Jump to content

Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 105

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Simple English Medical Content

A group of us working on medical content tried translating medical content into simple English a while back per here [1]. We made some process as per here [2] however their was concerns that the simplifications were not easy enough. We were wondering if there is some simple English Wikipedians who could help our team define what level of wording we should be trying to achieve. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look at the Schizophrenia article today (no,I didn't do a comprehensive evaluation). I also left some comments on the respective talk page. In general, the quality of the work done is very good, and at least I understand the article pretty well. Some of the things that definitely need looking at:
  • It would be good if we could provide some "external links/other websites" (other than the scientific references), where the reader would likely find more information; I do not know whether there are good ones for all the conditions mentioned.
  • Sometimes, I think there are problems with using certain terms; in the case of Schizophrenia, one of these terms is the changing of personalities. This term is problematic because several other conditions (eg. Dissociative identity disorder, Bipolar disorder, but even something as common as Alcoholism) also involve changing of personalities. What is problematic there is that we are talking about three different kinds of chage:
    1. Someone assuming different roles (personalities) at different times (DID)
    2. Someone going through extreme phases of happiness/being downcast (bipolar)
    3. Someone changing in accordance whether they just consumed some drug, and adapting their lifestyle to be able to get that drug more easily. Their mood and other things also directly change as a function of the level of drug they consumed (alcoholism)
Anyway, there are problably a few terms like this where more care needs to be taken how they are used. If this can be done easily by perhaps using different terms for the different situations, doing so would probably be a good idea. I am not a doctor, so I don't know the medical vocabulary.
Overall though I think that very good work is being done, which will be an invaluable aid to people with limited Enlish skills. A big thank you to all those involved. --Eptalon (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Input requested about economic articles

Is our article Late-2000s financial crisis about the same thing as enwiki's article en:Great Recession? If so, I'd like to add ours to the interwikis in Wikidata. Thanks.

No its interwiki would be en:Financial crisis of 2007–2008 -DJSasso (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So our articles Late-2000s financial crisis and Financial crisis of 2007–2008 are duplicates? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would go with a yes. -DJSasso (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Racepacket's unblock request

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
  • Result: No consensus. This unblock request is denied with no prejudice against a future request, unless otherwise determined by consensus in the future. Chenzw  Talk  14:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, Racepacket has made another unblock request on his user talk. Editors will find it useful to refer to the previous unblock discussion made 2 months ago, which was closed as no consensus. Chenzw  Talk  15:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Failing any proof of his claims of involvement with Wikimedia etc I don't see how things have changed since 2 months ago so my position is unchanged. -DJSasso (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Racepacket has contacted Barras and me privately and provided evidence to back up his claims of involvement in Wikimedia-related activities, most notably within Wikimedia DC. The provided evidence reasonably proves that the claims mentioned in his previous unblock request are true. With that in mind, editors may wish to reconsider their stand. Chenzw  Talk  15:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hereby confirm that. -Barras talk 16:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A user wishes to edit constructively, something which is relatively lacking here. User has been helping Wikipedia constructively (per evidence from Barras). Perhaps we should draw a line, allow an unblock and monitor with a 'one-strike' rule if necessary? (Count this as a weak support of unblock I suppose...) Kennedy (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mhmm. The latest development is disapointing, but I stand by my position just now. One strike rule. If it fails, no great harm done. Still support Kennedy (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unblock -- I accept the reasoning of Barras who wrote in February 2013, "I think he's learned his lesson and will do it better." On the other hand, the words of Macdonald-ross here stay in my mind. On balance, our project is not well served by a theory that anyone is some kind of "wiki-felon".

    I remember what I gained from Racepacket's words in January 2012 here. In a nest of unfamiliar topics, Racepacket's diffs helped me figure out how to parse the pros-and-cons of a complex situation. I am hopeful that Racepacket can find a way to be constructive again. Let's work together. --Jinki (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unblock (on a short leash, for now). StevenJ81 (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to agree with Kennedy here, a simple one strike rule for now would do.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 17:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem if consensus does agree with a one strike rule (which he would be under anyways due to his ban on en) but I think it should be clear that a strike could come not only from repeating the harassment issue but also from the copying articles from en and not simplifying them which was also a major problem and one that probably would have eventually seen him blocked as well had the harassment issue not popped up. -DJSasso (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So let's make sure there are parameters on that. How long between copying and completion of simplifying? (Or: must be copied first to sandbox, then only to article space when complete?) Let's make sure the rules are clear. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wht bout: One week after "imprt" aricle must be noticeably simpler (if it wasn't simple in the first place). Anyway, one week after his import, there should be some entries in the article history that show that he started to adapt it to our audience... ? --Eptalon (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, worth noting. Kennedy (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unblock Racepacket has still shown no understanding of why he was blocked on this wiki or on enwiki (it was sure more than an "intemperate edit summary"), and has continued to sock as late as January 2013, when his IP was blocked again for a year (see w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Racepacket/Archive. Disclosure: I was a party to the related arbitration case on enwiki. --Rschen7754 09:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, he was indefinitely blocked on enwiki even before the arbitration case on grounds of repeated plagiarism, and was only unblocked under enforced mentorship, which lasted until his current block. That, combined with the issues of not writing in Simple English, and of course the serial crosswiki harassment, are serious problems. --Rschen7754 09:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As we consider how to move forward, we need to parse the difference between good evidence and not-so-good innuendo? --Jinki (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I should make it clear despite my comment above (which was mostly a note to indicate how to deal with one strike imho) that I do oppose unblocking. Recent socking is an issue. -DJSasso (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As there are signs that he is still following some of the same habits that caused the issue in the first place, I see no reason to feel that unblocking him will do more than allow him to not have to sock.. If he cannot stop socking, how can he be trusted to not continue doing the other issues he has shown in the past.--Creol(talk) 12:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps it will re-focus our thinking to recall something Eptalon wrote in February? It is relevant that "[w]ithout him actually editing here, we cannot really tell whether Racepacket has changed." This neutral observation seems reasonable, doesn't it?

There is no specific evidence that Racepacket was a sockpuppet -- see here. Shouldn't it matter to us that there is no on-point ENWP checkuser data? More to the point, Racepacket has no history of being an SEWP sockpuppet.

Let's not marginalize the fact that Racepacket has (a) denied these stale complaints; and (b) responded with specific information as he was asked to do in January. This proof of patience and cooperation is simple enough.

How many hoops do can anyone reasonably expect Racepacket to jump through? --Jinki (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see w:en:WP:DUCK and the privacy policy that forbids us from specifically linking IPs to user accounts. --Rschen7754 20:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closure Needed

This request should be closed soon. I count 5 supports, 3 opposes. It could be argued that this is supportive of an unblock but its rather close. I'd like to nudge this discussion and ask that people who have not yet commented please take a look and consider. It would be most helpful for consensus if further editors could give their opinion. I'll hold it for a couple of days to see if there is any response then re-evaluate the position then. Kennedy (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you would close it after you hold it for a bit? It seems that is what you are implying. If so then you should know you aren't eligible to do so since you placed a !vote. -DJSasso (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Kennedy (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? I will bite. Trust you to displace the debate with a meaningless fishing comment like that. I was trying to bring the conversation and debate along a bit to help and you come out with a inane comment like that. What do you prefer? We just sit here and make yet another no-consensus decision? Wait on someone who is impartial to come in here and decide? Well clearly that hasn't happened as it is approaching two weeks since the discussion started. It wouldn't be ideal for me to close as I've '!voted' but its happened before elsewhere and involving others. But if you'd rather sit behind your red tape making sarcastic comments then go for it. Your drivel wasn't warranted or wanted. Kennedy (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes frankly because a no-consensus decision is still a decision. Because frankly a 5-3 vote at the moment is a no-consensus close. And quite clearly from your comment above you would close it as a consensus to unblock. And being that that is how you !voted it would look and probably would be a completely biased close. It wasn't a sarcastic comment. It was a completely serious comment because I don't trust you to make a close in which you have expressed an opinion, because your trustworthiness has been lacking in the past. -DJSasso (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Questioning my ability? Great response. I have been an admin, and crat like you are, and I am still an administrator after gaining trust of the community. So your argument is invalid, sour grapes because you don't trust me. Doesn't worry me what your opinion is DJSasso, your judgement has been discussed before, believe me. And yes, 5-3 is no-consensus to you but no-where did I say that I would be unblocking in a couple of days. I said I'd re-evaluate. Have another look. You interpret that as me wishing to unblock? If I did want to unblock I'd have done it. But no, I took a unbiased look and tried to carry the conversation. What you are doing is stifling it. Your comments are an embarrassment. Kennedy (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No what I was trying to do was in a nice way say that maybe you shouldn't be the one to close it. You know a diplomatic non-aggressive comment to help stop any possible drama that would unfold if you were the one to close it. Instead as per your usual operating method you went straight to an attack and a fight. If you had just said nicely that "you are right, someone uninvolved should be the closer but if one doesn't I am going to have to" then the discussion wouldn't be derailed now would it? Don't blame me because you are looking for a fight with me like you usually do when I say something you don't like. -DJSasso (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Cool it, people - any further and they will be full-blown attacks on either editor:

