Wikipedia:Simple talk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Simplification of Notability guidelines for movies[change | change source]

Hi, all:

As you may recall, I have been working on simplifying the enwiki version of the notability guidelines for movies. Those are now ready for your review and comment. The draft is available at User:StevenJ81/Wikipedia:Notability (movies). Since I intend to move that page directly to Wikipedia:Notability (movies) when the time comes, I would request that you write all comments at User talk:StevenJ81/Wikipedia:Notability (movies), so that I can move that page to Wikipedia talk:Notability (movies) when the time comes. Thank you. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to create PNG thumbnails of static GIF images[change | change source]

The thumbnail of this gif is of really bad quality.
How a PNG thumb of this GIF would look like

There is a proposal at the Commons Village Pump requesting feedback about the thumbnails of static GIF images: It states that static GIF files should have their thumbnails created in PNG. The advantages of PNG over GIF would be visible especially with GIF images using an alpha channel. (compare the thumbnails on the side)

This change would affect all wikis, so if you support/oppose or want to give general feedback/concerns, please post them to the proposal page. Thank you. --McZusatz (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Is "List of shows broadcast by XXX" considered to violate Wikipedia's coat rack rule if broadcast shows are syndicated and if proper references are included?[change | change source]

I have gone through the wiki on Wikipedia about pages that violate the coat rack rule and the discussion on the list of shows broadcast by networks.

Nowhere does discussion about list of shows state that wikipages can not exist if the network broadcasts syndicated content. I had included close to 25 references for the given article, with more to come, but the wiki admin just deleted the contents of the pages and added a redirect because they could.

Manoflogan (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)ManOfLogan

  1. Are you referring to something that happened on English Wikipedia, or here? This is a separate project.
    If here, could you please give an example?
  2. The other rule to keep in mind about lists is this one: en:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists#Selection_criteria. In short, a stand-alone list article where most elements of the list do not meet the notability rules, and/or lists that consist nearly entirely of red-linked articles that are not likely to be written any time soon, if ever, are not usually appropriate to keep. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This happened on English Wikipedia. I had added close to 25 revision in the version, The wiki user "TheRedPenOfDoom" insists on deleting the wiki entries that others have added because it is HIS opinion that the wiki page provides no new material. I don't know how creating a wikipage about a list of programs broadcast by a network violates any of the aforementioned rules, even if it airs syndicated content. There are many wiki pages about networks that air syndicated content.

With respect to a standalone list criteria, most of the entries have references. See this revision as proof. I was going to add more but "TRPOD" has chosen to delete the entire wiki. I could revert the changes, but because the user is an admin, he/she can still lock the page making edits impossible.

If you look at TRPOD's talk page, he has been getting into edit wars with almost every body. I believe that this user was also banned from contributing to other topics in the past. If the "TheRedPenOfDoom" asks for more references, I can add them. I have been doing just that over time. But having him delete all the entries does not make sense.

Manoflogan (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)ManOfLogan

@Manoflogan, I'm afraid we can't help you here. Simple English Wikipedia is a separate project from English Wikipedia, and we don't have much influence on what happens there. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Who would you suggest that I talk to regarding this? What resources would you suggest I use? Manoflogan (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)ManOfLogan

The first place to discuss such things is normally the talk page of the page in question. Otherwise, check en:WP:Administrators' Noticeboard. BUT: With pages like this, there is often a history as to whether or not such articles are acceptable. You can check on some other article of the "List of programs broadcast by XXX" type that DOES exist, and ask someone on that page's talk page. Good luck. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

English Wikipedia is extremely slow[change | change source]

I am writing to report that English Wikipedia is extremely slow right now (I can not access WP:VPT), and gives an error:

"This page can't be displayed

•Make sure the web address is correct. •Look for the page with your search engine. •Refresh the page in a few minutes. •Make sure TLS and SSL protocols are enabled. Go to Tools > Internet Options > Advanced > Settings > Security"

Thanks, --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

wikilinking[change | change source]

I have added a subsection to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Wikilinking entitled "What generally should not be linked". The section as it stood was rather general, and the subsection was needed to give more specific advice. It is based on the corresponding paragraph on English wiki. Periodically we get a flood of links which tend to devalue the links which are actually needed. This is called "overlinking", but applying that idea in practice really needed more specific guidance. What I added does not cover or affect our general policy of not having direct links between wikis. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I reverted that change, Mac. Just as you tell others sometimes, changes like that should be discussed before being made. Some of the items that were included may not be good, at least not for this Wiki. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Racepacket's unblock request[change | change source]

Racepacket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is appealing to the community to life his ban.

