Wikipedia:Simple talk

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

User group for Military Historians[change source]


"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Jay-Z[change source]

Hi, Could someone move JAY-Z to Jay-Z as there's no need for the caps (The musician goes by both upper and lowercase) and the article over at EN isn't in uppercase, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. -DJSasso (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Brilliant thanks DJSasso :) –Davey2010Talk 17:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Help for translating an article Dark Leg / Dark Punk (Band)[change source]

Dear All: I tried to translate from Wikipedia Spanish Dark Leg / Dark Punk and Wikipedia Farsi Dark Leg / Dark Punk an article but you delect it . Could you please help me to translate this article in Wikipedia Simple English , IT IS NOTABILITY article in Wikipedia Spanish and Farsi. Best Regards, Aminnie (talk) 08:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Aminnie: The page you created in Spanish originally described an individual person but now describes a band (musical duo) with the same name. The original person is apparently d:DJ Mixify. The second paragraph of the es:Dark Leg / Dark Punk page is entirely about an individual person with no sources for its information. All the references are about the two albums. Now look at this Spanish to English translation of the original and most recent change of the lead sentence - both of which you wrote:
  • 18 November: Dark Leg / Dark Punk was a French DJ with her album "Mixtape Revolution" (Remix)."
  • 24 November: Dark Leg / Dark Punk was a French jazz and Electro band for [sic] the vocalist and guitarist Leg Guitar and DJ Mixify in [sic] 2013.
The Spanish is ungrammatical and there's no explanation or sources for the change from person to band. Also, why is there no page in the French Wikipedia?
  • The Farsi page (read in English via Google Translate) has different information in the lead sentence (about a band) and again, the second paragraph is about an individual.
So it's too soon to request a translation of that confusing and inadequate page from Spanish to make an article in the Simple English Wikipedia. Since you created the Spanish page before you created the Farsi, I suggest you fix both of those to the standard required here in Simple English. Then you can request help with creating a page here. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Remember too that everything about DJ Mixify and variants thereof have all been deleted here as non notable. If it was notable, English Wikipedia would have it (properly sourced of course). Chances are it's another one of the same set. Someone has a serious wish to publish DJ Mixify and her school, music, poetry and has tried under several different names too. DaneGeld (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear All,

     I made changes on farsi wikipedia Dark Leg / Dark Punk and  Spanish wikipedia Dark Leg / Dark Punk , and also Italian Wikipedia Dark Leg / Dark Punk for the described an individual person but now describes a band (musical duo) with the same name , and I put the article on French Wikipedia Dark leg / Dark Punk . Could you please translate the article Dark Leg / Dark Punk and put it on wikipedia simple english please ? or would you let me do it myself ? Aminnie (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)  
      Best Regards

Many pages up for deletion, please take a look and add comments.[change source]

Hello all,

At the time of this writing, there are 22 pages up for discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion. Those of you that haven't done so yet, plese take a look, and add votes/comments where you see fit. It will be easier to decide whether to delete a page, when there are comments. --Eptalon (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Eptalon: Thanks for letting us know. I am relatively new here and am wondering if deletions follow strict guidelines or whether it is more a matter of a popularity vote. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Please ping me
@Ottawahitech: RfDs are not supposed to be popularity votes. Some people may vote that way, but admins can ignore those comments. Actually, it is not really a vote at all. Comments in favor of keeping or deleting a page need to comment based on policies, guidelines, or other objective reasons. When admins close RfDs, they evaluate the comments based on which ones make the best arguments. If five users want a page kept because the subject is popular, but one or two give well-reasoned arguments for deleting, the page is likely to be deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
All I really wanted to say: We have relatively many RfDs (currently 12 or so), and getting input from other editors is always helpful to the closing admin. I am aware that "saving" some of the pages is more difficult. When you leave your vote/opinion, what counts is the arguments you present. I expect that all will probably be closed in 2017, as closing them in 2018 is more work, if they were already running in 2017. --Eptalon (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry christmas[change source]

Happy holidays, all! --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 23:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I second that. I wish you all peace and joy over Christmas, and a wonderful new year. Glædelig jul og godt nytår! :) DaneGeld (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Merry Christmas everyone! Remember to spend time with family! Zhangj1079 talk 20:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Populating a proposed new category[change source]