  • "But if you'd rather sit behind your red tape making sarcastic comments then go for it" -Kennedy
  • "Your comments are an embarrassment." -Kennedy
  • "Don't blame me because you are looking for a fight with me like you usually do" -Djsasso (my emphasis)

If anyone has issues with the conduct of an administrator, please go to WP:RFA, not here. Kennedy's nudge makes sense - the participation here is not reflective of our actual editor numbers. I am also going to leave this open for now, and if in a day or two no one closes this I will close this per UNINVOLVED, since I have acted purely in an administrative capacity so far. Eptalon, Osiris, Peterdownunder and Pmlineditor would also be suitable as uninvolved closing administrator (based on the active admin list), but if neither of us are around and contactable, I trust that any other administrator here is sufficiently level-headed to make a fair judgement. Chenzw  Talk  12:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support him being unblocked, with the usual condition that applies to all editors: Bad behaviour will get warnings, and may lead to him being re-blocked. Perhaps to paraphrase: Just because the church burned down in the village down the stream while he was nearby does not mean that this will happen here too. And asto socking: A regular editor that contributes content has few reasons to use other accounts that are not known to be his (socking).--Eptalon (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That paraphrase is a bit obscuring. Arbcom found him guilty of burning down that church and churches are still catching fire with the exact same signature.. He was not just nearby. --Creol(talk) 13:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this has been held open. There was a non-consensus until Kennedy called for more input. There may have been less of a response because we've discussed all of this so recently. As long as it was held open, it led me to go back and look at Guide to appealing blocks again, especially this part:

  • "Do not attack or accuse other users"
  • "Do not excuse your actions with that of others"
  • "Admit to it"
  • "Make people trust you again. Promise, credibly, that you will stop doing whatever got you blocked."

Based on those 4 of 6 guidelines, I am not convinced. Gotanda (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


Wikidata phase 2?

What is the status of Wikidata phase 2 here? Is it okay for us to start using it in infoboxes? --Rschen7754 07:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. Osiris (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you change any existing templates to use it, please post something here so we'll know (and so those interested, like me, can see how to do it!). --Auntof6 (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made a change to Template:Infobox road - the map parameter now calls Wikidata. This was more or less to see how it worked; I'm not doing any large-scale conversions for now. --Rschen7754 03:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I'll take a look at that. I'm looking forward to seeing us use this more. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

T:TDYK backlogged

As some of you might be aware, T:TDYK is severely backlogged with approximately 40 pending nominations. Please do drop by that page to contribute a review or two. There are some nominations that were made in February, more than 1 month ago. Chenzw  Talk  07:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the two editors who keep adding more could slow down. If we could limit it to 5 or so active nominations per editor, it would be easier to keep up with. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of this writing, there are 51 nominations, seven of them are marked as accepted. If we cannot bring the number down, would it make sense to "categorise" them somewhat (proposed cateogries: people, music/performing arts, animals/nature/natural phenomena,language/literature, drugs/diseases/medicine, others) and to limit the number of proposals per category to 5? - Other option would be to remove hooks that haven't been acted on after two weeks of inactivity. Of course these are just suggestions.--Eptalon (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think categorizing would be a great idea (I think better categories would be people, music/arts, animals/nature/natural phenomena, literature/history (social sciences), science, others...). Two weeks for inactivity is probably a bit too little, leave it to one month? --Snow Blizzard 10:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be OK with categorizing, with the hope that editors don't feel pressured/challenged to have a nomination in each category! The higher-level the category, the better. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A category system is fine, and I think editors should not be taking T:TDYK as a competition of sorts to "see who contributes the most hooks". I am quite concerned that it seems to be headed in this direction presently. Furthermore, contribution of hooks is good, but I think we should also be expecting contributors to review the hooks of others. Chenzw  Talk  15:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before this discussion fades into nothingness again, here are some proposed categories, based on what I can see so far in this discussion:
  • People
  • Music/arts
  • Animals/nature/natural phenomena
  • Social sciences
  • Science
  • Others (for everything else which don't belong in the above?)
Proposed restrictions:
  • No more than 5 nominations per editor at any one time
  • No more than 5 nominations per category
  • Automatic rejection of hook after one month of inactivity
Any thoughts? Yes, I suspect that we will not be implementing all 3 restrictions above. Chenzw  Talk  11:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd definitely support a limit such as the first one you mention (5 per editor). I'm on the fence about the other two. With a limited number per category (no matter how many different editors), I'd hate to see an editor fill up one category and block other editors from nominating there. As for the third one (rejection after a month), I think having the first restriction would help keep the total number easier to keep up with. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 If we settle on the names of the categories, we can introduce the respective headings; we can talk about the other things later on. A small note, tohugh: Category Science implies that the others are unscientific; yet I think we could make the argument that even history, theology, or philosophy follow the scientific method, so we probably need a better title for physics/mathematics/.... ?--Eptalon (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe is it possible to bind the age of the article? I mean only articles less than 1 month(or 3 months) are eligible to be nominated..... That would greatly reduce the load as many most of the nominations come from articles very old. Thanks TheStrikeΣagle 17:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about physical sciences (includes natural phenomena) and life sciences (includes animals/nature)? Chenzw  Talk  03:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow DYK here much so I don't know our exact criteria but on en in order to get a DYK the article has to be expanded in size by 5 times or has to be a brand new article. If we don't have that here we should. -DJSasso (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the time limit is one week. But one week here would be quite less and hence I proposed one or 3 months. TheStrikeΣagle 17:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not so sure if EN's guidelines apply as well to us (that part about requiring 500% expansion or a new article). I am suspecting that a 5x expansion may be too much, but it doesn't really hurt to try. Chenzw  Talk  03:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly.....I agree it would be too much for 5X...so maybe 3X should do. Also limiting the age of the article to 3 or 4 weeks(max) would be enough. The no. of articles created here everyday is pretty low but 4 weeks would surely garner enough noms I think.. TheStrikeΣagle 11:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 The new parameters look fine to me - at least it would encourage the creation/expansion of content. Does anyone else wish to weigh in on this? With the backlog growing it would be good to implement this as soon as possible to stem the tide. Also see my comment above on the categories. Chenzw  Talk  13:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have introduced some categories (which mostly reflect the discussion above), and moved all the current hooks to the respective categories. The relative order of the hooks remains the same, so older hooks are farther down the list. We can still argue about the categories, but for now, there's something workable. Issues I found: People and history overlap somewhat, so where a hook about a person of historical significance should be put is arbitrary. I also found we have some hooks about architecture, which I put with History, rather than with "Engineering". Also introduced a category for drugs and medicine, since there are a few hooks that really fit nowhere else. Other than that: When adding a hook it should be a level 4 heading, and when moving it to the queue, it should probably be promoted to a level 3 (no idea, since I am not involved with moving hooks to queues). In other words, we now have categories, and can discuss the other items, if needed. --Eptalon (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policy Change Proposal

Proposal: To bind the age of articles for DYK noms so as to reduce the backlog and get the DYK noms back to track. According to the new proposal, the required noms for DYK noms would be

  • Article younger than one month
  • Articles expanded 3X in one week are eligible too.
  • Categorization of nominations to avoid confusion (as proposed by Eptalon)
  • All others remain same

Thanks, TheStrikeΣagle 13:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


More restrictions regarding quantity of hooks

Eptalon and I have been discussing this, and we propose the following set of restrictions to keep the influx of nominations in check, and to encourage more reviewing of existing nominations:

  • Maximum of 3 hooks per category per editor
    • (eg. if there are 5 categories in total, each editor can have up to 15 outstanding nominations, but only a maximum of 3 nominations for each category)
  • Non-reviewed hooks will expire after 2 weeks

On that note, the current category system is not perfect as it allows for some overlaps, so any input on this would be welcome. Chenzw  Talk  14:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me... --Eptalon (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about 1 or 2 per editor per category? Even with that, there are so many categories that one or two editors could still flood the page. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it takes time to review hooks, so if you have two up, you need to wait for others to review them. At the moment, the idea is also to get the backlog cleared. Only when that is done can we realistically assess what other steps to take (including how many nominations to allow per editor per category).--Eptalon (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the problem. Are you saying you don't want editors to have to wait so much? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Is there a current limit on this? I just noticed that the edit notice says 5 max. I didn't remember a limit being decided, but if there is one, we have an editor with many more than that who's continuing to add more. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All there is currentlyis Chenzw and me agreeing, and the need to get the number of hooks down. Please be patient, let's take one step at a time. There's also a plan to develop a bot to make this more manageable, but this takes time... --Eptalon (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've still not got time to comment in depth on this issue, but I want to make a quick comment for two reasons: firstly, to ensure that this discussion doesn't get archived, and, secondly, to just clarify that we have 'enacted' the 'five hook maximum' rule? If so, I shall start enforcing it as one way of reducing the backlog. Goblin 21:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

Evaluation of categories

Hello, I think we will soon need to look at the "categories" where hooks can be filed. Currently we have

  1. People
  2. Music/Arts
  3. Animals/Nature/Natural phenomena
  4. Literature/History/Architecture
  5. Engineering
  6. Drugs/Medicine
  7. Other

Right now, there are 20 hooks in people, eight each in Literature and Others, four each in Music and Animals, three in Drugs and one in Engineering.I know its too early to comment, as the full backlog hasn't cleared yet, but the discussion about the categories needs to be undertaken. Personally, I would like to see categories that are equally popular. I am also unhappy about "People". No one is notable for being a person, usually their notability derives from something they did (which can then be classified elsewhere). So, the discussion is open (btw: avoid changing categories before we at least reached some kind of agreement, so that we don't shoot a moving target). --Eptalon (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

display issues at Special:RecentChanges

The text in the navbox at the top of Special:RecentChanges isn't wrapping like it usually does. This is making the rest of the page appear in tiny text. This happened before. I don't remember who fixed it, but could someone take a look? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T41617
The code in MediaWiki:Common.css was overwritten yesterday, so it's most likely caused by that. I'm looking into it. Might be able to find a solution in the coding of the template itself. If you see any other navboxes looking like that let us know. Osiris (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed for now. It's only a problem in the Special namespace. Should be able to work around it pretty easily. Osiris (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible duplicate categories

Could someone tell me what the difference is (if any) between Category:Muslims and Category:Islamic people? Is it a question of religion vs. ethnicity? Both categories are under Category:People by religion. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They look the same to me. And if they're not the same (if the purposes were different), one of them needs to be renamed because they mean the same thing. Osiris (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been bold and replaced Category:Islamic people with Category:Muslims throughout, turning the former into a soft redirect. This choice matches both the other subcats of simple.wiki's Category:People by religion and matches simple.wiki. --– Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Philosopher. I agree with your reasoning. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I changed it to a category redirect. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shabbat article

Would one of the experienced hands mind looking at my draft for the article Shabbat at my sandbox? I'm mainly concerned about Simple-ness; I'm comfortable with the content per se. I'd appreciate another eye before I publish. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have started to look at it, and already made a few changes to your sandbox (just rephrased what was already there). One item that needs checking are the links to the Torah. These should come from an official body (and be "official" translations, if possible). I am aware that there may be more interpretations, since there are different possible translations from one language to the other). I am sure there is an association of rabbis providing "decent" English translations. Re-phrasing these translations in simpler words is fine. --Eptalon (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, thanks for your assistance. I responded to some other points at Talk:Shabbat#Comments.
Concerning links to the Torah ... as I've been writing, this has gotten lengthy, so I'm going to move my response on that subject to Talk:Shabbat as well. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need help merging

If anyone has an interest, the pages 2011 Libyan civil war and 2011 Libyan protests need merging and copyediting. It's beyond me today. Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had a go at it. The second article was mostly about the protests, so it fit nicely within the first section. See what you think. I have doubts about the accuracy of the information, but maybe hopefully that update tag at the top of it will inspire somebody to rework it. Osiris (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CHU is about to become irrelevant, in case nobody told you guys

See [3]. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There also seems to be some sort of issue/problem with importing, which I know is done a lot here. I'm not usre I get it, but it is under discussion at meta on the talk page of the announcement. I think the gist of it is that you should probably stop importing stuff until after SUL finalization. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issues associated with importing have always been there. Any imports made before the SUL finalisation, no matter how old, will still potentially contain misattributed edits. Revisions that are imported after the finalisation will be conflict-free, because everyone (and their edits) will have a unique name. Osiris (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this has been delayed per this post to the Wikitech-ambassadors mailing list. Direct any questions to m:Talk:Single User Login finalisation announcement. πr2 04:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist changes

I noticed a couple of changes on my watchlist.

  • Changes since the last time I looked at a page are no longer in bold.
  • There's no longer a button to mark all pages visited.

Has anyone heard if these changes are permanent? I don't see a setting that affects this. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also caused by the overwrite to MediaWiki:Common.css. The previous style is the default on the current MediaWiki deployment. But the overwrite was copied from the English Wikipedia, which opted to make that style optional (through en:MediaWiki:Gadget-WatchlistChangesBold.css). We can do the same, or continue to the previous as default and have the opposite (no bold) as a gadget. For now, it's probably best to remove the code that disables it and revert to the default until there's support for a change. Osiris (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You'll also notice that the [change] buttons for sections have been left-aligned now. Osiris (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I knew that was coming. I did notice, though, that I no longer have the change button for the top section of articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is now a gadget for if you don't like where the edit links are now to move them back to the old location. And there has always been one for putting an edit link at the top of the first section. Might want to check if you disabled that somehow in your preferences on the gadget tab. -DJSasso (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was announce FWIW: m:Change to section edit links. πr2 04:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I got pulled away from the computer and completely forgot to enable that gadget and have done so now so if you want back that functionality you can enable it in your preferences. I have no opinion on if it should be default or not. But our Common.css really should be as close to en as possible because of the huge amount of stuff that gets copied over from there (templates etc.) and it makes it alot harder to get those things working properly or more importantly maintaining them if we aren't coded the same way at that level. Although in this case its a gadget issue so not as big a deal. -DJSasso (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have it working the way it was. I have no problem with having to set an option. I could even live with losing the functionality -- I definitely understand needing ease of maintenance. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simple English is getting less and less simple

Some years ago I gladly recommended Simple English Wikipedia to my English learners, but I feel it is getting less and less simple. I don't know what to do about this - change every single article? Is anyone watching over this? 188.98.241.34 (talk)

Do you have an actual example so we can look at the issue and see the change from then and now? -DJSasso (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would also agree with increasing complexity, and this is due to many factors, not least is the increasing complexity of topics covered. While this is a feeling, not based on evidence, I do not think we should ignore it. I think what we can take from this is to make sure that we keep being "simple" as the main focus, go back and study the wordlists, make sure that new editors are aware of being simple, make sure our experienced editors are leading by example, and be ready use the complex tag. It is good for all groups to go back and make sure they are doing what they were set up to do. Keep it simple.--Peterdownunder (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing this up. I agree. Sometimes it seems that editors get away from being simple as their English skills improve. That's understandable, but it isn't what we want here. (I am also concerned about the number of pages written in bad English, but that's a different issue.) I feel like a nag when I point out non-simple wording (sometimes to the same editors multiple times), so sometimes I don't bother. It gets old simplifying the new articles of the same editors again and again. Anyway, count me in on any efforts to improve this. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still a newbie here, but I agree, too. It's why I ask for help; I know I'm not there yet.
Someone nominated University of Cambridge at WP:GAN. It's an adaptation of the article from enwiki. It's very nice. It's simpler than the article at enwiki. And I could probably support it as a GA, except ... it's really not Simple English yet. So it can't be a GA here. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Too many articles are too complex. Often articles based on English Wikipedia are not simplified enough. The University of Cambridge article is a good example of this problem. I've never been shy about using the Complex tag, but some people disliked that. The problem is, it is so much easier to copy/adapt an article from En that it is to really simplify it. Copying over and making a few changes takes minutes. Really simplifying takes hours. So, the copied articles expand, but simplification follows much more slowly. Gotanda (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My pet examples are Orbital hybridization and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which differ little, and with very little simplification, from their en versions. I am without clue as to what to do about it. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In some articles such as complex scientific topics the language will be pretty close to the same as on English wikipedia because some scientific subjects require it. That being said we can definitely take a look at those articles and see what we can do about them, Orbital hybridixation was created by someone we had an issue with in the past not creating simple articles, however its been worked on by someone else a lot since then so there is probably something that can be done there. -DJSasso (talk) 12:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An editor that many of us think quite highly of has been doing a lot of work on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle recently, too. Give that article some time.
That said, the whole question of what is and isn't appropriate here, compared to enwiki (for example) is one that requires continual review and discussion. We often say that simple does not mean short, and that it can be appropriate to cover complex topics here. On the other hand, we're trying to write an encyclopedia here, not a textbook. So how far one should really go in such matters is a darned good question.
I often think of enwiki as trying to be the free, open-source, etc., analogue of Encyclopædia Brittanica, while simplewiki is more the free, open-source, etc., analogue of en:The World Book Encyclopedia. Maybe those characterizations are right, maybe not quite, but it's a start. At the same time, if you look at a topic like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, you could easily see that ...
  • Some content is appropriate for World Book or for simplewiki
  • Some content is too much for the above, but appropriate for Brittanica or for enwiki
  • Some content is too much for even that, and should be reserved for textbooks. If you want to write one of those as a free, open-source resource, the place to do it is Simple English Wikibooks or English Wikibooks, not Wikipedia of any flavor.
Just my two cents, or tuppence, or what have you. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with some of the comments above. On technical subjects one does need to know the subject-matter, because simplification is a balance between prose editing and content accuracy. And it does take time, more than many editors are willing to give. We have had some people bring over large numbers of pages and leave them more or less untouched. Then we face the problem of whether to delete them. Personally, I would advocate barring unregistered or inexperienced editors bringing over more than the lead section of articles until admins decided they were trustworthy. That would save us a lot of grief. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting idea that I had never thought of before. -DJSasso (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That would be an excellent idea. Needs a little detail for implementation, but yes. I got very tired of pushing back against the copy-paste tide at times. Gotanda (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The one thing we would need to keep in mind is that there are articles on en.wiki that are already simple so it would still be appropriate to bring them over without much if any change. There is a tendency to automatically qd tag any that are copy pasted. But if it is attributed properly and is not complex it is a valid article still. (this message isn't directed to anyone in particular) -DJSasso (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We could see an "intro-only for unreg or new users" as part of a 'new users' program. This might include encouraging new users to make suggestions on talk pages rather than just blasting ahead. Many never use article talk pages at all. On a talk page they could say "The rest of the article is quite simple also..." if they wanted permission to go ahead.
Another angle is the expert person from English wiki. I expect we have all noticed how expert medical people from English wiki have landed us with pages we can't simplify because we just don't know enough about the subject. Similarly for some of the science topics like chemistry. It's not that we want to stop them editing, far from it, it's that we want them to get the message, and to fully accept it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A question