It has now been 42 months. I continue to offer my technical background, experience of wikimarkup langauge, and a spirit of good will to build the Simple English Wikipedia. I continue to participate in my local WMF chapter and work to advance the open access to knowledge movement. For example, I could help SE adapt to Lua templates. Thank you in advance for your consideration.Racepacket (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

All needed information, links etc can be found on the last discussion that was held. -Barras talk 21:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Racepacket I know almost nothing about the circumstances under which you were blocked. Can you please briefly answer these questions?
  1. Why were you blocked?
    • I was blocked for posting an intemperate remark particularly on an edit summary, which was subsequently oversighted.
  2. What are you willing to do to lower the likelihood of anyone suggesting a block for you again?
    • I had added new articles in technical and scientific subjects, from the translation of the week and from the list of "vital articles." Each article was simplified on a user page, approved by my mentor and only then copied into article space. My mentor and I both know that the reading score of the simplified articles were high because chemical terms have words with many syllables. All of the reading scores use the length of each word or the number of syllables as a factor, but in accurate scientific articles, there is no substitute from using the proper terms. I have received many emails of encouragement since I was blocked asking me to return, and they have suggested that I stay away from scientific articles. I can work on converting templates to Lua instead. I also would propose that SE tap into Wikidata. In this way, if some Wikidata information is updated (such as the population of a nation), SE will stay up to date as well.
  3. Under what circumstances would you find yourself in similar circumstances to those in which you were blocked?
    • Under what circumstances would you find yourself in similar circumstances to those in which you were blocked? - What provoked the intemperate remark was a personal attack upon me and someone luring me into discussing the one editor subject to an interaction ban from another wiki. I realize now that some people on Wikipedia try to play tricks, and I will not make that mistake again. If someone makes an unfair personal attack on me or asks me a specific question about that one editor, I will walk away.
  4. What nice things can you say regarding the people who participated in previous discussions about your block?
    • Most of the people have been very nice to me and have sent me encouraging emails asking me to apply again. One time, the final vote was 5 to 3, which was very close.
  5. What apology, if any, are you willing to offer to anyone?
    • I have previously apologized for anyone being offended by the edit summary. Although what I have said is true, it is not good to say it on the internet.
  6. What do you think should happen when the community reviews block requests like this one?
    • The blocking administrator said that the unblock should be subject to a community discussion. If he had not done that, then any administrator could just unblock without taking everyone's time. It was a "block" and not a "community ban." On English Wikipedia, there is a "standard offer" "Apologies aren't necessary, just basic courtesy and a willingness to move forward productively." I think that SE should have a similar policy. The problem with the extensive community discussion is that most people forgot the reason for the original block. Instead of moving forward, people can get caught up in an argument over the reason for the block and then say "You should not come back because you don't understand why you were blocked."
    • Thank you for copying my answers back to the questions
Thanks for coming back, and thanks for all the positive contributions you have made to develop Wikimedia projects and uplift the community of contributors. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Update - I copied and pasted this user's answers from their userpage to here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Although Racepacket's indefinite block on English wiki [1] and here concerns other matters, I oppose him on the grounds that his editing is completely unsuitable for this wiki. His actions as a content editor were extremely damaging to us. He has never acknowleged this, nor promised to reform. I have explained before that no-one in the history of this wiki has put up such unsuitable pages, and been so completely resistant to all attempts to get him to change his ways. He imported many highly technical pages without simplification. Most were listed for deletion, but he fought this tooth and nail. His pages on chemistry were an absolute disgrace. They were completely incomprehensible, and not simplified. His behaviour suggests that he does not accept our general remit as Simple. Yes, actually, that was not what he was banned for. But consider this: if he was a dreadful editor as well as the behaviour for which he was banned, how much the more should we beware of him. You will notice that his application does not include a full apology for all his past errors and a promise never to offend again. He was a constant, constant problem as an editor, and would be again if readmitted. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support unblock I am satisfied with the explanation given. Three years have passed. This user has made a request, given an apology, promised change, and been thoughtful about the process. This person has a history of constructive contribution. I fail to identify any examples of long standing damage to Simple Wiki by viewing this person's edit history - they seem sincere enough in attempting to contribute, and whatever else they have done, a lot seems to me like a sure benefit. I checked the link to the 2013 unblock discussion which Barras provided. In that discussion, I found no examples of harm presented.
Overall - in Wikimedia projects it is difficult to damage projects and easy to block people again. Considering the time passed I would give this person another chance. I also think this should not be a community discussion, but more routine based on getting an apology, a promise to try to not transgress again, and the passing of time. If this person were blocked again for some reason, I would continue to give more chances based on the passing of time, just so long as the person's contributions were a net benefit. Other thoughts? More specifically - if anyone wishes to oppose, are there circumstances under which you would be comfortable inviting this person back? I am not in favor of making special exceptions or demands, but if someone has something more to ask of this person, then what would that be? And as Wiki contributors, on what basis should I be giving a comment here except based on what I can find to examine? Everything I see seems in order. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Populated places[change | change source]

