Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 114

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

Contents

Template:Authority control/LCCN

The template is padding the LCCN number with 6 zeros to the right of the input number. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Death certificate

Join the discussion at Talk:William Baker Rock about whether a death certificate is an allowed reliable source for Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Change this page - refs/template

For the life of me, I cannot understand how to enter the first reference using the ctp (as opposed to cs, which is simple for me). I can't believe I am the only person who is totally baffled by the field that comes up with stuff about template [Yes, I know what a template is, but as this comes up here, I am at a loss -- especially with the "cite web" text.] and field name [This term has so many meanings. It should be specified or an example given.] Can't it be written in clearer language or changed to make it easier to useKdammers (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Categories for settlements in the United States

An editor recently renamed some (but not all) Chicago-related categories to include ", Illinois" in the names. This raises the question, do we want categories for US settlements to include the name of the state or territory in their names? The reasoning for article names has been that it is not needed if there is no ambiguity, or if the place in question is the primary meaning of the name. Should we use the same reasoning for categories? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The standard on en.wiki and thus ours unless we change it in this discussion is that they only need the state if they name is ambiguous and not clearly the primary topic. Chicago for example is very obvious to any reader which Chicago it is. (are there others even?) -DJSasso (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Although surprisingly now that I look on en, theirs is named that way. I have a feeling the US articles/categories are outlyers on en.wiki. I know for example there are specific naming standards for Canadian cities and a couple other countries not to use them unless the town is ambiguous and not primary topic like London vs. London, Ontario. So basically my opinion I guess is that for cities where no disambiguation is needed then use just the city. -DJSasso (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
In which case, Category:Los Angeles, California and many of its subcats need to be renamed. Jim Michael (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
That seems logical. However, in line with our messages to the other editor to discuss before making mass changes, please discuss first if you plan to make those changes. That will give everyone a heads-up that something is changing. Also be sure to check what links to each category -- there could be templates or something linking to them that would need to be changed. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
We should reach consensus here before changing any cats, including Category:Chicago, Illinois, Category:Los Angeles, California and their subcats. Jim Michael (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm in favour of the most famous cities being as "Paris", and smaller, derived place names like Paris, Texas. I'm sure our readers would find this natural. Fame and population size are the most important criteria. Who would doubt that "Los Angeles" means the city in southern California, no matter how many others there might be? I think this would work with both categories and article titles. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Part of the issue, here, is that for the vast majority of the place locations in the United States, the state identification is an important and material part of the place's identity. Take a place like Grand Rapids, Michigan, for example. In practical terms, that city is the primary meaning of the name. The enwiki article is named en:Grand Rapids, while a disambiguation page points to a variety of other places in North America. But a person who doesn't know much US geography won't automatically know that "Grand Rapids" generally refers to "Grand Rapids, MI". And to an American, thinking of the place as "Grand Rapids, United States" is just not how you think of things—you'd always think of it as "Grand Rapids, MI".
So I think we ought to err on the side of including state names for US places (articles, categories, whatever), and only eliminate them in really unambiguous cases. Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston? Sure. When in doubt, leave the state in. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure we all agree that Chicago, Miami, Houston and LA are unambiguous. They can certainly have the state removed from their cats and subcats. Jim Michael (talk) 10:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't argue any of those. But even here: be careful that you are calling anything related to Los Angeles Los Angeles and not LA. There was just a discussion at en:WP:Reference desk/Language on that subject, because LA can refer to Louisiana, too. (It can depend whether there are periods, whether the A is capital or lower-case, and so on.) In the case of New York, I personally don't care if it's New York City or New York, NY New York, but one must distinguish from the state of New York. There are two Kansas Cities next to each other. Kansas City, Missouri, is the bigger one, but Kansas City, Kansas, is not an insignificant city in it its own right. So just be careful. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
The main article (for anything, not just settlements) should not use abbreviations. We can have redirects that use abbreviations, as long as they're not ambiguous. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
We should use New York for the state and New York City for the city. We shouldn't use abbreviations in category names. It might not be a good idea to rename Category:Boston, Massachusetts to Category:Boston, because of Boston, Lincolnshire. Jim Michael (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Jim, I'd probably use New York State or State of New York, because New York all by itself is inherently ambiguous in any situation where context does not make the meaning obvious (like "List of US states"). (Ditto for Washington State.) But now that you mention it, I agree with you on Boston.
I guess I still summarize what I think ought to be the overall rules for US locations as follows: Rule 1 for everywhere. If it's otherwise ambiguous, keep as much information as you need to ensure that it's not ambiguous. Rule 2 for US locations. After fulfilling Rule 1, US state names remain in place names except when that place name by itself is unambiguous even to people not familiar with the US. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The way to distinguish the state from other things would be "New York (state)", but only if it's needed. I don't think "New York" is ambiguous, though: the name of the city always includes "City". I think the only state names that are ambiguous are Georgia and Washington. I also think the rules for US and non-US can be the same. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone have any objections to renaming unambiguous cats, such as Category:Toronto, Ontario, Category:Los Angeles, California and their subcats? Jim Michael (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
OK, I was waiting for others to give their opinions, but here is another point. The issue for categories is different from the issue for articles. Take the case of Madrid: there's the big one in Spain and there are several others. Someone could type in "Madrid" when looking for an article on one of the others. When they arrive at the Spanish one, they will soon see that the article isn't about the one they want (because the article talks about Spain), and they can look further. If they're looking at a category for one of the others, they may find the category for the Spanish one, but not realize it isn't what they want -- not everyone would look at how the category is categorized. If they are actually categorizing something, they may add the category "Madrid", see that the category exists, and not check further. To sum up, we could make a case for always including the country, state, etc. in categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that readers of an international encyclopedia would know that Madrid cats refer to the Spanish city. The cats that Category:Madrid is in make it clear that it's the Spanish city. Jim Michael (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
On enwiki, I would probably agree. This wiki is for people with limited English skills. That includes children and people with learning disabilities. Those people are less likely to have an international point of view, so why not make it easier for them and do what we can to get things categorized correctly? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
You can put a disambig note at the top of the category just like you can with an article. -DJSasso (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
That helps when you're looking at the category, but not when you're adding the category to a page. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
When they type "Madrid" into the search box they will see a list of all pages starting with "Madrid". So if they see Madrid (wherever) they can pick that one. I don't see a problem, because typing in the search box is the first and most obvious thing to do. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The Spanish capital is much larger than all the other Madrids put together. The vast majority of people in those other Madrids know that most people in the world mean the Spanish capital when they mention Madrid. Jim Michael (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Madrid was just an example, maybe not the best one, but just an example. Let's not form an opinion based on one example. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
A couple points: I don't know that most people using SEWik are kids and learning handicapped. My EFL students often defer to it, and I would not be surprised if a lot of other students of English also do so. On New York state: Many (most?) people not from the U.S. or Canada are unaware of the existence of the state and, as I and other native speakers I know, in fact refer to the city regularly as New York except when clarification is necessary or for some special reason. My guess, supported by a ten-minute scan, is that news programs also largely just use "New York." This is mostly the case, not just when it is clear to the educated reader from the context whether state or city is meant, but as a default for the city.Kdammers (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Shall we go ahead with the clearly unambiguous ones, such as Los Angeles, Chicago and Toronto - removing California, Illinois and Ontario from their cats? Jim Michael (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Artistocrat

Artistocrat is misspelt, it should be "Aristocrat". Could someone move it? I don't see the "move" tab that Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages talks about so I can't do it myself. Thanks. - Nikki (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Done -- thanks for the note. You couldn't do it yourself because you aren't yet auto-confirmed. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Reimagining WMF grants report

(My apologies for using English here, please help translate if you are able.)

Last month, we asked for community feedback on a proposal to change the structure of WMF grant programs. Thanks to the 200+ people who participated! A report on what we learned and changed based on this consultation is now available.

Come read about the findings and next steps as WMF’s Community Resources team begins to implement changes based on your feedback. Your questions and comments are welcome on the outcomes discussion page.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 16:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

New QD option suggestion

I have suggested a new QD option. Please see Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Proposed new template QD option: Navbox templates that don't navigate anything and give your opinion there. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

What is the process to have an article restored?