If you create an account, what other things can you do, and are there complications?76.200.132.87 (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there are any complications. en:Wikipedia:Why create an account? explains the technical benefits (some of them are different from this wiki, simple.wikipedia). But there are numerous moral advantageous that are not explained in that page.
It will help you, other editors here, and the project. If you create an account, you can use it across all the sister projects of Wikipedia.
A month ago, I posted a message at meta:talk:Editor engagement experiments#Convert the IP editors explaining that edit intro is useless for goodfaith editors who have not created an account so far. But no one has replied (and perhaps no one will ever!)
Thanks and regards.···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 00:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) See en:Wikipedia:Why create an account? -DJSasso (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting community for input

Hello everyone I would really appreciate it if anyone can submit a review on the Selena article which is currently at WP:PVGOOD. Thanks, jonatalk to me 00:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with RfD template

On the pages nominated for deletion, the link to the discussion isn't working. As an example, on The Impact of ICT on Individuals, the link to "the discussion" is in red. I haven't checked them all, but the ones I spot-checked were all like that. Can someone take a look? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have edited Template:Rfd-notice, then please test it. Has it been fixed? curtaintoad | chat me! 09:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't the template Auntof6 is referring to. That template is only used on user talk pages, and appears to be functioning fine. Would you please undo your change? Osiris (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fine now. Osiris (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, looks good now, thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed by Chenzw. curtaintoad | chat me! 09:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, actually Osiris fixed it. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the undo change. curtaintoad | chat me! 11:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle

The toad who wants help is back... and needs lots of help with the following Twinkle-related thing. If this problem is urgent, please place {{Template:Helpme}} to the top of the section. Curtaintoad's problems can take up to months.

Hello. I go to the Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences to fix my Twinkle script; however, I restore my preferences and reload/hold keys, but I don't see my new Twinkle script. Can you guys and gals please tell me how do I get my new Twinkle script? Thanks, and please send me a TB. Curtaintoad (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me what did you do? Point by point and tell me what kind of change you are expecting?--Pratyya (Hello!) 10:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I go to the Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences to fix my Twinkle script, clear my preferences in my settings and hold a key per WP:BYPASS, but it doesn't seem to work. What do I do?--curtaintoad | chat me! 10:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey don't clear your preference. It is not working. I mean your twinkleoption.js. So go to your Special:Preference and enable twinkle there. -- Pratyya (Hello!) 10:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. It's working for myself!. You copy my twinkleoption.js and paste that to your twinkleoption.js. See whether it works or not? Then reply here.--Pratyya (Hello!) 10:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. But I have Twinkle enabled. What happened?
  2. Thanks Pratyya Ghosh, this should work.

curtaintoad | chat me! 11:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it has fixed yet. Any questions? curtaintoad | chat me! 11:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
And I'm not sure if it works with QD log also... curtaintoad | chat me! 11:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC) ?[reply]
Also what is my "browser cache"? Because I am not quite sure. curtaintoad | chat me! 05:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fact please give me a link to it. curtaintoad | chat me! 06:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Press the Shift key and click the reload. or Ctrl+Shift+F5

On my page my twinkleoption.js is working and it's normal.--Pratyya (Hello!) 06:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Sorry curtaintoad | chat me! 06:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nothing. You enable twinkle from your Special:Preference.--Pratyya (Hello!) 07:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A while back there was an issue where Twinkle wasn't working just from being enabled through the settings. I was advised to add the following line to the .js file for the skin I use (that's different from the twinkleoptions.js file):

mw.loader.load(['ext.gadget.Twinkle']);

After that, it worked. Try that and report back. You might have to bypass your cache. If you don't know how to do that, sometimes it works just to completely shut down your browser then get back in. What browser do you use? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is working! curtaintoad | chat me! 10:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I currently contribute using Windows 7, I have just shut down my computer and then I turned it back on again. So do it work then? It should work. curtaintoad | chat me! 10:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it working for you now? --Auntof6 (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; however, only part of it. Do I have to wait a few days until it works? Because that happened very recently to my twinkle script. curtaintoad | chat me! 12:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't have to wait. What isn't working? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, you don't need to leave me a talkback note. I watch this page, so I will see if you reply. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have waited for a few days, but it works now. curtaintoad | chat me! 07:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good, glad to hear it. It's such a useful tool. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template issue

The mountain range infobox is not displaying elevations properly, as can be seen on the Allegheny Mountains article. This only seems to occur if the elevation is provided in feet; in articles where the elevation is provided in meters the issue does not occur (see Kelly Hills). Can someone with a better understanding of the template/mediawiki syntax take a look to see what's going on? –Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 18:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should be okay now. Osiris (talk) 06:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tech newsletter: Subscribe to receive the next editions

Latest Tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes.
Recent software changes
(Not all changes will affect you.)
Future software changes
  • The next version of MediaWiki (version 1.22/wmf5) will be added to Wikimedia sites starting on May 27. [14]
  • An updated version of Notifications, with new features and fewer bugs, will be added to the English Wikipedia on May 23. [15]
  • The final version of the "single user login" (which allows people to use the same username on different Wikimedia wikis) is moved to August 2013. The software will automatically rename some usernames. [16]
  • A new discussion system for MediaWiki, called "Flow", is under development. Wikimedia designers need your help to inform other users, test the prototype and discuss the interface. [17].
  • The Wikimedia Foundation is hiring people to act as links between software developers and users for VisualEditor. [18]
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Unsubscribe • 21:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Important note: This is the first edition of the Tech News weekly summaries, which help you monitor recent software changes likely to impact you and your fellow Wikimedians.

If you want to continue to receive the next issues every week, please subscribe to the newsletter. You can subscribe your personal talk page and a community page like this one. The newsletter can be translated into your language.

