Wikipedia:Simple talk

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

Article descriptions[change source]

I see articles with descriptions like Wikipedia:Simple talk. How can we make one? National Railway (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@National Railway: What do you mean by "articles with descriptions"? Do you mean how the page title starts with "Wikipedia:"? Computer Fizz (talk) 08:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
@Computer Fizz: I mean when you search for an article like insect, you see a line of smaller lines below the title. National Railway (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@National Railway: Do you mean the thing that says "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia?" Computer Fizz (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Pretty sure they mean the short description which comes from wikidata and shows up on mobile. -DJSasso (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@Djsasso: This is exactly what I mean.National Railway (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I assume that, too. Does anyone know if Wikidata actually delivers descriptions in simple? (I don't especially have a problem if simple "falls back" to en, but we should get simple descriptions here if they exist.) StevenJ81 (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@StevenJ81: No I do not believe it does. If it does I have never heard of it. --Examknow (lets chat!) 15:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
All wiki's except en fall back on whatever is in wikidata using the language you have set in your preferences, like any other language based text on any of the wikies. For example, I use Canadian English so I get the Canadian English descriptions. Simple not being an actual language has never been able to be used for any of the internationalized text. En itself does their own thing separate from wikidata. -DJSasso (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@Computer Fizz: I mean the description of an article. Like the article insect, the description for the article is “class of invertebrates”. National Railway (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@National Railway: As sasso said you gotta find it on Wikidata. It's not anywhere on here. Computer Fizz (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Computer Fizz: It means the description that you see in an article under the title in mobile view. National Railway (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Computer Fizz: I can find it, but how can I apply it to the article? National Railway (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@National Railway: I'm not entirely sure I don't use wikidata very often, or ever. You might wanna ask @Djsasso: cause he seems to be experienced with it. Computer Fizz (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@Computer Fizz: Thanks! National Railway (talk) 06:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Djsasso: I just want to ask, how can I apply the article’s description from Wikidata onto the article in Wikipedia? National Railway (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

It happens automatically. -DJSasso (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@Djsasso: Do descriptions apply to draft articles and main articles in both Simple English Wikipedia and the normal English Wikipedia? Also, I want to ask I know how to apply descriptions using the template Short description, but is there a difference between Template:Description and Short description or Template:Description doesn’t exist?National Railway (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Short description doesn't work here. That is an English Wikipedia only template because they don't take their description from wikidata. The one here is just nulled out so it doesn't keep getting imported from English Wikipedia. The Description template doesn't exist here either. -DJSasso (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Djsasso: So if descriptions doesn’t exist in Simple English Wikipedia, how can the article insect have the description “class of invertebrates”? National Railway (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
It comes from wikidata. In the case of insect, it is linked to wikidata item Q1390. The description you note is there in the wikidata item. In the English wikipedia, it is possible to use something different than what is in wikidata. That is the purpose of the templates you note. It is to do a different description from wikidata. But that doesn't work here; the wikidata item is used. To make it work, the article must be linked to a wikidata item, and that item must have a description. If so, it works automatically as Djsasso notes. If you see an article without the short description, the cause is one of two things. Either the article is not linked to a wikidata item. Or the wikidata item that is linked does not have a description. You can fix either of these in wikidata. But I should note, it would be best not to link a draft to a wikidata item. Desertborn (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Let me also add this detail. To learn how to link articles to wikidata items or add short descriptions, you can read these help pages: (1) Help on descriptions, (2) Help on linking wikipedia pages to an item. Desertborn (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Confirming Email Address[change source]

I followed all the steps, and a link did get sent to my inbox, but the link says that the link has expired or something? What should I do? Simplex Simpleton (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

There is probably a resend email link I believe. -DJSasso (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Closed the "Women by Occupation" RfD[change source]

Hello, all I just closed the "Women by occupation" RfD, listing a few categories of women by occupation (lawyers, scientists, rappers, politicians, I think). I could not see a consensus, the opinions were split, about half of them in favor, the others against. Unfortunately, this will result in keeping the status quo. I would nevertheless point out that for reasons of simplicity, we should aim towards keeping the split into male/female ... at the lowest possible level of the hierarchy. In other words: If the category in question contains other categories which are not related to sex/gender/sexual orientation, this is probably not the right point to split into gender-related categories. What also became apparent: Many politicians have another profession. People such as Cristina Fernández de Kirchner will show up in female politicians, and female lawyers (de Kirchner has a law degree). This may be an unwanted side-effect. Few people know Angela Merkel for being a physicist; most know her for being a politician. Same issue with Margaret Thatcher, who had a degree in chemistry. Gender, and gender-roles are a large field, and I do not think we should require more than the obvious male/female split in the general case. Take classical music: In epochs such as the Baroque period, society saw people in their well-defined role and function; getting outside that role was very difficult. I doubt we'll find enough articles for female musicians of that period , so that we can to make it worthwhile to implement the split. On the other hand, Farinelli was a very successful (castrato) singer; he lived in the first half of the 18th century. Finding information that someone who was successful during that age (or earlier) was also gay, will probably be difficult. I am in favor of splitting larger categories into male and female practitioners, but this split will not make much sense within our average category with the usual 10-15 entries. With this, I open the discussion, that will hopefully lead us to a manageable classification, adapted to our needs. --Eptalon (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

You make some good points. (I cleaned up the English just a touch to facilitate further discussion; the strikeout/underline there was the only place I wasn't quite sure of, so wanted to make sure I understood correctly.)
I would respond as follows:
  • I agree that there was not a consensus at the RfD.
  • I don't know if the split always has to happen exactly at—and only at—the lowest level of the hierarchy, but I agree that it should happen at a point where lower levels of the hierarchy also reflect the split wherever possible. It's the article being categorized that needs to go into the lowest level of the hierarchy.
    Note: Wherever possible. If we have Category:Athletes, it could potentially have underneath it "Tennis players", "Golfers", "Gridiron football players", etc. Category:Athletes, as well as categories for tennis players and golfers, could easily have male and female subcategories. The fact that the category for gridiron football players probably won't have male/female subcategories doesn't mean the parent category can't.
  • The question about politicians' secondary professions is to some extent a separate one that should be discussed in a different place. (That, of course, does not apply to cases where the politician is separately notable in the other profession, such as Dwight D. Eisenhower as a general, or Shirley Temple Black as an actor/actress.)
  • That said, I think that the rule for creating gender-split categories and the rule for including articles in gender-split categories does not have to be the same. I think that to create such a subcategory, there need to be enough articles about people who are notable for that reason (at least) to justify the category. If every single female physicist were someone like Angela Merkel—notable for something else—I wouldn't create the category. (I know that's not actually true for female physicists; I'm just trying to illustrate.) But as long as the category exists, I'm probably OK putting someone like Merkel there.
  • As a more general observation, I'm inclined to say that if gender distinction is part of the public-facing notability of the person—such as for actors or singers—or if gender distinction helps drive the notability because it bucks lopsided traditional gender splits (physicists, perhaps), then gender-split subcategories are OK. Where gender distinction is irrelevant to the notability, and where people of both genders are commonly part of the category, then gender-split subcategories should be avoided. But these aren't necessarily black-and-white distinctions; the world, after all, can be a messy place. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
For the record the closed deletion discussion is here. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Psl631 Ban Review[change source]

There is consensus to keep the ban in place. They have committed multiple violations of the ban multiple times, and as recently as early May. Vermont (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello. Per the discussion's result a bit over a year ago, the ban is reviewable in 12 months. As such, I re-granted talk page access a few days ago. They have now left an unblock request on their talk page. As it is a community ban, its review requires community input. Thoughts? Vermont (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

For the record, the original ban discussion is here. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I read over the unblock request at their talk page and while I'd like to assume good faith, I'd like to, at the very least, see an indication by them that they realise what aspect of their behaviour was inappropriate and led to a community ban. Hiàn (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Looking at your unblock request it appears you were block evading there, so I looked here, and there are edits from your current range as recently as a couple months ago doing the same sorts of disruptive edits that contributed to your ban here on the same sorts of pages so it is clearly you. And I believe the only reason there aren't more recent edits on that range doing the same is that it had to be range blocked by stewards across all wikis. So I am completely against your unblock as you were block evading. And as Hian mentioned you didn't address any of the reasons you were banned in your unblock request. So as is typical I would say come back in another year or so as we have typically said in other situations like this. -DJSasso (talk) 10:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've been reading around and I've come to the conclusion that unbanning will not be a net positive for the project. DJSasso's comments alone are enough for me to oppose an unban but their enwiki talkpage suggests that they haven't matured in the slightest. Absolutely not. Hiàn (talk)/editing on mobile account. 12:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment. I wasnt here first round but the disruption here is way too much. The unblock didn't have sufficient confidence this NOTHERE/CIR will stop. As of socking can a CU verify are they socking? I will say unblock only on 3 conditions, 1. no socking in past 1 year. 2. Someone willing to mentor them and if there is more disruptive, the mentor / any admin can reblock easily 3. A plan on how they intend to help this encyclopedia. That's said, I don't think this is the case now.--Cohaf (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I am a CU and already commented above on it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I knew you are DJSasso. How can I missed that part of your comment, thanks you for checking. Since they are still socking, Oppose.--Cohaf (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
For the record, the Unblock request is here Ottawahitech (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The user has been requesting unblock at English Wikipedia as well, and is found to have disruptively edited using IP while waiting for the standard offer. The same IP mentioned for vandalism there has also been used at the same time here. This user, when questioned about IP vandalism, has repeatedly used the same excuse such as this. Given their pattern of time wasting with unblock requests I believe this request should be rejected as well. -★- PlyrStar93 Message me. 16:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Confirmed block evasion activity closes this opportunity before it even began. Operator873talkconnect 16:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Apparently he has vandalized this wiki recently as an anonymous user, Zaxxon0 (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

import request[change source]

