Wikipedia:Simple talk

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



Simple English Wikipedia Social[change source]

Greetings friends. I'm trying to start a social meeting for our community and others as well, of course. The intent is to have fun, socialize, play some games, and perhaps brag about your favorite drink or snack. I will be hosting JackBox Games for entertainment and would love getting to know everyone. The first SEWP Social will be held on the Discord server General 1 voice channel and will be scheduled for Friday, July 17th at 2300 UTC (6pm CDT, 7pm EDT). No RSVP is necessary, but if you'd like to announce your intent to attend, you're welcome to respond here. I'm excited and looking forward to the first social! See y'all there. Operator873talkconnect 03:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

P.S. - Stewards, functionaries, and members of other communities are cordially invited as well. :) Operator873talkconnect 03:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It's 12am BST for me. Hopefully I am not working and can attend. Sounds fun. IWI (chat) 03:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Nice initiative! I think the community would benefit from this kind of event. Sadly it's a bit too late for me, midnight BST, as I'm working the following day. Have fun everyone! --Yottie =talk= 09:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


(bump to bottom) Hello again friends, just a quick reminder that this coming Friday, we'll be having a meet up on the Discord server at 2300 UTC. I am looking forward to seeing everyone there! Operator873talkconnect 22:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Tried to join but I can't seem to log in. Have fun, you guys! Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • For next time: Lets try using some software where the audio works reaosnably; also think about the fact that some editors are from Europe. 1 am CE(S)T is not a good time for everyone.--Eptalon (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
As a fellow European, I agree. IWI (chat) 00:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Dang, I missed out, Hopefully next time --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Big World Heritage Weekend 2020[change source]

Hello everyone. Following the success of the recent revival of the Big Weekend, me and Yottie have decided to coordinate another Big Weekend next month. This one will be a Big World Heritage Weekend, which will run from Friday 14 August 2020 - 11AM UTC until Tuesday 18 August 2020 - 11PM UTC. The objective of this project is to update the Lists of World Heritage Sites articles as well as create articles for any missing World Heritage Sites. There was a similar Big Weekend in 2012 that also focused on national parks. This was very successful, and we hope this one will be too. Feel free to join the conversation over on Wikipedia talk:Big Weekend, and sign up to the Big World Heritage Site Weekend 2020! Regards, IWI (chat) 18:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Just a reminder, this starts in two days time! Happy editing! --Yottie =talk= 06:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-32[change source]

15:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

PGA and PVGA process[change source]

Hello everyone, given the situation at WP:Proposed (Very) Good Articles (whereby articles seem to sit in the queue for months on end), I was wondering whether we could come up with a way to revitalise this part of the project. It is an opportunity to display some of our best work, and it seems a shame not to endeavour to write high quality, simple articles.

I am wondering whether the current process is too complex, or not clear enough. Of course, as Eptalon often points out, the lack of editors on the project also makes this a challenge.

It seems that often the articles nominated for GA are not in great shape in the first place (e.g. information missing, not simple enough, etc.). I think we might be able to reinvigorate the process by making it simpler.

My suggestion would be to rewrite the page Wikipedia:Requirements for good articles (and corresponding page for VGAs). One suggestion might include changing the requirements. There are too many bullet points as it stands. Let's keep it simple. For example:

  1. The article must be written in Simple English.
  2. The article must talk about most of the important information on the subject.
  3. The article must be encyclopaedic. It must be in the right category, have few or no red links, have good references and have pictures is possible.

Do we really need to say any more than that? Currently the first point goes without saying: all articles should be about a subject that belongs on Wikipedia. The second point would be covered by the second point above. The third point is redundant - nobody writes perfect articles, but the article will have been reviewed by other editors before reaching GA status. Point four is covered by the third point above. Point five also goes without saying. Points six, seven, eight and nine are covered by point 3 above.

