Wikipedia:Simple talk

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

Can't move page[change source]

I wanted to move two pages to reflect the current titles on en.Wikipedia. The first article is Civil rights movement to Civil rights movements. The second is African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–1968) to Civil rights movement. I don't have the "'Move Page" tab displayed as Help:Moving a page describes. Mitchumch (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It is because you are not autoconfirmed yet. Basically you haven't edited long enough here. But be aware we don't necessarily match article titles with, however, that isn't a comment on whether this move should or should not be done. -DJSasso (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
How should I proceed to move the page? Mitchumch (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
By waiting until you are autoconfirmed. However, since it was pointed out that articles here don't necessarily have the same title as those on enwiki, can you explain why you want to rename these? If you don't have another reason, then it's probably best to leave them with the names they have. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
The names are identical to the ones that were on en.Wikipedia when those articles were created on Simple Wikipedia. The reasons why the en.Wikipedia articles had their titles changed are equally valid on Simple Wikipedia. From my observations, the content on both articles on Simple Wikipedia seem to mirror en.Wikipedia. What is the argument for not changing them? Mitchumch (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Well there is an argument to be made that being more specific on simple.wikipedia is simpler and that the only disambiguator between the two being an "s" is not simple. Remember this wiki has a mandate to be simple where does not. But I have no strong opinions either way. -DJSasso (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Where are the guidelines that simple.wikipedia follows for "common name" and "reliable sources"? Mitchumch (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Djsasso or Auntof6 Is anyone available to answer my question? Mitchumch (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
For common name, en:WP:COMMONNAME might be what you're looking for. (That is a policy on English Wikipedia, but we refer to their policies and guidelines when we don't have our own.) For reliable sources, see WP:RS.
That being said, we also need to keep a global point of view. The term "Civil rights movement" doesn't specifically point to either the United States or African-American issues. I asked why you wanted to rename these, and your response was to match the enwiki names because their reasons for renaming are valid here. However, you haven't said what those reasons were.--Auntof6 (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Should this "page move" conversation be held here or on one of the two talk pages for the articles in question? Mitchumch (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for an answer. Mitchumch (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I think Auntof6 is waiting for her answer as well. -DJSasso (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't have a problem answering questions, but on en.Wikipedia this discussion would be on the article page, not a general help page. Since simple.wikipedia has relatively no traffic, then I don't know if you guys normally discuss everything here or on the article talk page. Please don't be snarky with me. Mitchumch (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Enwiki link[change source]

Is it just me who finds it impossible to get from an enwiki page to the Simple English version via the bar on the left? If not, is there a reason for this? IWI (chat) 20:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It might just be you, I don't have a problem with it at all. That being said I also wrote a script to make it even easier, but it doesn't work when our title is different than theirs. -DJSasso (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
So what would be causing it? (Also, can you block the latest personal attacker visible on new changes, it’s an ongoing thing.) IWI (chat) 20:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
You did it I can see. IWI (chat) 20:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Well you will have to explain what is hard about it for you? I click the link and it takes me there. Not sure where the hard part is. Perhaps more detail is needed. -DJSasso (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The link simply isn’t there. IWI (chat) 20:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
If its not there for a given page it usually means doesn't have the page or the article is so new that it has never been linked on wikidata yet. If it is just that it is not linked yet then you can click the change links link and do so. -DJSasso (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for my wording, I meant getting to simple from enwiki. IWI (chat) 20:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Would be the same situation in reverse. However the list is alphabetical so we are usually below the "expand" line so you probably have to expand to see all the links. We start with an S so are down low on their list whereas they are an E so are up high on ours. -DJSasso (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It’s not in the expand either, even when there are only a few languages linked. IWI (chat) 21:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Then as I said we don't have the article or it is not linked yet. -DJSasso (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
This is a widespread issue, even when I know there is an article on simple, the latest example that prompted me here being the Momo Challenge hoax (corresponds to en:Momo Challenge hoax. IWI (chat) 21:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
It is there 4th from the bottom. -DJSasso (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
They didn't include us in the new "Languages" section on the sidebar. See phabricator:T210840. It's been tagged as high priority for about two and a half months now. Vermont (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 (change conflict) Yes but on en:Momo Challenge hoax, Simple (at least for me) is not visible. IWI (chat) 21:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Even in the expand section. IWI (chat) 21:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I dunno what to say I see it. -DJSasso (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The WMF always neglects this project IMO. IWI (chat) 21:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Might be best to clarify some things. DJSasso, would I be correct in assuming you don't have the compact language list? IWI, until the devs or whoever sends the patch through Gerrit gives some sort of update, it might be best to disable the compact language list (somewhere in preferences and it's configurable in the global preferences). Hiàn (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
No idea to be honest. Doubt I would have gone and turned anything off. I rarely touch any of the preferences. I will take a look. -DJSasso (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Now that I think about it I did go turn it off because of the bug that Vermont pointed too. I have it off there and on here. I rarely use them anyway cause of User:Djsasso/enWPTab.js here and en:User:Djsasso/SimpleWPTab.js there. Only use them when our titles don't match. -DJSasso (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: Maybe you could take a screenshot of what you're seeing. There are two issues that could be affecting this.

