Wikipedia:Simple talk

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

Template:Cite magazine[change source]

On EnWiki, there is a template with the name "Cite magazine" which does not seem to exist here (the blue link here takes you to the template on EnWiki). I was working on an article (Flexagon) which has citations that rely on this template on EnWiki. Rather than reformat the citations, I think it would be a good idea to bring that template over to Simple. It uses Lua modules which I am not as familiar with as regular templates, so rather than boldly creating the template here, I thought it best to discuss first. Etamni | ✉   20:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Etamni: You can create it as a redirect it to {{Cite journal}} and it should work fine. I can't really tell from the module what exactly changed, but up until Lua was implemented, the template on enwiki was just a redirect. Osiris (talk) 08:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Osiris: Done. And it seems to have worked. Thanks. Etamni | ✉   09:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Fox tail as energy store[change source]

The fox article says that a fox's tail is a "food store for wintertime". Something like a camel's hump storing water? I'm pretty sure that is nonsense, but the article is protected so I can't remove it. (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It was added a few years ago. Macdonald-ross, are you able to find a source for it? Google has a very low signal-to-noise ratio for anything related to a fox and its tail. Chenzw  Talk  15:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, our page is really about the genus Vulpes of which there are 11 species. No matter how northern they are, none of them hibernates. Instead, they continue to catch prey, but at a much diminished rate in winter. They do add fat (and longer fur) in winter. Is it disproportionately added to the tail? So far, I do not see a relevant ciation. Our photo of the Arctic fox certainly looks like it is carrying round a pretty hefty tail. I think the wording on the Fox page is now defensible. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Weird error or phishing attempt on Wikipedia[change source]

When I click on the link to my userpage right now, I am getting an error message that starts at the top with "Wikimedia Foundation" followed by a claim that the servers are having a technical problem, a statement that there may be more info available on IRC, followed by a donation request. The same message is repeated in multiple languages. At the very bottom is a "PHP Fatal Error" message. I suspect it's not what it seems. The URL is correct, but something is fishy. Especially when I can search for my declared alt account ("Etamni-m" which redirects to my main user page) and it takes me right there without any error message. (And on the off-chance that the message is legitimate, the foundation really needs to rethink the donation request on the error page as this makes the message look like something a social engineer (i.e. a scam artist) would have written.) Etamni | ✉   18:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you still getting the error? I accessed your user page just now with no problems, so it could have been a temporary glitch. The donation request on the error page issue is best brought up at Meta: m:Requests for comment probably. I personally didn't know that WMF now appeals for donations on the server error page. Chenzw  Talk  00:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I was not home to try accessing the account again until now, but all seems to be working correctly. If it happens again, I'll screenshot the message and then test what happens when I log in via my mobile account. Etamni | ✉   08:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Definitions of 'Property'[change source]

I could use some help at Talk:Material property from sciencey editors. Osiris (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Block[change source]

Can we blcok the IP "" for 1 week for copying articles from EN wikipedia without simplyfing them? Thanks, PokestarFan (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@ user
This IP has already been blocked. Please report such cases to WP:VIP in future. Also, why would you ask for a block after you have already warned the IP, and the IP has not edited any more after your warnings? Chenzw  Talk  04:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Besides that, we usually wouldn't block for a week for a first-time block. When you report a user who might get blocked, leave it to the admins to decide how long the block should be. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
As another mention related to this; IP users cannot be notified by ping. Notifications are for registered users of Wikipedia and other MediaWiki sites (those with usernames). (See en:WP:PING, the FAQ page). We have the {{Talkback}} template, which I used here: [[1]], for example to talk to an IP about content on another page they might not see. Fylbecatulous talk 22:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

New MediaWiki feature: Catwatch[change source]

This new option lets you see when something is added to or removed from a category. (Previously, putting a category in your watchlist only told you if someone changed the category page.) You activate it separately for the "new changes" page and for your watchlist.

To activate this new feature, go to your settings (the tab at the top of the page), to the tabs for "New changes" and "Watchlist". The option is "Hide categorization of pages". It defaults to off (meaning things will work as they always have). To activate the new feature, uncheck the check box on either or both tabs. There's also a new option on the new changes and watchlist pages to show or hide page categorization: I think you have to have unchecked the relevant checkbox on the preferences tabs for those to have any effect.

So try it out and see what you think. Just be aware that if you pick a category that gets a lot of activity, you might flood your watchlist. And please don't add things to categories just to test this. You could test by adding Category:Stubs to your watchlist: you should see a few changes that were made in the last hour.

There's some documentation and examples of what it looks like at --Auntof6 (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

A couple of good uses I've found for this:

Yes, we already have places to find all these, but you might see them sooner this way. It's just one more tool. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Special Page request[change source]

I want to request a special page(Special:IPChanges because most vandalism comes from ips. It will log only IP changes. PokestarFan (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong with Special:RecentChanges? --Lithorien (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Just go to the new changes page (which Lithorien linked above) and click on the option to hide registered users. I don't think we can create new special pages: they're determined by the software. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

QD log[change source]

Hi, how does one create a Quick Deletion nominations log? Thanks, Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a Twinkle option -- when activated, it's populated when you use Twinkle to request a QD. Go to the quick deletion section at Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences and check the checkbox for "Keep a log in userspace of all QD nominations". --Auntof6 (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Thanks! --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Big Reference Weekend[change source]

Hello all – after discussing the idea with a few members of the community, I would like to revive the WP:Big Weekend project for a new event: the Big Reference Weekend! For people who do not know about the Big Weekends, they were built on teamwork to improve or create articles of a chosen topic.

What I am suggesting is that we focus on articles in Category:All_articles_with_unsourced_statements, finding suitable references for the unchecked facts, and removing as many Citation Needed tags as possible!

The project would run from Friday 19 February 11AM UTC until Monday 22 February 11AM UTC (in order to allow all timezones to benefit from the whole weekend). If you would like to contribute to the project, feel free to add a comment below saying you will participate, but of course you don't have to do so. Anyone, even ip users, can participate!

To make it easier to keep track of our efforts, I suggest that you include BW in the edit summary when you edit. This will help us count the number of edits and pages we have improved. In the next few days, I will post a further message on how to reference articles correctly. Watch this page if you are interested. All best, happy editing and I hope to see many people participate! --Yottie =talk= 22:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Join - I intend on joining this project. It sounds really, really fun. --Lithorien (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I won't be able to join (I'm not usually online much on weekends), but I'm excited to see this starting up! Only (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm in! --Auntof6 (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, first, Wikipedia talk:Big Weekend is the place to have this discussion. And I do have some doubts. The enthusiasm for BWs tailed off notably, and I honestly cannot see fixing pages with no sources as a hot item for most editors! Many are not capable of doing the detailed work needed to check sources and select those which suit our pages. They will probably just copy/paste whatever they find on En wiki.
    Previously, we chose topics on the basis of "here's something everyone can do", so bridges, airports, forests etc. The idea was that everyone has some of those right near them, and can put them into the wiki. Actually, about 95% or more of the editing here is on biographies and pop culture. We might think about "do five people from your country who should be better known" or some such. BWs to be popular have to tap a wide range of tastes, and be easy to do. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Big Weekend#Big Reference Weekend 2016--Peterdownunder (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

New template idea[change source]

Hello everyone. I had an idea for a new template for landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases. I put it in user space because I'd like the opinion of more seasoned editors on if the template would be useful for the encyclopedia, and if it's possible to create a "standard" list considering that a "landmark" case can be considered subjective no matter how much law scholars agree on its significance. I have not yet included all the cases that I am finding to be considered landmark, but I wanted to get a consensus before putting more effort into it. Thank you! --Lithorien (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Since you asked, I will give you my opinion.
I'm not the biggest fan of navboxes. Not that I don't use them. I think they're helpful when it comes to complete and well-defined set of articles like those on a big election or the history of a country – where the correlation is obvious and you could easily see a reader wanting to jump between the links.
  • On our wiki, because most of our articles are stubs, it's usually the most distracting thing on the page ("more template than article").
  • A complete, well-defined navbox is usually full of red links. Which is fine on a list, but since the sole purpose of a navigational box is navigation, then it's pretty useless.
  • If the inclusion criteria are subjective, or, worse, if you can't define any firm inclusion criteria, then the correlation between the articles is indiscriminate, potentially inexhaustible and also likely to be challenged without any possible defence. You need reliable sources to support your list and you can't do that on a navbox.
  • The last question should be: Is it going to aid navigation?
I personally don't think that somebody reading about human-rights cases is going to suddenly want to read about decisions regarding federal devolution or tax law. For people who want an outline of landmark cases at the U.S. Supreme Court, then a list article that you can scan over, with links and quick descriptions, is a good idea. But a navbox is a bare-bones, unreferenced list of links for the sole purpose of navigating between articles on a defined topic. Osiris (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Note to patrollers and others[change source]