Can someone please import {{Catholic Encyclopedia}}? Its being used on Galileo Galilei Thanks Nunabas (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

This one you probably could have just copy pasted over with an attribution comment. But I have imported it for you. -DJSasso (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
{{CathEncy}} already exists and is mostly used on articles about the popes.--Auric (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

GA-class selected articles on Main Page[change source]

The selected article on the Main Page only shows very good articles. Just a suggestion, could we potentially have good articles on display as well? I fell they are of good enough condition, and it would make the selection of articles more diverse. jackchango talk 21:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Good articles are of a much lower standard than VGA articles, I don't think we would want to put those on the front page. That being said if someone wanted to take the time to upgrade them to a level that they would be VGAs, that I would fully support. -DJSasso (talk) 10:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea, jackchango. We could use a little more variety on the front page and the Good Articles are good and interesting. More variety may engage a wider range of visitors. Bring even one of the GAs up to VGA is hours and hours of work so it is unlikely that even a handful will be bumped up in the near future. --Gotanda (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
For the same reason you are trying to strip VGA off of the other article below is the exact reason a GA article can't be on the front page. There is a big quality gap between the two. Our VGA article requirements are nowhere near as strict as so getting an article to VGA isn't as much work as you are making it. You could probably get one there in an hour maybe two if you really worked at it and depending on the subject of course. Hell a super easy way to bang a few off is to take a FA from and just simplify it. If you are a native speaker of English you can probably bang that off pretty quickly. -DJSasso (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
dj, I wrote from experience regarding promoting articles. Have a look at Komodo dragon which I simplified as you suggested and Jean Balukas which I saved from demotion. Both took considerable amounts of time which are not completely reflected in the edit history as some of the work was done in between offline. I guess it only took you an hour or two, though. You must work faster than I do. But to the question in front of us. I think GAs are good enough to be on the front page and help the site. I also think VGAs that are no longer VGA or even GA quality for any reason shouldn't be VGAs/GAs, and should not be on the front page Those two ideas are not incompatible; they agree with each other. Good, interesting stuff from many areas to show on the front page, stuff that needs fixing off the front page. --Gotanda (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
The whole reason we have the difference between VGA and GA is because we needed a level at which the articles were ok to show on the front page. The big difference between VGA and GA is that GAs don't have to cover the entire subject. So to use your example of the one below. It would meet the GA requirements because the GA requirements don't require an article to cover everything on the subject, so being out of date would mean that it was ok to be on the front page. GAs just mean the language used is ok, but the topics are not yet covered sufficiently enough to be VGAs and thus not good enough to be on the front page. This is why I say GAs are similar to the situation below. That is the one big requirement that is different between the two levels. So if you aren't ok with articles that are not up to date on the front page then you are not ok with GAs being on the front page as that is the big requirement difference between the two. -DJSasso (talk) 10:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

VGA demotion for Bloc Party[change source]

I nominated Bloc Party for demotion in early April. As the nominator I don't think I am supposed to act on it. There has been no new discussion for a while and the article has not been fixed. How does this move forward? Thanks, --Gotanda (talk) 04:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Essentially an admin will have to decide there is consensus and do it. Otherwise it will sit as a failed proposal. -DJSasso (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
How can I request an admin to examine and make a decision, then? Thank you. --Gotanda (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Red links in unused user subpages[change source]

I am not sure if we should comment out red links from unused user subpages. We do that for categories but should we do the same for redlinks so that they don't appear as wanted pages? I closed this RFD and I think we should discuss it here.--BRP ever 01:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

We comment out content categories (both redlinked and bluelinked) on user pages (including user subpages) because content categories aren't allowed on user pages. They aren't allowed because we don't want user pages in those categories (because user pages aren't actual articles). There's no such rule for redlinked terms in the text, so there's no reason to comment, unlink, or do anything else with article-type red links on user pages. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
To clarify, I said to remove the redlinks in the AFD as a compromise proposal to keep the page. I am personally not in favour of commenting out the links. --Cohaf (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I made my comment known in the discussion, they shouldn't be commented out. The idea being that when enough people have those redlinks someone will create the templates. -DJSasso (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Who edits the most on Simple Wikipedia?[change source]

