Wikipedia:Simple talk

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


Red links[change source]

An editor has recently (twice) removed the words "We usually keep red links in articles. They help us know what articles we most need to create" from Wikipedia:An English Wikipedian's guide. The content has (twice) been restored. In an effort to ensure that changes to guidelines and policies and the like have broad community support, I'm asking for a community discussion whether we want this wording in the guideline essay. Your comments below (either for or against or for something different) would be appreciated. Etamni | ✉   08:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course this wording should be in the guideline.--Peterdownunder (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think any of you actually understand why I removed that content. I completely agree with you, red links of course are essential, but as I explained in my edit summary there, I removed it because it was underneath text that read "Here are some things that are different on this Wikipedia:". We keep red links on the English Wikipedia too, so the content shouldn't be placed there. Omni Flames (talk) 10:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I think that your explanation here makes more sense than the edit summary did. The edit summary did not clearly draw attention to the context of the material, so all anyone noticed was that content was being removed from the page. Perhaps what is needed is a section in the essay reminding readers of some important points that are the same as EnWiki. This content could reasonably be placed in that section. Etamni | ✉   10:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Sorry about the misunderstanding. That being said, I noticed before that some editors who copy content from enWP go out of the way to delink red links (or arguably worse, link them directly to EN using interwiki links). This (the fact that we keep red links) should be clarified somewhere. Chenzw  Talk  10:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
See en:WP:REDLINK. Red links shouldn't be removed. Omni Flames (talk) 10:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually, we don't need to rely on the EnWiki version of that guideline, we have our own at WP:Red links. Etamni | ✉   10:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
@Etamni: No, what I was trying to prove was that at enwiki we keep red links. Omni Flames (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
OK. Etamni | ✉   13:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
The problem may lie in a reader assuming the comparison is specifically to Enwiki. It does not really say which wikis have different policies on red links. Some wikis may delete or avoid red links. Some may have no guidance whatsoever as to red links. I take the sentence to mean we are different here (Enwiki is likewise different) from those wikis where red links might be discouraged. In addition, in simplifying articles from other projects, an editor here may choose not to use the same word that is red linked in the copied article. Rus793 (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, considering that the page is titled "An English Wikipedian's guide", it's pretty safe to assume that it is referring to enwiki. If we want to expand the scope beyond that, we should probably rename it. Also, all I am proposing is that we remove the text from that section on that page, if someone wants to move it somewhere else, I'm not opposed to that, and would probably support such a proposal, in fact. Omni Flames (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Taking into account everyone's responses above, I have boldly edited the essay to move the portion about redlinks away from the "what's different" section and placed it in its own section farther down the page. The two sentences from the original bullet point have been kept exactly as they were originally written, but additional explanation has been added for clarification, along with a link to WP:red link. Etamni | ✉   12:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Deaths in 2016[change source]

This page needs attention. The large majority of the edits to the page were done by two accounts, who also created most of the articles of people who died recently. Since both of them stopped editing, no-one has replaced them in that role. Jim Michael (talk) 13:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

IRC testing help[change source]

I've been working on ways to make connecting to our IRC channels easier, so could someone tell me if This URL allows them to do so? Computer Fizz (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Auntof6, Chenzw, Macdonald-ross, Etamni: Please look at the message above as this wasn't a joke. Computer Fizz (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
CF, I didn't take this as a joke. It's just that I haven't used IRC in years, so I wouldn't really be able to say if your method was easier. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, thanks a lot for clearing that up. For anyone else who is willing to help me with this, here is my thinking:
My link removes all the connection information and channel name and whatnot, and I think this will make it more straightforward.
The only reason I didn't just put it right on the page is because simplewiki does not allow use of the <html> tag. Computer Fizz (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
It works, however there is still an invalid channel defined (#simple-wikipedia). You should remove it. I still prefer my own client, though. By the way, while the channel might see more activity if we give others an easy way to connect to IRC, it is not a substitute for on-wiki discussion/processes, and we need to be careful of crossing that line. Chenzw  Talk  09:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I stopped going on there years ago because too many people kept crossing the line and having discussions on there instead of on here. -DJSasso (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
It works fine for me as well and I also use my own client to connect. Reguyla (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@Chenzw: I'm pretty sure I put wikipedia-simple, but I'll check it out when I get back to my main network. I agree that most discussions should be on wiki, especially since nobody is online when I need it.
@Reguyla: You're totally welcome to use your own client (I do that) but I'm trying to make it easier for people who don't know much about IRC. Laptop Fizz (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh yeah I totally understand. It's worth mentioning though that with the percentage of the time the WMF channels are on +r most folks aren't going to be able to access them anyway. Reguyla (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"Session data" problems.[change source]

Every time I make an edit, I have to click submit twice. This might be due to a problem where I am locally logged in but am not locally, this results in a "loss of session data" or something. I'm using public wifi right now, so that might be part of the problem? Laptop Fizz (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I've not experienced the same thing the few times I've used my mobile account. That said, you can try all the standard stuff, like clearing cache, logging out and back in, etc., but if this doesn't work, we would probably need more data to figure out the issue. For example, what happens if you self-revert something (preferably in a sandbox): Does this also take two attempts at submitting the change? Are you leaving edit summaries? There is an option in preferences that stops you from submitting a change without an edit summary, unless you try to submit the same edit twice (although it shouldn't cause a "loss of session data" or similar error). Are you using a non-standard browser on the laptop? Etamni | ✉   13:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I get this problem occasionally, though not regularly. Submitting the edit a second time always seems to clear the problem. I always assumed that there was an interruption in the connection to the server that was causing it. I suggest putting in a question at Meta or phabricator to see if someone can just explain what it means when that error comes up. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@Etamni: I was using my normal computer and stuff, just on public wifi. Computer Fizz (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK Update[change source]

We haven't updated DYK since February; is anyone against an update or does anyone mind me putting its gears into motion for a proposed update? Jcc (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

It would be good for someone to take on the task of keeping this section updated.--Peterdownunder (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
@Peterdownunder: How about this? I've checked sources, but would prefer if someone else could check as well as this is my first time.

From a collection of Wikipedia's articles:

Elizabeth II greets NASA GSFC employees, May 8, 2007 edit.jpg

Jcc (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts? Anyone? Jcc (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Can we reconsider the phrasing of the 3rd hook? The term "Oxbridge" is presently used to describe both universities, which the article itself affirms. I dug through the revision history of T:TDYK, and it seems that, at that time, this particular hook slipped through the review process. Chenzw  Talk  11:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)