The other day we had a couple of settlement articles created that I deleted because I believed they were hoaxes. They were for Glenwood, Mississippi and Chicago, Oklahoma. I couldn't find mention of these anywhere.

Be aware that people may be creating other, similar hoax articles. These can be hard to recognize, partly because we assume all settlements to be notable and we don't require much info in the article. If you see a new, minimal settlement article, you might want to verify it before patrolling it. In the process of verifying it, it would be helpful to add any references you happen upon so that others looking at the article can see that there is evidence that the place actually exists. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

GA/VGA criteria[change source]

I noticed just now that Wikipedia:Requirements for good articles and Wikipedia:Requirements for very good articles make no mention of the simplicity of articles. Although we take this for granted (after all, it is the Simple English Wikipedia), I think it should be included in the criteria. Thoughts? --Yottie =talk= 11:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason to include such a rule. Since this is the simple English Wikipedia, articles are supposed to be either simple per definition or they should be tagged as complex, respectively be deleted as needed. That's like we'd include a rule like "the article needs to be written in English" or "the article needs to be written in Latin alphabet". I guess we aren't going to promote an article written in Chinese using Cyrillic alphabet. -Barras talk 11:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, that makes sense. It was only a thought :) --Yottie =talk= 11:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
When I raised a similar issue, it was pointed out that requirement #8 for GAs (#9 for VGAs) covers this where it says thst not only should the article not have any maintenance templates, it should also not need any. --Auntof6 (talk)

Definition of Simple – Wordlists[change source]

Sorry for spamming Simple Talk, but I have a lot of ideas coming to mind at the moment. I was wondering, when writing articles, we should be using the wordlists (WP:BE850 and WP:BE1500). But is BE1500 simple? Or is only BE850 simple? Of course, we should try to use mostly BE850, but often this is not possible and we must use BE1500 or link complex words. Maybe there is a page somewhere which explains what words we can use, without links, but I do not know of it. What is simple enough to use without a link? BE850 only, or also BE1500? Also, should we prefer a more complex (but more appropriate word) with a link, or a simple (but less appropriate word) without a link? For example, I see pages with the word wealthy with a link, when we could use rich (which is on the BE1500) without a link. What do you think is better? --Yottie =talk= 12:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Yottie: I'm not completely sure that this is what you are looking for, but there's a guideline that talks about what wordlists to use and when to use them, as well as when to link more complex but more appropriate words. I hope that can help answer some of your questions. --Lithorien (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I guess that does say, in a way, that it is better to use first BE850, then BE1500 and then link a word. I will edit accordingly. Thank you --Yottie =talk= 14:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Might work for biographies, but many subjects require other words to be accurate. Accuracy is primary for any encyclopedia.
In any event, we seem powerless to insist upon a wider use of simpler English, however it is defined. Look at the pages with medical content. Editors evidently feel no shame in leaving us articles which would be difficult even for medical students. It is almost impossible to re-edit these articles in a suitable way. They are pitched too much with completeness in mind rather than comprehension, and contain details of treatment which only a practising physician needs. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
But the objective should be for articles to be both precise and simple, correct? If it is possible to use a simpler word, without affecting the meaning too much, then I assume that is what we should do. If it is not possible to convey an idea in simpler terms, then links may be used. But the general idea is to focus on BE850, and then BE1500. If articles are not using simple terms or links, then they should not be on Simple English Wikipedia.--Yottie =talk= 14:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

PokestarFan - exhaustion of patience[change source]