I've just imported content on "Piyaa Albela" for which I've only found very high-level categories here (i.e., television series, India, soap operas). Opening a new category such as en:Category:Hindi-language television programs or en:Category:Zee TV television series, either of which have several hundred pages in English, would require populating it with at least two others. How would you suggest searching other pages existing in Simple English, other than trial-and-error? -- 'Deborahjay (talk) 13:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Edited to add: I've been able to proceed because a page creator wrote on my User talk page with links to three (new) pages to populate the subsequently created Category:Hindi-language television series (though first spent an hour writing to three page creators on why and how to keep their single-sentence new pages from deletion) - but my earlier query still stands. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Deborahjay: Have you tried searching the term "Zee TV"? As far as Hindi-language television programs I don't see any inline citation in Piyaa Albela supporting the claim that this is a hindi-language program, but don't know how strict enforcement is of verifiability here. Is this what you were asking? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Please ping me
Thank you, @Ottawahitech:. I got "original language of the work" as a property in its Wikidata item d:Q29344599, referenced to its enwp page. In general, I'm keen on getting categories properly nested and was unsure whether and how I'd find other existing pages before creating a category. Per your suggestion I just tried a search of "Hindi TV" and came up with likely candidates. I'll try this systematically in the future. This is a daily exercise of mine here, improving a skimpy page from Special:UnconnectedPages when Wikidata shows a page in English or another language I read. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of maintenance templates[change source]

Is there a guideline that maintenance tags such as notability, redlinks, and unreliable sources must not be removed by the same user who created the article? There's a series of recent edits on Mahabharat (TV series) where I'm intervening, and if it's as I've described here, a rollback x2 is in order - but then I'd contend that sources are notable, etc. How to proceed? -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it's OK for the creator to remove tags if the issues are addressed. In this case, though, the tags were removed without any other changes. I've seen that editor do the same thing with at least one other article. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Great - this is a rationale I can apply according to whichever circumstances. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Cleaning up after long-term abuse by Zeshan Mahmood[change source]

The user account Zeshan Mahmood is globally locked [1] because of cross-wiki abuse. In a recent sockpuppet investigations case on, it turned out that they have extensively edit from IPs. IPs that geolocate to the same area and that follow the same editing patter, have been active here as well: like this one or that one. It's likely there have been many more. This user's edits were occasionally helpful, buy they have often added spurious content and created hoax articles (there's one obvious example). I'm leaving it to the community to decide what is the best way of dealing with their legacy. Uanfala (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

A triple feature for fans of Prashast Singh[change source]

In the past week+ we've had three new and related pages for Hindi films by one Prashast Singh:

  • Re HaiVaan ("for October 2018 release")
  • Bhaiyyajaan ("released digitally" by Amazon in 2017, i.e. made available for purchase?)
  • Himaang ("released" Oct. 2017 on YouTube and Amazon digital)

They appear to cite sources, but on inspection these are all self-posted announcements on movie and fan sites; the one link to the Times of India is simply a "coming attraction" with the exact graphic of the other sites, no commentary, no review. Other sites link to Facebook and Twitter. After my recent efforts to help new and IP account users creating pages on Hindi-language television series - most of which guidance brought about no improvements - I'm about out of good faith for what seems to be promotional content for non-notable solo projects, given their persistent lack of reliable third-party sources. I just don't know whether to go the route of QD or RfD with the necessary notifying, etc. What do you advise in these cases? -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I think, using RfD is a good solution, except for the most obvious cases:
  • Release-date in the future -> Crystal ball, will get deleted after a few days
  • Direct-to-whatever, no theatrical release -> generally not notable enough, or the zillionth installment of a franchise; same as above
You cannot lose going through RfD; you only gain credibility.--Eptalon (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
In some cases, movies not yet released can stay. See WP:NFM for details. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Block[change source]

Hi, Can someone block for a month please .... Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Well apparently for the last 30 minutes it's only been me and the IP on here, I now have things to do so the IP now has the entire site to himself!, A few of his ontribs are gonna need revdelling as he's been claiming they've died. –Davey2010Talk 00:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
@Davey2010: - I am not an admin but I will help keep an eye on it. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Done, BUT the place for this kind of request is WP:VIP, or at least the admins' noticeboard.. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks all, This request was posted here before I used recent changes .... . –Davey2010Talk 20:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Monitoring category content[change source]

I'm not sure if all of you know that there are options that let you see in your watchlist when something is added to or removed from a category (in addition to seeing when the category page itself is changed). To use this feature, first watch the categories you're interested in, then go to your watchlist, uncheck the box to hide page categorization, and click the "Show" button.