How (Where) do I find a list of the most active editors on this Wikipedia? Kdammers (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kdammers: This might not be exactly what you want, but Special:ActiveUsers shows the number of edits by all users who "had some kind of activity within the last 30 days". It's sorted by user name, and there doesn't seem to be a way to sort by number of edits. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Intubation[change source]

Could someone check out this page please. The creator states that they copied and pasted the information from another source. Should it be deleted? Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Deleted as a copyright violation. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Length of Articles here[change source]

What is the maximum length of articles here? I have already done some significant edits on this Wikipedia by updating very old informations. Now i see, that i have much scope here as there are about 60 to 70 peoples who dont have an article and i can create their articles. But for that i need a general guidance about the very basic things i need to keep in my mind. Help is much appreciated. Yours Sincerely ClumsyMind (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no maximum size per say but here is the general guidance in en:Wikipedia:Article size#Size guideline
100 kB Almost certainly should be divided
60 kB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)
50 kB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
40 kB Length alone does not justify division
-DJSasso (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata Bridge: edit Wikidata’s data from Wikipedia infoboxes[change source]

Machine translation and the ContentTranslation[change source]

Hey all!

Per this edit in my sandbox, I am able to confirm that mw:ContentTranslation, but more specifically Machine Translation is enabled on Simple Wikipedia.

This had come up in a conversation over at MediaWiki. I tested this on English Wikipedia and Scotts Wikipedia, and neither has this feature activated. Off-wiki, Vermont expressed his concern about this feature possibly being prone to abuse. Since he is currently not on a computer and won't be for a while, he ask me to make a post here to gather your all thoughts here about disabling it. Among his concerns were that one can't really machine translate English to Simple English (or even Azerbaijani to Simple English) and that the system is not build with Simple Wiki in mind. In my own experience translating articles like az:Almaqulağı döyüşü, I will say that it really is just translating into regular English but calling it Simple.

How do people here feel about turning Machine Translation off? –MJLTalk 02:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with it on, it is no different than how most people here just copy an English article over to our wiki and then simplify it. In this case they are translating say Azerbaijani to English and then its up to the editor to take it the rest of the way to Simple English. -DJSasso (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I am the strongest proponent to disable this content translation extension and machine translations. See my mediawiki contributions you will see save antivandalism is to complain about it. It doesn't help newbies in translations, it doesn't save properly and etc. I had used the extension for nearly 25 articles (4-5 here and rest are in Chinese Wikipedia). However, several problems. 1. Do WMF allows us to turn off this extension. I remember seeing a phabricator ticket by Indonesian Wikipedia asking to turn off but get stalled by staffers. I don't know is it resolved already. 2. For Simple English to English, there isn't any translation software in Content Translation, hence, when you click translate, it gives the full untranslated text. It is no difference here as someone else can fully copy and paste here. It do give problems over at Chinese Wikipedia due to poor translation. If you are using other languages, the translation will be in normal English. I will say I agree to turn off. --Cohaf (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
@Cohaf: I mean, I find it somewhat helpful in the way Djsasso mentioned. However, I will admit it is really open to abuse. You could easily trick the tool into saving really substandard articles. –MJLTalk 18:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Anyone can make absurd articles at anytime. That is why people watch new page creations and delete those that are inappropriate. -DJSasso (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Import Needed[change source]

Thanks.--Cohaf (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I did it, but often you can just copy paste over yourself if you make an attribution comment on the edit summary or talk page. More complicated templates imports are generally better but navboxes like a couple of these you should be able to bring over easy enough by copy pasting with the appropriate comment. -DJSasso (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Noted with much thanks Djsasso.--Cohaf (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Moving Category:Swaziland[change source]

Last year, the country of Swaziland changed its name to Eswatini. The articles and using Swaziland have been moved to the name name. (Some by me, some by others). Now we need to move the category as well. Trouble is, I don't see the option to move it. I've never moved a category before, so I'm not sure what to do. Do I just make a new category, move everything over, and then change this one to a redirect? Or is there a way to actually move it, that I am missing? Desertborn (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, this is odd. I see the move option on other categories, but not this one. Desertborn (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I can move it, you couldn't because it was move protected until there was a consensus. But once there was consensus for the article to move which happened awhile ago, the category needed to move to match so I have moved it. My bot will take care of moving the articles over within seven days unless you are hot to trot and want to move them all over yourself. -DJSasso (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll leave the article moves up to bot. Desertborn (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)