You can also become a tech ambassador, help us write the next newsletter and tell us what to improve. Your feedback is greatly appreciated. guillom 21:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox cleaning

The operator of User:RileyBot has retired, and I'm not sure whether it is going to keep cleaning the sandboxes. It looks to have stopped some time in the last couple of days. Osiris (talk) 05:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should ask the original guy to come back and keep doing it. He should have never been asked to stop so some new guy could do it that had no history here. -DJSasso (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody asked him to stop for that reason, I think he just stopped; there are at least two other tasks which Chris G handled that are still bot-less since he left. I'll ask him, though. It would be good if we can get all three back. Osiris (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted a request at en:User talk:Chris G. Osiris (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm available to take up the task if there are any problems (I currently do the task on a few other wikis).  Hazard-SJ  ✈  21:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No he was actually asked I believe. I think by Riley. I remember reading the request and thinking it was a bad idea. -DJSasso (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually Osiris who left the note on Chris G's talk page, and it didn't ask him to stop the task.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  21:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't the note I am talking about but either way I'd prefer his bots back since they are proven reliable but if that's not an option then whoever as long as they are someone active here and not a once in a blue moon editor because it will likely just cause the same thing to happen. -DJSasso (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris has responded, and it doesn't look like he wants to do it. However, RileyBot has started up again since then. No idea how long that will last. If you want to take over, Hazard, I think it'd be preferrable to leaving it the hands of a retired user. Osiris (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to submit the request now, since it seems the bot stopped again.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  03:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Please post a note to Riley as well, and if he doesn't respond I'd say we should probably block the bot in case it decides to start up a third time. Osiris (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done  Hazard-SJ  ✈  03:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just talked to Riley. The intermittent failures are coming from the bot's IP being blocked globally. He still has interest in maintaining his bots. I'm working with him to solve the issue right now.— Hello! 13:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
RileyBot now has global IP block exempt. It should run normally again.— Hello! 13:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

ABCP arch

This looks like advertising to me. While the talk page says its for a school project, I think it needs to be moved to userspace. The wiki isn't for school projects. Its for reputable and notable topics. On the other hand, if the awards check out and are verified, it should be created over at EN also. I'm bring the conversation here to not offend any ongoing work to the article by the students. Synergy 01:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does have a promotional tone. Know, though, that we do host organized class projects here. That's why we have the class project template. You could put a note on the article talk page to let the student know the tone is not appropriate. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see you editing again, Synergy (although you left as I was joining). Welcome back! PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for being listed in year articles under births, deaths, etc.

I'm seeing the following comment in the births and deaths sections of year articles:

Please DO NOT add anybody with less than nine non-English language Wikipedia articles. Any subject that is listed who has less than nine non-English language Wikipedia articles will be deleted. Thanks.

First, this doesn't even make sense, but are there any requirements along those lines at all? I don't think there should be, and I'd like to remove those comments. What say ye? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly has never been discussed during the last five years. --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be in favor of removing those comments. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favor of removing those comments. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should be "fewer than", right? PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although I wouldn't bother with a mass change to fix just that. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages

I have been working on resolving links to disambiguation pages ("dab pages"). This work is made harder by the fact that many of the dab pages here are more like lists of dictionary definitions than they are like links to pages a reader might be looking for. Is that (the former) what we want with dab pages here? If so, that's fine. If not, I'd like to do more work on cleaning them up and/or removing the ones that can't be made to direct readers to other articles. Comments? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not all things on dab pages will be links to articles. The point of dab pages is to list out the different uses/meanings of the word. So for example if a character in a popular novel uses the same name as a couple real people you would still list that on the page even if they would never have an article because the character is recognizable and a likely search term but perhaps not notable on his own. Though usually the book is linked to that they are in, but not always. And some disambiguation pages will have a dictionary type definition at the top of the page. Or a comment about being a surname etc. There are a number of different situations where this is common. -DJSasso (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, then the purpose of dab pages here is different from what I'm used to on enwiki. Am I understanding that correctly? I could work with that, but there might not be be as much point in trying to resolve links to dab pages because some of the things on them would never be links (much less articles). I'd still like to hear from others on this. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No that is how it works on en.wiki. But you would still clear links to the dab pages. But not all links to them are incorrect you are right. Trying to think of some examples on en.wiki off the top of my head but I am coming up blank. I see them fairly often when they are bio dab pages due to the character example I mentioned above. See them less often with other topics. Do you have an example of one here that you are talking about? -DJSasso (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for one. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about Interim? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

common.js

Hi. I just added a small common.js file to my namespace to give me ready access to my pages at Meta, Commons and Wikidata through the Toolbox. However, it seems to be working inconsistently. When I actually navigate to that page, I see my changes in the Toolbox. On the edit page where I am as I type this, I also see the changes. However, in normal read mode on normal pages I don't. I've flushed the cache. I've bypassed the cache. I've purged the page cache. What am I doing wrong? Or is that functionality disabled here? StevenJ81 (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just tested it for myself and it's working okay. I have no idea, sorry. Osiris (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, mine seems to work fine in all Talk namespaces and in Special namespace, and not elsewhere. StevenJ81 (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh technology. You can plan it, organise it, code it, test it as much as you like but sometimes it just does whatever it wants to. Kennedy (talk) 11:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL!
Seriously, though, do you have any thoughts on this? I'm now nearly certain that the problem is limited to simplewiki in some way, as I have installed the same common.js file at enwiki, frwiki, Wikidata and Meta, and it works just fine in all of those places. Could it be an interfering gadget somehow? I'm not a programmer–someone else showed me how to do this–so I have no idea how to figure it out. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What skin are you using? What browser? PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using Vector in Firefox. StevenJ81 (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Try User:PiRSquared17/common.js. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That worked! Thanks. Now, I'm not a programmer, but can you give me a sense of what you did differently?
Also, while I'm asking: Is it possible to create a new portlet there and have these links live there, instead? (I'm only asking if the answer is really obvious, not to ask you to do more than you've already done.) StevenJ81 (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why it works while the other didn't, but I can tell you what I did differently. I used jQuery $(document).ready instead of addOnloadHook, I put all the addPortletLinks in one load function instead of a separate onload for each, and I used new functionalities (addPortletLink is deprecated, mw.util.addPortletLink does almost the same thing, same with addOnLoadHook vs $(document).ready), and I changed "http://" to the protocol-relative "//" so it works on https://simple.wikipedia.org as well. Not sure if this list is comprehensible.
Yes, it is possible to add a portlet in the sidebar (if I understood you correctly). Try User:PiRSquared17/common.js (it's a hack, might not work in all skins). PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Works perfectly, so far here, enwiki and Wikidata. Thanks for all your help! You are truly a well-rounded contributor! StevenJ81 (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need template experts help

I am trying to transfer this template to Template:History of Video Games. However, when I do the template is bundled up. Anyone know how to fix this? Thanks, jonatalk to me 16:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you should know that it was renamed Template:History of video games per WP:MOS.
Beside that, what do you mean by "bundled up"? Do you mean that it starts closed, with only the title bar showing? That's generally desired behavior for this type of template, so that the template does not always take up a lot of space. And that's especially true here at simple, when so many of the links start as red links. If there were a single article History of video games, it might be appropriate to put this template in as {{History of video games|state=expanded}}, so it would automatically appear opened. Usually, though, it is best to let it start closed and open it up if/when you want. StevenJ81 (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
um.. actually, I fixed it. I was a bit busy and forgot to toss a  Done up here before I moved on to my next tasks. It was bundled up pretty bad as are a lot of navigation templates brought over from en:wp that use the list format. Its a width issue, not a collapse issue. Something in our css doesn't translate them very well so a slight conversion was needed. --Creol(talk) 15:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Never mind. (;-) StevenJ81 (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those listclass values on the navboxes should work okay from now on. We were using old code on {{navbox subgroups}}, but I updated it. Any future imports with bulleted lists should work fine. Osiris (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thank you guys! Best, jonatalk to me 19:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A question from a newcomer

Hi! I'm Leopardfoot, a new user. Could someone tell me how to make my talk page?--Leopardfoot (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left you a welcome page with some reading. I think this also says how to write articles/talk pages. Don't be afraid to ask, if you have problems... Welcome, and happy editing here.--Eptalon (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New WikiProject - Australia

I have created WikiProject Australia and a userbox. Dbromage (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another question

When I tried to create an account, I saw this message: "Incorrect or missing confirmation code." What is a confirmation code?76.200.128.93 (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what it is in this context. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a CAPTCHA... but I wasn't even aware we used them? Kennedy (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

policy/guideline about using categories in userspace

Can someone point me to the policy or guideline about not having categories in userspace? A user is threatening to have me blocked if I keep disabling the categories on his user page, and I'd like to point him to the guideline/policy. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what the categories are. If they are categories meant for articles then they shouldn't be on a userpage. If they are categories meant for users then they can be on a userpage. I can't think of the appropriate guideline off the top of my head however. -DJSasso (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably one of the more relevant: Wikipedia:User pages#What can I have on my user page? - "Wikipedian categories should not overlap with article categories." Chenzw  Talk  13:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you. Yes, I meant categories meant for articles. The guideline you link, Chenzw, doesn't explicitly say you can't have article categories on a user page: you have to read between the lines to get that. However, in the next section, it gives me exactly what I was looking for: "Do not put your userpage or subpages, including work-in-progress articles, into categories used by Wikipedia articles." Thanks for helping me find that! --Auntof6 (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article 100,000