I understand why we do not have (got rid of, many years back?) WP:Peer review, as it is yet another thing to maintain. Maybe there is an argument to create this page (instead of the current redirect to WP:PGA), to help make the actual PGA page clearer; articles on WP:PGA should almost be ready to be promoted. At the moment, the criteria suggest an article should be posted at Peer Review first, before being posted at PGA - but of course, as I said Peer review is PGA here, and so it ends up cluttering that page. The How to make an article good section then suggests voting, and obtaining 70%+ support from a minimum of 5 voters... but the PGA page says not to support or oppose. We need to make things clear.

I suggest having a page called Wikipedia:Article review, where editors can post pages they intend to take to PGA or PVGA. There, they can explain whether the article is going to be put up for PGA or PVGA, and other editors can leave comments to help improve the article before the nominators take the page to PGA/PVGA. This way, when the article gets to PGA, it has a better chance of passing quickly. If there are objections, an Administrator can decide to send the page back to Article review.

The other point I wanted to bring up was who PGA sits with. I do not believe it currently sits with Administrators, however it is likely that admins will be the people overseeing the process, as mediating is part of their role anyway. I would be keen for this to be clearer in the guidelines, so that Administrators should be in charge of Promoting articles, closing and archiving the discussions (much like RfD). This would not add much to their workload, as there are not an exceedingly high number of PGAs, but I feel it would help reinvigorate the PGA process and move things along quicker.

Also, while there is a rationale to voting being evil, I think that it would also help simplify the process once articles are moved from Article review to PGA. We vote (whether we call it that or not) at T:DYK, WP:RFA, so why not here? It makes it clear, and any objections can be brought up during this vote. Whether we call it a vote, or not, is optional, but at the end of the day saying I support the article being a GA because it meets the requirements or I do not support the article being a GA because it doesn't meet the requirements is a vote of sorts. Let's call it what it is. As ever, with these things, if the closing Administrator feels the article does not meet the requirements, they can send it back to Article review.

I have made an example PGA page in my userspace. I am open to suggestions, of course, but I feel we need to do something to get the process to move quicker (whether to promote or not).--Yottie =talk= 19:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  • I don't know if this would make the process move quicker, but I have no objections to what you propose. The only suggestion I can think of right now is that the third point could say "It must be in the right category(ies)" because most articles should be in more than one category. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • As someone who has had PGA and PVGAs sit in the queue for months without anyone to look at it, I appreciate this post. However, I would agree with Auntof6 that much of what you wrote probably wouldn't make the process much faster. The main problem seems to be attention. Some articles are very clearly either decent enough to be worth considering, or so bad that they clearly should have never been nominated. Maybe a reason why some people wouldn't check is because there's some kind of expectation of leaving a very in-depth review (even though that's not required). One possible solution is just to better announce something on the talk page. Admins have done that in the past when someone has been nominated for some kind of rights or position, an admin often announces it, and suddenly there are at least a dozen people who chime in within the day. Having even a third of that attention for PGA and PVGA would basically solve the problem. I would imagine the only problem with this is that an admin saying "hey guys, this article looks good. Everyone should look at it!" would be playing favorites or something. I think more could be done to draw attention to these, and the effects would be incredible, not just to show our best work, but to help others. Personally, when I started out editing the Lawrence, Kansas article, I tried to use other high-quality city articles as a decent template. Sadly, there really weren't any, so I had to use the standard English version as a guide and figure out a lot as I went along. Having at least one GA or VGA for every major category of article (location, object, event, person, concept, etc.) would go a long way to help new people and maybe guide those who are looking to really make something. ~Junedude433talk 00:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Not everyone thinks revitalising GAs and VGAs is a good idea. I don't, for one. The whole process on this wiki becomes intensely egotistical, with the proposer fighting tooth and nail for his or her topic. That, despite it being in principle a wiki group activity, is what has damaged it in many minds. Nor is it a good use of time on a wiki where almost every article could be improved. Often only one person wants to work on it, indeed often they resent anyone else trying! This is a dead letter, and no amount of breathing on it will bring it back to life. I had to decide long ago whether to offer up my articles for the process, and decided against. It doesn't worry me if others think differently. People have a limited amount of time to give to their voluntary activities, and they make their choices. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Notification about a proposed global ban of User:Eric abiog[change source]

