Wikipedia:Simple talk

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


Who edits the most on Simple Wikipedia?[change source]

How (Where) do I find a list of the most active editors on this Wikipedia? Kdammers (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kdammers: This might not be exactly what you want, but Special:ActiveUsers shows the number of edits by all users who "had some kind of activity within the last 30 days". It's sorted by user name, and there doesn't seem to be a way to sort by number of edits. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Kdammers, I think this page is the list you're looking for. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
[1] This is the link you need. Scroll down and you get a proper analysis. The section is called "50 recently active wikipedians, excl. bots, ordered by number of contributions". Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Macdonald-ross, the numbers on that page are old. The recently active list says that someone's first edit was 27 December 2017, and that it was 368 days ago. It also says 16 June 2018 was 197 days ago. At the top of the page, it says 'Jan 31, 2019: This is the final release of Wikistats-1 dump-based reports', which I understand to mean that 31 January 2019 was the last time the page was (or will be) updated. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, thank you. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Moving Category:Swaziland[change source]

Last year, the country of Swaziland changed its name to Eswatini. The articles and using Swaziland have been moved to the name name. (Some by me, some by others). Now we need to move the category as well. Trouble is, I don't see the option to move it. I've never moved a category before, so I'm not sure what to do. Do I just make a new category, move everything over, and then change this one to a redirect? Or is there a way to actually move it, that I am missing? Desertborn (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, this is odd. I see the move option on other categories, but not this one. Desertborn (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I can move it, you couldn't because it was move protected until there was a consensus. But once there was consensus for the article to move which happened awhile ago, the category needed to move to match so I have moved it. My bot will take care of moving the articles over within seven days unless you are hot to trot and want to move them all over yourself. -DJSasso (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll leave the article moves up to bot. Desertborn (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
@Djsasso: Can any user move a category, or must a move discussion be held first? After a User Moves a category should they notify the BOT operator so the items in the category also get moved Ottawahitech (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not Djsasso, but I can address this. To move a category, you need the right that allows it. As to whether it should be discussed, use your judgment: if it might be controversial or cause any kind of issue, then discuss first. After a move, you do not need to notify anyone to get contents recategorized: the bot that does these moves looks at all redirected categories to see if they contain anything and it moves whatever it finds. Just make sure the old name has the {{category redirect}} template and not the kind of redirect that's used for articles -- sometimes I've seen a category move use the latter, but that might have been changed. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
It is just the same as articles, anyone can move them, and whether or not the moves should be done is the same, if the move could be controversial you should discuss them. The bot is always looking at the category redirect pages and moves anything in the old category automatically so you don't have to tell anyone. It does however wait 7 days just to make sure there isn't move warring back and forth. -DJSasso (talk) 10:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Desertborn: When you rename categories, please be sure to change any sort keys that need to be changed. Many of the sort keys in the renamed categories will need to be changed from "Swaziland" to "Eswatini". Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't even think about that. Thanks for the reminder. Desertborn (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

General question regarding moving a category[change source]

What is the best place to discuss Category-moves: the talkpage of said Category, wp talk: Categories, here, or somewhere else? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

If you mean moving/renaming one category, my preference is to have the discussion on the category's talk page so that it remains attached to the category, but also publicize it at WP:ST so that more people learn that a discussion is taking place and it gets more participation. That's my preference, but others might disagree. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed rename of some categories for political party color templates[change source]

I propose that we rename the following categories to the same name as enwiki:

The proposal is to change the words "parties colours" to "party colour". Example, "Canada political parties colours templates" would become "Canada political party colour templates".

Reasons:

  • The current names are ungrammatical.
  • It's good to match this kind of category name to enwiki's name so that we don't have issues when things are imported.
  • About half of our political party color template categories already use the proposed new naming so this would standardize the names.

Comments? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -DJSasso (talk) 10:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, I went ahead with the rename, and left redirects behind. Any new categories should use the new naming. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Copyrights[change source]

Simple-wiki is very strict when it comes to creating new articles that are copied over from enwiki. Users are asked to attribute the page to a specific version of the enwiki article to avoid copyright infringement. However, it seems that no attruibution (and no references) are required for adding information from enwiki after the page is created. Just wondering if this is not considered a copyright infringement? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Attribution is required any time you copy over something from en.wiki or anywhere else for that matter. We are just as strict with indicating you are copying something over after creation as we are on creation. -DJSasso (talk) 10:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Infoboxes are routinely added without attribution and without references. An infobox on enwiki typically represents the work of dozens of Users. Infoboxes on enwiki use the references supplied in the text part of articles. At least this is my understanding. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Adding an infobox to an article wouldn't need it because the attribution for it is on the Template page itself (assuming it was done right). And the actual information in an infobox is pure facts so doesn't show the level of creativity needed for copyright to apply. (ie you can't copyright plain facts). References are different from attribution, references are just references and people are free to add them or not add them as they see fit as they would any other time they are editing an article. -DJSasso (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Here is just another example where no attribution or references were added to information obtained from enwiki. I started this article from scratch (did not consult the enwiki). After a while a third editor turned up and added unreferenced information. There is no attribution in the article to the information added. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Attribution doesn't mean references. Attribution is just about, if you copy and pasted the content of the article from somewhere else and you need to say where. References are a separate thing. You can add information without references. Though you should include a reference if its something likely to be questioned. -DJSasso (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Archival for GA candidates?[change source]

Hello,

what would you think about an automatic archival of the good article candidate proposals page? - I was thinking about a duration of 1-2 months (of inactivity)? - also can we configure Miszabot to dso this? --Eptalon (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

No we couldn't configure the talk page archiving bot to do it. That being said, there aren't so many an admin can't just do it once in awhile. If it looks like there are too many and they have been there a few months, archive them. Personally unless we get busier there, I myself probably wouldn't archive anything newer than a year just cause it is so slow traffic there. -DJSasso (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Africa-stub[change source]

I think we should make this template again. It was deleted as it was unapproved last time. Nigos (talk · contribs) 10:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I made a version of the template at User:Nigos/Template:Africa-stub. Nigos (talk · contribs) 10:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
We don't typically create stubs unless there are a few active editors trying to expand that particular topic. You can think of subject specific stubs as grandfathered here (though we aren't totally against creating more). If you can show that there are a few editors that are working on Africa stubs and there are atleast 1000 articles that already meet that subject that are stubs then it could be possible. But I want to stress that we don't create stubs just to tag articles with the stub tag. Someone has to actively be expanding the articles. We try to be simple here so drive by tagging is very discouraged. -DJSasso (talk) 11:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks. Nigos (talk · contribs) 11:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Deploy Internet Archive Bot?[change source]

I've noticed from time to time we have dead links. When I see them I try to rescue using archive.org. But it seems if the IABot was active here, it would help. To do so, looks like it just needs to be approved, and then a phabricator ticket submitted. (Here is a sample). What do you all think? Desertborn (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, why not. Is there a downside? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Support --DannyS712 (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Hell yes. I want something further, to be able to run the IAB Management Console to analyse a single page at least. Thanks for raising the issue out. --Cohaf (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Seconded. I often try to get some archived links in my sources, but sometimes I'm just lazy. Support! ~Junedude433talk 14:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Assuming the bot op wants to operate it here, I would approve it as a crat. -DJSasso (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Cyberpower678: Sorry to disturb here too but can you read the above and can your IAB be deployed here? Thanks so much.--Cohaf (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
It would be nice if someone where to open a Phabricator ticket, so this doesn't fall off of the radar.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 23:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
See phab:T228123 --DannyS712 (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, please. This is a very good idea. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Constitutional crisis at Wikipedia[change source]

Not sure how many readers here are aware of this crisis that started on June 10, 2019. I myself only found out about it sometime in July. The English Wikipedia community has been discussing this since June 11, so a discussion forum on Simple for our contributors has finally been created here.

This is where Simple contributors can also have their say:

Please keep discussions civil, but also allow everyone to express their honest views. Try to refrain from blanking comments by others. It is best to wp:hat such comments instead of blanking. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC) Ottawahitech (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I've left a comment there. Seems unnecessary to me at best and I'm thinking the best course of action is to delete the page. Hiàn (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@Hian, I respect your opinions, but I don't believe they belongs on the page in question. Putting comments on the page itself drives away people who want to participate on the talkpage in serious discussion with no drama. Ottawahitech (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
You say it replicates the enwiki one, and I made a very similar section over there in the same manner that Hiàn made this one. Vermont (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
You yourself said it replicated the enwiki page, where discussion takes place on the main page, not the discussion page. It was fair to assume discussion was to take place on the main page, wasn't it? Hiàn (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Hiàn: and Vermont: I owe you an apology. I thought I made it clear that talk should go on the talkpage, but I failed to do so. We are all volunteers here and we do not all have access to the latest technology, not everyone can afford it. I was thinking of that when I tried to fix this by making the text BOLD, but I could not. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Partial Blocks are now available on five different language wikipedias[change source]

The NY Times knows more than I do about what the The Wikimedia Foundation is doing. An article that appeared on April 8, 2019, titled Wikipedia Isn’t Officially a Social Network. But the Harassment Can Get Ugly says that Partial Blocks are now available on five different language wikipedias, including Italian and Arabic. These software tools allow Admins to Block Users from editing particular pages. I am not an Admin, but it is my understanding that Admins here can decide how long to Block Users from editing all pages on Simple, but cannot technically Block Users from editing a subset of the pages. This is the reason Bans are Used in cases where the community only wants to Block a User from certain pages, but let them continue editing other pages. Bans are a sort of good faith agreement on the part of the Blocked User not to edit certain areas. Am I correct?

BTW, I wanted to thank User:Hiàn without whose generous help I would have been able to see this paywallled article.

