Wikipedia:Simple talk

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



Changing the sidebar[change source]

I propose that we redo the sidebar. I am proposing several small changes to the sidebar that I think would make a better sidebar. Interstellarity (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Change Main page to Main Page[change source]

  • Support as proposer. The title of the Main Page is capitalized. I think this should be in line with the capitalization of the title. Interstellarity (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I am not opposed to the change, and was thinking of lending tentative support. But I also don't know what problem we are trying to solve. None of the other links in the lift sidebar have the 2nd word capitalized. So neutral for now. Desertborn (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral I don't care what it says --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 18:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
@Thegooduser: If you don't care, wouldn't that mean you're neutral on the subject? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Auntof6 Yes, thanks for pointing that out --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 15:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, though weakly. It's currently the same as enwiki and most other projects, and I don't see a reason for changing it. Vermont (talk) 04:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    • In reading over the current discussion on enwiki, which I wasn't aware of when I commented here, there is a proposal to change it to Main Page, however the consensus on it seems to be leaning oppose. Considering the size of their community and the number of people responding to that RfC, we may finish ours long before they do, but in the meantime I don't think change is necessary. Vermont (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Vermont. I would prefer that terms remain consistent as far as possible between enwiki and simplewiki. Chenzw  Talk  06:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 2nd word in a title is typically not captalized unless needed.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Should remain consistent. Per Vermont. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Would prefer a capital P however I only look at the sidebar when coming here so it's not something I really care about. –Davey2010Talk 20:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as it is against the Manual of Style to be capitalized like that. -DJSasso (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, "page" isn't a proper noun, so capitalisation makes no sense. IWI (chat) 13:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose I think we should prefer sentence case whenever practical because it is far, far easier for people to use correctly than title case is. Since there are so many sources on what counts as correct title case, and no universally accepted main system, it also creates opportunities for people for people to fight about things like whether to capitalize "to be" or prepositions with more than five letters. Err on the side of preventing drama. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove Simple talk[change source]

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.

  • Support as proposer. This link can be accessed in the Help:Contents link. Interstellarity (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. Simple talk is one of the most important pages, as it is basically our only community discussion area. Stats show it gets more visits than Help. Burying it inside of the help page would hide an important resource. Desertborn (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Simple talk link is like the Wikipedia Teahouse invite link for This Wikipedia, its where most people find this page, is through the sidebar --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 18:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Simple talk is one of our most important pages. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Primary community discussion area; it is quite useful there. Vermont (talk) 04:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose It's easier to access then typing or refering to recent change text.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose It's a crucial page. Community discussion area. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • If you want to make the case we don't need simple talk, why did you post this on simple talk Naleksuh (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose as per everyone above - Simple talk is one of the most important pages here and on a personal level I'd rather be able to immediately come here as oppose to clicking through a maze of links to try and find the page. –Davey2010Talk 20:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose This is the most useful link on the side bar. -DJSasso (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done As Interstellarity has withdrawn their request, and all other comments are in opposition, there is no consensus to make this change. Vermont (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2020 (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.


Add About Simple English Wikipedia[change source]

  • Support as proposer. It provides an overview of what this wiki is about. Interstellarity (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Question: What page would this link point to? Desertborn (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, seems like a good idea. For the sake of space, I think simply "About" is more appropriate, though I'd like to hear other suggestions if there are any. Vermont (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Good idea, SupportCamouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Good catch. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Admittedly I only had a simple concept of what Simple was when I joined so this would certainly be of help to people unfamiliar with Simple. –Davey2010Talk 20:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support While I think it's better suited for the Main page, it's fine to include on the sidebar. ~Junedude433talk 04:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Good idea.--Path slopu (Talk) 13:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment In terms of name only "About" seems enough. Why use so long one? I think it's gonna take two line if sidebar width is kept same. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah that also seems fine. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This seems like a reasonably good idea. IWI (chat) 19:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Add Contact us[change source]

