Wikipedia:Simple talk

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


Fixing cut and paste move-revert at Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon, Duchess of Orléans[change source]

I noticed this page was moved normally, but then cut-and-pasted back to the original title a few weeks ago. Personally I'd favor the old title without the disambiguator (Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon) without specific advice in our own Manual of Style, but I feel this should be discussed before an administrator implements a consensus (since things have been disputed back and forth a bit). Thanks! — Alpha3031 (tc) 03:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Where we can be simpler, we should be. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
The back and forth is due to a long term abuse account. It has been fixed back to where it should be. -DJSasso (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

{{Infobox World Heritage Site}}[change source]

This one is beyond me, but {{Infobox World Heritage Site}} needs fixed. It pulls data from wikidata to populate fields, however when a field has multiple values (IE images on Way of St. James) it breaks. Can someone please take a look? Nunabas (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Taking a look. -DJSasso (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Looks like the page itself just had an old way of calling the template. But I also updated the template to make sure all the code was current. -DJSasso (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Read-only mode for up to 30 minutes on 11 April[change source]

10:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Goettingen[change source]

There should be a redirect for 'Goettingen' to Göttingen. Also, the site has this error message: Lua error in Module:Location_map at line 488: Unable to find the specified location map definition: "Module:Location map/data/Germany Niedersachsen" does not exist. - Maybe someone can fix it. Kdammers (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah looks like the location map module just hasn't be created for that page yet. Easy to do. -DJSasso (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Medium-Term Plan feedback request[change source]

Please help translate to your language

The Wikimedia Foundation has published a Medium-Term Plan proposal covering the next 3–5 years. We want your feedback! Please leave all comments and questions, in any language, on the talk page, by April 20. Thank you! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

AWB assist needed[change source]

{{class project}} is being used on about two dozen articles. None of the articles have been edited as part of the projects since 2018. Could someone with AWB go through and remove them from the articles? The template implies that they're currently being edited as part of the projects, but they're stale now. They could also be moved to the talk pages if deemed appropriate. With the amount of edits needed, AWB would be helpful. Thanks, Only (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I can do it. Just give me a few minutes to get my laptop booted up. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@Only: Done. I ended up deleting a few of them, because they said only something like "Jane Doe was an activist.". --Auntof6 (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
thanks for the help! Only (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

squares[change source]

To the left of entries and to the right of the circles, there is a square before each entry in the revision lists. What is it for? Kdammers (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

They're used to let you select individual revisions to take certain actions. One such action is revision deletion. Some, maybe all, of those actions are restricted to admins. I see a couple of clickable boxes related to such actions, but you might not see them if you aren't authorized to perform the actions. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Simple English on Wikipedia sidebar[change source]

Simple English used to be an option for articles on Wikipedia if the article had a Simple English version. Now the Languages selection in the sidebar never shows the Simple English article as an option, even if it does exist. As a result, for months (including when the feature was in beta), I thought that an overwhelming amount of articles simply had no Simple English version.

How can I figure out whether an article has a Simple English Wikipedia version from English Wikipedia? Erik Humphrey (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you can see red/blue links from en.wp to simple.wp but this script at leads adds a tab at en.wp to easily click to simple.wp. :/ —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 05:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@Koavf: I don't think Erik Humphrey was talking about red vs. blue links.
Erik: Can you give an example of a page on enwiki where you can't see Simple English in the language list even though there is an article here? There are at least a couple of things that affect which languages appear in the list:
  • Is the Simple English Wikipedia article linked to the enwiki article in Wikidata? To appear, it must be linked there.
  • Are you using the Compact Language Links feature on enwiki? If you are, you might need to tell it to include Simple English in your initial list. To check whether you are using this feature, go to your preferences on enwiki, select the appearances tab, go to the bottom of that page under the Languages heading, and see if the checkbox for compact language list is selected.
Let me know if any if that helps. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
If you're using Compact Language Links, you're unable to find Simple English articles. See phabricator:T210840. Vermont (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@Vermont: Could you fix that link, please? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I would point out you need to do that on English Wikipedia, turning it off here won't help. -DJSasso (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Which is why I said "go to your preferences on enwiki". --Auntof6 (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes and which I why I was reiterating it and making it clear by separating it out of your big comment and indicating it won't work if you do it here which you hadn't mentioned. -DJSasso (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Thanks. I thought they removed the ability to disable the feature and forced it on for everyone. Don't think there's a reliable way of adding Simple English to the ULS/CLL without scripts right now. Erik Humphrey (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The reliable way right now is to turn off CLL until they fix the bug. When you do it will revert back to the old way of listing the links which works better. -DJSasso (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Semiprotect WP:SEW[change source]

