Wikipedia:Simple talk

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

Categories for settlements in the United States[change source]

An editor recently renamed some (but not all) Chicago-related categories to include ", Illinois" in the names. This raises the question, do we want categories for US settlements to include the name of the state or territory in their names? The reasoning for article names has been that it is not needed if there is no ambiguity, or if the place in question is the primary meaning of the name. Should we use the same reasoning for categories? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The standard on and thus ours unless we change it in this discussion is that they only need the state if they name is ambiguous and not clearly the primary topic. Chicago for example is very obvious to any reader which Chicago it is. (are there others even?) -DJSasso (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Although surprisingly now that I look on en, theirs is named that way. I have a feeling the US articles/categories are outlyers on I know for example there are specific naming standards for Canadian cities and a couple other countries not to use them unless the town is ambiguous and not primary topic like London vs. London, Ontario. So basically my opinion I guess is that for cities where no disambiguation is needed then use just the city. -DJSasso (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
In which case, Category:Los Angeles, California and many of its subcats need to be renamed. Jim Michael (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
That seems logical. However, in line with our messages to the other editor to discuss before making mass changes, please discuss first if you plan to make those changes. That will give everyone a heads-up that something is changing. Also be sure to check what links to each category -- there could be templates or something linking to them that would need to be changed. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
We should reach consensus here before changing any cats, including Category:Chicago, Illinois, Category:Los Angeles, California and their subcats. Jim Michael (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm in favour of the most famous cities being as "Paris", and smaller, derived place names like Paris, Texas. I'm sure our readers would find this natural. Fame and population size are the most important criteria. Who would doubt that "Los Angeles" means the city in southern California, no matter how many others there might be? I think this would work with both categories and article titles. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Part of the issue, here, is that for the vast majority of the place locations in the United States, the state identification is an important and material part of the place's identity. Take a place like Grand Rapids, Michigan, for example. In practical terms, that city is the primary meaning of the name. The enwiki article is named en:Grand Rapids, while a disambiguation page points to a variety of other places in North America. But a person who doesn't know much US geography won't automatically know that "Grand Rapids" generally refers to "Grand Rapids, MI". And to an American, thinking of the place as "Grand Rapids, United States" is just not how you think of things—you'd always think of it as "Grand Rapids, MI".
So I think we ought to err on the side of including state names for US places (articles, categories, whatever), and only eliminate them in really unambiguous cases. Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston? Sure. When in doubt, leave the state in. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure we all agree that Chicago, Miami, Houston and LA are unambiguous. They can certainly have the state removed from their cats and subcats. Jim Michael (talk) 10:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't argue any of those. But even here: be careful that you are calling anything related to Los Angeles Los Angeles and not LA. There was just a discussion at en:WP:Reference desk/Language on that subject, because LA can refer to Louisiana, too. (It can depend whether there are periods, whether the A is capital or lower-case, and so on.) In the case of New York, I personally don't care if it's New York City or New York, NY New York, but one must distinguish from the state of New York. There are two Kansas Cities next to each other. Kansas City, Missouri, is the bigger one, but Kansas City, Kansas, is not an insignificant city in it its own right. So just be careful. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
The main article (for anything, not just settlements) should not use abbreviations. We can have redirects that use abbreviations, as long as they're not ambiguous. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
We should use New York for the state and New York City for the city. We shouldn't use abbreviations in category names. It might not be a good idea to rename Category:Boston, Massachusetts to Category:Boston, because of Boston, Lincolnshire. Jim Michael (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Jim, I'd probably use New York State or State of New York, because New York all by itself is inherently ambiguous in any situation where context does not make the meaning obvious (like "List of US states"). (Ditto for Washington State.) But now that you mention it, I agree with you on Boston.
I guess I still summarize what I think ought to be the overall rules for US locations as follows: Rule 1 for everywhere. If it's otherwise ambiguous, keep as much information as you need to ensure that it's not ambiguous. Rule 2 for US locations. After fulfilling Rule 1, US state names remain in place names except when that place name by itself is unambiguous even to people not familiar with the US. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The way to distinguish the state from other things would be "New York (state)", but only if it's needed. I don't think "New York" is ambiguous, though: the name of the city always includes "City". I think the only state names that are ambiguous are Georgia and Washington. I also think the rules for US and non-US can be the same. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone have any objections to renaming unambiguous cats, such as Category:Toronto, Ontario, Category:Los Angeles, California and their subcats? Jim Michael (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I was waiting for others to give their opinions, but here is another point. The issue for categories is different from the issue for articles. Take the case of Madrid: there's the big one in Spain and there are several others. Someone could type in "Madrid" when looking for an article on one of the others. When they arrive at the Spanish one, they will soon see that the article isn't about the one they want (because the article talks about Spain), and they can look further. If they're looking at a category for one of the others, they may find the category for the Spanish one, but not realize it isn't what they want -- not everyone would look at how the category is categorized. If they are actually categorizing something, they may add the category "Madrid", see that the category exists, and not check further. To sum up, we could make a case for always including the country, state, etc. in categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that readers of an international encyclopedia would know that Madrid cats refer to the Spanish city. The cats that Category:Madrid is in make it clear that it's the Spanish city. Jim Michael (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
On enwiki, I would probably agree. This wiki is for people with limited English skills. That includes children and people with learning disabilities. Those people are less likely to have an international point of view, so why not make it easier for them and do what we can to get things categorized correctly? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
You can put a disambig note at the top of the category just like you can with an article. -DJSasso (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
That helps when you're looking at the category, but not when you're adding the category to a page. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
When they type "Madrid" into the search box they will see a list of all pages starting with "Madrid". So if they see Madrid (wherever) they can pick that one. I don't see a problem, because typing in the search box is the first and most obvious thing to do. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The Spanish capital is much larger than all the other Madrids put together. The vast majority of people in those other Madrids know that most people in the world mean the Spanish capital when they mention Madrid. Jim Michael (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Madrid was just an example, maybe not the best one, but just an example. Let's not form an opinion based on one example. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
A couple points: I don't know that most people using SEWik are kids and learning handicapped. My EFL students often defer to it, and I would not be surprised if a lot of other students of English also do so. On New York state: Many (most?) people not from the U.S. or Canada are unaware of the existence of the state and, as I and other native speakers I know, in fact refer to the city regularly as New York except when clarification is necessary or for some special reason. My guess, supported by a ten-minute scan, is that news programs also largely just use "New York." This is mostly the case, not just when it is clear to the educated reader from the context whether state or city is meant, but as a default for the city.Kdammers (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Shall we go ahead with the clearly unambiguous ones, such as Los Angeles, Chicago and Toronto - removing California, Illinois and Ontario from their cats? Jim Michael (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Links to English Wikipedia or Wikidata[change source]

