Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 104

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suggestion for new edit notice

I've been trying to clean up the categories with fewer than three entries. Could we create an edit notice for creating categories that explains the requirement for three entries? It would be used like {{BLP editintro}}, only for this purpose instead of for BLPs. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The thing is, the three entry thing has never been more than a rule of thumb. I don't know that it was ever codified into full out official policy. I could be wrong, but if that is the case we can't really put it in an edit notice. -DJSasso (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That makes sense. If it's not policy, though, how do we justify deleting categories with fewer entries? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:IAR and because less than three has been considered the equivalent of empty which is already a valid reason to delete. An awful lot of what happens here isn't fully documented because people haven't taken the time to write the guidelines down. At this point really its been consensus by silence that doing it this way is ok and guidelines are descriptive not prescriptive. ie they just describe what people already do they don't tell you what to do. So really if someone were to add it to an appropriate spot it wouldn't be complained about I don't think. We've been doing it since I got here like 5 years ago and I am sure it was happening long before I arrived. -DJSasso (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's currently codified in Wikipedia:Categories#Is there a need for the new category? (which is a guideline), if that helps clear things up. Osiris (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternate idea

What would people think about having a message box template that could be put on categories with fewer than 3 entries? Sometimes I see a new category with only one or two entries but I want to give some time for it to get more before I consider QDing it. The template could populate a maintenance category that could be watched to see if the tagged categories get more entries. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably a better idea. -DJSasso (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As Osiris pointed out, the guideline does exist for creation of new categoried (3 entries needed) but there is no entry on deletion if they fall below 3 at some later point (deletions, recategorization, etc). Generally, unless it seems a category would never serve a useful purpose, there is little reason to delete if just to have to recreate it later - if it was correctly created in the first place. At this point, having a message box to put on the articles isn't an issue. we have had {{popcat}} for years to serve this exact purpose. It tags the category with the message box and categorizes it in the backlog category so it is easily tracked. It doesn't get a lot of use, but was added to a cat just a week ago but Auntof6, so I'm sort of wondering why this was even brought up when it is known to exist and has been used since 2009.--Creol(talk) 14:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I do understand and often agree that people that keep emptying these categories should really just find or create a stub for the 3rd entry as deleting them over and over again is a waste of time. That being said, the point of deleting categories with so few entries is to keep our category system simple compared to en.wikis complex system of sub-category of sub-category so I do think it can be useful to delete them. I just wish people would take the more productive route and try and create an entry to fill instead of just emptying and putting them up for deletion. -DJSasso (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DJSasso, I see your point. The way I look at it, some of us like to increase content, and some of us like to keep what we already have clean. There's room for both. I mostly do the latter. That's partly because I think a lot of what we have here doesn't live up to what Simple English Wikipedia should be. Too many of our articles are not simple, and other things we do to keep things simple aren't done consistently. Even if we disagree on things like this, I think we both are trying to improve the Wiki. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And BTW, I don't QD all the one- and two-entry categories I find, in case that's what you've thinking. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Creol, if we don't want to create categories with fewer than 3 entries, then I think the same reasoning would apply to keeping them. It's easy enough to recreate a category if needed. As for {{popcat}}, I had never thought of using it for the the purpose I was asking about. That's because I had only ever seen it on categories that already had a respectable number of entries (usually a dozen or more), but the creator wanted even more. However, I will try using it for small categories. That would help with my process. When I'm looking for categories to clean up (or doing anything else, for that matter), I'm more efficient if I do one thing at a time -- that is, either cleaning up or creating articles, rather than switching back and forth. I can see that if I tag the categories, I can come back to them later. Thanks for the suggestion. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

School project

Letting you all know that there will be a large amount of school users editing from a single IP between 22:00 - 23:15 (UTC) 27 February 2013. Give them some space for the hour. Problems can be cleaned up after they've gone. Osiris (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes thanks, we are about to get started.Castilibrary (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See project page WP:WMA for details, please leave concerns on project talk page or on individual article pages.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

helping new users

Well, I don't have an account, but I'm experienced with many wikis. I think maybe there should be somewhere where you can find the following:

Make user page

Make mainspace page

Make new page

I'm not sure if there is already the Make new page thing, but maybe add the other 2 on the Main Page. ~Curiouscrab 02:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh no! It appears the buttonlabel isn't working correctly. Can somebody fix? ~Curiouscrab 02:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There. Although you've got the Project: space labelled "mainspace" and "namespace". No new user will need to create anything in that namespace. And our Main Page is primarily for readers. Soon, though, we will have WP:WIZARD up and working, and that guides new users to creating articles. Osiris (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi am an ip that goes on en,I have been blocked on en,no one ever listen to me,if I just make one mistake. All I want to do is help the Wiki projects,do you guys think you could help me be a better editor,maybe? (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As long as you don't cause the trouble here that you caused last time you edited here. Because if you recall you are technically blocked here as well. Although it appears your IP has changed. For those wondering about his issues on en see en:User:Salvidrim/Tailsman67. I forget the IP he was under for most of his issues here but someone else probably does should you want more info. -DJSasso (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't worry I'm not here to start trouble,I came here to learn how to be a better editor. (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible collaboration

I've been thinking that it might be beneficial to begin something similar to Wikisource's "proofread of the month", where everyone proofreads a work for a month. We could call it "expansion/improvement of the month" or whatever, the name isn't incredibly important, but the idea would be that everyone focuses on expanding and improving a particular article for a month. (We could shorten or lengthen the time period if desired.) If the community likes this idea, we could use a proposals page to select the article or choose a completely random article from Special:RandomPage. Obviously, editors wouldn't be restricted to just that one article and contribution wouldn't be mandatory, but I think it could help a lot with improving our article quality. Thoughts? -Mh7kJ (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Be bold and start. Those who would like to collaborate will and those who do not will not. One month sounds OK, and I like the idea of a random page selection, unless it is already a GA or VGA. I just tried and came up with Shirt which is a stub with a complex tag so some work on it would not hurt. Some other random stubs may not work, but you could make a judgement call and hit random until something worthwhile and or possible comes up. I look forward to joining in.--Peterdownunder (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is similar to the big weekend thing which worked until it became 'regular'. If this was just a random article at random intervals then I think it could work. I'd certainly help. Imagine the edit conflicts though! :P Kennedy (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Make a customized "under construction" template for the exercise, allowing for the currently working editor's name to be included, so someone "randoming" the page will move on. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikidata phase 1 (language links) live on this Wikipedia

Sorry for writing in English. I hope someone can translate this locally. If you understand German better than English you can have a look at the announcement on de:Wikipedia:Kurier.

As I annonced 2 weeks ago, Wikidata phase 1 (language links) has been deployed here today. Language links in the sidebar are coming from Wikidata in addition to the ones in the wiki text. To edit them, scroll to the bottom of the language links, and click edit. You no longer need to maintain these links by hand in the wiki text of the article.

Where can I find more information and ask questions? Editors on en:wp have created a great page with all the necessary information for editors and there is also an FAQ for this deployment. It'd be great if you could bring this to this wiki if that has not already happened. Please ask questions you might have on the FAQ’s discussion page.

I want to be kept up to date about Wikidata To stay up-to-date on everything happening around Wikidata please subscribe to the newsletter that is delivered weekly to subscribed user’s talk pages.

--Lydia Pintscher 23:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Distributed via Global message delivery. (Wrong page? Fix here.)

Trying to remove interwikiliks is giving some warning about blanking the article. (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes it is our abusefilter triggering because you removed so much in one shot as an IP. It will be a necessary evil until interwikis are removed from all articles. -DJSasso (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One problem I am seeing here (after looking at the faq/help above) is that for new articles, the pen icon should be visible but isn't shown if the page is not listed in wikidate (which is obviously isn't). This means having to go to wikidata directly (or shift to En then click their link) before the page can be entered. Hopefully, manually entered IW links will get picked up by bots for entry into the system (ie. user writes article, adds en: iw link, bot adds us to the wikidata page matching the en:link and then wipes the local page of iw links).--Creol(talk) 17:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah currently if there is no wikidata entry you have to go create one. But right now the bots doing the importing are creating them as they go. Since we where just turned on the wikidata pages for us haven't been created for us unless or one of the others were already imported over. People do suggest there might be bots that will keep doing it in the future. But I don't know that there will be. I figure it will likely be up to individuals to go and add the page as they create them I am guessing. But lots of people are always looking for ways to do stuff with bots so there probably will be some. -DJSasso (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What seems to happen—I tried it this morning with the new Shabbat article—is this: If you add a single manual iw to an article, then when you regenerate the page (by clicking Preview) you get a full list of languages from Wikidata. You can then delete the manual iw, save the page, and you have links from Wikidata. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi could someone allow us to create portals so when creating them the work portal goes in the namespace please (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

oh ok (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Main page/sandbox

Hi I have created Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox so everyone can edit it without causing diruption to the main page so that people can test out I ideas for main page (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Sabbath has been moved to Shabbat, and should be moved back over the redirect, IMO. Reason: "Sabbath" is overwhelming better known, especially in English-speaking communities. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It wasn't moved. Sabbath was originally redirected to Shabbat back in '03. As Shabbat is not completely Sabbath, nor vice versa, the article would be better suited to be split into the two forms with one dealing with the Jewish holy day and the other the various Christian sabbaths. --Creol(talk) 21:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that would be one good way to proceed. I'd better leave that to someone who knows more about it than I do! Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have created Sabbath (disambiguation), which lists the name of this event in the three main abrahamic religions. Since I am a bad edtor for religious topics, I leave the "splitting" of the current article into two to others...--Eptalon (talk) 11:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am in the process of doing that very thing, as it happens. My main interest is to make "Shabbat" (the Jewish article) distinct from "Sabbath" (the Christian article–although perhaps at the end "Sabbath" should be the disambiguation page and "Sabbath [Christianity]" the specific one). I would leave everything in its current place for the moment.
Please see my sandbox here. I would like to know whether the article lead I have written around "Shabbat" is good "Simple English". Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for a Quick Look

I would very seriously like to ask a couple of experienced Simple editors to have a look at my sandbox. I believe we are ready to split the article in the following way:

  1. The portion of the article marked "Sabbath (Christianity)" becomes an article with that title. Note that I rewrote the introductory paragraph of this to be a stand-alone lead; otherwise, the article is what it was, and I did not edit it.
  2. The portion of the article marked "Shabbat" becomes the new Shabbat article. For the moment, I would only move the article lead (and navigation template) and mark the article as a stub so I can work on the detailed sections. (You can see a start on those at the sandbox.)
  3. The disambiguation page becomes plain "Sabbath".