  • Support as proposer. People should know how to get in touch with us. Interstellarity (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Question: Same with this one. What page would this link point to? That would help us evaluate. Desertborn (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Definitely, this could be very useful for people seeking help. I've also been considering entirely rewriting and redesigning Wikipedia:Contact us. It's barely been touched in 15 years. I'll try to get that done tomorrow, before this is implemented if there is consensus to do so. Vermont (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as there are more than enough times newbies need help but can't find, will be good for a link here, to info-simple and etc which can be welcoming to newbies as we need good editors always.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This would definitely help out new users. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Would definitely help new users especially those whose first ever account is here. –Davey2010Talk 20:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Noting that the Wikipedia:Contact us page has been entirely redone! Vermont (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, especially given Vermont's hard work in redesigning the page. Hiàn (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Yes it will be very useful for readers and new users.-BRP ever 06:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Writing in a different style of English could certainly be daunting for new users. This would help. ~Junedude433talk 04:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Good idea.--Path slopu (Talk) 13:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support especially considering the fact that many of our readers have a limited grasp on English. IWI (chat) 19:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Per ImprovedWikiImprovment--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Sidebar Proprosal two "Add a Wikipedia Sandbox link"[change source]

  • Add a Wikipedia Sandbox link under the tools section of the bar, which might help prevent test edits on Wikipedia pages --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 15:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 15:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support A very simple solution for a very simple Wikipedia. This could possible prevent premature article creations --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. I BOLDly merged the 2 sections, hope all don't mind. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • We could maybe link to the sandbox. But I wouldn't make a link to create a sandbox from there. A single use link that would never again be useful once the sandbox is created would be clutter. -DJSasso (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
DJSasso, could you clarify on what you mean? --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 17:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Nevermind I totally misread it too early in the morning. Doubt it will have the effect you hope for but can't see an issue with having it. -DJSasso (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Struck duplicate vote --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 20:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support we get a lot of test pages. Perhaps this could reduce them being created. IWI (chat) 22:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

General discussion[change source]

  • @Interstellarity: Can you explain the reasons you are making these proposals? What are the problems you are trying to solve? Desertborn (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Hello Interstellarity, and thank you for your proposals. We are currently a small community of more or less active editors, who work with the setup of pages as it is now. YOu haven't contributed to Simple English Wikipedia for a long time, else you would not make such proposals. As an example: Simple talk is the board about general discussions. Such boards also exist on other Wikipedias. EnWP has many more editors than we are, but would you suggest they abolish the Village pump? - Probably not. Note that their village pump has sections, while our Simple talk does not have them (again a question of how many editors they have). For this reason, I would like to invite you to contribute here, and become an active editor. When you are, and you have several thousand content edits, and you have become familiar with the system you try another proposal. The proposal you make at that time will probably be much better than the one aboeve, which is born without knowing the local community and its rules and policies. --Eptalon (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Hello Eptalon. I am a regular on the English Wikipedia so I am familiar with the way that particular wiki works. You're right, I haven't contributed to this wiki for a while yet and I am still learning the ropes of this wiki. I know the English Wikipedia has a village pump where editors can propose major changes to the way Wikipedia functions. I got the idea of this proposal because there is a proposal on the English Wikipedia to change the sidebar. See here. I know the English Wikipedia is a larger community than this one which is why we get faster responses there. Anyway, I hope to make this wiki a better place and please feel free to guide me if I mess up. Best, Interstellarity (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
    • There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding here. Interstellarity is proposing removing the link to ST from the sidebar, not abolishing ST. It would be quite ironic to propose to abolish ST on ST, however, but that isn't the case. Vermont (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Vermont is correct. I understand that simple talk is one of the most important pages on Simple English Wikipedia. I am not proposing that we abolish it altogether, just to remove it from the sidebar. Interstellarity (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
        • Which unfortunately shows the completely lack of understanding on how important this page is on this wiki. That is the most important link on the sidebar. -DJSasso (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
          • Can you please close my proposal on removing Simple talk from the sidebar? It clearly has no chance of passing. Interstellarity (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
            • Sure! I've closed it. Vermont (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it seems to be a good time to close these and implement changes. Vermont (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I would almost remove the main page from the sidebar before simple talk; it's just that important to us. Users would never find this page and wouldn't be able to ask questions. IWI (chat) 22:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break[change source]

Sorry for dropping in so late, I was about to close and implement the above changes, but there are some logistical issues that require the community's input:

  1. Order of the links: I don't think it's the case that the new links are going to be appended to the bottom of the sidebar (after "Give to Wikipedia"), so this should be clarified.
  2. Localisation: ideally, contents of the sidebar should reference a relevant system message in the MediaWiki namespace so that users who have their language preferences set to another language will be able to see the relevant text in their preferred language. It so happens that the "About" and "Contact page" strings are present in the software as MediaWiki:About and MediaWiki:Contactpage respectively. I would strongly urge the use of the system messages instead. If we think that, for example, "Contact page" is not simple, we can always modify the relevant system message instead. This way, as much of the interface as possible will be available in the user's preferred interface language.
  3. Sandbox link: not really an issue per se, but it should be noted for general information that adding links to the toolbox (the tools section) cannot be done in the same way as adding a link to MediaWiki:Sidebar. This will be done by calling mw.util.addPortletLink in MediaWiki:Common.js instead.

