Wikipedia:Simple talk

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

How are "child unfriendly" topics handled on EN.simplewiki?[change source]

How are "child unfriendly" topics handled on EN.simplewiki? For example topics related to violence and sexual themes? Are there particular rules/policies or unofficial practices? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Policies say there isn't any censorship (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#What Wikipedia is not). Thanks, Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
There are no special rules. Articles on these subjects (and all subjects) are to be written from a neutral point of view in order to present information in a straightforward way. Wikipedia is not censored. There can be information and images that may not be suitable for children. Children are part of our target audience because their English skills are still developing, but we do not cater to them. We expect their parents and guardians to control what they do on the internet, including this site. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying the matter. It was really in relation to the efforts to develop the Simple French Wikipedia. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
That sounds like quite a challenge, WhisperToMe. How are you defining "simple French"? What stage is the Simple French Wikipedia in now? If it's live, I'd be interested in looking at it. If you'd like to know more about the challenges and issues we've had as a simple version of another Wikipedia, feel free to ask on my talk page or email me. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
@Auntof6: The discussion page is here: meta:Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_French_Simple_3. Langcom is deciding whether to give final approval. There is an established simple French version, en:Français fondamental WhisperToMe (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah its very important to remember that children are not the target, they just are a target of the wiki, but more due to a side effect of being simple rather than actively trying to target them. So in saying that we don't censor anything, that is up to a child's parent. -DJSasso (talk) 11:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@WhisperToMe: I think your project sounds like a great idea. In my opinion, the most important thing is to have a clearly defined standard for articles, with a clear understanding of who the target audience is, and how you will handle articles that don't meet the standard. Also, be aware that a wiki aimed at younger readers will attract a higher-than-normal level of vandalism -- you'll want a bot set up ready to fight as much of it as possible. As for child-unfriendly topics, here we follow the "Wikipedia is not censored" line of thought, but I think you are free to propose standards to (and for) your community that differ from those used here (making sure, of course, that you don't violate any WMF rules). Etamni | ✉   04:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I received an off-wiki communication regarding this subject. The person who e-mailed me suggested that if the Simple French Wikipedia targets articles at both younger readers who are native French speakers, as well as adults for whom French is a second language, that individual articles should be tagged to indicate the target audience. (Full disclosure: The person who e-mailed me acknowledged being blocked on this site at this time. I am sharing the idea because I think it has merit, and in fact, I almost made the same suggestion when I wrote the preceding comment above.) Etamni | ✉   16:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
That idea was rejected here because it smacks of censorship. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand. If an article were tagged as being written for younger readers, or if there was a tag that indicated that an article was written for adult English (or French) learners, this would imply censorship? It's not clear what you mean by this. As someone who once tutored adult ESL students, I can assure you there is a difference between the materials written for teaching young learners their primary language, and teaching adults a second language. All of the materials are "family friendly" -- we aren't talking about controversial or "adult" subjects -- but the materials themselves are written by professional educators with different learners in mind. In any case, I wasn't proposing that we adopt that system here on Simple but that WhisperToMe might consider the idea for a Simple French Wikipedia. Etamni | ✉   18:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that once an article is tagged for one then it either couldn't be or wouldn't be used for the other. Really if they are going to do it, they should do it as we do, target ESL adults and only catch the children as a side effect of being simpler language. That being said, I don't actually see that project ever getting off the ground. WhisperToMe has been pushing for it for years, and the language committee is pretty set on never creating another simple language wiki. If anything I think we are a pretty good example of why another one probably shouldn't be opened. What they do need to start thinking about is if they could add some sort of way to the main language wikis with a simple tab or something on each page to see a simple version of the article, separate communities will never have big enough communities to be effective. -DJSasso (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I find it a bit perplexing since on one hand Langcom had stated in 2011 that other languages can be eligible for simple Wikis and that nobody said that simple.FRwiki is definitely canned, but on the other hand nobody has opened the test wiki after all this time, and therefore simple.FRwiki is unable to move forward. Anyhow I wouldn't mind if the simple wiki was folded into as a "side tab". I wouldn't mind if a simple French version was started within the French Wikipedia rather than as a separate project. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Is the word etymology a "Simple English" word?[change source]