Is it ever proper to link to the English Wikipedia or Wikidata until a simple English version of an article is created? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I think opinions differ on that. I prefer not linking to English Wikipedia ("enwiki") for a couple of reasons. First, if someone is looking for simple text, the text at enwiki could be too complex for them. Second, leaving a link red helps us see what articles would be good to create (see Special:WantedPages). If we link to enwiki, we usually don't ever go back to see what enwiki links could be changed to point to articles that have been created here.
As for Wikidata, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean Wiktionary? I prefer not linking there, either, for the same as my second reason above. I only link there when the word to be linked has little or no potential for an article to be created. If you're thinking of linking to Wiktionary, consider explaining the term instead.
Does that answer your question? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
No you should never link to because a redlink is preferable here to encourage article creation. -DJSasso (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree on English Wikipedia, except with respect to pages in the Wikipedia or Help spaces where we don't have separately written rules.
Wiktionary? I'm not sure I fully agree with @Auntof6 on that one. It depends how much of an explanation would be required in place, and how likely it is that a substantive article will be created soon. I'm not fond of creating stubs that are only barely more than dicdefs, and don't think people necessarily have to create subsidiary articles all the time in order to use a word not on the Simple English word lists. If a wikt link will do the job, I'm ok with that.
We should always link to Wikidata, as all Wikipedias do. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
We should never link direct to En wiki. Not only does it lose redlinks, all users know it exists, and have often gone there first. They know where to find it. I am a supporter of Simple wiktionary, which was created for our benefit. English wikt is more complex than ours, and so less suitable. Regular editors here often add words to it, and at this stage it has many useful words which are not suitable as Simple pages. The secret is not to rush when editing a new page. Take time and add a couple of new words in wikt if they are needed by your new page. That is the constructive thing to do. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Authority control/LCCN[change source]