This isn't a requested move yet; I want to know if what I have written in the two article leads is at an appropriate level of English for the SE Wikipedia. If you tell me it's ok, then I'll share a thought on how to execute the move.StevenJ81 (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have left some comments on the sandbox talk page. The lead paragraphs are OK. --Peterdownunder (talk) 04:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update 15:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done First part is finished. There are now separate pages at Shabbat and Sabbath. See discussion here.

  • Sabbath has most of the old material about Christianity, but is still too complex. I do not plan to work on this and would welcome others.
  • Shabbat is mostly new, and is still a work in progress at my sandbox.
  • There is still a page at Sabbath (disambiguation) which I will work on.

Wikidata now connects Shabbat to en:Shabbat and Sabbath to en:Sabbath in Christianity. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we should keep the disambiguation page; the concept also seems to be used in Islam, and I wouldn't be surprised if a few of the smaller Abrahamic religions use it as well. --Eptalon (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's the plan. We have been discussing moving "Sabbath" to "Sabbath in Christianity", which is the name of most of the other articles in d:Q2431688, and making the disambiguation just plain "Sabbath". But I do plan to flesh out the disambiguation page over time. (But if you'd like to tackle it feel free!) StevenJ81 (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not good at writing religion-related articles, so I will probably not touch these more than strictly necessary. When we are disambiguating, we should probably also include the various other meanings, unrelated to religion. Perhaps something to keep in mind: In Christianity, there are various movements which attach different meaning to the term; the same will be true for Judaism. It might be necessary to at least mention this....--Eptalon (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
However, fixing my dumb typos was "strictly necessary". Thank you.
Again, that's the intention, and including uses of "sabbatical". But given that this is simple and not en I will try very hard not to go too far afield.
BTW, in Judaism, people may have different ways they approach Sabbath and its traditional laws, but I do not think Sabbath has a (religious) meaning that is truly different to anyone. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I said more than strictly necessary; I still wrote Eparchy (two versions), and fleshed out Armenian Catholic Church today, all religion-related. As for typos, I probably am the editor with the worst spelling here; and no, in general, I don't fix other peoples' typos; fixing that link was different though. Coming back to Sabbath/Shabbat, there is the eternal debate of Friday, or Saturday, or Sunday (most Christians settle for Sunday), and in Judaism I think there also is the problem of defining what "work" is. As to Islam, I know even less. If you think it is worthwile, I am sure interested people from the different fractions would be happy to help out, if asked nicely... --Eptalon (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah. I take your point. The details on Saturday/Sunday in Christianity probably belongs in the "Sabbath" article, and the question about what is work in the "Shabbat" article. And there are certainly differences is how different Muslims see Friday. But I'll get it all covered somewhere. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simple English toolbars

Is there a way to change my settings or add a script that will give me the conventional English toolbars? (i.e. "User contributions" instead of "user's changes".Ryan Vesey (talk) 07:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not that I am aware of. You will get used to it pretty quickly. Everything is still in the same place, its just the words that have changed. -DJSasso (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It can be done by going to your preferences and changing your language to EN-GB or EN-CA, whichever makes you happy. I haven't really tested it though, so there may be limitations to that method. -Mh7kJ (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Odd...this whole time I thought I was on EN-CA. Might need to make some changes because EN-GB and EN-CA should match EN. So likely this work around will disappear soon. -DJSasso (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only other way is to customise the toolbox to match what you're used to. Mine looks like this. See mw:Manual:Interface/Sidebar. Osiris (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source citation styles

I've read the rules and policies regarding citing sources and was not able to find anything regarding source citations styles. I'm familiar with Wikipedia's styles, guidelines and policies. My thinking is since this is a Simple English Wiki, why would we be using the short citations styles with a separate bibliography? Why not standardize on using full citation styles, where the information is in one place? At least consider make it a recommended style. The reasoning being it is easier for younger readers (and those newer to English) to look up a reference if everything is on one line (e.g. author, title, (city: publisher, year), page #). Can anyone tell me if this is a consideration or how to go about making it one? Thanks. Rus793 (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the case there are several citations from the same work, the short-ref cite, plus full bibliogrphy somewhere else becomes meaningful. Note that things like page numbers do ont stay the same across editions; people re-editing a work my revise it, meaning that content is different between revisions.--Eptalon (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Rus. I've always believed in using full in-line citations. They are both easier to set up, and easier to read. When you hover the pointer, you can read the whole ref; but with the Harvard system you have to click and move down without any idea whether or not the ref is useful. But here as with English wiki, the only requirement is to have a consistent system. Actually, we're glad to have any references! And if editors bring over a whole page plus its references, then it can be one hell of a job to convert the references from one system to the other. So, I think we could advise to use full in-line citation, but not require.
There is a couple of related issues. One is to place the page numbers in the text next to but outside the in-line citation. This is a recommended method on English because it avoids having to repeat the same information dozens of times in the reference section. Not many people know this. The other is that the citation templates need to be simplified. They are far too fussy, and time-consuming to use, and can yield a less readable end-product. I saw one example where a dopey editor had doggedly put in a huge number of authors. Quite pointless from the point of view of the reader. Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merging templates

I notice that templates tagged with {{Merge}} don't show up in Category:Pages to merge. Does anyone know if that's by design, or can we make them show up? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should be fine now. The merge and move templates are still on my to-do list so there are some issues with them at the moment. Osiris (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! And welcome back from your Wikibreak! --Auntof6 (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! :) Osiris (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal for a new template {{User sandbox 2}}

I modified this template to give people easy access to Simple English vocabulary lists. Do editors here think this is worthwhile? If so, I will publish it as a template. See it here: Template:User sandbox/sandbox. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You could just add the extra bits as an option to the current template. Not many pages using it anyway. Example? Osiris (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not such a sophisticated programmer. What parameter do I use there to invoke the links? Figured it out. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done Added to template {{User sandbox}}. Use parameter |links=yes to invoke. Documentation also updated. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Convert complex templates to Lua to make them faster and more powerful

(Please consider translating this message for the benefit of your fellow Wikimedians)

Greetings. As you might have seen on the Wikimedia tech blog or the tech ambassadors list, a new functionality called "Lua" is being enabled on all Wikimedia sites today. Lua is a scripting language that enables you to write faster and more powerful MediaWiki templates.

If you have questions about how to convert existing templates to Lua (or how to create new ones), we'll be holding two support sessions on IRC next week: one on Wednesday (for Oceania, Asia & America) and one on Friday (for Europe, Africa & America); see m:IRC office hours for the details. If you can't make it, you can also get help at mw:Talk:Lua scripting.

If you'd like to learn about this kind of events earlier in advance, consider becoming a Tech ambassador by subscribing to the mailing list. You will also be able to help your fellow Wikimedians have a voice in technical discussions and be notified of important decisions.

Guillaume Paumier, via the Global message delivery system. 20:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC) (wrong page? You can fix it.)Reply[reply]

Authority control template

Mh7kJ added Template:Authority control at the bottom of Pope Francis here. I wonder if this is too much for our "simple" project?

Am I wrong to guess that the template was added to en:Pope Francis because he is a public figure? In what way will this be helpful to likely SEWP readers?

As context, a wiki-search for "VIAF" shows that Tenmei, Horeki or Ansei created most of the articles which cite the Virtual International Authority File (VIAF) in the "Other websites" section. That said, I wonder if the use of this template in Pope Francis is a small step too far? Is it over the line ...?

The use of the template means different things in different contexts. In other words, can we agree that there are two inter-related questions:

Answer: Yes
Answer: No ... probably not

In specific, how or why does this copied template help readers of

For me, MH7kJ's diff recalled an incomplete memory of a talk thread some months ago? I don't remember if there was a tentative consensus? At this point, I would be inclined to remove the template from Pope Francis and Kazuo Kitai. I wonder if the use of this template should be rare in SEWP? --Jinki (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI -- see Coalition for Networked Information (CNI), "Wikipedia to add VIAF identifiers", citing Wikipedia:Authority control integration proposal/RFC. --Jinki (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know enough about the workings of this system to be able to give an opinion on its benefits to our project... but you should be aware that Wikidata will probably start handling these templates before the end of this year. At which point they'll be added to articles automatically, I guess. Osiris (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We'll see. At this point, there are more questions than answers. For example,
  1. Is this simple? ... No.
  2. Is this likely to seem helpful to our projected readers? ... Not always, but maybe sometimes.
  3. Is this likely to perceived as clutter? ... Probably
Without more, is it not prudent to opt out of this part of Wikidata "help"? --Jinki (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikidata acts as a central repository of information. When phase 2 deployment begins (see here and here), local wikis can choose to (or not to) reference the data that is available in the repository (i.e. if we want to we could modify our infoboxes for cities to reflect population size from Wikidata). Just to clarify, nothing on Wikidata will be forced upon local wikis (apart from the fact that it has been deployed on the local wiki, that is); it is up to various communities to modify templates/articles in order to make use of the data.
And I don't understand what you mean by "use of this template should be rare in SEWP". For {{authority control}}, that template is either used or it is not used at all. This template is used to insert metadata on individuals. Each individual has a unique ID which stays the same, whether the article about said individual is on or Chenzw  Talk  15:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep it simple. Collapsing box saying something like: Open here for metadata links. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A new barnstar just for this project!

I am happy to tell you I have made a new barnstar, The Simple Barnstar.

The Simple Barnstar was created just for the Simple English Wikipedia (and Wiktionary). This barnstar is awarded to someone who helps others stay focused on the unique goals of this Wikipedia, especially in "keeping it simple!"

Image What to type Description
The Simple Barnstar {{subst:The Simple Barnstar|message ~~~~}} The Simple Barnstar

This barnstar is given to someone who helps others stay focused on the unique goals of this Wikipedia, especially in "keeping it simple!"

This barnstar was introduced by StevenJ81 on March 20, 2013.

The first to get it is Peterdownunder (talk · contribs). He helped me get started in this Wiki. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Block log message

"Admin blocked User with an expiry time of 1 year..."

