Wikipedia:Simple talk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:CENTRAL)
Jump to: navigation, search

Keep an eye out for new and changed mythology articles[change source]

We currently have one or more editors making complex changes to mythology articles, and creating new, complex, uncategorized ones. I've reverted the complex changes to existing articles. I've also left messages when I see this, but they don't seem to be doing any good. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Auntof6: When monitoring the CVN feed on IRC I commonly see new mythology articles, and rewrites of old ones. For the new articles, if they are complex should we QD them or RfD them? And for the rewritten articles, should we revert the changes if it's not Simple English? Thanks, Vermont (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
On the rewrites: I revert the complex changes when I see them. If you're seeing them in the feed, you might be seeing more than I do, because I mostly see only the ones on pages on my watchlist. On the new articles: Being complex isn't one of the QD options unless it's a close copy from another Wikipedia. If it's not a close copy, I think the only options are to either tag as complex or simplify because I don't think there'd be support for deleting them. I've left multiple messages for the editors doing this, but the messages don't seem to have had any effect. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Understood. I'll keep an eye out for them when patrolling. Vermont (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

They're back. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I reverted some of their changes earlier but their edits are very confusing. Makes me think many times before reverting (when I reverted those some days ago). Can I revert those if I find them being complex than the earlier one? Though the quantity seems to be greater the quality of the pages decreases by their edits.-BRP ever 11:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@BRPever: What do you find confusing? If a change makes a page more complex, it could be either reverted or simplified. I simplified some of the new articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
In case of New articles they can be simplified. I will mostly try to keep those articles by simplifying them. But in some of the changes earlier they left the summary that "earlier intro was fine" or something like that and did an addition that made it complex [1]. I think the earlier version was easy to understand. So if I find such edits I will revert those.BRP ever 17:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good; that's what I've been doing. I think this is a case of one or more people not understanding what this Wikipedia is about. Their writing would be perfectly fine on English Wikipedia. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Twinkle is not formatting RFDs correctly.[change source]

I've just added an RFD using twinkle, and for some reason it's adding the (2nd nomination) part to the actual title of the RFD, so it thinks the article is actually called, which it's not. I can't figure out how to fix this manually as it's never happened to me before. Help! DaneGeld (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like something is wrong with Twinkle's code; as far as I know, it's always done this with second+ nominations. hiàn 03:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for Parissa Official (and sockpuppets)[change source]


Withdrawn - I do realise the proposal was impulsive and I apologise for that. Thank you to those who commented. hiàn 12:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello all. This is a community ban proposal for Parissa Official and any applicable sockpuppets and IPs. I know this is going a bit nuclear, but I've honestly had enough dealing with the spam this user creates (and I'm certain many other editors think this as well). The user continually recreates articles with non-notable subjects (multiple deletion requests is proof of this), is not competent enough to edit, despite multiple global locks (manages to shrug off a global lock as nothing too major) and articles going through deletion processes, user continually recreates articles and assumes they're in good standing with the community through various article creation requests. Furthermore, the user uses a ridiculous amount of sockpuppets (and IPs) to recreate content.

Therefore, I propose a community ban of Parissa Official, with any IPs or sock accounts being blocked on sight. hiàn 23:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Being GLocked as the master account is, I don't think a ban proposal is necessary. I would suggest that they can be hit on sight as obvious sockpuppets. Revert, Block, Ignore and move on. The less attention we give these accounts, the better. DaneGeld (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I realise, but a community ban means the community agrees that the spam won't be tolerated, not just a simple block. I'm legitimately hoping this sends a message across to the sockmaster at the very least. hiàn 04:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
A community ban wouldn't be effective when there's sockpuppetry involved. By the way, did you notify the user(s) you were starting this discussion? We should do that even in severe cases, just as a courtesy. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Notified the most recent active sock a bit ago. I didn't bother notifying the sockmaster since the account was locked. hiàn 02:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't see much of a point in a community ban. They're already a global spammer, and therefore is to be locked on sight. As DaneGeld points out, Revert, Block, Ignore is a good strategy here. Vermont (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

