Wikipedia:Simple talk

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



WP:WAM[change source]

Hello people, my usual annual thread. Who is interested in organizing this, been doing this for the last 2 years, it really don't need too much of time just making sure the article is meeting the usual standards (very similiar to the recent women edit-thorn in requirements I will say). IMO will be good for 2 or better 3 judges to be effective as if judges were to participate, it need to be marked by other judges and do remember there can be a person in competition with the judge for the title, so some sort of COI is hard to avoid if there's only 1. In other words, if there is only 1, the judge is better not to participate. I can try to guide any new judges if needed, but sorry I am quite busy recently IRL, and I simply don't have time yet to restore IRC access, so it will need to be on wiki, and I expect 2nd half of Nov to be busy. However, as usual I will try to do my best if needed as a judge.

For participants, is 4 articles related to Asia, new ones not expansion, 3500 chars, 200 words long, properly simplified and having references for all content and no maintenance templates can be slapped on them, then it's a pass. Welcome all to participate, as usual the judges won't make it hard. Prizes include postcards and barnstars (on simple at least).

If there are some participants and judges, I will then set up the page for this year. Best, Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can judge again this year --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 21:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @つがる for volunteering again, appreciate it. I had set up the pages for 2021, I will also tentative be the organizer. Do sign up at the sign up list on the page if you are interested, and some more organizers will be much welcomed :) Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If possible, I will try to participate this year :) -BRP ever 09:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I were eligible, I would, but I'm not and I'm not sure if I can join since I don't live in Asia (unless you consider the Pacific regions to also be part of Asia as well). SHB2000 (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SHB2000 Hello, anyone can participate, the article needs to be somewhat Asia related but not the participants. Anyway, like Association Football, Timor is also participating in the ASEAN cup, just as how Australia is in Asia Qualifiers for World Cup, so those can be in scope too. Welcome your participation. :) Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bump: Last call for organizers, I will soon update meta on the local team this year. @つがる Last chance to quit if you want :P. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Nope I am not quitting! :) --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder, it starts in 2 days time, welcome all to participate :). Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am -- Pulls his sleeves -- ready.- BRP ever 09:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And one more note: Only articles created from 1 Nov UTC counts, anything before doesn't. This year I guess I will be more liberal in the judging, as long as it looks sufficiently simple, and there isn't any glaring issues I will give a pass to encourage more to participate, last year I might be a little too strict. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Contest is now open...I know the central notice is big enough but I think this bump is acceptable too...Have fun :D Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A bump. 10 days in and we still have 0 entrants... Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see more participants. Do reminded that the dateline is end of this month and you need 4 accepted pages for a postcard. Sorry Fountain is down on and off, if you want to submit and fountain is down, you can also leave a message here or on my talkpage and I will help to submit if it is up. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being around for the past few days, today is the last day of submission, the end date for articles to be created is today 2359 (UTC). Do note for postcards there is a need for 4 articles accepted. For those who I had left messages on areas of improvement, please improve and ping me for re-assessment if needed. Thanks all for participating. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second New GA[change source]

Dear community, we have a new good article -- Willis Tower. Thanks to everyone who participated in the proposal and those who helped in improving the article.-BRP ever 01:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations everyone! It looks great! Blissyu2 (talk) 08:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?[change source]

Hello everyone!

My last post here about DYK (link) seemed to give DYK a lot of attention and now DYK is at the stage where all the queues are filling up.

I'm here to ask: how frequently should DYKs be replaced? I think updating every week-two weeks or so is reasonable, but before Hiàn updated DYK on 6 July this year, it hadn't been updated since 6 August 2020. I don't think we want to get to a stage where we're updating every week for a few weeks and then don't update for a year again. I think this kind of thing should be answered by the community, which is why I'm here...

Thanks in advance for your input, --Ferien (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferien: Weekly is the best choice. Irregular update is the responsibility for us. I saw some wikis doing daily, while some weekly, but not fortnightly or monthly. Even in Meitei Wikipedia, we plan for daily though update is irregular. Thanks for your concern! :) Haoreima (talk) 03:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe weekly is a good idea now that more editors seem interested in DYKs. Most of the content in our main page barely changes, so having this part updated frequently might make things interesting for frequent readers.-BRP ever 03:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am still of the opinion with should go with monthly and see what happens. Because this is what has happened every time in the past. We get a burst of activity and then people are like we can do it fast now and then we blow through the queues in like a month or two and then we are in the same problem again, this is what causes the irregularity. I would do monthly until you have enough queues to do weekly for atleast 6 months or you are just asking for us to be in this position again. That way you have enough runway to keep getting new ones so you can stay weekly. But at this point I doubt you have enough in the queue to maintain a weekly pace without running out like we always do when we try to go faster than monthly. -Djsasso (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. We have seen more ambitious ideas fail often. I go for monthly. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For monthly, as there are different amounts of days in each month, how about having it changed on the first of every month? LemonSlushie 🍋 (talk) (edits) 21:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some preferences seem to have been undone[change source]

