Wikipedia:Simple talk

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


Interface administrators policy[change source]

Hi all. I've been working on an interface administrators policy draft (since we do not have one yet) based on the corresponding policy at simple.wikt. Please feel free to suggest improvements (or add to the draft directly), we need some sort of consensus on how to handle this right. Hiàn (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I think we already did in a previous discussion unless I am totally imagining it. It will be handed out the same way we hand out flood. Temporarily and the person who hands it out will be responsible for checking what the editor did to make sure it was ok. Don't need the whole formalized request area like rollback etc. Just like we don't for flood. Just grab a crat and ask them. -DJSasso (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I think you're right (looks like my memory's failing me already). Sorry for wasting your time. Hiàn (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

How to merge and maintain both page histories?[change source]

While doing maintenance among Special pages/Uncategorized pages and then following up in Wikidata, I encountered the following:

  • Shahmukhī (created 8 June 2017) with a fair amount of content, which I wikified.
  • Shahmukhī alphabet (created 4 September 2016) with little content, somewhat mismatched with the above; the EN WP uses this page name.

Neither page has any sources. I could contact the earlier page's creator, who's only been active intermittently on any WP. But were I to perform a manual (?) merge myself, how are the two page histories maintained? -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

That requires a histmerge, which administrators can do. Vermont (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Great! Reposted to the Admins' noticeboard. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Done. -DJSasso (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

New Wikimedia password policy and requirements[change source]

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Adopt an editor program[change source]

Hello friends! After a few conversations with a other Wikipedians, I'm proposing beginning an "Adopt an Editor" program for Simple English Wikipedia. I'm volunteering to lead this effort to bring more editors to work on this project, even if it isn't their "home wiki." I would like to offer a way that new editors to our project can learn to constructively edit on SEWP and show them the unique ways our project is a bit different from other WP wikis. There will be some small requirements to admin this project which I'm happy to develop:

  1. "WP:Adopt an editor" guideline page with space for volunteering to be a mentor and a space to request a mentor
  2. Develop a template that can be placed voluntarily on an editor's talk page indicating they are being mentored
  3. Develop a template that can be placed voluntarily on an editor's talk or user page indicating they are a SEWP Mentor
  4. Develop a tracking category for tracking purposes
  5. Experienced SEWP editors willing to volunteer their time to help new editors to our project

If community consensus for this project is attained, I'll begin developing the proposed implements immediately. If consensus is obtained, I want this project to be for the community, by the community... so I will need to receive input from all editors of this project on how to develop this program and make it a success. I suggest an independent, uninvolved sysop determine if consensus is obtained in 7 days. Thank you all! Operator873talkconnect 04:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

We had one at one point, trying to think what the page was for it. Don't think it ever really accomplished much. With only 20-30 regular editors it often just became easier to have people just talk one on one to other editors. But hey if you want to give it a go have at er. -DJSasso (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I believe we deleted the infrastructure for the process. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I was thinking we might have done that. Too much admin effort for little gain. Figured it would be best if people just did it privately amoungst each other on their own talk pages. -DJSasso (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
E.g. User talk:Diadophis/Geranium, perhaps in response to the recent appeal above, re:Mentorship. Props to @Macdonald-ross: for stepping up. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Attributing content to another WP[change source]

What's the template I needed for this? All guesses failed. Meanwhile I faked a piped link to the relevant content, i.e. URL for current version of the EN WP page I copied to simplify here. See Talk:Ryukyu black-breasted leaf turtle#Content from EN WP. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The best one to use is Template:Translated page. -DJSasso (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Um, @Djsasso: I neglected to specify above that I was only referring to content from the EN WP. Not only am I uncomfortable with the Template:Translated page text stating "...translated from...", I note the following, possibly historical (and abandoned?) options:
I didn't check dates when these various templates (populating the various categories) were in use, nor do I know the background of using "page" vs. "article." To be clear, my intention is to improve skimpy pages (e.g. Special pages/Short pages) by copy/pasting (including references) and simplifying content from Enwp, and to give attribution. I'd like to support the most informative, consensus-accepted practice and not waste anyone's time (unless a bot can be engaged...?). Thanks for your guidance. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)'
Moving from complex English to Simple English is translating just like from any other language. That being said. Template:Enwp based is the other popular option, though I have slowly been changing the uses from that one over to the one I mentioned above when I see them and it is easy to do so (ie we already know the diff id's etc) so that it is more standard between all the different languages. I am not as big a fan of the Enwp based one because people often forget to use the whole URL which includes the exact diff they copied over, whereas the other makes it more obvious when that is missing and as I mentioned it is a variant from what any other language would look like. However, all that being said there is no one way to do it, use whichever you like. The one I personally use is just a note in my edit summary without using either template. Legally all we have to do is make a note of its origin when its copied over, how we do it is up to the individual. -DJSasso (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh and the category for Template:Enwp based was Category:Articles using content from the English Wikipedia. If you go to any page using the template and hit change and go to the bottom of the page and expand hidden categories you can see them. That being said I thought I had already fixed this category on the template to Category:Pages translated from English Wikipedia. It is fixed now. -DJSasso (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Import Request[change source]