  • First, are the enwiki and simple articles both linked in Wikidata? If they are, then the issue is with some setting, not with the linking. If either article links to the other via hardcoded interwiki links (there aren't supposed to be any more of those in articles, but there might be), that could affect what you see.
  • Second, are you using the compact language list option (on the appearance tab in your settings)? If so, it might be suppressing which languages you see on the left side of the screen.

If none of that explains it, a screenshot might help us figure it out. Also, if you don't know how to link two pages in Wikidata, see User:Auntof6/How to#Interwiki language links for new pages. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

He's probably using Compact Language Links, which doesn't include Simple at all, not even when searching directly for it. Vermont (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I am, I just checked it. That needs to change though, we might as well be invisible. IWI (chat) 23:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed clarifications of the GA/VGA criteria: List-type articles...[change source]

Hello all, I know that the GA/VGA process is not used very much any more. I would nevertheless propose that we clarify whether "list-type articles" can be awarded the status of Good/Very Good Article. I would propose that we say that these articles cannot be given the status for the following reason:

  • A list of entries perhaps with a blurb lacks the depth of a normal article. The list can be complete, and it can be stable. The format does not allow to add much depth.
  • Verifying that a listing is complete and stable can be difficult.

Even though the English-Wikipedia has the equivalent of (very good) articles (as lists), I don't see much point in supporting such lists here (Lists themselves, are fine, but just not as Good/Very good lists). If the process was more active, and we had at last 3 candidates we could promote I could see a new category; as things stand now, I don't think we should support (very) good lists. What do other people think? --Eptalon (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Let us try to get 3 very good lists candidates first and this will be more relevant. I don't think there should be good lists as no other projects had it and very good lists are easier than very good articles. Once we have 3, it will be easier to argue as the category can be populated. The lists can be static, e.g. list of Confederate army commanders / List of World War 2 General and Flag officers etc. Depth can be obtained by how each list is described, each item is portrayed. As if completeness, it must be supported by sources to claim the list is completed. As of criteria, most of the items in the list must have articles on their own, so a creator need to create at least stubs of the rest. One good challenge will be en:List of U.S. National Forests and this properly translated will be a very good very good list.--Cohaf (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Re populating categories for good/very good lists: such categories would be exceptions and would not have to have three entries. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Three is only a rule of thumb and there are plenty of times where common sense dictates we don't need three. This would be one. The rule of thumb of 3 came when people would come here and add a page and all its categories and them work their way up the category tree creating categories where the only item in it was the category below it. We didn't want people creating category trees just to hold a single sub category below it etc. -DJSasso (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think list articles should qualify for GA/VGA. We have low participation in the process as it is, and I'd rather see effort put more into regular articles. Besides that, the main focus here is use of simple language. List articles often have barely any prose at all (which I think is proper), so they aren't as valuable to the project as regular articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Well technically the ones that would quality for that status would have a bunch of prose as they do on I don't think there is any reason for us to not allow for them if we ever get any. The fact we allow them and don't have any at the moment doesn't hurt anything. But they opportunity to have them in the future would benefit us. -DJSasso (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Geography[change source]

The former lead sentence of the geography article was too complex. I’ve tried to reword it but I’m not quite sure how to word this perfectly. IWI (chat) 00:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Available Now (March 2019)[change source]

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for free, full-access, accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for new accounts and research materials on the Library Card platform:

  • Kinige – Primarily Indian-language ebooks - 10 books per month
  • Gale – Times Digital Archive collection added (covering 1785-2013)
  • JSTOR – New applications now being taken again

Many other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page, including Baylor University Press, Taylor & Francis, Cairn, Annual Reviews and Bloomsbury. You can request new partnerships on our Suggestions page.

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 17:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.