Our project currently has 99,999 articles. Soon we'll reach the 100,000 mark. Are we going to celebrate this milestone? If yes, how? LlamaAl (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever we do or don't do, let's make the number more meaningful by not rushing to get there, and not trying to be the one who makes the 100,000th article. A while back we had people trying to hurry up and get there, and we ended up with a lot of mass-produced articles of dubious quality. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is true. Synergy 15:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should we have a logo for 100,000 article (like eswiki does for 1,000,000)? PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we do PiRSquared17. I check the stats every 24 hours. Plus we get about 25 to 75 more articles every 24 hours. I think we should cross the milestone between 3 to 8 days. That is May 30 to June 4. English Wikpedia has the article name guess game of the milestone article. Whoever guesses the closest name the the milestone article is the winner. Should we do this to? 24.218.110.195 (talk) 21:34 26 May 2013 (UTC) 5:34pm 05/26/2013 EDT.
I would support that. LlamaAl (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would say no on putting it in the logo. Their logo is very gaudy and jarring. -DJSasso (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the only disadvantages of milestone logos Djsasso? Take a look at most milestone logos here (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_commemorative_logos). Tell me what other disadvantages you see over there. So for milestone logo supporters you can start from scratch or make one based on others at the link above. 24.218.110.195 (talk) 20:01 27 May 2013 (UTC) 4:01pm 05/27/2013 EDT.
Well personally I don't see the point. As we are ever growing the logo is essentially out of date immediately. But assuming we keep it on just as a celebration at what point do you take it down? When you hit the next milestone? If so then again I think it takes a nice logo and makes it look unprofessional for no reason other than bragging. -DJSasso (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You take down the milestone logo after 2 days (48 hours) to 5 days (120 hours) Djsasso. When other Wikipedias hit their milestone logos they take it down after that amount of time. I see the average is about 85 hours. The times i mention is the time after crossing the milestone. 24.218.110.195 (talk) 00:09 29 May 2013 (UTC) 8:09pm 05/28/2013 EDT.

Supporting Booth

Well we are so close to the milestone. We need to get supporters. Posting a comment? Do that above this section. Start a new row and write down your name. Plus put a yes in the column you wish to support. (Feel free to add your suggestions to the table.) 24.218.110.195 (talk) 21:44 27 May 2013 (UTC) 5:44pm 05/27/2013 EDT.

Don't forget the time and update total count when supporting. This supporting closes once we reach 99,925 articles for the logo and 99,950 for the game. Game closes once we reach 99,990 articles. 24.218.110.195 (talk) 23:58 28 May 2013 (UTC) 7:58pm 05/28/2013 EDT.
We had already crossed the milestone of 100,000 articles. All supporting has now closed, as all of the table is marked red. 24.218.110.195 (talk) 20:41 29 May 2013 (UTC) 4:41pm 05/29/2013 EDT.
Your user name and time voted Logo article name guess game from en.wiki Ignore the games and get back to creating content
24.218.110.195 (talk) 21:44 27 May 2013 (UTC) 5:44pm 05/27/2013 EDT. Yes Yes
Creol (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] Yes
Auntof6 (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] Yes
StevenJ81 (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC): I would put a banner notice like the one on Yiddish Wikipedia for a brief time. That's all.[reply] Yes
Djsasso (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC): I have no problem with a site banner for a short time (say a month) but nothing more than that.[reply] Yes
Total count 1 1 4

Some pages have a "Related pages" section, others have "Other pages". I noticed it because I'm trying to parse all articles and find their related pages, and this fact raised some issues... -- Bluekuma (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our standard used to be to use "Other pages", but it was changed to "Related pages". That is for other pages on this Wiki. "Other websites" is used the way English Wikipedia uses "External links". What do you mean when you say you're trying to "find their related pages"? --Auntof6 (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you'll see other headings like "See also", "See", and probably others, because 1) not everyone knows the standard and 2) it's left over from bring articles here from English Wikipedia. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using the API to parse a page and find the interwiki links under the section "Related pages". Doing this for all pages I built a network, that I'm currently studying. It's for a graph-theory project at university. I think I'll have to switch to some other wiki though, since there's no consistency in how the section is named. I'm looking for the section called "See also" in English wikipedia. -- Bluekuma (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bored

Hey guys, I'm bored now... I don't really have much to do. Can you please tell what things and tools I can use to help improve Wikipedia like addings, redirects, categories, and do some regular cleanup. But do you have any jobs for me and can I please do them? Thanks, curtaintoad | chat me! 12:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well the best way you can help is by writing articles. We have a small wiki so we don't have as much of that kind of gnome work as en.wiki has. I mean there always is some to do but its not a backlog type situation. -DJSasso (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia backlog has about 10K pages that need attention.. and its a variety of different things (refs, simplifying, wikifying, copy editing, birth dates, etc.. ) so it's easy to find something to keep you interested. (I tend to do infobox repairs and images daily so those areas are usually pretty low) --Creol(talk) 13:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion, that is basically what I meant by working on articles. Those sorts of fixes are always really appreciated. -DJSasso (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or if you'd rather be a writer (rather, summarizer / rewriter) there's Wikipedia:Most wanted articles. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to add categories related to the year things started? For example, for a company (or sports club, or certain other things) that started in 1968, you would add Category:1968 establishments. There are lots of kinds of things you could check to see if they need this -- companies of all kinds, schools, sports clubs, musical groups and bands, organizations, etc. Certain kinds of things do NOT go in these categories, like television series, so make sure you're looking at things that do go in them. For an example of an article that has an establishment year category, you can look at Dallas Stars.

If the category you need to add doesn't exist yet, add it to the article anyway. Then you could either create the category or just leave it red and I or someone else will find it later. If you do create it, please be sure to set it up the standard way, not by manually putting it into other categories like we do most of the time. Also, these establishment year categories can be created with only one or two entries, which is different from most of our categories. How does that sound? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! curtaintoad | chat me! 11:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Everyone, congratulations. We reached a huge milestone: 100,000 articles, the 100,000th of which seems to be Codex Huamantla. Let's continue making the encyclopedia better and bigger! -Mh7kJ (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding!
Per the supporting booth above, the most that there is consensus for is a site banner. Someone up there said "for a month", but given that it is May 29 today, let's round that off to "end of June". I don't know how to do that; can someone take it on? StevenJ81 (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff, but please can we have no banner? Subtlety is a virtue... Kennedy (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with no banner...I just meant the most I would be ok with would be one. But I am especially against changing the logo. -DJSasso (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Myself, I think a banner for a month would be fun. Subtlety often is a virtue, but sometimes it's also worth publicizing a worthwhile cause. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget to mention this on Meta (Wikimedia News I think?) and wikimedia-l. :) --Rschen7754 20:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! (it's on Wikimedia News) PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Does anyone know exactly what's included in that count? For example, does it include talk pages? User pages? Templates? Redirects? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, none of those. Just all mainspace pages that are not redirects. Osiris (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tab to en.wiki version of page

A few years ago someone asked for some code to make a link on their menubar to the en.wiki version of a page. At the time someone gave some out which I have used for the last couple years but I never felt it worked well because I had to go to a drop down menu to access it so felt interwikis worked better.

However I have now modified some code from Kumioko on en.wiki that I think works better by putting a tab right on the top of your page. If you want to try it out put the following code in your Vector.js (may work on other skins as well haven't tried).

importScript('User:Djsasso/enWPTab.js');

-DJSasso (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Thanks. I actually cut-and-pasted it into my vector.js, because I wanted it to read "enWiki" instead of "English". But it works great. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can change the label to whatever people like. The benefit of doing it the way I mention is that if I do some code updates (which are likely since a few things probably need tweaking) you will get them automatically. But yeah if you just copy it thats cool too. :) -DJSasso (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, and will probably switch it back. I was just playing a little.
Actually, though, one thing people need to keep in mind: If the page is not named exactly the same way in en as in simple, the tab is equivalent to a red link. So the tab that appears on the top of WP:Simple talk, for example, doesn't lead to en:WP:Village pump. It leads to en:WP:Simple talk, which doesn't exist. The interwikis map true in that regard. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be part of the tweaks I mentioned. Trying to figure out if I can grab data from wikidata to do it via interwikis. :) But yes as it stands like the old code it only does it via exact same name. This code as it stands is more for a quick check as opposed to having to go search out the interwiki. -DJSasso (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Switched back to "import script."
  2. For those interested, I put a tweaked version of this at wikt:User:StevenJ81/enwiktab.js that you can use in your vector.js on Simple English Wiktionary. (DJSasso: I'm not a programmer and am not going to play with it. Let me know whenever you think your version here is sufficiently upgraded for me to recopy it over there. And I'm not sure they're going to use Wikidata at all over there, so maybe this is just going to stay the way it is.) StevenJ81 (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for Simple Wikipedia Oversight

I have been working on an ambitious project called WikiProject_Medicine. The overall goal of the project is to take the top 80 Wikipedia medical articles and translate them into 80 languages. This project has been ongoing for quite a while.