I had the setting to see notifications from other sites turned on. Then today I noticed that it had gotten turned off here and on other sites where I had it on. I'm just mentioning it in case anyone wants to check their settings. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same in my case. I just turned it on.-BRP ever 10:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quran[change source]

See the talk page of our version. It's clear we should align more with En. Can I encourage interested editors to read the opposing comments, and suggest what should be done? Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the page should be reverted back to the point before all those complex and improperly sourced or biased content was added. The user can likely be blocked per ONESTRIKE, as they have been blocked on multiple wikis for same reason.-BRP ever 12:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reverted his work, and he reverted back. It would be proper for another admin to apply ONESTRIKE. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review needed[change source]

Can someone review these moves by a very new editor, they seems problematic. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Camouflaged Mirage Reverted and warned. Might be worth going through the edits as well as there seems to be some MOS concerns. Thanks-BRP ever 12:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BRPever Thanks. The maths related moves seems hard to understand too, like the decimal as well as the E. Needs some more eyes I guess. @Macdonald-ross can you help to take a look, thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All edits from this editor should be reverted unless obviously good. I have extended their ban, but am unable at the moment to handle the edits (personal issue). Revert is what they mostly need. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Macdonald-ross. I tagged one more for speedy deletion. I too think they can be mass reverted (with your cavaet). Will wait for more ideas before proceeding. Thanks so much for looking. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should this page be moved?[change source]

I think the page "Social darwinism" should be moved to "Social Darwinism" because Darwinism is capitalized. SentientObject (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I've just gone ahead and done it. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 21:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the comment period for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines[change source]

Thank you for your continued comments and ideas on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines. Your responses have helped to build a stronger Universal Code of Conduct.

If you have not already provided your comments, now is the time as the drafting committee has been meeting to update the enforcement guidelines. The drafting committee wants to consider all comments as they make their updates. Please submit any comments by the end of November. The Committee hopes to finish its revisions before the end of the year, and the revised guidelines will be published as soon as they have been completed.

The next steps for the Universal Code of Conduct include conversations about ratification of the enforcement guidelines. There will be a conversation about ratification on Nov 29.

The Wikimedia Foundation will make recommendations to the Board of Trustees about the ratification of the guidelines in December. The recommendations will inform the next steps in the Universal Code of Conduct process.

Best, Zuz (WMF) (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to the Community Tech: The future of the Community Wishlist Survey[change source]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

Hello!

We, the team working on the Community Wishlist Survey, would like to invite you to an online meeting with us. It will take place on 30 November (Tuesday), 17:00 UTC on Zoom, and will last an hour. Click here to join.

Agenda

  • Changes to the Community Wishlist Survey 2022. Help us decide.
  • Become a Community Wishlist Survey Ambassador. Help us spread the word about the CWS in your community.
  • Questions and answers

Format

The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes without attribution will be taken and published on Meta-Wiki. The presentation (all points in the agenda except for the questions and answers) will be given in English.

We can answer questions asked in English, French, Polish, Spanish, German, and Italian. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the Community Wishlist Survey talk page or send to sgrabarczuk@wikimedia.org.

Natalia Rodriguez (the Community Tech manager) will be hosting this meeting.

Invitation link

We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol[change source]

  • I've looked back over the last 500 new pages, and see a huge number (2-300) have not been patrolled. We give trusted users the right to check new pages to prevent this kind of backlog. We know from experience that many of these new pages will be adverts, written badly, not simplified, unsourced, copied from unacknowledged sources, and occasional downright vandalism. If trusted users don't use the power we give them, it means many of our pages as picked up randomly will be rubbish or even vandalism. Having discovered this, I think it disfigures our wiki, and we should make it a priority to cut down this backlog. Patrollers should do more patrolling. We gave you the power for a reason. Of course, I know that some do work at it, and do it well: but too few. If you think I'm exaggerating, go have a look. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    NewPages is something that could be dealt with better but the idea with patroller is mainly that their work is autopatrolled and they're creating lots of good articles. I don't think we should expect all patrollers to be patrolling articles as much as possible because when giving it, admins' main focus is the content creation the user has done. --Ferien (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any recent changes patrollers here?[change source]

AssumeGoodWraith (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AssumeGoodWraith, hi, I'm quite an active recent changes patroller here. --Ferien (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferien: How active is it? AssumeGoodWraith (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AssumeGoodWraith, there definitely aren't as many edits as on enwiki. However we get a reasonable amount of recent changes and I think we get more vandalism per amount of edits in comparison to other wikis around our size. --Ferien (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrollers[change source]

Either we're giving the patroller status too freely, or we're not making clear what they should do. Here's an example:

  • An out-and-out advert goes to RfD and is deleted after discussion.
  • A transparently disguised repeat advert appears on RfD.
  • Where do repeat advert pages go to when a near-identical page has been deleted after RfD discussion?