While editing our article for Boise, Idaho, I added a section for the origin of the name. Another editor changed the words Origin of name to the word Etymology. Of course, I realize that etymology means "the study of the origin and historical development of a word." The question for the community is whether this term is simple enough for Simple English Wikipedia? The words name and word appear on the Ogden basic word list, and the word origin appears in the expanded version of the word list. So Origin of name or Origin of word are both perfectly simple section headers. Etymology is not on any simple word list, so I don't think we can call it a simple term. In other sections, we prefer to use other websites instead of external links, and we have other conventions where we differ from English Wikipedia and other Wikipedia projects in order to make our articles easier to read for English learners. I am proposing that we add etymology to the list of words that should be simplified when used as a section header, and that this should be reflected in our version of WP:MOS. Etamni | ✉   17:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Generally the idea is to use the simplest option possible while still maintaining the meaning. Origin of the name is definitely simpler than Etymology. You could possibly push it further to Begining of name but that might change the meaning slightly. I don't think we really need to codify it anywhere, we just do it as it isn't a standard heading found on every page like "other websites", but I suppose there is no reason we couldn't other than it will make MOS pages that much more complex to start listing every such thing. That change was only made by someone who has edited here for 6 days, probably just not aware of how simple things should be. -DJSasso (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
We have the article Etymology, so usually it could be used with a link. However, since we're not supposed to have links in headings, I'd also go with "Origin of the name", "Where the name came from", or something similar. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
The word could be unlinked in a heading, but used linked in the text. 'Origin of the name' as a subhead is also good, but definitely not anything which smacks of baby-talk. If the topic is academic, then its language is bound to reflect that, even though it is simplified. We have different types of page content, and the language needs to fit the occasion. An article should have an appropriate style for the content, as well as the readership. It should not switch noticeably from one style to another. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Template: {native name|ar|...} does not work[change source]

  • {native name|ar| جمهورية جيبوتي |italic=no} ar (= Arabic language) seems not to work. RESULT: (language?)
Republic of Djibouti
جمهورية جيبوتي  (Arabic)
République de Djibouti  (French)
Gabuutih Ummuuno  (Afar)
Jamhuuriyadda Jabuuti  (Somali)

Jumhūriyyat Jībūtī Djibouti is a [country] on the eastern coast of Africa. Djibouti gained its independence on June 27, 1977.
but: Infobox country
Koninkrijk België  (Dutch)
Royaume de Belgique  (French)
Königreich Belgien  (German)
END -- (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Chenzw  Talk  15:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

A WikiProject Astronomy for Simple English Wikipedia?[change source]

I've created a Simple English version of Wikiproject Astronomy, and two task forces, one for dealing with Solar System related articles and one for Astronomical objects. Thoughts? Davidbuddy9 Talk  20:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good project to have: good luck with it! Be aware that on this Wikipedia, WikiProjects are unofficial and are managed completely in userspace. This means that, among other things, we don't use WikiProject templates on articles or their talk pages. If you have any questions about how these projects are managed, feel free to ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I realised that after I made the templates :( But I think this is will be useful for Simple Wikipedia as Simple Wikipedia has very low number of Astronomy articles. Davidbuddy9 Talk  23:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm Back[change source]

Yes, I am back. PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 00:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
P.S. I also need a refresher.

Looking back on my actions, I realize that maybe I wasn't all too helpful. Maybe next time I won't do so much crazy stuff. I am going to start over. Of course, I'm going to keep this account. Just please think of me as a new person. This time, I will try to be helpful. PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 00:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Nothing much has changed that needs to be noted. Take a look at Category:Wikipedia policies if you need to refresh your memory. Chenzw  Talk  01:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Keep in mind that your topic bans are still in effect. If you violate them, you may be blocked. --Auntof6 (talk)
@Auntof6:How can I get them lifted? PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 21:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Also, what are theey again @Auntof6? I forgot. PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 21:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Let's discuss that on your talk page. I will answer there. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Welcome back. --Lithorien TalkChanges 12:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks @Chenzw, Lithorien:. PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 21:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

A new "Welcome" dialog[change source]

Hello everyone. This is a heads-up about a change which has just been announced in Tech News: Add the "welcome" dialog (with button to switch) to the wikitext editor.

In a nutshell, later this week this will provide a one-time "Welcome" message in the wikitext editor which explains that anyone can edit, and every improvement helps. The user can then start editing in the wikitext editor right away, or switch to the visual editor. (This is the equivalent of an already existing welcome message for visual editor users, which suggests the option to switch to the wikitext editor. If you have already seen this dialog in the visual editor, you will not see the new one in the wikitext editor.)