While good intentioned in edits, PokestarFan seems to be at the point of exhaustion of community patience. The amount of notices and talking to that admins and other users have had to put onto his talk page in the last days/weeks is just too much. I think it's come to a point where a block is needed. He is blocked indefinitely on the English Wikipedia, so WP:ONESTRIKE is in play here. We cannot keep having to monitor and police the edits every day. Again, a large number of edits are good work, but far too many slipups are occurring in a short span. I came very close to "pulling the trigger" myself today, but think community discussion is the more appropriate route. Only (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Statistics for PokestarFan (31.5% mainspace edits, 52.2% userspace edits, 11.5% wikipedia space edits, 4.8% other) --Lithorien (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose In response to this, here's my question: Should a person who is trying their best, and who responds as best as they can to corrections, be punished because they are taking more guidance to learn than other editors would? I would argue absolutely not. PokestarFan and I have had a few disagreements, as well as many others. And sometimes it has taken him some time to learn better behavior. The thing is, I don't see his bad behavior continuing once he understands what he is doing wrong. Is there is question of competence here? Absolutely. But going from a 24 hour block to an indef because of the single strike policy on unrelated issues seems too harsh to me. He is editing in good faith and trying his best. At worst, I would suggest a short-term community ban of 1-3 months with a condition that upon return, he has to demonstrate that he has read (and show his understanding of) the rules. --Lithorien (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
We wouldn't really be going from a 24-hour block to an indef. The two are separate things. We would still be having this discussion if the block hadn't happened. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Oh, I understand that this discussion would still be happening. What I mean to say is that we started down the road of giving a short block (which implies that he'll be treated like any other editor with blocks of increasing time if he can't fix his behavior), and this proposal wants to go straight to indef under onestrike. That's what my issue is - we've been acting one way towards him, and now there's the potential that we'll act totally different. I'm not saying that is wrong, I'm just saying that I disagree with it. --Lithorien (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I agree that some of the editor's edits are annoying, I would hesitate to consider them disruptive, and would hold back on any block at this moment. However, I am not opposed to an extended topic/interaction block, where PokestarFan is banned from anything which is not mainspace content editing, or essential edits on project-space pages. It seems that he should focus more on the main purpose of this project, which is maintaining an encyclopedia. Chenzw  Talk  16:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I gave him such a topic ban earlier, before I saw this discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The point is he does seem to have good intentions. Yes, it seems from the tenor of the messages on his talk page that he has been exhausting the patience of some here. One of PokestarFan's apparent knee-jerk reactions is that when someone tells him not to do something, he tries something else. There are two schools of thought here. One is our time is valuable (we are so few) we cannot waste time with those who do not adapt here quickly enough. The second is that by patiently working with new editors who need it, it can have the effect of becoming a force multiplier. Maybe collectively we could do a bit more before blocking him permanently. User:Rus793 (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
How much more would we need to collectively do? He seems to learn some of the details, but not in terms of the big picture. When issues are pointed out, he usually stops doing that thing that was the issue, but he finds new problematic things to do. If he would agree to work under supervision, I might agree. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
We have a volunteer to mentor him. If he hasn't been asked already, ask him if he's agreeable. User:Rus793 (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on GP and for the same reasons given by the editors above. I do agree with the topic ban on policies, guidelines, help files, etc. that Auntof6 imposed on the editor. (If the user sees a mistake in those, or has a suggestion to improve the wording, this can be mentioned directly to an admin to get it corrected). Etamni | ✉   20:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support at least a more restrictive topic ban. PokestarFan agreed to work with the mentor, but he is going outside the things they agreed to work on. He is doing things like this and this. At this point, I support a topic ban limiting PokestarFar to talk pages and his own userspace unless otherwise okayed by either his mentor or an admin. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment[change source]

