Wikipedia:Simple talk

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:ST)


Enabling noindex in article space[change source]

Following on from Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 133#Use of QD A4, there was a rough consensus to implement NOINDEX in article space, however it wasn't really considered worth it for the actual impact it would have, especially as it would differ from all other WMF sites. There was a discussion on my talk page, at User talk:Ferien#Why, where the idea of noindexing pages at RfD was bought up again. This time, it was pointed out by Lee Vilenski that enwiki actually has a system whereby pages newer than 90 days are not indexed unless they are patrolled – see w:WP:NOINDEX for how they do things.

Now, we don't want any AfC/NPP-like processes here (as was rejected in Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 134#Proposal: Introducing Wikiproject Article for Creation), but we could adjust our patrol system so that only articles that were either patrolled and/or existed for, let's say 10 days, would be indexed. This would allow the time for the notability of articles to be discussed at RfD, while not worrying about the article effectively serving as a free promotion for the person, company etc being discussed at RfD. This would also, hopefully, reduce the misuse of A4 that is still occurring over 3 years on from that original discussion. Thoughts? --Ferien (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - As I mentioned before, I'm obviously fully in favour. I think it's worth noting that, I think the technical solution is pretty simple, and just a case of opening a phab ticket for the change to be made. I like the idea of ten days, as it is enough time for an article to go through AfD if suitable. I can see a massive upside to not indexing potentially dangerous articles, and the only downside being a small wait for indexing on good faith articles.
Enwiki also has w:WP:autopatrolled permission. Whilst not part of this discussion, would be easy enough to setup to give a flag to community members who make a lot of articles to bypass the delay (if they care). A potential discussion for a later date if this were to proceed. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: we already have patroller which serves as both our patrol and autopatrol right. --Ferien (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no problem, didn't realise it was bundled. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: @Ferien Do we also have page curation tool here? DIVINE 20:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    DIVINE, I'm not quite sure what you're referring to so probably not, we have our own version of Wikipedia:Article wizard, but I don't think that's the same thing? --Ferien (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ferien No, it is completely different. It is usually used by patrollers while reviewing pages on English Wikipedia. I thought we also have it here at SEWP, but we don’t have it. I think this tool will be helpful while patrolling the new pages, as patrollers' rights here on SEWP are a combination of both New Page Reviewer (patroller) and Autopatrol. And the tool iss more advanced and has additional features, which will surely help while patrolling. You should take a look once.[1] DIVINE 15:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    DIVINE, oh yeah, I've seen that before. I'm not sure we'd need it here, as our patrol process is a bit more basic than en's, and we might need to customise it more to fit what the community would like here, but that's another discussion. --Ferien (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ferien the only problem is that we can mark as patrolled but can't reverse it in case of a mistake. I don't see any confirmation options before patrolling. DIVINE 16:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's that big of a problem. If it happens accidentally, the patroller is responsible for tagging, or taking care of what needs to be done. If unable to do so, they can bring it to this page and seek help.--BRP ever 16:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. DIVINE 16:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support 10 days.--BRP ever 07:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just going to add 'unless marked patrolled' just to be precise haha. BRP ever 15:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BRPever agreed, YGM on this one haha. DIVINE 15:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a summary:' - There's widespread support for this in the community, I will therefore look into getting it enabled on this Wiki...--Eptalon (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eptalon That’s good news. By the way, just to let you know, it can be shown immediately if it’s marked as patrolled, like on the English Wikipedia. This way, we will also have an actual use for the patroller tool for reviewing new pages, as it is worth it. Thanks. DIVINE (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pitt County, North Carolina[change source]

Is Pitt County, North Carolina simple enough? If not, how can we make it simpler? Kk.urban (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kk.urban: I think it could be simpler. I just did some work on it, but I haven't checked all of it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. One question: Why does "The county was made in 1760 from Beaufort County" need to be clarified? Kk.urban (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kk.urban: It's not clear exactly what was done. Did Beaufort County turn into Pitt County? Did they take part of Beaufort County to make a new county called Pitt? I suspect it was the latter, but it could say that more clearly. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6 The latter. I changed it to "The county was made in 1760 from part of Beaufort County". Is that good enough? Kk.urban (talk) 07:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kk.urban There are definitely some words like "overwhelming" which may seem big for people who are learning English, so it still needs further simplification. But, I think the phrase "overwhelming majority" is used a lot. Cyclonial (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Drug use for recreation" vs. "Recreational drug use" (title)[change source]

Is Drug use for recreation (title for a new article), a simplification of Recreational drug use (title of the en-wiki article)? Or do the meaning perhaps not overlap 100% ?--For the record - one has suggested that Hard and soft drugs (title), gets nuked. (And if that article gets sucked into a Black-hole, then so be it.)--Please note that Recreational drug use is only a name: for whatever reason, English-wiki has ended up with that name for now.--I am okay with that title, and their article, for now. 2001:2020:345:8F5E:894E:A82B:A393:40D3 (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that En-wiki once had an article called the same as ours.--Anyhow, something happened along the way.--Perhaps, the following gives us some ideas: en:Talk:Recreational_drug_use/Archive_1#Merge_Proposition . 2001:2020:345:8F5E:AC05:2213:2990:C102 (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think recreation is any simpler than recreational and neither is a simple word. Besides that, the first one could be read as meaning drug use related to recreational activities, such as taking performance-enhancing drugs. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If one isn't simple English, then neither is the other. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drug use (recreational drug use) - how about that for a title? Justification: it is (arguably) simpler than "Recreational drug use" - and in additon it answers Which subset of drug-use, is this article about.--The idea about "soft drug" - is different from country to country (and some experts in western countries, seem to be saying that there are no "soft drugs"). 2001:2020:343:EBC5:C1C3:B215:18EE:D687 (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:345:8F5E:894E:A82B:A393:40D3[reply]

I think we need to translate "recreational." Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkfrog24 - Recreational ... can be explained in section:Etymology or Origin of name.--There is no rule that all the words in an article title, have to be simple.--When an article has an okay title, then that article is a good place to explain, why the politics of America, ended up using the phrase Recreational drug use.--Not sure that is it helpful, to try to translate "recreational", before one has decided the limits of Recreational drug use, and how those limits might have changed over time (say, in the United States).--There were some that claimed that smoking "grass" was regarded as Recreational drug use, while injecting opium-related things was beyond Recreational drug use. (Don't have a source, however that view might at best be a fringe view in the western world.)--Some phrases that have become catch-all phrases, do not translate nice-and-simple. 2001:2020:327:EAFD:C04:DC72:45F5:2517 (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC) / 2001:2020:345:8F5E:894E:A82B:A393:40D3[reply]
I think the point of Simple is not "If you don't understand it, you can stop reading the article and go somewhere else to look it up" but rather "you don't have to break your rhythm." Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have the following cases:
  1. Drug is used for a medical condition; perhaps a doctor prescribed it
  2. Drug is used for a medical condition, but was developed for something else ("off-label use")
  3. Drug is used to enhance performance ("doping"); likely it wasn't prescribed
  4. Drug is used outside the medical context, because of an effect it has; likley not monitored by a doctor.
And no, the difference between recreation and recreational isn't big, and the term needs to be explained. Likley we want to cober the last case of those I listed, with the category. Eptalon (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Category 4" - i am somewhat sceptical to that definition, for now.--Example: one gets a months supply of tablets from an MD. The MD has given written instructions to take 3 per day. There will be cases where the patient starts out the day, according to the MD's instructions. However, after 5 days, there are no tablets left.--Another thing, there is an Oxycodone epidemic in at least one country. Maybe that fits in, with Category 4, or maybe not. 2001:2020:327:EAFD:1C7C:4417:8C67:2D4D (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)/2001:2020:345:8F5E:894E:A82B:A393:40D3[reply]
With category 4, I was more thining about the usual drug addict, who takes, for example heroin, because it makes them feel good. Heroin is an opioid, and as the other opioiods, there's a strong effect of habituation; people also get dependent on it. Eptalon (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no very clear objective distinctions here. The term recreation isnt very clear, and what counts as abuse is rather subjective. What is prescribed changes with time and place. Rathfelder (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And "Hard drug" and "Soft drug" no very clear objective distinctions.--There is even the case of Thailand's current cabinet: it seems to be paving the way for having cannabis outlawed (Marijuana became somewhat legal to use, a couple of years ago.)--Trying to decide if a drug might be a soft-drug, can be compared to deciding the boundaries/limits of short pieces of string. 2001:2020:32F:FCD1:91AA:1C0C:AC83:9B70 (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)/ 2001:2020:345:8F5E:894E:A82B:A393:40D3[reply]

Idea:Very Good Lists[change source]

This would be adapted from enwiki's featured lists. Similar idea. Probably needs to be edited but heres a basic first draft of (simplified) criteria:

1:Writing. It very well written.

2:Lead. It has an interesting lead that is a summary of the article.

3:Completeness.

3A:It talks about the entirety of the subject, has all important things and if you are able to all things that would be belong in that list, and it has notes giving helpful facts about the stuff in the list.

3B:Things in the article are sourced where the thing is. They have inline sources and cite all things that must have sources.

3C:It is a list, isn't a content fork or mostly a duplicate from a different article, couldn't be included in another article.

4:Structure. It is easy to read through, where useful there are sections and tables

5:Style. It follows the Manual of Style.

5A:Looks good, using tables, color, formatting, etc. Lower number of redlinks.

5B:It has related images. They don't have issues with copyright and non-free images meet the criteria and are labeled.

5C:Good formatting, all readers can read easily. Bulleted lists and table are done correctly.

6:Stale. No change war happening, list changes little from day to day.

7:Simple. It is written in Simple English, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, and meets everything needed of every article (neutral, not original reasearch, reliable sources, notable, etc.)

VGL process would be similar to VGA, except having to meet these criteria. Think it would be nice to have a way to assess lists as well. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We already have good articles, and very good articles; when I look at the general participation, I don't think we need yet another one of these. Especially since the "very good" implies that they would be comparable to VGAs. The last promotion to VGA was over 6 months ago... Eptalon (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well lists can't be GA or VGA, right? What does the last promotion to VGA have anything to do with this. And at least on enwiki, Featured lists are pretty comparable to Featured articles@Eptalon Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All I am saying: this is a small community, and getting something to VGA is a huge effort; if I now say that there's an other category (comparable to) VGA, likely we won't see more people working towards that goal. Even with GA, which isn't as complete, getting an article there takes months, and as you can see, some articles do not get promoted (likely also, because it takes too long). Eptalon (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what you are saying is that because it is hard to make quality content, we should limit how we recognize quality content and improve qualtiy. I get your point, but of course quality content is hard, otherwise most content would be high-quality.@Eptalon Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked, what's the usual time, such a list at enwp needs from first nomination to promotion? Eptalon (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you meant was "What is the average time on English Wikipedia it takes for a Featured List to get promoted from when it is nominated?"
Since it's impractical to go through all of them, I'm just using the 10 most recent ones. So in days:40,23,40,64,22,31,26,33,15,47. Average is 34.1 days. Why?@Eptalon Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And how many of our GAs/VGAs got promoted in say 1-1.5 months? - Our community is much smaller.... Eptalon (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it takes longer sometimes, but 50% of VGAs actually (in the past 30 months)@Eptalon Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I don't think this will help improve Wikipedia much. On English Wikipedia, people often add a lot of text that is only vaguely related to the topic, so it can meet the standard for a featured list. If someone is just looking for the list, that may make it harder to read. Generally, lists are less likely than articles to showcase Simple English, good writing, and the other qualities we're trying to meet. In fact, some could be basically the same as the English Wikipedia lists.
Kk.urban (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Generally, lists are less likely than articles to showcase Simple English, good writing, and the other qualities we're trying to meet. In fact, some could be basically the same as the English Wikipedia lists."
I strongly disagree. There is no reason a list can't have Simple English. There is also no reason is can't have good writing. It wouldn't be the same as the enwiki list, it would be simpler english, the point of this wiki@Kk.urban Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Me Da Wikipedian OK I'm not going to remove my comment, or say that I have changed my mind, but people can ignore my comment if they want. If you think this is a good idea, then how about you write or improve a list so that it would qualify for "very good list" status? Then other users can look over it, and it can serve as an example. We could see where to go from there. Kk.urban (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that will probably take a bit of time but I'll try@Kk.urban Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still working, commenting to prevent archive Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Eptalon, there needs to be a focus on the current GA/VGA processes. I see no benefit of adding a VGL process. People can still write lists if they want to, without the need to make them featured. Yottie =talk= 19:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with KK, Yottie and Eptalon. This is a perfectly good idea, but there's no point enacting it to sit on a shelf and gather dust. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is a VGL process taking away from GA/VGA. No article could be both, it's like by trying to get an article to VGL your preventing it from becoming a VGA. The purpose would be to have a standard for, idenify, and showcase, high quality lists. I see no reason that it would "sit on a shelf and gather dust".@Yottie@Darkfrog24 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at Proposed good articles: look at when they were put up, and how much time has passed since then,without much changes? - VGL would be similar, except, as we are talking about "very good", times would be even longer. Eptalon (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is a smaller wiki and it would take a bit longer sometimes. Honestly, the GAN article waiting the longest on enwiki is significantly longer than ours so...Also, this is a wikipedia, theres no deadline, it's okay if things take time@Eptalon Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not the point, the point is: at some point people lose interest. Eptalon (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is true of literally everything. That could also be an arguement for not having this wiki@Eptalon Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 09:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, lets perhaps do it differently: do you think there is a widespread commutity support for the idea? Eptalon (talk) 10:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I posted it here to ask what people thought. But I would imagine, if we made it, we get a bunch of VGL's. Using enwiki as an example, theres about as many featured lists and there are feautured articles@Eptalon Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your point, I simply don't feel there is the appetite for further process. The idea isn't a bad one, but it's currently redundant. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the current situation still allows for users to write excellent lists. It just means there is no process to recognise them. Yottie =talk= 16:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed. However a process to recognise them needs a way to determine what is high-quality. This gives a standard for people to try meet when improving lists, and then a way for people to notice and mark high-quality lists as such. It is not redundant. Something being redundant means it's not useful, a duplicate with no other purpose. This could be useful, and is not a duplicate, as lists can't be GA/VGA@Yottie Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant is used in the sense of superfluous, in this instance. I do not agree that a process for VGL is required. If you really wanted to outline how to write an excellent list, how about writing a page similar to this, Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages, for lists instead? Yottie =talk= 17:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Superflous itself means more than sufficent/unneccessary. I disagree. What this (and GA/VGA) is going for is:
1.Standard For High Quality- This is covered by your above suggestion
2.Way To Identify And Display Quality Content - Not covered by your suggestion
3.Way For The Community To Determine If A Page Is High Quality - Sort of covered by your suggestion, not entirely
As you can see that misses a few stuff. As I see the opposition arguements are such
1.'We already have GA/VGA - These are not overlapping with a proposed VGL at all, how is this related
2.It's hard to make quality content - Of course it is, what sets it apart is that someone has put in the hard work to make it quality.
3.People add unrelated stuff on enwiki to make it a featured list - Please find 1 example. Irrelevant stuff should be removed, and a VGL process would not change that.
4.Lists will be the same as enwiki lists - Why? Is there any reason we couldn't simply a list too?
5.You can still write good lists - Of course, I can also write great articles without GA/VGA. Should we remove them
6.People eventually lose interest - True of everything, could be used as an arguement to get rid of this wiki as well.
7.It would be unused - Why? On enwiki there are about as many FLs as there are FAs
8.Long wait - GA/VGA has a long wait. Enwikis GA/FA/FL has a long wait. People can wait. It's a wikipedia, theres no deadline. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny, having looked at Simple Talk archives, I realise I suggested VGLs 15 years ago on this very same page. Eptalon gave the same reasoning as he did above, and I think he still has a valid point. Not to discredit the points you make, but judging by the comments above I just don't think editors are all that bothered by the concept. --Yottie =talk= 22:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Funny indeed. I see you've changed your mind. Note that I refuted all of Eptalon's points. Is there one of those you disagree with the reasoning/conclusions of?@Yottie Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly other people have proposed this too (here's one example, here's another, a third, and a fourth). Totally feels like the exact complaint by The Obento Musubi in the next section. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

attribution[change source]

If I simplify something from https://en.wikipedia.org/ do I need to credit the original somewhere? Where do I write that and what do I need to write? LagoonGoose (talk) 07:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can put a link in the edit summary or post on the talk page or be extra cautious and do both. —Justin (koavf)TCM07:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LagoonGoose: I believe putting the info in the edit summary is deprecated. It should go on the article talk page. Wikipedia:Transwiki attribution has information about how to do what you're talking about. If you have questions, feel free to ask. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if you use the translation tool the first edit will contain a link to the revision you translated Eptalon (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eptalon but @Auntof6 said the edit summary option was "deprecated"? LagoonGoose (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it doesn't add an explicit attribution to the talk page... Eptalon (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm simplifying an article to publish here, and I was wondering,

1. How do I submit the draft? 2. I added that it's a translation on the talk page, do I need to put anything else?

I was also wondering if anyone could also help me with simplifying it, if I missed anything. RoyalSilver (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the draft in-depth, but the consensus here is that in general, schools below university/college level are not notable. So, getting that arccepted will likely be difficult. Eptalon (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The school is a major part in Topeka, and is a historical site. It's also on the English Wikipedia so I thought it would be notable RoyalSilver (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eptalon, forgot to mention RoyalSilver 16:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A building or a stationary facility, can be a historical site. However, the school is an institution - and i have some doubt that the mentioned institution in Topeka, is a historical site. 2001:2020:32F:FCD1:91AA:1C0C:AC83:9B70 (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where can I find the consensus about not generally including schools? (I would think that schools like Exeter, Eton, Philips, Bronx High School of Science and Uni High (Urbana) would be of interest to some of our readers.)Kdammers (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my contribution to "updated-or-new-or-whatever" consensus: I am fine with,
*in general, schools below university/college level are not wiki-notable "for a wiki-article title of their own".--Justification, in part, for high threshold: because if high-schools mostly are shooed-in, then we might be on a slippery slope for shooeing in most kindergartens and elementary schools. 2001:2020:359:ABC5:79FD:3760:85EF:C9FC (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we lacking categories?[change source]

Hello, I wrote unexploded bomb and demining today. I weas looking for a fitting category, but didn't find any. While trhere might be a theme complex with land mine, most unexploded bombs aren't land mines. Any idea what category to use? Eptalon (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Are we lacking categories?" - Yes we are and we have User:Auntof6 and the QD-taggers to thank for it. To answer your question I guess Category:Explosives would be the best one as sort of related sort of not, –Davey2010Talk 14:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea to require three pages for a category isn't a bad one Eptalon (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there's pros and cons to it but I feel it's a terrible idea as it doesn't allow categories to be branched out and expanded (unless you're creating 3-4 articles within one day), –Davey2010Talk 15:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categorisation is hierarchical. If there isnt one which fits exactly you must look wider. When there are enough articles then you make a new category - which fits into the wider scheme. Rathfelder (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
for the unexploded bomb the category is explosives, for the other I created a category mines and mine removal. Nevertheless, cat: explosives is growing big, but that's a different problem Eptalon (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: When you're criticizing another editor, please have the courtesy to let them know about it somehow, perhaps by linking their user name or doing a ping. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now pinged you, Hope this helps. –Davey2010Talk 10:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps an appropriate time to mention User:Ferien/WikiProject TBA/Phase III, which is encouraging editors to find entries for existing categories with few entries, to avoid this problem! --Ferien (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The answer here is a piece of work that goes through existing categories and spots themes for splitting them. I get that if you are used to enwiki, that having categories for EVERYTHING is suitable, but the issue is that on a smaller wiki, you'll end up with hundreds (probably thousands) of single-article categories, which just aren't helpful. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to submit draft?[change source]

Hi, I was looking to submit my draft, but there's nowhere I can do it, or I at least don't know how on this Wikipedia, could someone help me? RoyalSilver 17:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia! We don't really have a system in place for drafts due to our small size. When you feel like the article you have written is ready to be a "true" article you can move it to the title you want.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 19:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @RoyalSilver.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 19:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[The following, has already been answered, two threads above.]I would like to add a question: How can one estimate, so to speak, if a school is wiki-notable (for Simple-wiki)?--(As far as the mentioned school in Topeka: there is an article at En-wiki,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topeka_High_School
and that article has apparently never been sent to AfD/ RfD.) 2001:2020:32F:FCD1:91AA:1C0C:AC83:9B70 (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)/ 2001:2020:32F:FCD1:91AA:1C0C:AC83:9B70 (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter / X RFC[change source]

Hi, Not sure the best way of doing this,

So over at EN there looks to be a consensus to keep the Twitter name (RFC/diff) with en:Twitter under Elon Musk being moved to en:X (social network),

We don't have Twitter under Elon Musk here so I don't know whether we should move Twitter to X (social network) or keep as is ?,

Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For now how about we keep Twitter as is and just add a section about Twitter under Elon Musk. Later, we can just move that section into X (social network) after the article expands into a longer page. BRP ever 02:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @BRPever, That sounds like a fantastic idea, Many thanks for your helpful suggestion I'll create a section, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk 12:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Title should perhaps be,
Twitter (renamed X), or
X (Twitter), or
"X (formerly Twitter)", or
X /Twitter, or however media formats X-together-with-OldNameOfCompany.--Twitter has moved on, and changed its name (and we should move on, too); Therefore an updated encyclopedia does not get to choose at whim, that now we are arbitrarily going to use the company's old name (as title) without any qualifier (in the title).--If we have to choose between Simple and Wrong, then we should avoid "Wrong" - because we are an encyclopedia, so to speak. Thanks, 2001:2020:359:ABC5:79FD:3760:85EF:C9FC (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong? Most still refer to it as Twitter. With a lot of the changes, it's best if we separate the historical twitter and the new X into two separate pages. And as we do not have much content on new X, we need to wait till more content to be added to the encyclopedia before creating a new page for X. Once separated into two pages, we can keep a note on top linking former to later and later to former. BRP ever 17:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter is by far the W:COMMON NAME for an article for the topic. An article that they have on enwiki for specifically the period of X is very suitable for being renamed to that (especially against the convoluted name previous). We should keep as is (and, maybe put an article together to mimick the one for the Musk tenure). Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree whole-heartedly with your comment Lee - It's been Twitter for over 10 years and irrespective of rebrands I doubt it will change, I also agree with your comment regarding Musks tenure etc, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look to German-wiki, Netherlands-wiki, Danish-wiki, Norski-wiki - they have titles where Twitter is not a "thing" (or main thing, in one case).--Those are the five other wikipedia-versions that i mostly use - plus Norski-wiki.--Twitter is no longer the Common-name, in my country.--Most English-readers in the world, do not use that thingy, that formerly was called Twitter.--Twitter as only word (or first word) in title? No, the hour glass has almost run out of sand!--Has En-wiki chosen a simple option? Nah, maybe it was some kind of boomer-politics that were able to push their wishes, over there.--Anyway, everyone must try to show kindness during discussions (or so is my interpration of words from Jimbo Wales).--Has anyone bothered checking what the encyclopedia Britannica is calling their article? 2001:2020:359:ABC5:55DB:E31A:D27C:49BA (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:359:ABC5:79FD:3760:85EF:C9FC[reply]
I don't see how that would matter - COMMON NAME is what people call it, and most sources will refer to it as Twitter. Your argument of some of our inter language Wikipedias using a different title isn't great, but even if you were to use that as a rationale, most of our other language Wikipedias use Twitter rather than X. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree with this, for now. I rarely see it referred to only as X, but as X, formerly known as Twitter, or as just Twitter (still). It still the common name, but in a few years as more people and style guidelines adapt it will be just X. Ravensfire (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it it changes names again, we'll have ex-X, formerly known as Twitter and now PDQ, at which point the universe might implode from the madness... Ravensfire (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]
I'm in support of keeping as-is due to twitter still being the common name.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 08:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i think its twitter because lots of people calls it that, i dont hear people saying x alot Madisyn Oglesby (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copy article[change source]