--Chenzw  Talk  05:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Since no one commented in a couple days I have added the Contact page and About page to the sidebar. I used the ordering that made the most sense to me per WP:BOLD but can easily be adjusted if the community decides otherwise. I have not added the sandbox link yet. -DJSasso (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
@Djsasso: I think Contact page should be renamed to Contact us. Would you consider doing that? Interstellarity (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Article creation[change source]

I know I am a new user here and I am posting a lot, but I have a strong concern about the article creation process. I noticed that many of the new articles are unsourced, and I think any unsourced articles are a problem for the viability of this site. So I broke a rule and created a test article just to see what messages I would get during page creation. All it shows is:

article creation messages

Wikipedia does not have an article with this name. You may want to search for Sample Page on Simple English Wikipedia before starting the article, to check if the article is there with a different spelling.

  • To start a fair, truthful encyclopedia article, just type in the box below. You can click the "Show preview" button to see how it looks, at any time before you save it. When you are finished, just click "Publish changes".
  • To learn more about starting and writing articles, read the instructions, try the Article Wizard, or check the links listed in Wikipedia:Useful.
  • If you want to make test changes, please use the sandbox.
  • If you have just started a page here, you might not be able to see it yet because it takes a while for the database to update; please wait a few minutes and click this link. If a page used to be here with the same name, it will be listed below here.
  • If you are bringing an article from another Wikipedia, you must attribute the source per Creative Commons Attributions/Share-Alike and/or GFDL. A Guidebook is available.
  • Administrators: You may Import this page.

While there are links to several policies about writing articles, these messages don't even mention that you need references, let alone reliable sources. That is desperately needed. Additionally, I think there should be a checkbox where you have to acknowledge that there is at least one reference. This kind of issue is was causes people to call this a failed encyclopedia. Naddruf (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