  • I don't think we should be trying to scare away editors. Although I completely see the point that is made, and find it very frustrating myself, I think that with a certain amount of mentoring, PokerstarFan would be able to contribute positively to this project. If that does not go accordingly to plan, then we can take further action. Although I have no real experience in mentoring users, I think I have been around here long enough to answer any questions he may have, so I would be happy to volunteer and be a mentor. --Yottie =talk= 15:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I have an idea. I think maybe I can get assigned a set of several articles, and my goal is to improve them. I like games, and for others, I could do some research on Google. Problems start to come when I am trying to fix things, such as vandalism. Maybe one I have improved ~25-50 articles I could get a sort of fresh start? PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 18:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, this reminds me of a RfD. Opposes and support and comments everywhere. PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 18:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
What, can I not put some humor into it?
Best not -- it doesn't help your case. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
(side note)The user self-identifies as male on his user page, so you can use male pronouns/adjectives/adverbs when referring to this user. :) Etamni | ✉   20:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I've noticed that some of PokestarFan's work appears to have been hurried. By this, I mean that he edits something and goes on to the next thing, without fully proofreading his own work. My suggestion to him would be to just slow down and take a deep breath. Proofread his work and imagine he is seeing it for the first time. Also, don't change the same thing over and over in multiple articles unless everyone has agreed that it needs to be changed. Etamni | ✉   20:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Spoken articles[change source]

It used to be the case that spoken articles were uploaded here (as per Template:Local file). I have recorded a new one for Le Spectre de la Rose (a VGA), but am unable to upload it because I am no longer an administrator. Has our policy changed regarding such files? Is there any way that I can upload it here without admin rights? --Yottie =talk= 22:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

No idea if that has changed. However, I could give you (temp) uploader rights here to upload the file. -Barras talk 22:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I just need it for a few minutes, that would be great. I will notify when I've uploaded it. (you will probably see RC anyway) --Yottie =talk= 22:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Let's see if I'm gonna be killed for doing that. Go ahead, Yottie :) -Barras talk 23:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Sadly it doesn't work. It is restricted to Administrators. You can remove the rights now. We might have to think of another way. --Yottie =talk= 23:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I could technically grant +sysop, but that would be even more abusive. Either a crat gives you the mop for a few minutes or upload it to commons? -Barras talk 23:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I promise I won't break the wiki, but out of principle I don't want you to get into trouble. Up to you, but I think the Spoken Articles should be uploaded locally rather than on Commons. --Yottie =talk= 23:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. I was just told that the uploader right works only when we also have the right locally, which isn't the case. However, +sysop via meta would be too abusive, it's confirmation time, and I already gave people more than enough reasons to oppose me. :P -Barras talk 23:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. I will ask a Bureaucrat. --Yottie =talk= 23:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

An unusual request, but given that your sysop flag was originally removed due to inactivity, I guess it is not a big issue to grant it to you again for a few minutes for uploads. Let me know anytime you are ready to upload. Chenzw  Talk  01:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks like this happened because of this request, which I guess was an opt-out process which got largely overlooked. We got put on this list which resulted in this. I wasn't around at the time. The banner on Special:Upload is still saying audio uploads are okay (not that it matters I guess since it's invisible). Osiris (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

In the long run, we cannot rely on +sysop for local uploads, and I don't think we should ask other administrators to upload on behalf of editors - it may lead to issues with licensing and attribution. I will poke around the relevant documentation and see what we need to do (MediaWiki:Licenses is one of them) before filing an issue on Phabricator to re-enable uploads. Chenzw  Talk  10:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
What about a new Uploaders group? Couldn't we discuss that possibility? --Yottie =talk= 10:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I'D simply make a poll to create the local upload group here and give that to people as needed. Better than enabling uploads here, imo. -Barras talk 10:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Oops my bad, I wasn't quite clear. I meant enabling the Uploaders group on this wiki, and granting the necessary rights to the group. Can this be done by stewards or must it be done by a developer? Chenzw  Talk  11:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I think that the uploaded a should have sysop rights for uploading, and maybe page deleting for if they accidentally upload something. PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 12:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Subpage search[change source]

Hi, I have a question. I have so many subpages from my User Page that it is crazy. Is there a way to list and/or search all of my subpages? PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 00:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

This can be found here. In future, please ask questions on my user talk page, or on your own, where I will be able to see it. --Yottie =talk= 00:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
@PokestarFan: See this section of my user page, where I have code that lists all the current subpages of my user and user talk pages. It doesn't have to be manually updated. Feel free to steal the code for your page. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)