Wikipedia:Simple talk

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:EA)
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Use of QD A4[change source]

This has been happening every now and then, so I think this is a good time to reiterate what QD A4 is about:

  • Is about people, groups, companies, products, services or websites that do not claim to be notable. This includes any article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, product, service or web content that does not say why the subject is important. If the article says why the subject is important, the article is not eligible for A4 deletion. If not everyone agrees that the subject is not notable or there has been a previous RfD, the article may not be quickly deleted, and should be discussed at RfD instead.

Please note what the deletion criterion says (emphasis mine): "If the article says why the subject is important, the article is not eligible for A4 deletion". QD A4 is not a mechanism for the nominating editor to say "the subject of this article is not notable". Determination of whether something is notable or not lies exclusively at RfD. I have also previously written a mini-essay about A4 here. --Chenzw  Talk  13:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  • This is quick deletion, so we need a pragmatic solution: If there is an article, and I suspect the person (..) is not notable/shouldn't be in this Wikipedia, I should be able to determine this within a few minutes; Things that indsicate this may not be the case: The references linked/other websites of the article mostly point to social media sites; When searching for the title on google, there are no relevant hits in about the first two pages of search results; there is a Wikipedia article in the searchresults, before there are real content (not social media) hits (always within the first two pages or so). So we do need a QD criterion to cover such cases (currently, mostly handled by A4). Note also for an article with sources, it should be possible to determine eligibility, without looking at the sources in detail: So: I have some person, there are two links to what look like newspaper articles, therefore, the person is likely notable. --Eptalon (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
    • The bottom-line is that we cannot use A4 to justify such cases where we suspect the person is not notable. If the article claims that the subject is notable, and that claim is credible (per EN definition), then our current policy only permits discussion on RfD, not a summary deletion via QD. If there were sufficient editor resources I would have suggested a PROD-like system, but that's not exactly possible over here. Chenzw  Talk  15:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
      • I agree that A4 should not be used for such cases in its current form. It is clear however that some users circumvent this fact in order to get a free one week advertisement that will show up in google while we discuss it. A solution in my view should be made to prevent this, although I am not sure what that should be. --IWI (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
        • Something I had in my mind for very long, but often I forgotten when I was onwiki (I think about wiki sometimes in real life), why not to address the concern IWI have, we __NOINDEX__ all RFD articles. This will ensure we keep these spammy but with some claims of notablity articles at RFD with 1 week to discuss, while at the same time we deny them free promotion. An alternative is to do what en does, those non partrolled articles will not be indexed, where here it still could. QD/RFD articles should never be marked as patrolled in anyway.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
          • I agree, QD A4 is often misused, but often for the right reasons as pointed out by Eptalon and IWI. I also think we need a practical solution. Using NOINDEX as suggested above, could be a start, but it still leaves us with more work (going through numerous RfDs) than is desirable, especially within a small community. This may mean rewording the QD A4 criterion, for example. I think we are unlikely to lose many articles of quality based on the fact the system already allows for two users to check the article for notability before deletion (as long as it is tagged as QD A4 by a non-admin user, and not just deleted). Maybe we should reinforce this by amending the guidelines to say the articles does not appear to be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia (and maybe if you disagree, please take it to Deletion Review, etc, etc.). I also suggest adding that Administrators must also tag articles for A4 for another sysop to check, to make sure two editors always get to check whether it qualifies. Any doubts or disagreements would see it sent straight to RfD. --Yottie =talk= 17:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
    Going through RfD, and tagging all rfd's with noidex is only part of the solution. As poited out above, we need a QD criterion, where we can flag/delete articles that fail a basic 5-min notability check. And no, I don't want to go through RfD for each of those.--Eptalon (talk) 10:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
    What does this 5-min check entail, and under what circumstances do articles get their notability discussed at RfD instead? Chenzw  Talk  10:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
    As pointed out above, any one of: 1) First two pages of google hits are essentially social media sites 2) The first Wikipedia page google lists is before the first page of non-social media content. 3) If there are references to other websites in the article, most of them are to social media sites (or portals where people present themselves as looking for work, such as linkedin). Google search is done using the article title. --Eptalon (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
    Such a test will unfairly penalize subjects which do not have reliable sources readily available on the Internet. I am opposed to granting administrators expanded powers in summary deletion, especially in light of how frequently A4 is abused, as well as your history in prior RfDs (such as Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/Alan Walker and Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/Brandon Rogers (YouTuber)) where a BEFORE test and cross-referencing against the EN notability guidelines should have at least avoided a hasty claim of "questionable/no notability". Chenzw  Talk  12:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks a lot for your opinion; can you propose a better test, that is doable in 5 minutes, and that has little to no false positives? - Note that we do not require English-language references. --Eptalon (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
    I do not think this is a matter for QD at all. It should go to RFD, or a PROD-like system. Chenzw  Talk  13:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
    Let's do PROD then. Just have the Proposed deletion page work in the same way as RfD with a shorter discussion time. --IWI (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
    Issue is what is the difference between PROD (and how exactly it works) and sending to RFD and no one comments and then an admin deletes? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
    For this wiki, no difference, really, since it has more or less been tacitly accepted that those kinds of RFDs can be handled in a PROD-like manner. However, if we anticipate more PRODs in future, it would be worth moving them out of the main RFD page, to avoid clutter, and let the PROD template(s) do their magic with automatically categorizing the articles. Chenzw  Talk  17:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
    Our Rfd system is our prod system. It does double duty. When something is nominated and it gets no votes it gets deleted like prod on en.wiki does. Lately I have seen a couple get extended for some reason but its always been that case that we treat Rfd's that don't get any votes as Prods that can be soft-deleted. -Djsasso (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

":┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Stupid question: Suppose there's an RfD, and after the week there are no votes, then it gets deleted, by default. We don't need prod, or another ruleset. We sipmly need to adapt the RfD/Qd templates to include a noindex tag...--Eptalon (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

A4 should definitely not be extended in scope. It is already overused as it is. Far too often I have to reject A4s or undelete articles deleted under A4 that don't qualify for it. The entire reason it can't be used in the way suggested above is to protect articles on subjects where sources in English are not easily found. An article existing for a week of an Afd is not going to dramatically (or even slightly) help someone who is just trying to get a publicity jump. No one is looking at Simple Wiki articles and going wow X person is famous. They just aren't. NOINDEX isn't really necessary at all because in the length of time an Rfd is up it generally isn't going to matter, our traffic is such that being indexed for a week is very unlikely to help someone at all on the off chance that google even manages to index it in that week. -Djsasso (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I often see simplewiki among the only google results in some spam articles. It is simply the case that they can easily end up high in google. NOINDEX is a good idea. --IWI (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong I have no problem adding NOINDEX. I just don't see that it really makes a difference because being in google results for a couple days isn't really going to help anyone because someone would almost definitely have to already be looking for that person on google to find it. -Djsasso (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps it would remove the motive and reduce spam? --IWI (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Shall we implement the _NOINDEX_ now as this discussion is very stale and this seems to be the only solution with consensus. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Is Hong Kong a city-state?[change source]

This one IP keeps referring to it as such and I don't know anymore.Derpdart56 (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Technically it has special status within China. It sounds like a NPOV issue. --IWI (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
No will be the answer, it is a special autonomous zone (SAR) within People Republic of China (PRC), city yes, state no, autonomous zone yes. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can tell the only other Zone with that status is Macao. It used to be a dependency of Portugual (Hong Kong was of the UK). So, yes, it probably has some autonomy. If that autonomy is different from another Chinesec city about the same size is another matter.--Eptalon (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

QD tagging of new articles[change source]

I know that Twinkle has saved everyone a lot of time and effort when QD tagging articles, however it has led to some ridiculous situations such as at here: User talk:90.224.198.255. While editors may wish to do so, it is not mandatory to inform the article creator about their page being tagged.

I ask that editors please do a little bit of due diligence and use the usual vandalism warning templates where appropriate, instead of blindly accepting the Twinkle defaults. Spamming {{QD-notice}} is not useful, especially so for anonymous editors who may not actually be vandalising. Note that {{QD-notice}} does not really point to supporting resources, unlike {{uw-create1}} or {{firstarticle}}. Chenzw  Talk  12:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there an option to turn this off then in TW? --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@Thegooduser Untick the "notify the page creator" option on the top of the TW CSD menu when notifying deletions. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Arthur[change source]

Hi, I'm back. Could someone help me simplify Tropical Storm Arthur (2020) or provide a peer review? I would like to get it to Very Good Article. Thank you so much! CodingCyclone (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm whacking away at it section by section, but my native tongue is Snooty English, so I've made it simpler, but another go-over could help. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: Thank you! CodingCyclone (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Muted[change source]

  • If you were to accidentality mute yourself from emails, can media wiki, still send password resets, once you log out? --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 03:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
    @Thegooduser Should be able. If you mean mute is to say no one can send you emails, then it's okay. Password resets are override the muting system. (i.e. not an user email you but the system itself) Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