  • Edward Sims Van Zile was deleted without notification. What is the AFD process here, and what is the process for undeletion? I would assume having your obituary in an international paper would be sufficient notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, you can just write the page again, making sure the person's notability is claimed and evidenced. See WP:Notability (people). Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Undeletion requests: WP:RFU. -Barras talk 16:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Where an obituary is published does not establish notability for Wikipedia purposes. An article needs to say what made the person notable. References alone don't establish notability if they don't support statements that show notability. If you want to add something about notability, as I asked you to do for Mabel Boll, let me or another admin know and the article can be restored. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Why do we allow a single person to delete articles without notification. They should nominate the article for review and we should argue the merits as a team. And "Well, you can just write the page again" is just silly, why should I do all that work again when it can be restored and more information added. And please do not tell people to read the bible, that the answer to all my questions is in the bible. If it violates WP:Notability (people) then quote me the chapter and verse. Where is the infrastructure for deletion review? Where is the equivalent of AFD? WP:GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." If you do not think that an obituary in an international newspaper is not enough, then ask for a second reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Where articles do meet the requirements, the community has empowered administrators to delete without further process. In the last 24 hours this has been 20 articles. Discussion on each is both impractical and unnecessary. Where it could be argued that the article is questionable, then it goes through a process of community discussion for at least one week before any decision is made. We have a process and it has worked very well for the eight years that I have been editing here. We have published guidelines, editors should become familiar with them. --Peterdownunder (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:PVGA

Kind of inactive there. Would someone mind taking a look when they get a chance? eurodyne (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Uw-advert4

Why is this a redirect to Template:Uw-vandalism4? A separate template should be created as a final warning to users who advertise. J991 18:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Help please

Hello. I just started. How do I start? Stewi101015 (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Simple English Wikipedia. Oshwah answered you on his talk page. You can continue your discussion there. I noticed you haven't said yet what it is you'd like to do here (edit pages, create a new page, copy and simplify a page from another Wikipedia, etc.) Keep in mind when you do contact someone, here or on their talk page, they may not immediately see it. So be patient and Oshwah (or other editors you contact) will get back to you if you ask a question. Good luck with your editing. User:Rus793 (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the welcome. I started talking with "Oshwah".
I thought it might be fun to see what editing on wikipedia is like. I thought it would be easier.  :( "You can continue your discussion here", with you or "Oshwah"? I get the not "immediately", but the delay makes keeping focus difficult. Are there people who help faster? Or is it slow today/now? I will attempt to be patient. Thank you for the advice.  :) Good luck to you also. :) Stewi101015 (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
What does "(responding to AN thread)" mean? Stewi101015 (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Am I doing things OK so far? Stewi101015 (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
What does "Better new changes" mean in "My settings"? Stewi101015 (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
First, I put a welcome banner at the top of your talk page. There are several links to read (not all at once however). Better new changes is an option I don't have checked. It's best to keep changes to your settings very minimal for now. If you don't know what something does, it's best not to check it. Meanwhile perhaps another editor can provide a better answer (to the Better changes part). User:Rus793 (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
"Better new changes" is an enhancement to the layout of Special:RecentChanges. When the box is not checked ("old version"), each individual edit and log entry will appear as a separate entry in Recent Changes. The disadvantage to this layout is that, if there are multiple edits to a particular page in a short period of time, it will clutter up the page. If you enable Better new changes, edits to the same page will be grouped together, sort of how an email inbox will work when you group by thread. Chenzw  Talk  02:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
So it is "better New Changes", is a better version of the New Changes? Stewi101015 (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I made a SUBPAGE. How do I get rid of it? Stewi101015 (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
When you create a page you'd like to get rid of, you can ask an administrator (the only ones here who can delete a page) or, in Change mode, you can add the following to the top of the page: {{QD|G7}} This produces a Quick Delete banner with the reason G7:User requests deletion. Then an administrator will delete it. User:Rus793 (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Extension:SandboxLink

I propose that we install the Wikimedia extension mw:Extension:SandboxLink on this wiki. This extension adds a link to people's personal sandbox pages in the top navigation menu. This functionality used to be provided by way of a gadget, but the gadget is no longer functional. The functionality can be disabled by a single entry in the user's personal .css file. I find this link very useful and helpful.

Thank you for your consideration. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Following is copy-and-paste of a brief chat about this at WP:AN.

I wonder if we can install mw:Extension:SandboxLink. I used to have a gadget for this, which I found really helpful. Gadget is no longer functional, but this extension was written in its place. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

This would require support from the community. I personally think it's a good idea. Chenzw  Talk  12:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Personally its annoying me over on en. I'd rather it be a gadget than always being there. -DJSasso (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I would continue to use the gadget if it still worked, but it doesn't any more. It can be suppressed if you want by adding a line to your personal .css. Probably later today or tomorrow I will post this as a proposal for community approval at Simple Talk. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Then why not fix the gadget? -DJSasso (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

End copy-and-paste. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Support Would be great to have this implemented. At least now users will know about a suitable place for testing instead of doing it on the main article pages. --Hydriz (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Benedetta Cappa