While mentioning that information should be referenced is a good idea as that is a best practice, it is not a requirement for the creation of a page. So a checkbox would be inappropriate as users are not required to have references when they create an article, not even on en.wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Compare these messages with the English WP template message:
enwiki article creation messages
  • Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:Your first article. We recommend that new editors use the Article wizard.
  • You can also search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title.
  • When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references, especially a biography of a living person, may be deleted.
  • You can also start your new article at Special:Mypage/This is the new article. There, you can develop the article with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help work on it, and move it into "article space" when it is ready.
This gives much clearer guidelines. Looking at the newly published articles on enwiki, hardly any are unreferenced. This is partly because enwiki doesn't allow unregistered users to publish articles. Simple WP doesn't have this rule, so there needs to be some other way to make sure articles get referenced. The problem is, if a reader sees an article that is unreferenced, they may think it is made up. If they see many articles that are unreferenced, they make think a majority of the encyclopedia is made up and therefore worthless. Naddruf (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
The need for references eventually is not in dispute, no one disputes that. However, as a small wiki we are more like en.wiki used to be when it was first growing where having an unreferenced article is better than no article at all. We purposefully lower the barriers to entry to encourage article creation. en.wiki on the other hand has thousands of editors to make sure every new article has a reference. We have less than 30 active regulars. So we welcome such page creations as they help us more than they hurt us and if they are truly bad articles (as in untrue) they are generally caught and deleted right away. Sources just have to exist, they don't necessarily have to be on the page. It is one of the main points on WP:BEFORE when determining if an article should be deleted. (and I can certainly say as a regular editor and admin on en.wiki that many many many unsourced articles are still created at en.wiki every day) -DJSasso (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone else agree that we should say in the new article creation messages, that you should include references? I think this is very important.Naddruf (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
We don't need references here for pages (unless it's a negative BLP). In addition, anyone who tag a page without doing BEFORE for notablity issues should not be tagging A4 if there is a stated claim, this should belong to RFD. I think it's good to include reference, but to say must need references it's not the case here, and elsewhere. What we patrollers can do is to ask the users to include or help them to add, I think this will be a more productive act than asking people to include references. In addition, new page creators might not be so apt with the wiki, so to ask them add references (or rather worse, threaten them not to give their page to get published) is outright very BITEy and we need more editors, so any potential editors here is good. I rather a user creating proper stubs without references but yet those information can be readily googled than the user stuck with the references, and then not wanting to create anything, or afraid of the text and then run off. This is clearly bad. Regards,Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@Camouflaged Mirage: Why does this site not need references? WP:Verifiability is one of the three most important policies. It is extremely easy for someone to just put their opinions on a page with a complex topic, and you can't tell whether they are opinions are not, because looking them up is too complicated.
Why should users be able to create pages if they don't have references? One's own knowledge is not sufficient to create an article, because you can't prove it's right. On English wiki they say to write articles based on what sources say about them. And if you have a reference, you can just put a link on the page. It doesn't even have to be in the correct format. As long as they say where the information comes from, it's good. Otherwise it's just original research, which is the second of the three main policies. Naddruf (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
We do need sources, we just don't need them when the article is first created. WP:Verifiability doesn't say that information has to be immediately sourced either. Just that it does need to be verifiable. I think the problem here is that you are confusing the "perfect" state of an article with the "initial" state of an article. Even en.wiki doesn't require immediate sourcing. It is why there are many tags for indicating that things are not sourced and why we don't on en.wiki immediately delete an article that is unsourced. But Camouflaged Mirage is correct, that we would rather get a new editor editing and then once they are more comfortable here get them used to adding sources in order to make them a productive editor, rather than immediately scare them away by deleting what they created assuming it wasn't vandalism of course. This is especially important to us as one of our core audiences is children and they are a lot less likely to source immediately than an older person would. -Djsasso (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Largely per above will be my reply. WP:Verifiability just means we have to ensure the information we add is not fake, can be found somewhere, it doesn't have to be in the article. This is similiar to en:WP:NEXIST, as long as sources exists we cannot claim the page is not notable based on a lack of sources in the page. I will say my initial reply isn't that good, this site need sources, and will benefit from, but as wikipedia we don't have a deadline, we can improve to the point where all pages have sources. There is no rush except problematic creations like defaming someone, giving hoaxs etc. I will just want the bar of the page creation to be kept low, no use implementing a very hard criteria and then we lose people. Now what we need is good productive editors, and we need to do all to find them, keep them and allow them space to contribute. If someone is established, and after several / multiple attempts of communicating, they still refuses to add sources, we can then address it. Hope you understand where we are coming from. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with you that it is possible to have a good article without sources, but it is also common to have an article that is unverifiable without sources, as in nobody knows where the information is coming from. Personally, I don't support deleting articles that could be sourced, but most of the time, an article will be created and then neglected. Even if the user stays on wikipedia and writes more articles, they may never add sources to their first articles. But also, it doesn't seem like users are told to add sources when they make multiple articles. Several articles that I found randomly were written by users that almost never included sources. Is there some reason you think a note on the article creation message telling them to include references would discourage people from making articles that actually can be referenced?Naddruf (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for oversightership/Enfcer[change source]

In accordance with global policy, let it be known an election for Oversighter is underway for Enfcer. Due to the sensitive nature of this post and the level of trust involved, it is requested the community participate in the election. Operator873talkconnect 16:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Help with simplifying direct quotes[change source]

If there is an excerpt or a direct quote that is worth including in an article, but the quote has many difficult words, how should it be simplified? I feel that a direct quote should not be altered since it would be dishonest and misleading, but at the same time, it needs to be simplified. ~Junedude433talk 00:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Junedude433: That is a sticky place to be in. Would you be able to paraphrase the quote, which would allow you more freedom to simplify? Operator873talkconnect 06:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree that we definitely cannot change a direct quotation -- unless the change is clearly indicated, e.g., with material placed in brackets. If the quotation "must" be included, then a paraphrase or "clarification" could be used in many cases, e.g., Paul Bunyan expressed his anger at Babe, saying " Frettle ye fuggin' azure beast, get ye off'n m' foot. Kdammers (talk) 08:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@Kdammers: The quotes provide an account of something that happened, but it does so in a way to provides insight and description that a simple explanation just cannot match. An example of this would be if you were writing an article about some horrible massacre that happened. Simply saying that "the people were scared and ran away" does not do an adequate job at providing information about how this hypothetical massacre affected the psyche of the locals. ~Junedude433talk 14:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I meant that the paraphrase could be included along with the hard-to-read quotation. Kdammers (talk) 08:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Discord Server[change source]

