technical issues related to language wikis, and work together to find possible solutions. For example, in the last meeting, the topics included the machine translation service (MinT) and the languages and models it currently supports, localization efforts from the Kiwix team, and technical challenges with numerical sorting in files used on Bengali Wikisource.

Do you have any ideas for topics to share technical updates related to your project? Any problems that you would like to bring for discussion during the meeting? Do you need interpretation support from English to another language? Please reach out to me at ssethi(__AT__)wikimedia.org and add agenda items to the document here.

We look forward to your participation!

MediaWiki message delivery 21:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

"Drug use for recreation" vs. "Recreational drug use" (title)

Is Drug use for recreation (title for a new article), a simplification of Recreational drug use (title of the en-wiki article)? Or do the meaning perhaps not overlap 100% ?--For the record - one has suggested that Hard and soft drugs (title), gets nuked. (And if that article gets sucked into a Black-hole, then so be it.)--Please note that Recreational drug use is only a name: for whatever reason, English-wiki has ended up with that name for now.--I am okay with that title, and their article, for now. 2001:2020:345:8F5E:894E:A82B:A393:40D3 (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
It seems that En-wiki once had an article called the same as ours.--Anyhow, something happened along the way.--Perhaps, the following gives us some ideas: en:Talk:Recreational_drug_use/Archive_1#Merge_Proposition . 2001:2020:345:8F5E:AC05:2213:2990:C102 (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think recreation is any simpler than recreational and neither is a simple word. Besides that, the first one could be read as meaning drug use related to recreational activities, such as taking performance-enhancing drugs. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. If one isn't simple English, then neither is the other. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Drug use (recreational drug use) - how about that for a title? Justification: it is (arguably) simpler than "Recreational drug use" - and in additon it answers Which subset of drug-use, is this article about.--The idea about "soft drug" - is different from country to country (and some experts in western countries, seem to be saying that there are no "soft drugs"). 2001:2020:343:EBC5:C1C3:B215:18EE:D687 (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:345:8F5E:894E:A82B:A393:40D3

I think we need to translate "recreational." Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24 - Recreational ... can be explained in section:Etymology or Origin of name.--There is no rule that all the words in an article title, have to be simple.--When an article has an okay title, then that article is a good place to explain, why the politics of America, ended up using the phrase Recreational drug use.--Not sure that is it helpful, to try to translate "recreational", before one has decided the limits of Recreational drug use, and how those limits might have changed over time (say, in the United States).--There were some that claimed that smoking "grass" was regarded as Recreational drug use, while injecting opium-related things was beyond Recreational drug use. (Don't have a source, however that view might at best be a fringe view in the western world.)--Some phrases that have become catch-all phrases, do not translate nice-and-simple. 2001:2020:327:EAFD:C04:DC72:45F5:2517 (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC) / 2001:2020:345:8F5E:894E:A82B:A393:40D3

I think the point of Simple is not "If you don't understand it, you can stop reading the article and go somewhere else to look it up" but rather "you don't have to break your rhythm." Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

We have the following cases:

1. Drug is used for a medical condition; perhaps a doctor prescribed it
2. Drug is used for a medical condition, but was developed for something else ("off-label use")
3. Drug is used to enhance performance ("doping"); likely it wasn't prescribed
4. Drug is used outside the medical context, because of an effect it has; likley not monitored by a doctor.

And no, the difference between recreation and recreational isn't big, and the term needs to be explained. Likley we want to cober the last case of those I listed, with the category. Eptalon (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

"Category 4" - i am somewhat sceptical to that definition, for now.--Example: one gets a months supply of tablets from an MD. The MD has given written instructions to take 3 per day. There will be cases where the patient starts out the day, according to the MD's instructions. However, after 5 days, there are no tablets left.--Another thing, there is an Oxycodone epidemic in at least one country. Maybe that fits in, with Category 4, or maybe not. 2001:2020:327:EAFD:1C7C:4417:8C67:2D4D (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)/2001:2020:345:8F5E:894E:A82B:A393:40D3

With category 4, I was more thining about the usual drug addict, who takes, for example heroin, because it makes them feel good. Heroin is an opioid, and as the other opioiods, there's a strong effect of habituation; people also get dependent on it. Eptalon (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

There are no very clear objective distinctions here. The term recreation isnt very clear, and what counts as abuse is rather subjective. What is prescribed changes with time and place. Rathfelder (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

And "Hard drug" and "Soft drug" no very clear objective distinctions.--There is even the case of Thailand's current cabinet: it seems to be paving the way for having cannabis outlawed (Marijuana became somewhat legal to use, a couple of years ago.)--Trying to decide if a drug might be a soft-drug, can be compared to deciding the boundaries/limits of short pieces of string. 2001:2020:32F:FCD1:91AA:1C0C:AC83:9B70 (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)/ 2001:2020:345:8F5E:894E:A82B:A393:40D3

attribution

If I simplify something from https://en.wikipedia.org/ do I need to credit the original somewhere? Where do I write that and what do I need to write? LagoonGoose (talk) 07:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

You can put a link in the edit summary or post on the talk page or be extra cautious and do both. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@LagoonGoose: I believe putting the info in the edit summary is deprecated. It should go on the article talk page. Wikipedia:Transwiki attribution has information about how to do what you're talking about. If you have questions, feel free to ask. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

if you use the translation tool the first edit will contain a link to the revision you translated Eptalon (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Eptalon but @Auntof6 said the edit summary option was "deprecated"? LagoonGoose (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

it doesn't add an explicit attribution to the talk page... Eptalon (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

How to submit draft?

Hi, I was looking to submit my draft, but there's nowhere I can do it, or I at least don't know how on this Wikipedia, could someone help me? RoyalSilver 17:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia! We don't really have a system in place for drafts due to our small size. When you feel like the article you have written is ready to be a "true" article you can move it to the title you want.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 19:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @RoyalSilver.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 19:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

[The following, has already been answered, two threads above.]I would like to add a question: How can one estimate, so to speak, if a school is wiki-notable (for Simple-wiki)?--(As far as the mentioned school in Topeka: there is an article at En-wiki,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topeka_High_School
and that article has apparently never been sent to AfD/ RfD.) 2001:2020:32F:FCD1:91AA:1C0C:AC83:9B70 (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)/ 2001:2020:32F:FCD1:91AA:1C0C:AC83:9B70 (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft

Hello, I'm simplifying an article to publish here, and I was wondering,

1. How do I submit the draft? 2. I added that it's a translation on the talk page, do I need to put anything else?

I was also wondering if anyone could also help me with simplifying it, if I missed anything. RoyalSilver (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the draft in-depth, but the consensus here is that in general, schools below university/college level are not notable. So, getting that arccepted will likely be difficult. Eptalon (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The school is a major part in Topeka, and is a historical site. It's also on the English Wikipedia so I thought it would be notable RoyalSilver (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Eptalon, forgot to mention RoyalSilver 16:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

A building or a stationary facility, can be a historical site. However, the school is an institution - and i have some doubt that the mentioned institution in Topeka, is a historical site. 2001:2020:32F:FCD1:91AA:1C0C:AC83:9B70 (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Where can I find the consensus about not generally including schools? (I would think that schools like Exeter, Eton, Philips, Bronx High School of Science and Uni High (Urbana) would be of interest to some of our readers.)Kdammers (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is my contribution to "updated-or-new-or-whatever" consensus: I am fine with,
*in general, schools below university/college level are not wiki-notable "for a wiki-article title of their own".--Justification, in part, for high threshold: because if high-schools mostly are shooed-in, then we might be on a slippery slope for shooeing in most kindergartens and elementary schools. 2001:2020:359:ABC5:79FD:3760:85EF:C9FC (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Are we lacking categories?

Hello, I wrote unexploded bomb and demining today. I weas looking for a fitting category, but didn't find any. While trhere might be a theme complex with land mine, most unexploded bombs aren't land mines. Any idea what category to use? Eptalon (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

"Are we lacking categories?" - Yes we are and we have User:Auntof6 and the QD-taggers to thank for it. To answer your question I guess Category:Explosives would be the best one as sort of related sort of not, –Davey2010^Talk 14:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the idea to require three pages for a category isn't a bad one Eptalon (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I guess there's pros and cons to it but I feel it's a terrible idea as it doesn't allow categories to be branched out and expanded (unless you're creating 3-4 articles within one day), –Davey2010^Talk 15:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Categorisation is hierarchical. If there isnt one which fits exactly you must look wider. When there are enough articles then you make a new category - which fits into the wider scheme. Rathfelder (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

for the unexploded bomb the category is explosives, for the other I created a category mines and mine removal. Nevertheless, cat: explosives is growing big, but that's a different problem Eptalon (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Davey2010: When you're criticizing another editor, please have the courtesy to let them know about it somehow, perhaps by linking their user name or doing a ping. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I have now pinged you, Hope this helps. –Davey2010^Talk 10:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps an appropriate time to mention User:Ferien/WikiProject TBA/Phase III, which is encouraging editors to find entries for existing categories with few entries, to avoid this problem! --Ferien (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The answer here is a piece of work that goes through existing categories and spots themes for splitting them. I get that if you are used to enwiki, that having categories for EVERYTHING is suitable, but the issue is that on a smaller wiki, you'll end up with hundreds (probably thousands) of single-article categories, which just aren't helpful. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Pitt County, North Carolina

Is Pitt County, North Carolina simple enough? If not, how can we make it simpler? Kk.urban (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kk.urban: I think it could be simpler. I just did some work on it, but I haven't checked all of it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. One question: Why does "The county was made in 1760 from Beaufort County" need to be clarified? Kk.urban (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kk.urban: It's not clear exactly what was done. Did Beaufort County turn into Pitt County? Did they take part of Beaufort County to make a new county called Pitt? I suspect it was the latter, but it could say that more clearly. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6 The latter. I changed it to "The county was made in 1760 from part of Beaufort County". Is that good enough? Kk.urban (talk) 07:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kk.urban There are definitely some words like "overwhelming" which may seem big for people who are learning English, so it still needs further simplification. But, I think the phrase "overwhelming majority" is used a lot. Cyclonial (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Idea:Very Good Lists

This would be adapted from enwiki's featured lists. Similar idea. Probably needs to be edited but heres a basic first draft of (simplified) criteria:

1:Writing. It very well written.

2:Lead. It has an interesting lead that is a summary of the article.

3:Completeness.

3A:It talks about the entirety of the subject, has all important things and if you are able to all things that would be belong in that list, and it has notes giving helpful facts about the stuff in the list.

3B:Things in the article are sourced where the thing is. They have inline sources and cite all things that must have sources.

3C:It is a list, isn't a content fork or mostly a duplicate from a different article, couldn't be included in another article.

4:Structure. It is easy to read through, where useful there are sections and tables

5:Style. It follows the Manual of Style.

5A:Looks good, using tables, color, formatting, etc. Lower number of redlinks.

5B:It has related images. They don't have issues with copyright and non-free images meet the criteria and are labeled.

5C:Good formatting, all readers can read easily. Bulleted lists and table are done correctly.

6:Stale. No change war happening, list changes little from day to day.

7:Simple. It is written in Simple English, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, and meets everything needed of every article (neutral, not original reasearch, reliable sources, notable, etc.)

VGL process would be similar to VGA, except having to meet these criteria. Think it would be nice to have a way to assess lists as well. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

We already have good articles, and very good articles; when I look at the general participation, I don't think we need yet another one of these. Especially since the "very good" implies that they would be comparable to VGAs. The last promotion to VGA was over 6 months ago... Eptalon (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Well lists can't be GA or VGA, right? What does the last promotion to VGA have anything to do with this. And at least on enwiki, Featured lists are pretty comparable to Featured articles@Eptalon Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

All I am saying: this is a small community, and getting something to VGA is a huge effort; if I now say that there's an other category (comparable to) VGA, likely we won't see more people working towards that goal. Even with GA, which isn't as complete, getting an article there takes months, and as you can see, some articles do not get promoted (likely also, because it takes too long). Eptalon (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that because it is hard to make quality content, we should limit how we recognize quality content and improve qualtiy. I get your point, but of course quality content is hard, otherwise most content would be high-quality.@Eptalon Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Have you looked, what's the usual time, such a list at enwp needs from first nomination to promotion? Eptalon (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I think what you meant was "What is the average time on English Wikipedia it takes for a Featured List to get promoted from when it is nominated?"

Since it's impractical to go through all of them, I'm just using the 10 most recent ones. So in days:40,23,40,64,22,31,26,33,15,47. Average is 34.1 days. Why?@Eptalon Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

And how many of our GAs/VGAs got promoted in say 1-1.5 months? - Our community is much smaller.... Eptalon (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah it takes longer sometimes, but 50% of VGAs actually (in the past 30 months)@Eptalon Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I don't think this will help improve Wikipedia much. On English Wikipedia, people often add a lot of text that is only vaguely related to the topic, so it can meet the standard for a featured list. If someone is just looking for the list, that may make it harder to read. Generally, lists are less likely than articles to showcase Simple English, good writing, and the other qualities we're trying to meet. In fact, some could be basically the same as the English Wikipedia lists.

