Wikipedia:Simple talk

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


New Very Good Article: Ronald Reagan[change source]

Hello all, I have just promoted Ronald Reagan to the status of Very Good Article. Thanks to everyone for helping, and especially to User:TDKR Chicago 101 for the great work he did in helping meet the criteria. --Eptalon (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Linked years[change source]

Hi, Do years here need to be linked ?, I only ask because the DMY/MDY tool specifically removes the [[]] from years which obviously poses an issue, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we stopped linking years in articles, most of the time. --Eptalon (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
We no longer link dates in general, except in certain kinds of articles, mostly articles that are some kind of chronology. Maybe we no longer need them there, either, but for now we still have them. I set up my AWB parameters to automatically unlink dates (both days and years) when processing. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah okie dokie, At present I've cancelled edits where it's unlinked them as obviously I wasn't sure and would've hated to unlike to find out they were fine, Okie dokie I'll use on that articles, Many thanks Eptalon & Auntof6 –Davey2010Talk 21:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Reflinks[change source]

Hi, I've recently added mw.loader.load( "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Zhaofeng_Li/Reflinks.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript" ); {en:WP:Refill) to my common.js however when I click on the refill button it loads the article but for EN - Is there way to change this so that when I click the word the default is Simple?,
At present when using this on articles I'm having to change "en" to "simple" in the URL,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

No you would have to rewrite it to work here, which may be possible, but not always. User created scripts are always hit and miss here because they may depend on pieces we don't have on this wiki. When I get a chance I can take a look. -DJSasso (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah right, I wasn't sure if there was a quick fix so thought I'd ask, Okie dokie no worries I mean I don't have a problem doing it that way but as I said just thought I'd ask, Many thanks as always :), –Davey2010Talk 16:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Update on page issues on mobile web[change source]

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:Uw-encopypaste and QD option A3 (direct copying and pasting from another Wikipedia)[change source]

Since the content translation tool went online, we have had new articles created not only by directly copying from enwiki, but also by direct automated translation from other-language Wikipedias. Quick delete option A3 is for articles that have been "copied and pasted from another Wikipedia without simplifying complex text" (italics mine). However, when we leave a message asking an editor not to do that, the canned text in Template:Uw-encopypaste specifies "directly copied and pasted from the main English Wikipedia".

Personally, I'd like to disable to content translator for use here, because it can't produce simple English. In any case, It would be nice to have a way to leave a message saying that direct translation from another language is not allowed. I'd like to see us do one of the following:

  • Change Template:Uw-encopypaste to include mention of direct translations from non-English language Wikipedias (even though the template has "en" right in its name).
  • Add an option to the single issue notices dropdown menu to use when there has been a translations from a non-English Wikipedia.

Thoughts? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose That QD is only meant to stop straight copying from en.wiki when the text is complex. Copying from en where the language is already simple (as long as attributed) is perfectly acceptable, and translating from another language because it isn't the identical text (even if not simple) is also perfectly acceptable for the same reason that people writing articles that are unsimple only get tagged not QD'd. The only purpose of the QD reason is to prevent pure copy pastes of complex English Wikipedias. It does not apply to anything coming from anywhere else that isn't a copy paste or for simple English and it should not apply to any of those. I also think it is a bad idea to turn off the translator as the more ways we as a small wiki can get content here the better. -DJSasso (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Something I think often gets forgotten here is that our Rfd does double duty as prod does on en.wiki. If it doesn't meet the speedy just put it on Rfd. Even if no one votes on it at the end of 7 days it gets deleted. So it is really simple for bad machine translations to be deleted through Rfd. We need less QDing here of content not more. Deciding on whether a translation is "good" or not is too much of a judgement/opinion for QD. Judgements and opinions have to go to Rfd. And I would point out per WP:BEFORE if an article can be fixed, it shouldn't be nominated anyway which is what a bad translation would be if the topic were notable. The appropriate action would be tag {{complex}}. -DJSasso (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Buildings in the City of London[change source]

I remember we removed all pages on individual buildings in the City because they were being put up by a doubtful source of some kind. They were changed to redirects. An IP has started to remove the redirects, and I have asked him to stop while we discuss it. However, can anyone remind me of the details? Am I right in thinking the source was a spambot, perhaps set up to puff the architects? Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It was not a spambot; it was long-term abuse. They mess with redirects. Thoughts on rangeblocking Special:Contribs/79.69.0.0/16? They've used other IP's (which I didn't write down) but this is one of the larger ones. Vermont (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
On seeing his full record, I was astonished that he was not blocked before. None of his behaviour was constructive, so I have blocked him for six months. I would not mind if another view is taken, but IMO we do not want this IP on our wiki. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Store closure[change source]