Can someone restore Benedetta Cappa and also Harriet Sylvia Ann Howland Green Wilks, another article deleted without notification, or an AFD by User:Auntof6. She has an article in the English Wikipedia and the Deutsch and the Français and the Italiano Wikipedia. We really need a rule where if there is a corresponding article in another language Wikipedia, the article needs to go to AFD and the creator notified. I do not think that User:Auntof6 is a good judge of Wikipedia notability. This isn't something that should be left to a single person's sensibilities. It becomes "I Don't Like It", and I have to privileges to delete it, so I will. We can do better than that. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact that an article exists at another Wikipedia is not an argument for keeping it here if it doesn't meet requirements. If Benedetta Cappa is restored to mainspace without showing notability, the same thing will happen that happened with Edward Sims Van Zile. I am not the only person who thought that article as originally written did not show notability.
By the way, it is considered bad faith not to link or ping a user when you are making a complaint about them. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Is it more bad faith than deleting something without notification? You already have shown poor judgement at Edward Sims Van Zile. Other than your personal opinion, what logic says that something notable in 4 other Wikipedias is not notable here? You are a really poor judge of WP:Notability and are abusing your admin rights.
Yes, it is more bad faith than that. Our quick deletion process provides for articles to be deleted on the spot when they meet the criteria. You might not like that, but you can't say that following established procedure is bad faith.
As for notability, an article in a specific Wikipedia shows notability based on what is in the text and on what the notability guidelines say. It is not based on whether there is an article on the subject in another Wikipedia. Even if the article in another Wikipedia shows notability there, the article on this Wikipedia has to show it here.
I am sorry you are unhappy with our procedures. I don't understand why you just complain about the procedures being followed rather than asking for them to be changed. I could support a change in the procedures, but I will not be bullied for following them as they are currently defined. If you feel I am abusing my admin rights, feel free to make a complaint. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • It is not a procedure, it is you being a bully, especially by just deleting Harriet Sylvia Ann Howland Green Wilks to show that you can ignore me, and you are in charge. If you are so confident that it is not notable take it to AFD. You judgement has not been so good when they have been taken to AFD, they have been reversed. The rule is "If a topic has received important coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." The references determine notability not Auntof6. Notability is objective, you are just saying subjectively, "I Don't Like It", or that the person is not superlative. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Please stop saying "our procedures", it is condescending to say that you speak for all of us. It is only your opinion. Only an AFD can determine consensus. You were wrong at Edward Sims Van Zile and at Mabel Boll and again now. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I've tried to explain the requirements here and you either don't listen or don't believe me. If you're unhappy about your articles being deleted, bring it up at Wikipedia:Deletion review. If you're unhappy with our procedures (they were created by the people here, so they are "ours" in the sense that they apply to all of us), ask for the procedures to be changed. If you're unhappy with my actions, make a complaint. If you aren't willing to do those things, then it looks like you just want to complain. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Or you can stop being a bully, and take them to AFD, as I have politely requested you to do. And again please stop with with the condescending attitude. I have quoted you the actual Simple English Wikipedia notability rule. You are just expressing you personal opinion, I am quoting the actual Wikipedia rule. The references determine notability not Auntof6. Auntof6 deletes what she doesn't like. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This is a small Wikipedia. Most of our administrators, bureaucrats, oversighters, and stewards wear several "hats". Most are active editors as well. They are trusted users who do speak for the community. The actions you refer to were according to the community's Deletion policy. Most new users discover we are a unique (and separate) project with our own guidelines and policies. Case in point, the enwiki guideline states "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." Simple English Wikipedia:Notability states: "The number and type of reliable sources needed depends on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." An article copied from enwiki may meet the notability requirements there, but not here. There are other differences as well, but this one simply illustrates the point that differences in guidelines or policies do exist between Wikipedias. How we (this community) decide to implement them is also our prerogative. Aunt was not wrong regarding her nomination of Edward Sims Van Zile. Had she not made the nomination another editor would have. Then, the article was rescued by other editors and not without some difficulty. It was done partially because some deep digging finally turned up some source citations he was notable per our guideline. It was also done as an example to show you how notability works here. User:Rus793 (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • That is why we have the "notability" tag, and use deletion as a last resort, not the first thing to do when you personally object to something you do not like. Even if she feels that it should be deleted, it should not be up to a single person to decide. And remember the person, Edward Sims Van Zile, was notable whether the article needed to be improved or not, Auntof6 has access to Google just like I do. Remember there are only small minds, not small Wikipedias. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure who you are answering since you didn't indent. Regardless of what this is in answer to, I strongly suggest you refrain from any more personal attacks. This is not the English Wikipedia; there isn't much tolerance for this kind of behavior here. I know you can be reasonable and civil when you want to be. User:Rus793 (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I do not delete pages because I personally object to them. There are many pages here that I personally object to or don't like, and I have not deleted them. On the other hand, there are pages that I do like that I delete because I feel they don't meet our requirements. I like the pages you create: they are about interesting people and are good additions to our project. I deleted the pages we have been discussing because, according to how we evaluate notability, I felt they did not show notability. I know you disagree with that interpretation. You have been active here for a very short time, so it could be that you are judging us, or at least me, by the practices of another Wikipedia. Even so, you are welcome to question our practices, or my actions, civilly, but you would do well to stop doing so in the form of demands. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I think you have fallen into the common trap of assuming that every wiki works the same as en.wiki. They don't. Our requirements for quick deletion for example are very different than en.wiki. Tagging for example is frowned on because it just leads to a build up of bad articles that we don't have the editor base to fix so we are quicker to delete so that better articles might be created in the future. If an article doesn't claim notability here then it gets deleted plain and simple regardless of if the topic actually is notable or not or has an article on another wiki or not. I suggest taking some time to get to know the differences between this wiki and en.wiki and it will help things go along smoother in the future. -DJSasso (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
What is "tagging"? Stewi101015 (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The article Edward Sims Van Zile that is still being brought up as an example of one that was defeated in being deleted by being taken to RFD: as Rus793 says, it was only though the difficult effort of other editors to find sources and improve your article to the point it barely squeaked by and Auntof6 withdrew their request for deletion...please do not think that this will occur again for another of your articles. Who did you thank for the assistance and the saving, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )? It certainly wasn't me, nor Auntof6. Nor do I believe it was Rus793. In fact, you continued to fight on my talk page after the discussion was closed and Auntof6 thanked you for bringing up your concern. We are indeed a small wiki and we editors and admins work on what we choose to and there is very much else to be done besides rescuing your articles. This comment: Auntof6 has access to Google just like I do: each editor is expected to do their own work and present an article that is ready for publication when it lands here. Fylbecatulous talk 13:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Potential new rule

An article cannot be speedy deleted if it exists in another Wikipedia, it must be taken to AFD to determine consensus. If an article does not exist in another Wikipedia and a speedy deletion is contested, it must be taken to AFD. The creator must be notified of any speedy deletions.

Comments

Yes, we are talking about quick dletion, as per policy, and requests for deletion; both links are correct. --Eptalon (talk) 10:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Is this some kind of voting? Stewi101015 (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
We are discussing a suggested change to the deletion procedures, and people are indicating whether they support or oppose the suggestion. It is pretty much a vote, but, like the RfD discussions, the outcome could be overruled by 'crats if it conflicts with policies or Wikipedia requirements. I don't see such a conflict here, though. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:CRATs are "'crats"? Stewi101015 (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
'Crat' is a shortened version of 'bureaucrat', if you didn't know. eurodyne (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@Eurodyne: Thank you Stewi101015 (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

For

  • This is how it should be done so that one person with delete rights cannot delete things that they personally do not like. In the English Wikipedia if someone contests a speedy deletion it must be restored and taken to AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Against

  • Oppose. For the following reasons:
  1. AfD in lieu of our own RfD? The Request for Deletion is covered by our Deletion policy so no.
  2. A person with delete rights (that would be an administrator) cannot delete things that they personally do not like? I believe that is already in place so no.
  3. No to preventing deletions based on an article being on another Wikipedia. We follow our rules not theirs.
  4. If an article recommended for QD is protested, it can be nominated for RfD under the present procedures. I believe the same is true for a restored article, so again, no.
  5. The creator must be nominated is already covered in the deletion policy. Most editors depend on notices being given through Twinkle so this seems to be a problem with Twinkle in limited situations. If an editor is aware their Twinkle isn't giving notices, they should be checking manually. So, as a change, no. User:Rus793 (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
We don't have a requirement to notify the creator for QDs, only for RfDs. We could add such a requirement, although we might want to be selective about it (for example, notify when the issue is notability, but not when the issue is vandalism or something done in bad faith). --Auntof6 (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I am against this specific proposal because:
  • We should not have to check other Wikipedias to see if there is an article.
  • Even if there is an article at another Wikipedia, that other article doesn't necessarily meet requirements at that other Wikipedia, either. We have had cases where the same spam article was created at multiple Wikipedias. Those articles didn't deserve to be kept just because the spammer created them at multiple sites.
  • Each Wikipedia has its own requirements for articles. Our requirements may not match those at another Wikipedia.
  • We have a process for contesting deletion: Wikipedia:Deletion review. If an article is quickly deleted and then restored following discussion at Deletion review, it should not have to automatically be taken to RfD: there should be the option to just let it remain if the person who requested deletion doesn't want to pursue it.
I could see supporting something to address the issues this editor has, but not this specific proposal. We could implement the practice he describes of restoring any QD'd article upon request and taking it to RfD (f deletion was still wanted), but I think that should be limited to specific criteria (for example, with notability issues, but not with others such as vandalism or copyright violation). --Auntof6 (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This introduces an additional step of checking the English Wikipedia, before administrators delete anything. We have a process to contest deletions in place already, and all deletions are logged anyway. If it is the case that an administrator does "delete things that they personally do not like", it would a problem that is more suitable for discussion at WP:AN or, in an extreme case, WP:RFA instead. Misuse of administrator rights is grounds for removal of rights. Chenzw  Talk  00:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's an impractical idea. Just because an article exists on another wiki it doesn't mean it should automatically exist here. And what about pages that are obviously vandalism, attack pages or spam? Why would it be necessary to have a discussion before deleting them? Just because a page is deleted it doesn't mean it's gone forever. It can always be restored.--Druddigon (talk) 08:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Notability refers to what is actually on the page as evidence, not what might ideally be on the page. And, this site is not a mirror site of English wiki; it is a companion site, doing a rather different job. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - When judging if an article should be speedy deleted, or go through RfD, we need to look at the question whether this article is suitable for our audience. EnWP has many articles we will never have, because simplifying them to a level that our audience can understand is not achievable with the resources we have. So, let us take the example of an article on an advanced science topic. Very likely, this article will exist on EnWP, and let us suppose that we have a stub of sorts. The stub is simplistic, and does not cover the idea well. An editor from the domain of study nominates it for qd; arguably getting a decent stub takes a lot of time. In such a case, I think we should trust that editor's judgment, and be able to qd the article, rather than going through a lengthy RFD discussion. Quick deletion should be quick and unproblematic, any additional rule is a burden. For those of you supporting the idea above: Have you written/contributed to a science-article here, and brought that to a standard that it is no longer a stub and covers the main ideas of the subject in a language our audence can understand? - If not, then please do. --Eptalon (talk) 10:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the simple reason there are times that an article on another wiki is not necessarily valid for inclusion here. And articles that are already quick deleted can be restored if objected to by someone other than the creator or can be taken to deletion review. -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Basically what everyone is opposing about. We are an independent community and do not have to depend on other wikis for whatever that should be included/deleted on this wiki. --Hydriz (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Simple English Wikipedia already has a multi-step process in place that is working well. I truly believe we all act in good faith already (taggers on the editor level and admins who speedily delete). I see no evidence of "kill it with fire" deletions. Many times a nomination I make for quick deletion is turned down by an admin, with good rationale. Let our processes rest in peace. Thanks. Fylbecatulous talk 14:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Everything above sums up what I have to say. eurodyne (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose All points covered in the above comments.--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

What are test.wikipedia.org and test2.wikipedia.org ?