Kk.urban (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

"Generally, lists are less likely than articles to showcase Simple English, good writing, and the other qualities we're trying to meet. In fact, some could be basically the same as the English Wikipedia lists."

I strongly disagree. There is no reason a list can't have Simple English. There is also no reason is can't have good writing. It wouldn't be the same as the enwiki list, it would be simpler english, the point of this wiki@Kk.urban Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Me Da Wikipedian OK I'm not going to remove my comment, or say that I have changed my mind, but people can ignore my comment if they want. If you think this is a good idea, then how about you write or improve a list so that it would qualify for "very good list" status? Then other users can look over it, and it can serve as an example. We could see where to go from there. Kk.urban (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, that will probably take a bit of time but I'll try@Kk.urban Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Still working, commenting to prevent archive Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Eptalon, there needs to be a focus on the current GA/VGA processes. I see no benefit of adding a VGL process. People can still write lists if they want to, without the need to make them featured. Yottie ^=talk= 19:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with KK, Yottie and Eptalon. This is a perfectly good idea, but there's no point enacting it to sit on a shelf and gather dust. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Why is a VGL process taking away from GA/VGA. No article could be both, it's like by trying to get an article to VGL your preventing it from becoming a VGA. The purpose would be to have a standard for, idenify, and showcase, high quality lists. I see no reason that it would "sit on a shelf and gather dust".@Yottie@Darkfrog24 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Have you looked at Proposed good articles: look at when they were put up, and how much time has passed since then,without much changes? - VGL would be similar, except, as we are talking about "very good", times would be even longer. Eptalon (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a smaller wiki and it would take a bit longer sometimes. Honestly, the GAN article waiting the longest on enwiki is significantly longer than ours so...Also, this is a wikipedia, theres no deadline, it's okay if things take time@Eptalon Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Thats not the point, the point is: at some point people lose interest. Eptalon (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

That is true of literally everything. That could also be an arguement for not having this wiki@Eptalon Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 09:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, lets perhaps do it differently: do you think there is a widespread commutity support for the idea? Eptalon (talk) 10:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, I posted it here to ask what people thought. But I would imagine, if we made it, we get a bunch of VGL's. Using enwiki as an example, theres about as many featured lists and there are feautured articles@Eptalon Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

To answer your point, I simply don't feel there is the appetite for further process. The idea isn't a bad one, but it's currently redundant. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the current situation still allows for users to write excellent lists. It just means there is no process to recognise them. Yottie ^=talk= 16:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. However a process to recognise them needs a way to determine what is high-quality. This gives a standard for people to try meet when improving lists, and then a way for people to notice and mark high-quality lists as such. It is not redundant. Something being redundant means it's not useful, a duplicate with no other purpose. This could be useful, and is not a duplicate, as lists can't be GA/VGA@Yottie Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Redundant is used in the sense of superfluous, in this instance. I do not agree that a process for VGL is required. If you really wanted to outline how to write an excellent list, how about writing a page similar to this, Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages, for lists instead? Yottie ^=talk= 17:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Superflous itself means more than sufficent/unneccessary. I disagree. What this (and GA/VGA) is going for is:

1.Standard For High Quality- This is covered by your above suggestion

2.Way To Identify And Display Quality Content - Not covered by your suggestion

3.Way For The Community To Determine If A Page Is High Quality - Sort of covered by your suggestion, not entirely

As you can see that misses a few stuff. As I see the opposition arguements are such

1.'We already have GA/VGA - These are not overlapping with a proposed VGL at all, how is this related

2.It's hard to make quality content - Of course it is, what sets it apart is that someone has put in the hard work to make it quality.

3.People add unrelated stuff on enwiki to make it a featured list - Please find 1 example. Irrelevant stuff should be removed, and a VGL process would not change that.

4.Lists will be the same as enwiki lists - Why? Is there any reason we couldn't simply a list too?

5.You can still write good lists - Of course, I can also write great articles without GA/VGA. Should we remove them

6.People eventually lose interest - True of everything, could be used as an arguement to get rid of this wiki as well.

