Wikipedia:Simple talk

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


Helpful, humorous essay from The Signpost[change source]

The latest Signpost has this essay on "Principle of Some Astonishment". It's a fun read, and at the same time illustrates some things we can use to make articles simpler here. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I write for the Signpost. Would you like to set a Simple English Version here? Best Regards, Barbara (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Simple News. It's been inactive since 2011. Vermont (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
If some users are interested, I think we can restart it. We need a group of 5-7 editors for that.-BRP ever 03:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I've been an intermediate-editor on Wikipedia for several years, yet today is the first time I've seen Simple English Wikipedia. I immediately wanted to know more and be involved in this project, and I was looking at this Talk page for something like the News page. I would be interested in it restarting, and would be willing to help as an editor if that would be useful. (And this is my first time trying to write a Talk reply in Basic English - it's harder than I thought it would be.) CleverTitania (talk) 04:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I'll note that we don't strictly keep to Basic English. Rather, we use a simple version of English; we have the use of most words except we commonly wikt:link them to Wiktionary or articles. Anyways, welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia! I don't think we currently have enough activity to support a monthly news, although I would be in support of a periodic news source, not strictly set so as to allow more time for the smaller community. (note that this post is not in Simple English; I don't usually keep to it on administrative/discussion boards) Vermont (talk) 09:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: No editing for up to an hour on 10 October[change source]

Note: The normal delivery of this message failed, so I am copying it from elsewhere. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

12:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Google+[change source]

Hi, I've just added a bit on Google+ being shut down in 2019 but I wanted to ask if someone could check to see if it's simple enough ?, I've tried the best I can but I wasn't sure if it was simple enough ?, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Davey2010, your changes seem to be fine IMO. I've split the one sentence into two and other than that "expose" might be a bit problematic. Hiàn (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I simplified a little more. I found a different way to say "exposed", and I unpiped "software bug" so that readers can immediately see what is meant (jargon can be tricky). --Auntof6 (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the long delay not usually on here these days, Many thanks Hiàn and Auntof6 very kind of you both, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Too much detail on userpage?[change source]

User:Fiery3 has a very detailed autobiography on her userpage, including claims of illness and lots of personal details that would be useful to scammers. Not sure if that's against your rules here, but on basic common sense grounds, perhaps an established user should have a word with her? 129.67.118.138 (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The user is now blocked indefinitely for Long-term abuse so I replaced the user page with {{Blocked user}} after consulting vermont. Thanks-BRP ever 20:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
None of those details are real. Vermont (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 (change conflict)  for future reference, if the person is an adult, they can put personal details on their user page. (Minors can put some, but certain information such as their age is not allowed.) We have at least one other user page with that kind of detail. However, the content on that page has now been replaced anyway, with a template saying that the user has been indeffed. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Might be good to remember that this is not Facebook, and so user pages should probably be project focussed.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I prefer not to see user pages used this way, but I think WP:User page (which is a guideline, not a policy) allows it. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Weird personal attack apparently posted by an admin[change source]

Okay... this is strange. Am I the only person that noticed it?? 95.252.214.67 (talk) 09:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Auntof6 for an explanation. Vermont (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Just per Vermont's edit summary, looking at her edits for that day she did revert some edits on the Adolf Hitler page that day so she may have had something queued up and somehow it got intertwined with that edit. Seems pretty out of character for her. -DJSasso (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. It's possible she had "Adolf Hitler" on her clipboard and misclicked. Vermont (talk) 11:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I think that's what happened. I certainly didn't intend to replace the user's name, just to add the paragraph about restoring the article. It looks like I meant to copy the user name from the existing paragraph (to paste it into the ping), but I accidentally did a paste instead of copying. My tablet's controls sometimes seem a little off: I've caught many similar things before I saved them. I apologize, and I will pay closer attention in the future. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


Feedback requested[change source]

I'm writing up a page on IPV6 for simple wiki over here in my user space. It's not quite yet done, but I'm looking for feedback on this because I'm a major geek and want to make this as simple as possible so it can be suitable for wiki, and secondly to check for errors. Feel ffree to check it and make corrections as you see fit! Necromonger Wekeepwhatwekill 00:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Wekeepwhatwekill: I made some changes in the introduction for tone, grammar, and simplicity. I can do more later. Let me know if you have any questions about what I did. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@Wekeepwhatwekill: I reallly nuked your article... please revert if you like, I won't be offended... and please don't be offended by my edits. See your talk page. Operator873talkconnect 01:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

merge of articles[change source]

Can someone please merge List of hurricanes in Connecticut into List of New England hurricanes? 'Cause I don't think we need two articles about the same thing. Furthermore, the latter article is more specific. Angela Maureen (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Stub articles on Greek literary concepts[change source]

These two IPs, probably the same person and both tracing to University of California, Berkeley, have created a number of poor and unreferenced stub articles on Greek literary concepts (example). They all relate primarily to Homer's epic poems Iliad and Odyssey. They are:

I and another editor have repaired and referenced them all. But most of them should probably be merged into the articles on Homer's poems except for Aristeia and Ekphrasis, which are broader in scope and can stand alone. I'll leave it for others to decide. Voceditenore (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Spacing around stub templates[change source]

Please remember to leave two blank lines before a stub template. (That includes the {{multistub}} template.) The reason is so that the text from the stub template is visually set apart from the article text instead of potentially looking like a continuation of it. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I wanna create a separate wiki w/ articles copied from this wiki but w/ different writing system[change source]

So i have an idea to create a wiki with all or some articles from Simple English Wikipedia, but in Cyrillic Script. I also have an idea of writing Hawaiian Wikipedia articles in Japanese writing system, but i'm currently not gonna do that. I don't really need any media like pictures, videos and audio from the wiki so i don't want to import that, only text and write it in Cyrillic. It's just for fun and experimental purposes. So am i allowed to do all that? I gotta feeling the answer is NO but at least i asked Vetterkaese (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Vetterkaese:. You can absolutely do so if you wish as all articles on the Simple English Wikipedia are licensed freely under the CC BY-SA 3.0 and GNU Free Documentation licenses as long as there is some form of attribution. I highly suggest reading this page for more info. Hiàn (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
OK so i guess then when re-writing an article in Cyrillic i shall also post a link to the original article as a reference, if that's what you mean by attribution, right? BTW thanks very much for permission :D Vetterkaese (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I will note that if you follow all the rules, you can do this on a non-Wikimedia wiki (even if it runs the MediaWiki software). Wikimedia's Language Committee will not approve an English-in-Cyrillic project. For LangCom: StevenJ81 (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Mass message delivery failing to Wikipedia:Simple talk[change source]

A look at Special:Log/massmessage (the mass message log) shows that attempts to deliver mass messages here appear to have been failing for some time. The log messages say "failed with an error code of readonly", but the protection level seems to be set appropriately. Does anyone know how to fix this? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Generally that means the database is locked, but that doesn't look right in this case. I'll dig in and see what's happening or if this has happened before and what solutions were found. Operator873talkconnect 18:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@Auntof6: There is an open ticket on this issue. Seems to not be related to page protections or any sysop actions. Users who've posted on the ticket believe something to be broken in Mediawiki itself. Operator873talkconnect 18:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I've subscribed to that ticket and the related one. When I see these, I'll try to remember to copy the intended message here from another wiki. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I originally linked to the wrong ticket. I've since fixed the link. Operator873talkconnect 18:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah this has been an issue for like years and years. I think you have asked about it before. I don't expect it to be fixed anytime soon cause its been an issue for as long as I can remember. To be honest its nice that they don't always hit the page as they are far to spammy a lot of the time. -DJSasso (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The Community Wishlist Survey[change source]

Note: This is User:Auntof6 adding this message, because the automated message delivery failed. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

11:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Editing News #2—2018[change source]

14:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Asian Month is now on! (again)[change source]

Hi all! Another reminder that Wikipedia Asian Month has begun. It's a great way to get a prize (postcard straight from Asia) for contributing high-quality articles related to Asia. Please don't hesitate to sign up and contribute articles throughout November, there's a lot we can do here. Hiàn (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

"English Americans"[change source]

I see we are gettting more of these pages. I think we discussed them before, and reached a conclusion that they led to ridiculous categories. After all, almost all Americans are immigrants or descendents of immigrants. Can anyone find our previous discussion? Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Yep.
I nuke these on sight, although another admin has questioned whether QDing them under WP:QD#G4 is valid after several years have gone by. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
PS: My answer was about the categories. I don't remember any RfDs about the articles, but they can be deleted for having no content if all they say is restating the article title. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah at 4 or 5 years on, its probably best not to G4 them anymore as consensus can change, especially after such a long time. And that isn't saying I think they should stay, they should go. And that was only about the categories, don't recall any discussions about articles. -DJSasso (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Coincidentally, in fixing the Claes Oldenburg page this morning, I looked in vain for an equivalent to en:Category:Swedish emigrants to the United States. Considering the rising and conflicted local/global issues surrounding cross-border migrations past-present-future, I suggest this is content of interest to Simple WP readers. How would they easily access such information? Fair disclosure: one of my favorite activities is creating and populating categories Categories offer a unique, condensed view of granular content plus are easier to maintain than List-of pages. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Redacted 13:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah a Swedish emigrants to the United States would be a valid one and you could go ahead and create it, as it is specific to a group of people who emigrated. The categories like "Swedish Americans" were an issue because it was used on anyone with a single drop of Swedish blood in them and was hard to police. -DJSasso (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

cv-type articles in general[change source]