I'm looking for guidance on "neighborhoods" as a kind of populated place. Now we are clear that any city on the map is notable, irrespective of its population or importance (the definition of "city" can be an issue in some countries). But we get a number of new pages pages based on neighborhoods. Mission Hills, Los Angeles, California is an example, with around 18,000 inhabitants.

This sort of thing has been discussed on En wiki without reaching consensus. I would suggest we decide neighborhoods are not notable unless they make an acceptable case for notability. That puts them on the same basis as any other topic. The same thing could apply to English villages: we have a number of those pages which do not address notability at all. That might be more controversial, because they do have a (lowly!) statuary basis. On the other hand, many villages are notable, but often our pages give no hint of this. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't think neighborhoods should automatically be notable. But why just English villages? Was that an example for villages everywhere or is there something specific that singles out English villages? User:Rus793 (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Mac, can you point us to the relevant enwiki discussions? My only comment until I can see that is that I think we have articles on many types of these where we would be just as well off having them in a list article. I'm referring to articles that say only something like "X is a place in Y", with maybe one other piece of information (usually the population). We could easily combine such articles into lists, using tables. An example of this is the many stubs on French communes, although I know you're talking about lower-level places.
The Mission Hills article should probably be deleted as a copypaste, but it at least has a good amount of referenced information, so I don't think it's a good example of something we shouldn't keep. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Guidance on linking[change | change source]

Our manual of style gives some general guidance on linking inside the wiki: [2]. However, applying those general guidelines in practice can be difficult.

English wiki's Manual of Style is the default when our own version does not cover a topic adequately, so discussing it here is relevant. On one subject, overlinking, I see it has guidance which I think would be useful here.[3] I have somewhat simplified their wording:

What generally should not be linked[change | change source]

Unless they are quite relevant to the article, the following are not usually linked:

  • everyday words understood by most readers in context;
  • the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, and religions;
  • common occupations;
  • units of measurement which are quite common, e.g. units relating to currency, time, temperature, length, area, or volume. If both non-metric and metric equivalents are given, as in 18 °C (64 °F), usually neither unit needs to be linked. Almost all readers will understand at least one or the other unit);
  • dates. Do not link to pages that redirect back to the page the link is on
The function of links is to clarify, not emphasize: Do not create links in order to draw attention to certain words or ideas.

These guidelines would help us, I think, and could be added to our section on linking. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments[change | change source]

Since some of our audience is people who are learning English or who don't know it well, I think we should be less restrictive on this. Our readers may understand what some things are, but not recognize the English words for them. For example, if you knew a city as Firenze, would you realize that's the same as Florence? For everyday words, I see no problem with linking them if there's an article to link to (or link to Wiktionary if absolutely necessary). With places and occupations I would definitely link them. Units of measure? Since our readers come from places that use different systems, linking these can be helpful. I do agree with not linking dates: in the past, dates were linked so that software could recognize them and convert their display to the user's preference, but that doesn't happen any more.
This doesn't mean we would need an effort to find and link all such words. However, I think we serve our particular readership better if we link most of the things you list. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)