7.It would be unused - Why? On enwiki there are about as many FLs as there are FAs

8.Long wait - GA/VGA has a long wait. Enwikis GA/FA/FL has a long wait. People can wait. It's a wikipedia, theres no deadline. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It's funny, having looked at Simple Talk archives, I realise I suggested VGLs 15 years ago on this very same page. Eptalon gave the same reasoning as he did above, and I think he still has a valid point. Not to discredit the points you make, but judging by the comments above I just don't think editors are all that bothered by the concept. --Yottie ^=talk= 22:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Funny indeed. I see you've changed your mind. Note that I refuted all of Eptalon's points. Is there one of those you disagree with the reasoning/conclusions of?@Yottie Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Clearly other people have proposed this too (here's one example, here's another, a third, and a fourth). Totally feels like the exact complaint by The Obento Musubi in the next section. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Twitter / X RFC

Hi, Not sure the best way of doing this,

So over at EN there looks to be a consensus to keep the Twitter name (RFC/diff) with en:Twitter under Elon Musk being moved to en:X (social network),

We don't have Twitter under Elon Musk here so I don't know whether we should move Twitter to X (social network) or keep as is ?,

Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

For now how about we keep Twitter as is and just add a section about Twitter under Elon Musk. Later, we can just move that section into X (social network) after the article expands into a longer page. BRP ^ever 02:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @BRPever, That sounds like a fantastic idea, Many thanks for your helpful suggestion I'll create a section, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 12:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Title should perhaps be,
Twitter (renamed X), or
X (Twitter), or
"X (formerly Twitter)", or
X /Twitter, or however media formats X-together-with-OldNameOfCompany.--Twitter has moved on, and changed its name (and we should move on, too); Therefore an updated encyclopedia does not get to choose at whim, that now we are arbitrarily going to use the company's old name (as title) without any qualifier (in the title).--If we have to choose between Simple and Wrong, then we should avoid "Wrong" - because we are an encyclopedia, so to speak. Thanks, 2001:2020:359:ABC5:79FD:3760:85EF:C9FC (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Wrong? Most still refer to it as Twitter. With a lot of the changes, it's best if we separate the historical twitter and the new X into two separate pages. And as we do not have much content on new X, we need to wait till more content to be added to the encyclopedia before creating a new page for X. Once separated into two pages, we can keep a note on top linking former to later and later to former. BRP ^ever 17:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Twitter is by far the W:COMMON NAME for an article for the topic. An article that they have on enwiki for specifically the period of X is very suitable for being renamed to that (especially against the convoluted name previous). We should keep as is (and, maybe put an article together to mimick the one for the Musk tenure). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly with your comment Lee - It's been Twitter for over 10 years and irrespective of rebrands I doubt it will change, I also agree with your comment regarding Musks tenure etc, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Look to German-wiki, Netherlands-wiki, Danish-wiki, Norski-wiki - they have titles where Twitter is not a "thing" (or main thing, in one case).--Those are the five other wikipedia-versions that i mostly use - plus Norski-wiki.--Twitter is no longer the Common-name, in my country.--Most English-readers in the world, do not use that thingy, that formerly was called Twitter.--Twitter as only word (or first word) in title? No, the hour glass has almost run out of sand!--Has En-wiki chosen a simple option? Nah, maybe it was some kind of boomer-politics that were able to push their wishes, over there.--Anyway, everyone must try to show kindness during discussions (or so is my interpration of words from Jimbo Wales).--Has anyone bothered checking what the encyclopedia Britannica is calling their article? 2001:2020:359:ABC5:55DB:E31A:D27C:49BA (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:359:ABC5:79FD:3760:85EF:C9FC

I don't see how that would matter - COMMON NAME is what people call it, and most sources will refer to it as Twitter. Your argument of some of our inter language Wikipedias using a different title isn't great, but even if you were to use that as a rationale, most of our other language Wikipedias use Twitter rather than X. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I will agree with this, for now. I rarely see it referred to only as X, but as X, formerly known as Twitter, or as just Twitter (still). It still the common name, but in a few years as more people and style guidelines adapt it will be just X. Ravensfire (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

But it it changes names again, we'll have ex-X, formerly known as Twitter and now PDQ, at which point the universe might implode from the madness... Ravensfire (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm in support of keeping as-is due to twitter still being the common name.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 08:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

i think its twitter because lots of people calls it that, i dont hear people saying x alot Madisyn Oglesby (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)