My fav band is TV Girl on Wikipedia, can i copy it from other wikipedia? Madisyn Oglesby (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Copies will be deleted (WP:AQD). MathXplore (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can I simplify it? I make a sandbox with it. Madisyn Oglesby (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You must simplify. This is the Simple English Wikipedia. MathXplore (talk) 12:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Madisyn Oglesby, You're than welcome to paste the EN article to your sandbox (User:Madisyn Oglesby/sandbox) however as Mathxplore says you must simplify it - Please read WP:Simple English and WP:Basic English#Related pages, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay ive made a sandbox for it i am going to make the article, lmk if i should publish it Madisyn Oglesby (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once you've completed it you can paste it to TV Girl or you can ask someone to have a look first? Please be aware though once it's in article space it can be speedy deleted or be nominated for deletion if deemed too complex or because of notability concerns, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I think I put more in there at user:madisyn oglesby/sandbox can you check if its good? Madisyn Oglesby (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Madisyn Oglesby. I think your draft seems well-formatted and simple enough to be put into the mainspace. However, additional citations would help as well as some copyediting. Cyclonial (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
okay i'll publish it now Madisyn Oglesby (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creating WikiProjects[change source]

Is it possible to create WikiProjects here? and if it is, how to make one?

I want to try and attempt to make the wikiproject Tambayan Philippines to try to add new pages here, can anyone guide me on how to make a WikiProject? TheNuggeteer (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNuggeteer Wikipedia:Wikiproject will have the information you are looking for. In short, Wikiprojects are created in userspace, then you can drop a message about the project here at Simple Talk. Jolly1253 (talk) 06:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jolly1253 Thank you, i will try to make a WikiProject based on the information you gave to me. TheNuggeteer (talk) 06:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tambayan Philippines[change source]

Hey guys! I created a new WikiProject! If you are interested in the Philippines, or live there, then you can join The page, Enjoy! TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

bad things on pages[change source]

there is pages saying leonidnev r*pes babys on wheels is it a bug? its on every page btw idk how to fix it Madisyn Oglesby (talk) 11:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Macdonald-ross i need a fix because obv this's inappropriate Madisyn Oglesby (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Madisyn Oglesby Can you tell me which pages contain these "messages"? TheNuggeteer (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
mexico has it Madisyn Oglesby (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Madisyn Oglesby It is probably a bug TheNuggeteer (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Madisyn Oglesby: I don't see it on Mexico. Where on the page did you see it? -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
top of the page, maybe its only just showing up for me Madisyn Oglesby (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's showing up for me too. 200% a lua problem aswell.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone vandalized Module:Format link (diff), and all pages that use that module need to be purged. --Leonidlednev (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
All pages seem to be purged now. --Leonidlednev (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

okay that's good Madisyn Oglesby (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback invited on Procedure for Sibling Project Lifecycle[change source]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear community members,

The Community Affairs Committee (CAC) of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees invites you to give feedback on a draft Procedure for Sibling Project Lifecycle. This draft Procedure outlines proposed steps and requirements for opening and closing Wikimedia Sibling Projects, and aims to ensure any newly approved projects are set up for success. This is separate from the procedures for opening or closing language versions of projects, which is handled by the Language Committee or closing projects policy.

You can find the details on this page, as well as the ways to give your feedback from today until the end of the day on June 23, 2024, anywhere on Earth.

You can also share information about this with the interested project communities you work with or support, and you can also help us translate the procedure into more languages, so people can join the discussions in their own language.

On behalf of the CAC,

RamzyM (WMF) 02:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stroke page[change source]

Realistically, a reader would only need to know the mnemonic. I think the signs are the modt important thing someone should remember or take away from this article, so it needs to go at the top, and in a way that isnt drown out by all the other information. The user is also sitting there guarding the page reverting most edits Check out https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death At one point the article the editor had the cause of death ranking wrong (and uses future predictions insread of past information). This is cited Those are terrible bulletpoints which could be shortened down a lot. One of the bullet points I edited is the issue, which saw the whole article rolled back. The "jargon" is used in brackets () with links to other wikipedia pages. This article rollback put information back in the article about the circulation which is wrong.