  • I want to make sure that, although users will see this dialog only once, they can read it in their language as much as possible. Please read the instructions if you can help with that.
  • I also want to underline that the dialog does not change in any way current site-wide and personal configurations of the visual editor. Nothing changes permanently for users who chose to hide the visual editor in their Preferences or for those who don't use it anyway, or for wikis where it's still a Beta Feature, or for wikis where certain groups of users don't get the visual editor tab, etc.
    • There is a slight chance that you see a few more questions than usual about the visual editor. Please refer people to the documentation or to the feedback page, and feel free to ping me if you have questions too!
  • Finally, I want to acknowledge that, while not everyone will see that dialog, many of you will; if you're reading this you are likely not the intended recipients of that one-time dialog, so you may be confused or annoyed by it—and if this is the case, I'm truly sorry about that. This message also avoids that you have to explain the same thing over and over again—just point to this section. Please feel free to cross-post this message at other venues on this wiki if you think it will help avoid that users feel caught by surprise by this change.

If you want to learn more, please see; if you have feedback or think you need to report a bug with the dialog, you can post in that task (or at if you prefer).

Thanks for your attention and happy editing, Elitre (WMF) 16:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Having trouble[change source]

I am trying to make a page creator for my user page to make it easier for creating sandbox pages. However, I am having trouble. It is at the bottom, and it is too short. I want to make it fit the whole page. Could someone help me? P.S. I borrowed the code from the Article Wizard Creator. —This unsigned comment was added by PokestarFan (talkchanges) 23:14, 16 May 2016‎ (UTC)

Example[change source]

I deleted the example because it might be disrupting the content. PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 22:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Code[change source]

placeholder=Page Name
editintro=Template:Article wizard/draft editintro
buttonlabel=Create new page

Reply: Try this:[change source]

buttonlabel=Create new page
  • Note: remove the <td> and </td> tags. Also, copy the code as you see it here, without other tags that might appear in other views of this page. As written, this will create new sandboxes within a directory named sandbox. This makes it easier to find things later when a number of subpages have been created. I strongly recommend that this be employed from within a registered account, lest a change in IP addresses causes the content to become difficult to find. Etamni | ✉   06:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Additional note: The example may need to be deleted as it appears that it will keep moving down the page as new content is added. If this continues when a new topic is added to WP:ST, then it will need to be deleted unless someone knows how to pin it into the section where the code is. Etamni | ✉   06:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Additional note for PokestarFan: Please make sure your use of this code fits within your current topic ban before you use it. I've answered the question because this might be of interest to numerous editors, but this should not be interpreted as meaning that it is OK in your particular case to create pages this way -- that is up to your mentors and/or the admins to decide. Etamni | ✉   06:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • You should not be doing this. No-one needs a code to create sandbox pages. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Autopatrolled[change source]

Autopatrolled not created. (talk) 03:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

you are on the wrong wikipedia if you want autopatrolled status. Etimena (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Please be more specific. It is unclear what you are asking for. Autopatrolled status is granted after a registered user has been active for at least four days and has made ten or more edits. As an IP user, your IP account won't be eligible for autopatrolled status. Even if it were, your first post from that IP was the one above, and as of right now, that is your only post. Etamni | ✉   04:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@Etamni: You are talking about autoconfirmed, not autopatrolled. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, call me half-asleep! I've stricken part of my comment above. Nonetheless, the status is still not available to IP users, so the user should be more specific in the comment. Etamni | ✉   05:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
This IP (and related edits to this page regarding autopatrolled and researcher user rights) is part of an attempt to evade a global block. This "request" was not intended to make sense. Chenzw  Talk  05:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Autopatrolled. (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Chenzw, do you know who this person might be? Etimena (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
No idea. I think this editor edits anonymously only. Chenzw  Talk  03:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for extra eyes[change source]

I wonder if one or two colleagues might have a look at Hebrew calendar#Details. I just added this section, and wouldn't mind a second opinion on factors related to Simple English. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Cats for singles by year[change source]