"Lost" RfDs...[change source]

Hello all, I just added the four "missing" RfDs (which were neither closed, nor listed as "in progress") to our RfD page. Currently, I dpn't know the reason why they didn't show. Just posting this here, so that if it happens again, we can look into it.--Eptalon (talk) 08:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I see that now and then, including one recent one that I added manually. Did you notice whether these were created by a tool such as Twinkle? I've always thought they come from manual creations where the creator doesn't complete the process. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I haven't done any analyses, I simply re-added them to the RfD page.--Eptalon (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Two were clearly manually done; the other two were added by Psl631's IP supposedly using Twinkle. I'm quite certain those were manually done as well since IPs cannot use Twinkle. hiàn 02:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I see that the RfD tag on Celestine (mineral) was removed by User:Macdonald-ross when he improved the article. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Let it run for another day or so, then close as keep? --Eptalon (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, the proposer had said "The page is very short, and I are unsure for a QD", so when I rewrote it there was no case at all for an RfD. It's not as though we missed anything. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
That ip through which Psl631 made RFD has problem with it's twinkle as a result incomplete RFD procedure was done and the request was not added to RFD page. And the others I think they were done manually and the process was incomplete or some errors came. So, they were not listed in RFD page. I think if a similar problem comes in the future 2 or 3 more days should be added after relisting them. The more greater problem would be if the contributor or page Creator are not informed. I didn't went to this part but doing RFD without the information to the user can be a bit of a problem.-BRP ever 09:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Yup, In two of those cases users were not informed. Should we notify them now?-BRP ever 09:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe IPs can use Twinkle, so I'd think the edit summary was manually added for those two. The normal Twinkle always places the request on the main RfD page. hiàn 02:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
You are right Hiàn, but Psl631 has a problem of getting logged out between an edit we discussed it Wikipedia:Simple talk #My account is crazy. So that might be the reason for having twinkle in edit summary. I think that Psl631 was the one making request and the problem he has resulted to incomplete procedure of RFD.-BRP ever 03:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Which templates can be substituted or not?[change source]

Hi! I only ask which templates which can be substituted or not, which templates can be substituted, I planned to substitute templates that not should be substituted in the sandbox. Please can an user add a list here below which templates which can be substituted or not, so I know which templates that need substitution. :) -- Psl631 TALK Contribs 18:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The question shouldn't be which templates can be substituted: any template can be, technically. In practice, there are some that should always be substituted, and the rest should not be. I don't think anyone can give you a list, but you can find some of the ones that should be substituted in Category:Wikipedia substituted templates.
The basic reasoning about which ones should be substituted has to do with whether the output of previous uses should change if the template gets changed. That's why you see the warning templates in the category: if the warning templates change, we still want to see the old text in previous warnings so that we know exactly what the older warnings said.
It might help us answer you if you explain what you're doing. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear...[change source]

I created the article Oriental Pearl Tower with content from Famous places in Shanghai, which was the subject of an RfD. Do I remove the applicable information from that article? DJSasso did vote to demerge the content. hiàn 19:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for a community sanction against Chrisangelo23[change source]

Hello. It isn't nice to have to propose something like this, but on the basis of their general failure to understand and comply with the level of writing needed here, I am proposing a community sanction against the user Chrisangelo23.

It is clear to me that they wish to contribute, but the user seems to have a problem with the way we write here. They don't like the manner in which our articles are written, having referred to them as "demeaning" to the reader's intellect. A large proportion of their edits have been reverted by administrators for being far too complicated.

Despite requests increasing in strength, the user seems intent on wording things how they want and not in a way that we require. They have been directed to read our information on how to write in Simple English, but it appears that they do not wish to comply with it.

I have asked for a sanction, rather than a ban, because I believe that this user could work here for example, if it was possible for them to have their edits checked before they went live. What I hope for is input from the community with a view to the least restricting option for this editor.