{{helpme}} I have been looking around this related wikiworld, and ran across Test2.Wikipedia.Org and Test.Wikipedia.Org; what are they? How are they similar and how do they contrast? Stewi101015 (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Those two wikis are test wikis used by MediaWiki developers to test new code before they get deployed to normal wikis like this Wikipedia. You can also use those wikis to try out editing wikis, though some of the interface may be slightly different. --Hydriz (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
@Hydriz: Thank you for your response! Why two, redundancy? Why are they needed, for wikipedia structural testing by ¨global developers" (I am guessing at an abstract name, since I am new)? The MediaWiki article states it is software name, is it a group of people too?
Can I, as a newbie, play with them? How is the interface different? Stewi101015 (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
MediaWiki is the software that powers Wikipedia, basically the software that allows you to edit this page. Previously, there was only 1 test wiki, but the 2nd one was created to test the feature of having 2 wikis to have different MediaWiki versions. Now, it is also to allow for the test Wikidata to have 2 wikis as clients. Also, these test wikis are necessary for developers in general (either for the MediaWiki software or on-wiki developers that make gadgets and Lua modules) to conduct testing without causing trouble on the actual wikis. Imagine having an admin test a new gadget and you can no longer access Wikipedia, that isn't really ideal, is it? --Hydriz (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation! Is this ¨Lua¨? Stewi101015 (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Lua is used for modules on the wiki. --Hydriz (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Modules are from the "Namespace:" pulldown menu of "All pages with prefix"? Stewi101015 (talk) 04:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

What is Wikimedia Outreach?

What is Wikimedia Outreach? Stewi101015 (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Outreach is a program of the Wikimedia Foundation (along with some of the Wikimedia chapters) to work with various institutions to make it easier for these institutions to contribute content to Wikimedia projects. Also, I do not think that the two posts that you made fits the scope of Simple talk, shouldn't it be placed on your user talk page? --Hydriz (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
@Hydriz: It was suggested it would be more likely get responses here. Thank you again for your reply. Where is the ¨scope¨ of ¨Simple talk¨? Is Wikimedia chapters where to learn what they are? Stewi101015 (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I originally thought that Simple talk is for topics that concern the Simple English Wikipedia itself or any other topics that concern the community, so I am not certain if this topic falls within the scope of this page. Anyway, Wikimedia chapters are smaller organizations around the world that helps to promote the Wikimedia projects to people in a certain country. You can learn more about them on Meta. --Hydriz (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Did I misunderstand this? Stewi101015 (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The scope of this page is explained at the top of this page. I would think discussion or questions about anything related to Wikimedia, which is Wikipedia's parent organization and governs much of what we do here, would be covered by the part that says "Any general discussions or anything of community interest is also appropriate here.".
On a separate topic, I don't think it helps to use one's own talk page to ask a new question. The {{helpme}} template can be used there when an editor is having trouble with something, but few people would see it. When there is a general question like the two you just asked, I think the appropriate place to ask is either here, on the talk page of an editor that you think would know the answer, or possibly on a page in "Wikipedia talk" space if there is a relevant Wikipedia-space page. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I can't exactly suggest a better location for discussing issues about Wikimedia but not related to the Simple English Wikipedia, so I am going to leave it that this is the most appropriate place for such discussions. --Hydriz (talk) 09:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Did I do this correctly?

On User_talk:61.8.217.2, I added {{subst:uw-test1}} from Wikipedia:User talk page warnings per previous advice. Stewi101015 (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The only thing I see is that it would help both that user and other users if you mentioned the name of the article in question. The template should have a parameter for that. If you use Twinkle to place these messages, it gives you a handy place to enter the name of the article. I highly recommend Twinkle because it makes this and other things easier.
By the way, when you post a question here on Simple talk, you don't need to use the helpme template. The purpose of that template is to draw people's attention to a page where someone is having a problem. For one thing, you had a question here, not a problem. For another, enough people watch Simple talk (you can, too!) that someone will see your question appear on the page. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia:Twinkle "Twinkle"? Stewi101015 (talk) 07:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Is this better? Stewi101015 (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Cool :) Stewi101015 (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Simplification

Hi. Could someone help me simplify this into simple English to meet guidelines? Thanks. The Checker of Kemz Five (Talk to me!) 01:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

As I think I said before, I'm willing to help you learn how to simplify. Is that the kind of help you're looking for, or do you want someone to simplify it for you? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I want to learn how to simlify myself so that I can do ot with other future articles. The Checker of Kemz Five (Talk to me!) 14:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

RfD: List of people from [name of US State]

Several of these are now listed at RfD. (Several more aren't; I'm not sure why.)

I think there are two separate questions here, but both are policy questions:

  1. How broadly do we allow list articles here?
  2. Where is the tradeoff between red links and a list of unreasonable length (for us)?

Looking at List of people from Ohio:

  • In my view, a US state is a reasonable geography for a list article of this type. It's not trivially small, nor impossibly large. Many US states are comparable in population to many European countries. @Auntof6 and others have pointed out that any article on enwiki can legitimately have a corresponding article here. In all those senses, this list is entirely appropriate.
  • There are many blue links on that list. There are many more red links. I'm ok with red links; we use them to drive new article creation. But there are a lot of red links there that aren't going to be written any time soon for this wiki. This list was imported directly from enwiki, and while its language is not really complex, it probably needs to be pared down for this wiki. But how much? Who decides?

I'd be interested in others' thoughts. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

They are fine as is. Notable individuals are notable, pairing down is silly and frankly POV. Red links are not bad. -DJSasso (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Some of these issues are relevant, and do have guidance on English WP's Style Guide:
"As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of list should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should thus factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence... common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list. Avoid red-linking list entries that are not likely to have their own article soon or ever... "Creation guide" lists—lists devoted to a large number of redlinked (unwritten) articles, for the purpose of keeping track of which articles still need to be written—don't belong in the main namespace".
So, red links are not bad, but that is not the only consideration. Lists should not be indiscriminate, and should be useful to readers. I think it is often a good idea to prune lists, but there needs to be some objective basis. If you bring over a list of people from En, then it does follow that (in principle) they will be notable. So there is no question that these lists may be brought over wholesale. For some U.S. states the list will be enormous, and mostly red-linked when it arrives here. Would that be useful to readers? That, for me, is the issue. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Me, too. I think in principle, then, that these RfD's fail per se. However, it remains whether the lists remain as is or shrink. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
They aren't indiscriminate, they have a clearly set entry criteria of being from that state. And yes they would are extremely useful, even lacking articles (not all entrees on a list article even have to be wikilinked) anyone that wants to see what notable people have come from a given state can easily do so. Categories do not replace lists. I believe there is even a guideline that says that though I will have to look it up. -DJSasso (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't see these as much more than filler material. If they technically meet the criteria they really serve no useful purpose. Why would a reader want to look up a list of people from xxx? I can't imagine finding lists such as these in another encyclopedia. User:Rus793 (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
With some kinds of lists, including these, a category serves us better than a large list article. We have had cases in the past (African Americans and Norwegians) where list articles were deleted at RfD because listing everything for the topic would make an unreasonably long list. So I say handle these with categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I am not a fan of list articles (not even the cats and dogs; because we already have categories to herd them within) and the one we are referring to as an example (Ohio notables) is impossible even to look at. The division of headings into gurus and opinionists and then alphabets within...who will maintain this? Who can tell who really belongs, is notable or is even a factual person with most redlinked likely forever. We have two useful ways to identify notable persons and their location within articles. In an individual article about a notable, their point of origin should be named. We also have articles of cities, towns, states, countries that can have sections named: Notable people: https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Notable+people&fulltext=1. As well, categories also place people into locations. Fylbecatulous talk 13:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I guess the problem that I have with categories is that I don't think your average (non-editor) reader really uses categories, or even knows how to use categories—especially on mobile devices. If they're looking for a list of people from Ohio, they're going to look for an article before they look for a category. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
As an aside comment, just for laughter perhaps...I can't imagine anyone being able to navigate List of people from Ohio on a mobile device, unless it is the size of a mainframe. Fylbecatulous talk 17:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, categories tend to be for editors whereas a reader will read a list. As for navigating it on a mobile it isn't a problem at all as it splits the list into categories and then each category is just a single column list. Its actually quite easy to navigate, I just tried it out. -DJSasso (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Patroller rights

