Wikipedia:Simple talk

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

Universal Language Selector will be enabled by default again on this wiki by 21 February 2014[change | edit source]

On January 21 2014 the MediaWiki extension Universal Language Selector (ULS) was disabled on this wiki. A new preference was added for logged-in users to turn on ULS. This was done to prevent slow loading of pages due to ULS webfonts, a behaviour that had been observed by the Wikimedia Technical Operations team on some wikis.

We are now ready to enable ULS again. The temporary preference to enable ULS will be removed. A new checkbox has been added to the Language Panel to enable/disable font delivery. This will be unchecked by default for this wiki, but can be selected at any time by the users to enable webfonts. This is an interim solution while we improve the feature of webfonts delivery.

You can read the announcement and the development plan for more information. Apologies for writing this message only in English. Thank you. Runa

Can article pages be deleted?[change | edit source]

Oops, I created Anniversary days in the United Kingdom by mistake - I intended to create a category (which I have done now too). Can anyone advise how to delete an article page please. Mia (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, pages can be deleted. You can read about it at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Let me know if you have any questions. Since you were the only author of the page you mentioned, I deleted it under option WP:QD#G7. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, and thanks for deleting it. Mia (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

How to see the list of categories of Wikipedia?[change | edit source]

Hello. I'd like to know how to see a list of categories in wikipedia. Thank you. Wuvixx (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

A list of all categories can be found at Special:Categories. See WP:CAT for details about categories. --Glaisher [talk] 11:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Glaisher! Wuvixx (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

How to find a good subject that wasn't written about, to write an article about?[change | edit source]

Hello. I'd love to write for Wikipedia but I need to find subjects to write about. Any suggestions? Wuvixx (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Write about something that you're interested in and knowledgeable about. If you write an article that already has an article in another version of Wikipedia, you will have a format and outline to work from. Jim Michael (talk) 11:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for your reply! Wuvixx (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

How to upload files on this wikipedia?[change | edit source]

How to upload files like pictures on this wikipedia? Wuvixx (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

We don't keep files on this Wikipedia. If you have files to upload, you can upload them at Wikimedia Commons if they meet the requirements as far as copyright and free use. This page gives some detail about what is allowed. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks but Wikipedia Commons seem to prohibit character uploads and my article need a picture of a character. Is there a way to do it? Wuvixx (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
No we don't allow copy written images here. That is why we only use images from Commons. -DJSasso (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the help. Wuvixx (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

An issue that came out of deleting ancestry categories[change | edit source]

Yesterday I finished deleting the categories for Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2014/Categories showing mixes of national ancestry. On quite a few of the articles I processed, I saw Category:Native American people. This category was being used for people of Native American descent, not just for people who are 100% Native American. (I saw say was because I have changed the description on the category.) In keeping with the spirit of the RfD, I think this category should be removed from a lot of the pages that have it. However, I'm not sure how to decide where to remove it and where to leave it. Some pages are obvious (Sacagawea, Crazy Horse, Russell Means, Geronimo, Chief Joseph). Some are less obvious (Kim Basinger, Bret Favre, Quentin Tarantino, Oprah Winfrey, Tammy Wynette).

Here are some ideas of how to make the decision:

  • Remove the category if the person has any ancestry other than Native American.
  • Leave the category where the person has some specified percentage of Native American ancestry. I think this criterion is used by some groups in the US to determine tribal membership. I'm not sure how we'd determine the percentage, though.
  • Look on enwiki to see how they list the person: under Native American people, or under people of Native American descent. If the former, leave the category. If the latter, remove it.
  • Leave the category on pages about people who are well known as being Native American, even if they have other ancestry. An example of this would be Maria Tallchief, whose mother was European.

Other ideas? Comments? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

For me, first bullet, and some sympathy with fourth bullet in clear-cut cases. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Having not participated in the RfD, I suggest entirely after the fact. There are some very interesting people in that category here. I agree that bullet two would be impossible to determine. No article I looked at declares a percentage. I like bullet three. This eliminates Willie Nelson because he is in the category on enwiki as "American people of Cherokee descent". Joan Baez is in cats of English, Scottish and Mexican descent, but not as Native American at all. This would also solve Tammy Wynette, as she has no related category except "People from Itawamba County, Mississippi". As well, I agree with bullet four (including Maria Talllchief for example), but only if it is clearly stated in the article. Fylbecatulous talk 13:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have cleaned out the category. I left all the people of 100% Native American ancestry (Squanto, Massasoit, etc.). Of the others, if the person was significantly known as being Native American, I also left the category (Maria Tallchief, Jim Thorpe, etc.) Otherwise, I removed it. Feel free to check my work. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

