Wikipedia:Simple talk

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

Want to make deleted page back[change source]

HELLO! Im "مجتبیٰ" but now made a cleanstart under this new username. One of my deleted article "Gadri", was deleted by Macdonald-ross due to lack of notibility, now i want to put more references to that article, also to put 1 external link. I want my article "Gadri" back. Please help.~MMGJ~08:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Cross-IP vandalism[change source]

Hello everyone. Just a reminder that the school year is wrapping up, and that means that unconstructive editors will be all over. Be prepared for home IPs to make bad edits. Just a reminder :) Krett12 (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding!––مجتبیٰ Talk! 09:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please move Spervising_producer[change source]

It has a typo. I'd do it myself but my new account hasn't been autoconfirmed yet. Computer Fizz (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I deleted it as a redirect based on an implausible typo. Just make a new redirect at supervising producer if you think one is needed. Only (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Template help needed[change source]

Template {{singlechart}} isn't working right in some cases. I've see it in several articles. An example is Luxurious, where all the uses of the template for Billboard-related chart info are giving the message "ERROR: Billboard chart was invoked without providing an artist id. Artist id is a mandatory field for this call". I looked at the enwiki copy of the template and saw that the template there said "artist id" is no longer required.

It looks like our copy of the template might just need updating. I tried, but wasn't sure enough of what I was doing to proceed with it. We can't just do a straight copy of the enwiki version, because our version has been customized, at least in some of the categories that are used. Can someone take a look and see if you can figure out what to do? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, how much has our version been customized? "Customized" as in, changing some wording and categories, or "customized" as in, "changed a notable portion of how it works and what it does". In the first one, we *can* just copy enwiki. In the second one, I have no clue. Computer Fizz (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't know. I haven't looked at the entire template. In any case, even in the first case, we would NOT just copy enwiki, because that would wipe out the customization. We have quite a few customized templates, and I don't think anyone who went to the effort of doing the customization, not matter how small, would appreciate having it undone. It might work OK, but it wouldn't be what we need here. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's not really what I meant. but in any case, we probably shouldn't anyway. Another option is to not have a huge flashing message and just add it to a category. It's not a permanent solution, but could work for now until we find the real problem. Computer Fizz (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I can think of a lot of options, but I'd like to have the right one. Let's wait and see if someone else can help. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The problem is due to the transition to the usage of {{BillboardID}}. That template is essentially a whole list of artist IDs (eg. {{BillboardID|Fun}} will give us 1093865). I have modified {{singlechart}} to call {{BillboardID}} instead. You can still pass artistid to the template, but that is no longer recommended (see next paragraph for caveats) and will categorise the article under the hidden cat Category:Singlechart with deprecated parameters.
Every time a new artist is introduced for the first time to this Wikipedia, editors will need to remember to update {{BillboardID}} and add a new entry for the artist. Calling {{BillboardID}} with a name which does not exist in the template's records will categorise the article under Category:BillboardID errors, and result in a non-functional ref. I will be updating the template documentation to reflect these changes. Chenzw  Talk  09:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Welp, looks like the problem is worse than I thought. Due to changes in the website's URL for chart history, most (if not all) ref links on this Wikipedia are non-functional (be it with the old or new template). I will need to take more time to look into this. Chenzw  Talk  09:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright, most of the template calls should be working now. There are currently some issues with "non-existent" charts that were not programmed into the template, which I will add over the next few days. Give me another ping if there are more wacky issues regarding this template. Chenzw  Talk  14:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Chenzw: Thanks very much! --Auntof6 (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Can I change line in template to make it work like on En Wikipedia?[change source]

Hi~ I want to make a change to a template, but I don't want to break anything, so I'm asking here first. Article Solifugae shows error:

"Expression error: Unexpected < operator."

If I remove "Late" from "Late Carboniferous", it works.

I think {{Template:Fossil_range}} uses info from {{Template:Period start}}, and a line containing "late carboniferous" was removed from that last template in edit Special:Diff/4979484, so now it only contains "carboniferous". I don't know why it was removed, and I'm not familiar with the topic.

However, "late carboniferous" is in the En Wikipedia template, where the en:Solifugae article works fine. Also, changing that line back works in "preview", but I'm not sure about other articles, etc.

So, my question is: Can I change that line on the Simple template, or will it break things?

Thanks for any advice! Zeniff (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

  • We adjust our taxoboxes manually. On many occasions we try to avoid unnecessary complications on this wiki, and manual adjustments can be used to make the boxes as simple as possible. There's no percentage in making science look any more scary that it already is! Simplest is to put a note on the talk page of any biology article which needs attention, and I will pick it up. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
That makes sense, good point! I didn't realize there was more than one way to solve it. And thank you for fixing the article! It's a good example and I'll keep in mind and follow your suggestion next time:) Zeniff (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Extremely minor glitch not causing any real problems, but worth pointing out.[change source]

I signed into my old account to fix something elsewhere, and when I came back here, I was still in my old account. I thanked someone for an edit, realized that, and went into my new account again. When I tried to thank for the second time, instead of the javascript pop-up, I got the regular old window. What might be causing this? Computer Fizz (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed changes to AGF warning template(s)[change source]

A discussion is currently ongoing at Template talk:Uw-agf3. It would be nice if more people could weigh in on this. Chenzw  Talk  03:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

"Brexit": the United Kingdom's vote to leave the European Union (EU)[change source]

Hi, all. Just a note: although it looks like the UK has voted to leave the EU, the actual separation doesn't happen immediately. It will take time for planning and implementation. Feel free to make edits talking about the result of the vote, but please don't make edits saying that the separation is complete until it really happens.

We've already had at least one bad edit that was apparently due to a misunderstanding of the vote. An edit took the UK out of a list of countries in Europe. Europe and the European Union are two different things. The UK may leave the EU, but it can't leave Europe.

To those of you who already understood this, thank you for bearing with me. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me add that right at the moment, the UK is still a member of the EU. The whole disengagement process is supposed to start in the late summer or autumn, and can take two years or more. Certainly for the moment it would be incorrect to remove the UK from such a list, although appropriate in text to say that the UK has voted to leave. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Steven, that is what I said, except that it will never be correct to remove the UK from the list I mentioned. The list was of countries in Europe, not countries in the EU. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Steven is correct. Since no member state has ever left the European Union before this is a very uncertain process that may years to sort out. Any changes to articles removing the UK from the EU would be incorrect until the process is completed—if it is completed. User:Rus793 (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Rus, isn't that what I said? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, except that the vote leads the UK into an unprecedented process. User:Rus793 (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, yes, but I didn't mean this to be a general discussion of the event, just some comments on what our reaction should and shouldn't be. I'm not sure the fact that it's unprecedented changes that. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Also adding on because a recent edit introduced this: David Cameron is still Prime Minister of the UK, contrary to what some other (misleading/inaccurate) news headlines/reports may claim. Relevant parts of what he said to reporters outside his office:
I will do everything I can as Prime Minister to steady the ship over the coming weeks and months but I do not think it would be right for me to try to be the captain that steers our country to its next destination ... in my view we should aim to have a new prime minister in place by the start of the Conservative Party conference in October.

—David Cameron

--Chenzw  Talk  16:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
And I should note, that the referendum wasn't binding so there is still talk that they won't leave period. -DJSasso (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
That's hopeful. When/how would it be decided whether to leave? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
The referendum was an official part of the government's program of legislation, announced in the Queen's Speech on 27 May 2015. There is really not the slightest chance of the result being put aside. The resignation of the Prime Minister is itself a recognition that the result cannot be ignored. It is true that appropriate laws need to be enacted by Parliament, and the negotiations may be long and difficult. In my opinion this is the greatest watershed in UK politics since the 1945 general election. The number of voters was greater than in the last general election. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I read a commentator who suggested that Parliament might choose not to enact the laws necessary to put the results of the referendum in force. The commentator suggested that the referendum was not binding—which it technically is not—because ultimately de facto sovereignty rests in Parliament alone. So the commentator suggested that Parliament might choose to take a different path "for the good of the country."
Technically, the commentator is correct. But this would create an incredible constitutional crisis in the UK, and the fact that the Prime Minister resigned clearly indicates that he and his Government are not going to be responsible for creating a constitutional crisis of that sort. So ultimately, Mac is right. The result cannot be ignored, and while the negotiations may be long and difficult, the result is going to stand. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)