Can we get en:Module:ISO 3166/data/IN imported to simple? Mynagappally is throwing an error because its missing. Nunabas (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done. -DJSasso (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

What would you say[change source]

...could (or must) be improved in these articles?

Of note is a massive simplification by an experienced contributor soon reverted by the page creator. With my interest in improving existing pages, I'm still unfamiliar with the banner template messages which would indicate what sort of treatment is needed, particularly if it puts the page in category for that purpose. -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

First article: (Qizala Kurgans) is nearly incomprehensible, as it does not give any context. Apart from formatting issues, I'd exppect sentences of the form "Q. is a history site located in Azerbaijan. Today it is known mostly for its pottery, which dates from the stone age, around 7.000 to 5.000 years ago. The people who lived there have be called K., and several details about their culture have been found....". In its current form, the article is probably a deletion candidate; as it is difficult to understand and does not give any context. Second article: N. tepe: Apart from makup, mostly reading fluency, and simplification of sentences: " Although the existence of these connections was sometimes demonstrated by single finds, now however these connections are demonstrated by a complex of archaeological materials." - What does this sentence say? - what do we lose by leaving it out? - Also avid first person plural, "We". Compare, for example Hallstatt culture, Arkalochori Axe, Phaistos disc or Linear A. All the articles I cited are factually correct short stub-like articles, sometimes with references. The basic idea is always to get to something that our readers will understand, even if it is shorter than the original. --Eptalon (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
They should definitely be wikified, but to be honest I don't feel like reading them at the moment to see if they should be simplified much as its too early in the morning. And just since you mention being verbatim, one thing to remember is verbatim from en.wiki is ok as long as the text isn't complex. It can be identical to en if the language is not complex. In some cases in the past I have actually replaced en.wiki articles with our articles, but that hasn't happened for awhile because we haven't had any very good articles that aren't already written about in an extensive way on en.wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Fixing category assignment[change source]

This seems beyond my present skill set. Described at Talk:Jiban Thekey Neya#Wrong category, per template or ?. I'd appreciate learning how to fix this - or, alternatively, whether to request here or elsewhere. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Was just wrong in the movie infobox template which is what added the category. I probably should have fixed that issue first so I could show you a diff, but I instead imported a more current version at the same time to fix other issues so its sort of mixed in with other stuff. -DJSasso (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Status of DYK[change source]

My apologies if this has been discussed in the past few months and I've missed it:

The DYK section of our main page has not been updated since December 8, 2017, over a year ago. The last non-vandal or minor edit to any of its associated pages seems to have been in August 2018. This aspect of the project is clearly dead. Do we continue to display these same facts on our main page without any update? Or remove it from the main page?

Do we make the DYK pages as "inactive" or leave them open hoping that activity comes to them again? Only (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