The template is padding the LCCN number with 6 zeros to the right of the input number. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Death certificate[change source]

Join the discussion at Talk:William Baker Rock about whether a death certificate is an allowed reliable source for Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Change this page - refs/template[change source]

For the life of me, I cannot understand how to enter the first reference using the ctp (as opposed to cs, which is simple for me). I can't believe I am the only person who is totally baffled by the field that comes up with stuff about template [Yes, I know what a template is, but as this comes up here, I am at a loss -- especially with the "cite web" text.] and field name [This term has so many meanings. It should be specified or an example given.] Can't it be written in clearer language or changed to make it easier to useKdammers (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Artistocrat[change source]

Artistocrat is misspelt, it should be "Aristocrat". Could someone move it? I don't see the "move" tab that Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages talks about so I can't do it myself. Thanks. - Nikki (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Done -- thanks for the note. You couldn't do it yourself because you aren't yet auto-confirmed. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Reimagining WMF grants report[change source]

(My apologies for using English here, please help translate if you are able.)

Last month, we asked for community feedback on a proposal to change the structure of WMF grant programs. Thanks to the 200+ people who participated! A report on what we learned and changed based on this consultation is now available.

Come read about the findings and next steps as WMF’s Community Resources team begins to implement changes based on your feedback. Your questions and comments are welcome on the outcomes discussion page.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 16:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

New QD option suggestion[change source]

I have suggested a new QD option. Please see Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Proposed new template QD option: Navbox templates that don't navigate anything and give your opinion there. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

What is the process to have an article restored?[change source]

  • Edward Sims Van Zile was deleted without notification. What is the AFD process here, and what is the process for undeletion? I would assume having your obituary in an international paper would be sufficient notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, you can just write the page again, making sure the person's notability is claimed and evidenced. See WP:Notability (people). Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Undeletion requests: WP:RFU. -Barras talk 16:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Where an obituary is published does not establish notability for Wikipedia purposes. An article needs to say what made the person notable. References alone don't establish notability if they don't support statements that show notability. If you want to add something about notability, as I asked you to do for Mabel Boll, let me or another admin know and the article can be restored. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Why do we allow a single person to delete articles without notification. They should nominate the article for review and we should argue the merits as a team. And "Well, you can just write the page again" is just silly, why should I do all that work again when it can be restored and more information added. And please do not tell people to read the bible, that the answer to all my questions is in the bible. If it violates WP:Notability (people) then quote me the chapter and verse. Where is the infrastructure for deletion review? Where is the equivalent of AFD? WP:GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." If you do not think that an obituary in an international newspaper is not enough, then ask for a second reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Where articles do meet the requirements, the community has empowered administrators to delete without further process. In the last 24 hours this has been 20 articles. Discussion on each is both impractical and unnecessary. Where it could be argued that the article is questionable, then it goes through a process of community discussion for at least one week before any decision is made. We have a process and it has worked very well for the eight years that I have been editing here. We have published guidelines, editors should become familiar with them. --Peterdownunder (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:PVGA[change source]

Kind of inactive there. Would someone mind taking a look when they get a chance? eurodyne (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)