Hi, If on an article it has what shops a retail park has and when those shops opened ... and then those shops close - Should the sentence "In 2018, X closed down" be added or should the sentence about the shop opening be removed completely ?, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Remove it completely. This shows the down side of trying to put up info which is almost bound to change. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Okie dokie will do, Thanks Macdonald-ross, –Davey2010Talk 16:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Davey2010: I would say it depends on the format of the article: use your own judgment. There could be value in having the history. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Auntof6, The format looks like this (Maplin and Carpet have closed), I feel adding a note on the closure would be better but I wasn't sure if that could confuse readers or even if it was needed, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not encyclopedic to have evanescent information unless it is of notable significance. Also, in practice, there's no way we could ever keep up with changing information in hundreds of pages. We can't even keep the football pages updated properly, with all their ever-changing lists of players. But the actual existence of a retail park is long-term, as are large malls. They are good content for pages on towns, along with other features of interest. In Europe, at any rate, virtually all malls and retail parks are within towns or cities. Many are small compared to those in North America or Dubai! Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Japan[change source]

Can an administrator protect Japan from new users. Seems like a sock-farm. //nepaxt 02:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

There has been only one edit in the last 13 days; you reverted that one (and didn't leave a warning for the user, by the way). The users who made the bad edits earlier this month have been blocked and/or locked. I don't think this requires protecting the article at this time. By the way, requests for admin action should be made at WP:AN instead of here. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. And, sorry about the AN confusion. For some reason, Twinkle on Simple doesn't leave a warning on talk pages. //nepaxt 03:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Not automatically, if that's what you mean. I usually click the user's talk page link after reverting, and Twinkle remembers the article name when I click on the warn option. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Userpage Spam...[change source]

on here //nepaxt 03:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Deleted. We don't usually delete talk pages, but no actual talk had ever been on this page. By the way, as above, ST is not the place for this kind of request. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Usage of A4 QD tags[change source]

Recently, I've seen articles marked for quick deletion and some even QD'd that did claim notability, but were QD'd as not-notable. For some of those articles QD'd, or marked for QD, I would have (and with some, have) !voted keep on an RfD. I'm attempting to get a idea of community consensus on this: Is A4 strictly for articles that do not claim notability, or can it be used for articles that are likely not notable? I tend to agree with the former, and believe that articles where notable is questionable or borderline belong at RfD rather than QD. Vermont (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The QD option is for when there is no claim if notability. People might disagree about what constitutes a claim. What was in the articles that looked like a claim? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I see a claim of notability as any subject that could possibly be notable, like a television show, whereas a subject not claiming notability would be something like an athlete who has only played in a semi-professional or lower league where the sports notability guideline sets out that semi-professional athletes are not notable, and thus there is no claim. Vermont (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The example that used to get talked about on en all the time was something along the the lines of A4 is for pages that say "Joe is a cool dude." where as a claim would be "Joe is a cool dude who was on a television show". The fact they invoked something like being on a show would make a non-editor go whoa he must have been notable was enough to pass QD, even if he was only an extra. The idea being it was only ever meant for people talking about their buddies. The problem on simple is that some admins started using it as a judgement of notability so gets used on all kinds of people that it was never intended for. Even people who played on semi-pro teams would likely not be valid for A4. The idea being as long as the writer states why they have put them on the wiki then it isn't QDable. Even if the reason they put isn't a good one. If its a bad one it goes to Rfd for deletion. -DJSasso (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I believe the intent would be QD for no notability. If I created an article about myself in the main space called "Operator873" and supplied no proof of my notability, that article should be QD'd. However, the Alternate Vice President's Assistant For Information Processing of Adhesive Notes at Company A who was recently included in a news story on Forbes for their contributions to the Information Processing of Adhesive Notes field has extremely weak notability and may not meet WP:ANYBIO... but should be deleted by consensus at RfD instead of QD'd. I'm not 100% sure if my analogy makes any sense, so please ask for clarification if needed. TLDR: No claim: QD. Weak claim: RfD. Operator873CONNECT 00:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It is only for when there is no claim made. The claim doesn't even have to be a true claim or actually make them notable. It just has to be a claim that an average person would likely believe could make a person notable. It is a very strict QD that unfortunately does sometimes get over used by some admin. Deciding whether something is actually notable or not has to go to Rfd. No proof is required to avoid this QD, only a claim. If you see some that made a claim and were deleted, undelete them. I often find I have to do that despite my constant reminders you can't delete like that. -DJSasso (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)