It has been awhile since I looked but the DYK cycles just like the pages do they not? That might be an option so its not the same very single day/week. -DJSasso (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
No, it’s a manual update only. It’s one single template that, in theory, gets updated weekly. There probably is a way to set it up to rotate several sets of facts in the manner that our “featured” article does, but that hasn’t been set up and I’m not 100% sure how to make it work.
it’s not a bad idea, though. If no one else can figure out the logistics behind it first, I’ll take a look over the holiday break. Only (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
We definitely need to keep the DYK section, so it may be useful to automatically rotate between four or five different sets of DYK's, which could be updated at will. Vermont (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
For christmas, it would be good to come up with a few hooks (ideally, for articles created or substantially revised in 2018)....--Eptalon (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Do you mean hooks about Christmas specifically, or just that we need more hooks around that time? Diadophis (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I mean hooks in general, not about Christmas only. As to the 2018: Preferably, we select hooks about articles that are relatively recent.. --Eptalon (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I was passing through, noticed that DYK was out of date, and updated it with the next set of hooks from the Queue (Queue 3). Vermont kindly pointed me to this discussion after I pushed the update and while I did not see it prior, I wanted to let everyone know that I updated DYK. I'm fairly active with DYK over at en: and would be happy to provide input if you find it helpful. Best, Mifter (talk) 04:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The problem isn't that we don't know how to do the updates. It's that we don't have enough participation to have enough new entries to cycle through. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I propose that we try to fill up the 6 queues, rotate between them daily (which could be done manually), and add/remove entries as needed. Vermont (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Do you mean rotate through them even if they have previously-used hooks? I guess that would be better than leaving the same ones there all the time. Personally, I find it difficult to get interested in this when we have so much broken stuff that needs fixing. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The current idea I have is to fill up 7 queues, one for each day of the week. See the source of User:Mifter/sandbox for how this would work. Basically, after the 7 queues are filled (likely only 4 hooks per day instead of 5) we would add {{Did you know/Queue/{{#time:N|+1 day}}}} on the main page in place of what we currently have, and it would cycle to the next queue every 24 hours. This would require a bit of work to get the queues filled, but from there, it would only need periodic updating. I'd be happy to go looking for hooks to fill up the queues. Vermont (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Vermont, just a note that you would want to use {{Did you know/Queue/{{#time:N|}}}} as the parserfunction returns numbers between 1-7 (corresponding to the day number of the week) which could correspond to the queues. Using "+1 day" would return numbers between 2-8 (I used it on the sandbox to have it display the contents of all the queues for illustration and have removed it to prevent confusion). Best, Mifter (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I think it could be beneficial to look into archives of old DYK's, take the ones that are still interesting and work, and from there make 7 queues ready. Is there any opposition to this? I hope to have DYK's rotating regularly as soon as possible. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Personal particulars on a new User page[change source]

Are there any actual prohibitions of particular personal content on User pages so that SE WP isn't exploited as an electronic bulletin board a la social media sites? I'm not talking about advertising a commercial entity but persons (e.g. User:Razaulqadriashfaqi complete with social media links, or User:Brighton Niwomurinzi who essentially posted a resume of education and work experience). I can recall seeing phone numbers and email addresss removed (on EN WP) but hadn't noticed by whose intervention. What would be a helpful action, if any, on the part of a non-Admin here? -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

As long as they aren't minors they can self identify if they wish, though we highly don't recommend phone numbers. Emails aren't an issue, some users actually use their email as their username. Advertising type info is of course no good. -DJSasso (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I think it's a question of whether they are here to contribute, or just to advertise themselves. This individual is clearly using us to advertise his social media pages. I don't think we should tolerate that, because he has made no contribution and is just here for a free ride. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Import Request v2[change source]

Can someone import en:Module:Infobox/i18n? Its showing as missing from Vocabulario de la Lengua Bicol. Nunabas (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that one is an odd one that isn't actually wanted. Sometimes happens that the wiki software thinks something is wanted when it isn't. There is a much more complicated answer, but basically it isn't actually needed. Its happening over on en.wiki as well. -DJSasso (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

R2 Quick Deletions[change source]

Should this criteria apply to all bad inter-space redirects, or just those between userspace and mainspace as stated in current policy? Vermont (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd assume it would also apply to category and template space as well (and Wikipedia space under certain circumstances) - perhaps a wording change is in order. Hiàn (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Invitation from Wiki Loves Love 2019[change source]

Please help translate to your language

WLL Subtitled Logo (transparent).svg

Love is an important subject for humanity and it is expressed in different cultures and regions in different ways across the world through different gestures, ceremonies, festivals and to document expression of this rich and beautiful emotion, we need your help so we can share and spread the depth of cultures that each region has, the best of how people of that region, celebrate love.

Wiki Loves Love (WLL) is an international photography competition of Wikimedia Commons with the subject love testimonials happening in the month of February.

The primary goal of the competition is to document love testimonials through human cultural diversity such as monuments, ceremonies, snapshot of tender gesture, and miscellaneous objects used as symbol of love; to illustrate articles in the worldwide free encyclopedia Wikipedia, and other Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) projects.

The theme of 2019 iteration is Celebrations, Festivals, Ceremonies and rituals of love.