I will notify Chrisangelo23 in line with our rules, that this discussion is open. Thank you. DaneGeld (talk) 09:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there's such a thing as a "community sanction". The only community action I know of that can be taken against a user is a community ban. The policy on that says that that "may mean that a user cannot change certain pages, areas, or do certain things for a long time (usually one year)".
Actually, though, I don't think anything short of a block would work here. Not only has this user not seemed to tailor their writing to Simple's requirements, they have also used edit summaries declaring that the edits were simple when they actually weren't. This is why I left a warning that they might be blocked -- the first serious warning they received. I was prepared to take action if unacceptable edits continued after that, so I don't think this proposal is necessary. I also don't think this user's changes rise to a level that requires community action: that is usually reserved for things that are more offensive, disruptive, and/or destructive, and where previous blocks have been made but have not helped. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
For reference, direct link. Editor has been here for 10 days so I agree that a permanent block may be excessive, but I do think a small block may be needed. I hope the editor comments here and recognizes the concerns. - Ricky81682 (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
From his comments on Auntof6's talk page and on DaneGeld's talk page, he doesn't seem to understand the purpose of the Simple English Wikipedia. He also maintains this attitude in his edits, and edit summaries. Considering that he has not responded to this proposal, I recommend we wait and see what his response is. If he refuses to abide by our community policies and guidelines, I'd support a temporary block. Vermont (talk) 12:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Thank you for that. Under the circumstances, I was intending more for the community to give their input towards a sanction. However, as you point out that a community sanction doesn't actually exist, I'll withdraw this proposal. I took the decision to ask for something less restrictive because I thought there could have been a chance to retain the editor rather than stopping their work. It looks like a block is unfortunately going to be the only reasonable option. DaneGeld (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Just for future reference Auntof6, the community can impose topic bans etc which can take up all kinds of forms. They have been implemented in the past as a first step instead of full out ban. -DJSasso (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I know that. It's explained in the part of the policy that I quoted above. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Don't know what motivates the user but they don't seem to understand how we work here. And DaneGeld, you did a good thing by asking what community thinks about the changes they are doing. I reverted some of their edits myself and concluded by the message in their talk page that they are not trying to go by the rules here. So, what I would like to suggest is, ask the user to see what community thinks about his changes and if he is willing to go by our rules then we can help him understand how we work here. But if they are stuck on their changes and do not respond here or change their way of edit then I am sorry to say that block is the only way since community seems to tired of reverting and fixing their changes, thanks.-BRP ever
  • I need to make you aware that I reverted another edit from this user which, all barring about 6 words, was the same as Auntof6 removed a week ago. It was pretty much just as complex as last time. Our words seem to be going right over his head. I am now leaning towards a ban. I pointed him at this discussion, so he would have seen it. No response here or on his talk page. DaneGeld (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Another warning has now been given to Chrisangelo23, by @J991:. Since the user by the looks of things, isn't going to input here, can I now ask one of the administrators to look at blocking please? I am not sure how much longer we need to wait or what else needs to be done. Thanks, DaneGeld (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I gave the user a basic warning at first and have had to revert several of their complex changes. We have been here before with other users. Time for an initial short block, please, so they can no longer waste others' time and clutter up the wiki with copyright violations and complexity. A ban is in order if the user does not change after a short block. They have made it very clear in their messages and edit summaries that they do not accept the aims or policies of this wiki. Gotanda (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Chrisangelo23 for 48 hours. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

"Temple Tanks"?![change source]

See List of large temple tanks. What's going on? I can see the temples, fronted by lakes (which might be artificial, for all I know). It throws up various questions, like translations into English, and list which are put up with few or no substantive pages (ie all red-link lists). Of course I'm not exactly fluent in Tamil, but I think in English you would have to use pools or lakes. And I think our titles must be comprehensible in English. Any way, I thought it worth you all having a look. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Temple tanks are wells or reservoirs built as part of the temple complex near Indian temples. (from EnWP). In a bigger-is-better-manner we might as well classify (English/French/...) castles by the size of their ornamental garden. Bigger garden -> more powerful ruler. Or if we keep a religious context, cathedrals by the amount of time it took to build them (most took several hundred years).No, don't ask, most regulars know what I think about gouping items into Lists...--Eptalon (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Notability of companies, organisations etc[change source]

Please all read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) full version in En wiki [2]. Key points are:

  • Verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. Sources must be published, but need not be quoted (but it makes the article better).
  • No company or organization is inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools.
  • No inherited notability. An org is not notable because it has a notable individual in it, and vice versa.
  • How to apply the criteria. All these criteria must be met:
  1. significant coverage in
  2. independent,
  3. multiple,
  4. reliable,
  5. secondary sources.