In addition to this work, I have been asked to take the abstracts of each of the 80 articles and provide a Simplified English version for Simple Wikipedia. We posted a very small handful of simplified articles, but were told by the community that they are not simple enough. At that point, we halted our efforts so that we could regroup.

We are ready to move forward now. However, I think it would be really helpful to have someone well-versed in the Simple Wikipedia community provide a bit of oversight to make sure that we are adding value. If someone would volunteer to speak with my editors before we begin, perhaps we will avoid making common mistakes. We have all read the pages on how to write for Simple Wikipedia. But based on our prior experience, we are a bit nervous to start without a conversation.

Is this the correct place to ask for that type of help? If not, is there someplace else I should be looking or posting? I am very new to Wikipedia so apologies in advance if I've done something wrong!

Thank you! Valswisher (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just a touch new to oversee, myself, but you've certainly come to the right place to ask. I'm sure you will find help here. StevenJ81 (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And here's a good example where visiting editors have brought over huge amounts of highly technical material and left it in a quite unsuitable state. Don't bring it over if you can't handle it yourself. Don't imagine we have the people or the time to do the work: we don't. See if you can simplify the lead sections; that would be something. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to help you and your team develop articles in Simple English, but it is not an easy task. However, lets talk and work out how it can be done.--Peterdownunder (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're part of the team as a Wikipedian. As some one trying to put English Wikipedia content on Simple Wikipedia at the moment, it is really hard. (Simple English technically has no word for skiing based on what I can tell.) Small projects always have a challenge with a shortage of manpower. If people want to make this happen, interested Wiki Med people are going to need to be the ones who do it: they cannot rely on Simple Wikipedia administrators to work it out and make it so. (Just like showing up on any Wikinews project and saying "We want more medical news. Let us make it so." Interested writers just do not exist unless Wiki Med activates them to participate in the context of the project guidelines.) --LauraHale (talk) 02:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that WPMED is wiling to do the work, but they need some help in understanding what to do. "Make it, you know, simpler" is not helpful. "See that compound-complex sentence? Try using only simple declarative statements with a subject-verb-object format" or "Paste your text into this tool, and it will highlight all the words that aren't in the Simple English vocabulary" would be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This tool is excellent if you use Firefox, as it highlights all non simple words: Simple English dictionary --Peterdownunder (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:2013 main page redesign proposal

Hi I think the main page needs new design because it looks old and outdated I would like to open Wikipedia:2013 main page redesign proposal for the community to create and suggest new features and new design for the main page. Paladox2014 (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our mainpage was fairly recently redesigned. This is a "new" version. But feel free to create a design proposal in your user space to show us. You never know. -DJSasso (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ok please check [20] it is not finish but please check to give feedback and to know know if I need to make it simple and to remove bits and to add bits Paladox2014 (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I copied your proposal to your userspace (here) so you can see what needs to be worked on. Simplification is obviously needed as Simple English is what language is not English. Many parts would also need to be removed as they do not and likely will never exist here. Most of the proposal will need a major reworking before it is ready to be considered. --Creol(talk) 15:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As Creol mentions most of it will have to be Simplified because we are not English wikipedia we are Simple English wikipedia. And you will have to cut out a number of the sections as we don't use them here and as he says we likely won't ever use them here. (in the news, on this day, featured picture, todays article for improving etc.) -DJSasso (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ok do are we allowed to use the Mediawiki: namespace because the header uses the codes in the Mediawiki common.css Paladox2014 (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
could I ask the community to also edit User:Paladox2014/Main page to help add there own suggestion and new information Paladox2014 (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Generally the Mediawiki namespace is only used for general wiki stuff and not for users use. I don't mean to be bitey but you have almost no edits here (or en.wiki for that matter). You might want to edit here a bit to get a general idea of how this wiki works and the purpose of our specific wiki before you try to redesign the main page. Such a change is likely to take atleast a few months time to get people to weigh in and have discussions and !votes and the like. Its a pretty hefty commitment to make if you want to see it through if you aren't actually familiar with the wikis needs. -DJSasso (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ok Paladox2014 (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh not this discussion again! We usually end up with loads of proposals, all of them nice enough, but generally everyone just prefers it the way it is. Yours is nice, but as above you'll find it hard for it to actually be implemented... Good luck though. Kennedy (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ok Paladox2014 (talk)
do you have any suggestion for the main page adding or removing things Paladox2014 (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Red links to portals and other community features that do not exist. Today's article for improvement. Featured picture. Other areas of Wikipedia. --LauraHale (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I have added Today's article for improvement and Featured picture and have created a new header with links to pages which would be under other areas of Wikipedia I just need to add Red links to portals and other community features Paladox2014 (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
should we do for today's article for I pro ment should we do it monthly weekly or daily Paladox2014 (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with the current page that you are trying to fix? (Or is this a novel form of hat collecting, by saying you re-designed the front page of a Wikipedia?) --LauraHale (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
nothing it just looks a little outdated Paladox2014 (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you adding things like Picture of the day? There has been no discussion to do this. DYK is not even once a day. It is once a week. And "I think it is outdated" does not seem to say what is wrong. What looks outdated? --LauraHale (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Just to remind you that while your main page redesign remains a test in your userspace, you may not create new templates for the sole purpose of using it in your main page test. I have moved those templates to your userspace already. If you intend to create any more templates for your main page redesign, please create it in your userspace. Chenzw  Talk  01:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok 5.66.149.62 (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am moving my user space to my wiki located at [21] reason because I need to use mediawikicommon.css file for some codes so anyone is welcome to edit on there 90.211.217.98 (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for deletion