Wouldn't "Admin blocked User for 1 year..." be easier to understand?

FrigidNinja (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of minor planets

Does anyone want to add some actual content to this article? No minor planets are actually listed. I was going to rfd it, but thought someone might want to fix it instead. Anyone? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A list with no list. After looking at the en list I am not sure how much use this page would be even with content. It might be better to improve the minor planets article, called small solar system bodies I think, instead. It could have a small list, eg the top ten, of minor planets.--Peterdownunder (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't need this. We already have a page Small solar system body as well as Dwarf planet and Asteroid. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't been active in that field, but as I see it, there currently are just about ten such objects: Pluto, Haumea, Eris, Sedna, Orcus, Ixion,Quaoar, MakeMake, and 2002 TC302. Note that there is an additional problem: Charon (currently listed as a moon of Pluto) is very large, compared to Pluto; as a result, scientists are still discussing. Coming back to the question at hand: We probably do not need a separate list for these object, if we can meaningfully integrate them somewhere else. Additionally, very little is known for most of these objects, and many of them are small, only hundreds of km in diameter. --Eptalon (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have opened a regular RFD.--Eptalon (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To help people write Simple English

In an idea above, I added optional links to different Simple English word lists into the {{user sandbox}} template. Two other ideas to ask everyone:

  1. Is there any way to make links to those lists show any time someone changes (edits) a page or section? Would people want that?
  2. At least, would people want these links to be included in the templates {{complex}} and {{simplifying}}? StevenJ81 (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think these flags are one of the least helpful things we do. But to answer the query directly, the problems with complex prose often cannot be solved by word substitution. Often the whole sense of a passage has to be rethought and represented. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I quite agree with that. But I find even when I start (or start over) from scratch, I will write, then get to a word that I'm not sure I can/should use here. So having the lists at hand to check against really helps me. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is that it isn't about word lists. It is about many things like sentence structure and length as well. Pointing to word lists gives that false impression that only the words needs to change. -DJSasso (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are plenty of ways to accomplish the first question: modifying either MediaWiki:Edittools or MediaWiki:Newarticletext would be the simplest. But I'm not sure everybody would appreciate more "stuff" appearing every time they edit a page. As for the second question, the link to Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages is probably enough since that goes into detail and contains all the links you want to add anyway. Osiris (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good points, both. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added that link to the optional links in the sandbox template. Would it be worth putting just that link on editing pages? StevenJ81 (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Buzzfeed as a source for a person's political affiliation

I'd like to get some opinions, please. An editor is adding information about people's political party affiliation using BuzzFeed as a source. I asked the editor to find a better source than this entertainment site, because I don't believe the referenced pages (for example, are sufficiently reliable for adding this kind of information. For examples of these edits, see the entries in Category:Democrats (United States), Category:Republicans (United States), and Category:Independent (United States).

I have no objection to these categories being populated. I'm concerned because I think that sensitive information like political affiliation should have reliable sources. Do we consider BuzzFeed reliable? Could I get some other opinions, please? I am asking here instead of continuing to try to talk with the editor, because the editor has a history of not replying to things posted on his/her talk page. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will these categories be deleted if buzzfeed is not a reliable source? --User:TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:56 (UTC)
I'm not asking for them to be deleted. That wouldn't change the sourcing in the articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh...Well that's a relief. --User:TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 24:32 (UTC)
Had a look through the site and it seems to be OK, it has editorial staff (with contacts) and a number of experienced journalists.Peterdownunder (talk) 06:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Peter, that's exactly the kind of info I was looking for! For my own education, how does one determine that kind of thing? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Western Sahara

Hello there, Western Sahara used to be a Spanish colony, and is now split (between Morocco and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic). Yesterday, I created a few pages, and I found a few incositencies:

  • Río de Oro is the southern part of the former Spanish colony. Southern border (with Mauritania is at either 23° (dewp) or 21°20' (enwp). Can we clarify this?
  • La Güera lies at 21°50' north (and is a ghost town today); List_of_cities_in_Western_Sahara definitely needs an update, or sources which support the numbers. (Note: there also seems to be a refugee camp with that name, perhaps the two were confused). Anyway, needs updating.

I am putting this up here in the hope that someone is interested enough to help... Thanks. --Eptalon (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added two references to Río de Oro. It looks like the figure on dewp is incorrect - both sources indicated 21°20'. Chenzw  Talk  14:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flaw in the "Heisenberg's uncertainty principle" article


The "Heisenberg's uncertainty principle" article in Simple Wikipedia is, in my opinion, a little bit flawed. One statement is: "The minimum range of error in position (x) times the minimum range of error in momentum (p) is, at a minimum, about equal to the Planck constant." What is the need for writing "about"? Can't we write the correct form of the equation((delta)x*(delta)p>=(h/4pi))? Also, the image shown (which is a mathematical statement of the above) doesn't have /4pi either. Shouldn't somebody correct it?

Thanks. (talk) 07:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm afraid I know just about zero on the subject, so I can't say if the article as is is flawed or not. However, if you believe there are inaccuracies in the article, feel free to correct it; Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia for a reason. c: [+piccolo] 07:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't quite go along with Piccolo here. On a subject of this type an editor needs to know a great deal before they can make useful corrections. Also, comments about articles should be placed on their talk pages, and if contributors don't know this, they should be told. I will put a copy of the comments on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (talk). That way watchers get to know what is being said about the article. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Courtyard neighborhoods should be renamed to Courtyard neighbourhood. Pepperbeast (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or "Courtyard neighborhood" if we want to keep it in the original dialect (American English?). πr2 03:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, sorry-- didn't mean to respell it. Force of habit... Pepperbeast (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't want to rush to Demote VGA, but Tropical Storm Barry (2007) is on the main page and has serious problems

Tropical Storm Barry (2007) is now on the main page and at least 25 of the 36 references are dead links. I first noted this in January 2012 and the situation has gotten worse rather than better. I'd rather not propose Demote VGA, but don't have the time, or the interest in tropical storms, to fix this. Go to demote, or is anyone committed to keeping this VGA? Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead links wouldn't demote a VGA. Remember references don't have to be online. -DJSasso (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really? An article that has that few correct references would still make VGA? If an article was proposed with 2/3 of the references incorrect, I don't see how it would make it through based on proposed VGAs I've seen. What do you mean by "Remember references don't have to be online."? Gotanda (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dead links doesn't mean the references aren't correct. What I mean by that comment is references can be in books and newspapers and they can be sitting in backups of the companies that originally had them on websites etc. We don't require references to be immediately accessible to people reading the article. As long as the information about the reference is on the article then everything is good still. (ie publisher, author, title etc.) The references just had to exist somewhere at some point. Obviously it would be better if they could be replaced but if they can't it doesn't invalidate them. -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For example, some of the data released by the National Hurricane Center were mirrored by the Florida State University (FSU) Meteorology Department, and we cited FSU's copy of the data, which they have since taken offline. The reference was valid and correct at the time the article was written; however, as with all things on the Internet, they may eventually disappear after some time. I have updated those refs with the corresponding location on the NHC's archives. Chenzw  Talk  12:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Chenz for fixing some of those. That helps. DJ, I understand the references may not be available online if they are in books, newspapers, etc. But a listed online reference that may have been accessible but is no longer is not much of a reference. One, how would later editors know it had actually been accessible? Two, there is no way for a current reader to verify information (the main purpose of a reference). Three, references lead readers to deeper exploration-more information. If they are broken, they don't serve this purpose very well. Four, it sure looks pretty sloppy for a VGA and sets a poor example. Aren't the VGAs there on the Main Page as an example of the best of SEWP? Should we approve a proposed VGA with dead links just because an editor said they were once functional? A reference no reader can refer to seems meaningless. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The relevant section of the policy is WP:DEADREF, which gives six steps for repairing or removing dead links. I've fixed a few more of the links (although I'm a bit late and the Main Page has moved onto another rotation now), so there are now seven dead links remaining. A dead web-only source can be considered unverifiable if you can't find another copy, but almost all of the dead links remaining are media sources (and therefore, the links are probably "convenience links" to online copies of newspaper articles). If there are no other copies or replacements, you can just remove the link. Osiris (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the link to the relevant policy on En and for the clean up. I'll confess that I'm slow at fixing those things. Many of the refs in the other VGA weather articles are in a similar state of disrepair. I guess the lesson for the future is to make sure the links are more durable as explained in the policy when articles are first proposed. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 03:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah for things like newspaper articles I always suggest using sites like webcite to archive the page. -DJSasso (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Webcite --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikidata phase 2 (infoboxes) coming to this Wikipedia

Sorry for writing in English. I hope someone can translate this. If you understand German better than English you can have a look at the announcement on de:Wikipedia:Kurier.

A while ago the first phase of Wikidata was enabled on this Wikipedia. This means you are getting the language links in each article from Wikidata. It is soon time to enable the second phase of Wikidata (infoboxes) here. We have already done this on the [first 11 Wikipedias] (it, he, hu, ru, tr, uk, uz, hr, bs, sr, sh) and things are looking good. The next step is English Wikipedia. This is planned for April 8. If everything works out fine we will deploy on all remaining Wikipedias on April 10. I will update this part of the FAQ if there are any issues forcing us to change this date. I will also sent another note to this village pump once the deployment is finished.

What will happen once we have phase 2 enabled here? Once it is enabled in a few days you will be able to make use of the structured data that is available on Wikidata in your articles/infoboxes. It includes things like the symbol for a chemical element, the ISBN for a book or the top level domain of a country. (None of this will happen automatically. Someone will have to change the article or infobox template for this to happen!)

How will this work? There are two ways to access the data:

  • Use a parser function like {{#property:p169}} in the wiki text of the article on Yahoo!. This will return “Marissa Mayer” as she is the chief executive officer of the company.
  • For more complicated things you can use Lua. The documentation for this is here.

We are working on expanding the parser function so you can for example use {{#property:chief executive officer}} instead of {{#property:p169}}. The complete plan for this is here.

Where can I test this? You can already test it on test2.

Where can I find more information and ask questions? We have collected the main questions in an FAQ for this deployment. Please ask questions you might have on the FAQ’s discussion page.

I want to be kept up to date about Wikidata To stay up-to-date on everything happening around Wikidata please subscribe to the newsletter that is delivered weekly to subscribed user’s talk pages.

--Lydia Pintscher 17:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Distributed via Global message delivery. (Wrong page? Fix here.)

I need some guidance...

I'm wobbly... The last time I edited Wikipedia constructively was 2 and a half years ago. I didn't get that long during this account... Can I suggest somewhere to help me? :/ Ezekiel53746 (talk)

learning english

I would like to inform you that i am learning English and share with other which is improve or not — This unsigned comment was added by Shah Azizur Rahman Chowdhury (talk • changes).

Possible partnerships with smaller language Wikipedias?

Has the Simple English Wikipedia considered establishing associations with smaller language Wikipedias? This could especially be useful in countries where the official language is English, but large numbers of the population do not know English. If in that language it is extremely difficult to write about a scientific topic perhaps users may be directed to the Simple English Wikipedia. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for ideas on possibilities for partnership, here is a listing of indigenous languages in countries with English as a second language, with Wikipedias:

  • South Asia (India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka): Assamese (AS), Bengali/Bangla (BN), Gujarati (GU), Hindi (HI), Kannada (KN), Kashmiri (KS), Malayalam (ML), Marathi (MR), Nepali (NE), Oriya (OR), Eastern Punjabi (PA), Western Punjabi (PNB), Pashto (PS), Sanskrit (SA), Sindhi (SD), Sinhala (SI), Tamil (TA), Telugu (TE), Urdu (UR)
    • Angika (ANP), Balochi (BCC), Balti (BFT), Brahui (BRH), Bodo (BRX), Burushaski (BSK), Dogri (DGO), Garhwali (GBM), Gujari (GJU), Konkani (GOM), Hazaragi (HAZ), Hindko (HND), Chhattisgarhi (HNE), Kutchi/Cutchi (KFR), Kumaoni (KFY), Khasi (KHA), Khowar/Chitrali (KHW), Kalash (KLS), Mizo (LUS), Maithili (MAI), Meitei/Manipuri (MNI), Palula (PHL), Dari (PRS), Rajasthani (RAJ), Santali (SAT), Shina (SCL), Saraiki (SKR), Tulu (TCY), and Kokborok/Borok (TRP) are in language testing
  • Sub-Saharan Africa: Afrikaans (AF), Akan (AK)/Twi (TW), Ewe (EE), Fula/Fulfulde (FF), Hausa (HA), Herero (HZ), Igbo (IG), Kikuyu/Gikuyu (KI), Khoekhoe (NAQ), Northern Sotho (NSO), Oromo (OM), Kinyarwanda (RW), Shona (SN), Somali (SO), Sotho/Sesotho (ST), Swahili (SW), Swazi/Swati (SS), Setswana/Tswana (TN), Tsonga (TS), Venda (VE), Wolof (WO), Xhosa (XH), Yoruba (YO), and Zulu (ZU)
    • Adangme (ADA), Ga (GAA), Krio (KRI), Lozi/Silozi (LOZ), Luo Dialect (LUO), Northern Ndebele (ND), and Southern Ndebele (NR) are in language testing
    • AFAIK Afrikaans is based on Dutch so it may be easy to write about scientific topics in that languages.
  • Philippines: Tagalog (TL) is co-official with English. Others: Bikol Central (BCL), Zamboangueño Chavacano (CBK-ZAM), Cebuano (CEB), Ilocano (ILO), Pangasinan (PAG), Kapampangan (PAM), and Waray-Waray (WAR)
    • In testing: Pandan Bikol/Northern Catanduanes Bicolano (CTS), Hiligaynon (HIL), Kinaray-a (KRJ), Maranao (MRW), and Tausug (TSG)
  • Papua New Guinea: Tok Pisin (TPI)
    • In testing: Hiri Motu (HO)

Not all of these languages may have difficulty with scientific topics or need to partner with the Simple English Wikipedia. Check with them to see if they do. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the other hand, there is also a lot of work about entries in the Simple nebula in the past but no more available inside it such as (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What would a cooperation look like? - SEWP being the basis for translations has already been the case. The big question though is how is a person of these wikis contributing here? - What incentivve would they have? --Eptalon (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The concept I have is that they could link to topics within their language edition articles, and direct readers to the simple and standard English Wikipedias. For instance, if editors found they were unable to satisfactorily write about "CONCEPT" in say, Hausa or Kapampangan, they could within the text direct readers to the Simple or English Wikipedias. Such as: "Text text text CONCEPT ([[:en:CONCEPT|EN]], [[:simple:CONCEPT|SIMPLE EN]])" or "She is well known for developing CONCEPT ([[:en:CONCEPT|EN]], [[:simple:CONCEPT|SIMPLE]])" - Perhaps in site notices they could also encourage editors contributing to those language editions to also improving the Simple English Wikipedia to serve speakers of those languages who are learning English or have poor English skills. For indigenous languages also spoken in Francophone countries (such as Yoruba, Wolof, etc.) it would look like ([[:en:CONCEPT|EN]], [[:fr:CONCEPT|FR]], [[:simple:CONCEPT|SIMPLE EN]], [[:simple-fr:CONCEPT|SIMPLE FR]]) and for indigenous languages only spoken in Francophone countries, ([[:fr:CONCEPT|FR]], [[:simple-fr:CONCEPT|SIMPLE FR]])WhisperToMe (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This sort of thing happens anyway in smaller Wikipedias. In the Ladino Wikipedia, for example, you often find links to Spanish, English and Hebrew. (Could be that simple would be a better target than en, but that's a different issue.) StevenJ81 (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On some larger ones, it's done too - In the Russian Wikipedia some topics not yet in Russian link to English ones. But Simple may be a better target because many speakers of those languages may not have adequate English skills. Also it could be a systematic effort to reach out to people in South Asia and Anglophone Africa by partnering with the respective Wikipedias. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's difficult for us to replace links to the English Wikipedia, at least on large wikis like the Russian Wikipedia, which has 5 times the number of articles we have. Osiris (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True. Probably need to start from the bottom, size-wise, and work our way up. Ladino wouldn't be much of a problem. Russian, I'm sure, would be. Then, again, that's why you partner: See if people on Russian Wikipedia would help. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please help me change my usernameHouseMouse82 (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Responded on your talk page. Osiris (talk) 02:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simple, but missing simplicity

I find that some of the articles are missing the basic descriptions. For example; most objects described in wikipedia and especially in the simple wiki are missing key descriptions like: 'a cat has four legs'. Nowhere in the Cat area is a description that says this animal has 4 legs. It would makes sense to set up a team of volunteers to take each object and add a 'description' area, that describes 'that object' in it's most common occurrence (as it would in rare circumstances be open to debate). This would also help those with visual impairments to find out about an object. I would suggest a description or table that states: shape, colour, density, hardness, reflectiveness and appendages (legs, arms, branches). It could also describe behavior, noises etc.

I find this difficult as I wanted to make a program using simple wiki that describes the basics of each common animal's features to children age 1-5. Just because children require this information, doesn't mean the simple wiki should exclude the simple references, in life. :-) Has this been missed as it's an encyclopedia created by adults for adults? It raises many questions and if anyone knows of an alternative creative commons encyclopedia that does these descriptions, I'd love to hear from you. Thanks in advance.

Follow up: I have since found 'Dog' has a 'Appearance and Behaviour' heading and this fits the needs of my issue with simpel wiki. Yet this is not consistent on all 'object' based posts. I think it would be worth adding an 'Appearance, Behaviour' heading to all topics that would allow it. i.e. The front page article on Saturn does not mention that this is a planet and that it sits in space. It's common knowledge that it does, but should we assume such knowledge in an encyclopedia?
Cats having four legs follows from them being 'cat-like' (Felidae, Feluriformes) mammals. Compare apes and baboons, they also have four limbs, and usually a tail. I am not sure, but I think whales also have four limbs (which look different)...--Eptalon (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move Requested

The Terrorism in Jaffna library should be titled Burning of Jaffna library. PepperBeast (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Please consider translating this message for the benefit of your fellow Wikimedians. Please also consider translating the proposal.)

Read this message in English / Lleer esti mensaxe n'asturianu / বাংলায় এই বার্তাটি পড়ুন / Llegiu aquest missatge en català / Læs denne besked på dansk / Lies diese Nachricht auf Deutsch / Leś cal mesag' chè in Emiliàn / Leer este mensaje en español / Lue tämä viesti suomeksi / Lire ce message en français / Ler esta mensaxe en galego / हिन्दी / Pročitajte ovu poruku na hrvatskom / Baca pesan ini dalam Bahasa Indonesia / Leggi questo messaggio in italiano / ಈ ಸಂದೇಶವನ್ನು ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ ಓದಿ / Aqra dan il-messaġġ bil-Malti / norsk (bokmål) / Lees dit bericht in het Nederlands / Przeczytaj tę wiadomość po polsku / Citiți acest mesaj în română / Прочитать это сообщение на русском / Farriintaan ku aqri Af-Soomaali / Pročitaj ovu poruku na srpskom (Прочитај ову поруку на српском) / อ่านข้อความนี้ในภาษาไทย / Прочитати це повідомлення українською мовою / Đọc thông báo bằng tiếng Việt / 使用中文阅读本信息。


There is a new request for comment on Meta-Wiki concerning the removal of administrative rights from long-term inactive Wikimedians. Generally, this proposal from stewards would apply to wikis without an administrators' review process.

We are also compiling a list of projects with procedures for removing inactive administrators on the talk page of the request for comment. Feel free to add your project(s) to the list if you have a policy on administrator inactivity.

All input is appreciated. The discussion may close as soon as 21 May 2013 (2013-05-21), but this will be extended if needed.

Thanks, Billinghurst (thanks to all the translators!) 05:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Distributed via Global message delivery (Wrong page? You can fix it.)
Just a note for those interested, this proposal would not affect because we already have a codified inactivity policy. -DJSasso (talk) 11:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikidata phase 2 (infoboxes) is here

Sorry for writing in English. I hope someone can translate this. If you understand German better than English you can have a look at the announcement on de:Wikipedia:Kurier.

A while ago the first phase of Wikidata was enabled on this Wikipedia. This means you are getting the language links in each article from Wikidata. We have now enabled the second phase of Wikidata (infoboxes) here. We have already done this on the [first 11 Wikipedias] (it, he, hu, ru, tr, uk, uz, hr, bs, sr, sh) a month ago and two days ago on the English Wikipedia. Today all the remaining Wikipedias followed.

What does having phase 2 enabled here mean? You are now able to make use of the structured data that is available on Wikidata in your articles/infoboxes. It includes things like the symbol for a chemical element, the ISBN for a book or the top level domain of a country. (None of this will happen automatically. Someone will have to change the article or infobox template for this to happen!) The current state is just the beginning though. It will be extended based on feedback we get from you now.

How will this work? There are two ways to access the data:

  • Use a parser function like {{#property:p159}} in the wiki text of the article on Wikimedia Foundation. This will return “San Francisco” as that is the headquarter location of the non-profit.
  • For more complicated things you can use Lua. The documentation for this is here.

We are working on expanding the parser function so you can for example use {{#property:headquarter location}} instead of {{#property:p159}}. The complete plan for this is here.

Where can I test this? You can test it on test2 if you don't want to do it in an article here.

Where can I find more information and ask questions? We have collected the main questions in an FAQ for this deployment. Please ask questions you might have on the FAQ’s discussion page.

I want to be kept up to date about Wikidata To stay up-to-date on everything happening around Wikidata please subscribe to the newsletter that is delivered weekly to subscribed user’s talk pages.

We are excited about taking yet another step towards allowing all Wikipedias share structured data and collect and curate it together. --Lydia Pintscher 19:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Distributed via Global message delivery. (Wrong page? Fix here.)


I seem to have lost my Twinkle. Anyone else having problems?Peterdownunder (talk) 08:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. See Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#Twinkle not working at all?. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You get so used to having it that it is really hard to work without it.Peterdownunder (talk) 12:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can confirm it seems to be working as normal for me.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 17:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My guess is that some changes were recently deployed to all Wikimedia wikis which broke it temporarily. It seems to be working fine now. Chenzw  Talk  02:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it's working again for me, too. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[en] Change to wiki account system and account renaming

Some accounts will soon be renamed due to a technical change that the developer team at Wikimedia are making. More details on Meta.

(Distributed via global message delivery 04:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC). Wrong page? Correct it here.)


Hello. Can someone update the article Willem-Alexander, Prince of Orange? It needs to be renamed into Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands, because he isn't the Prince of Orange anymore. I'm asking it here, 'cause apparently I can't rename articles. Thanks in advance! Beemster-Talk - γεια! 14:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved from being Prince to King of the Netherlands. --Creol(talk) 15:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[en] Change to section edit links

The default position of the "edit" link in page section headers is going to change soon. The "edit" link will be positioned adjacent to the page header text rather than floating opposite it.

Section edit links will be to the immediate right of section titles, instead of on the far right. If you're an editor of one of the wikis which already implemented this change, nothing will substantially change for you; however, scripts and gadgets depending on the previous implementation of section edit links will have to be adjusted to continue working; however, nothing else should break even if they are not updated in time.

Detailed information and a timeline is available on meta.

Ideas to do this all the way to 2009 at least. It is often difficult to track which of several potential section edit links on the far right is associated with the correct section, and many readers and anonymous or new editors may even be failing to notice section edit links at all, since they read section titles, which are far away from the links.

(Distributed via global message delivery 18:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC). Wrong page? Correct it here.)

Municipality categories

Currently, we use these categories for any kind of populated place (cities, towns, etc.). However, in some countries, the term municipality (or municipio) has a more specific meaning. That makes these categories unclear. For the municipality categories that are used for the more general meaning, I would like to change them from municipalities to populated places. Comments? --Auntof6 (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In Spanish it seems to be more or less a civil parish, which can regroup several localities,es. in rural areas. The question really is do we need it finer grained, to be able to say that hamlets A, B and C are in essence the same "village"? - As an example: en:Cuxhaven (district) has roughly 200.000 people, on 800 square miles. These live in 50 such municipalities; en:Stinstedt is one of these, 531 people live there. In addition to the main settlement there are others, e.g. Sankt Joost. Do we really need to be able to list them separately, or can we live with the fact that we list them with the main entity? --Eptalon (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure I follow you. The way I'm thinking, municipalities would not be under "populated places", just as counties aren't. I don't understand civil parishes, so I don't know about those, but I'm thinking those wouldn't be included, either. As long as we have articles about hamlets, I would include those. Am I close to understanding your points? --Auntof6 (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have a "village", which is spread along the end of a valley. There is a main settlement A, then some road, and then a smaller settlement B. Both A and B make up village V, which is governed by mayor M. Under normal circumstances, we have an article about the village V, and don't have separate ones for A and B. --Eptalon (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is probably a good idea. In my country, the term "municipality" is officially a type of local government area, but it's actually only applied to a few of the populated places. And the usage of the term differs according to jurisdiction: Municipality of Woollahra is a part of Sydney, but Municipality of West Coast in Tasmania covers many towns over a large area. South Africa also has more than one kind of municipality, so the usage of the term by itself might be confusing in that case. Osiris (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just found en:Municipium which seems to be the base of modern-day "municipalities", as we are discussing them here... --Eptalon (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Populated place is a Federally defined term in the United States. Most US localities are distinctly not populated places by US law.
  • Populated Place: Place or area with clustered or scattered buildings and a permanent human population (city, settlement, town, village). A populated place is usually not incorporated and by definition has no legal boundaries. However, a populated place may have a corresponding "civil" record, the legal boundaries of which may or may not coincide with the perceived populated place. Distinct from Census and Civil classes.
  • Civil: A political division formed for administrative purposes (borough, county, incorporated place, municipio, parish, town, township). Distinct from Census and Populated Place.
  • Census covers counties, parishes, etc
While it lists city, settlement, town, village under Populated Place, the unincorporated and no legal boundaries is the key part. City is defined at the state level and ,as such, means different things in each state. Pretty much every city has an incorporation requirement, but that is not a 100% rule throughout the states. For the federal level, what counts as a city is not always what a state says is one. Most notable US cities and such fall under civil in that they are administrative subdivisions (ie. they have a local government; mayor, city council, city planner, what have you) while Populated places do not have a local government.
Settlements would be a better choice for a grouping term as there is no legal definition of the term, but there is the possible issue with ambiguity: Human settlement vs legal settlement. It is not likely the ambiguity would be an issue, and it is better than using a term that distinctly does not apply the 3rd largest populated area (315m people, most of which would be improperly categorized.) --Creol(talk) 18:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good information, thanks! How about "human settlements"? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would go with "Category:Settlements in <place>" format. As I stated, I don't really think the ambiguity would be a issue and keeping the names of the categories a bit shorter would probably be better. Just in case, we could add a template to the categories stating "This category is for human settlements in <place>" just in case of ambiguity issues. Also, there are a host of Municipalities of <place> categories, these should be shift from of to in to follow the naming guideline. --Creol(talk) 20:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, that sounds good. The exact term doesn't matter so much as having it consistent and non-ambiguous. My thinking now is to go with what you suggest here. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose: I'm not sure I understand the thrust of this discussionbut. It suggests bad consequences in a Asian context. This was the subject of discussions in February 2013 here and in March 2012 here.

We need to avoid the predictable controversies which follow from changing municipalities to populated places. This is not a reasonable step. --Jinki (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please be specific about the potential bad consequences and predictable controversies. My thinking here is to change only the high-level categories that include different kinds of settlements. to use a generic term that isn't ambiguous. The categories for specific types of settlements (cities, towns, etc.) would stay the same. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6 -- Have we not learned in this venue that it is best not to respond on-wiki to every question?
In very general terms, Chenzw may not have anticipated anything specific when South China Sea was first created in 2008 here. The first draft of the stub included these sentences:
"There are hundreds of minute South China Sea Islands, collectively an archipelago. The sea and its mostly uninhabited islands are subject to several competing claims of sovereignty by neighboring nations."
In this context, State Council of the People's Republic of China approved the establishment of Sansha City in 2012. This municipality was created to govern the disputed Paracel Islands and Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.
Please assist me in developing stub articles for Sansha City and the redlinks in this diff. In the process of working together, questions may answer themselves. In order to better understand List of cities in the People's Republic of China#Hainan Province, perhaps it may help to scan a short New York Times article "China Sends Troops to Disputed Islands"? --Jinki (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If anyone understands Jinki's point here, please explain it to me. As far as I can see, it doesn't relate to the discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6 -- You asked for specifics, and the example above is very specific. There are red flags in your proposal. The proposal's implied strategy doesn't anticipate consequences like the ones highlighted above. --Jinki (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it is a specific example. I just don't see how it relates to this discussion. I'm not seeing what it has to do with changing the term we use for naming categories that group different kinds of settlements. Things that are legally called municipalities will still be called municipalities. Things that are legally called cities will still be called cities. You seem to be talking about terms used in articles. I'm not proposing changing any article text, just category names. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And not all the categories, just the ones for all human settlements collectively in a given area. i.e. every place in Japan (or Germany, Canada, Pakistan, etc) where people live. What defines a city, town, ward, what have you (as shown in the 2013 an 2012 links) has no relevance on the topic under discussion at all. All that matters is "What is the general name we chose to use for any permanent (or semi-permanent) human settlement world-wide?"--Creol(talk) 19:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not only do I not understand the relevance of Jinki's example to this discussion, I also don't like the way in which an article I created in 2008 is being used here to further an irrelevant point. Please don't derail the discussion. It doesn't matter whether you intended to do it or not, what matters is that other people cannot understand you properly. Chenzw  Talk  08:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This thread is about a hasty generalization. The proposal of Auntof6 is an informal fallacy of generalisation. It appears to come from decision-making based on too little evidence or without recognizing all of the variables.

My objections now in 2013 anticipated consequences which may play out in the future. The specific example pointed to an NPOV sentence written in 2008. From that perspective of five years ago, the PRC actions in 2012 were an on-point example of unanticipated future consequences.