I think that singles should be categorised by year they were released, as well as the year the song was released, which is often different. Jim Michael (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, although this could add a layer of complexity in our category structure. People could get confused about where to place song articles. Sometimes the word "single" is used interchangeably (although incorrectly) with "song". If we're going to have both sets of categories, we should define them better, such as with more specific category names. Even a category like "2015 songs" doesn't say if that's the year the song was written, the year it was released, the year it was copyrighted, or what.--Auntof6 (talk) 09:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Being simple doesn't mean we should be wrong or incomplete. I think 2016 singles, 2015 singles etc. and 2016 songs, 2015 songs is easy to understand. However, we can make things clearer by writing a brief description on both sets of cats. Jim Michael (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I actually disagree with Jim Michael on this. We do not have, and do not need, as elaborate a category structure here as some other wikis have. I'd rather have one set of categories (xxxx songs) and let people categorize them as they will. And if we need to take a stand on regularizing the categories, then let's define them as songs and year of first release of any type and be done. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
As things are, many singles are in the wrong year of songs, because singles are being categorised by year of release despite the fact that singles are often released during a different year to the album they're from. Having songs cat and singles cats avoids this problem. A single released this year from an album released last year will be in the 2015 songs and 2016 singles cats. That's an improvement as well as a clarification. It was seeing that many singles were in the wrong year that made me start creating singles cats. Without both sets of cats existing, many people will wrongly put singles cats in the wrong years - for example 'correcting' a 2015 song released as a single this year into 2016 songs. Not all notable songs are released as singles and not all singles are from notable albums, so they won't all be in both singles and songs cats. Jim Michael (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with StevenJ81 above and here's why. I really want to create an article for Vera Lynn's song "We'll Meet Again'. No matter how many times it has been featured in other media or sung, it is still just a '1939 song' and a 'WWII song'. To me the word 'single' is jargon for audio recordings of a certain length and 'song' is a basic word. For an extreme example of how confusing things can become, please look at the categories I have just hidden in Last Christmas: [1] If we did that article justice and had more than a few sentences, we would need all those categories under this system. It however, is still just a '1984 song' and a 'Christmas song' and probably one giving credit to either 'Wham' or 'George Michael' as creators. Fylbecatulous talk 21:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Single is neither jargon nor complicated. It's a well-understood, basic term. Jim Michael (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
In simple english it is complicated cause the word has multiple meanings, any word that has multiple meanings is generally considered to be a complex word. -DJSasso (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
If the issue is the word, then we could replace it with a different word. It seems strange to not categorise articles about singles by the year they were released as well as by the year the song was released. Jim Michael (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I actually think that's not the main issue here. If "single" is complex enough such that it should not appear in articles, why then does {{Infobox single}} exist as it is? Chenzw  Talk  16:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
That infobox links to the article Single (music). Articles that use the word should link there, too. The word may be well understood among music aficionados, but it is jargon and it is ambiguous without context, so it is complex, at least in this meaning. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I think that most people know what is meant by a music single. If the term should be linked as single, then that should be done on every article of a single, whether the single cats are to exist or not. If it's linked, there's no ambiguity. Jim Michael (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Just remember we write articles here for people who we assume don't know English so a specialized mean of a word like that can be confusing. And yes, it should be probably. -DJSasso (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
We can in no way assume that every reader knows the meaning of 'single'. It is definately slang, cant, or jargon, excluding those outside the world of music. (Ask someone young what 'stuck in the groove' means) In the 1960's singles were known as hit records. Pete Townshend famously said in the early days of The Who: "we can't go on making hit records forever". Singles were released to increase the sales of albums, with the hope they would be 'hits'. Fylbecatulous talk 02:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
An article about a song from an album which has been released as a single should state which year the album was released and which year the single was released. When the relevant info is in the article, with the terms linked, the cats are helpful and aren't ambiguous. Jim Michael (talk) 05:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Music in general is full of date categories. Example: written music pre-20th century is described by author, date of manuscript, details of first and other notable performances. After about 1900, recording methods change the scenario. There is date of sheet music publication (very important in the music industry as the basis of composers' royalties). Then notable recordings, date of. Finally, in modern popular music the same (or closely similar) recordings may be presented for sale in various formats. All this information might appear on a well-written page. However, I would not have categories for any data which is essentially trivial in the long term. And we need to be very clear what is meant by "release" or "format". We should not add categories just because we have data. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
What year a single is released isn't trivial. If an article is about a single that was released in 2015, from a 2014 album, then both those facts are relevant in the long term as well as the short term, so why would both cats not be valid? Jim Michael (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

History Deleted for Wikipedia Contributions[change source]

The history for my contributions to Wikipedia over the years has been deleted. I just noticed this when I looked at the Eddie Hurley page, one that I had created a few years ago, and there is no mention of me having been associated with the page or any other. What's going on with this? — This unsigned comment was added by Intassage (talk • changes) at 05:10, 24 May 2016.

You are on the wrong Wikipedia. This is Simple English Wikipedia. Your changes were done on English Wikipedia: see here. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)