Wikipedia:Simple talk

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


Article descriptions[change source]

I see articles with descriptions like Wikipedia:Simple talk. How can we make one? National Railway (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@National Railway: What do you mean by "articles with descriptions"? Do you mean how the page title starts with "Wikipedia:"? Computer Fizz (talk) 08:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
@Computer Fizz: I mean when you search for an article like insect, you see a line of smaller lines below the title. National Railway (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@National Railway: Do you mean the thing that says "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia?" Computer Fizz (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Pretty sure they mean the short description which comes from wikidata and shows up on mobile. -DJSasso (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@Djsasso: This is exactly what I mean.National Railway (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I assume that, too. Does anyone know if Wikidata actually delivers descriptions in simple? (I don't especially have a problem if simple "falls back" to en, but we should get simple descriptions here if they exist.) StevenJ81 (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@StevenJ81: No I do not believe it does. If it does I have never heard of it. --Examknow (lets chat!) 15:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
All wiki's except en fall back on whatever is in wikidata using the language you have set in your preferences, like any other language based text on any of the wikies. For example, I use Canadian English so I get the Canadian English descriptions. Simple not being an actual language has never been able to be used for any of the internationalized text. En itself does their own thing separate from wikidata. -DJSasso (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@Computer Fizz: I mean the description of an article. Like the article insect, the description for the article is “class of invertebrates”. National Railway (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@National Railway: As sasso said you gotta find it on Wikidata. It's not anywhere on here. Computer Fizz (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Computer Fizz: It means the description that you see in an article under the title in mobile view. National Railway (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Computer Fizz: I can find it, but how can I apply it to the article? National Railway (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@National Railway: I'm not entirely sure I don't use wikidata very often, or ever. You might wanna ask @Djsasso: cause he seems to be experienced with it. Computer Fizz (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@Computer Fizz: Thanks! National Railway (talk) 06:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

┌──────────────────────────┘
@Djsasso: I just want to ask, how can I apply the article’s description from Wikidata onto the article in Wikipedia? National Railway (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

It happens automatically. -DJSasso (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@Djsasso: Do descriptions apply to draft articles and main articles in both Simple English Wikipedia and the normal English Wikipedia? Also, I want to ask I know how to apply descriptions using the template Short description, but is there a difference between Template:Description and Short description or Template:Description doesn’t exist?National Railway (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Short description doesn't work here. That is an English Wikipedia only template because they don't take their description from wikidata. The one here is just nulled out so it doesn't keep getting imported from English Wikipedia. The Description template doesn't exist here either. -DJSasso (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Djsasso: So if descriptions doesn’t exist in Simple English Wikipedia, how can the article insect have the description “class of invertebrates”? National Railway (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

orphaned articles[change source]

Orphaned articles on Simple English should show the orphan template on the top of them. The template should show so that editors and people who are new to Simple can see them. But it ain't just those articles; Simple has many articles which are orphaned though are not tagged so. Sometimes, finding a link to an orphaned article is hard, and the orphaned article might stay so for a long time. Angela Maureen (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

People can add that tag, but its the one tag that is pretty often discouraged to use, because it would be on so many of our articles that it would just end up making the articles look worse with no actual benefit. It is especially unnecessary if the article is already marked as a stub, as it is very likely a stub is orphaned especially if its new. Tags while they are good at pointing to an issue in my opinion very rarely result in someone actually fixing the issues, its why articles once they are tagged don't often seem to have their tags removed. No one wants to be the person to remove them. The orphan tag is the the most useless of the bunch. I can't remember the exact discussion I would have to go searching, but the reason it doesn't show is because of how little purpose it serves and we didn't want it cluttering up pages. Some wanted to remove the tag all together but others thought it was still worth having for category purposes. I think that change happened because AWB used to add the tag to all orphaned articles it would come across and people got sick of the tag cause it would end up on like 7 out of 10 articles. Personally I would still delete the tag but I know some like it so the current status as an invisible tag to discourage use is the best situation. -DJSasso (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
In the enwiki, the orphan tag only appears if the date is in the same month the tag was placed. If older, the tag remains but does not show. This gives it one month for hopefully someone who is reviewing new articles to see it and fix things, and then after does not disturb readers. Probably it works the same way here? Desertborn (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah it does, I just forgot to mention that. -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Desertborn: I just placed this template on an article, but it does not show up. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: Which one was it? I can check it out. Did you add the month and year? For example, right now the tag has to be {{orphan|date=May 2019}} for it to show up. If there are any other dates than May 2019, or there is no date, it will not show. When we get to June, none of the ones marked May will show the maintenance notice anymore. Of course, they will all still be in the category, no matter if they show a maintenance notice on the page or not. Desertborn (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Desertborn:Thanks, yes, you are right. I did not date my tag. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC) ...But cybot did, and it is now displaying the orphan tag. 19:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
It is not clear to me, after reading the description Maureen Angela linked to, what an orphaned page is. I posted my question on the talk page. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
An orphaned page is a page that no other pages link to. -DJSasso (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
There are currently only 1,411 pages tagged with Orphaned. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes as mentioned we discourage the use of the tag. If you notice it has been rarely used in the last few years. Category:Orphaned articles 2012 was the last time that it was regularly used. Since then its only been used by people who likely weren't aware we don't really use it anymore. -DJSasso (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