  • Voted, thanks for bringing it up. — Infogapp1 (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Technical Wishes: FileExporter and FileImporter become default features on all Wikis[change source]

Max Klemm (WMDE) 09:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Red links?[change source]

Can I get some? LovelyCardigan (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi LovelyCardigan, welcome to Simple Wikipedia. Can you please clarify what exactly are you looking for? — Infogapp1 (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
requested articles. LovelyCardigan (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
You may check Wikipedia:Requested pages. — Infogapp1 (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
@Infogapp1, LovelyCardigan: That page lists articles that people have requested, but which are not necessarily redlinked anywhere. Special:WantedPages lists redlinked pages. Both are good places to get ideas for pages to create. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup? Renaming templates to follow en.wp[change source]

Should the templates listed in Category:People navigational boxes be renamed to a certain format? Such as "Position" of "Place". It'll be easier for editors to add it into articles. --Minorax (talk) 10:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Minorax:Not sure what you mean. Can you give an example of a rename you'd suggest? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Template:Zambian Presidents be renamed to Template:Presidents of Zambia. Basically following a fixed format. Minorax (talk) 06:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
How would that make it easier to add them to articles? I can see doing it to give them the same names as the enwiki templates, so that articles brought over from there wouldn't have to be changed. However, we could also accomplish that by creating redirects. If you really want to do it, I'd start a more focused discussion (with a name that explains what you have in mind better than "Cleanup?") and list each one you think should be renamed with the proposed new names. Some of them, such as Template:English monarchs, already have the same name as enwiki, so I wouldn't change those. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I'll do it later, latest by tomorrow, and link it here. --Minorax (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@Minorax: You could start the discussion here. I don't know another central place to do it. The category wouldn't be a good place, because it isn't the category you want to change. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
So basically, I suggest that we rename the following templates

Following the names of their en.wp counterpart would be ideal so we wouldn't have to change anything when copying stuff. Alternatively, should we create a guideline when creating templates like these? Something like Category:"Position" of "Country/Location" (e.g. Category:Presidents of the United States) --Minorax (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Generally our names are just the old en.wiki names and they never got moved when en.wiki got moved. I don't think its controversial to move some so go ahead. I just wouldn't do it all en mass, I typically only move them when I stumble on one that hasn't been moved. And be careful that we may sometimes have names that are in Simple English so are different on purpose, in that case just make a redirect if there isn't one. -Djsasso (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding new topics on this (the Simple-talk page)[change source]

I think just having a blue link (not always very easy to tell that the link is blue on some computer screens) is not enough. We should add something like "Click here" to add a new topic.Kdammers (talk) 06:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Repeated reference to a single source[change source]

On a site, I saw that there was a bug note in the history section. The note said that repeated references should have a particular format (<ref name="foo">Book ABC</ref>). I don't understand what this means. Say I want to reference http//::using_simplewikipedia.orgx, what is the concrete change I should make from '''<ref>http//::using_simplewikipedia.orgx</ref>''' for an isolated citation to one that will be repeated later in the article? Kdammers (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

You would do '''<ref name="foo">http//::using_simplewikipedia.orgx</ref>''' at the location the first instance of the reference and then use '''<ref name="foo" />''' for any following uses of the reference. -Djsasso (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
That way the reference shows up in the reference section just once.
Here, look at the ref section for Flat-headed cat. The first source was used only once. The second source was used six times. If you hit "change source" you will see the code says <ref name="ISEC">{{cite web |url=https://wildcatconservation.org/wild-cats/asia/flat-headed-cat/ |publisher=International Society for Endangered Cats Canada |accessdate=July 14, 2020 |title=Flat-headed Cat}}</ref> once and <ref name="ISEC" /> all the other times. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-33[change source]

16:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

"Derivative"[change source]

Hi, Is "copy" a simpler word for "derivative" and if so how could I incorporate that at Mercedes-Benz_Sprinter#See_also (The 2 vans listed there are derivatives of the Sprinter but not sure how I can word it),
Many thanks, Regards, –Davey2010Talk 19:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

No copy doesn't really mean the same thing as derivative. Copy implies trying to be the same thing whereas a derivative is something that has evolved from something else. Remember if the word is complex and you can't find another way you can always link it to wiktionary for now. -Djsasso (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
That's what I thought it meant but thought I'd double check first, Okie dokie many thanks for your help Djsasso - I'll link to wiktionary, Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
In this case, you could also say something like "based on". --Auntof6 (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Ah brilliant thank you Auntof6, For some reason I hadn't even thought of that!, Deffo prefer that option as seems more helpful and more understandable, Many thanks :), –Davey2010Talk 20:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
"Copy" only refers to the same thing as "derivative" in some ways. When people said "The Percy Jackson series by Rick Riordan is derivative" they meant "We think Rick Riordan copied the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling." But "copy" is a noun and a verb and "derivative" is an adjective (except in mathematics), so they don't fit into sentences in the same places. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
"Derivative" would be an obscure word to many readers. Translate it as "developed from" or "got from" or "based on". That uses two words for one difficult word. Copy means copy, that is, a replica of some original form. In essence I agree with DJS above. Dictionaries can be useful, and so can Roget's thesaurus, which some editors may not have met. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

New warning for removing RfD template[change source]

We already have Template:Uw-qd, but sometimes editors remove the RfD templates. Would this be a good warning to fill this need? User:Naddruf/Template:Uw-rfd. See also the testcases. Naddruf (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi[change source]

How am I doing so far? Leghoul2743 (talk) 08:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

You only have three changes and one of them is this comment here. That is not enough for a meaningful evaluation of your contributions.
I looked at both your other changes. Your change at the airport page was good. You put bold on the first mention of the subject of the article. That is our standard format, so adding it was good.
In your other change, you took a correct and complete sentence and turned it into one complete sentence and one fragment. That's not good. I would revert it but I see ImprovedWikiImprovment has already done so.
If you are asking how you're doing because IWI put one of your changes back, then the answer is that is no big deal. He called your edit "good faith" meaning he doesn't think you messed up the article on purpose (and "messed up" is a strong term; the reader could still understand the article the way you had it, so it's not like it was ruined). You're not in trouble. Reversions of good faith edits are normal and we've all had changes reverted at some time or other. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Promotion of Lawrence, Kansas to VGA[change source]

After a 2 year long dry spell which also saw the demotion of 3 VGAs, I am happy to announce that Lawrence, Kansas was promoted to VGA today. This represents the culmination of a year's worth of tireless work and reviews. VGAs represent the best the wiki has to offer, so please feel free to swing by to take a look at the article. Chenzw  Talk  15:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Fantastic! The article is truly an example of the best work we have, and I am glad to see it promoted. Well done to all who worked on it, especially the main contributor Junedude433. :) IWI (chat) 15:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I also deeply appreciate everyone's help in promoting this, particularly Yottie for their extremely helpful review of it. I love this community, and I feel like I can finally move on to other articles. The Lawrence massacre article was nominated to be a Good Article, if anyone feels like taking a look. ~Junedude433talk 14:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Big Weekend starts tomorrow[change source]

Hello, Just a quick reminder that the Big World Heritage Weekend 2020 starts tomorrow at 11am UTC! No need to sign up, just remember to add BW or BWW to your change summary so we can keep track of how many changes people make! Check the link above for more details. Happy editing! --Yottie =talk= 18:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)