Is there a set number of articles a user needs to have created in order to have patroller rights? Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 11:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no set number. It's more a matter of quality than quantity. I look for two things. Since a patroller's own articles are automatically patrolled, the first that you have created enough articles that were in good shape (they don't need simplifying, wikifying, formatting, categorizing, etc.). The second is that you have done enough anti-vandalism work to show that you understand what is and isn't vandalism. There is no specific amount of any if this that you need to do: it comes down to showing that you can be trusted with the right. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Okay, thanks. I've put in a request. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Qui

I created the page User:ChecKemzV/vector.js and cleared my cache several times, but Qui is not showing up on my user page. Why? The Checker of Kemz Five (Talk to me!) 19:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, the script doesn't exist locally it seems. You'd probably want to use something like mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/scriptpage.js') (iirc) to load the script (substitute scriptpage.js with the page name), although it looks like Qui is no longer maintained. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 19:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Nope, it should be mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=scriptpage.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');, again replacing scriptpage.js with the page that contains the javascript code. Hope this helps. :) --Hydriz (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

2007 New England Patriots season

Anybody who is a sportsfan please help me expand the article. Please help me expand the article 2007 New England Patriots season (copyedit, citation, more information, etc). Thank you! --74.130.133.1 (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

For starters, you should mention something about Spygate. Create a new section and simplify at least a portion of the English Wikipedia article. If you can't do that, someone else can help you. CKV (TC) 20:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 Done added spygate. Please help expand the article area. Add they did not finish with 19 wins and no losses. Talk about the Giants upset of them in Super Bowl XLII. Talk about anything in the summary, NOT sections. Do copyediting on the section and make it more simple for others to read. Thank you! --74.130.133.1 (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #5—2015

Elitre (WMF), 18:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Roosevelt Island Bridge

Please expand this article. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

1980 New Orleans Saints season

How does the 1980 New Orleans Saints season article looks? --74.130.133.1 (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I left some comments on the article's talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is there no upload page to upload non-free stuff like the regular English Wikipedia?

Bandideux (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Because we only use non-free images here as part of out "simple" mandate. So only stuff on commons is allowed to be used here. -DJSasso (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

"Change source" misleading / confusing

I understand that Edit and Edit source are both renamed in Simple English to make it easier to understand, but Change source is misleading, as it could be interpreted to mean other than "edit this page's source code". --ZudoMC (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@ZudoMC: Where are you seeing "Change source"? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
All users have that as one of the tabs on every page unless they have suppressed the visual editor. -DJSasso (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
You are in essence changing the pages source code. The wiki source code. Hence the name. -DJSasso (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

A growing concern

I'm bothered when I see administrators being in any way critical of other administrators on talk pages. It seems to me that Wikipedia:Be kind applies to everyone. There are certainly other methods of discussions between admins that are not so public. Is anyone else bothered by this and if so, what can be done to minimize this? Thank you User:Rus793 (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, do you have any examples, or perhaps you want to send the diffs over another private channel? It's not my place to say on behalf of others, but I would personally want to know if what I am saying on talk pages is seen by others to be discourteous. I would be ashamed if others do not feel that I am not upholding the degree of professionalism expected. Chenzw  Talk  12:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Chenzw, no, nothing you have said or done had anything to do with my concern here. But answering by email is actually a good idea. Perhaps you could make some suggestions. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Is Simple English simple enough?

Certain aspects or articles of this simple wikipedia are quite long, with a large amount of words, and indexes. Just wondering people's thoughts on this. — This unsigned comment was added by 194.242.157.162 (talk • changes).

There are definitely articles that need to be improved. Like all wikies everything is always a work in progress. If you see something you don't think is simple enough then simplify it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
It's OK for an article to be long, as long as the language in it is simple. Sometimes it even takes more words to say something in simple language. Would you like to give an example of the kind of page you're talking about? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Only the language in Simple English Wikipedia is simple; and yes, certain subjects are difficult to explain, and therefore take longer. And before you ask: no, there is no limit on the subjects that can be found here. --Eptalon (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You may want to consider changing your password

Login details for millions of accounts from plenty of security/data breaches over the past few years have been made public for quite some time already. A list (not exhaustive!) is available here. Now would be a good time for all editors (especially functionaries, i.e. editors holding advanced user rights) to change their password. If you use the same password across multiple websites including Wikipedia, your account may have already been compromised.

If an obvious account compromise is detected, the account will be blocked. As for functionaries, local bureaucrats have the technical ability to remove sysop from editors and will not hesitate to do so in the event of an obvious account compromise, and/or enlist the assistance of stewards.

For those who would like to know more, the full story is available on EN wiki. Chenzw  Talk  11:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Updating Shinji Kagawa

On the regular English Wikipedia, it is Asian Month. I decided to something here (since this is my favorite wikipedia), and since I am a soccer fan, I am going to try to update Shinji Kagawa's article (since it seems like it's hasn't been edited in 2-3 years). Can someone help me? I will copy it onto my sandbox and edit it, simplifying data from the regular English Wikipedia, and copying a few things like info.

Bandideux (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Gadget: Comments in Local Time

Does anyone have any idea why this isn't working? StevenJ81 (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Because that gadget is not loaded. It requires converting the code to use resourceloader. I will have to look into doing it. -DJSasso (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. It's a working gadget in enwiki, if that helps. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I believe its related to how its being imported here. Worst case scenario I will just move all the code here if I have to. -DJSasso (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Seems to be working now. I don't know what the problem was, but there you go. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok looks like what I did yesterday worked then... :) -DJSasso (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

While we're at it ... Twinkle

DJSasso, Twinkle isn't working for me, either. I don't know if anyone else is having trouble with this. (If not, and it's just me, would you mind looking at my script files and telling me what might be interfering?) Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I can try and look at twinkle. It is a whole lot more complicated and should always be treated as a "it might work" situation. -DJSasso (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I never have trouble with it on enwiki, but I appreciate that enwiki is where it was built and where it is mainly supported. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh yeah enwiki it should be fine. It is here that I meant it is a might work situation. Twinkle is written to use all kinds of site settings that en.wiki has that we may or may not have. So when people pull stuff over here we might not have the required underlying pieces in our css files for example to make it work. At one point someone was trying to strip twinkle here into a smaller tool so that only things we knew worked were in it. But they never finished and the code has probably gotten outdated again. -DJSasso (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

My talk page question

Someone please reply to my talk page question. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Please help me. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 04:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Rus793/Article titles

Started importing the Wikipedia:Article titles policy page. I brought over just enough to get started. Over 50 other pages already link to this page. I stopped where I did because it will need some consensus in certain areas and some adaptations to this wiki. Anyone wanting to help or give advice, please use the talk page. Thank you User:Rus793 (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I would have preferred to see this discussed before bringing the page over, or at least to have it in userspace for comment before going live. It's not proper procedure to create a policy by just creating the page. When you see a page like this that has a lot of links, another option is to create a soft redirect to the enwiki page. In the meantime, can we please either move it to userspace or replace the policy notice with something that says it's only proposed at this time (preferably the former)? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes please move it to your userspace. We already have a guideline that we use the policy on en if one doesn't exist here. Unless the community comes to a consensus on a specifically simple one, it should remain in userspace as a proposal. Generally we have left the complex policies to en.wiki to host because it would be too hard to simplify them for here without losing their meaning. -DJSasso (talk) 19:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually I just moved it to User:Rus793/Article titles. -DJSasso (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikiproject Erasmus Prize Winners

Dear fellow wikipedians,

Wikipedia has been awarded the Erasmus Prize 2015. This international prize is awarded annually to a person or institution that has made an exceptional contribution to culture, society or social science. The King of the Netherlands will present the award on 25 November. This will create media attention which will hopefully result in plenty of new volunteers. Prior to the award ceremony we would like to write and improve articles on former Erasmus Prize winners. All 80 former laureates should be notable enough to merit an article.

Please join the project and help us provide our fellow laureates with articles.

Sincerely, Taketa and FrankTMeijer (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

RefToolbar

According to this page all I need to do to turn on the RefToolbar gadget is select it in my settings, but I did it and the Cite tool does not appear. Could somebody help me please? --Cosmic16 (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Might be fixed now. Try again. -DJSasso (talk) 02:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Thank you very much. --Cosmic16 (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey

Community Tech Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikimania 2016 scholarships ambassadors needed

Hello! Wikimania 2016 scholarships will soon be open; by the end of the week we'll form the committee and we need your help, see Scholarship committee for details.

If you want to carefully review nearly a thousand applications in January, you might be a perfect committee member. Otherwise, you can volunteer as "ambassador": you will observe all the committee activities, ensure that people from your language or project manage to apply for a scholarship, translate scholarship applications written in your language to English and so on. Ambassadors are allowed to ask for a scholarship, unlike committee members.

Wikimania 2016 scholarships subteam 10:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Enable Extension:NewUserMessage here on Simple Wikipedia

Hi! Dear community, Please install NewUserMessage extension here on Simple Wikipedia. It will helpful to send welcome messages to the talk pages of newly created wiki accounts. I would like to please all user to give their support or oppose for the proposal. Thanks for your concern. Regards, Tulsi Bhagat (Talk) 09:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Question: Does this extension add a message automatically, or does an editor have to take some action for the message to be left? --Auntof6 (talk)
@Auntof6: Gud question ! Yeah, this extension adds a message automatically whenever a new account is created. Thank you :) -- Tulsi Bhagat (Talk) 10:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  • Oppose - I still believe welcoming users is something best suited for humans to do. This is a small wiki and there should not be any problems with "keeping up the load", so to speak. Also, not all new users should be automatically welcomed. Current configuration on Wikimedia for this particular extension is that users automatically created by CentralAuth will be welcomed (if your account is unified by SUL, and you visit this wiki for the first time), and as much as I don't like to say this, we have over fair share of editors who were banned on EN, coming here to cause trouble. That number seems to be going up lately. Chenzw  Talk  11:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We don't want editors manually welcoming new users right away, so we certainly wouldn't want it automated. Besides that, we have so few editors here that I wouldn't want to install something nonessential that would have to be maintained. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This would give us far too many talk pages of users who never changed a page, and using Twinkle to welcome users is quick enough anyway. J991 18:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose We actually do not want every new user to get an automated welcome message. That is very impersonal, we also only like users that have shown they have made some edits to actually get welcome messages so this would be counter to community consensus. -DJSasso (talk) 13:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Install Extension:WikiLove here on Simple Wikipedia

Hi! Dear community, Please install WikiLove extension here on Simple Wikipedia. It will very helpful to send barnstars, offering food, kittens, Ice-creams etc. to the talk pages of user which creates friendly love, co-operation among the users. WikiLove extension message group translations has already finished. See here (translatewiki.net) I would like to please all user to give their support or oppose for the proposal. Thanks for your concern. Regards, Tulsi Bhagat (Talk) 11:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  • Oppose -- This, instead of writing articles? Pointless. 94.12.84.151 (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We've discussed this before, more than once. This would be another nonessential item that would have to be maintained. We can give barnstars and other things already without this extension. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I haven't seen very many barnstars and awards given out, and as Auntof6 mentioned, we can send them without the wikilove extension. eurodyne (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Ugh...I disliked this idea since I first saw it on the English Wikipedia. Who needs pretend kittens? J991 18:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's just not needed. User:Rus793 (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the same reasons that can be found in previous discussions. Just an unnecessary feature. If you want to thank someone just go to their talk page and thank them. -DJSasso (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Simple words not so simple

While trying to find a definitive list of words considered simple I found multiple overlapping lists that include obvious omissions and also include words that seem dated, at best. I am referring to the original list of 850 or so basic English words plus the various extensions and addendums, as listed here. This page is referenced on the main landing page, and does not explain how basic English is different from simple English. I am proposing that a master list of simple English words be compiled and published as an official guideline. This would not be a single-source list (that cannot or should not be changed), but rather a consensus-based list of words that are appropriate for this project, that can be amended or extended in the future, and that do not need additional explanation when used. This would include the original list or lists of words plus common forms of those words (such as plurals of singular nouns, different verb forms, etc.). Such a list would not be an article, subject to the usual rules for citing sources, but once complete, those who propose that specific words be added should be prepared to justify the addition with something beyond their own belief that the word is simple. Finally, the list should be just that: a list. There should not be any explanatory comments, alphabetical section headers, etc. The idea is to make a list that can be copied and pasted and not need additional formatting or cleanup to be used for other purposes. Etamni | ✉   02:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to make a definitive list of simple words (just as it's not possible to make a list of all words that are too complex). English has hundreds of thousands of words, and to be definitive, we'd have to evaluate all of them. We use the lists you refer to as a starting point because they're established lists, but not everyone sticks to them. It's also reasonable to include the plurals, etc. that you mention (I don't know why they weren't included in the first place, unless it was to limit the size of the list).
Determining what words are simple is tricky. Many English words have multiple meanings, and some of the meanings are simple and others are not. That's why less-ambiguous words are preferred, like difficult instead of hard when you mean the opposite of easy. Another example is tail: it's simple when it means part of an animal, but not when it means sexual intercourse or a person who is following someone. You can't explain that in a plain list: you have to look at context. (Of course, that's a limitation of the existing lists, too.)
What we could do is expand Wikipedia:Examples of simpler English to include more examples (not that it would ever be comprehensive). I probably do as much simplifying as anyone else, so I could try to add common things I see to that page. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
There's so much to good writing which is not captured by a word list. Much good advice is available in the how-to books by Strunk & White, Gowers, Flesch and others (see their En wiki pages). An editor hoping to improve should read at least two of these. In general, the standard of written English on English wiki is appalling, so it's often a big job to "translate" it for us. The problems of long, complex, badly written sentences are a real challenge. You often need to rethink what it is that they are trying to say, and then write it simply. — This unsigned comment was added by Macdonald-ross (talk • changes) at 08:21 16 November 2015.
Of course, you both are correct. I failed to mention the rationale behind the suggestion but will do so now. I've reviewed the methods mentioned elsewhere for using an exception list within Microsoft Word to quickly identify words that may need further explanation. That method effectively disables the built-in spell checker and needs to be manually enabled and disabled as the user moves between documents that are being edited for this project and everything else that he or she wants to edit. I have some skill with writing macros that use Microsoft's VBA (Visual Basic for Applications) and have completed a significant amount of work on a macro (that will be shared under CC BY SA when it's done) that can take a document and quickly highlight words that are not on a predetermined list, as well as other rules-based highlighting (such as highlighting common conjunctions, first- and second-person pronouns, and other predetermined problematic words or phrases.) I am also planning to have it exclude from highlighting anything that is contained within ref tags as well. In order to work correctly, the user needs to have a text file (ANSI format) that contains the words for comparison. Thus the need for a definitive list. I certainly understand that the English language is very complicated and that idioms, homonyms, synonyms, and the like, all contribute to confusion on the part of some who are still learning the language. This tool is not capable of addressing all of those, but will (hopefully) be capable of providing a starting point for those who wish to simplify existing text, either from here or from En-Wiki. Etamni | ✉   09:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah. I've heard of a couple of similar things. One is setting up simple or basic English as a separate language in Word. The other is a Firefox add-on that flags words that aren't, um... I think words that aren't in the Basic Englidh list, but I'm not sure exactly. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah there is a Firefox dictionary for Simple English that does a similar thing. I believe it uses our different word lists and anything not in them gets underlined to indicate they might be complex. I don't really use it myself as I just use common sense instead of automating it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
There are different word lists; the big problem with word lists is how to "count" the words. Say "have" is on the list, do the other forms ("has","had","having") count as separate words or don't they? If I take the BNC 2000 corpus (2000 most common spoken words), I get 7581 forms. I am in the process of writing a Java application that will help with simplifying. It uses Java 8, and currently supports 7 different word lists (BNC1000,2000,3000,4000,BE850,BE1000,BE1500).The problem is though, that we will likely need subject-specific lists, for different articles.Also note, that the focus should be on explaining well, and not on using a given word list. There are examples, where using a word list is making a text more difficult to understand. --Eptalon (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately, the responsibility for writing good articles rests with the author of those articles. The tool I am developing is just that, a tool. It will give an editor a starting point for simplifying an article. It isn't intended to imply that only certain words can be used, but is instead intended to highlight words that may be problematic (i.e. words not on the list, or words from a separate list of known problematic words or phrases). The original BE lists are 75 years old, and due to the fluid nature of the language, are a bit out of date. Tags on the pages listing these original BE words clearly indicate that the lists should not be changed as they are based on a single source. These two points: The need for a list of words accepted by community consensus as being appropriate for our intended (modern) audience, plus the shortcomings of the current BE word list, led me to start looking for a more definitive list. I have found none on the site, and expect that if there was such a list here, someone would have pointed it out already. I've reviewed lists of words from outside Wikipedia but am reluctant to use any of them without community consensus that they are appropriate. Etamni | ✉   08:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Current "Do you know"