Sign up your affiliate or individually at Participants page.

To know more about the contest, check out our Commons Page and FAQs

There are several prizes to grab. Hope to see you spreading love this February with Wiki Loves Love!

Kind regards,

Wiki Loves Love Team

Imagine... the sum of all love!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Twinkle Preferences Message[change source]

Above the options there's a notice "Only you, Wikipedia administrators and Interface editors can modify your preferences, but the settings you choose are visible as JavaScript code to everyone." Isn't normal admins unable to alter users js/css now, so the message should change to interface administrators which is the term used by WMF? Wikipedia seems unnecessary and interface editors is not the precise term for it. Thoughts? Sorry if I am wrong in this.--Cohaf (talk) 08:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

We use interface editors slightly differently here. While the admin can't edit those things immediately like they used to be able to, on this wiki they just have to ask a 'crat for the flag temporarily for any edits they need to make. So they can technically still do it. Can try to reword it to make it clear I suppose, though probably not that important a distinction. -DJSasso (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Djsasso:Thanks. I think it's seems moot now. I don't know that sysops can be granted IA directly as on Chinese Wikipedia, normal sysops needs 3 days notice for IA. Thanks for your explanation. Best Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Frequently vandalized page to add to your watchlist[change source]

John F. Kennedy has been getting vandalized again. (It happens to this page now and then.) It's not frequent enough to semi-protect, but maybe some of you would like to add it to your watchlist so we van catch vandalism sooner. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Added, how I wish there's pending changes here, nice case to apply it.--Cohaf (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Cohaf, if there's consensus we could ask devs for it. Vermont (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Vermont.I see, but how's the process and who can be allowed to review pending changes are things we have to sort out. Happy to discuss further. --Cohaf (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to have pending changes on all our vulnerable pages. We have had some pages vandalised again and again and again. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Not the biggest fan of pending changes, especially in a small community as good edits end up sitting forever to be checked, at least in my experience seeing it on other small wiki's. It is always added with good intentions but not sure with such a small community that it would end up being any better than just watch listing pages. -DJSasso (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't trhink pending changes (or whatever you call thew procedure) is a good idea on this wiki. This community isa too small to implement it. As an alternative, I'd see semi-protection (limit to autoconfirmed), or a special set of editfilters which would tag edits by new users/known LTAs on certain pages. And if we must: how many pages are we talking about, and how long till a piece of well-identified vandalism was reverted? - Without numbers, there's no meaningful discussion (except for the measures I proposed). --Eptalon (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think there are many regularly vandalized pages that aren't immediately caught. Even the one that started this section has hardly been vandalized (in terms of edits per month). Using the one in this section as an example, it did get a bit of a burst of vandalism last October but then it slowed down. Could probably have put a short temporary semi-protection on it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Right, my use of frequent was meant to be relative, meaning often enough that more people watching might be helpful. I also watch the page on JFK's assassination, and the pages on Lincoln and his assassination for the same reason, as well as others. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Pending changes seems like a good idea, but I agree with those who said above that we probably aren't big enough to keep up with it. We already don't keep up with patrolling new pages: we have pages that roll out of Special:NewPages without being patrolled. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually we can turn on pending changes as a backup. When there's a need, at least it is fitted. Otherwise I guess although protection isn't predictive or anticipating, we can protect high risk article temporarily, e.g. During midterm elections result day, politicians articles often got vandalised, hence, we can preempt a short 1-2 days semi on some of the articles. Best,--Cohaf (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

FileExporter beta feature[change source]

Johanna Strodt (WMDE) 09:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

1Lib1Ref[change source]

Are we participating in this? Just wondering.--Cohaf (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't look like anybody is organising here. Hiàn (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply Hiàn.--Cohaf (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

No editing for 30 minutes on 17 January[change source]

You will not be able to edit the wikis for up to 30 minutes on 17 January 07:00 UTC. This is because of a database problem that has to be fixed immediately. You can still read the wikis. Some wikis are not affected. They don't get this message. You can see which wikis are not affected on this page. Most wikis are affected. The time you can not edit might be shorter than 30 minutes. /Johan (WMF)

18:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

New York moves[change source]