Creating Wikipedia account first time ever[change source]

Hi I tried to create an account with Wikipedia for the first time ever it said 4 people created accounts with my IP address in last 24 hours this is serious. I have screen shot of reply from Wikipedia I may not have correct place here for this issue. There may be explanation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56a:76e9:8e00:c8e:6e11:5b78:5333 (talkcontribs)

Post on my talk page and I can help you. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 08:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Sears Tower / Willis Tower[change source]

In the Willis Tower article, there is a huge, glaring error message under the lovely photograph of the tower. Can someone savvy in Wikipedia's technical stuff please fix this? Please! Kdammers (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Can an importer please import the newest versions of these modules from en.wp? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 08:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I will take care of it. -DJSasso (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Interface Changes[change source]

It appears as though a portion of the interface has changed to less-simple terms, such as "changes" replaced by "edits" in many places, and "Show any article" being replaced by "Random article". I'm currently contacting people to try and fix the issue. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I was hunting for the reason the other day. None of the MediaWiki pages were touched so there must have been a bug somewhere that was fixed. -DJSasso (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Flood flag and blocking[change source]

So something that came up recently was that an admin blocked a number of accounts as spambots/proxies while under the flood flag. I had mentioned to them that they shouldn't do that and they pointed out that the current wording of Wikipedia:Flood flag does allow for it. The policy having been originally copied over from meta which may have had different guidelines from us. I swear our policy had been that admin actions could not be taken while under the flood flag but I can't find the exact discussion it was under and since that page has sat there since 2009 figured we might as well hold a fresh consensus on the topic.

So I propose the following:

Examples of acceptable use would be deleting many spambot pages, or deleting a large number of pages after consensus has been achieved at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion, or blocking many open proxies.

be changed to:

Examples of acceptable use would be deleting a large number of pages after consensus has been achieved at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion.

Admin actions should be under the view of all editors so they get the scrutiny they may or may not neet. The temporary flood of the NC log is a small price to pay for everything being transparent. And even then we very rarely have enough admin actions that they would "flood" the NC. I am even ok with removing the entire sentence but this proposal is probably good as well. -DJSasso (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose As the aforementioned admin, I support using the flood flag for noncontroversial mass blocks of IP addresses and spambot accounts. This prevents tedious and fairly routine disposal of malicious activity that has already activated the global spam filter from flooding NC. Since I use a script to assist me with blocking spam sources, I can quickly generate many edits per minute. This causes my admin actions to flood out NC and prevent community members from seeing vandalism or other unhelpful edits. Since a sysop adding the flood flag to themselves is recorded in NC, other sysops can review the blocks (as DJSasso has done), if desired. I'd suggest the Flood Flag policy explicitly state if used for blocking, the sysop is responsible for clearly stating their planned actions in the rights change reason and the content of their admin actions. However, I also recognize the merits of DJSasso's argument for transparency. Either way, I defer to the community's opinion, should one be established. Operator873talkconnect 17:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The problem of course is not the routine stuff, but the non-routine stuff that can be hidden in with the good. It is really easy to miss a single line edit where a given admin added the flood flag as opposed to the fact that say 20 blocks show up in the NC log. Of course when admins are behaving then it makes sense, it is those times when someone might not that the problem comes up. Hiding them essentially means that now all those blocks will have to go be gone through by someone else when they are hidden whereas when they are out in the open there is less need to do that. So essentially in order to hide what are relatively few lines from the NC, you add work to make people have to go out and search out the blocks to make sure they are good. -DJSasso (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I do understand your reasoning and I do see merit in it. My dissenting opinion, however, is my counter-proposal. Operator873talkconnect 17:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I took some time to consider other situations wherein my proposal would lead directly to misuse or abuse. I have struck my oppose vote and now Support DJSasso's proposal as this would be the least likely to lend itself to potential abuse by rogue admin. DJSasso's proposal would ensure the safety of the community and further protect the community's trust in its administrative cadre. Operator873talkconnect 18:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I support this change. Unless there is discussed community consensus for mass administrator actions, they should not be hidden from NC with the flood flag. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with the principle that admin actions should be easy to scrutinize for other editors, and this demands a certain transparency. I don't think flooding of New Changes is a huge issue, however. I'm not particularly worried either way, but like Djsasso, I have a feeling this was agreed in the past and possibly never put into writing. Ultimately, I think admins should have nothing to hide, and do not think it is too much to ask from the concerned parties, hence I agree with the new proposal. --Yottie =talk= 17:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Make sense but if there are thousands of spambots to be blocked, an exception can be made. Not here but over a meta, I seen an occasion where close to a thousand spambots being blocked and even flood or bot didn't work. I'm trying so hard to stare at RC to make sure vandals doesn't have the chance to exploit it. For here that seems unlikely so less of a concerns. I had noticed the flooding yesterday so went over to add in bot edits in NC. So at least to be fair it wasn't hidden blocking, 2 other members knew about it.--Cohaf (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)