Two mistakes, one grammatical and one substantive:

  1. Hugo Chavez (grammar): I wouldn't say "...in which he said ...", but rather "...where he said".
  2. Grover Cleveland: Actually, the Vice President who succeeded Lincoln after Lincoln's assassination, Andrew Johnson, was a Democrat. He had run with Lincoln on what was called the "National Union" ticket, which was more or less a national unity ticket, though there was a separate Democrat ticket as well. But Johnson himself was undoubtedly a Democrat, as the article on him points out. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the first point "in which he said" is the better grammar, but might not be as simple. As for the second I don't know enough about the topic. BTW you can edit all those things. You just have to find the location that is transcribed on the main page. -DJSasso (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The problem with "in which" is that it seems to be referring to "in the United Nations", but it could also refer (in a grammatically incorrect way) to "in the speech at the United Nations". I thought "where" would be less ambiguous.
As far as Grover Cleveland goes, the source (which is the White House's web page) says he was the first Democrat elected after the Civil War, and that's true. So I'll change that one accordingly. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Second point  Done StevenJ81 (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

New template added

I've boldly added the "talk quotation" template that is used on En-Wiki. It was copied verbatim and the diff is referred to in the comments section. Documentation was also copied over and attributed in the same way. For those unfamiliar with it's use, this template is intended for talk and project pages, and is used when quoting another editor during a conversation. For example, if I write, {{tq|This is quoted text}} the result is This is quoted text. It is especially useful when quoting someone from a ways up the page on a long discussion, or when quoting policy, but it's use is not restricted on En-Wiki to these purposes. It is restricted to talk pages and project pages, however, so don't try to use it within articles. Etamni | ✉   11:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

New spate of vandalism by unregistered editors

We seem to be getting a lot of vandalism by IP editors (maybe from US schoolkids being on vacation for the Thanksgiving holiday?). Any help watching for and reverting it would be much appreciated. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Boy, you're not kidding! (Maybe college/university students; lower-school students are probably not off until this weekend.) StevenJ81 (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Yesterday, I worked partway through a list of "dead end" articles, adding interlinks to articles that had none. Today, I found one of those edits reverted. Not knowing what to expect, I opened the article and found that another editor had reverted back to a version by Auntof6 and that the version I had edited was the result of blanking more than five months ago by a vandal. On En-Wiki, that blanking would likely have been detected by ClueBot. For those not currently very active on En-Wiki, ClueBot has been tuned to the point that, while it sometimes misses some of the more subtle vandalism, it is very good at catching the overt instances like page blanking, the insertion of obscenities, etc. So the question is whether we should try to get ClueBot or something similar going here? Given that this project is also in English and the patterns of abuse are similar to those experienced at En-Wiki, I don't believe ClueBot would need much tuning to work correctly here, although there may be technical issues to resolve. Comments? Etamni | ✉   08:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
We have User:ChenzwBot. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
What kinds of vandalism is the bot watching for? Was it running when this edit was made? Etamni | ✉   09:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
IDK. @Chenzw: Can you answer this? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
ChenzwBot (previously User:Chris G Bot and User:GoblinBot4) works by checking edit diffs and edit summaries against a list of known "bad words" (regular expressions). This list is maintained by the operator (me). The above edit was not reverted because it did not match anything on the blacklist, not to mention that edit deltas (number of characters changed) are not monitored by the bot. User:ClueBot NG (different from User:ClueBot, which uses the "old" method to determine vandalism) is part of the newer generation which uses an artificial neural network and naive Bayes classifiers to evaluate edits for vandalism. It roughly means that we teach the bot what is vandalism and what is not by giving it diffs which have already been reviewed by a human as vandalism (or not), after which the bot will try to generalise and "learn" the "features" which makes an edit vandalism (or not). The bot's userpage on EN offers a more detailed explanation of how it works.
I have no objections with ClueBot NG taking over if someone manages to get it running here. However, it is unlikely to be me bringing it over, because of the lack of time I have to do the setup. Chenzw  Talk  11:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I have bot experience, but don't know the first thing about clue bot NG. Is nobody gonna volunteer? Krett12 (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm checking on some things related to this. Nothing will change immediately. Setting up a bot like ClueBot NG is not an undertaking to be lightly attempted. Etamni | ✉   06:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Should you be able to remove warnings off your own talk page?

I don't think you should. Maybe the policy should be that you must have a reason (stale, offensive, etc) Krett12 (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Users are given wide discretion on how they organize pages within user space. A user is presumed to have seen the warning, and it can still be found via the page history. A better practice is to archive old or outdated material, but consensus has never required that warnings be kept forever. Etamni | ✉   06:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't know. Right now I don't think there's a policy or guideline. Here are some miscellaneous thoughts:
  • Removal should be allowed if what's removed is archived.
  • Any rules should apply to both talk pages and their archives.
  • If removal without archiving is allowed, maybe it should be allowed only if it's a certain age. In the case of ongoing vandalism, editors who leave warnings should be able to see earlier warnings so they know what level of message to leave. Yes, the earlier warnings would be in the page history, but most people wouldn't think to check there.
  • IP talk pages: since every edit there is possibly by a different editor, no one really "owns" an IP talk page, so maybe removal from those shouldn't be allowed even if it's allowed elsewhere.
Just some thoughts. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
On En-Wiki, I've had a vandal post a warning to my talk page for reverting his (or her?) vandalism. I'd hate to have a policy that requires I keep that warning forever and ever. But if we exempt that kind of warning from a rule, then we get cases where those who were legitimately warned remove the warnings and claim they were vandalism. In any case, if we don't have a specific rule, then the policies and guidelines of En-Wiki apply. In this case, the relevant guideline is found here. (Nothing says we cannot make a different rule here, but we shouldn't make one just to make one -- I think there should be a good reason to have a different rule here.) Etamni | ✉   07:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
My main interest is to avoid the disruption of talk pages by vandals, whilst leaving them as free as possible for editors in good standing. IPs should not be allowed to remove or archive administrative notices, whether from admins or from trusted editors. IMO the notices should stay on the page permanently, but might be archived by an admin if page gets too long for convenience. IP's removal or cute edits to a warning are or should be grounds for removing talk page rights of the IP. Indirectly, this would give more benefits to registered editors, which would be good. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
What would define "trusted editors"? Would I count as one? Krett12 (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Arguably, anyone with autoconfirmed status could be called a trusted user. User:Rus793 (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Editor with rollbacker and patrolling rights, and/or editor with a good track record (of positive changes to articles, or accurate handling of vandals). Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I think maybe the term trusted here should mean any user giving a notice. In other words, I think the term "trusted" could have just been left off. If a user gets a notice they think is unwarranted, they could leave a reply to it explaining why they think so. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Whenever active archives are maintained, moving warnings to archive under the same rules as moving any other discussion to archive should certainly be acceptable. StevenJ81 (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Let's say an IP/new user comes along and gets a warning. They may reply & explain why it's unfair, but can't remove it. But experienced ones can? While I know that it's bad to divide us up but we shouldn't give it out in binary. Krett12 (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
In a case like that, I'd rather see both the warning and the response left on the page. In fact, I'd rather see that on a registered user's page as well. For one thing, the user might protest a warning that was actually valid. If removed, I think it should be by either the user who left the warning or by an admin. I don't think an uninvolved user should remove anything. Of course, none of this is currently a policy or guideline. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
A user can remove any warning from their page except a block/ban notice that is currently active, removing a warning is considered to be acknowledgement of the notice, warnings are not badges of dishonour meant to shame people so they can be removed. There is a guideline for this somewhere on en, and since we pull in all en guidelines where we don't have a contradictory one it applies here too. I can't remember at the moment what the guideline is so go ahead and take that with a grain of salt. IPs on the other hand are different because they don't "own" their talk page and warnings are typically meant to be left on them so admins can see a trend on warnings. -DJSasso (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, OK. That makes since. Krett12 (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Persondata template being removed