If you can't answer that, you shouldn't have the status. I've just deleted an identical obvious advert page which has already been twice deleted, including an RfD discussion.

This is one reason we ended up with a huge list of RfD items. RfD is for decisions which need discussion. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page that you deleted was actually sent to RfD by someone who wasn't a patroller, so I don't think this is an issue necessarily to do with the patroller right. Sometimes, it is just difficult to tell if a page has been deleted already or you just go straight to RfD and forget. --Ferien (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've always questioned the usefulness of the right. I'll admit that I often browse through Special:Newpages and check for vandalism or blatantly bad pages, but I don't remember a time I've ever actually patrolled a page here. Should somebody check the deletion logs before re-nominating a page for rfd? Yes. But I don't think it has much to do with the patroller right. More likely just general Wikipedia knowledge. I'd argue the reason we have a lot of pages at rfd is because we have a lot of bad pages, not because patrollers chose rfd instead of qd. In any case, I think many would agree that a large number of rfds here is not a real problem. We can manage just fine.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 21:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rejoining Wikipedia[change source]

Hi guys, this is not any issue or help from me. I will be rejoining here at 15 December 2021. Hope I would be happy working with you all again in this platform.

TTP1233

Note:This is a message of a user announcing his rejoining. You may ignore this message if you feel like but don't give bad comments on this.

--DJRC (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TTP1233, welcome back. --Ferien (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WAM[change source]

Castle in Inuyama.JPG

Hi! If anyone is interested WAM is still going, please see this page for more details! There is still some time to join this year's WAM if you'd like. Thank you, Tsugaru let's talk! :) 23:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Today is the last day of submission, the end date for articles to be created is today 2359 (UTC). Do note for postcards there is a need for 4 articles accepted. For those who I had left messages on areas of improvement, please improve and ping me for re-assessment if needed. Thanks all for participating. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The contest had ended, we will try to judge the articles as soon as possible and we appreciate your patience. Thank you all who had participated. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding an "In the News" section to the Main Page[change source]

I feel like a news section in the main page (like the one in the main English Wikipedia) would be useful to be on there. I only use the main English Wikipedia these days to look at the recent news in a brief summary, so adding it would make it easier for those trying to read the recent news on here, but also making it easier to find it in general for those who do not use the main English Wikipedia. Washing Machine of Lies (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...i asked about this they said no Derpdart56 (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The main page already has a section that frequently gets stale and adding a new one would just add on to this problem. Once DYK is updated often, and users show interest in maintaining it, it might be better to suggest then. LemonSlushie 🍋 (talk) (edits) 20:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would be a great idea but we don't have a lot of editors interested in DYK at the moment let alone "in the news". ITN would be a little easier to update though because there's no need to think of an interesting hook. We could just take the hooks from enwiki and simplify, and like DYK, ensure the pages are also simple enough. However this could shift editors away from the already pretty inactive DYK... Something to consider in the future though, as the amount of active editors here has grown quite a lot over the past year. --Ferien (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That's what Wikinews exists for. SHB2000 (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be almost impossible for a Simple English Wikinews to be created considering how many people oppose the Simple English Wikipedia's existence. --Ferien (talk) 09:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I am not wrong langcom only allows Wikipedia in Simple and wikitionary to support wikipedia. News can be written in simple language at Wikinews anyway, just like how Simple Wikibooks are now WikiJunior at the English Wikibooks. Not oppose to ITN here if there are people willing to maintain it, but given the small pool of editors here, this can be a challenge. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
tbh, I'd oppose a SE Wikinews, not because of what most people think of as "duplication", but because even the English Wikinews struggles to get a good amount of articles up, and let alone a Simple English one, which I'd highly bet will go out of date very easily. SHB2000 (talk) 09:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I share the same views as Ferien. IMO it would be hard to maintain given we already have the less activity of users at the other main page section, the DYK. --Hulged (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should just focus our efforts on the existing featured content. This is hard to maintain, and will look ugly if not updated properly.-BRP ever 09:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]