This community was granted a Simple English Wikipedia channel on the Wikimedia Community Discord server. I was asked to ensure the linked page was created and the community notified of its existence. The Discord server is for socializing and the IRC rules should be followed for it. Operator873talkconnect 06:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom?[change source]

Do we need one? -Derpdart56 (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The community is still too small. Chenzw  Talk  18:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think so. We really aren't big enough to need one. Any issues that arise are handled on a case by case basis. Operator873talkconnect 18:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Not really. We don't have many large disputes, and if there are problems we can handle them on ST with community discussion. Vermont (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Strong oppose Too Small of a community, also Simple is Simple... ArbCom Bureaucracy is not a simple task... These things are best left for community discussion here. -- Enfcer (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

DerpDart56: If you are advocating an Arbitration committee, can you point to any cases that you know of (in this wiki), preferably within the last year, where you think an Arbitration committee would have done a better job? - We do have a team of dedicated admins, who would be able to resolve problems. ArbCom is not just about a board of editors who are able to resolve disputes, it is also about many rules and policies to follow. --Eptalon (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - unnecessary as we don't have enough disputes to warrant a committee. IWI (chat) 02:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

We can always form one later if it becomes necessary. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but at this moment in time we have no need for one. IWI (chat) 19:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding cites[change source]

Hi, Do we have any tools here that can help with adding cites?, I tried adding "en:User:Salix alba/Citoid.js" to my Vector.JS and Common.JS but neither work and I'm too lazy to copy en:Template:Cite web and fill out everything manually,
Thanks, Regards, –Davey2010Talk 20:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I've just memorized the format and type everything out manually. ~Junedude433talk 01:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
this or the VE add reference is the 2 tools I usually use. I don't type in any manually as far as I can avoid it. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
@Junedude433: - How you have the patience to do that I'll never know - I certainly couldn't :)
@Camouflaged Mirage: - Thanks for that, That tool is basically the same as Citoid, It makes no sense as to why the cite button isn't on the toolbar but hey ho, Thanks both for your help :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
@Davey2010: You don't need patience when you can type at 70 words per minute. ~Junedude433talk 16:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I do the same thing I just memorise it, but I would support the addition of the same tool as enwiki. Maybe we would have more citations if it were easier. IWI (chat) 22:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

CheckUser activity requirement?[change source]

It was noted at my CheckUser request that we have too many on this project. Though we do have seven CheckUsers, some are not active, and some who do use the right do not always respond to on/off-wiki requests. My proposal has two parts: firstly, making a public page where checkuser statistics (the number of checks done by each checkuser in a given month) are uploaded, as is done for Stewards and the English Wikipedia's CheckUsers. This will give more community transparency. The second part is to impose an activity requirement of 4 months 5 logged CU actions in 3 months; if a CheckUser does not meet that without giving to the community prior notice of their expected inactivity, they would be removed as a checkuser. This would, of course, not count checking oneself as a use of the tool. Thoughts? Best, Vermont (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC) Edited with TonyBallioni's suggestion. Vermont (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Since I raised the concern: yeah, I'm not particularly active here, but it is a bit much that a project that is by definition secondary (simple English is no one's native language) and has less users than many projects is tied for 2nd most CUs of any project. There isn't a need for that at all, and reducing the number makes sense from a data security perspective given access to CU-wiki and the checkuser list. I'd suggest something a bit stricter than no use in 4 months. en.wiki's policy is 5 logged actions in 3 months. For reference, that's the equivalent of 1-3 account checks. I think matching the en.wiki policy makes sense here, since it really isn't much of a burden and requires actual use beyond a one-off. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
That seems to be a better metric. Vermont (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
While we might have less regular editors, and are a secondary language, because we are English based we get a lot of spill over from socks etc that come from en.wiki. To the point where often English Wikipedia admins tell problem editors to come here to "redeem" themselves, which usually just results in more issues here. We might have less users but I suspect we have much more need of the tools that most if not all of the other wiki's except other English based ones like en.wiki or commons etc. -Djsasso (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Vermont:. You first pointed out that some people use CheckUser, but don't always reply to requests, but your proposals don't resolve that. I'm unclear if you see this as a problem or not. Could you clarify on that? Naleksuh (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
It's a problem I don't have an idea on how to solve. If you have any suggestions, please share them. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, outside of de.wiki that is pretty normal. A lot of what CU's deal with is sensitive, and sometimes you get results that don't make sense so you don't want to post them. You could go with the de.wiki model, but I do not think it would help simple Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for logged actions, I am afraid this will lead to unnecessary checks just to pander that stats. I will rather put it as CU actions, just as editing Mediawiki and fully protected pages counts as sysop actions, declining a check on the SPI, declining the check on IRC pm(s), all these should count as 1 valid CU action. Thanks Vermont for raising this, I was about to do it (per my !vote on RFCU) but was in slightly inclined health hence I can't find the time to do this. I will support having this inactivity criteria laid out per 5 logged CU action/activity (which is declining CU requests and etc, or a valid 2nd opinion on the data). I am not that worried about slow responses, partly due to the 2 very active CUs we just elected, and also CU there is never a rush. I think response time shouldn't be a matrix in determining CU activity as CUs are not to be rushed. I don't want a CU declining too early or rush to accepting something that can be ducked etc. Regards,Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not a regular contributor to the simplewiki community, but note that I don't like the idea of encouraging unnecessary checks of users or pressuring CheckUsers to leave their comfort zone, as would be encouraged by a minimum activity requirement. There's no guarantee that there will be "enough" socking during any given time period for checking to occur.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • This request is highly problematic: A checkuser doesn't only perform a CU request for the cases listed at the Request for CheckUser page; he/she also does requests to confirm people are using several accounts, for example to influence a vote. In the case of checking a user, it is generally not one CU request done, but several: 1) get the ip address of the user under suspicion 2) get other users editing from the same IP (if none found, repeat step 2 with ranges of IP addresses). If they are found, compare browsers, and perhaps geolocate the address. So: for a simple check per RfCU, there are quickly 3-4 checks per user listed. As all Checkusers are admins on this wiki, the usual rule for admin inactivity should be sufficient, we do not need another one for Checkusers. Same applies to Oversighters, btw. --Eptalon (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • This would be highly problematic like Eptalon says, as it would cause unnecessary checks just like we have people that come and make edits to avoid the admin inactivity requirement we would have people do it for CU which wouldn't be acceptable at all. There should be no requirement that someone use their flag when they don't feel comfortable doing so for whatever reason. And as Eptalon mentions, the usual admin inactivity guideline we have catches those who go inactive for a year. We have removed a number of CUs through those means in the past already. Jesper also makes a good point that there is no guarantee there will be enough need of checks to make sure every CU can even hit activity requirements in a given period. Prior to the two recent additions I would say that was already a concern as one CU seems to catch most checks before anyone else can. Theoretically this could cause CUs to rush to make checks so that they made sure they go their checks in before someone else did which of course also brings up time of day that different CUs edit, might mean less or more opportunity to make checks. All around this is a bad idea. -Djsasso (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The problem right now is any activity requirements we put into place, is subject to being gamed. We have requirements for Admins, and we have Admins that come around only near the end of the year to make their 100 actions. Until we can come up with something that is harder to game, and still is fair, I am not sure how we can impose a sturdy, even, and impartial requirement. --Enfcer (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

So, it appears there is not consensus for an activity requirement. However, what does everyone think about my second proposal, which is that we make a public statistics page of the number of checks each CU has made in a given month? These such statistics are public on multiple other projects, of course no private data is leaked, and it helps give community transparency into the activity of their elected CheckUsers. Best, Vermont (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it suffers from the same issues. In that it will pressure people into making checks to bump their stats etc. -Djsasso (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
My understanding of being a checkuser is that I help spot accounts that are long term problem-makers, or those that want to influence a vote one way or another. I don't see it as being the coolest because I did the most checks. And as to our system of admin inactivity: Yes, it has the benefit of being simple. Like any system, there will be people trying to get around it. But that's true for any system...--Eptalon (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Ok here's the issue: if we impose a requirement then CheckUsers may feel pressured into making checks they didn't need to do, which of course from an ethical perspective is bad (users who don't need to be checked, should not be checked). I agree that we have too many, but I oppose the suggestion of an activity requirement because of this issue. IWI (chat) 16:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Citoid for adding references[change source]

Hi, I've copied a script from EN called Citoid which converts a URL to a full cite so instead of having to fill out template:cite web manually or going to other websites -
[once installed] You simply click Citoid on the left (under tools), paste the URL and click "generate reference" and then you can copy the whole reference and paste it :),