The discussion and cross-table example which follows on the En wiki page is very important. This is relevant to our increasing number of new pages about companies, and to some pages about individuals. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Happy to see this, some of such details for the events, person (singers especially), groups should also be made clear. I see them thinking this wiki as a site to show their company details or a self promotion site. Many users here may not know the policy full well. I find many articles still here which lies below our notability guidelines. If these guidelines are made clear we can make the long RFD process short to QD by A4. Thanks-BRP ever 11:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I think we should start porting the notability requirements over and then revising them to fit this wiki. I know that we refer to English but we don't follow their image use polcy, we should be much stricter in my opinion. Ricky81682 (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Bad machine translations...[change source]

...which pretty much means any machine translations. We are getting more of these. I just want to remind reviewers that there are two ways to go. If the topic is notable (and that may be a problem), either

  1. If you can see what it was trying to say, then revise into proper simple English, or
  2. Put it up for QD as being A3: "Copied and pasted from another WP without simplifying complex text".
  3. If you cannot decide whether it is notable, RfD is available.

Whatever, we can't accept such pages unchanged because it would defeat the purpose of the wiki. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

What I have also done a few time now, is to replace the text of an obviously notable article here with the blurb (first few sections) from the article from EnWP. Simplifying this blurb by replacing a few words, and shortening sentences is often straigntforward. On the talk page the template {{enwp based}} can be used to attribute the copying. And yes, I agree, the last few machine translations I have seen were horrible. --Eptalon (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
QD/A3 is only if it actually was copied/translated from another Wikipedia: not all bad translations are. Part of the reason we get these is that people use the content translator, which cannot produce simple English. I'd like to see it disabled here. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
True. The ones I saw were based on Spanish wiki. I'd have trouble if they were from Japanese wiki, maybe... Yes, there's a loophole when people use a translator for off-wikipedia web sources. We can't use A3 then. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Do we need another rule for the Deletion Policy? - Something ike "The article looks like it has been translated using a tool, but this translation was not reviewed and adapted to Simple English"? - Machine translation can be helpful, but like all translation, it needs reviewing and adapting. --Eptalon (talk) 08:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
In the meantime, we can probably use A5 ("not written in English"). The last few translations I have seen were very dificult to understand. If you do a word for word translation, you'll end up with something that is grammatically incocrect in English - "Ich habe den Hund gefüttert (I've fed the dog)" -> "I have the dog fed" --Eptalon (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Is it possible to recognize that? "I have the dog fed" isn't incorrect, it just doesn't mean what was intended. ("What do you do when you can't feed the dog yourself? I have the dog fed", meaning that you get someone else to feed the dog.) --Auntof6 (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Was just an example; probably works pretty well for German (poosibly other Germanic languages), or French; works less for other languages. German is pretty open-minded about word order, in English, word order is pretty strict...--Eptalon (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

William Wilfred Campbell Poetry Festival[change source]

William Wilfred Campbell Poetry Festival, seems like a local festival which is organized yearly. The festival is organized in the name of William Wilfred Campbell a Canadian poet. The festival might not be notable on it's own. So I am asking community, what they think will be the best action? Delete it, keep it as it is or put a small section in the poets page about this festival and redirect it there. Thanks-BRP ever 08:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, the poet is notable, but that is not inherited by the festival, which has no independent source for its own notability. Cut out all the guff, and have a para on the festival in as a sub-head under the poet's page, that seems good. But basically, notability is not inherited! English WP has the poet, and not the Festival. Because readers will find the poet's page, the festival doesn't really need a redirect, but it does little harm. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)