I am going to propose (again) that Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia be permanently semi-protected. I make this proposal fully cognizant of our policies and practices here that (a) we are highly reluctant to protect pages, and (b) that it's hard to argue that the administrators can't keep up with the problems. Still, consider the following statistics, dating back to January 1, 2017:

  • There have been somewhere around 170 edits to that page in that period.
  • Six (6) have been constructive edits resulting in changes to the page, of which one (1) was from an IP contributor.
  • The rest have all been vandalism, or reversal of vandalism.

In my mind, there are certain pages in the "Wikipedia:" (and "Help:") namespaces that we as a community should have an interest in keeping ready and accessible, because they describe who we are and how we do them. I don't like the idea that people would come to consult them and see something ridiculous (or worse) on them. WP:SEW is one such page. Yes, the sysops can keep up—but if a potential new user appears while the vandalism is in place, we look bad. And I don't want us to look bad.

Additionally, I find it hard to see how an IP user is likely to have something worthwhile to contribute on a page like that. The vast majority of IP users are either (a) vandals or (b) new or casual contributors who are decidedly not vandals, but who really have not been around long enough to have real contributions to make to the description of the project. Yes, there are a handful of people who are IP-users-by-principle. And there are sometimes worthwhile contributions to come from new users. That's why {{Changeprotected}} exists. On the whole, though, the page seems to be a magnet for vandals, especially IP vandals, and for no good cause, in my opinion.

I only propose semi-protection. Anyone who is really committed to the community is entitled to edit a page like this. But I think it's time to take this vandal magnet away from the vandals. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Our openness to being the wiki that anyone can edit is more important than the very unlikely chance a reader hits that page at the very same time there is vandalism on it. And even if they manage to do it, its a small price to pay for sticking to the stated goals of the wiki. A very small number of vandal edits per month is very much the definition of protection not needed. -DJSasso (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Seen the history, yes, there are vandalism. However, the frequency isn't regular and we do have productive IP editors who created many articles here. They, IMO, can be trusted to edit such pages and I personally do not want to limit their ability to edit such pages. Having said that, I won't be against protection if a mass spree of vandalism and reverting take place. With this, currently I do not see any need to protect. --Cohaf (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Astronomy note[change source]

Probably, whenever we say an object is in a constellation, we should spell it out by inserting "in the direction of", rather than just "in the constellation of..." That's just to accept there will be some who don't know, or forget, that the constellations are visual fictions. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I suppose that would probably depend on if it was a star or part of a system that makes up the constellation itself. If that is the case saying "in the direction of" would be misleading if not incorrect. If it just near a constellation then yes what you say would make sense. Probably very dependant on context. -DJSasso (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, constellations are still useful for amateurs in identifying where to look in the sky. The classic stars (etc) that make them up are the constellation. However, in modern professional astronomy their usefulness is long over. Objects seen in the Hubble Deep Field initiative are so distant in time and space that, although they may be in the direction of this or that constellation, that is simply an accidental coincidence. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
To astronomers, a constellation isn't just the stars that make up an image, it's the whole section of the sky that those stars are in. The entire sky is divided into sections, each associated with the constellation that's in it. So to say that an object is in a constellation can mean that the object is in the area of the sky assigned to that constellation. If you look at the image currently in our Constellation article, you see a yellow dashed line that marks the border of the constellation Pegasus. Anything that appears from Earth to be inside that line can be said to be in that constellation. So it's OK to say that something is in a constellation, knowing that that just means that that's the part of the sky where you can see it. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Problems with footers[change source]

While looking at Miocene, I noticed that its footer "Geological history of Earth" sat open, even though looking at its edit page it seems instructed to be closed, as it is on En wiki. Why is ours not closed, and can someone fix it to be closed? Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC).