Wikipedia:Simple talk

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


Problems with cite templates[change | change source]

The citation templates have been producing messy output for a while (see this discussion for one place where it was discussed). I've been seeing some editors substitute the templates to make things look better. I understand wanting to have things look good, but I don't think we want to substitute these templates. The problem will eventually be fixed, and then we'll have all those places that aren't using the templates any more. I know the output looks the same and is in acceptable format, but I think we want to use the templates everywhere we can. What do others think? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a big issue. No, I don't think the cite templates are good for academic references. They produce a messy, overcomplicated output. As someone who tries to make references look more readable and less threatening, I would be distressed at any attempt to force us to use them. I can't speak so much for their uses for media and web sources. I do put up some thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of academic references for natural science articles each year.
It has always been optional to use cite templates. Our real intent is to have statements backed by reliable sources. That is what's important. I don't have views as to what others should do. Anyone who prefers templates is welcome to use them. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Ban speedy deletion[change | change source]

I believe that speedy deletion should be removed because it gives people barely enough time to make a decison. I am trying to get rid of deletion I am just trying to get rid of deletion that is fast. If you people feel the same comment below-90.206.227.252 (talk) (this comment has been moved to this page --Peterdownunder (talk) 01:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC))

Speedy delete is a tool used by administrators to remove pages that clearly fail to meet our page rules. It can only be used in very clear cases. Where there is doubt, they article goes through a community discussion process. I have deleted over 3,500 pages - if each of these went through the rfd process, we would be swamped with articles that are usually little better than vandalism. I think our processes work. To avoid having pages deleted, make sure you read our rules first.--Peterdownunder (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I assume you're talking about our quick deletion process. Deletion doesn't have to be permanent. If you think a quickly deleted page shouldn't have been deleted, you can discuss it with the admin who deleted it or bring it up at Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The motive behind this is the repeated QD of Dao Ranaldo/Yung Trace (MC). Those QDs were entirely justified. If we did not have a QD system, we'ld be overwhelmed with pages for discussion at a rate of 30 to 50 a day. The suggestion is self-serving from an editor who has an interest in getting his own way on those correctly QD'd pages. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
When a page is QD'd, non-admins can't see what the content was, so there is no chance for anyone else to salvage the content by cleaning it up and/or adding material to make it clear that the subject is notable. The original nominator is not always the best equipped person to see how the value in material could be explained so that others can appreciate it. I agree with 90.206.227.252 that opening deletions for discussion is far, far, preferable. Overuse of QD leads to more edit warring than having a clear and open discussion about material. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The Help:Notability page is relatively new, but it does help editors though the notability decision process between QD and RfD. The section 'What actions an editor can take' explains the actions an editor should take prior to requesting a delete. It applies not only to deletion requests based on notability, but to all deletion requests. The processes at simplewiki are controlled by the administrators as are any attempts to edit war. There is no reason for a lengthy discussion over articles that are clearly substandard, hoaxes, or other forms of vandalism. Besides, the nominator only nominates a page for QD, the administrators here make the final decisions and turn down those that they believe do not meet guidelines or policies. A further safeguard is found at the bottom of the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Under the section 'Undeletion' is a link to request an undelete of a deleted page. The process works well here. User:Rus793 (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
We have QD's reversed here and sent to RfD (or just kept) often enough that I'm convinced the system works. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
My worry is that I might not notice that my work has been deleted, and if it is a QD I am unlikely to get a chance to check what was on the page; is it worthwhile to request an undelete just in case there was something precious there ...? Do the admins have time to respond to my request for an undelete? (Do I have to keep backups of my wikipedia work somewhere else? That would be hard to accomplish.) I'd like to be notified that my contribution is scheduled for destruction, and I'd like to have time to look at it to reconsider, but I'm not online continuously. My impression is that a fondness for QD is part of a general deletion-happiness that extends to other things: to rapid poorly considered changes to new material, as if "this is new, I must hit it with a stick"; to moves of redirects that are effectively deletions of the redirect. The perception of deletion-happiness here is for me an unsettling aspect of this wiki that I don't feel in the other wikis where I contribute much, much more. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not an administrator, so I can't respond to your comments fully. I will say: For people making serious contributions to this wiki (as opposed to real vandals, spammers, self-promoters, etc.), there are pretty much two QD rules that you have to be careful of, but they are easily overcome:
  • Make a credible claim of notability. If you do that, the article cannot be QD'd. And we do not construe "credible" narrowly here. Just about anything short of "because I said so" or "don't you agree she's great" will do. To say that someone was appointed second deputy treasurer of a village in France would do at the QD stage. That may not be enough to pass an RfD, but you'll at least get your chance to argue your case.
  • If you are importing an article from enwiki (or translating from elsewhere) and are in the process of working on it, template it with {{Simplify}}. People will give you time to finish. Really.
Nobody is looking to delete serious contributions here. We have a couple of active editors who are a little quick on the trigger, but we are generally able to rein them in. And those editors, in turn, acknowledge their mistakes and move on. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, I am bringing a case to you all. For examination: Nikau. For examination 2: Revision history: [1]. This article yesterday is still unpatrolled. The article simply said: meow. (Verify please in edit history). I checked Enwiki to see this could be a valid article. Being in a cute mood, I said "we can't delete an article that says meow, will create" (please see history). I did what is said to work: I placed the hallowed inuse tag on it at the time I said I would create it. (see history). I create articles in the edit window so I got into my 1st edit conflict when I realized another vandal had commented. This was at 17:12. The 'inuse' tag was still on. I made my second attempt to save at 17:15 and was edit conflicted by the admin who had placed a QD tag within that three minutes. My 'inuse' tag never left the page. Here is my conversation with said admin: [2]. My baby palm tree was going to be speedily deleted before birth by a hasty quick look and a wrong decision: QD as 'test page'. Within three minutes. All for an article that simply said 'meow'. Here is comment I made today on my talk page: I do agree it is very 'fend for oneself' here and 'contributor beware'. When you hit that save page button, it is fair game for whomever wants to mess with your mind. Hence my fiercer cat on my user page. I was frustrated beyond belief to almost lose Nikau to Quick Deletion. I should have just let it go. Wasn't my article to start with. Instead I scolded the admin. [2]. Whatever. So yes, there is too much haste here and the failsafe did not work for me. The pink QD tag advises admin to check edit history (which would have shown my comment that I would create article, and my addition of the 'inuse tag'.) Which does not seem to have been done. The article said meow. Fylbecatulous talk 20:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
It is unwise to put up the inuse flag if one is not working on it, but there is no need to get emotionally involved. An editor can put up the page again properly. Any deleted page can be put up again so long as it meets the usual criteria. QD does not stop any editor from doing the job better. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • That's a nice example. Yes, edit conflicts can be maddening, and this increases them; it is possible to completely lose one's work. I've given up sometimes rather than replicate the painful process of building material. I'm inclined to suggest that it would be nice if "new pages" were looked at in two passes, first for really offensive material, and then again for the others an hour or so after their first creation. And in case anyone suggests that the wiki would be damaged by that, I suggest that the ball is being dropped here in any case. Consider the work of this recent vandal. Their vandalism covers two pages of "contributions" and they were blocked, but their work wasn't reverted in one swoop. The first four of their changes remained for some time until I happened across one of them and cleaned up the rest. One that wasn't reverted was a massive deletion on Jessica Alba, which is linked from the main page. People, I think some priorities here are a bit amiss. The visible pages are important. Zapping a little new pages within minutes shouldn't be such a high priority. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
But I was actively working on it. I just wasn't saving along the way. I don't save as I go along, ever; because of that rapid tinkering with whatever is saved that can happen almost immediately. If an article does not land here in perfect shape, it can be altered beyond comprehension. (This appears to be part of what we are discussing here). The flag was up a little over an hour and a half. I am an editor with patroller rights and I said I was going to save the article by making it better. I probably should have marked it patrolled, but even that would not have been a guarantee. What would have been saved was 'meow'. No use whatsoever. My article was in the edit window fighting off conflicts in saving. What I have learned from this is that I am not attempting to rescue another article that I did not create. Fylbecatulous talk 21:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The article at the English Wikipedia was created by a sockpuppeteer. Please see this SPI archive about it. --Bsadowski1 22:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
What you probably should have learned was not to edit whole articles in the edit window, either save along the way or do it on notepad. Editing large amounts in the edit window is just a very bad idea. And it is a bit silly to call that rescuing a page when it only had the word meow on it. Deleting it would have lead to no loss of content. -DJSasso (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I should also note it wasn't an admin who placed the QD tag. -DJSasso (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. So what I have actually learned is that commenting honestly on Simple in any discussion is futile. Since you are an admin, I duly accept my scolding and apologise for contributing. Fylbecatulous talk 13:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
You make a snotty remark about not ever saving anything again and then you act all upset when someone responds to your comment? What does my being an admin have to do with anything, you really should cool it with the Us vs. The Admins crap, we are all editors. And if you think that was a scolding you are being ridiculous. If you wanted to contribute you would have acted civilly instead of like a child. -DJSasso (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Alsatian (dog) vs German Shepherd[change | change source]

For what particular reason is the article named Alsatian? The article covers a topic similar to the EN article German Shepherd. On this Wikipedia, why is the article named Alsatian instead of German Shepherd? I think German Shepherd would be a better name for that Simple English Wikipedia article about a dog. Angela Maureen (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right. Go ahead and move it (or say if you'd rather someone else do the move). It's currently called "Alsatian" because that's an alternate name for the breed. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I would rather somebody else do the move Angela Maureen (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, it's done. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Simplification of Notability guidelines for movies[change | change source]

Hi, all:

As you may recall, I have been working on simplifying the enwiki version of the notability guidelines for movies. Those are now ready for your review and comment. The draft is available at User:StevenJ81/Wikipedia:Notability (movies). Since I intend to move that page directly to Wikipedia:Notability (movies) when the time comes, I would request that you write all comments at User talk:StevenJ81/Wikipedia:Notability (movies), so that I can move that page to Wikipedia talk:Notability (movies) when the time comes. Thank you. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to create PNG thumbnails of static GIF images[change | change source]

The thumbnail of this gif is of really bad quality.
How a PNG thumb of this GIF would look like

There is a proposal at the Commons Village Pump requesting feedback about the thumbnails of static GIF images: It states that static GIF files should have their thumbnails created in PNG. The advantages of PNG over GIF would be visible especially with GIF images using an alpha channel. (compare the thumbnails on the side)

This change would affect all wikis, so if you support/oppose or want to give general feedback/concerns, please post them to the proposal page. Thank you. --McZusatz (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Is "List of shows broadcast by XXX" considered to violate Wikipedia's coat rack rule if broadcast shows are syndicated and if proper references are included?[change | change source]

I have gone through the wiki on Wikipedia about pages that violate the coat rack rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Coatrack and the discussion on the list of shows broadcast by networks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lists_of_programs_broadcast_by_networks.

Nowhere does discussion about list of shows state that wikipages can not exist if the network broadcasts syndicated content. I had included close to 25 references for the given article, with more to come, but the wiki admin just deleted the contents of the pages and added a redirect because they could.

Manoflogan (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)ManOfLogan

  1. Are you referring to something that happened on English Wikipedia, or here? This is a separate project.
    If here, could you please give an example?
  2. The other rule to keep in mind about lists is this one: en:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists#Selection_criteria. In short, a stand-alone list article where most elements of the list do not meet the notability rules, and/or lists that consist nearly entirely of red-linked articles that are not likely to be written any time soon, if ever, are not usually appropriate to keep. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This happened on English Wikipedia. I had added close to 25 revision in the version, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Zee_Zindagi&oldid=673283518. The wiki user "TheRedPenOfDoom" insists on deleting the wiki entries that others have added because it is HIS opinion that the wiki page provides no new material. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Zee_Zindagi&oldid=673316739 I don't know how creating a wikipage about a list of programs broadcast by a network violates any of the aforementioned rules, even if it airs syndicated content. There are many wiki pages about networks that air syndicated content.

With respect to a standalone list criteria, most of the entries have references. See this revision as proof. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Zee_Zindagi&oldid=673283518. I was going to add more but "TRPOD" has chosen to delete the entire wiki. I could revert the changes, but because the user is an admin, he/she can still lock the page making edits impossible.

If you look at TRPOD's talk page, he has been getting into edit wars with almost every body. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom. I believe that this user was also banned from contributing to other topics in the past. If the "TheRedPenOfDoom" asks for more references, I can add them. I have been doing just that over time. But having him delete all the entries does not make sense.

Manoflogan (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)ManOfLogan

@Manoflogan, I'm afraid we can't help you here. Simple English Wikipedia is a separate project from English Wikipedia, and we don't have much influence on what happens there. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Who would you suggest that I talk to regarding this? What resources would you suggest I use? Manoflogan (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)ManOfLogan

The first place to discuss such things is normally the talk page of the page in question. Otherwise, check en:WP:Administrators' Noticeboard. BUT: With pages like this, there is often a history as to whether or not such articles are acceptable. You can check on some other article of the "List of programs broadcast by XXX" type that DOES exist, and ask someone on that page's talk page. Good luck. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

English Wikipedia is extremely slow[change | change source]

I am writing to report that English Wikipedia is extremely slow right now (I can not access WP:VPT), and gives an error:

"This page can't be displayed

•Make sure the web address https://en.wikipedia.org is correct. •Look for the page with your search engine. •Refresh the page in a few minutes. •Make sure TLS and SSL protocols are enabled. Go to Tools > Internet Options > Advanced > Settings > Security"

Thanks, --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

wikilinking[change | change source]

I have added a subsection to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Wikilinking entitled "What generally should not be linked". The section as it stood was rather general, and the subsection was needed to give more specific advice. It is based on the corresponding paragraph on English wiki. Periodically we get a flood of links which tend to devalue the links which are actually needed. This is called "overlinking", but applying that idea in practice really needed more specific guidance. What I added does not cover or affect our general policy of not having direct links between wikis. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I reverted that change, Mac. Just as you tell others sometimes, changes like that should be discussed before being made. Some of the items that were included may not be good, at least not for this Wiki. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)