GoblinBot4[change | edit source]

Hello, I am just curious about why GoblinBot4 is not editing again. --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

As the level of vandalism is kind of high recently we could use the bot's help. --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Changes to the default site typography coming soon[change | edit source]

This week, the typography on Wikimedia sites will be updated for all readers and editors who use the default "Vector" skin. This change will involve new serif fonts for some headings, small tweaks to body content fonts, text size, text color, and spacing between elements. The schedule is:

  • April 1st: non-Wikipedia projects will see this change live
  • April 3rd: Wikipedias will see this change live

This change is very similar to the "Typography Update" Beta Feature that has been available on Wikimedia projects since November 2013. After several rounds of testing and with feedback from the community, this Beta Feature will be disabled and successful aspects enabled in the default site appearance. Users who are logged in may still choose to use another skin, or alter their personal CSS, if they prefer a different appearance. Local common CSS styles will also apply as normal, for issues with local styles and scripts that impact all users.

For more information:

-- Steven Walling (Product Manager) on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation's User Experience Design team

Big Lakes Weekend (Second Try)[change | edit source]

Is anyone interested in participating at this Big Weekend? I hope this time (the second time) we gather up more users for a fun weekend like this! --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Very long & complex pages[change | edit source]

Regular editors will remember we have problems with exceptionally long and technically complex articles. They are brought over from En wiki and left with minimal simplifications. Advice is more or less ignored, and the same editor brings over more and more articles...
The sheer length is almost as much a problem as the complexity, IMO. Have a look at Suicide, for example. It's not so technical as the advanced chemistry articles we had a couple of years ago, but it is really formidable from the readers' point of view. 65 thousand KB! Well, I raise this because it reminds me of our previous experience. If we do not act promptly at the start, very soon we have a major problem on our hands. Medicine in general is beginning to look like one of our trouble areas. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not scared of long articles, if they are well made. The big question I see though: Take the average reader of this project, and ask yourself to what extent such readers will read the whole article? - If we find parts that can be left out (or moved to annex articles) we should probably consider doing that. Before we do though, we should talk to the people involved in creating such articles; they spent a lot of time on the article, given the little manpower we have, it would be a bad idea to waste the decent parts of the article. --Eptalon (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Those are good points. I think it is the combination of great length with low readability which is the most worrying feature. Using only continuous prose sections, I got these results: Flesch RES of 49, 34 and 41 for three passages (not chosen for their being especially difficult). I would say the article is not properly simplified and, also, the sections dealing with treatment are violations of our "we are not a how-to-do-it guide".
The history of this page is interesting. For some years it was about 6,000 bytes long. Then, on 19th March 2013 over 66,000 bytes were brought over by a user. For the past year the user has been simplifying the article, so there is no question he has tried to comply with our general approach. This is not a case of someone who is deliberately flouting the guidelines of our wiki. Yet the fact of the matter is that it is not anywhere near a simple article. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to say so, but I do not believe in the magic of "readability scores" such as Flesch-Kincaid, when it comes to scientific content. I think in the case of this article, the 'solution' would probably be to talk to the editors involved; they did a great job at simpilfying the content; but, as you point out, in some sections, the form of presentation is not optimal; we should identify the problem sections, and try to improve them, as a group. --Eptalon (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I really was not looking to get pissed off early in the morning...but I am, par for the course on Wikipedia. Simple English is just that, explaining concepts with a reduced vocabulary. It not Simple Simon, operating on the assumption that the readers are all in kindergarten and have a reduced intellect. There are technical manuals on highly complex subjects written in Simple English.
"If we do not act promptly at the start, very soon we have a major problem on our hands." What I think the major problem is with Wikipedia, this one and the regular English and probably every other language, is a select group of a few people have parked their rear-ends and for reasons known but to themselves (probably little egos) enjoy dictating terms and conditions as if they have more clout. When you look at what they actually contribute however it is little more than blah, blah, blah BLAH.
If you were so concerned you have spoken to me directly, to do otherwise is rude.
"He investigated the influence of heredity and environment on social advancement. The terms had been contrasted previously, for example by Shakespeare (in The Tempest: 4.1).[2]"[1] You wrote that Macdonald-ross, it seems "complexity" as a "major problem" only applies to others not yourself. Anyway moot point, I'm done Simple English Wikipedia gets read by like 3 people a month, it's a waste of time. Plus I plan on creating a sock puppet account on the regular English Wikipedia so I can play with Heilman and his minions.
I bid a fond adieu.7mike5000 (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
(talk) 14:49 22 April 2014 (UTC)
"Anyway moot point, I'm done Simple English Wikipedia gets read by like 3 people a month, it's a waste of time."
I MUST disagree with you here, sir/madam - having just stumbled upon this simple section of wikipedia, I don't think you are you truly speaking from an ignorant perspective. It's incredible how simplicity can allow someone to bridge the gaps between no knowledge and technical knowledge. Do not give up on this.