I thought I'd describe some of the ways I use this feature, in case anyone else finds them helpful.

Those are some of the ways I use the feature. If you have other ideas, I'd like to hear them. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Eptabot without false positives...[change source]

Hello all, just wanted to let you know that the bot "Eptabot" is now running without false positives. I still run it manually, and it still does not have a bot flag. When run it will:

  • Check all pages in the Category:Pages with nonexistent categories, and its subcategories if they still contain inexistent categories; remove the pages that do not. (by removing the template)
  • Go through the last ... edits, and look for pages that contain categories that don't exist here; add the resp. page to the Category mentionened above, in a monthly cleanup category. The cleanup category will be created if it does not exist.
  • Flag pages with no categories with the (dated) {{uncat}} template.

I'll probably try another run in a few days. If this does not produce false positives, I'll probably flag the bot and inquire how it could be run periodically.--Eptalon (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Which to link?[change source]

Kindly confirm or correct me on matters of making internal links to other pages:

  • A link is made once, with the first appearance on the page.
  • Multiple internal links to the same page are redundant and can/must be removed.
  • If a [short] page includes an Infobox whose content (e.g. place of birth, occupation) is repeated in lead paragraphs (i.e. above a Table of Contents box of sections), which is the preferred location for an internal link to another page: the lead / the Infobox / both?

And is the general rule-of-thumb for leaving a red link to a nonexistent page based on its potential notability for Simple WP in particular? N.B. Today's example comes from the Doreen Mantle page, which intriguingly (and to-me unfathomably) has been edited on a nearly daily basis lately but doesn't seem to grow. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

First off it's getting edited every day because its a sock puppet that keeps editing it and getting reverted as he is a blocked user. As for links, you can link multiple times depending on necessity, if it is a lengthier page for example it might make more sense to link something again than make a user search through the page for the first link. However, if it is in a list of things where the same thing is being repeated over and over, no don't link all of them. As for infobox, dates, English wikipedia likes to put them only in the infobox, but we don't really follow that. I tend to leave them in both, but either option is acceptable. And yes redlinks are good, if it is something that is likely notable and could resonably expect a page to be created (in a perfect "finished" encyclopedia) then leave them. -DJSasso (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Here's my take on multiple links to a given page. Internal links are there so that the reader can follow them if they want more info while reading the text part of an article. That's why the convention is to link a term only the first time it's used: if the reader is interested, they'll follow the link the first time and don't need it again. The exception is what Djsasso mentioned: long articles. If an article is long, a reader might read only parts of it, or might be interested in following the link only in a section that describes the thing being linked. Therefore it can be helpful to link a term more than once in the text, so that there's likely to be a link in the section being read.
However, I don't apply that to infoboxes, tables, and similar things in an article, because those might be read without reading the text. I link everything in infoboxes, and usually do the same in tables. I also link everything in articles like 1942. You'll see, for example, that World War II is linked multiple times there. That makes sense to me because someone might scan that page for a specific date instead of reading the whole thing, and they'll find the link in whatever part they read. The same logic applies to some kinds of lists. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Yup Auntof6 sums it up much better than I did. I agree with what she has said. -DJSasso (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Sandbox page is live in categories[change source]

What's the procedure for adding categories to an article in development, which appears in the current User:Wwikix/Sandbox? Isn't there some mechanism by which you list them with a colon (to the right of the double left-hand brackets?), and the eventual Move to Mainspace strips off the colons to go live, or something similar? I'd appreciate a clarification. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know these should be commented out whilst in userspace (like EN) however (like EN) categories aren't really monitored ... So if you come across a sandbox with cats in then it might be a good idea to either comment them out or send the userpsace to AFD. –Davey2010Talk 16:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
When I see article-space categories on a userspace draft, I disable them by using a colon as you describe. (The guideline Wikipedia:User page covers this.) If you aren't comfortable doing that yourself, feel free to ask an admin. It definitely does not call for RfD (we don't have AfD). Moving the page doesn't automatically reinstate the categories: that has to be done manually. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
AFD is appropriate if the sandbox's sat there for months or years untouched that's what I meant, Obviously don't send it to AFD just solely on the cats. –Davey2010Talk 16:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you[change source]

Hi, I recently noticed that Visual Editor is now enabled on Simple English Wikipedia, including userpages. THANK YOU very much for this change! It should make it easier to introduce new editors to Simple English Wikipedia. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah we have had it enabled for a few years now. :) It is great for those who like it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)