Add importScript('User:Davey2010/Citoid.js'); // Linkback: [[User:Davey2010/Citoid.js]] to your Special:MyPage/common.js and then en:WP:PURGE the page (or use one of the keyboard shortcuts below which matches your operating system)-

Google Chrome Ctrl+F5 or ⇧ Shift+F5
Mozilla Firefox Microsoft Windows and Linux:
Ctrl+F5 or Ctrl+⇧ Shift+R

Mac OS X::
+R (reload page) or +⇧ Shift+R (Reload Page and rewrite Cache)

Edge F5 or Ctrl+R
Internet Explorer Ctrl+F5
Opera Ctrl+F5 or ⇧ Shift+F5
Safari Mac OS X:
++E (clearing browsercache) or +R (update)

Microsoft Windows:
Ctrl+R

Konqueror Ctrl+R
Camino Ctrl+R

Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Just wondering, is there a reason you all can't use the autocite generator on visual editor?Naddruf (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I do not like the visual editor one bit. I only use the source editor and probably always will. So I have no experience with the autocite generator in it. Desertborn (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Naddruf, Like Desertborn I cannot stand VE either and only ever use it If I really have to but personally I do prefer Wikitext and more so when citing (I did actually try using VE to cite and I found it horrendous and time consuming whereas with Wikitext it's what I'm used to and found it easy as pie), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Davey! I've been using this one from Salix alba for Citoid. Is yours different or are they the same? Just thinking if I want to switch or not. As a side note, I've noticed the "refTools" gadget doesn't work here, even when enabled. I'd used it frequently over at enwiki. So I basically brought a copy of the loading script into my userspace, and use that instead of enabling in gadgets. It works and I've thus been able to use the refTools. If anyone else wants to give that a try, you can add importScript('User:Desertborn/RefToolbarLoadingFix.js'); to your Special:MyPage/common.js. Desertborn (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
When I get a chance I will look at the gadget. Might just need an update. -Djsasso (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Think I have it working now. -Djsasso (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it works for me now! I have disabled the script I was using and returned to using the gadget. Desertborn (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome Desertborn - They're both the same but thanks so much for your reftools script - Although I have Citoid installed on EN I never actually use it (because I prefer the Cite button on the reftoolbar which was obviously missing here),
I would urge everyone to not use "my" script and instead use Reftools as you get much more options etc etc,
Thanks again Desertborn :), –Davey2010Talk 14:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed page making?[change source]

I've just joined this Wikipedia recently and I noticed that there are a whole lot of new pages that aren't really prepared to be pages. There are heaps of them and I don't think they can be kept track of all the time.

I think this is the cause of IP or new users making lots of pages really really quickly, (one bad page could easily slip through the cracks), and I have an idea that making new pages is not allowed for new/IP users and instead go through a system similar to the English Wikipedia's. Thoughts? Dibbydib (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

We purposefully alow IP/new user page creation because we are a much smaller community. We do it because we want to capitalize on edits by such new editors. We set the bar lower than en.wiki because en.wiki has the user base to handle such complex processes while we do not. We on the other hand seek to be simpler and capitalize on all edits we possibly can. It does obviously lead to some articles that need cleanup or deletion, but its a small price to pay. -Djsasso (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

LTA email abuse[change source]

I have been receiving a number of emails from a well known LTA. I know who the LTA is but I won’t name them here. They were demanding I remove information from a talk page. I have contacted trust and safety but I thought I would alert all admins on here as the email may have been sent to a number of users. If anyone else has received a similar email let me know. IWI (chat) 23:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I should add that I have had a lot of abuse since also. IWI (chat) 23:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
If it is who I think it is, then yes we get a lot of emails from them. -Djsasso (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, occasionally, I get email from users. If it is not a regular mail/unblock request, it is usually either a request to remove information from talk/user pages, or the mail that says that some user (who isn't blocked) is really bad, and the user who wrote the mail isn't, so this user should be unblocked. --Eptalon (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@Eptalon: this was a well known globally banned LTA. IWI (chat) 18:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Can't create a Simple English Wikipedia page for "A Talking Cat!?!"[change source]

I'm trying to make a Simple English Wikipedia article for "A Talking Cat!?!", but it gives me this error when I try to start making it with the visual editor or the source editor:

You do not have permission to create this page, for the following reason:

The title "A Talking Cat!?!" has been banned from creation. It matches the following blacklist entry: .*[!?‽¿]{3}(?<!!!!).*