orphan category update[change source]

Since last week 14 articles have been unorphaned, and four have been added to the orphan category. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

As of today there are 1,392 pages in the Category:Orphaned articles. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

You don't need to keep updating us on the total. If people are interested they will go look. I suspect most are not. You continuing to update prevents the archive bot from archiving this whole section. -DJSasso (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:Rollback[change source]

It doesn't state very clearly what meta:Global Rollbackers can do locally with the additional rights such as markbotedit / supressredirect. Given more users who are active in this wiki are getting the right it might be well a time for us to discuss. Can GRs do supressredirect on R2 moves (e.g. sandbox to mainspace)? This is not technically counter-vandalism. Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Global Rollbackers can not operate here just as Global Admins cannot. We opt out since we have enough admins. -DJSasso (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
There was a proposed policy as mentioned by Vermont below, but technically it has never been passed. -DJSasso (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Nevermind I lied, we do have Global Rollbackers here per Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 49#Opt-in global rollback. -DJSasso (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
WP:Global rights policy. Vermont (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
@Djsasso: Global sysops we did opt out but Global Rollback is global (this wiki is included too). Are we making a local policy that GR can't use their rights in this wiki? We can do that. Ideas?--Cohaf (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Edit conflict, as I posted above we did opt-in as it did require opt-in. -DJSasso (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
My question is that what is the scope of supressredirect for GR. Purely counter-vandalism or can like supressing a typically CSDable redirect allowed? --Cohaf (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Well the markbotedit is a definite no as we don't allow admins to hide those sort of things, we just had a discussion about that and the flood flag. Supressredirect not really sure. When we opted in I don't know that it had those options that I can remember but its been 11 years. I think we probably only were thinking in terms of counter-vandalism. Don't really have a problem with supressredirect myself. -DJSasso (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Markbotedit, iirc, only can be done by GR's when they rollback an edit, and I'm not sure there's an option not to do it. Vermont (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
If that is the case then I guess there is nothing to do. Just surprised it would hide their rollbacks automatically. -DJSasso (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I was under the impression GR isnt opt-outable. However, we can institute local policy to limit use of GR perms. Vermont (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
It might not be now, but I think we had to opt-in when it was first created. -DJSasso (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Makes sense. Vermont (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Make sense now. --Cohaf (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
We could just approve Fr33kman's proposal linked above. Its pretty straight forward and common sense. -DJSasso (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Support--Cohaf (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I've slightly modified and clarified a bit on that proposed policy. Thoughts? Vermont (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Looks good to me. -DJSasso (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
So...what qualifies as enough consensus to make it a policy? Vermont (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
To add or change policy, don't we need to announce it so that users here know there's a proposal? I know y'all have been discussing it here on this public page, but the section heading "WP:Rollback" doesn't indicate that there's anything being proposed. Users not interested in the subject in general might not have followed this discussion, but might want to weigh in on any policy changes. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Typically enough consensus is waiting 7 days to see where the discussion is at that point. It's like any other discussion like Afd. -DJSasso (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to make Wikipedia:Global rights policy a policy[change source]

After 7 days of discussion it was unanimous so I have applied the policy template to the page. -DJSasso (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

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.

See above section for original conversation about this. Vermont (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Support We should have a global rights policy so that people with global rights know to what extent they may use them, and this is a good representation of that. Vermont (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Yep this was a good plan when proposed. Not sure why it never went past the proposal stage. Support it going there now though. -DJSasso (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support But what about autopatrol, do take note GR alongside Global Renamers have autopatrol rights which may make some of their creations to miss patrol. Not a big thing but worth taking note.--Cohaf (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Yes, I think doing so will be fine.--BRP ever 14:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Proposal makes sense. Hiàn (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

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.


My edits often don't work[change source]

Whenever I try making edits, it says that my edits cannot be processed due to a lack of session data. I am still logged in, and cookies aren't blocked on my browser. Why is this, and how can I fix this?