A user has started removing Template:Persondata from articles. This may be OK, but since the user didn't discuss it first, I'm mentioning it here in case anyone has any concerns about it. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

We don't normally use the template here. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you don't, but others do. It's certainly in a lot of articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah it's use is deprecated. It does need to be removed. I tend to just remove them as I edit pages naturally. It was replaced with the wikidata site. -DJSasso (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks, Dj. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I added a note to the documentation page there. But perhaps, DJSasso, you'd want to make sure it's accurate. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation guide or audio in (every) article

Sometimes it is hard to guess the correct pronunciation(s) for a title of an article. I am a non-native speaker, and I have never heard the English pronunciation of the word Constantinople, for example. So I would be grateful if I could know the correct pronunciation without leaving an article when I am reading it (and sometimes reading it aloud). I wrote "every" in the title. But of course I am not much in need for pronunciation guides in articles like Red or Dog. Even so, if there is IPA or audio or even where (which syllable) to pronounce strongly in every article, it would be very helpful. That is, Rock and Sea are OK, it begins to be complicated in River and Flower, and in Earthquake we get really lost. I imagine it as "ree-vuh-r or rah-ee-vuh-r?" and "f-low-r? fl-au-r?" and finally, "ee-r-...th? the? -kyoo-ah-kee...?" (Maybe because of "ear," "smooth," "Q" and "catastrophe," respectively.)

Also I would like a lot of spoken articles. That is because to hear the correct sounds of English is the only way to make them correctly on my own. I need more spoken articles on Simple English Wikipedia than on English Wikipedia. I think that spoken audio of any article of any subject will be helpful if the sound is clear and the person speaks clearly and loudly.

Lastly, I tried to write the sentences above as simple as I could with my own English knowledge. I hope there is nothing ambiguous or rude there. I appreciate if you tell me when you find it.--Mulief (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem with IPA is that it is way not simple, and even most graduates have never learnt it. The problem with the recordings is that we just do not have enough editors to do it regularly, and it has often been done poorly. Spoken articles, or introductions to articles, fail because they are almost never updated, and soon enough they do not match the text. There is a limit to what we can do, with about ten people writing content regularly (and another dozen occasionally). There is a role here for classroom teachers of English. They are in a better position to work on pronunciation. Incidentally, your written English is pretty good! Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Request for article review

Hello Wikipedia! I am a new user here and am not quite sure where to go. I have attempted to create two articles already (located here and here). Could one or more people please review these articles and give me feedback on how to improve? Thanks. The watchdog of networks (Woof! Woof!) 02:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Likely not notable enough for articles. And while I assume good faith, can't help but feel they are likely spam advertising. -DJSasso (talk) 12:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree. I would have tagged these for QD as advertising. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Your input requested on the proposed #FreeBassel banner campaign

This is a message regarding the proposed 2015 Free Bassel banner. Translations are available.

Hi everyone,

This is to inform all Wikimedia contributors that a straw poll seeking your involvement has just been started on Meta-Wiki.

As some of your might be aware, a small group of Wikimedia volunteers have proposed a banner campaign informing Wikipedia readers about the urgent situation of our fellow Wikipedian, open source software developer and Creative Commons activist, Bassel Khartabil. An exemplary banner and an explanatory page have now been prepared, and translated into about half a dozen languages by volunteer translators.

We are seeking your involvement to decide if the global Wikimedia community approves starting a banner campaign asking Wikipedia readers to call on the Syrian government to release Bassel from prison. We understand that a campaign like this would be unprecedented in Wikipedia's history, which is why we're seeking the widest possible consensus among the community.

Given Bassel's urgent situation and the resulting tight schedule, we ask everyone to get involved with the poll and the discussion to the widest possible extent, and to promote it among your communities as soon as possible.

(Apologies for writing in English; please kindly translate this message into your own language.)

Thank you for your participation!

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 21:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC) • TranslateGet help

Let's protect this page

Vandals are just P00P. Krett12 (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Which page, Simple talk? We can't protect it becsuse that would prevent unregistered users from communicating. I think we're staying on top of the vandalism well enough, and I suspect it will die down once the American schools are back in session after the Thanksgiving holiday. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you .--Grind24 (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Unregistered users don't need to/never do. Krett12 (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't need to/never do what? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps not able to edit this page? Everyone is autorized to change the talkpages and what i know talkpages have never beeen protected. We should just monitor against vandalism.-Grind24 (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Unregistered and non confirmed users should have a place to come to if they need help. Simple talk is the right place. If we protect this page so only autoconfirmed users can edit it, we're shutting them out. Not all IPs and non confirmed users are vandals right? The only thing we can do is to continue to revert vandalism and nonsense on this page. eurodyne (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. That's why Wikipedia doesn't allow us to prevent all unregistered users from participating in normal processes. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Why with all the nonexistent user talk pages?

Someone should make ChenzwBot an admin and it auto-delete all of the p ages. Krett12 (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

If they are existent, then why do they need to be deleted? Can you provide an example? eurodyne (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
do you mean that we should grant administrator right to ChenzwBot? It is not very advisable to leave a bot automatically delete pages. It is a task that must be done manually by humans, this will avoid to some extent the false positive IMO..--Grind24 (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed with others...what do you mean by "non-existent user talk pages." If they don't exist, they can't be deleted... Only (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I think "nonexistent" applied only to "user", not "talk pages". :) --Auntof6 (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
An admin has to be a person, not a bot. A bot might be able to flag them, though. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
ENWiki has admin bots. Krett12 (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
We aren't enwiki. eurodyne (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't mean we have to do things different. Krett12 (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
True, but it does mean we don't have to do them the same. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
We are a different wiki, but we should take after enwiki at least a little. Besides, bot admins can only be ran by admins (Because they could use the bot account to do admin stuff). And I trust all of the admins here (except Chenzw :P) Krett12 (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
There are situations where it's advantageous to be similar to enwiki, but I don't see that need here. In any case, we don't need the suggested function. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
This is something that should be implemented by the abuse filter, and not an admin bot. The abuse filter is superior in terms of providing an audit trail, as well as debugging. There is also a related thread on AN pertaining to this specific issue about user pages. Chenzw  Talk  11:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Fix References on one link

The top of Pitchblende needs to be deleted or fixed. But, the word "references" has actual references. Could someone please help? //nepaxt 22:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. They were using parameters that didn't exist in our version of the infobox yet. I have updated ours. -DJSasso (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

At Template:Uw-vandalism2

I think the picture should be orange, to match enwiki, and to make it easier to tell the difference without looking thru text, and also orange is a "teensy" bit less soft and a "teensy" bit more threatning, what do you think? Krett12 (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Krett12: I agree. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 21:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The whole reason we switched to that colour was to make it less threatening. -DJSasso (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not that much more threatning, and it should be a step up from level 1. Krett12 (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

List of Towns in Iowa

I am from O'Brien county Iowa. I was looking at Wikipedia list of towns in Iowa, I learned that Germantown is not listed. I know that it is a real city because I have been there before, and know for a fact that it is not a paper town, it has a sign saying 'Welcome to Germantown'. I would advise that it be added. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.42.95.81 (talkcontribs) 00:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. I looked at the English Wikipedia article, en:Germantown, Iowa. That article shows that Germantown is an unincorporated community, not a town or city. Because of that, we would not add it to a list of towns or cities. I don't see a list of towns in Iowa on this wiki, though: did you see that here or somewhere else? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)