I previously asked this question at Project:Support desk on MediaWiki's website, and was told to ask the page to be created for me. Here's the original question: https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Topic:Vmt8xfx00tall3qq — Preceding unsigned comment added by Childishbeat (talkcontribs)

I created a small stub based on en.wiki so that you can edit it. Please expand it. -Djsasso (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. However. I can't create the talk page for the same reason as I could not make a Simple English Wikipedia article for "A Talking Cat!?!" before. Childishbeat (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@Childishbeat: What would you like on the talk page? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Never mind. I can edit the talk page now. Childishbeat (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I keep being logged out when I go to a new page[change source]

I have my login settings checked to remember my name and password here, and I also have cookies enabled in my browser. But I still get logged out most times I visit a page until my screen refeshes itself to show that I am logged in again. Is there anything I can do to keep this from happening? -Solace Chiere

Page to watch[change source]

Interested vandal fighters may want to add Peg + Cat to their watch lists. Over the last month or so, it has been getting intermittent vandalism that is not frequent enough for protection but which bears watching. Inappropriate changes include adding an image in the infobox that does not exist on Wikimedia Commons, giving incorrect episode dates, and adding dates that are in the future for such things as release dates, episode broadcast dates, categories, and maintenance tags. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Appears my edit a month ago and the current version shows "No difference" [1] In that case, a protection may be in order Naleksuh (talk) 05:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@Naleksuh: That doesn't follow. There is no difference because the vandalism has been reverted each time. However, the vandalism has been only every few days, not frequent enough for protection. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I'll watch it. IWI (chat) 13:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Standardization of oversight(er)ship request page names[change source]

Hi! I noticed that we have a slight problem where there's requests at "Wikipedia:Requests for oversightship/*" and many others at "Wikipedia:Requests for oversightership/*". Given that the two are different, one with an "er" in it, I believe some standardization is necessary. We don't really have the English Wikipedia to look to for this as they have their OSs appointed by ArbCom, where we have direct community elections. Thoughts? Vermont (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I feel like oversightership is best due to being the majority so far, and because it's easier to write and pronounce outloud. Either way, it doesn't really matter as long as we pick one and stick with it, not too difficult to create redirects from old to new. Naleksuh (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I would just use whatever the majority of them are and change the rest. -Djsasso (talk) 12:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
^this IWI (chat) 16:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Some CSS for Vector has been simplified[change source]

Hello!

I'd like to make a double-check about a change that was announced in Tech/News/2020/21.

Over-qualified CSS selectors have been changed. div#p-personal, div#p-navigation, div#p-interaction, div#p-tb, div#p-lang, div#p-namespaces or div#p-variants are now all removed of the div qualifier, as in for example it is #p-personal, #p-navigation …. This is so the skins can use HTML5 elements. If your gadgets or user styles used them you will have to update them. This only impacts the Vector skin.

On this wiki, this impacted or still impacts the following pages:

How to proceed now? Just visit all these pages and remove div before these CSS selectors if it hasn't been removed so far.

Thank you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Multistub isn't working[change source]

On Bulgars, I tried to use Template:Multistub and it didn't work. Naddruf (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It is working, you just didn't use it correctly. You only need the stuff before the dash. You don't need to include stub. -Djsasso (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Naddruf (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Sidebar issue[change source]

When a page is not connected by WikiData to other Wikipedias, the "edit links" link is suddenly not visible. I haven't been able to connect articles easily. Anyone know what caused this? IWI (chat) 20:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I will look to see if I can see if anyone was messing with the files involved. -Djsasso (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Djsasso: I am using the vector skin in response to your question. It was working and suddenly it stopped, and now on unlinked articles there is no option for me to edit the links. It works fine if it is already linked. I've had to link new articles I have created manually on WikiData. IWI (chat) 19:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah nothing locally has changed that I can see that would have caused it. Likely something on the wikidata side or a bug at the moment. I will see if its happening on en.wiki as well. Probably just have to wait and see. -Djsasso (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Yep it is happening there too. It is very noticeable so I am sure someone is on top of it already. -Djsasso (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
So this is an issue that affects others and is not just me? IWI (chat) 19:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Yep looks like it is getting everyone, and possibly on every language. -Djsasso (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I'll check Wikidata noticeboards. This has been going on for a couple of days. IWI (chat) 20:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Djsasso: Update: it seems they are getting to the bottom of it here. Thanks, IWI (chat) 21:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion[change source]

I am requesting some users take part in this discussion to reach a consensus on the matter. IWI (chat) 21:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)