List of current senior officers in the Royal Air Force[change source]

This list copied from En will give us the same headaches as other lists have. It will get forgotten and need updating. We can control this by removing the less important sections, and limiting it to the top categories. A first step would be to delete the bottom section on Commodores, who are of less general interest. We know from experience that we cannot handle very long lists of ever-changing personnel. Air Vice-Marshalls should probably go, too. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

None of your points stand. They are all notable. I have reduced their names and appointments.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueD954 (talkcontribs) 2020-11-19T08:08:25 (UTC)

Aviation Concepts Technical Services, Inc.[change source]

Request for Assistance. My page was deleted, hence the page that I created was similar to Metrojet Ltd., Jet Aviation, and Execujet and they were up here at Wikipedia. Dianne Jornacion (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I can't find the logs for that page, but judging from the name, I'm guessing it was deleted for promotion. Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion, and everything must be written in an Neutral manner, and with Reliable Sources. Thank you! --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, a lot of companies want to make Wiki articles so they'll become better-known, but the Wikipedias only want articles about things that are already well known. Just keep being awesome and someone will write an article about you sooner or later. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey 2021[change source]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

The 2021 Community Wishlist Survey is now open! This survey is the process where communities decide what the Community Tech team should work on over the next year. We encourage everyone to submit proposals until the deadline on 30 November, or comment on other proposals to help make them better. The communities will vote on the proposals between 8 December and 21 December.

The Community Tech team is focused on tools for experienced Wikimedia editors. You can write proposals in any language, and we will translate them for you. Thank you, and we look forward to seeing your proposals!

SGrabarczuk (WMF) 05:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move[change source]

This is a more standardized version. Enwiki also uses the same format. It will also coincide with other actors' categories. --Saroj Uprety (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

No, we should keep the most general title until numbers of entries force us to be more specific. And you should not have made the change before there were any replies. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Categories should only be extended/specialized when there are sufficiently many entries. Take the exampe of en:Mistinguett (1875-1956); she also performed at the Moulin Rouge. She had roles as an actress in over 50 movies. She also was an on-stage actress. Around 1900, she was the best-paid entertainer in the world. What do we call her episode at the Moulin-Rouge? - Remember, Can can was seen as lewd in former times - Was she a "pornographic actor"? ; There are probably other people where a similar rationale applies. In short: renaming categories needs discussion...--Eptalon (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
In fact, I kept it up for discussion. Not only some but all entries in existing categories must be moved. There will be no other form for pornographic actors except the movie. The requested name gives proper meaning and is parallel to other wikis. Saroj Uprety (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I know it is pürobably easy to say these people starred in pornographic movies, and therefore to rename/move the category tree. But please keep in mind, that there are also Burlesque shows, where such people can become knowmn. What about Mata Hari? Esp. with Can Can, which was seen as erotic/forbidden, I don't think we should limit ourselves to movies. --Eptalon (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
But we are talking about movie actors. Category actors have only played in movies. It has no link with other shows. Let's take the example of Tom Cruise, in this article we are using 'American movie actors' instead of 'American actors'. This is because we are following a category tree. If we use such a tree, it will be easy for the readers as well. Like the mainstream actors, I don't think there are other forms of porn actors like television, stage. Saroj Uprety (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
It's not that simple, take Patrick Stewart (who plays Captain Picard, in Star Trek): He is an actor, and also plays in theatres. Similarly, I think it is wrong to limit ourselves to movies. How are we going to classify Dita Von Teese, who is a burlseque dancer? - Similarly, Bettie Page (who never starred in movies, to my knolwedge, but is credited as being among the first people to popularize bodage pictures)?--Eptalon (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
For the dancer, another category is 'American erotic dancers'. For Bettie Page, according to Enwiki, she is an 'American female adult model', not a porn actor. There is a difference in the two categories. For Patrick Stewart, there are different categories (stage, movie, voice, television). If an actor is active in various fields then we can add categories related to them. Saroj Uprety (talk) 11:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I reclassified Carmen de Mairena, who was a transsexual. This leaves us with 9 pages in Category Pornographic actors. Of these 9, two are lists, and one is the generic "Pornographic movie actor" article. I don't think there's much of a difference between an erotic dancer and someone starring in a burlesque show. Men usually attend these shows because they either want to see women undress, or naked women on stage. Yes, there are probably differences in how classy the show is; if it is a pure stip show, women are usually not permitted. To my knolwedge, the Moulin Rouge also permits women to attend, as they don't perform strip shows. Anyway, if I look at the number of entries in the category, only 'American pornographic actors' is worth talking about (with currently 48 pages). Renaming this (or creating a subcategory, for 'movie actors') won't help much though; if I understand you correctly, most of them are 'movie actors'...--Eptalon (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this is what I was talking about. Enwiki also has such articles, but they are used in the requested format. I think changing the name would definitely help as it would be easier for the readers. It will also follow the category tree and be parallel to Enwiki. Not only Americans, but others will also worth moving. If we see en:Category:Pornographic actors, en:Category:American pornographic actors and en:Category:LGBT pornographic actors, they are all empty. All the articles you mentioned are in Enwiki and listed in the above requested categories or categories suitable for them.. Saroj Uprety (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-48[change source]

17:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Global bot policy proposal: invitation to a Meta discussion[change source]

Error[change source]

The link in my userpage's userpage disclaimer notice, leads to my EN wiki userpage, and not here. How can it be fixed? --つがる Let's Talk! :) 🍁 03:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed Saroj Uprety (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, the link displayed, seems wrong, but it does lead to the right place though... --つがる Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Arkzin[change source]

I'd welcome your views on this page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it needs simplification. I just did some work on the opener. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism[change source]

User:Timothy29694 has been repeatedly vandalizing the page Apple. Can someone block him from editing, as he has been starting to slowly get aggressive whenever I revert his vandalism/give him a warning. ShadowBallX2 (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Update: Thank you to User:Chenzw for blocking him, as he was starting to get annoying to deal with. ShadowBallX2 (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
ShadowBallX2, You should report to Here in the future. Thanks --つがる Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
つがる I didn't realize that existed. Thanks for letting me know for next time. ShadowBallX2 (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Happy to help :) --つがる Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Special:UnwatchedPages[change source]

  • I propose a that a new userright be made for non-Admins to see the pages at Special:UnwatchedPages. Mainly to help combat vandalism, and spam on pages listed there.
Here could be the requirements for the user right:
Users must be 'Extended Confirmed' although it doesn't exist there, it would be 30 days old and 500 edits on an account
Users blocked on any other projects, will not be able to obtain this user right (unless they are unblocked on any other project(s) they are blocked on first)
Users must show understanding in identifying Vandalism, Spam, etc
Users must have rollback
Users must not have been recently blocked in the past 90 days
Users must be registered and not an IP (obviously)
Users must be active in WP:VIP, etc
Users must be active in community discussions, etc
  • Having the Unwatched pages restricted to admins only, makes it harder for regular users to patrol changes for vandalism, etc, if they miss it on New Changes, or if it has been some time after the change has been made, and is gone from Recent Changes. I know it's important why this page is restricted, but I would like everyone's thoughts on this. This would make it easier for non-admins to fight vandalism and spam. --つがる Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
    • That special page is not designed to assist in anti-vandalism operations. With 170000+ articles on this wiki, it is expected that a huge majority of those articles are not on anyone's watchlist. You would not be able to do any proper patrolling by referring to Special:UnwatchedPages. In either case, the output of that special page has a limit of 5000 pages. Chenzw  Talk  00:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't the watchlist have contribution quality filters? --つがる Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but Special:Unwatchedpages does not. I hope you are not suggesting that you want to take it upon yourself to add 100,000+ articles to your watchlist. Chenzw  Talk  00:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
No, I am not trying to state that. Just a suggestion I have, definitely not trying to hat collect or anything like that. I don't see that page, so I don't/didn't know it puts those pages on your watchlist. I thought they are separate, from your own watchlist. Again, I've never seen that page, so I don't know it doesn't have the filters. This was just a friendly suggestion, and it was not meant to cause any disruption. --つがる Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
This proposal can be scrapped, seeing that the page has no filters. --つがる Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
No, that special page does not add anything to your own watchlist automatically, and I didn't say anything to that effect. That special page is a list of pages that is not on any user's watchlist, and is limited to 5000 entries. Chenzw  Talk  00:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Question about a recent QD[change source]

I saw the article The America, which was an exact copy/paste of Google Maps. I nominated for QD under A3, as I didn't know what to tag it. I want to know what QD tag I should have used. ShadowBallX2 (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Update: He keeps making these types of pages (The Russia and The Britain). I would recommend a block of the IP. ShadowBallX2 (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
@ShadowBallX2: I think the copy/paste tag was fine. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata descriptions changes to be included more often in Recent Changes and Watchlist[change source]

Tech News: 2020-49[change source]

17:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Geisha[change source]

I'm sorry, but our page Geisha can not be a very good page. It is far too complex in its language. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)