Please reconsider and review this thread in the ways suggested by the graphic posted at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. My brief diffs resist easy trivialising. My words are constructive

  • by refuting the central point
  • by finding the mistake and explaining why its mistaken using quotes
  • by contradicting and then backing it up with reasoning and supporting evidence
In contrast, the responsive diffs may be fairly described as
  • contradiction (states the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence)
  • responding to tone (criticizes the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument)
  • ad hominem (attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument)
This subject has had my active attention for the past year. My objections to this proposed change are informed and reasonable. This is not a good change. --Jinki (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is that your comments make no sense and seem to have no bearing on what is being discussed. They are not understandable. If they aren't understandable they are likely not reasonable as it seems you either don't understand what is being discussed or you are just derailing the discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, Jinki, may I request the following: Please lay out again in very basic terms the following, if you will be so kind. I'm not trying to be patronizing; on the contrary, I want to make sure you get a fair hearing. So:

  1. What change do you think is being proposed?
  2. What about this change troubles you?
  3. What, exactly, would be the unintended consequence; how could you illustrate that in concrete terms?
  4. In the 2008 case, what was the problem then, and how did it play out?

Frankly, I am having a hard time understanding your concerns. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@StevenJ81 -- Thank you for asking questions in a way which establishes a format for responding:
  1. The change proposed is to create categories about populated places as if this were equivalent with municipalities or with municipalities as a sub-set, yes?
  2. Three things are troubling: (a) Municipality ≠ populated place; and (b) Category:Municipality is is not a controversial label in itself -- a specific controversial municipality such as Sansha City can be the subject of an NPOV article with reliable source support; (c) Category:Populated places is a endlessly controversial term in itself and it has exacerbated rather than mitigated problems in our work creating a reliable Simple English Wikipedia, yes?
  3. There is every good reason to avoid adding fuel to a fire; and some question call for cautious on-wiki restraint. We read newspapers, and what we read causes us to appreciate that red flags are not irrelevant, yes?
  4. In the 2008 sentence, the "mostly uninhabited islands" of the South China Sea were neutrally identified. If the proposed category were in place pre-2008, and if it were to have continued in use up through June 2012, the category would not have helped mitigate problems in parsing the ensuing disputes with Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei and the United States. The term "municipality" allows the work of article creation to go forward to a degree and then to stop without getting caught up in a Gordian knot. The term "populated places" when used in conjunction with the uninhabited islands of the South China Sea does not suggest a way to avert a knotty dead end discussion. Instead, an undue focus on "populated places" may tend to validate an endless back-and-forth which cannot be resolved in our unique Wikipedia context, yes?
In this limited context, our joint-goal should be averting an array of problems, difficulties, arguments, disputes which do not help our project move forward. Some can't be avoided, but is this one of those times?

We agree that the work of Auntof6 is invaluable to our project. It is largely intuitive, and mostly the results are elegant. However, this is one of the rare instances in which a hasty generalization does not serve us well. --Ansei (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jump down below ... StevenJ81 (talk)
Jinki may want to keep striking on his initial statement. The consequences alluded to absolutely do not apply to an "Asian context". They only seem to apply to a single country. In the People's Republic of China, Republic of China and South Korea, the term municipality has a given inference which does not apply in the way our categories use it. Many Asian countries use the term to refer to the administrative division known as a. PRoc has Direct-controlled municipalities, RoC has Special municipalities, both Koreas have special cities, Vietnam has Centrally governed cities. Similar DCM's exist in Laos, Mongolia and Cambodia. In Korea, City is at the municipal level, but town is not (it is sub-municipal). Listing a Korean town as a municipality is not correct.
In Japan, Municipality is completely correct. The 3rd level of administration is labeled "Municipal". It is correct to call them municipalities under the applicable law, with the exception of Tokyo which is not a city or a municipality but a Metropolis (prefecture) even though it is widely thought of as a city. In most other Asian countries, this is not true. Multiple editors have stated that Municipality is an incorrect term for their country as well in their reply to this attempt by Auntof6 to use a consistent naming policy. In this, we need to take a global view on the subject on not a local view (in this case, Japan-centric while claiming Asian-centric). Names should be eliminated as they have a local POV issue (Municipality does not work in some European and many Asian countries, Populated place does not apply in the US, etc). They should not argued for because "that's the term we use so everyone should." A term that is correct for one place but means something totally different somewhere else needs to be dealt with rather than forced where it does not apply. --Creol(talk) 17:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see your point, Ansei/Jinki, but I think you are excessively concerned. As the article municipality itself notes, what we are trying to do here (I think) is to find some way to cluster things that are the lowest-level local government entities. And what is more: in most cases, this category of "Municipalities" is a super-category anyway. It contains subcategories per national, or even sub-national, entity, and those can in turn be called whatever is appropriate in the setting.
What I think you are worried about here is that by grouping a controversial local government entity into a category of "municipalities," we are somehow giving our imprimatur to facts on the ground. I would respectfully disagree with that. It perhaps gives our imprimatur to recognizing that the facts on the ground exist, but not to their validity. In fact, the appropriate place to discuss such issues is within the articles themselves, not within their categorization.
Reaching out more broadly to everyone, I'm personally ok with "municipalities." But there are a couple of ways we could try to damp down any risk of controversy:
  1. Add a disclaimer to the category page, like: Localities categorized here may or may not be considered municipalities according to local law and custom.
  2. Try a different neutral term. "Local government area" and "locality" come to mind, but I think those are specific terms of art in specific places, too.
  3. Use hedging language, which we normally eschew, like "municipalities and municipality-equivalents." My model here is en:List of United States counties and county-equivalents, which is used to describe sub-state-level divisions in the US. Louisiana calls such divisions parishes, dating back to its French and Spanish colonial roots, while Alaska has its own way of doing things. Independent cities like Washington, DC, Baltimore, MD and Falls Church, VA can also be captured this way. So everything is a municipality or equivalent to it, right?
For my two cents, this is just not worth all the argument. Does anyone have any thoughts on these choices? StevenJ81 (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These suggestions are reasonable; and I'm sure Auntof6 and others will take them in. However, your analysis doesn't consider Category:Populated places. In February 2012, the interesting discussion with Osiris and others here caused me to recognize some of the problems with this loaded language term. In June 2012, the range of my prudent concerns was widened as events in the news unfolded in the South China Sea. Please contact me by e-mail, and I will try to explain in different words off-wiki. Thank you for your contribution to this thread.

I wonder, do you know the idiom "preaching to the choir"? Does it have something to do with this thread?

This brief exchange of diffs is a kind of rebuttal to the claims of those who write that my careful words make no sense.--Jinki (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(following the jump above, In reply to the answers to StevenJ81's questions)
First of all, while I do not understand your view that the term populated place is an "endlessly controversial term" and an example of loaded language as it means what it says: a "place with a population" or places with permanent human populations, the term was populated place was discussed above and found to not be a good term to use so it no longer applies to this discussion. Settlement / human settlement seems the best choice for the name at this point.
1. The proposal is to rename the various Municipalities of/in <area> and Populated places in/of <area> to a format that is both consistent (all of the categories use the same naming convention rather than 4 different names depending on who created the category) and correctly covers all the articles placed in it (German towns are not municipalities, US cities are not Populated places but are populated places.. ambiguity is annoying). The categories in question are those which combine all human settlements in a given area; Cities, towns, villages, boroughs, townships, Tensils(?), CDP's, Populated Places, communes, etc - each type of locality where people live under all the local names. Japan made it fairly easy as while places with permanent human populations (populated places) may be towns, cities of villages, all 3000-ish of them are municipalities. Other countries do not make it that simple and we need to adapt to be correct in (nearly) all countries.
2a. You are correct; "Municipality" is not the same as "populated place". Generally speaking a municipality is a populated place with some form of administration while populated place is a place with a population. All municipalities are populated places, but not all populated places are municipalities.
2b. Category:Municipality is indeed controversial. It's meaning is subject to change from one area to another. Municipalities in Germany, Australia, Japan and the US are 4 different entities. This is akin to listing Tokyo as a city because it is a metropolis since in most countries, a metropolis is a very large city instead of listing it as a prefecture since that is what the local meaning of metropolis is defined as.
2c. I do not see how Category:Populated places is endlessly controversial and exacerbating. Please explain.
3. You refused to answer the question so there is nothing to reply to.
4."The term "populated places" when used in conjunction with the uninhabited islands".. If they are not inhabited, they are not populated places and would not go in the category. The two terms "populated" and "uninhabited" are mutually exclusive. They could be used together with a modifier (previously uninhabited but now populated, once populated but now uninhabited) but on their own they can not be used in conjunction with each other. There could arise a case where a populated are is claimed by more than one entity (Republic of China is such a case as PRoChina still claims ownership, Germany "owned" much of Europe for a time, Kuwait was controlled by Iraq for a (very) short time) but those are corner cases that need to be dealt with individually and delicately. --Creol(talk) 22:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Creol -- Have we not learned in this venue that it is best not to respond on-wiki to every question?

In very general terms, it may be helpful is on-point to highlight some of the words you wrote:

Is it useful In the context of assumptions which have been made explicit, it is important -- perhaps even essential -- to add emphasis by repetition. --Jinki (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it is not useful. We don't need you to repeat what Creol said, especially when it is just one paragraph above your comment. Have you not learned that what you are doing is not contributing to the discussion? If you have nothing new nor useful to say, please don't. Chenzw  Talk  15:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I live in or near the Alps: What can be seen there is one traditional form of settlement, that a spot was only occupied during part of the year. During the summer months, cattle (along with shepherds) would move up the mountain region, into areas which would basically offer grassland, that was higher in altitude. Since winters can be harsh, this would only be done during a few months, in summer; there are different forms of properties, the most common being that the meadows up there (plus a few huts, where the shepherds lived) were common goods. (Some of this is actually described in en:Transhumance in the Alps; The shepherds also often produced cheese, as a way to keep the milk from spoiling. Anyway, this means that there are several of these (usually quite remote) places, which are only inhabited for part of the year; nevertheless, when it comes to administration, they need to be part of some village. In Switzerland, these forms occupy up to 35% of total agricultural land. Anyway, the gist so far seems to be that 'municipality' has a very specific meaning in many Asian countries, so if we use the term, we need some disclaimer...--Eptalon (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I mention below, and looking at en:'s cat tree, the optional cat "Temporary settlements in" (similar to Former settlements in) could be used to identify these types of locations if there are sufficient entries for a category. Otherwise, the temporary status would not be deemed important enough to warrant a special classification at that time and they get stuffed in with the full time settlements and the former settlements (and possibly the fictional settlements).--Creol(talk) 03:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really hesitated to get involved in this discussion, since it is already long and takes many twists. As far as the various territorial conflicts that Jinki seems to be concerned about, I will keep my thoughts to myself because they are not relevant. But, a few points:
  • I do not think it matters what municipality, Populated Place or any other term means in Australia or the United States because this wiki is not Australian or American. This is Simple English Wikipedia and the language is not Australian English or American English, even if the words look similar.
  • Likewise it does not matter what municipio means in Spain because it is is Spanish. Municipality does not mean anything in Japan or Germany because it is not the word used in Japanese (various translations) or German (Gemeinde?).
  • I prefer municipality as a relatively more fixed term that can be established by published sources. Populated is less fixed and more open to interpretation.
  • Finally, how will we handle uninhabited municipalities? Yes, they do exist. And, unfortunately they (1) (2) (3) will be with us for a long time to come. There may be others I am not aware of and there likely to be more in the future. Perhaps that is just a special case, but one worth planning for before making a big change. Those same articles over at En now have self-contradictory categories.
I guess I just do not see how the proposed change improves things. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not going to touch the first two points as the shifting between term-definition and language-location makes my head hurt. While the English language term Municipality does not exist in Japanese, those published sources establish that what the term defines does have meaning in Japan (although not in Japanese) - two (or more) terms, one definition. The fact that American English uses the term football to mean one thing and Australian English uses it to mean a different thing means we need make certain the two definitions of the term are properly separated - One term, two definitions. Hense we have American football players, American soccer players (cause the Americans get a tad confused when we call them footballers, even those who actually are footballers..) and <pretty much every other country> footballers. No matter the language or dialect used, it is the definition(s) that matters, not the term(s). (ok.. I touched them lightly..)
As to the other point, currently unpopulated areas are easily handled. They are/were settlements and always will be. If there are sufficient numbers, sub-categories could be made (former settlements, ghost towns, whatever term is appropriate). Ignoring temporal status (is/was) is a daily occurrence in every language of Wikipedia. People are very rarely categorized by whether they are or were something (former people born in 1910, former Russian politicians, former Presidents of the United States). There are some instances of it (former WWE wrestlers) but these are rare.
As to how this change improves things, even given all the words above, its a extremely simple affect: use 1 terminology rather than 3 or 4 to describe the same thing. Right now we have Category:Municipalities in Country 1, Category:Municipalities of Country2 and Category:Populated places in Country 3. Each of those categories holds the subcats from the same groupings (cities in Country(1,2 or 3), towns in Counry(1,2 or 3) and villages in Country(1,2 or 3)). The change would just go from Mun of, Mun in and Pop in (where you have to look up which naming was used when created before you can make the correct changes) to all of them being Settlements in Country(1,2 or 3). 1 consistent naming convention which is accurate and non-ambiguous is what all this diatribe is about.--Creol(talk) 03:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Creol -- Wiktionary defines "diatribe" to mean
  1. An abusive, bitter denunciation
  2. A prolonged discourse
  3. A speech or writing which bitterly denounces something
I do not see how this word is appropriate or helpful. In terms of the pyramid graphic posted at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, this use of this word only criticizes something about the writing in this thread but does not address the substance of it.

In contrast, it is on-point to redirect attention to words you wrote:

The problems with these words and others are made explicit in examples cited above.

In the context of assumptions which underly an informal fallacy, it is good to add emphasis by repetition. This is consistent with the first short diff which I added to this thread here.

Our investment in considering potential consequences is only prudent. --Jinki (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At this point, what I see as being prudent is taking that picture of a pyramid and tossing out the window. It is useless to try to discuss this (and most) matter with you as you seem incapable of understanding the most simple of concepts. You are continually complaining that we should not make a change which we decided not to make before you had even said one word here and of which you have been told multiple times is not going to happen. And yet, you ignore what other said and keep saying we shouldn't do it. You yourself post the definition for a word then cant seem to understand how the definition you gave is appropiate.. Read your own words, I will not be repeating them to you over an over. All you have done in this discusion is made vague threats of issue which could occur but you are unwilling to define any of the issues you imagine are looming. For someone so quick to blame others for what you see as de-railing a converstaion, you have not been on topic at any point here.--Creol(talk) 00:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Creol -- Some of your words are not appropriate or helpful. In terms of the pyramid graphic posted at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, please think about whether your words are part of an ad hominem strategy which attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument. --Jinki (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at the issue, I see the following cases:

  1. The entity in question has some "legal representatives", which can act on behalf of it
  2. The entity is part of a larger group, to which condition 1 applies.
Note that this is independent of the fact whether other countries recognise i, or whether it is a disputed territory. In the new world, the "capital" is often in a territory of its own (e.g Australia, the U.S), so that all the other such entities have the same status. And if we now choose to call such entities "muncipalities", "villlages", "census-designated places" or "Hugo" is merely a question of picking a name. So is there any reason not to want to use "municipality" for everything? --Eptalon (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason for not using "municipality" for everything is that there are entities specifically called "municipalities" in some countries (or whatever that translates to in the local language). Using that for the generic grouping term would be at least ambiguous and at worst inaccurate. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does it help for us to notice the relationship of en:Category:Municipalities and en:Category:Administrative divisions?

In ENWP, this appears to be treated as something different from en:Category:Political geography.

Is it possible that the thrust of this thread discussion has had something to do with unacknowledged assumptions? Or was it about something to do with the conflation of the subjects of "political geography" and "administrative divisions"? --Jinki (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This whole thing is getting confusing. I think Jinki should note that in his attempt to clarify ambiguities in this discussion, he is inadvertently introducing more cause for confusion. We originally started off with a proposal to change municipalities to populated places in our category system, and now it seems to be the case that we are discussing why we should not be using "municipalities" in our category system. That was why Auntof6 started the discussion in the first place, isn't it? Unless I have been mistaken, Jinki should have no reason for opposing this proposal because this proposal is setting out to resolve the concerns that he has in the first place. Chenzw  Talk  14:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


We've been discussing this for a week. Here's a recap as I see it.

My reasons for proposing the change were:

  • Use a consistent term for grouping cities, towns, etc., instead of variously using "municipalities" or "populated places"
  • Use a generic term for it, a term that doesn't have a specific meaning anywhere

The original suggestion was to use "populated places", but that has a specific meaning in at least one place. Creol suggested the term "settlements". I haven't seen any objection to that, and that's the term I'm currently favoring.

It seems to me -- although I recognize that I might be biased -- that most editors who commented support the change, or at least don't oppose it. Gotanda doesn't see the reason for changing. Jinki opposes, although several editors don't understand how his arguments relate to the suggestion.

Have I missed anything? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess I think I mildly oppose it. Then again, I see absolutely nothing wrong with
  • an "overcategory" of "municipalities" or "populated places" or "settlements", along with
  • undercategories variously named according to local custom (e.g., "Villages in Ruritania" or "Municipalities in East Westia")
In some ways that is a preferable approach, I think, because people in different places will tend to use different words for the same thing, and we're not in a position to change that colloquially. And if the purpose of the categories is to help people find things, staying as close as we can to colloquial usage is better.
If you absolutely positively think that all these categories must have the same, consistent name, I'd vote for "localities". "Settlements" has an overtone of "brand new, just started" that it is a little hard to apply to New York, London, Toronto or Sydney. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The thing you say you see nothing wrong with sounds like exactly what I have in mind. Would it help if I give a list of some of the categories that I would rename if I proceed with my proposal? It would be most of the ones that begin with "Municipalities in/of" or "Populated places in", but not all of them. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please do. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's at User:Auntof6/Municipality categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The term locality is defined by the United Nations. I wonder if this may help to bring a sharper focus to our thinking? Please consider "Population density and urbanization" at; see excerpt,
"For census purposes, a locality should be defined as a distinct population cluster (also designated as inhabited place, populated centre, settlement and so forth) in which the inhabitants live in neighbouring sets of living quarters and that has a name or a locally recognized status. It thus includes fishing hamlets, mining camps, ranches, farms, market towns, villages, towns, cities ....

Localities as defined above should not be confused with the smallest civil divisions of a country ....

... The urban agglomeration is therefore not identical with the locality but is an additional geographical unit, which may include more than one locality ...." [italics added]

In other words, population clusters ≠ administrative subdivisions? --Jinki (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That question was already answered by me on the 18th (here) and you yourself repeated it back to me on the 2oth (here) and labeled it an Informal fallacy. No, not all places people live (settlements/population clusters to use the UN's terms) are administrative divisions (although, nearly every administrative divisions are, or were, places where people lived).--Creol(talk) 15:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
QED -- Creol's diff here shows why opposition to Auntof6's proposed change was necessary. It continues to be necessary.

A brief edit conflict blocked my ability to add a question to my diff above. I was going to ask how the proposed Category:Localities might serve the function Auntof6 had in mind when she began this thread. Her answer, I guess, doesn't matter.

In this instance, Creol persuades me anew that Auntof6's otherwise conventional parsing strategy will exacerbate problems that don't need to be problems. --Jinki (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The core of her proposal was to use pick one name and use that one. The added effects of her proposed change and this discussion would put thing in the correct categories and these categories would meet our fundamental goal of a more global view rather than a nationalistic PoV. This is what you are opposing. You seem to find it unnecessary to deal with the problem that things are put into categories which they do not belong to. The changes suggested would broaden the scope of the category to include places without their own administrative functions as well as the administrative divisions it already covers. Townships without their own local governments could correctly be included with the other towns and cities in a certain area. As it stands, if a community does not have it's own government structure, it can not be included with the other communities in that area. Many places in the world do not have their own government structure and rely on a higher level civic authority for these actions (in the US, many counties are administratively responsible for some of the communities in them) but without these changes, we need to define a separate category tree for just these places rather than expanding the main cat to include all settlements in a given area. Municipality is based on political structure, settlements are based on geographic structure. Localities would work fine as the term used, but settlements, I feel, is a better choice as we already have an article in place to define it (human settlement) and the term itself is a bit simpler than locality (settle is a VOA listed word, locale is not on any of the lists). You have provided no accepted evidence on how these changes would have a negative impact on the project. You have only stated these impacts exist without providing any explanation on what they are or how they would affect the project. You keep asking if we have not learned that some things should not be talked about on-wiki. If it is a wiki-matter, (and not privacy based, ie CU, admin dealings with things needing to be oversighted if posted on-wiki) then no, it should be dealt with in a transparent matter. Wiki-business should not be hidden from scrutiny except in matters of security and privacy. --Creol(talk) 17:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In terms of the pyramid graphic posted at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Creol's diff appears to be a counterargument. The sentences could be described as "contradicting and then backing it up with reasoning".