And before anyone asks, yes, this is directly related to the Fram incident on English Wikipedia. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: A ban is usually an indefinite block issued after a community discussion when a user has been causing general disruption, vandalizing, or something similar. This kind of ban prevents the user from editing any pages. To have a ban lifted requires another community discussion.
You might be thinking of topic bans, which are at the discretion of admins. Those don't involve a software block, because we don't currently have a way to do selective blocks. With a topic ban, the affected user is told that they are not allowed to edit certain pages, or do any edits related to certain topics, or something similar. If a user violates a topic ban, there is a penalty, which is often an indefinite block. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Partial block software could be useful in enforcing interaction bans, but individually adding possibly tens of thousands of pages to a Special:Block page to enforce a topic ban is simply a waste of time and might break something. Per WP:BB, it seems topic bans require community consensus to implement, just like full community site-bans. How is it directly related to Fram?  Vermont (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
You're right, that page does say that topic bans require a community decision to implement. I just seem to remember us having some that were decided by an admin, but I could be wrong. As to the Fram issue, I don't know if/how it's related. I was just responding to your question about how bans work, since it isn't quite as you described. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Yep, I know on enwiki admins can enforce topic bans pursuant to ArbCom cases, but we have no ArbCom here. Also, I was asking Ottawahitech about it's relation as they were the one who said it's related. Vermont (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: Partial foundation ban (which is what happened to FRAM case) is that one is prohibited from editing a particular project as compared to a full ban which means no WMF projects can be edited, no phab, no offline outreach activities etc. On the other hand, partial blocks (as part of mediawiki) is on a particular wiki, a user cannot edit a set of pages or namespaces. Hence, partial blocks (the tool available to admins) have no relationship whatsoever with FRAM unless harrassment is the link. If A is harassing B constantly, an interaction ban can be done so that A cannot edit B talk page (which can be enforced with a partial block regarding User Talk:B for user A). I hope this clarifies. Personal Note:I dislike partial blocks personally. --Cohaf (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Technical question: Changes by user[change source]

I would like to find all edits contributed to an article by a certain user. To do this I click on the View history tab, and then on Changes by user (four lines down on the right). However I have been getting a 404-error for quite sometime. Can anyone help? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Ottawahitech, try this page. I was able to find changes that I made to a page when I looked there. I think the link on the history pages should be changed to that. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Special:Contribs isn't working? Vermont (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not Special:Contribs, it's a tool on a toolserver, and there's been some migration going on recently. That link probably has to be changed in class="mw-history-legend", meaning someone needs to go to phabricator for it. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't even have that link so must be on a different skin than I use. -DJSasso (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
It's the 'find edits by user' link from revision histories at the other English Wikipedia. Standard for all skins there, I think. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't have it on en.wiki either. Atleast not in the location described by Ottawahitech above. -DJSasso (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
On en.wiki page histories in both Vector and Monobook, at the top of the page after 'Filter revisions', there's a group of links labeled 'External tools'. 'Find edits by user' is the second link there (third, if you count the one in parentheses labeled 'Alternate'), just after 'Find addition/removal'. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah doesn't exist for me on Monobook. After Filter revisions it pretty much goes straight into the revisions. Interesting. Perhaps the fact that I am admin changes what I see. -DJSasso (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Totally what it is or its something in my custom js. Logged out and it shows up. -DJSasso (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Found where to change it. I will change the link. -DJSasso (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
That was quick! Thanks! BlackcurrantTea (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Removing EFN[change source]

Resolved.

Hi, I've recently created Eminem singles discography and usually I remove the efn's however with this article there are references within the efn template and so basically I would need to remove for instance the yellow coding:

{{efn|group=upper-alpha|"Dead Wrong" did not enter the ''Billboard'' Hot 100, but peaked at number 15 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart.<ref>{{cite web|title=''Billboard'' chart search: The Notorious B.I.G. – 'Dead Wrong{{'-}} |url=http://api.billboard.com/apisvc/chart/v1/list?artist=the_notorious_b.i.g.&song=dead_wrong&sdate=1990-01-01&edate=3010-06-27&api_key=bvk4re5h37dzvx87h7rf5dqz |work=Billboard |accessdate=December 30, 2011 |format=XML |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120513113138/http://api.billboard.com/apisvc/chart/v1/list?artist=the_notorious_b.i.g.&song=dead_wrong&sdate=1990-01-01&edate=3010-06-27&api_key=bvk4re5h37dzvx87h7rf5dqz |archivedate=May 13, 2012}}</ref>}}

So basically I wasn't sure if there was a way where the efn template can be removed whilst keeping the reference inside?, If there isn't should I collapse the efn note list (Eminem_singles_discography#Notes) or should I simply leave it all as is?,

Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I doubt it. Part of the reason to use {{efn}}, or more generally its parent, {{refn}}, is that they allow you to place a reference inside a reference. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I had a feeling there wasn't but thought I'd ask incase there was a miracle :),
At the time of writing the above I had a ton of cite errors but unbeknown to me my updating at template:Certification Cite Ref appears to have fixed those issues, Many thanks for your help anyway :). –Davey2010Talk 19:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Editing News #1—July 2019[change source]

18:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)