I see we are getting a number of unused templates for deletion discussion. We should have under Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Templates a clear rationale under unused criterion #1: "Templates which are not used on this wiki are eligible for QD". We are getting a huge number of template imports, many of which do not improve the wiki, and many of which are done by users with little or no experience of our wiki. A clear QD criterion is needed so that they can be pruned in a straightforward manner. They are not good candidates for discussion, IMO. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I messaged you on your talk page but just noticed this thread. I deleted them based on WP:QD#T2 as they fitted the 'unused template' criteria... Kennedy (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for any extra work caused by my RFD'ing those instead of QD'ing. I have nominated similar ones for QD in the past and had the QDs denied because because they didn't fit the reviewing admin's interpretation of the QD criteria. That's not a complaint, just an observation that different people can interpret things in different ways. Therefore, to avoid having to go through two deletion procedures, I just RFD'd them. I would definitely support clarifying the criteria. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Its open to interpretation. I propose changing the wording from:
"2.They are deprecated or replaced by a newer template and are completely unused and not linked to." to
"2.The template is unused, not linked to or contains no valid article links."
Or something to that effect? Kennedy (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By "valid article links", do you mean links to existing articles ("blue" links)? Also, we might want to add something to allow a little time for the author to get the template into articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, "blue" links. Good idea, a timescale of 7 days or so in a 'deleteable' state? (not a word, but I've made it one.) Kennedy (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't really open to interpretation. You missed the key word in the criteria which is and. It isn't enough just to be unused or not linked to. It has to have also been replaced by a newer template. -DJSasso (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is open to interpretation. There's an "and" and an "or" in there; that causes the confusion. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I suppose I can see that you could say that. Grammar rules would mean the or is only talking about the deprecated and replaced part of the sentence. But I can see how people would be confused I suppose. Either way it is very definitely not about just being unused because even taking the or into account it would require it to be deprecated (ie stopped from being used on purpose which wouldn't be the case of something just imported over and never used) or replaced and is currently unused. In both cases it requires either a deprecation or a replacement in addition to being unused. -DJSasso (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Actually, the And is the lesser part in that statement. The sentence can be seen as basically a Boolean expression so And is factored before Or. As long as the section before the or is true (is depreciated), the other side doesn't matter. It can have 1K pages transcluding it but if it is depreciated it is a valid reason. Adding in a grammatical bias, it would be They (are deprecated) or ( (replaced by a newer template) and (are completely unused and not linked to)) as the second are is applied to both unused and unlinked. Just being depreciated again makes the statement true. "They are deprecated or replaced by a newer template. The template must also be completely unused and not linked to" would be logically correct and unambiguous for what was meant to be stated.--Creol(talk) 13:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said either way deprecation would take a discussion to decide to deprecate the template so it couldn't just be done because the template was unused. There had to be a discussion to deprecate the template. Because deprecation is the stopping of using something that is/was used. In both cases just being unused would not fulfill either side of the or. -DJSasso (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely disagree with changing the criterion, or making a new criterion that allows us to delete templates that are simply not in use. That's way too undisciplined, in my opinion: just because a template is not used does not mean that it's useless. There are many good, useful templates that are not currently being used (conversion and calculation templates, multilingual support templates, infoboxes, etcetera). Surely there is no real requirement for anybody to participate in an RfD for something like {{Punch-Out series}}; it can be closed all the same as long as there are no objections. Osiris (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with both parts of that statement.. Just because an article is valid for a QD reason, does not mean it has to be deleted. There are many a bio stub which does not explicitly make a claim of notability (hence QDable) but the person is clearly notable and any sane admin would deny the request. The only issue in this situation would be if the admin does not pay attention to what they are doing and does not look to see if a template should not be deleted - that's a personnel issue, not a policy issue. It is also a simple undelete request on the rare time when something useful slips through the cracks. Adding it as a QD reason just gives the admins a valid reasoning to point to if they need to delete a template they see is clearly not useful to us in any way. As to RfD, by your statement, it only takes 1 person to form a consensus. To me, if only one person (the nom) stated it and no one agreed at all, I see that as a no consensus so a keep. --Creol(talk) 13:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If only the nom said delete and no one else commented it is very clearly consensus to delete as there is no objection to the deletion. This is done routinely on en for example with unused templates. They just get listed and at the end of the week when no one has objected they get nuked. It does only take one person to form consensus as long as others were aware of the discussion which they would be if it was posted on Rfd. It is especially the case on simple.wiki because we use our Rfd as our version of both Afd & PROD from en. -DJSasso (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it only takes one person. Consensus arrives with an absence of objections; if there are no objections then you have a consensus. It's under Wikipedia:Consensus#Discussion and Silence. Hundreds of items are deleted every day in areas of the bigger wikis and Commons without any discussion at all; as long as the reason is valid, there is no requirement to have anybody else write their consent. Leaving certain parts of the criteria up to administrator discretion might be useful in some cases, this particular proposal is too wide-reaching. Osiris (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, University of Cambridge needs to be promoted to Good Article status and a discussion started to revert that change. It was nom'd on Jan 11, 2013 with no opposition for the 3 week period following so the nomination passed perfectly fine. As the nomination page is listed on the New Changes header, there is no reason that it was not noticed so silence is agreement that it is a good article. The fact that when people actually got around to looking at it and saw the multiple issues has no bearing as no one said anything during the provided time frame. That issue would have to be brought up in a separate discussion to demote the article. Unlike En:, things slip through unnoticed around here all the time. The fact that no one opposes something can just as easily, or more easily, be that no one looked at. Only if you know for a fact that they saw/heard something and remained silent should you assume consent. Ignorance is not consent. --Creol(talk) 15:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except the Good Article criteria has a rule that 5 editors must take part for it to be promoted. But deletion is a different matter as we consciously have made it so that it does require objection to stop from being deleted. Now if I came across something that only the nom commented and it wasn't an obvious delete I would leave it open for another week. And then go from there which is how they handle ones that aren't obvious on en. But as for your Unlike En statement, when it comes to deletion I would say we actually get many more eyes on most delete requests than en does cause en sees probably 100+ a day of various types and things fall through the cracks there all the time. I would say our deletions are watched considerably more closely. Especially since we use it as our version of PROD. (ie the deletion method which requires an objection to stop). Silence is consent. And to use what you said...if someone objects later we have a process for that at undeletion requests. I would rather have articles logged at RfD and tracked and have people miss them but have them easily findable than have a random admin speedy them and not a single person notice because as you say things slip through the cracks. We already speedy here way to often as it is. You yourself have been upset about this with empty categories. -DJSasso (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reason the promotion of articles explicitly requires editorial review; quite a bit more evaluation is involved than is in a deletion proposal for a template or an image. Even if we ignore the 5-participant minimum in the PGA analogy, an editor would never close an unreviewed nomination without reviewing first themself (which is how the process works on enwiki). And if there are obvious problems with an unreviewed nomination then it is obviously not fit for approval. Any editor who closes a discussion with an outcome is approving that outcome. For a navbox that links only to non-existent pages, that's pretty easy to do. You don't need somebody else to come along and explicitly give their consent. Osiris (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then how about something like, "They are completely unused and not linked to, AND they are either deprecated or replaced by a newer template" -- or at least something that would clarify whether the current wording is meant to mean "(deprecated) or (replaced by a newer template and are completely unused and not linked to)" or "(deprecated or replaced by a newer template) and (are completely unused and not linked to)". --Auntof6 (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can just maybe append a clarifyer to the criterion. It's also possible that our incomplete edit summary QD T2: Unused template is fostering the confusion. Osiris (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I would just modify the edit summary. Because unused template is most definitely not what the QD criteria means. Because lots of templates will never be linked to because they are templates that are intended to be subst'd etc and thus will never have an article link. The QD criteria is meant for templates that have been replaced by a new one and thus we can avoid the time wasting discussion. But a template that is simply unused should go to Rfd. And like on en if no one objects after the time period they are listed they get deleted. People don't even have to comment if they choose not to. I would suggest changing it to QD T2: Replaced by a newer template. Which is the intention of that QD criteria. -DJSasso (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Unused" is the wrong word to use here - we should change it to "deprecated" asap, since that is the original intention of the deletion rationale. Chenzw  Talk  14:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tech news: 2013-22

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes.

Recent software changes
(Not all changes will affect you.)
Future software changes
  • MediaWiki will stop supporting XHTML 1.0 and HTML versions lower than version 5. HTML5 will now be the default language for pages created by the software. [27] [28]
  • The software will check if all uploaded files are secure and match their type. [29]
  • The Wikimedia Commons Android app will come out of the beta phase on its next release. [30]
  • Account creation by manual log-in will now be recorded in the account creation log (bug 42434). [31]
  • Links to file description pages will again be accessible directly from within videos (bug 43747). [32]
  • The software behind recent changes patrolling was re-written; the change fixes issues related to patrolling new pages, among other things. [33]
  • During a meeting, developers agreed on rules about making big changes to the software. [34]
  • There is now a category to list pages with invalid music code. [35]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Unsubscribe.

Tech news: 2013-23

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes.

Recent software changes
(Not all changes will affect you.)
  • The latest version of MediaWiki (1.22/wmf5) was added to non-Wikipedia wikis on May 29. It will be enabled on the English Wikipedia on June 3, and on all other Wikipedias on June 5. [36]
  • The Tamil Wikipedia shared a Lua module they created to automate their Main Page. [37]
  • There is now a test wiki to test new features in right-to-left languages. [38]
  • The Thanks feature was added to the English Wikipedia; users can now thank others for individual edits. [39]
  • The new interface for account creation and log-in is now the default on 30 wikis, including the English Wikipedia, Commons, Meta, and Wikidata. The feature will be added to all wikis after June 5. Users can return to the old look by adding ?useNew=0 to the web address. [40]
  • Videos are now played in pop-up windows if their size on the page is smaller than 200 pixels (800 pixels on the English Wikipedia). [41]
  • Opening your talk page now marks notifications as read, for wikis using the Notifications feature. (bug 47912) [42].
  • All autoconfirmed users can now reset transcoding of video files; previously only administrators could do this. [43]
  • The Nearby feature allows people who use mobile devices to see Wikipedia articles about objects and places around them. [44]
Future software changes

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

Trademark discussion

Hi, apologies for posting this in English, but I wanted to alert your community to a discussion on Meta about potential changes to the Wikimedia Trademark Policy. Please translate this statement if you can. We hope that you will all participate in the discussion; we also welcome translations of the legal team’s statement into as many languages as possible and encourage you to voice your thoughts there. Please see the Trademark practices discussion (on Meta-Wiki) for more information. Thank you! --Mdennis (WMF) (talk)

Is there a "teahouse" here yet?

Hello, and I am writing to enquire about whether there is a "teahouse" type of thing here or is the simple talk the equivalent? Thanks, Jcc (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think there is a teahouse project here (yet), but if you need more help, just ask. curtaintoad | chat me! 10:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any interest for one? Jcc (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, because if there are any newcomers that need help on this project, they can request on this page. curtaintoad | chat me! 10:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have considerably fewer editors here so almost all discussion is held on this page or the admin noticeboard. -DJSasso (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "teahouse"?--Leopardfoot (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See en:Wikipedia:Teahouse ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 20:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_105&oldid=8892066"