This strategy is good, but the restatement of the issues is not -- see en:Wikipedia:Don't take the bait. For example, Creol explains "... and these categories would meet our fundamental goal of a more global view rather than a nationalistic PoV. This is what you are opposing."


Using the reasonable man standard, my guess is that most readers will notice a few key points as they carefully think about this subject:

  1. Municipality ≠ populated place (human settlement)
  2. In ENWP, en:Category:Municipalities is part of en:Category:Administrative divisions
  3. Analysis of problematic issues is linked here at
In this instance, the conflation strategy causes problems which don't need to be problems.

My purpose is to avoid arguing. Instead, my rebuttal only points to the hasty generalizations which are in Creol's sentences. Let's work togther. --Jinki (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. Given fact. Similar to bird ≠ animal. Set and subset. Supports this entire change proposal.
2. Directly supports this change proposal.
3. Does not deal with municipalities. Used mainly for census data (not applicable here) and the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT).. settlements.. I heard that word somewhere before.. Does not support listing all settlements as municipalities.
As with much of you're edits here, you are not supporting your opposing of this proposal in any way. Most of your time here has been spent attacking the tone or style of other editors (mainly me - almost harrassingly so). There are strong signs of Responding to Tone and Ad Hominem comments in a majority of your replies with little to no on-topic discussion pertinent to the proposal. We have both had ample opportunity to present our cases in this matter and rather than continuing in this manner, I propose we both step away from this topic and let the rest of the community weigh their decision based on our existing positions (and of course the positions of all other) without use continuing to run in circles repeating the same things. It would be best for the project that, unless directly addressed, we both step away and let our statements stand for themselves. --Creol(talk) 19:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Auntof6 -- Re Category:Localities. How might this new category serve the function you had in mind when you began this thread?

Thank you for creating User:Auntof6/Municipality categories#Categories that would change. If you please, explain how the change plays out in a context of the three points which are listed in the diff above? Let's work together. --Jinki (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will try to address your three points.
  1. I agree that municipality, populated place, and (human) settlement do not always mean the same thing. That is the issue at the core of my proposal.
  2. I don't understand the relevance of this point. We do not have to do things the same as enwiki.
  3. The UN page is defining a term for their use. When I look at the word locality, it suggests a generic place. That is not what I'm looking for. At en:wikt:settlement, one of the definitions is "A community of people living together, such as a hamlet, village, town, or city." That is exactly what I'm looking for. Creol actually summed up my thinking pretty well.
You seem to have a concern about this whole proposal, but I have not seen you explain it in clear, simple language. Unless I see that, I don't know how I can take your point of view into account. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Auntof6 -- My guess is that you don't live on an island. Maybe you've never lived on an island. This seemingly small observation about your real-world life may point to an unexamined bias in your thinking. I wonder if it helps to mention that Japan has 6,000+ islands and only 430+ are inhabited. Could this be a significant factor in explaining how and why this thread has developed as it has?

Yes, Auntof6 -- We all agree with the words at #1-above, but we are not on the same page in thinking about the unstated assumptions which are truly the core. Thank you for making clear at #3-above that you reject the term "locality" (meaning "generic place") which was suggested by StevenJ81. I would have accepted Category:Localities, but Creol's diff here convinced me to step back. This newest restatement sharpens our understanding of what you want.

Please think again about #2-above. This suggests that there may be another way to look at what you define as a problem. In other words, ENWP has not identified a perceived problem in the same way you want to do. This means that what is obvious to you is not universally accepted or deemed necessary.

In the context of what you intend, can we agree that we all want to avoid creating additional problems which don't need to be problems? As I mildly pointed out above, some of Creol's sentences have been red flags. For example,

  1. Creol wrote, "If they are not inhabited, they are not populated places and would not go in the category. The two terms "populated" and "uninhabited" are mutually exclusive. They could be used together with a modifier (previously uninhabited but now populated, once populated but now uninhabited) but on their own they can not be used in conjunction with each other."

    Yes, do we not all agree that "two terms "populated" and "uninhabited" are mutually exclusive"?

  2. Creol wrote, "'Municipality' is not the same as 'populated place'. Generally speaking a municipality is a populated place with some form of administration while populated place is a place with a population. All municipalities are populated places, but not all populated places are municipalities."

    No, it is an inconvenient fact that not all municipalities are populated.

Focusing on key terms like inhabited and uninhabited, please help me understand how what you want will affect Sansha and Kalayaan, Palawan in the South China Sea. These are municipalities with overlapping territory. Both are local governments in an area of islands, atolls and rocks which were never populated. I see that China and the Philippines are not mentioned at User:Auntof6/Municipality categories; however, is it not prudent to think about how this may play out in the future? Is it not reasonable to consider how this may affect other articles?

Can you see how Creol's words might suggest the need for caution?

The proposal may cause problems which can be averted by this discussion thread? Our investment of time and words has already served a practical purpose. Please recall that StevenJ81 mentioned ways we could try to damp down any risk of controversy here. Let's work together. --Jinki (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see why islands are a particular issue. If they are in categories for municipalities/populated places, they would be treated the same as everything else in those categories. If they are not in such categories, they would not be affected.
My proposal (with two exceptions) is only to rename certain categories. The exceptions are Category:Lists of municipalities and Category:Municipalities by country, as noted at User:Auntof6/Municipality categories#Categories with specific notes.
Sansha would not be affected. It is in Category:Cities in China. I am not proposing changing any "city" categories.
Kalayaan, Palawan would change, because it is in Category:Municipalities in the Philippines. That category would change, because it contain a mix of entries (a category for cities, and individual entries for municipalities). Another resolution would be to change that category to contain only municipalities by removing the city subcategory, but that is not in the scope of my proposal.
China is not mentioned at User:Auntof6/Municipality categories because I don't see a category for it called either "Municipalities" or "populated places". I see Category:Cities in China and Category:Cities in Taiwan, but I am not suggesting changing any "city" categories.
The Phillippines are mentioned: Category:Municipalities in the Philippines (see above).
I have been making a good faith effort to understand your concerns, but frankly I am about finished trying. I don't think I need 100% agreement to proceed with this change, and I think I've given long enough for you to make your case. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Flowchart of basic consensus decision-making process.
One of the cited sources at Consensus explains that consensus is not unanimity.

In terms of the flow chart graphic at the right, my part in this discussion thread is a reasonable response to your initial invitation for comments.

In effect, this thread became a step in the process called "modification to proposal".

The flow chart shows that this was also part of the process called "test for consensus".

You may recall that StevenJ81 introduced the term en:disclaimer; and this thread functions in that way.

Although you don't understand yet, StevenJ81 did seem to understand a little bit here and Creol did seem to understand well enough here. Creol used the term "corner case" as a label for my concerns. This assigning of a label shows that my diffs were understood somewhat.

In future, perhaps we will do better because we will have learned from participating in this thread. We'll see. If an unwanted problem does develop, we can build from the foundation we have established by working together. --Jinki (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have been trying to stay out of the discussion because trying to discuss with Jinki is often like bashing your head against the wall. But I have to agree with Auntof6 here. Her whole proposal seems to be trying to address the problem you list in #1. Personally I like using Populated places even if it has a fairly obscure meaning in the US. Being that we are simple wiki that to me seems to be the simplest generic term to use. In the case of a category for us populated places we can make a note of this. -DJSasso (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, DJSasso -- Auntof6's proposal is trying to address a problem. I'd go further. I'd say that the history of Auntof6's contributions to our project can be described as trying to harmonize a nest of inter-related problems. She is always trying to fix some problem or another. This is why questions from Auntof6 deserve our best and most thoughtful attention. Let's work together. --Jinki (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From what I see Jinki is particularly concerned about the possibility of a municipality with zero population, and that it would cause problems when we perform the category rename to "populated places" (because that implies a non-zero population). A quick search already throws up one: Cockburn Island (Ontario).
@Jinki: You continually claim to invite others to "work together" in solving this dispute, but you have not been giving others the opportunity to understand your point of view. Where other people ask questions, you refuse to answer and beat around the bush instead. This is compromising to the consensus building process. We are into the 12th day of this discussion, which is at least 7500 words long already, and your comments of questionable usefulness take up at least 25% of the total discussion length. If you continue to be unable to respect the points of view of other editors and fail to make yourself understood, you are likely to be increasingly ignored by participants in this discussion. I will not rule out the possibility of imposing sanctions for your harassment of other editors. Please pay attention to your choice of words.
And another thing: you are asking too many questions which we cannot/don't know how to answer. I note that your questions are intended to guide the discussion along, but it has come to a point where you need to make your point clear, and without the introduction of more essays and/or policy pages. This is not a courtroom. Chenzw  Talk  15:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm going to move forward with this

Thanks for everyone's input. I think it will make things easier to maintain, because we won't have to remember which places use which term for the collective category. Only one editor seems to have a strong objection, but he or she hasn't been able to explain how it relates to the proposed change. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've made good progress. I still have Japan and the United States to do, and probably some other things. Right now I'm going to take a break -- just letting y'all know so you wouldn't think I've forgotten anything! --Auntof6 (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, this is change, but it is not good progress -- see, for example, that the corollary Category:Settlements in China does not exist. Does it not matter that Sansha and Kalayaan, Palawan are categorized differently?

As our project develops, it may be that this will be recognized as a problem that didn't need to be a problem. With this broad change, an unacknowledged bias is intrusively shaping how this subject is represented and how articles about the subject are sometimes categorized as a special subset within a broader categories. See, for example, a similar pattern

As we move forward, we can hope the near-term consequences will be small. Let's work together. --Jinki (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did you not even bother to read most of what has been posted here? Do you not even understand the category creation guidelines and how the tree works? Creating Category:Settlements in China would be against every guideline we have for category creation. Why would anyone with even the smallest clue about how things are done here think to create a useless category? And I love how focusing on women writers and singling them out for attention is baised against them for hiding them.. Apparently morons get to write op-eds at times without bothering to know what they are writing about. --Creol(talk) 22:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update 1 May 2013

I finished with the categories on Monday. I'm now in the process of checking all the "Settlements in" categories to be sure they have their correct interwiki links. The only other thing I can think of is to make sure any commons links are still correct. Can anyone think of anything else? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]