Continued from https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Davey2010?markasread=4436624&markasreadwiki=simplewiki You can see the edits and rollback here: https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stroke&action=history And I think at least a partial rollback to my version should happen to retain information and links to articles. W;ChangingUsername (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This all relates to WCU's edit on the Stroke article - Imho the previous wording was better and the FAST part is duplicated twice and just overall the previous was better, I told the user to come here in case others had differing opinions or may of agreed that their edits were better than what they were replacing, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I rephrased a little, tis is not just about the U.S.... Eptalon (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not about that W;ChangingUsername (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
bumping this W;ChangingUsername (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that Wikipedia is not a source of medical advice. The article should inform the reader about stroke and can include FAST asleep part of the article but the reader should be seeking advice from elsewhere. fr33kman 23:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reader should be told by thr government or hospitals how to notice the signs of a stroke. They should be able to recognize the signs and call an ambulance ASAP as permanent damage will be done if they don't and they need to act fast as there is only about 7 minutes for action. Thats what that should know, above all other medical advice in the page (which they dont need to know, because, as you've said, this isn't for medical advice). If this isnt for medical advice, jt should be about spotting the signs, educating people avout that so they can get help from a medical professional and help save peoples lives as a citizen or loved one. W;ChangingUsername (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obscenity[change source]

Is there no Wikipedia rule against obscenity in articles? 5.239.73.238 (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about insults and other bad stuff unrelated to the article content, then yes, it goes against Wikipedia rules and it's called vandalism. If you find vandalism, you should remove it, please. If you are talking other "sensitive" stuff that's related to the article (for example, an article about hunting may show images of dead animals and blood, another about human sexual organs will have pictures of them, etc), then no, it does not go against the rules, because Wikipedia is not censored. I hope this helps, but I am not sure what you mean by "obscene", because that is subjective (just like I do not find my examples to be obscene, but others may do). Dream Indigo 20:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: This is an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is not censored. Images are there to illustrate the subject. Note however, some images are better than others. If you think an image is not fitting, talk abot it on the talk page of the respective article. There were cases, were images got replaced by other images, after a discussion. And note: We think readers are responsible, and can cope with images that are there for illustration purposes. We also show images of women who aren't fully veiled... Eptalon (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above comments are mostly about images, but it also applies to language. In the article Profanity, there is a list of words that are often considered offensive. Since the article is explaining the words, not using them as expletives, that is appropriate. Use of such words could also be appropriate if they are in something being quoted. For both images and words, it depends on how they are being used. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding info about one foreign-relation[change source]

Do we 2024 British Hong Kong spy case? (We do not have a stub yet - not even about Hong Kong–United Kingdom relations, and its not in the cards that i will be starting those two articles. ) 80.67.37.2 (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My first Simple English article[change source]

Hi, I just created the article Ripon College (Wisconsin) and I am looking for feedback and suggestions (besides fixing the info box). Cmarsch (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good start! I fixed some small formatting issues - a period at the end of a sentence was bolded with the alternate name, and there was a reference before punctuation (references after sentences go after punctuation). The usage of 'founded' (as in 'to start something') is a bit complex, so I changed it with 'made', which is simpler. Thanks for making the article! 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Reflist and the official school website, I think the article is fantastic and is certainly a start, Thank you for creating the article, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about stub tags and reflist[change source]

Hello, I was just wondering whether the ref header and reflist go above or under a stub tag at the bottom of the page. I believe I have been alternating between both, but I would just like a solid answer for future edits. Thanks! Hockeycatcat (talk) (changes) 14:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hockeycatcat: Stub templates go after the references. In fact, the doc for Template:Stub says "Stub templates are to be placed at the bottom of articles below text, other templates and categories." -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Hockeycatcat (talk) (changes) 22:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purge things in a category?[change source]

Do we have a bot or anything that will purge everything in a category? It would be useful when doing things like changing templates that are causing articles to appear in maintenance categories, and probably for other things. I know Commons has something that purges subcategories in a category, but do we have anything like that here? -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have written something, but if there's already another solution, then this should likely be used.. Eptalon (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]