New York needs to be moved to New York (state) and New York (disambiguation) needs to then be moved to New York, per the enwiki and the fact that the state is not what people usually mean when they say "New York". This move doesn't appear to be possible for a non-admin. IWI (chat) 23:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I am opposed to this move. New York City being referred to as New York is a colloquialism; given that most users of this wiki are not familiar with northeastern American colloquialisms, if they are looking for the state they will type New York and if they were looking for the city they will notice the "This page is about the U.S. state, but you may be searching for New York City." on the top of the article. Vermont (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Vermont: It's less of a colloquialism and more of just a disambiguating way of calling it, to distinguish it from the state. The point is to redirect someone who searches for "New York" with a direct choice between the city and the state. This is exacerbated when you think of other language's way of saying it: Spanish - "Nueva York" (literally "New York"), French - "New York", Portuguese - "Nova Iorque" (literally "New York"), Chinese - "Nie Yue". The list continues – it is clear thata disambiguation page is needed at New York. IWI (chat) 23:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, as someone from the UK (another demographic), I can say that I've never really heard people here call it New York City. IWI (chat) 23:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay; I'd support redirecting New York to the disambiguation page. Why did you change the name of New York City to New York in the prior linked article? Vermont (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
New York should not redirect to New York (disambiguation). The standard is to have the page with the "(disambiguation)" qualifier be the redirect. That allows for deliberate !inks to the dab page (through the redirect) without those links looking like unintentional links there. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes I agree, Auntof6; New York should be the dab page, which was the approach used by enwiki. IWI (chat) 00:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, I was not saying that New York should be the dab page, just that if it were the dab page it shouldn't be a redirect. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
you can’t have it both ways. You cite English Wikipedia here as the reason to move, but then your edits that I just reverted at New York go against how the city is named in the English Wikipedia article on the state. You can’t cite English Wikipedia as precedent for some of your changes but ignore it for others. Only (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Only: No, the English Wikipedia simply gave me the idea, I don't think we should cite it as a reason to do anything; we are a separate wiki. My actual reason is outlined above, do you agree to that? IWI (chat) 23:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Whatever is done, make sure to double check !inks to any pages that are changed. If articles currently link to "New York" and the state is intended, and then we make "New York" a dab page, we need to change all the links there to point to the right thing.

That being said, I think that New York should remain as an article about the state, because that's its name, and it should keep the hatnote that it has. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes but since New York City is officially "City of New York", it could be argued that it is also the name of the city (like how "Los Angeles" is officially the "City of Los Angeles", but not called "Los Angeles City"). In my opinion, the phrase "New York City" exists in the same/similar fashion as "New York State", to disambiguate. A long debate occured at en:Talk:New York City, which determined that the primary name of NYC is "New York". IWI (chat) 00:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • New York should not deliver New York State. It should deliver the city directly, because that is what most users would want it to. The dab page should be New York (disambiguation). This way the mass of users can get to where they want to go with one click. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. "New York City" is a good self-disambiguator. "New York" should be the dab page; "New York (state)" should be the state's page. IWI (chat) 13:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
It seems that different wikis have taken different approaches. English: New York is disambig, state and city has separate pages. Spanish and Chinese: Nueva York and 纽约 are about the city, and there is a separate "(disambiguation)" page and a state page. There might be simply no single correct approach. User670839245 (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
In English, we have the natural DAB name "New York City", which is different to other languages where none exists. "New York" alone however, is confusing, which is why New York should be a DAB page. IWI (chat) 15:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not saying we should do it because en.wiki is doing it. But the way they are doing it does make more sense as New York City is a natural disambiguator. Will be quite a bit of work to clean this up if we actually wanted to do it however. -DJSasso (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Anything that helps the reader's understanding is well worth our time ;). IWI (chat) 20:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes and no, as I said I am ok with the move. But that doesn't always mean that its worth our time. With such a small editor base sometimes other areas can be more worthy of our time. In the case of this though. It could probably be done pretty quickly with AWB. -DJSasso (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Clarification of voter eligibility[change source]

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.

In Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TDKR Chicago 101 2 a vote was stricken. There are some uncertainty about whether it's an SUL or local account. I then propose that WP:CFD under who can vote to add the date of creation of named account should be based on the date of creation of an attached local account in this wiki. Ideas?--Cohaf (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Please conduct this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for adminship. That way, we'll have the record of it connected to the page that it affects. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Not much of the community, save for the few who watch that page, will notice it there. I was under the impression that the purpose of ST was to conduct discussions like this for community consensus. Vermont (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrator note: Moving this to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for adminship


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.