P.S: I managed to create a page, Morris County, New Jersey, but I was only able to do so while I logged out. I don't want my IP address visible, what should I do? Simplex Simpleton (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

That would likely be an issue on your side. Perhaps try restarting your browser or your computer. Could clear cache as well but I doubt it would be that. -DJSasso (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Categories and gender / Overcategorization[change source]

Hello all, we currently have an RfD about a few categoiies (people, by occupation, mostly), where there are separate categories for men and women. In this RfD it became obvious that there is no agreement (on the categories listed), so we can close the Rfd, resulting in a keep. I also want to point out that EnWP (which has more articles) has certain gendered categories. I would however still suggest we try to get around gendering categories; if we did, what about lesbians/homosexuals,transgendewrs... In short: introducing gendered categories leads to a myriad of problems that are not really relevant: A mmale lawyer is no different from a female one; same with politicians, or firefighters. Also: given our average category only has very few entries, e end up with smallish categories: Splitting an 8 item category, into male and female will lead to 2 categories of 4, or a 5/3 split. How often do people search for people by gender, and cannot live with the fact that they need to browse through 10-15 entries? - Also,some are probably in the wrong category: Margaret Thatcher shows up in Female scientists, but most people will remember her for being a politician, not a chemist. As to the female politicians: It might make sense to classify prime ministers or heads of state that way, but not the others. Looking at the article Margaret Thatcher, we also see and over-classification: The article is listed in 30 categories, amongst others: Women lawyers, Women politicians, Female scientists.--Eptalon (talk) 07:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

There have been complaints that articles about women and topics that interest women are not sufficiently documented on Wikipedia. We have no hard evidence to determine if these complaints are true or not. Having categories that contain only women-related articles, helps us obtain some preliminary statistics to determine if these complaints are imaginary. If the RFD (deletion) discussion referred to by Eptalon is closed as a keep, I invite others to build some women-categories and judge for themselves if we have enough articles about women here. Ottawahitech (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikiprojects?[change source]

Do wikiprojects exist on Simple? Slightly new here. Derpdart56 (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Derpdart56: Welcome to Simple English Wikipedia! WikiProjects exist here, but they are unofficial and managed differently. The projects' pages are in userspace. We have Category:WikiProjects for the main pages and Category:WikiProject user templates for user templates (for those projects that have templates), but no other categories (meaning, among other things, no categories for project members). We also don't use WikiProject banners. See Wikipedia:WikiProject for more information.
If you would like to see a list of other things thst are done differently here, you can look at this list that I maintain. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. Derpdart56 (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Article title year formats[change source]

I just want to clarify, but has there been any recent consensus surrounding the formatting of years in article titles? I'm seeing some cases like Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 locally but en using a different format (en:1989 Tiananmen Square protests) and similarly with elections articles, where Canadian federal election, 2015 is used locally as opposed to the en title (and the US presidential election article here using the same format as en). Thanks, Hiàn (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

It should be year first, I have been slowly fixing them as I catch them. Follows WP:COMMONNAME. When mentioned in news articles the year is typically first. I forget who I noticed had done it but I believe one person did it a bunch and that caused others to follow them. -DJSasso (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Hm. Alright, thanks for the clarification. Hiàn (talk)/editing on mobile account. 18:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Djsasso: I tried to follow the wiki-link you provided and ended up in the other wikipedia, but still could not find where it says that the year should appear as the first word in the article title. I am sure it is somewhere in there, but I just cannot find it. Can anyone help? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • You are taking things too literally. It won't specifically say the dates there, it says to name articles what they would normally be called. In the case of major events like this newspapers generally will say things like "During the 1915 Canadian election Joe smith won." They won't say "During the Canadian election 1915 Joe smith won". -DJSasso (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Stalingrad[change source]

Any chance I can get someone to import the missing template/Lua modules? Nunabas (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I will do it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

My edits still don't work[change source]

See my older post above. I tried restarting my computer. I even tried using different computers. But it's still hard to change pages, and nothing works! Simplex Simpleton (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry loss of session data is something on your side. Won't be able to help. -DJSasso (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Pictures[change source]

Can I put pictures in pages like I can on regular Wikipedia? If yes, then how? Simplex Simpleton (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Simplex Simpleton: How do you put pictures in the regular Wikipedia? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes you can add pictures to pages the same as on English Wikipedia. You just can't upload your own pictures. They have to be pictures from Commons. -DJSasso (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Confirming Email Address[change source]

I followed all the steps, and a link did get sent to my inbox, but the link says that the link has expired or something? What should I do? Simplex Simpleton (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

There is probably a resend email link I believe. -DJSasso (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)