I bring attention to Carol wilder, a new page with a copy of her curriculum vitae. She seems notable, but it is not an article as it stands. Probably the work of an agency or even the person herself. It is an advertisement of herself, but it has no commercial element. If we commit to editing such pages we might be overwhelmed. If we don't edit them, they will stick out like a sore thumb. I thought it best to alert others to this issue, as it is certainly going to grow in future. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps suggest a new type of speedy deletion or a proposed deletion like at English? I agree that it will grow but otherwise it's just a matter of marking them for cleanup and waiting until they are done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
As the subject seemed sufficiently notable, associated with reputable institutions and in a field (media) that interests me, I spent some time wikifying the page mainly with MOS section headings, removing embedded interwiki links to EN WP, and for one section fixed other web sources in proper ref format using the Template:Cite web. On return inspection I encountered further problems mentioned on Talk:Carol Wilder#Content. Actually some red links indicate pages I'd like to create here, e.g. Fulbright scholar, The New School, etc. I'll get back to Carol Wilder, especially to create a Wikidata item - based on finding reliable, verifiable sources. It remains to be seen whether she merits a page here and in the EN WP - or neither. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Change coming to how certain templates will appear on the mobile web[change source]

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Words[change source]

Hi, Are words like: selfish, insensitive. cynical and reckless simple words ?, Personally I would say the last 3 aren't but I don't really know what could replace them, Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

That depends on what your criteria are for being simple. There are various word lists you can check. As far as what could replace them, that depends on context. Are you looking at something specific that uses these? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Auntof6, The words are currently used at User:Davey2010/sandbox7#Characters, I didn't think these words could be considered simple, Anyway thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
i'd have to be familiar with the characters before I could tell you what to replace those words with. We have the articles Selfishness, Highly sensitive person, and Cynicism you could link to, although I'm not sure that second one is a good match. Another option is to leave those parts of the descriptions out. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Auntof6, I think that's probably the best option really, Okie dokie I'll take them out, Thanks for replying and helping it's really appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Section placement to follow graphic file[change source]

On the page 43rd Canadian federal election, what's the way to place and anchor the next section heading (References) to follow the Opinion polling section that consists of a graphic image file with caption? -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Deborahjay: I moved the image to the center which I think is a better place. But I think adding {{-}} will also work.-BRP ever 12:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

merge of articles-2nd time[change source]

Can we please merge List of hurricanes in Connecticut into the List of New England hurricanes article? We do not need two articles on the same topic. I don't know how to merge, so can someone merge the articles? Angela Maureen (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@September 1988: There's no special trick to merging: it's a manual process, not automated. You take the information in one article, figure out how to fit it into the other, then either delete or redirect the first one. In this case, at least some of the hurricanes shown in the Connecticut article are already listed in the New England article, so there might be very little to merge: you might just need to get a little information from articles on the individual hurricanes so you can match the format of the New England article. Why not give it a try?
First, though, you might want to get consensus that we want to do this. It might be better to change the New England article into articles for individual states: why should those states be grouped when others aren't? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
How can I get consensus prior to merging the two articles into one another? Also, why would it be better to change the New England article into individual states instead of being grouped together? Angela Maureen (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
You get consensus by having a discussion where you get input from a variety of people. That could be this discussion, or a discussion on the talk page of one of the articles.
I don't know if it would be better to break up the New England article: we could have both. I would wonder why we'd want to group the hurricanes for that region when we don't group them for other regions. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Swaziland vs. Eswatini[change source]

This topic has been raised again at Talk:Swaziland. Apparently enwiki and some other Wikipedias, plus Wikidata and Commons, are using the new name. Please comment on the talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I also note that the article for the country has already had some name changes applied, just not the actual article name. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Character table[change source]

Hi again, Just wanted to ask would our readers understand the tables at User:Davey2010/sandbox7
(Pupils, Teachers, Headteachers and "Last characters in Waterloo Road" would all be in seperate individual articles (ie List of Waterloo Road pupils, List of Waterloo Road teachers etc as I know having it like en:List of Waterloo Road characters would be waaay too much),

I just didn't know if specifically the green series bits in the tables would be understood ?, I could remove the "a, b, c"s from the tables if that would help ?,

Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about our readers, but I don't understand the a, b, c stuff. It's not a question of complex language, though. Maybe the series column could just list the series numbers instead of using the color coding. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Auntof6, To be honest doing it that way was the first thing I thought of but I guess I was afraid of making things too simple if that makes sense, Many thanks again for your reply, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 01:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Auntof6, Really sorry to bother you again, Just wanted to ask are the tables at User:Davey2010/sandbox7 okay ?,
Should hyphens be replaced with "to" (Series 5-6 > Series 5 to 6, and
Should the commas be replaced with "and" (Series 5-6,8 > Series 5-6 and 8),
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, there are several ways you could do it. If it were me, I think I'd just list each number, not ranges, and not include the word "series" (except in the heading, of course). For example, instead of "Series 3 to 5, and Series 8", I'd just put "3,4,5,8". --Auntof6 (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi again, Okie dokie I'll do it that way, I did notice "series" seems reduant but at the same time thought just "4-6" looked odd, Okie dokie I'll do that, I shan't bother you now :), Thanks again, –Davey2010Talk 20:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)