Could use some help patrolling new pages[change | edit source]

An IP editor has recently created a lot of new pages (mostly about things related to India and Pakistan), and I'm having trouble keeping up with them. Most need simplifying and new or different categories. I've deleted several because they weren't simplified enough from enwiki. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Is that by any chance the Pakistani POV pusher - some person creating lots of stuff related to India, Pakistan and related areas. I wouldn't say it's a vandal, but the edits aren't good either. I remember that some admins (Chenzw, me and others) blocked that user on sight. -Barras talk 19:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know. How would I tell if it's the same person? Most of the new pages I've seen aren't bad from a POV perspective, they just need simplifying. Of course, I've been starting with the articles I feel more comfortable evaluating, such as places, languages, animals, etc., not political stuff. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Looking at it, I'm rather certain it is the Pakistani POV pusher. See here for some info. His problematic fields were mainly politically related changes. Most of the time he's been spotted, the pages have just been deleted and reverted, it's rather hard to ensure all pages are valid etc. If I recall correctly, there have been problems that he was unwilling to listen etc. -Barras talk 19:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, more articles are being created and help in whatever form would be appreciated. I don't feel qualified to evaluate the political articles, but if you feel they should be deleted I'd have no problem with that. I'm not going to have much time today to do anything with it. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I finished the other thing I had to do today, and took care of this. I did a mass delete and blocked the user for 72 hours. This IP address was very similar to a previous one used by the suspected POV-pusher. I wouldn't be surprised if we see him/her back after that, though. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Out of date pages[change | edit source]

Nearly every page I've seen about British cars or car companies and Formula One seasons and teams is out of date. I've updated a couple of car company article, but don't have he time or knowledge to update all the Formula One pages. Can they all be deleted, or at least marked as out of date?


We don't delete pages because of being out of date. If you don't have time or knowledge to update a page yourself, you can put the {{update}} tag on it, with something on the talk page to explain what needs to be updated.
Along these lines, the template {{update after}} can be useful when writing about a future event. It makes the article show up as needing update after a certain point in time. It can be used for things like future movie releases and future sports events. After the time specified, an editor can update the article to say that the event happened, was cancelled, was postponed, or whatever. It's preferable to write articles using language that doesn't go out of date to begin with, but sometimes that's not possible.
By the way, please sign your talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I get it - thanks! MilliBucks (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Great. Just be sure to put something on the article's talk page to explain what needs to be updated. Most people won't see it if you just put it in the edit summary. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Could someone look at template {{Infobox MLB}}?[change | edit source]

This template is displaying stray characters under "Current uniform" when no uniform information is given. For an example, see Atlanta Braves. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I am guessing its probably a mandatory field. I don't have the time at the moment to try and figure out how to change that to non-mandatory for our use at the moment but if someone else doesn't get it I will try to look tonight. -DJSasso (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 Done -DJSasso (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:DYK[change | edit source]

Is Wikipedia:Did you know still active? It seems that it has not been updated since March. If anyone knows the status of it, I would love to help; otherwise, I would be happy to help bring it back. MJ94 (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It does still exist, people just need to nominate hooks. -DJSasso (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
It was an active group activity until an editor (no longer on the wiki) put up dozens of proposals. At some point other people got disinterested. We now limit the number of proposals any one person can put up, but have not yet got people into the swing of it. It's a good way to get a page noticed on our front page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Requests for deletion[change | edit source]

We currently have quite a few RfDs at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion that don't have many responses yet. If you're a registered editor, take a look and see if you have an opinion on any of them. If you do, add a response. In either case, it would be helpful if as many registered editors as possible check this page regularly to give their opinions on new RfDs as they come up. (It's OK if you don't have an opinion on some or all of them -- only respond if you do have an opinion.) If you're new to this process, read the information at the top of the page to learn how the process works. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Bug in Twinkle[change | edit source]

I just left a message at Wikipedia:Twinkle/Development about a bug I've noticed lately. The two users listed as being the developers for Simple haven't edited in a while. Does anyone know who is supporting this nowadays? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Not really anyone. It has always just been a bit of a use at your own risk thing since most of its code doesn't/didn't work on simple, although some has been fixed by people over the years. But I am sure if anyone knows how to fix it they will now that you posted here. -DJSasso (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Redlink discussion[change | edit source]

A discussion about redlinks is underway at Wikipedia talk:Red link.S. Rich (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)